The Leander Analysis

[babybird67]

Surely all we're asking is, is this signature by the same person as this signature? And the answer is "not impossible". I've not stated whether I think Toppy is Hutch, and for the record I would have to answer "not impossible".

Including more signatures would inevitably introduce more dissimilarities, so maybe the first question would have to be, are the 3 original signatures by the same hand? Which I think Ben was hinting at in his blind\double-blind comments from yesterday.

KR,
Vic.

What's your point here Vic? That where there are three examples of a signature it is all right for someone to select the one that is most similar because they WANT to believe they are by the same hand and therefore just show that to the expert?

With-holding information is bias; bias is unprofessional; Leander did not have the full set of signatures to compare. How do we know what he might have concluded if he had? It's too late now. Leander's view is utterly useless.

That there is doubt about which of the three sigs are Hutch's is even MORE reason to include them.

Experts need the full picture, not copies, not selective sampling, not idiots skewing their results with unforgiveable bias.

[Ben]

I think there are several points there that could be considered 'salient', hmmm?

Absolutely, Jane, and perhaps chief amongst them is this one:

"even though they may be in the same language, features that are common in that culture could mistakenly be thought to be unusual".

This factor and the others cited may account for the fact that:

"Document examiners normally work on writings in their own language "

[Fisherman]

Really, Jane! What IS this?

The name George is not uncommon in Sweden (George Rydeberg is one of our most renowned actors, for example), and the suffix -son is the most common suffix around in Sweden when it comes to surnames.

Besides, I would have thought that you would now have recognized that some Swedes are not at a total loss when it comes to using the British language! And Frank Leander is a man that travels a lot to conferences and such - generally given in English. Letīs hope he is not totally chanceless to pick up on things there...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I am, though, of the meaning that I shall be at least awarded the right to speak my own meaning

Nobody has denied you that right, Fisherman.

But you must also understand that other people disagree with that meaning, and that it's an exercise in futility on your part to keep repeating your originial claim "Leander saw a probable match" when you know full well that is has been challenged times. That is shoving a thing down people's throats, Fisherman. I'll resist the temptation to copy and paste a generic respose to this oft-repeated assertion. If you feel you are able to exercise a similar degree of restraint next time you decide to repeat the same previously challenged assertion, there will be a lot less repetition and considerably less hostility.

Best regards,
Ben

[babybird67]

Victor

there are variations in the script if you read the untranslated text. Variations like that make a difference.

Would you like to comment on the fact that Fish withheld all the signatures from the expert? Why dont you think Fish trusted the expert with the full information? What possible reason could there be for not subjecting all the relevant examples to analysis? I'd be interested to know what you think.

Sam/Mike...i'd be interested in what you both think of this selective analysing as well...does it cut any ice with either of you?

[Victor]

Script refers to actual characters of writing. Egyptian script is not the same as English script. Leander's original responses show that he is operating within a different script to English script. That is quite plain.

Erm... Leander is Scandinavian isn't he, so therefore he is using the same script (alphabet) as English!

Victor, i suggest you reappraise your position in the light of the FACTS. Leander's "comparison" was flawed from the start... Fish engineered it to be so. If he had wanted a fair, professional appraisal, he would have honestly offered all the relevant information, which means all the signatures on the witness statement.

Surely all we're asking is, is this signature by the same person as this signature? And the answer is "not impossible". I've not stated whether I think Toppy is Hutch, and for the record I would have to answer "not impossible".

Including more signatures would inevitably introduce more dissimilarities, so maybe the first question would have to be, are the 3 original signatures by the same hand? Which I think Ben was hinting at in his blind\double-blind comments from yesterday.

KR,
Vic.

[Jane Welland]

David Ellen says...

I have looked at the link posted by BB - and here is what it says, verbatim, and anyone who wants to see for themselves can of course do so by following said link:

The relevant passage actually reads as follows:

Document examiners normally work on writings in their own language and have little difficulty recognising each letter; they can refer to their experience of variation found within writings of styles familiar to them. When writings originating from other countries are examined, even though they may be in the same language, features that are common in that culture could mistakenly be thought to be unusual. A greater difficulty arises when unfamiliar languages are encountered. Although many of the features found will be recognizable as atypical of writings with which the examiner is familiar, he will be unaware of which are common or uncommon in that style. In these cases, caution must be exercised so that what may be considered unusual is not given too much weight.

Scientific Examination of Documents: Methods and Techniques (3rd Ed.)

David Ellen, 2005.

I think there are several points there that could be considered 'salient', hmmm?

Best to all,

Jane x

[babybird67]

<takes great delight in handing Fisherman a spade>

...keep digging man...the next position you adopt must logically be that Leander didnt have to look at any signatures at all...he just knew by intellectual osmosis that they "could not be ruled out".

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland:

"1.Why, if the match between the signatures is as clear and obvious as some would have it, have the two experts who have seen those very signatures not concurred with that view?

2. Who are the 'anti-Toppy' camp? So far, I haven't witnessed anyone posting the words 'Toppy was not Hutch', whereas I have certainly seen the reverse. Raising concerns, asking questions - none of that amounts to opposition. Are we seriously suggesting that people should accept as truth and absolute fact the opinions of a few who believe in the identification without questioning that? Surely not.

3. How can Leander have provided an accurate appraisal of the signature material when he didn't have it all in the first place? Whilst it may have some merit - it must remain seriously flawed imo. Fisherman, you seem to think that you have sent Leander the best example in your view, but I'm afraid I don't think that was really the point. If you were prepared to let Leander make his own mind up about a match, or not, he should have been supplied with all three."

1. One of them have, Jane: Leander. I find it hard to interpret him in any other way when he tells us that he would be surprised if it was NOT a match.

2. Well, Jane, my contention is that Ben would not be opposed to participating in that "camp", and I can identify a few otheres how may contamplate popping in. I did not invent the epiteth myself, but I must say that I am having no trouble at all realizing that there are two sides in this issue.
I am not, however, suggesting that anybody should accept anything, with or without questioning it. I am, though, of the meaning that I shall be at least awarded the right to speak my own meaning without being accused of having persuaded Leander to lie on my behalf, just as I am quite unwilling to adjust to anybodys suggestion that I am shoving things down their throats. Thin whatever you want, but do not be surprised if I criticize thoughts that I find unrelated to reality.

3. Leander cannot give a full opinion whichever way you look at it, Jane.He can, however, and have also done so, state that he is of the meaning that the signature from the protocol he looked at and Toppys signatures are a probable match.
It would seem now that there is a wish that he had seen all three signatures, and that a wished-for negative verdict on behalf on signatures one and two would have "washed off" enough for him to say that Toppy could not have been the man...?

As I keep saying, Leanders examination remains an unscientific one in many respects. But we DO have a comparison made regarding the third signature, taken in isolation and therefore assessed by nothing but itīs own inherent qualitites, and that prompted Leander to recognize a probable match. No matter if he would have thought the other two written by Josef Stalin and the Shah of Persia, respectively, the fact remains that we have a probable match according to Leander.
That, and nowhere else, is where the all-important significance lies.

the best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

Victor writes:

"Maybe that's where we disagree then, I think he's saying that he can't give a professional "definite match" becasue of the lack of sufficient sample size, but those provided do match."

Exactly, Victor, and that should be pretty obvious to anybody with a talent for reading - but are you not afraid to fan the fire again? Ben HAS warned you not to disagree with him, mind you...!

Welcome aboard on the sane side, anyways. No fires around here!

The very best,
Fisherman

Fish, exactly how obtuse are you?

You cannot self select which signatures to send to someone...you have revealed your utter bias by not providing the signatures available and by manipulating the results of Leander's "analysis" by with-holding from him the information he needed to give us even a vaguely informed opinion.

You truly are an utter dolt! Utterly. Totally. Irrefutably.

Victor, i suggest you reappraise your position in the light of the FACTS. Leander's "comparison" was flawed from the start... Fish engineered it to be so. If he had wanted a fair, professional appraisal, he would have honestly offered all the relevant information, which means all the signatures on the witness statement.

[babybird67]

Hi Ben,
Maybe that's where we disagree then, I think he's saying that he can't give a professional "definite match" becasue of the lack of sufficient sample size, but those provided do match.


But "cannot be ruled out" is more positive than "cannot be ruled in" isn't it?

And finally, does script refer to language? Are French and English the same script whereas Mandarin is different?

KR,
Vic.

Hi Victor

there were three witness signatures on the statement of George Hutchinson. Fish now admits he self-selected which single one of these to send to Leander for comparison. Do you think that is a professional and scientific way to go about establishing facts? Do you not think that if Leander had seen all three signatures he would have been in a much better position to express an opinon, either way or neutral, on whether the signatures as a whole matched those made by Toppy? It is no good saying "those provided do match" when we now know that two thirds of the signatures available, most notably the ones which show most deviation from Toppy's examples, were deliberately withheld from the analysis. If you fancy basing anything definite on foundations like those, i'd advise you to treble your home insurance!

Script refers to actual characters of writing. Egyptian script is not the same as English script. Leander's original responses show that he is operating within a different script to English script. That is quite plain.



best wishes

[Ben]

Hi Victor,

I think he's saying that he can't give a professional "definite match" becasue of the lack of sufficient sample size, but those provided do match

I'd have less trouble accepting this interpretation if he conveyed this impression - even by the vaguest of insinuations in the most guarded terminology - that he felt this to be the case. Unfortunately, this didn't happen.

But "cannot be ruled out" is more positive than "cannot be ruled in" isn't it?

Oh, absolutely.

The latter effectively means "impossible", whereas the former means "not impossible". Unfortunately, neither mean probable or any synonyms thereof.

In this instance "script" refers to the actual writing. At least, I'd imagine so.

Best regards,
Ben

P.S. To Fisherman: Victor wasn't fanning flames in expressing disagreement with me, at least not today anyway. Fanning the flames is making inflammatory comments intended to goad the opposition, and "Welcome aboard on the sane side, anyways" qualifies rather well on that score. Don't do it again, please. Most annoying.

[Fisherman]

Victor writes:

"Maybe that's where we disagree then, I think he's saying that he can't give a professional "definite match" becasue of the lack of sufficient sample size, but those provided do match."

Exactly, Victor, and that should be pretty obvious to anybody with a talent for reading - but are you not afraid to fan the fire again? Ben HAS warned you not to disagree with him, mind you...!

Welcome aboard on the sane side, anyways. No fires around here!

The very best,
Fisherman

[Victor]

The problem here is that you cannot simultaneously convey a neutral stance AND a belief that the signatures register a "remarkable consistency", simply because the latter isn't neutral at all!

Hi Ben,
Maybe that's where we disagree then, I think he's saying that he can't give a professional "definite match" becasue of the lack of sufficient sample size, but those provided do match.

If Leander's neutrality needed any further reinforcement, he even provided a grading system, from which we learn that the expression he used, "cannot be ruled out", was applicable in the cases of neutrality.

But "cannot be ruled out" is more positive than "cannot be ruled in" isn't it?

And finally, does script refer to language? Are French and English the same script whereas Mandarin is different?

KR,
Vic.

[Jane Welland]

I ask again...

The following questions, to which, so far, I have received no response - let alone a satisfactory one.

1.Why, if the match between the signatures is as clear and obvious as some would have it, have the two experts who have seen those very signatures not concurred with that view?

2. Who are the 'anti-Toppy' camp? So far, I haven't witnessed anyone posting the words 'Toppy was not Hutch', whereas I have certainly seen the reverse. Raising concerns, asking questions - none of that amounts to opposition. Are we seriously suggesting that people should accept as truth and absolute fact the opinions of a few who believe in the identification without questioning that? Surely not.

3. How can Leander have provided an accurate appraisal of the signature material when he didn't have it all in the first place? Whilst it may have some merit - it must remain seriously flawed imo. Fisherman, you seem to think that you have sent Leander the best example in your view, but I'm afraid I don't think that was really the point. If you were prepared to let Leander make his own mind up about a match, or not, he should have been supplied with all three.

As it stands, I think 'analysis' is too strong a word for what Leander has done here.

Best to all.

Jane x