The Leander Analysis

[Jane Welland]

Thanks, Michael!

To me that is a most satisfactory explanation of why the evidence in the form of qualified opinion is still "inconclusive". No arguments will change that.

Well done Jane.

I do try!

Jane x

[babybird67]

Victor!

Since you ask about what people know of the Iremonger examination, I think you shold prepare for disappointment. The reason for this is that it seems what iremonger saw, what seh said, what she grounded her opinions on and how sure she was WAS NEVER RECORDED!

Um, yes actually it was recorded, PUBLICALLY, in the relevant literature, in which Ms Iremonger stood on her professional credentials on the matter. Just because you don't have the books Fisherman doesn't mean they don't exist. If you or Victor are seriously interested in the issue, i suggest you get hold of copies of the books in which her opinion was referenced...it shouldn't be that difficult.

Since there is no substantiation for this, other than Martin Fidos assertion that Iremonger was a nice woman who made a good impression on her, I myself tend to dismiss her - that is what we gebnerally need to do with non-existant material.

This is insulting and disrespectful to both Martin Fido and Ms Iremonger. Non-existent material? Like you wish the other two witness signatures were you mean Fish? How convenient that would have been for you to create your own reality and draw your own conclusions from it. Unfortunately for you the rest of us inhabit the real world and will continue to remind you of certain things such as objectivity, rationality, science and logic. Vic, post 287 of the Hutch in the 1911 census debate has a quote from the book in which Ms Iremonger was referenced...you may note she is well renowned and was quite happy to have her opinion published and attributed to her for all to see.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2204&page=29

post 353 by Jonathan Menges is also enlightening. And post 853 for the same. And post 1055, if you have a specific question to submit to the authors who consulted her (thanks again JM)

It seems as there is a debate going on where for example Ben teels all and sundry that I "deliberately withheld" vital information from Leander. Well, well, that should tally nicely with the assertions that Leander is a liar and a totally unethical researcher, just as it should work nicely together with Bens hints that I may have written Leanders answers by myself!

I dont know if that was Ben, Fish. It certainly was me and there is no debate about it. You had three signatures of Hutchinson's...you CHOSE to exclude the two you felt would look most dissimilar to Toppy's; you CHOSE deliberately to do that, it wasn't an accident, it was deliberate. Leander is not the unethical one. You are.

I think, before you go any further, that you need to realize that you have been pressing VERY hard all the time that Leanders examination was informal and that it carries no resemblande whatsoever to a real, professional examination. That, of course, was something you yelled at the tops of your voices in order to play down the importance of Leanders words. But now, it will work against you; you see, you cannot first say that it was all awfully informal and just a friendly, personal chat of no importance whatsoever, only to then turn around and demand from me that I ought to have behaved very formally and up to all scientific standards, supplying all the material and never uttering any opinion of my own.
Why would I do that. It was an informal excahnge, remember?

You are the only person who never acknowledged this Fish. YOU were the one insisting we had a full and detailed examination of the materials from a renowned expert that we should all pay attention to: look at your post number 1301 on the census thread in which you said:

Well, Crystal, if you donīt want to award the wiews of one of the most renowned Swedish forensic document examiners any value, you are of course right.
On the other hand, when you realize that we for the first time have a full and detailed statement by a true expert in the field, telling us that the features involved in the signatures may mean that we are looking at a match, you should perhaps upgrade your level of interest a bit...?

There are lots more examples where you have tried to overestimate the value of Leander's input, even when you have been reminded that he himself told you not to. But i am bored now.

I am glad at your renunciation of your misconception that we have anything other than a few informal comments from Leander, and that you now recognise, if belatedly, what we have been saying all along...that no such professional examination was possible by Leander.

Hallelujah...i do believe!

[Ben]

The reason for this is that it seems what Iremonger saw, what she said, what she grounded her opinions on and how sure she was, WAS NEVER RECORDED!

That's an inaccurate interpretation Fish, as Babybird points out. A great many more people know about the Iremonger comparison than they do about Leander's contributions. She even gave a lecture about it in which her findings were discussed, and several well respected authorities on the Whitechapel murders have attested to the nature of her findings.

I myself tend to dismiss her - that is what we generally need to do with non-existant material.

Well, of course you would.

She's an expert whose opinion flies in the face of the conclusion you jumped to with irrational certainty before you even contacted the expert who you now mistakenly believe is fighting your corner. No matter that Ms Iremonger is, to date, the only professional expert who has ever conducted a full analysis of the signatures, using the original documents and all three statement signatures unlike a few fiddled-with emailed images of the third signature that were sent to Leander (while the other two were deliberately withheld for no good reason at all), along with some misleading biographical data.

I did not accuse Leander of being either a “liar” or an “unethical researcher”. I speculated that Leander was susceptible to the all-too-human aversion to bombardment and beleaguerment, and that he appeased a nuisance accordingly. You can mutate that into a fallacious slur if you like, and use it to poison him against me: “Just look what a horrible bastard he is, Frank! Before you recognise any potential merit in his interpretation, just remember that he accused you of lying! I’d never do that, because we’re friends. Oh, and it is still Toppy, isn’t it?”, but most people should exercise enough circumspection to see right through it. No, I haven’t accused you of writing Leander’s posts. I only observed that his latest contribution seems to have embraced a certain propensity towards bombast and exclamatory language that seems eerily reminiscent of your own posting style.

“…it carries no resemblance whatsoever to a real, professional examination. That, of course, was something you yelled at the tops of your voices in order to play down the importance of Leanders words.”

I think you’ll find that it was Leander himself who did most of the “yelling” in that regard, urging you on numerous occasions to be mindful of the fact that he could not offer his “full expert opinion” in the absence of the original documents, and that a “spontaneous comment” was all he could offer. The person who has been most vocal in their efforts to “play down the importance of Leander’s words” is Leander himself. He even dropped you that subtle hint that he could offer no more on the matter when he told you that he did not wish to elaborate any further on the matter - a request that you didn’t accord much respect then you bothered him at least three more times. At no point did you have the self-scrutiny to cultivate an “Am I being a nuisance?” awareness.

“It was an informal exchange, remember? And in such an exchange, just like Victor has eminently and wisely pointed out to you, I am at liberty to handle the discussion in exactly the manner that I want to.”

And a wise method of handling the results of an “informal exchange” is not to invest them with any more significance that the “informality” of the exercise merits, and that includes resisting the temptation to bother him on a repetitive basis or swallow your own highly controversial interpretation of his opinions.

“The true reason for my choice of material was that Sam had provided a collection of the third police protocol signature, the marriage license signature, and the 1911 census signatures, and that was a collection I thought would be very suitable to get an answer from Leander”

Do you mean the montage where all the signatures were portrayed as being the same size, with the horizontal lines underneath removed (the ones that would have given an accurate impression of the angles of the signatures), which conspicuously avoided the first two signatures.

You copied and pasted that into an email and sent that to Leander?

…And hoped for an unbiased response?

Well, we’re all different I guess.

Gosh, there are revelations aplenty today. I seriously regret reading Garry's sensible first post too hastily.

“He even stated that "Lambeth George"īs signature was a closer match to the witness ditto than was Toppys, a misconception that Leander immediately brought him out of. So much for Benīs abilities to tell signatures apart!”

Oh, look, a personal attack. Thing is, Leander never examined Lambeth George’s signatures with the other two signatures attributed to the witness, so there’s no way that Leander could have disabused me of any “misconception” that he (LG) provided a better bet than Toppy.

“the cards have been on the table all the time, although I could have chosen to lie and say that Leander had all three signatures and you would have been none the wiser”

I think if you’re honest with yourself, you were just covering your bottom there in the event that someone might have decided to make their own inquiries into the nature of Leander’s findings. Better to be honest about the nature of the material supplied to Leander just in case anyone decides to find out for themselves by contacting Leander personally. So it would not have been in your interests to lie, and it was a sensible move on your part not to.

“the fact remains that Frank Leander has helped us in identifying a probable - not possible, probable - match between the Dorset Street witness and George Topping Hutchinson”

But I still utterly reject that as utter nonsense, and I’ve asked you politely not to keep repeating a controversial statement that you know full well has been challenged many times. I know you like repetition wars better than strawberries and cream, but I’m generally more successful at that particular format in the long run, so it’s up to you if you think it’s worth your while persisting in that particular debating strategy.

“Depends on what you mean by conclusively - "I expect forthcoming evidence to prove the thesis that we have a genuine match" is pretty conclusive to my ears. But it is grounded on insufficient evidence, granted.”

It’s grounded in blatant and proven contradictions, which is why it’s only fair to reject any claim that any forthcoming evidence would prove a match, since it originated from a source that also told us explicitly on more than one occasion (including in a manual) that his stance was neutral.

“Toppy is Hutch, almost certainly. And I mean it!”

I know you do, but then you have a fairly long history of “meaning” things that have made you look pretty ridiculous, so I don’t see why the above claim should be any different. It certainly doesn't become any more persuasive on the basis of your bombastic insistence.

“Show me her wordings, show me the material she looked at, and show me all the rest that belongs to a properly documented examination, and I will have a very interested look”

But that's in the absence of even a faintly decent reason for doubting the well-documented observation that she compared the original sources and all three witness statements, as attested to by several experts in the field. Even if you even found yourself presented with her full analysis, YOU would hardly be in a position to assess her assessment.

“At least I think so, since Ben stated from the outset that nobody would be happier than him if the Dorset streeet witness could be identified. So letīs rejoice, shall we?”

Nobody would be happier than me if the witness could finally be identified. I clung desperately to the hope, once upon a time, that Toppy would provide the ultimate solution in that regard, but – and this is so frustrating – the biographical details didn’t mesh up, and the only full examination of the signatures to date has yielded a non-match.

Such a shame, but it’s back to the drawing board, alas.

Fingers crossed we’ll find him one day!

[The Good Michael]

To me that is a most satisfactory explanation of why the evidence in the form of qualified opinion is still "inconclusive". No arguments will change that.

You are correct with regards to signatures. Thank God we have so much more than that with which to base the only valid conclusion that Toppy is quite probably Hutch the witness. The elephant is just about complete.

Cheers,

Mike

[Jane Welland]

Mike, I think you're right...

With so much evidence to support that theory, there can be only one solution -



This is the man we've all been looking for!

Hallelujah! The Case is Solved!

Good work there!

Best regards

Jane x

[The Good Michael]

The mustache is a bit carroty, and is that a bit of gold chain peeking out just above his cuffs? In fact, he wasn't such a bad sort, for a profligate stuffed shirt. It is son who wasn't such a nice guy.

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi Mike,
I agree about the 'Son'
Two accounts stick in my mind.
When he toured the east end during the blitz, and shouted out 'We can take it' replies echoed back 'Its allright for you mate, we live here.'
And what a scumbag .
At the height of the blitz, he used to receive information on where , and when a raid would take place, and always made sure he stayed at a friends country house on that date.
One afternoon whilst at a meeting at number 10, he had a call that a huge raid would hit London that evening, he excused himself, and went straight to his waiting car, and proceeded to the country.
A few miles on , his car phone went, and he was informed that the raid was to be elsewhere, he had the car turn back to London , informing staff at downing street, that a massive raid would hit London that evening , and he could not leave in the circumstances.
That evening he was pictured standing on a rooftop in the vacinity, waving his fists in the sky, screaming ' Come on then. we can take it'.
Incidently the raid that night was COVENTRY.
What a fraud.
Richard,

[Fisherman]

104 days ago, on the 15:th of April 2009, I published Frank Leanders first informal post on the signature comparison, stating exactly what material I had sent over to him.

104 days. That is three months. A full fifteen weeks.

Now people are trying to castigate me for doing so. Babybird even writes ”now he admits that ...”

Now, Babybird? You have had the information from the start. I always clearly state what belongs to my contribution to the different threads, and in this case, I have even offered the full exchange between Leander and me, in Swedish as well as in English. I have offered to share his e-mailaddress with Ben, but he was not interested.

So, Toppydissers, or what we should call you – you have spent months on end criticizing my exchange with Leander WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHAT IT WAS YOU CRITICIZED! You have been so eager to pounce at anything that even remotely suggested that Toppy could have been Hutch, that you have forgotten to read up on the most important part of it all – what was being discussed.

You did not know this. You never bothered to check. All the same, you were ready to go to extreme lengths to castigate what you had not checked. And, so much more amusing, you had the audacity to tell me that I had not gone about things in a professional manner!

Itīs Seinfeld stuff. Itīs Pythonesque. Itīs more than I could have hoped for.

It is said that I should not expect anybody to lend any weight to Leanders verdict. I suggest that we allow each and everyone to make his or her own mind up on that. Some will never attach any value to it, for the simple reason that it does not sit well with their own theories. Others will criticize (fairly) that it was not a full investigation. Most people, I hope, will realize that a top force has investigated one of the signatures from the police protocol and come to the conclusion that it in all probability matches the signatures of Topping Hutchinson.
There is a rational approach, a methodological and ”scientific” approach – an an agenda-ridden, malicious approach.

These Hutchinson threads have been the best threads ever on Casebook. Not only have they revealed, after 121 years of fumbling in the dark, that we have very good reason to believe that the Dorset Street witness has been identified. They have also been productive in another fashion, since they have formed an invaluable source when it comes to assessing the credibility of a number of posters. We have been dealt a ”map”, more or less, of who will favour agenda over facts, and who will not touch such a methodology with a pair of pliers.

We have even heard Ben describe Samīs stance as ”glib facility shamelessly espoused by people who used to know better” and assure him that his efforts ”only succeeds in irritating people”, adding that he was ”obviously wrong and fallacious”.
That is an almighty pointer in itself. Anybody who knows Sams way of working, also knows that there is not a poster on these boards who is more no-nonsense than him. I am not saying that he is always right – we have had disagreements on a number of things, but when we have had so, I have always been the one who has suggested the more ”fanciful” solution to an issue, whereas Sam has stuck with only the known facts.

Such is the methodology of Sam, and such is the position Ben has manouvred himself into by not recognizing this very obvious thing. But then, Ben has all sorts of problems recognizing where he is going. Now he tells us that he has never pointed Leander out as a liar, but since he has stated that Leander abandoned truth to keep me pleased, I see very little possibility to manouvre around it.

What remains about ”the Toppydissers” is an impression of very little honest intentions to assess the material fairly.

The allegations of me not having ”admitted” what material I sent Leander, the reoccurring distortions of what has been said, the leading on that Leander has been dishonest and not up to the ethical standards that could be requested of him, the totally unsubtle hints that I had written Leanders posts myself, the unwillingness to let Leander nuance and add further information, the totally uncritical acceptance of Iremongers investigation with no written documentation at all, the dishonesty, the sock puppets and the very strange demands on me to be scientific, coming from a group of people who never even bothered to check what was being discussed in the first place, is something I have experienced with sadness. It has been a sowing of dragonīs teeth, and those responsible for it will have to reap the form of harvest that belongs to it.
The first example is Frank Leanders pointing out that the criticism he has been subjected to has been governed by malicious interpretations of his efforts. I predict that there is much more to come.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. I will send you a large bucket of peanuts, Mike – you are going to need it!

[The Good Michael]

PS. I will send you a large bucket of peanuts, Mike – you are going to need it!

Damn! I forgot to feed the elephant. No wonder people only can stand looking at its parts.

Mike

[Ben]

Now, Babybird? You have had the information from the start. I always clearly state what belongs to my contribution to the different threads, and in this case, I have even offered the full exchange between Leander and me, in Swedish as well as in English. I have offered to share his e-mailaddress with Ben, but he was not interested.

Well, it was an oversight on mine and Babybird's part certainly, and we've both acknowledged as much on more than one occasion, but thank goodness it didn't escape the notice of Garry who had every right to question why such selectivity should have taken place. I'm not surprised you're now lashing out aggressively, having realized that several others finally picked up on the nature of the material you supplied to Leander, and I'm equally unsurprised that you'd resort back to triumphalist rhetoric and repetition, but the fact remains that you had an opportunity to provide all three statement signatures to Leander from the outset, but you only included the third one - the one you decided was the was the most Toppyish.

Attempting to ridicule Babybird for failing to pick up on your earlier selectivity won’t score you those points either, since oversights of this nature are likely to occur when the salient issues are lost amid a flurry of interminable posts. The following simply won't avail: “Haha, you’re all idiots for failing to notice how selective I’ve been all along””. Well, boy have you get me there, Fisherman, only I know which is the lesser of the two evils: hideous selectivity, or failing to notice that hideous selectivity?

“It is said that I should not expect anybody to lend any weight to Leanders verdict. I suggest that we allow each and everyone to make his or her own mind up on that.”

Let them, then.

But don’t, for pity’s sake, try to continue a repetition war where you insist on churning out your continuously challenged assertion that “Leander thought the match probable”, and I go on repeating my previous challenge that such a stance radically contrasted with his initial neutrality, and that since one cannot accept both stances simultaneously, they virtually cancel each other out. Not much use a “top force” when we’ve since become acquainted with the various pitfalls involved when a foreign examiner studies English scripts (which is why it doesn’t happen very often, we're reliably assured), and when that same examiner wasn’t even supplied with all three signatures when there was ample opportunity to provide him with same. I think we’ve somewhat diminished the argument that the “Leander analysis” was in any shape or form “scientific”.

So please don’t keep expressing this ludicrously forlorn hope that “most people” will swallow your controversial position, as though it would somehow increase the likelihood of it being correct.

“These Hutchinson threads have been the best threads ever on Casebook. Not only have they revealed, after 121 years of fumbling in the dark, that we have very good reason to believe that the Dorset Street witness has been identified”

There’s that triumphalist rhetoric again, dealt with swiftly by the following antithesis:

These Hutchinson threads have been the best threads ever on Casebook. Not only have they revealed, after 121 years of fumbling in the dark, that the initial indications that Toppy was not the witness have been strengthened in light of recent evidence.

Easy, and the only real antidote to that particularly strategy.

Just as easy as dealing with your tiresome personal attacks, such as the oft vomited-out accusation that some posters are harbouring an agenda. Which posters? Yep, that’s right, the ones that refuse to share Fisherman’s unwarranted certainty on certain issues. Here’s a better clue for establishing which posters harbour the agendas: Those who don’t identify Toppy as the witness have expressed the view that while the identification is unlikely on current evidence, it cannot be ruled out. The Toppyites, by contrast, have continued to espouse the ludicrous dogma that “Toppy is Hutch!” and assert that the chances of their theory being wrong are “microscopical”, or some other sympathy-eliciting attempt at rhetoric.

“That is an almighty pointer in itself. Anybody who knows Sams way of working, also knows that there is not a poster on these boards who is more no-nonsense than him.”

Well, of course, if I disagree with Sam, I simply must be the bastard in this equation, especially if I use robust terminology when doing so. I realise you’ve brought him up because you're aware that he seems more credible in contrast to you, but unfortunately, I disagree with him too, and doing so doesn’t automatically expose me as the villain. So the latest strategy – accusing me of having the audacity to disagree with somebody with more credibility than you - won’t work either.

“the unwillingness to let Leander nuance and add further information, the totally uncritical acceptance of Iremongers investigation with no written documentation at all”

You can allow him to clarify if you really felt it was required, but that doesn’t mean bombarding him seven more times in pursuit of further clarification. He even told you that he did not wish to elaborate further, but you didn’t show much respect for that when you continued to blitz-post him into submission. The nature of Sue Iremonger’s findings have been attested to be several leading experts. What doubts could you possibly harbour that would cast doubt on either the recollections or the credibility of these experts?

[babybird67]

Depends on what you mean by conclusively - "I expect forthcoming evidence to prove the thesis that we have a genuine match" is pretty conclusive to my ears. But it is grounded on insufficient evidence, granted.

What? What forthcoming evidence? How can you basis proving a thesis on evidence that you have absolutely no idea whether it exists or not? Are you on planet earth or away with the fairies? I see you have put this idiocy in quotation marks...who are you attributing this quotation to? Surely not Leander? How can anything be "pretty conclusive" when the extant evidence has been totally ignored, and you are assuming, without any good cause, that further evidence will a/ not only emerge, but b/ be of a type that confirms your own hypothesis???? Oh, i see, because IF any other evidence were to emerge in the future, you would just de-select those bits of it which didnt confirm your ridiculous hypothesis anyway. Now i see how it's done.

By the way, can you PM me Leander's contact details please? I'd like to correspond with him myself about this issue. Thanks.

Off to reply to one of your other posts...get your flack helmet ready.

[The Good Michael]

BB,

Don't bother the man. Why not email Iremonger, send her all the signatures (maybe 16 of them), and simply ask her which ones are similar enough to be considered probably written by the same man, especially because they were written within close proximity of each other in time and place, and because they were both of the laborer class? That would be best I think because she needs a little stress in her life too.

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Will we ever get to the bottom of this?
JD, if you still read these threads you must be horrified at all this, and to suggest that your husbands grandfather was the most infamous killer in british history, must be so alarming to you all.
If any one knows the simple answer, its your husbands family, all it would take is a short statement of comformation, and we can move on.
Obviously that wont happen , but I can only hope.
Regards Richard.

[babybird67]

Now, Babybird? You have had the information from the start. I always clearly state what belongs to my contribution to the different threads, and in this case, I have even offered the full exchange between Leander and me, in Swedish as well as in English. I have offered to share his e-mailaddress with Ben, but he was not interested.

Fish if you look at the date i joined this site you will see that it was in April of this year. Your posting was a good hundred pages into the Hutch thread. Are you expecting me to have read and absorbed every single detail and nuance on that thread and retain it like a computer? I'm afraid i didn't, along with every other member of this forum, as i am human...neither was I the only one not to pick up on the fact that you sent Leander a skewed Sam-ple (incidentally i have absolutely no doubt that Sam's montage was merely illustrative of the similarities he wished to demonstate...i have no doubt whatsoever that he would not have agreed with sending this montage to Leander for an official scientific appraisal...he is too intelligent for that).

I've re-read your posting, and yes, you did say at the time that you had sent Leander the montage of signatures that Sam had posted. Nobody at that time picked up on this, probably because at the beginning you were not insisting that we had what you were later claiming as:

a full and detailed statement by a true expert in the field, telling us that the features involved in the signatures may mean that we are looking at a match

If you had accepted what the rest of us were saying all along, which was that all Leander told you he could offer was a personal comment, the informality of the materials would not have taken on so much significance. However, you were the one who was at pains, laboriously, interminably, to overstress Leander's contribution, to argue that it was "full and detailed" where it could not possibly have been, since two thirds of the extant necessary material had not been submitted to the analysis, nor were the originals available to him.

It is extremely telling that you still cannot admit that you were in the wrong for skewing the sample, for submitting to Leander materials with which he was kept in the dark regarding the availability of materials, and instead have gone off into some kind of orgasmic delight in blaming us for failing to pick you up on your fatal error.

Ben and i have already apologised to Garry for not noticing his point before. Have you apologised for submitting a skewed sample and then trying to pass off a flawed and informal comment on that sample as a "full and detailed" picture of events? No. Why not? Because you have no facility for learning or self-reflection or personal or intellectual growth. You are an intellectual dolt. Debating with you is like trying to debate with an ironing board that hasn't had the benefit of a secondary education. Give it up. Look at yourself. Culture the desire to learn and improve yourself. Otherwise there is no point to your contributions here, nor any point to anyone else reading them.

Itīs Seinfeld stuff. Itīs Pythonesque. Itīs more than I could have hoped for.

Um, no, dear. What is Pythonesque is a poster who claims that WHEN further evidence is forthcoming (when, not if, mind) it WILL (not might, mind) support his already demolished pre-conceptions. Are you serious? Most people actually wait to see evidence before they decide whether it supports them or not. Most people look at evidence objectively, or at the very least try to, and THEN make up their mind. It is a very queer fish that decides what the evidence will tell him before he even sees it...very queer indeed. Unless you are claiming psychic powers of course?

And, you are the one who spent the first hundred pages of the census thread trying to demolish Iremonger's view, based on the conjectures that we do not know what she looked at etc etc.

Well, we DO know what Leander looked at. He looked at "meagre" evidence that was "copy-based" and was unable to offer anything other than a "personal" and "spontaneous" comment.

Iremonger looked at the full witness statement and the marriage certificate and said she was of the opinion that they did not match.

So, people can make up their own minds who to lend more weight to, for sure. I have no problem at all with that. Most people think before they make up their minds.

[babybird67]

BB,

Don't bother the man. Why not email Iremonger, send her all the signatures (maybe 16 of them), and simply ask her which ones are similar enough to be considered probably written by the same man, especially because they were written within close proximity of each other in time and place, and because they were both of the laborer class? That would be best I think because she needs a little stress in her life too.

Mike

Why not Mike? I am sure he would like to know there were two other signatures he could have used in his "analysis" that were with-held from him. I'd like to send him the copies and see if they change his mind about the issue. It's only fair he is put in the picture i think.

I have no need to contact Iremonger. She has been published. You are welcome to, though.