The Leander Analysis

[Fisherman]

Ben, desperate:

"If you think Leander was saying that there was a likeness in all handwriting elements, then we know for certain you're wrong. If that was the case, why on earth would he go on to mention specific differences concerning the handwriting elements? Please just think about it before."

Once again, Ben, what technical elements of writing did he NOT mention?

"Ah, but the manual never said any such thing"

Ah, but it DID.

"This is a "subsequent clarification", not his first letter, but notice the contradiction again. He's claiming this time that he didn't see any discrepances other than in the "amplitude between the expressions". Why, then, did the differences he specifically listed in his first post have nothing whatsoever to do with the "amplitude between the expressions"?"

The description of "amplitude" referred to the general, overall impression.

"I wouldn't quibble with the suggestion that there are obvious liknesses in certain respects. But then there are equally obvious dissimilarities in certain respects."

But that is not what he says, is it? He never even mentions any discrepancies. He is very exact and very spot on: When he uses the expression "cannot be ruled out" he recognizes that there are obvious likenesses in certain respects.
There is no other interpretation at hand but the obvious one: In Leanders world - and that is the world described in the manual! - "cannot be ruled out" is a manner of describing obvious likenesses having been found.

Once he has made this very, very clear, why on earth would we listen to you when you tell us that this cannot be? To what does your assertion that "cannot be ruled out" can only point to neutrality - when we KNOW, and have directly from Leanders mouth that in HIS WORLD, "cannot be ruled out" is NOT a neutral stance - possibly amount?
Why would anybody favour your take on things? Why would your recommendations for a semantic understanding of the expression carry any weight at all, long as we KNOW that you are wrong?

Why would we disallow Frank Leander, an expert in the field, to use an expression that has been used on innumerable occasions by himself and the SKL and quite possibly the whole conglomerate of forensic handstyle experts, just because you are having major difficulties of understanding it?

To whom would such a stance make sense, do you think? Who would side with you and say, "Yeah, letīs deny him the right to work from a semantic expression that does not tally with our own!" Who, Ben?

"In my world, the expression cannot be ruled out belongs to the same parish as there are obvious likenesses in certain respects"

There is no opening here for any other interpretation than the one I am making alongside Leander himself. He does not say that it CAN belong to the same parish - he firmly puts it beyond doubt that this is where it DOES belong.

You are getting bogged so deep down in this that your only hope to keep floatinīis your balls, Ben.
Are they filled with air?

Fisherman
tired of this game for the moment being. But you know, Ben - I may be back!

Fisherman

[Ben]

Oh, my giddy aunt.

Oh, sweet merciful crap.

Oh, holy testicles of doom.

Fisherman is trying to continue that absurd catfight about cutaway coats on a Hutchinson thread. Yipee! I'm playing. Let's completely derail this thread and engage with the fact that Fisherman, so embarrassed over his failing on this issue, is hoping to make up for it by regurgitating another of his lost causes - cutaway coats. Pity that he failed to pick up upon the salient issue concerning the Victoria and Albert garment:

"This example is a variation of the morning coat"

"Variation" meaning that it isn't a conventional cutaway as the dictionary definition terms it, or as the average dock labourer would recognise one from behind on a darkened Street in Victorian London: a garment with tails at the rear. Here is what the dictionary definition says:

1. A man's formal daytime coat, with front edges sloping diagonally from the waist and forming tails at the back.

Easy. You lose.

You can have variations of a cutaway, such as the one above, but to a man on the street viewing a garment from behind, a garment without tails wouldn't be considered a conventional cutaway or morning coat.

What you fail to remember is that you fought a useless battle, trying to state that cutaways always had tails (Haha! Swallow tails on the Easteders of 1888!), and that you subsequently was forced to realize that I was right, telling you that cutaways need not have any tails at all.

You're a boastful liar with a selective memory. I wasn't "forced to realise" anything other than your basic wrongness about everything including cutaway coats, and all the interests of polluting the topic of Stride with some ludicrously unpopular theory you were touting at the time. A conventional cutaway had tails - remove the tail, and it's a variation of the conventional cutaway.

I do my own homework, and I get it right.

No you don't. You stalk people around serial killer message boards, use your own children to pose as murder victims in order to score points, and you force-fit everything you've frantically googled into the conclusion that you've already jumped to from the outset.

Rest assured that I will rub your face in any remark of this kind you find fit to post henceforth.

Don't threaten me ever again, you hypocritical nauseating fraud.

You're deluded.

Go on, rub my face in it.

You're deluded.

Whoops, there I go again.

Come on, if you're going to make belligerent threats against me, fight properly and stop pretending you're leaving.

[Victor]

Fisherman
knowledgeable about cutaways - AND about what you had cut away

You're not talking Balls again are you Fish?

[Ben]

Stalky again:

Once again, Ben, what technical elements of writing did he NOT mention?

Well, for starters, there were the elements that he specifically referred to as being dissimilar to the statement three. That was easy, and if you think he mentioned all possible handwriting elements, you're either delusional (there I go again - fight me) or lying.

The description of "amplitude" referred to the general, overall impression.

No it most assuredly does not.

This is what the dictionary offers for "amplitude".

1. the state or quality of being ample, esp. as to breadth or width; largeness; greatness of extent.
2. large or full measure; abundance; copiousness.
3. mental range, scope, or capacity.

Now, let's return to the individual differences Leander listed in his first neutral post:

differences in certain liftings of the pen (?)

This has nothing whatsoever to do with amplitude, so already we've successfully refuted the statement you keep making that "the only discernable differences lie in the amplitude of the expressions". But in addition, we have:

the proportions of the tch-group

Well, that's a little closer, but he's arguing that the proportions within the "tch" group in the statement signatures are different to the proportions within the "tch" group in the Toppy signatures.

the perhaps most eyecatching differences in the shaping of some of the letters; G (the ground-shape), r and n at the end of the signature.

Nothing whatsoever to do with "amplitude" and everything to do with structure, despite your assurance that there were no structural differences. That's if we're taking on board what "amplitude" actually means, rather than telling us that we have yet another example of a department changing age-old unambiguous expressions for their own ends and not telling anyone about it unless specifically asked for clarification, but you'll need to contact Leander for the tenth time if that card is to be played again.

When he uses the expression "cannot be ruled out" he recognizes that there are obvious likenesses in certain respects.

Nonsense. He said that it cannot be ruled out that we're dealing with the same writer, i.e. that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that we're dealing with the same person. Neither can by used, by any responsible human being, as a synonym of "probable".

"cannot be ruled out" is a manner of describing obvious likenesses having been found.

Nonsense. "Cannot be ruled out" is a manner of describing cases where there may be tendencies in one direction or the other, and in this particular case, there were tendencies in both directions. So congratulations to Leander for using his manual correctly.

Once he has made this very, very clear, why on earth would we listen to you when you tell us that this cannot be?

You're listening to me, you idiot!

You're spending your entire day on me, despite threatening never to have any more dealings with me over and over again. I've never had anyone "listen" to me more in my life.

To what does your assertion that "cannot be ruled out" can only point to neutrality - when we KNOW, and have directly from Leanders mouth that in HIS WORLD..

You're just embarrassing Leander by creating a little world for Leander, and expecting the English-comprehending readership to treat such a concept with anything other than contempt and ridicule. "Cannot be ruled out" means "not impossible" in everyone's world because that it what the phrase literally means. Blissfully, Leander's "world" is also ours as we learn from his first neutral post and subsequent manual. Yours on the other hand...

But you know, Ben - I may be back!

So see you in about ten minutes, in other words.

[Sam Flynn]

Om Toppy, Toppy!

[Fisherman]

...aaand here we go again:

"Fisherman is trying to continue that absurd catfight about cutaway coats on a Hutchinson thread."

You may not have noticed, Ben, but YOU brought up the old Stride battle, plus you hinted at me having been wrong. I was not, to make a long story short and cut a pair of tails off.

"You can have variations of a cutaway, such as the one above, but to a man on the street viewing a garment from behind, a garment without tails wouldn't be considered a conventional cutaway or morning coat."

Sorry. Wrong. No, on second thoughts Iīm not sorry. Each and every jacket you can see on the pictures on a photo from the 1880:s that has had the lower portions of the front cut away is a cutaway, Ben. If you had been correct it would have been called an "addatail", but it is called a C-U-T-A-W-A-Y. Guess why.

"You're a boastful liar with a selective memory. I wasn't "forced to realise" anything other than your basic wrongness about everything including cutaway coats". "A conventional cutaway had tails - remove the tail, and it's a variation of the conventional cutaway."

Ugh, Ben - that is so totally unsubtle! Conventional means ordinary, Ben! What kind of cutaway jacket do you think was ordinary in the East End of 1888? The swallow tail variant or the short, tight-fitting jacket that was very popular in that age?
And you WERE forced to realize that I was right; you began by calling me filthy and "subhuman" (sic!) and refused to admit that there were cutaways with no tails, but after I had fed you a number of pictures that proved the contrary you came up with that pathetic "Iīll grant ye that there were tailless cutaways..." So letīs not rewrite history, Ben!

But this is just one of your desperate side trails and derailings, and not what we should talk about!

"Don't threaten me ever again, you hypocritical nauseating fraud."

..and there you go again! Where is the finesse?

"Well, for starters, there were the elements that he specifically referred to as being dissimilar to the statement three. That was easy, and if you think he mentioned all possible handwriting elements, you're either delusional (there I go again - fight me) or lying."

Ben, the "tch-group" is not a technical element of writing, Iīm afraid. The technical elements of writing are the ones Leander listed, end of story. Style, writing skills, text-spreading, proportions and letter shaping pretty much covers it all. I still wait for you to come up with something else that is not included here!

"The description of "amplitude" referred to the general, overall impression." (my wording)

"No it most assuredly does not.

This is what the dictionary offers for "amplitude".

1. the state or quality of being ample, esp. as to breadth or width; largeness; greatness of extent.
2. large or full measure; abundance; copiousness.
3. mental range, scope, or capacity." (your misconception)

Got it all wrong again, Ben - what I am saying is that Leanders statement that the differences were only differences in amplitude was a general assessment of the text samples as a whole. Putting it easier, what he would have meant was that the signatures resembled the same tune, but sometimes being played louder or with more bass - they differences were differences in amplitude, but NOT in character.

"Nothing whatsoever to do with "amplitude" and everything to do with structure, despite your assurance that there were no structural differences."

Yawn! Ben, we KNOW that there were "structural" differences - Leander said as much. Plus he said that there were possible explanations to them! When he spoke of differences in amplitude, he spoke of the general picture: the OVERALL impression of the signatures was of a sort that allowed him to say that the samples were of a kind where it would be fair to say that they differed only in amplitudes of the expressions. Thatīs how Leander put it, and far from being any "proof of inconsistency" it is instead useful evidence of a good match. To come up with your conclusion, you need to read it backwards.

"Nonsense. He said that it cannot be ruled out that we're dealing with the same writer, i.e. that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that we're dealing with the same person."

...aaaand he said that "cannot be ruled out" in his book was the equivalent of showing obvious likenesses. So no, it most certainly cannot be ruled out - in fact, he urged us to rule it IN!

"You're listening to me, you idiot!
You're spending your entire day on me, despite threatening never to have any more dealings with me over and over again. I've never had anyone "listen" to me more in my life."

A pity about the "idiot" thing - you come across as lacking all sorts of intellectuall edge, replacing it with blunt rudeness. That aside, this was not what I asked. I was asking you why you think anybody should take your word over Leanders in a question where Leander has firmly stated that "cannot be ruled out" points to obvious likenesses in his book, and where you claim that he should not be respected and believed?
So, once again - why would anybody take your unsubstantiated claim for truth, whilst looking away from Leanders own, substantiated assertion, seconded by his manual? Some riddle, eh?

"You're just embarrassing Leander by creating a little world for Leander, and expecting the English-comprehending readership to treat such a concept with anything other than contempt and ridicule. "Cannot be ruled out" means "not impossible" in everyone's world because that it what the phrase literally means."

Well, no - the only representative of the English-comprehending world that has treated Leander with contempt and ridicule is you. The rest of the posters - all English-comprehending - that have had their say all seem to accept that Leander was always at liberty to work by the expressions of his manual, in spite of the fact that you do not appreciate it. Once again, I ask you why anybody should invest anything in your assertion about what "cannot be ruled out" means to YOU, when we KNOW that it means something else in the context of the work at SKL?

In short, why would we believe you instead of Leander? Because he "changed his mind"? The rest of us out here that have expressed a wiew do not share that misconception. He never did. But you thought that you were at liberty to cook up a story along that line, slandering both me and Leander along the road.

Does not seem to work, does it? Sort of exploded in your face, did it not? And it will follow you all the way to perditions flames, Ben, to lend a little something from that high-strung vocabulary of yours. Nobody who has witnessed this charade of yours will ever discuss Ripperology with you without a rye smile on their lips, if Iīm correct. And I often am, Ben...

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Vic asks:

"You're not talking Balls again are you Fish?"

Not really, no.

The best, Vic!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam:

"Om Toppy, Toppy!"

Haha! As correct as it was the first time over, Sam! Whatīs that strange glow on your face? Perditionīs flames?

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
Being the original 'Toppings the man' on Casebook, no one would like verification more then me, that he was the witness known as Hutchinson.
however one must be honest and say 'case not proven' at least at this
moment in time.
All these 'Tie Breaks' are leading us up a road that will never end, until someone hands us a map , and that has not happened yet.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

That verification, Richard, lies in Frank Leanders examination of the signatures and the results coming from it - but most of all, it lies in your own conviction that the signatures match.
There is no tie at hand - the signatures in combination with the surrounding circumstances all point very clearly in the same direction. Of course, we cannot say that it has been conclusively proven that Toppy was Hutch, but I think it is very safe to say that no reasonable doubt can exist at this point. Sam has worded it "Toppy almost certainly was Hutch", and that is a fair way of putting it too, I believe.
But of course, if you feel that a match in handstyles, in combination with our knowledge of the approximate amount of George Hutchinsons around at the time and Regīs assertion that his father had claimed to be the Dorset Street witness is not enough for you, then you are of course free to sit tight and wait for more. My own stance is that we already HAVE more than enough to close the book on this issue.

The very best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“...aaand here we go again”

Here you go again, despite lying continuously about leaving the thread and replying no further and bowing out.

You knew full well that I would respond when you made those threats, and that I would still be expressing the very same disagreements I expressed last time you decided to revive the argument, so the only reasonable explanation is that you lied about leaving. It’s worked out brilliantly, though, since you know how much I love consuming people’s attention as well as their willingness to take me on all the time. It’s lucky I’m not being stalked by someone who might actually give me a run for my money in the debating stakes. And now you’ve taken the extraordinary decision to introduce some irrelevant off-topic nonsense that caused you a similar degree of embarrassment last time.

But as with your Leander meandering, I’d prepared to discuss that until I outlive you too.

No, I did not bring up that particular “Stride battle”, and the fact that you describe it in those terms should tell everyone all they need to know about your approach to historical discussion. I was referring to other aspects of the Stride murder in which you were expressed a futile and typically verbose determination to have your perceived “rightness” acknowledged by all. That was before I communicated with you on any topic, and already I wondered who this egocentric and dogmatic keyboard warrior was.

A cutaway only becomes a cutaway in the conventional sense, as described in the dictionary, if it has tails at the rear. They needn’t have been elaborate “swallow tails” or the type of long frock coat that might adorn Fagin or the Artful Dodger, but in the absence of any form of tails or rear skirting, it’s not a true cutaway as described by the dictionary. Even your link bears this out. We can read more about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailcoat

“A morning coat is a single-breasted coat, the front parts usually meeting at one button in the middle, and curving away gradually into a pair of tails behind”

The morning coat or cutaway is a variety of TAILcoat.

Thanks for coming.

Thanks for trying.

Thanks for trying to derail the thread in the interests of Ben-fixating, but I’m afraid this one didn’t work either. Please say you’ve got a load more. I absolutely cannot wait. Gosh, if I knew it was this easy to start the ball rolling again. But again, you’re deliberately misrepresenting my position with the nonsensical claim that I was “forced to realise” anything puked up by your googling frenzy. And I called you a subhuman, sickening disgrace because you had the appaling audacity to threaten to “bombard” me, as though that was ever seriously going to work against me of all people. You’re now trying it on again with a threat to “rub it in my face”. Try and “bombard” me, and we’ll see what happens – I double dare you.

“But this is just one of your desperate side trails and derailings, and not what we should talk about!”

So remind me who just started that “cutaway” argument on an unrelated thread for no good reason?

It certainly wasn’t me.

“Ben, the "tch-group" is not a technical element of writing, Iīm afraid. The technical elements of writing are the ones Leander listed, end of story. Style, writing skills, text-spreading, proportions and letter shaping pretty much covers it all.”

But that list included “style”, and we know that’s not a “technical element of writing” just as we know that the dissimilarities mentioned by Leander also concerned “style”, but as for technical elements that weren’t mentioned by Leander – try size. He probably didn’t mention it because he assumed that the scanned copies reflected their true size when we KNOW they didn’t. They were, in reality, of a very dissimilar size.

“Got it all wrong again, Ben - what I am saying is that Leanders statement that the differences were only differences in amplitude was a general assessment of the text samples as a whole.”

But that isn’t what “amplitude” means.

Amplitude does not mean “general overall impression”.

We know what it really means because I just provided the dictionary definition, and it exposed the contradiction. If Leander’s later clarifications contained the claim that the only differences between the signatures related to the “amplitude between the expressions”, then one has to wonder why his first email listed specific differences that had sod all to do with the “amplitude between the expressions”.

“To come up with your conclusion, you need to read it backwards”.

No, to come up with my conclusion, I need to know what “amplitude” actually means, and while it shouldn’t come as any great surprise to anyone that you might have trouble on that score, we can’t really make the same allowances for Leander. I’m confident that people will be a lot less forgiving this time if you try the old tactic of claiming that yet another well know word or expression has acquired a completely new meaning in “Leander’s World”.

That magical, magical place.

“...aaaand he said that "cannot be ruled out" in his book was the equivalent of showing obvious likenesses.”

“In certain respects” he added, remember? Trouble is, there was equally obvious dissimilarity in certain respects. No wonder he had to settle with “cannot be ruled out”. Makes sense really.

“A pity about the "idiot" thing - you come across as lacking all sorts of intellectuall edge, replacing it with blunt rudeness.”

No, I come across as exasperated and infuriated at both your obsession with me (that must be apparent to even the staunchest of Ben-haters by now), and your annoyingly cocky and unjustifiable boasting about your imagined “rightness”. I picked up on this behavioural trait well in advance of my first communication with you. Where have I ever argued that Leander “should not be respected”?

“In short, why would we believe you instead of Leander?”

“In short”?

From Fisherman of all people? That’ll be the day. Of course, you could have given the short version without the preceding three paragraphs of repeating exactly the thing, but as for the claim that the “manual” somehow supported the “probable match” theory, I’ll say what I said before: We know full well that the manual stated no such thing. In fact, it underscored the neutrality expressed in his first letter. In cases where there are tendencies in one direction or the other (and in the present cases, there were clearly tendencies in both directions), he had the option of picking one of a handful of suitable expressions to describe his verdict, and in the event he picked the most neutral, lukewarm expression of the lot – “cannot be ruled out”, which literally means “not completely impossible”. The Swedes call this “the lowest hit on the positive scale” which also equates to “the lowest form of positive commentary without completely dismissing it”.

It really is incredibly silly to ask why anyone should “invest” anything in what I say when we know full well that people like you are investing it with inordinate amounts of time and bandwidth.

“And it will follow you all the way to perditions flames, Ben, to lend a little something from that high-strung vocabulary of yours.”

You follow me all the time, everywhere. It’s what obsessed people do, but at least you’re admitting to it now.

“Nobody who has witnessed this charade of yours will ever discuss Ripperology with you without a rye smile on their lips”

Unless you’ve noticed that people can’t discuss ripperology with me without eating cereal grass, I’m pretty sure you meant “wry” smile.

“if Iīm correct. And I often am, Ben...”

No offence, but you’re just not. The reverse is nearer the mark.

[Ben]

That verification, Richard, lies in Frank Leanders examination of the signatures and the results coming from it - but most of all, it lies in your own conviction that the signatures match.

Nonsense.

Sue Iremonger, a British document examiner, examined the original documents and came to the conclusion that the signatures didn't match, as attested to by other authorities on the Whitechapel murders. Since she examined all three statement signatures which weren't photocopied and fiddled with, it's hardly surprising that others have observed that she "has the edge".

Of course, we cannot say that it has been conclusively proven that Toppy was Hutch, but I think it is very safe to say that no reasonable doubt can exist at this point.

Well, you think whatever you like.

I'd say it's far nearer the mark to say that while Toppy is very unlikely to have been the witness, the possibility cannot be excluded - to borrow my favourite Leanderism.

in combination with our knowledge of the approximate amount of George Hutchinsons around at the time

Which amounts to no knowledge whatsoever, unless you have census records from 1888?!?

"Regīs assertion that his father had claimed to be the Dorset Street witness is not enough for you"

Yep, that would be "My dad saw Lord Randolph Churchill the ripper and was paid silly sums to keep quiet about it". Spiffing provenance.

we already HAVE more than enough to close the book on this issue

Close it then.

Unless, of course, you have no confidence whatsoever in that conclusion, in which case, you'll keep following me around. I really am up for going round in interminable circles on this topic - anyone else?

[John Bennett]

I really am up for going round in interminable circles on this topic - anyone else?

Not me. Life's too short.

[Fisherman]

Ben, once more:

"Sue Iremonger, a British document examiner, examined the original documents and came to the conclusion that the signatures didn't match, as attested to by other authorities on the Whitechapel murders. Since she examined all three statement signatures which weren't photocopied and fiddled with, it's hardly surprising that others have observed that she "has the edge"."

As has been remarked before, Ben, what Iremonger has or has not is a totally open question. Maybe it is "the edge", maybe it is "bad judgment", maybe it is "a relentless friend in Ben" and maybe it is "a foot in her mouth".

Point is, Ben, that you donīt know. Sort of:
-Who has the edge?
-Iremonger! Iremonger!
-What did she say?
-It ainīt Toppy!
-How did she reach her verdict?
-Dunno!

Well, bravo to that! Thatīs how you break new ground!

Iremonger, Ben, was, is and remains a useless source, other in the respect that we need to acknowledge that she apparently opted against a match. That is something we should keep in the back of our heads, but not something that in any way gives her any edge as long as her "finds" remain shrouded in clouds. As long as that stands, her role remains no more than that of an interesting curiosity. Unless somebody steps forward and lays the cards on the table in extenso, she can have nothing to do with the final verdict in this issue, simple as that.
What evidence we have, we can use. What evidence we DO NOT have, on the other hand...

Oh, and we live in a globalized world; Iremongers being British (Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the waves, Britons never, never never ...Oh, crap!) is something only an intellectual isolationist would stress.

"Well, you think whatever you like"

That I do!

"I'd say it's far nearer the mark to say that while Toppy is very unlikely to have been the witness"

...and you will be hopelessly wrong. Again. Tallying signatures always spoke FOR a match, not against it.

"Yep, that would be "My dad saw Lord Randolph Churchill the ripper and was paid silly sums to keep quiet about it". Spiffing provenance."

No, that would be the fact, apparently bolstered by TWO of Hu... , sorry Toppys sons, that Toppy spoke of being the witness.

"Close it then.
Unless, of course, you have no confidence whatsoever in that conclusion, in which case, you'll keep following me around."

Since you are not moving, intellectually or physically, Ben - how could I possibly follow you?

Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hello Fisherman,
I am [ as you should be aware] one hundred per-cent in your camp, and i am as confident now, as i was day one, long before Casebook , or even Spry was born.
Its just that the proof we need is although there, not conclusive to many Ripperologists, so it remains non proven, except for the dedicated few.
But all is not lost... remember what the few did in 1940, they won the battle.
Regards Richard.