The Leander Analysis

[Victor]

Yep you are right. Someone should have montaged the whole lot of them imo. That wasnt done though. The full picture was never given. That's why many of us were arguing against Fish who continued to claim we had a "full and detailed" report, when even the man who contributed that report told him point blank it was no such thing. Onus is on Fish to have sent the right material, not me.

Yes someone should have collated the lot, but no-one did, and now your hassling Fish for sending off what he had. Strange.

Quite. I am glad you acknowledge it was Fish's choice. However, this would have been fine had Fish acknowledged what had been told to him by Leander and what had been reiterated by many of us, that we did not have a full expert professional opinion, but a ""spontaneous" and "personal" one. It is when Fish tried to overemphasise everything from Leander that some of us found issue with him.

Yup, he selected the only sufficient compilateion that he had. Hobson's choice.

Totally agree. Totally insufficient. So said Leander. So said Ben. So said I and a number of others...at least we are beginning to agree on something at last.

Being deliberately obtuse and misrepresenting my words again. Ah well.

[babybird67]

Yes someone should have collated the lot, but no-one did, and now your hassling Fish for sending off what he had. Strange.

Fish chose to involve an expert. The onus was on him to supply that expert with objective material from which the expert could come to an INFORMED conclusion on the matter. Not only did he NOT supply the full information, he subsequently asserted that the expert had provided a "full and detailed" report on the matter, and claimed that therefore this must be accepted by all, even though the actual expert said precisely the opposite from the outset.

I am getting tired of arguing with you, Vic. It's like teaching monkeys ABC, only the monkeys would get it.

Yup, he selected the only sufficient compilateion that he had. Hobson's choice.

Wrong again i am afraid. Go back to the 1911 thread. There are plenty of visual examples there. Fish was perfectly at liberty to chose any of them, singly or multiply, to aid Leander's inquiry. He didn't. I think your questions would be better addressed to Fish to establish why he did this. Not me. I am only one of many of us who don't kow tow to being told we have a "full and detailed" expert opinion to which we must all defer, when the expert himself has told us he has given no such thing.

Being deliberately obtuse and misrepresenting my words again. Ah well.

Wrong again. You are showing quite a talent for being wrong Vic i am most impressed.

If you will notice i used the quote facility to quote you verbatim. I even agreed with you. If you meant something other than what you said, you will need to be clearer, as it is quite a clear fact that insufficient materials were provided, a fact which Leander has acknowledged multiple times, and which i have drawn attention to innumerable times. If you were trying to be sarcastic or funny, the use of an emote might help.

helpfully yours

[Garry Wroe]

Hello All.

Might I remind everyone that the present thread was initiated in order to address the claim that the analysis conducted by Frank Leander was scientifically robust and, in turn, provided empirical proof that Hutchinson and Toppy were one and the same. Since there is now a general agreement that certain methodological flaws militate against any such conclusion, I would suggest that, until new empirical evidence is forthcoming, we cut science out of the equation altogether and simply use our eyes and common sense to make future value judgements.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[Victor]

I am getting tired of arguing with you, Vic. It's like teaching monkeys ABC, only the monkeys would get it.

Funny, I was thinking that your dogmatic doggerell would make you a stubborn b....

Wrong again i am afraid. Go back to the 1911 thread. There are plenty of visual examples there.

I'm reading that thread and so far have only found that 1 example that would be sufficient, without collating multiples.

If you will notice i used the quote facility to quote you verbatim. I even agreed with you.

Yes you quoted verbatim my reply to your post, but took my comment out of context by not including what it was refering to. Misinterpreted it, and agreed with something different to what was said.

it is quite a clear fact that insufficient materials were provided, a fact which Leander has acknowledged multiple times, and which i have drawn attention to innumerable times.

No, you are totally wrong. Sufficient materials were provided to answer the question that was asked, but you wanted the answer to a different question and insufficient materials were provided to answer that extended question.

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

Funny, I was thinking that your dogmatic doggerell would make you a stubborn b....

Doggerel is a type of verse,
but i've used prose; it could be worse -
So Vic thinks I'm a "stubborn b..."?
There's none so blind as those won't see.
It could be worse, i could be Vic,
No stubborn b, but p'raps a d...?

No offence.

I'm reading that thread and so far have only found that 1 example that would be sufficient, without collating multiples.

yes and we mustn't forget that ancient swedish law that states, section 5, paragraph 234,

"No Swedish document examiner shalt be provided with more than one example, montage or otherwise, of disputed signatures, on pain of having the supplier's agenda excommunicated..."

Yes you quoted verbatim my reply to your post, but took my comment out of context by not including what it was refering to. Misinterpreted it, and agreed with something different to what was said.

You said the materials provided were insufficient. I pointed out that this is factually true. The document examiner himself said so. Not just me. THE EXPERT said so. Honestly, do you want me to trust your expert or not?

No, you are totally wrong. Sufficient materials were provided to answer the question that was asked

Not according to the expert who was asked that question Vic. The expert made no bones about that. He called his materials "meagre" and told everyone quite clearly that a full and detailed professional opinion "is not possible" based on the materials he was supplied with. That is, in response to the question he was asked, he qualified his response by reference to having insufficient materials to adequately answer it. That's what Leander said.

Is he wrong? Because you can't both be right now can you. That stands to REASON, and COMMON SENSE...sorry i know it is apparent these are alien concepts to you, but please do try to comprehend.

[The Good Michael]

He called his materials "meagre" and told everyone quite clearly that a full and detailed professional opinion "is not possible" based on the materials he was supplied with. [B][U]That is, in response to the question he was asked, he qualified his response by reference to having insufficient materials to adequately answer it. That's what Leander said.

Don't forget this part (and I paraphrase): ... but based on the samples and without extenuating circumstances such as both men being taught by the same teacher ( and how likely is that (he says)), the appearances are that they probably the work of the same man.

This is about exactly what Fisherman said in the first place, several months ago. If everyone would have accepted the word 'probable' or the word 'likely', we could have been done with Leander a long time ago, because he hasn't changed his stance, based on the 'meager' information he has. In actuality, we who looked, saw what Leander did.
This doesn't change things with Iremonger, but I very seriously doubt, given the same information without all the surrounding 'coincidences' about the men, she can come to a different conclusion. I will write an email to her this weekend, and if Vic, who seems an impartial sort wants to proof-read it, he is welcome to.

It certainly can't hurt things. My guess is most of us will have a bit of closure on this soon, and we can move on to such things as 'real' suspects.

The frustrating thing here, is that no quarter is given, for the sheer sake of giving no quarter, and nerves have been frayed, enemies have been made, and all for the sake of clinging to something that isn't really important in the grand scheme of things.

Cheers,

Mike

[babybird67]

Don't forget this part (and I paraphrase): ... but based on the samples and without extenuating circumstances such as both men being taught by the same teacher ( and how likely is that (he says)), the appearances are that they probably the work of the same man.

Yes but Mike those comments were always made as "personal" and "spontaneous" and we were always advised by the man who made them that he could not possibly give a professional opinion because the materials he had made that impossible.

You must acknowledge that personal comments given to an individual as a favour are not the same as published comments, in which an individual will be judged, because they are public and in the public domain, and which can ruin a reputation if incorrect. That is a significant difference between Leander and Iremonger which i have yet to see addressed.

It wasn't those of us who have yet to be convinced that Toppy and Hutch are one and the same who were trying to portray this as the best, most full and most detailed professional analysis of the signatures that we have. If certain parties had actually left what Leander originally said alone, that a match couldnt be ruled out, we wouldn't still be here debating it.

Even if we were in the position of having a Leander/Iremonger standoff, it would still be a case of 1-1...one for and one against, but even that didnt satisfy some people. We were told identification had been established; i seriously do not think it has. I have told you before, when it has been proven to me, i will happily stand here on these boards and thank the person whose research enables me to agree that something is proven.

We aren't there yet, though. Not in my opinion.

Good luck with your Iremonger email. It might also be worth pm'ing JM who offered to pass questions on to those who published her findings.

The frustrating thing here, is that no quarter is given, for the sheer sake of giving no quarter, and nerves have been frayed, enemies have been made, and all for the sake of clinging to something that isn't really important in the grand scheme of things.

Cheers,

Mike

I agree. I've said so many times before. And that applies to both sides.

Good luck once again with your research...i am sure you will find something germane to the debate.

[Victor]

"No Swedish document examiner shalt be provided with more than one example, montage or otherwise, of disputed signatures, on pain of having the supplier's agenda excommunicated..."

You found a reason, well done!

You said the materials provided were insufficient. I pointed out that this is factually true. The document examiner himself said so. Not just me. THE EXPERT said so. Honestly, do you want me to trust your expert or not?

No, I said the selection reproduced by yourself in post #281 was insufficient to be sent to Leander becaus eit didn't contain the requisite 10 signatures.

Not according to the expert who was asked that question Vic. The expert made no bones about that. He called his materials "meagre" and told everyone quite clearly that a full and detailed professional opinion "is not possible" based on the materials he was supplied with.

No he didn't, the word "meagre" is Fish's English translation of what the expert said.

Is he wrong? Because you can't both be right now can you. That stands to REASON, and COMMON SENSE...sorry i know it is apparent these are alien concepts to you, but please do try to comprehend.

No, he's not. Yes, because we're answering different questions.

Hee hee,
Vic.

[Fisherman]

I have realized that we are all going to be faced with a problem with any forthcoming information from Frank Leander. I am at a loss myself to solve that problem, so I was thinking of asking Ben to help out.

This is it:

Let us - theoretically - assume that Babybird writes to Frank Leander.

Let us - likewise theoretically - assume, that she asks Leander if it would not have been better if all three signatures had been used, and if we are not at a risk to have a flawed result since this was not done.

Finally, let us - once again, purely theoretically - assume that Frank Leander answers exactly like this:
"Aha, so there were THREE signatures on that protocol? In that case, I must retract what I said about the single one, since no fair assessment can be made from only parts of the material! Let´s see now, hmmmm, there they are, them little buggers.... Oh! Oh, oh, oh, oh! My goodness! I can see now that these added signatures very much imply that I would have been wrong in my earlier assessment - I am now of the meaning that none of the signatures match those of Topping Hutchinson!"

Where would that put us?

I wrote eight times to Frank Leander, in three months time. It did not take him long to get very bored with the issue and, as you put it, Ben, "fob me off". So, what we have concluded is that Leander is very prone to fob people off, and give them what they want, just to have a little peace and quiet.

But would not that mean - bearing in mind that Babybird would be harassing Leander with this material for the NINTH time - that he would be even more worn out by it, and even more prone to say "yeah, yeah, whatever you want"?

If he instead keeps telling us that he was perfectly able to assess the one signature he got from me, and that the two added ones do not affect his verdict - does THAT mean that he is still - working by remote "Babybird control" - trying to fob ME off?

This, Ben, is something I cannot answer myself. It is way too complicated for me.
But then it hit me: Why not let Ben be the judge of the whole thing? See, whereas I never had any sense that Leander was being dishonest and fobbing me off, you spotted it immediately! So maybe you would be the best choice when it comes to who can determine this question in an unbiased manner! (W-A-R-N-I-N-G ; I-R-O-N-Y!)

This, Ben, is what I mean when I say that it seems that the only book of rules you work by is "Alice in Wonderland", where nothing is what it seems to be, and mirrors and deceitfullness are all over.
I could just as well have dubbed the territory "Kafka country", but I found that term more relating to my feelings than to your contributions.

It is also why I spoke of sowing dragon´s teeth, as you may understand. You have, by trying to discredit a discerning researcher on no good grounds at all, effectively hindered Leander to say anything in your favour; I can always say that he would have fobbed Babybird off, the way he always does when he has grown tired of a particular subject. It would follow the logic you propose in detail.

It´s dragons teeth, Ben. Don´t you forget it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Victor points out:

"we're answering different questions"

...and that is a very good way of putting it. Anybody can have his or hers own idea of how the exchange with Leander would have been handled best, but nobody can say that I did not fully and immediately state exactly what Leander had been supplied with.

And yes, there can come no full examination from it.

But no, that does not mean that he could not answer the question I posed to him: "Could these signatures have been written by the same man?" And, taken on their own, Leander answered that yes, that they could well have been.
And when THAT led to statements that his answer that they could have been did not mean that they would have been, I asked him to elaborate on that issue, and he did, telling us that would may very well apply, although not in EXACTLY those words.

Mike writes:

"If everyone would have accepted the word 'probable' or the word 'likely', we could have been done with Leander a long time ago, because he hasn't changed his stance, based on the 'meager' information he has."

Seconded!

"The frustrating thing here, is that no quarter is given, for the sheer sake of giving no quarter, and nerves have been frayed, enemies have been made, and all for the sake of clinging to something that isn't really important in the grand scheme of things."

Even more seconded! And the worst thing is that I can see no way out. I will, however, gladly listen to any suggestions, from any party. It can´t get much worse, can it ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

there is no solution, Fisherman...

At least none that looks likely to take place.

Mike has said that he will contact Iremonger - good luck to him with that - as I understand it, she responded to neither you nor Ben when you both contacted her earlier in this argument.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, Fisherman, her findings were published by reference, something hardly likely to happen if she hadn't done a professional job - since the analysis of documents is the way in which she makes her living - if you are a freelance worker, Fish, of whatever persuasion, reputation is everything.

Yet, in spite of the fact that she is quite clearly a woman of high reputation in her field, her view, and indeed her analysis, has been disregarded, disrespected, and insulted, frankly.

And, it pains me to say, quite often by those who speak most loudly of 'agendas'. If there is no agenda in scorning the work of a respected professional, then exactly why do it?

No matter, clearly her word will not be accepted as valid by some.

Then we have Leander - who looked informally at some selected examples of digital copies, all of which were derivative in the first place.

There was no respectable methodology in what he did - and as I've said, fine, but expect the limitations of that to be clear to most people who read about it.

Recent developments - e.g. the realisation by some posters that Leander only had some of the available signatures - has eroded still further the little faith possible for some in the light of Leander's apparently shifting view.

This is a regrettable situation. I would call it stalemate, I think.

What to do now?

The only realistic option is to call it a day - agree to disagree and leave it at that.

But NO! I know that won't happen!

So I expect we'll all just hammer away with our respective viewpoints until we fall over from either exhaustion or boredom.

Either that or we'll just lose the will to live.

Jane x

[Sam Flynn]

So, Toppydissers, or what we should call you...

I suppose the opposite of a "Toppy fan" is a "bottom warmer"

[Ben]

Fisherman,

Why do you feel the need to announce that you're going to be away from your computer for some time, when you really mean a scant few hours? And why do you tell people that you have very little communication with me these days, when you know full well that you have more communication with me than any other poster?

But would not that mean - bearing in mind that Babybird would be harassing Leander with this material for the NINTH time - that he would be even more worn out by it, and even more prone to say "yeah, yeah, whatever you want"?

I doubt it very much in this case, since you took the remarkable decision to "warn" Leander about the strong chances of impending communication from others involved in the Toppy debate. By "warning" him in such a fashion, you're essentially identifiying us the enemy, and it certainly wasn't helped by the fact that your 7th communication with Leander chiefly consisted of you telling me what an unsavoury character I am, and that it would be imprudent to see any merit in my interpretation of his comments, since I was the one who allegedly accused him of lying. Now he has every reason to think that one of the "so-called ripperologists" that you painted in so unfavourable a light might be one of the people contacting him today.

You've put him on the defensive before he has even seen the other other side or perused their material, once again retarding the chances of receiving an unbiased response from him. I might be pleasantly surprised, however.

If he instead keeps telling us that he was perfectly able to assess the one signature he got from me, and that the two added ones do not affect his verdict - does THAT mean that he is still - working by remote "Babybird control" - trying to fob ME off?

He'd certainly wonder why he wasn't provided with as many signatures from the witness as possible when it was clear that the original supplier was quite willing to supply a wholly disproportionate number of Toppy signatures. Whether he wonders aloud would be a different matter, but given his increased awareness that his comments are not only being publicly divulged, but heavily scrutinized as well, I'd expect some very guarded terminology from him. That's if he responds at all, which, in consequence of your efforts to depict the other "camp" as the villains, would surprise me enormously.

So maybe you would be the best choice when it comes to who can determine this question in an unbiased manner! (W-A-R-N-I-N-G ; I-R-O-N-Y!)

Either you're interested in my take on any further comments from Leander or you're not. If you are, it's amazingly silly to include an "irony warning", and if you're not, then you clearly wrote a long and meaningless post with the deliberate intention of goading me. I hope it's not the latter option, because then one could legitimately accuse you of trolling behaviour. Perhaps this is our major clue:

This, Ben, is what I mean when I say that it seems that the only book of rules you work by is "Alice in Wonderland", where nothing is what it seems to be, and mirrors and deceitfullness are all over.

Yep, it seems the "trolling" option was the correct one, and despite Garry Wroe's call for a more adult approach to debate and greater mutual respect, you're once again kicking in with the badly thought-out, laboriously phrased personal attacks.

You have, by trying to discredit a discerning researcher on no good grounds at all, effectively hindered Leander to say anything in your favour

I'm not looking for Leander to say anything in my favour. I was interested in hearing his actual sentiments on the matter, and I believe his initial letter on the subject accurately represented his neutral stance. I wasn't the one who admitted to harbouring a "need" to substantiate my earlier conclusion - a "need" to be "right" in other words. An unfortunate by-product of your clumsy phraseology is that you end up admitting to things that only serve to make your intentions seem highly questionable. If you wanted a non-biased response, you would not have bombarded the embattled Leander with the low-down on what a horrible bastard I am and how I've accused him of lying.

And, taken on their own, Leander answered that yes, that they could well have been.

I agree, they could well have been. It cannot be excluded, but it isn't very likely, and thankfully that very impression was conveyed by Leander's irrefutably neutral stance that was later reinforced by the manual he provided. I mean I could go round in these repetetive circles for an eternity. If you haven't figured out yet that you need to come up with a better debating strategy after all this time, then you're just hopeless.

[babybird67]

You found a reason, well done!

I'm resourceful like that Vic; stick around, you'll find out. It was the only possible reason that made sense in the circumstances as well.

No, I said the selection reproduced by yourself in post #281 was insufficient to be sent to Leander becaus eit didn't contain the requisite 10 signatures.

Right...so we HAVE to have the ten signatures from that particular montage, but you raise no objection to only have ONE from the other side. There is no insufficiency in only sending one of the other three? Contradiction by Vic? Surely not! Impossible (said with French accent...ironically).

No he didn't, the word "meagre" is Fish's English translation of what the expert said.

Right. So it really meant "entirely sufficient" in English and you are best placed to translate that instead of Fish because you speak fluent Swedish?

Or, perhaps you are persuasively arguing we are unable to trust Fish's translations of words which Leander has used...so, if we have to dismiss "meagre", we need also to dismiss everything else Fish kindly translated from Leander.

Wow...great! Result! Another spectacular own goal! Now we have nothing left, that anyone other than Fish can understand, from Leander to argue over...nice one, Vic, perhaps i've underestimated you.


I'll repeat again what Leander said for you, as you still seem confused. When he said it, he was answering the question Fish asked him. He told Fish he could not answer the question in any other than a "personal" (or maybe that meant "clown", we had better ask you) and "spontaneous" (maybe that meant "lightbulb", Jeez i wish i was as fluent in this as you are ) comment because anything more "is not possible" with the materials he was supplied with. So no, we weren't asking different questions at all.

On a brighter note, the monkeys are up to G now and i have full confidence that by this evening they will have made it right up to M.

[Ben]

Don't forget this part (and I paraphrase): ... but based on the samples and without extenuating circumstances such as both men being taught by the same teacher ( and how likely is that (he says)), the appearances are that they probably the work of the same man.

But no such impression was conveyed in Leander's first neutral stance, which means he subsequently upgraded his view to become more Toppy-endorsing than even his SKL manual should realistically allow. Why this should have been the case is anyone's guess - I still think mine would dovetail quite nicely with the evidence - but the bottom line is that nobody can be expected to swallow two conflicting stances from the same expert simultaneously, especially when we know full well that contradictions have taken place - proven ones. All that nonsense about there being no differences besides amplitude, for example, was all provably false, and all it took was a quick revisiting of Leander's first post to realise this.

This is about exactly what Fisherman said in the first place, several months ago. If everyone would have accepted the word 'probable' or the word 'likely', we could have been done with Leander a long time ago

Which equates, essentially, to: Wouldn't it all have been so much easier if everyone swallowed the irresponsible misinterpretation of a neutral stance that we were insisting was present from the outset. Well, sure, the world would be a wonderful place if everyone agreed with us all the time, but arguing that "none of this would have happened if everyone had agreed with me" clearly isn't going to fly here. As debating strategies go, that's even worse that blitzing, triumphalist rhetoric, and repetition of oft-refuted assertions.

This doesn't change things with Iremonger, but I very seriously doubt, given the same information without all the surrounding 'coincidences' about the men, she can come to a different conclusion.

Why would you seriously doubt that? Because you are so invested with the authority of your own irrational view that even an expert armed with a full analysis must be wrong to challenge it?

My guess is most of us will have a bit of closure on this soon, and we can move on to such things as 'real' suspects.

And we'd all be looking to you, as usual, as the barmometer of suspect merit, such is your astounding knowledge about serial crime and policing in general. It really is amazing though that the people who are so aggressively insistent that they have "closure" already, and that they're consequently prepared to "move on", fail most spectacularly to do so. Now you're going to contact Iremonger, despite having made your mind up already!