The Leander Analysis

[Ben]

So, what will we get out of, say 3 more opinions all saying, "why we think this is the same man, but there's always a chance it's not"?

What if my auntie had bollocks? She'd be my uncle.

The only expert who has ever conducted a full analysis of the original documents using all three statement signatures is Sue Iremonger, and she came to the conclusion that the handwriting didn't match; that Toppy was not the person who signed the statement pages. This was attested to by several authorities on the Whitechapel murders, reputable sources in their own right, and there is no compelling reason for doubting the results.

The foundation of Toppy- isn't- Hutch rests upon opinions that Hutchinson lied, was seen by Lewis, and must be the murderer of Kelly with absolutely no evidence for that conjecture.

I don't know who gave you that daft idea, but I can assure you that the suspicion that Hutchinson may have been the murderer, and came forward after being seen by Lewis, is certainly not dependent on the premise that Toppy wasn't Hutchinson, since those suspicions wouldn't be reduced in the even of such an identification. As for their being no evidence, if you combine a knowledge of the murders themselves with other serial cases from history, you should find that the evidence - while certainly lacking as a means by which to arrest or charge him nowadays - is better than we have for most suspects.

Of course if Toppy is the witness, that doesn't mean he wasn't guilty, but it throws a wrench into things when a family man is a suspect and has no criminal record

Again, the fact that you think it "throws a wrench" into things only exposes your unfamiliarity with the topic being discussed, since other serial killers have been shown to have had families, just as other serial killers have been shown to have had no criminal record. I mean, really, just read a book or something - anything but repeat an argument proven to be baseless. Bob Hinton's candidate didn't have a criminal record either.

That camp can always scream "alias". There is nothing that can be done, save a lobotomy that can change things.

Yes, lobotomy might be useful in the cases where an alias has been dismissed for nothing like a good reason. Some of us have had tremendous fun demolishing the outrageous myth that all aliases-users resort to simple or "basic" names. The cases of Henry Howard Holmes and Roger Downs wave a permanent farewell to that spurious objection.

We don't know what the other expert, the 'world renowned' expert looked at exactly, but we do know she didn't see all the census signatures purportedly by Hutchinson

Which is a pity, because had she seen them, she'd have noticed that the dissimilarities with the statement signatures remained dissimilar (i.e. with the same specific dissimilarities) 13-years later. They could only have cemented Iremonger's opinion that they didn't match.

Anyway, just as it must be true because 'the Bible says so', so is Hutchinson's guilt because a book said so. It's ludicrous and offensive to existing members of the family who won't come forward either because (they say) their father (Reg) has been attacked.

It isn't remotely luducrous or offensive, since I'm not accusing Toppy of murder. I'm accusing him of being a late Victorian plumber who was probably plumbing away in Warren Street in the West End (where he can be placed in the 1891 census) at the time of the murders, and that his connections to the East End kick-started when he met his East End wife in a music hall.

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland writes:

"Sorry Fisherman, agreeing to disagree isn't going to work-that should be clear by now. I think a third opinion is a good idea-with total transparency, of course, though I suspect it will remain theoretical. I sense reluctance from you though, I think. Why should that be? Surely if you are certain of your position then a third, fourth, fifth opinion etc, should not concern you? If the match is so strong and convincing, future analysis will only serve to confirm that, yes? "

You sense reluctance FROM ME on the transparity issue???

Jane, I am the one who posted ALL of the exchange with Leander in Swedish and English! I have NOTHIN against transparity, and I welcome any qualified experts opinion, if nothing else, so for the reason that I fail to see any of them gong against a very possible/probable match on this issue.
Bring them on - in thousands, if you can find them!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

There would be a loss less sour tastes in people's mouths if certain individuals didn't keep returning again to blitz-post certain threads with inflammatory goading, long after it was agreed that a bit of "cooling off" and mutual respect was the way forward. Now Fisherman is choosing to copy and paste a long post from another thread, and so as to avoid the impression that the post in question at the time went unchallenged, by response ran along similar lines to this:

What is very interesting here is that Leander tells me that the fact that Hutch was a young man may have played a role - for I never told Leander his age!

Leander stated that some of the differences could be explained on the grounds that the writer was "very young" when first writing his signature, and Toppy would not have been "very young" in 1888. At 22 you're a young man, whereas you're likely to be described as "very young" in your early to mid-teens which, not so coincidentally, is the age at which most people's signatures are created.

“Therefore, Leander did not know, for example, that the finishing n could be written by Toppy without that upward-pointing curl.”

Could have been, but extremely unlikely, considering that Toppy’s handwriting registered a remarkable consistency over a13-year time-frame, and that the upward pointing n-tail that was so conspicuous in his marriage signature was still there 13 years later, enabling the logical deduction that hey, maybe it was always there. That’s the problem with minimizing the significance of the differences for absolutely no good reason – the very differences that were present in the marriage certificate comparison remain different in the 1911 census comparison.

“Nor did he know that there was only a very limited set of George Hutchinson´s about at the right time and place.”

Why do you insist on repeating this nonsense that has been refuted at length, and in detail, on so any occasions? Nobody’s getting worn out, Fisherman. All you’re trying to do is recreate the 1911 thread, which means we’ll be here for another hundred pages. If it’s a battle to see who gets the last word, my money will always be on me, so if you want to keep arguing, either try another strategy, or do what you’ve been telling us you’re going to do for posts proliferate, which is to stop arguing and agree to disagree. As Jane pointed out, the last option seems never to work, and depressingly, she seems to be correct as this early morning barrage of Toppyism seems to bear out.

No, you do not know the number of George Hutchinsons in the East End in 1888, and to pretend that you do on the basis of a 1911 census is just maddeningly fallacious, since I know full well that there are several George Hutchinsons in the East End in 1891 and 1881 whose signatures I’ve yet to see, including that of the Cottage Grove ticker nicker, whose signature was believed by one registrar to tally with that of the witness.

“the one asking how he concluded that the writer of the police report signature was young”

He didn’t conclude anything of the sort. He stated that extreme youth might account for some of the differences. 22 simply cannot be described as “very young” as far as signatures are concerned, because most people of that age have been writing their signatures for the best part of ten years!

“Until that time, we can ponder that a top authority in the field tells us that although there are differences in a few singled-out letters and the tch-group (differences that can be explained and overcome by a number of things, according to Leander!)”

He didn’t say a “number of things”. He lists two or three reasons that could explain the differences., At no point does he ever claim that the suggestion reasons actually DID come into play here, a distinction that you never seemed able or willing to take on board.

Back to the present discussion:

“Yes, there is - we can always go back to the source that originally worded the verdict on the matter in such a fashion so as to leave room for a stalemate.”

Yes, but if you recall correctly, there was a difference in our approach. While I specifically quoted his actual words and reminded people what was meant by their dictionary definitions, you were busy “interpreting” what he said, placing unacceptable slants on them (no, not intentionally, necessarily) and then suggesting that a perfectly clear post required further “clarity. When armed with a dictionary and a knowledge of what words mean when they’re used properly, the need for clarification and interpretation is automatically eradicated. But since Fisherman is copying and pasting from earlier discussions, I’m going to do the same:

"It was illustrated, by quoting the above (and Fisherman's) translation verbatim, that Leander conveyed no impression that he thought the match to be a "probable" one. He mentioned that the similarities weighed "against" the similarities, but that the latter were insufficient to "rule out" or "exclude" Toppy as the witness. If you argue that something cannot be ruled out, you're not declaring it to be "probable". If he secretly thought the match was probable, he certainly didn't convey any such thinking in his initial post.

Clearly dissatisfied with this, Fisherman started to put words in Leander's mouth that didn't appear in his first letter. For example, Fisherman referred to there being "numerous" or "many" explanations for the differences between the statement signatures and those of Toppy. After reminding anyone who needed reminding that the explanations for the differences were only “possible” ones (and not necessarily explanations that he felt actually DID come into play in this case), I was quick to draw attention to the fact that Leander used no such adjective. Nothing about "many", and nothing about "numerous". Back he went to Leander, who "clarified" with the following:

"It was just one of many possible explanations to the differences".

How odd that the very word that Fisherman wrongly claimed appeared in Leander's first post suddenly appeared in Leander's rather timely "second" post? But that wasn't the only example of this unsettling phenomenon. Shortly after publishing Leander's first letter, Fisherman argued that the letter spoke of an "overall likeness". I quickly pointed out that, as with the words "numerous and "many", Leander had said no such thing in his initial letter, so Fisherman re-established contact with Leander for a THIRD time, with the following result:

”The overall and general impression is one of an obvious likeness, and it offers far too much of a handstyle resemblance to offer any reason to discard it".

By some bizarre coincidence, "Leander" had now elaborated on his initial comments using the very expression, "overall likeness", that Fisherman erroneously attributed to him in his first letter.

Now, by post #4, one forms the very distinct impression that Leander is starting to tire of being asked to "clarify" continually by Fisherman, hence the observation: "I do not wish to embark on any further elaboration on the issue since I have only commented on a few pictures via mail". If people are incapable of detecting a certain "Please leave me alone, I've already told you what I think a billion times already" subtext into Leander's words, I'm incredibly surprised. True to form, Fisherman was not deterred, and so he allegedly asked Leander to "clarify" again. Unfortunately, the gist of his purported observations in post #5 (yes, that's how many times Fisherman asked Leander to clarify a message that was abundantly clear the first time) were radically different to anything he said in his initial post, effectively cancelling out any worth in any of his posts."

That’s my stance on the issue, and if you think for one moment that you’re repeatedly interminable posts of accusation are either likely to deter me, you’re quite mistaken. I am entitled to find all the above incredibly odd, but I really hadn’t banked on you – even you” dredging up the issue again, and expecting it to be somehow conducive to a “ceasefire”.

“And as it has been suggested to agree to disagree, this is the explanation I offer for not accepting my counterparts stance as a legitimate one.”

I agree to disagree, Fisherman.

Sensible suggestion.

So there's almost an argument for sticking to that suggestion rather than making any more inflammatory posts?

Best regards,
Ben

[Cap'n Jack]

A most distressing typo it is indeed, Fisherman... I really must get my eyes looked at as a matter of urgency.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Mike.
I Absolutely agree, what leaves a sour taste in my mouth at the moment ,
is the sarcasim, and hostility, between certain posters, which I find so annoying.
Everyone of us has convictions, but the amount of venom spat around this thread had surprised even me, especially from Jenny, who seems to have really found her feet on Casebook, and i feel needs to 'cool' it a bit.
Back to the handwriting, a third opinion, or we shall always remain hostile, even another expert i feel, would still not settle the matter however.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Jane,

With the information available, and even the original documents, no one is going to say that Hutch and Toppy are the same man. No one would risk their reputation by being so certain. So, what will we get out of, say 3 more opinions all saying, "why we think this is the same man, but there's always a chance it's not"? The foundation of Toppy- isn't- Hutch rests upon opinions that Hutchinson lied, was seen by Lewis, and must be the murderer of Kelly with absolutely no evidence for that conjecture. That scenario is so deeply rooted for reasons unfathomable to me, such as any scenario that is unflappable to someone is likewise, unfathomable, that the Hutch is Guilty side will not change their stance. Too much is invested in it. Of course if Toppy is the witness, that doesn't mean he wasn't guilty, but it throws a wrench into things when a family man is a suspect and has no criminal record, and hasn't commited a crime that we know. That camp can always scream "alias". There is nothing that can be done, save a lobotomy that can change things. Fisherman got all he could from his expert. We don't know what the other expert, the 'world renowned' expert looked at exactly, but we do know she didn't see all the census signatures purportedly by Hutchinson, and she isn't coming out of her office to tell us anytime soon, which may be an admission of error, for all I know.

Anyway, just as it must be true because 'the Bible says so', so is Hutchinson's guilt because a book said so. It's ludicrous and offensive to existing members of the family who won't come forward either because (they say) their father (Reg) has been attacked. I agree with them as well.

Cheers,

Mike

[Jane Welland]

No..

Sorry Fisherman, agreeing to disagree isn't going to work-that should be clear by now. I think a third opinion is a good idea-with total transparency, of course, though I suspect it will remain theoretical. I sense reluctance from you though, I think. Why should that be? Surely if you are certain of your position then a third, fourth, fifth opinion etc, should not concern you? If the match is so strong and convincing, future analysis will only serve to confirm that, yes? Best regards, Jane x

[Fisherman]

...and speaking about bias and related subjects, I will make one more effort to elucidate what lies behind the differences Ben I entertain on the matter of the Leander analysis.

To enable some understanding, we must travel back to the first time Leander gave a wiew on the signatures, back in April.

I reported on it, and gave his wording, in post 1255, page 126, of the "Hutch in the 1911 census"-thread.

Before I knew what anybodys reaction to the post would be, I commented on it like this:

"What is very interesting here is that Leander tells me that the fact that Hutch was a young man may have played a role - for I never told Leander his age! I have written back since, and asked if this was something Leander could conclude from the text, and I am much intrigued to find out.

It should be added that the signatures from Sams post was all I supplied Leander with, together with the information on when they were written and the fact that the one at the top was the only one where we were not sure if we were dealing with the same writer.
Therefore, Leander did not know, for example, that the finishing n could be written by Toppy without that upward-pointing curl. Nor did he know that there was only a very limited set of George Hutchinson´s about at the right time and place. Or, for that matter, that Toppys own son(s) had witnessed about him being the witness.
I have told him this in my latest letter (the one asking how he concluded that the writer of the police report signature was young), and if he takes the time to answer me again, I will let you all know.

Until that time, we can ponder that a top authority in the field tells us that although there are differences in a few singled-out letters and the tch-group (differences that can be explained and overcome by a number of things, according to Leander!), the overall character of style and the writing skills - and that means nothing but the overall impression! - involved tell us that we may certainly be looking at the same writer!

So, here we have a renowned expert´s opinion on the matter, bolstered with the details that he used to reach his conclusions - the way that it should be. And to me, it all reinforces what I have said all along: The possibility that George William Topping Hutchinson was the Dorset Street witness is and remains a clear and obvious one.
And by now, we have one of Swedens foremost experts in the field telling us that the signatures DO tally in so high a degree that it can be safely said that they may well have been written by the same man!"

And that was my assessment of what Leander had said - I was of the meaning that he was clearly positive to the suggestion of a match.

That, of course, could be correct. My meaning was - and is - that it indeed was so.

It cannot, however, be ruled out (in the general sense of the phrase...!) that I got it wrong. For the sake of theory, we must therefore accept that we have a situation that can be described as a choice between two possibilities: my being right or my being wrong.

A possible indicator that I was wrong was presented when Ben said that he was of the opinion that Leanders stance had been one of absolute neutrality. That, again, was something that could of course be right - though I did not think so then, and do not do so today), or could be wrong. On the theoretical level, the same applies as what applied for me. But since the question is related to the exact same question as in my case, we do not get four possible solutions - we get only two. And it boils down to the simple fact that either I was right, or Ben was.

In a situation like this, where a case - good or bad, but still some sort of case - can be built for each argument, we will arrive at a stalemate. Such a stalemate may be universally accepted, if both sides in the conflict are about the same size.
If one side is significantly smaller, or extremely small in comparison, then the issue will not be regarded as a stalemate any longer - but for, perhaps, byt the one(s) on the smaller side of the conflict.

Is there any way to solve such an issue? Yes, there is - we can always go back to the source that originally worded the verdict on the matter in such a fashion so as to leave room for a stalemate. We can then ask for a clarification. If that clarification is also insufficient to break the deadlock, we can once again ask for further clarification, up to the point where no doubt can exist any longer.

This is what happened in the Leander issue. He made it increasingly clear to those who spoke for a stance of neutrality on his side, that this had never been the case. In doing so, he confirmed my original stance, and disconfirmed Ben´s ditto.

That was when Ben decided to say that Leander had never been at liberty to settle the issue in my favour; he was obliged to follow not his own intentions from the original post, not my interpretation of it that concurred with what Leander added subsequentially - but ONLY Bens interpretation of the initial post.

After such a thing, it can of course not be said that Leander could be accused of any sort of bias. The only bias here rests with Ben, who actually disallows Leander to speak his mind. Interestingly, even if Leander had said "I should have been clearer in my first mail, since it seems I have been misunderstood by some posters", that would not have had any impact on Bens wiew - he would STILL say that Leander, according to his own interpretation of the first mail, had tied himself to a position of total neutrality, and that nothing he could say would change that.

With this, I am having all sorts of trouble, and it remains the main explanation to why trenches have been dug and posters have become enemies. My suggestion is that we accept Leanders verdict as a whole, and not just pick parts of it. It will not mean that we must agree with him, since those who concur with Iremmonger are of course absolutely free to do so. Those who think the signatures unalike are equally free to do so too. Those who point out that Leanders examination was not carried out according to full professional demands will be completely correct. It will not close the case if we allow Leander the right to speak his mind and be believed.

What happens if we instead claim that Leander is not trustworthy, and that he changed his mind to get rid of me, was outlined in my former post; in such a world, where it is everybodys privilege to question the veracity of researchers and deny them the right to clarify in whichever way they seem fit to do, we will immediately get lost. Whenever somebody takes the trouble to search help from an expert or authority, we are all at liberty to say "Nah, he just said so to please you" just as we are all at liberty to say "Yeah, yeah, YOU think he said no, but he did not come across that way to me. I thought he said yes", and when the researcher/authority then confirms that he said no, we can say, "Hey, wait a minute - that was not what he said the first time over! I´m being cheated here!"

Is this a situation we need to have?

Is this how we are fortwith going to treat those who have expertise in a field?

Can we take us the liberty to make allegations like these, without having approval from the total community of posters?

I don´t think so. And I hope that we will all come to our senses before it happens again. Many voices for a seize-fire have been heard since this conflict took off, and I would be the first one to embrace such a thing - but to pay the price of giving up these fundamental demands for decency on our behalf when it comes to how we treat generous researchers who offer their experience and knowledge in a genuine effort to help out, is something I will never do. And, indeed, I urge everyone never to do so.

To those who have not been in the trenches from the outset, this is what the battle is about. Many hard words have been uttered, and I have authored a good deal of them. There is every chance that it will go on, regretfully. And as it has been suggested to agree to disagree, this is the explanation I offer for not accepting my counterparts stance as a legitimate one.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland writes:

"Perhaps there can be some resolution here if somebody else does the job - but they would have to be clearly impartial - so that we could avoid any suggestion of bias etc such as we have had already regarding Leander and Iremonger."

Dowe, Jane, really have any suggestion of a bias on either account here? I think not.
We do have the suggestions on both researchers behalf, that they may have done a bad/unsufficient/lacking job, of course, but that is not the same as accusing any of them of having been biased.

Moreover, is the only thing it takes to attach suspicion of a bias to a researcher a suggestion on somebodys behalf that the researcher may have gotten tired of the ones who ask him/her things, and decided to fob them off? Does such a thing stick to the reputation of the researcher, if no convincing evidence can be presented, telling us that the allegation must be true?
I think not.

I think instead that we must work from the suggestion that as long as a researcher has not been proven biased, all decency and logic speaks for upholding the stance that we are dealing with an unbiaased researcher. It should also be added that neither Iremonger nor Leander take - to the best of my knowledge - any active interest in Ripperology, and so they will not have formed any opinion at all that would incline them to a bias.

What Sam says, though, applies very much - the two have been done to death, in some sense. The problem is, I cannot see why the next man or woman who gives his wiew should not be led to the guillotine by someone who disleikes what he or she says - but that is another matter. He or she will in all probability loose his head totally unbiased anyway.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Cap´n Jack writes:

"semen"

Please tell me that wasn´t intentional....?

Fisherman
apalled

[Victor]

No idea what you mean by this, my dear, or why someone's wife should be called Dave...but there you are, nothing else you have said has made sense so why am i surprised.

I was hoping for some more Swedish translations from you as well.

Ok Dave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papa_Lazarou

He has his own gibberish language called Gippog, that he makes up as he goes along to con people into doing what he wants - just like your doing.

[Jane Welland]

Yes, I agree.

Why not email some other document examiner, Jen? Seriously. If you ask me, Leander has gone enough out of his way already, and it strikes me that this vexed subject could do with a fresh pair of eyes. Leander vs Iremonger has, I think, been done to death.

It's time this wrangling stopped imo. Perhaps there can be some resolution here if somebody else does the job - but they would have to be clearly impartial - so that we could avoid any suggestion of bias etc such as we have had already regarding Leander and Iremonger.

It's a thought, anyhow.

Jane x

[Sam Flynn]

You dont need to assume anything Fish. When i have emailed him i will post it here for everyone to see.

Why not email some other document examiner, Jen? Seriously. If you ask me, Leander has gone enough out of his way already, and it strikes me that this vexed subject could do with a fresh pair of eyes. Leander vs Iremonger has, I think, been done to death.

[Cap'n Jack]

could it be that the girls I have been tying to me main mast and lashing are now't but hairy arsed semen?

[Observer]

oh oh does victor know something we don't

Observer