The Leander Analysis

[Ben]

Why haven't we had a simple, direct answer to the question, then? Did she, or did she not, have a copy of the original marriage certificate in front of her, or an extract from an official duplicate, in a clerk's handwriting? It's easy enough to answer.

We have, Gareth.

We have had reputable sources attesting to the fact that Iremonger compared the three statement signatures with Toppy's marriage certificate signature, not photocopies thereof, and certainly not a modern piece of paper with the details filled in by a modern registrar. Even if we didn't have an answer to the question of whether ot not the last option came into play, we can still reject it as an unbelievably outlandish suggestion. I jokingly compared it to "needing an answer" to the question of whether the moon was made out of cheese, but the serious point remains - that suggestion can be utterly dismissed. There is simply no way that a professional document examiner could have made such a mistake. They are fully appraised of the FRC's copying practice, and can certainly tell the difference between a modern piece of copier-fresh paper and a turn-of-the century historical document.

I don't find it partcularly surprising that Iremonger should have been so emphatic about her dismissal of the 1888pg1 signature as a match with the Toppy signature, since a professional in the field would undoubtedly know what to look for. The dismissal doesn't appear to have been solely on the basis of mismatching H's either.

I recall you helpfully providing your signatures, but it is my honest opinion that they didn't reveal much difference at all. At least, there were far less differences apparent from your signatures than there were between Toppy and the witness over a similar time frame. Toppy evolved very little over time, with his distinctive closed G-loops and northwards-pointing n-mails remaining in place over 13 years.

Would any of those good people be qualified to register any scepticism when attending a lecture on subatomic physics, or whether a ju-ju practitioner was going about his business in the proper way?

As I mentioned previously, their value lies in recounting what Iremonger did, not how well they thought she did it.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

OK, so your saying Toppy's signature was consistent 98-11, so that suggests that you can extrapolate backwards beyond the limit of the available data and 88-98 should be consistent too, which is a valid point

Thanks Vic, and yes, that's precisely what I was getting at. It wouldn't entitle us to discount the possibility that Toppy didn't register anything like a similar degree of consistency prior to 1898, I'd consider it fairly unlikely. I'd agree that he wasn't likely to have signed his name on a regular basis when he was 22, but even back then, I'd imagine that the majority of people would have signed their names often enough by their early twenties to have at least decided on a style and cemented a few idiosyncracies.

Firstly, I wouldn't classify any of the changes as "radical", and secondly, 10 years is a long time for any one of Leander's factors to come into play.

Radical may be the wrong word, but they would be more than sufficient to render the proposal that the signatures were written by the same hand rather unlikely, in my view. It's also significant that while 10 years would have been sufficient for one of Leander's explanations to come into play, it is clear that they didn't over an even longer time period (1898 to 1911), or if they did, they certainly didn't impact upon the signatures.

It should also be noted that one of your changes concerns the "n" which is truncated in one of the signatures and therefore that weakens it's significance.

Rob Clack was kind enough to provide a copy of the original un-truncated scan of the first page signature. I will provide a link to the post in question tomorrow, but as I recall, the n-tail curled off downwards in marked contrast to any of Toppy's efforts.

Best regards,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

Sorry Sam..

I could have phrased that rather better than I did. I'll leave the argument to those who know best from now on. Best regards, Jane x

[Jane Welland]

Sorry Sam..

I could have phrased that rather better than I did. I'll leave the argument to those who know best from now on. Best regards, Jane x

[Jane Welland]

Sorry Sam..

I could have phrased that rather better than I did. I'll leave the argument to those who know best from now on. Best regards, Jane x

[Sam Flynn]

I could have phrased that rather better than I did.

So should I have phrased my response better, Jane I'll admit I was a bit touchy yesterday.

[caz]

Iremonger's analysis should be tempered in light of two factors, Vic - firstly, that we still don't know whether she was looking at a copy of the original wedding certificate or an official duplicate, i.e. one completed by a clerk rather than Hutchinson himself. Secondly, her suggestion that Hutchinson might not have signed all three pages of the witness statement should give us significant pause for thought (compare my recent montage, which you kindly mentioned earlier).

The much-vaunted Sue Iremonger suggested that the witness statement signatures could have been written by different hands.

Hi Sam,

Quick pop in as I have not caught up properly with any Hutch threads lately.

Have we heard more from Sue Iremonger then? The last I heard was that she was definite that Badham had signed for the witness on page one, while pages two and three were both signed by the witness.

Of course, as I've said before, if anyone thinks she could be wrong about this particular signature comparison, they would have to concede that she could also be wrong about the two witness sigs not matching the one from Toppy's wedding certificate, especially as she did not express the same certainty over that one.

If people start to pick and choose which of Sue's opinions/conclusions they want us to go along with and which they don't, they must either be recruiting their own untrained eyeballs to endorse or doubt the work of a professional document examiner (which is downright cheeky if they are busy telling others they must trust and respect expert opinion and not their own eyesight!) or it's personal bias - and very likely both.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Caz,

It remains as you have said. First page Badham and the others Hutchinson. Nothing has been further clarified, and it seems she ain't talking.

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Of course, as I've said before, if anyone thinks she could be wrong about this particular signature comparison, they would have to concede that she could also be wrong about the two witness sigs not matching the one from Toppy's wedding certificate

In principle, you're quite right, but the people who "think she could be wrong" must first be in an adequate position to demonstrate superior expertise than the professional document examiner that Sue Iremonger clearly is before dismissing her conclusions. Otherwise they run the risk of their dismissals being "dismissed" themselves. This ought to be acknowledged prior to casting any judgement on the matter, rather than picking and choosing which bits of Iremonger's conclusions they wish to endorse, which I'd be the first to agree in the step in the wrong direction.

You made the reasonable suggestion yourself that Iremonger could have been “informed” from the outset that Hutchinson was not responsible, thus accounting for her “definite” claim, but even if that wasn’t the case, a handful of a hobbyists arguing for the dismissal of an expert because they think “their own eyesight” tells them something different is hardly likely to cast any doubt on her findings or expertise. I’m not saying you’re one such hobbyist, but even if I personally felt that signature #1 matched the other two on the statement, the last thing I’ll do is claim that my judgement should be prioritised over hers.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Ben,

Sigh. As you well know (unless you have the memory and comprehension skills of a backward earwig), I made all sorts of qualifications regarding that particular 'suggestion'. Once again for the record, what I said was that if someone with no knowledge or preconceptions had come here and read that Sue had claimed Badham was definitely responsible for sig one, they might have been forgiven for wondering if something other than her professional opinion had informed such a clearcut, no nonsense conclusion.

You are free to find the suggestion a reasonable one, if you think Sue could have neglected to tell people how she could be so certain in this instance and let them think it was all down to her comparison skills.

Do you think Badham was responsible for sig one? I thought you agreed with Crystal that one person signed all three pages (Jack the Ripper using an alias, wasn't it?), but I apologise profusely if I have you mixed up another poster.

Love,

Constant Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Caz,

It's the age kicking in, but was that Crystal, Rose, or Jane? Maybe another person? I'm just confused now.

Mike

[Ben]

Don't "sigh" at me.

If you're having trouble staying awake, nobody's forcing you to contribute here, and if all you've got in your limited insult-based armoury is ponderous and belaboured comparisons with insects, then you are clearly wasting your own time (or more likely, trying to get me banned or suspended by encouraging me to respond with disproportionate hostility which, I'll admit, was a huge temptation).

they might have been forgiven for wondering if something other than her professional opinion had informed such a clearcut, no nonsense conclusion

It wouldn't have made a scrap of difference whether they had "no knowledge or preconceptions" when they "wondered" if Iremonger had been supplied with information pertaining to signature #1 prior to embarking on her analysis. They would still be forgiven for concluding as much, since it's so obviously a reasonable suggestion. As for my own views on the signatures, it would seem to my untrained eye that all signatures appended to the statement originated from the same hand, but you won't find me sticking my head in the sand like an ostrich or a hobbyist and claiming that an expect must be wrong because my eyes must be correct.

[caz]

Hi Ben,

I sighed because I caught you repeating an old lie of yours about my position, long after I had explained to you why it was a lie and advised you to quote me directly in future if you couldn't trust yourself to represent my position honestly or accurately. It's your own credibility at stake if you persist in misrepresenting me like this, because every time you do it another reader must wonder whether you are being blatantly dishonest or you're just simple. What would you put this unfortunate habit of yours down to?

You claimed I had: 'made the reasonable suggestion yourself that Iremonger could have been “informed” from the outset that Hutchinson was not responsible, thus accounting for her “definite” claim'.

But I have never claimed that I thought Sue could have been informed from the outset, nor did I claim it was a reasonable suggestion. In fact I have had to tell you on several occasions now that I don't believe this could be the case because I don't think it's reasonable for anyone who knows anything about Sue's work to think that she would ever give the misleading impression that she had used only her comparison skills to reach a conclusion if she had been given the information on a plate via other means.

If for some reason you have difficulty understanding the above paragraph could you just say so now and get it over with instead of repeating your mangled interpretation of it yet again at some point in the future. I don't mind you making a regular tit of yourself but correcting you does get a bit of a chore.

Just stop lying and I'll stop sighing.

Is that simple enough for you?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Gosh, as soon as one keyboard warrior leaves, another one - yet more vacuous and aggressive - takes over almost immediately, and all in the interests of yet another ill-fated attempt to take me on.

I sighed because I caught you repeating an old lie of yours about my position, long after I had explained to you why it was a lie and advised you to quote me directly in future if you couldn't trust yourself to represent my position honestly or accurately.

If you think for one measly moment that you've "caught" me doing anything of the sort, then you're either a liar yourself or just plain delusional. Both would be my guess, but even if you're now claiming that people can't be forgiven for assuming that Iremonger had been supplied with the pre-analysis piece of information that signature #1 wasn't written by the same person who authored signatures #2 and #3, you'd be wrong anyway, since anyone could be forgiven for arriving at such a conclusion, irrespective of their familiarity with the topic.

What you think of the suggestion is irrelevant, quite frankly. You made it, and it has obvious merit regardless of the experience (or lack thereof) of whoever offered it, whether it comes from a newbee with no knowledge of Iremonger and her work, or a more experienced hobbyist. If you're so intent on downplaying the validity of the suggestion you made (whether you agree with it or not) then I'm baffled why you should have mentioned it at all.

Fundamentally, don't keep coming up with lousy excuses for invalidating Iremonger's findings. Your none-too-subtle implication is that Iremonger's view (whether the result of personal analysis or prior information - the former, most likely) on the first signature somehow detracts from the validity of her analysis as a whole, and that simply isn't permissible as a deduction, since our own interpretations of the visual stimuli don't trump hers.

Just stop lying and I'll stop sighing. Is that simple enough for you?

Sigh as often as you like. I don't care, but if you're intent on repeating these previously buried micro-arguments, go ahead. Please. I'm playing.

[Sam Flynn]

In principle, you're quite right, but the people who "think she could be wrong" must first be in an adequate position to demonstrate superior expertise than the professional document examiner that Sue Iremonger clearly is

That doesn't necessarily follow, Ben - one doesn't need a BSc in something-or-other to be able to point out the bleedin' obvious.