The Leander Analysis

[Victor]

Well, a certain ability for the task would help. If it was simply a case of starting from scratch, with no natural aptitude when it comes to such analyses, then anyone can become a document examiner. Since that isn't the case, it ought to follow that both experience and skill are requried for the task...

Hi Ben,

What special "ability" do you need for document examination? Certainly there are pre-requisites like being able to see, but the rest is comparison which I suppose could be an ability in that some are better than others due to things like attention to detail, and like most human traits it gets better the more it's exercised, so essentially I think that anyone can become a document examiner with the proper training.

I wasn't suggesting for a moment that Gareth's views weren't clearly or concisely expressed, but that doesn't mean they carry more weight than Iremongers. With no disrespect to Gareth, I'd argue the reverse for aforementioned reasons.

I wasn't arguing that Gareth's views "carry more weight" than Iremonger's directly because of the way they were expressed, I was saying they "carry more weight" because I can follow the logic used, and that that is due to the way they are expressed.

Granted, but it's far worse to dismiss an expert on flimsy grounds and then set yourself up as the replacement expert, not that I'm suggesting you've done so.

But "flimsy" is subjective, and to make it clear, I don't think Gareth has attempted to set himself up as a "replacement expert", I think he's made valid observations that undermine Iremonger's conclusions.

KR,
Vic.

[Ben]

Hi Victor,

but the rest is comparison which I suppose could be an ability in that some are better than others due to things like attention to detail, and like most human traits it gets better the more it's exercised

That's essentially what I mean - you perfect a natural predisposition through practice, which is why experienced professional document examiners are invariably used in preference to non-experts even for the seemingly simpler tasks.

Unfortunately, the ability to phrase things clearly and concisely does not bestow a non-expert with professional experience to rival that of a forensic document examiner, nor does it enhance the quality of the substandard material used in the argument. I'm not saying I don't follow Gareth's logic, and I daresay I agree with him more often that not, but any deductions made from 2-D scanned material that convey false impressions (not deliberately, I should stress) of size and angle must play second fiddle to inferences derived from original documents. As such, Gareth’s interpretation cannot possibly be construed as “carrying more weight” than Iremonger’s, and they certainly don't undermine her findings.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

any deductions made from 2-D scanned material that convey false impressions (not deliberately, I should stress) of size and angle must play second fiddle to inferences derived from original documents.

Such as, Ben? I'm referring specifically to comparing signatures here. Can't size and angle be determined from a scan? (And are signatures invariant in size anyway?)

As such, Gareth’s interpretation cannot possibly be construed as “carrying more weight” than Iremonger’s, and they certainly don't undermine her findings.

I'd agree with the "not carrying more weight" bit, although I'd insist on "as good as". At least, I don't entertain the opinion that different people signed the witness statement.

[Victor]

As such, Gareth’s interpretation cannot possibly be construed as “carrying more weight” than Iremonger’s, and they certainly don't undermine her findings.

Hi Ben,

It definitely does undermine her findings, because it clearly demonstrates the opposite of what she stated.

KR,
Vic.

[Ben]

I disagree in the strongest possible terms, Victor. I’m not sure how anything can be “clearly demonstrated” on the basis of the computerized material, especially when the demonstration is purporting to militate against a conclusion made by an expert practitioner using original documents.

Hi Gareth,

“Can't size and angle be determined from a scan?”

I’m sure they can, but only if the scans depict the true sizes, and if the signatures were reproduced in the context of the whole document (i.e. to determine angles). Neither of which occurred here.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

I disagree in the strongest possible terms, Victor. I’m not sure how anything can be “clearly demonstrated” on the basis of the computerized material

It's a two-dimensional image we're talking about, Ben - almost exactly the same as that which would appear on the original page. Furthermore, empirical studies have shown that Nth generation photocopies are perfectly good when it comes to accurate signature comparison tasks.

especially when the demonstration is purporting to militate against a conclusion made by an expert practitioner using original documents.

Unfortunately...

a) We don't know that she used original documents (not that it makes much difference, as we've seen from scientific studies); and

b) She seems to have arrived at a demonstrably iffy opinion about the 1888 witness statement signatures.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

It's a two-dimensional image we're talking about, Ben - almost exactly the same as that which would appear on the original page.

No, not exactly two-dimensional. Document examiners have stressed the importance of analysing the original documents specifically because they are not two-dimensional, and a difference in pen pressure can be detected for this reason. I dispute that any studies have demonstrated that photocopies are "perfectly good", and in any case, Leander seems to be of a contrary view. Some photocopies may be reasonably adequate if they convey true size and are presented in the context of the full document, and I'm afraid some of these montages fail to qualify on both scores.

b) She seems to have arrived at a demonstrably iffy opinion about the 1888 witness statement signatures.

You're entitled to an opinion, of course, but from my own perspective it's a bit of a no-brainer when an professional in possession of the original documents is set against a non-professional in possession of computerized facsimilies. That's not a put-down, since I belong in the latter category myself.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

No, not exactly two-dimensional. Document examiners have stressed the importance of analysing the original documents specifically because they are not two-dimensional

And empirical studies have demonstrated quite clearly that two-dimensional, Nth-generation, photocopies are perfectly good enough to make accurate decisions in the specific sphere of signature comparison, which is what we have here.

You're entitled to an opinion, of course, but from my own perspective it's a bit of a no-brainer when an professional in possession of the original documents is set against a non-professional in possession of computerized facsimilies.

You seem to place far too much faith in reputation, Ben. Longevity of service is no guarantee of accuracy, especially in the fringe sciences.

[Ben]

And empirical studies have demonstrated quite clearly that two-dimensional, Nth-generation, photocopies are perfectly good enough to make accurate decisions in the specific sphere of signature comparison

Well, they demonstrated that the document examiners used in the studies invariably made accurate judgments even in the absence of the originals, Gareth (which serves as a testament, more than anything else, to the abilities of the document examiners), and that the originals increased the likelihood of arriving at the correct conclusion. One might assume that the photocopies used in said studies were of good quality, conveying true size and context, which, through no deliberate trickery of anyone here, wasn't the case with some of the montages.

But I fear we're straying into done-to-death territory here!

All the best,
Ben

[Graham]

Gareth, Ben,

I wonder: does anyone, apart from you two gents, still actually read this thread any more? I lost track of it in about 1929 (or so it seems).

Bon soir,

Graham

[Fisherman]

I do.

Fisherman

[Graham]

Oh, and Fisherman does.

Graham

[perrymason]

I do.

Fisherman

Yes, but we know you like the fireless friction my friend.

Hope things are good in your corner Fisherman....cheers mate.

[Scott Nelson]

And with that let's put an end to this ludicrous thread.

Not gonna happen...damn.

[caz]

Sorry Scotty, but I've just been catching up with all this and can't resist...

I haven't started on the 'When does many...' thread yet, so some of my observations may be redundant, but I'm sure someone will soon tell me if that's the case.

Neutrality is what came across very strongly in Leander's first contribution. He listed some similatiries, but observed that "against these", there are differences. On balance, he observed that "it could not be ruled out" that we're dealing with the same person.

That, for the record, reflects my stance on the matter.

Personally, I don't consider it likely that Toppy was the individual we seek, but I wouldn't dream of "ruling him out" conclusively.

Hi Ben,

You claimed that you ‘wouldn’t dream’ of ruling Toppy out as GH the witness. But Leander stated quite clearly that Toppy couldn’t be ruled out, based on the material he saw, which means that in his current professional opinion Toppy could have signed that police statement.

We know that he meant that, and not anything along the lines of: “I don’t consider it likely, although it’s not totally out of the question”. How do we know? Because the man himself subsequently qualified his initial statement, making it crystal clear that it meant nothing of the sort. According to Fish, it was much more like: “I would be surprised if we do not have a match, and I suspect forthcoming evidence to confirm this”. There’s nothing to reconcile if Leander believes a full examination of the relevant original documents is only likely to confirm the possibility and increase the chances of a match, given the number and nature of similarities and differences he has already managed to observe.

Had Leander stated as much immediately following his initial statement, I don’t see how anyone could have had a major difficulty with it. It’s no more contradictory than if he’d said instead: “While a match cannot be categorically excluded at this stage, I sincerely doubt that comparing the original documents would strengthen the case for one, and is quite likely to undermine or rule it out by emphasising certain differences”. And Fish would have had to live with that, and you’d have been entitled to whinge if he had tried to impose a strictly neutral stance on Leander, with a view to pushing him from the negative side of neutral to the positive side. As it is, you have to digest what Leander said and not spit out the bits that taste too positive for your liking.

Having said all that, I accept that Sue Iremonger saw enough crucial differences in the original signatures to suggest to her that Toppy was unlikely to have been the witness. But she was also ‘definite’ that no GH (Hutch or Toppy) signed page one of that statement. If anyone thinks Sue wrongly identified this sig as a mismatch with the other two, they can’t then claim that she was probably right to judge these two a mismatch with Toppy’s - particularly as she admitted to being less than definite in the latter case.

The notion that she was supplied with prior misinformation as to what had already been established pre-analysis isn’t probable necessarily, but I wouldn’t rule it out completely.

Misinformation? Ah, so you do find Sue’s ‘definite’ conclusion regarding the page one sig dodgy, and you wouldn't completely rule out the possibility that she got it from an unreliable source and then passed it off as her own professional opinion. I'm sure she would be comforted to know she has you on her side.

As for me, I don't find her conclusion dodgy, nor do I think she would have arrived at it lightly, given the amount of similarity between the three sigs in question. On the contrary, if she had based her conclusion on anything other than her own experience and expertise, I imagine she would have wanted the source to be impeccable and would have said what it was.

Has nobody considered that Sue could have been correct about that page one sig, not because she saw a definite mismatch between that and the other two, despite their evident similarity to so many untrained modern eyes on these GH threads, but because that was the natural conclusion she was left with after recognising a definite match between the page one sig and the statement itself, in Badham’s hand? Maybe that’s where her long experience with questioned documents gave her an edge: was she able to recognise and positively identify a disguised hand (in this case one that had effectively ‘forged’ GH’s sig on a page that was otherwise pure, natural Badham, including the distinctively curly H), while not being quite as confident when comparing apparently undisguised GH signatures written a decade apart and in very different circumstances?

Have you not considered the possibility of one GH - witness and bridegroom - whose signature underwent subtle changes, according to whether he was making a witness statement in his early twenties, that was a complete fabrication, or only loosely based on truth, or making a mature, honest and sincere commitment to his bride ten years down the line? In short, if one’s signature can act even a wee bit like a lie detector, it might be unrealistic to expect two such occasions to produce clone-like signatures, identical in every last detail, even without all the other factors that can influence things, like age, time difference, writing materials, personal style choices and so on.

I still don’t get why signing Geo on one page and the full George on another is in any way suggestive of using an alias. If anything, using two versions of the same name smacks of spontaneity, familiarity and confidence, rather than two cautious stabs at signing a false name. If he chose George (and presumably practised writing George beforehand) why would he not write that each time on his big day? I always sign as Caroline outside of ripper circles. Away from the message boards I might sign occasionally as Caz, in a ripper context, but it depends on my mood and the circumstances. But it still feels a bit funny and unnatural, even after ten years of being Caz. So I’m not sure why anyone using a false name for criminal purposes would even think to bugger about with it, especially within the one very official document.

...I can hardly be blamed for having misread you slightly when so many of your posts – even the ones in which you express agreement with me – are so perpetually peppered with negative insinuations about my character and motivations.

I reserve the right to express opinions on the case itself that can occasionally coincide with yours, and at other times differ wildly from yours. It’s up to you to recognise when I’m doing the former. This is a separate issue from the various problems we have with each other’s methods of expression and argument, or our attempts to rock the opposition. In short, sometimes one can lean towards one ‘side’, while finding the opposing team, and the way they play the game, far more appealing. If I were being intellectually dishonest I’d be with Sam, Fish, the Good Michael, Victor et al like a shot. I much prefer the way they reason, even if I can’t (yet) accept their verdict. I’m sorry if that’s a bit too brutally honest, but I can rarely see much logic in any of your own reasoning, frankly, whether our thinking takes us in a broadly similar direction or puts us poles apart.

Love,

Caz
X