The Leander Analysis

[Ben]

It does not prove that the originals were used - though it is credible that they were.

It's unacceptably and unuttterably outlandish to consider any other alternative, given what other sources have attested to. Your dismissal of Iremonger as "useless" is based solely on the forlorn hope that an unacceptably and unuttterably outlandish alternative must be true, and that's far from solid grounds for tarring the best verdict yet on the signatures as "useless".

Haven´t found them ankles yet, Ben

Those ankles.

[caz]

Hi Fishykins,

You translated Leander thus:

“It can hardly be ruled out that we are dealing with the same person - there is a number of matches of a common character (character of style, degree of writing skill, the spreading of the text, certain proportions), and, as far as can be judged from the copy there are also a number of matches when it comes to the shapes of single letters.
Against these matches one must pose differences in certain liftings of the pen (?), the proportions of the tch-group and 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.
The differences could be explained by H. being relatively young at the first writing occasion, the surrounding circumstances as available writing space, function of the pen and similar things. The signature at the top is unquestionably the one that differs most at any rate.
In conclusion, you must see this as a spontaneous, personal comment from me and not as a full expert opinion, since such things cannot be done from a material like this!

Good luck with the hunt!

Frank Leander”

In essence, for me this says:

“A match can hardly be ruled out, despite the various differences I observed, because they could all be the result of one person writing at different times or under different circumstances.”

If Leander thought the differences could be explained, for instance, by Toppy signing that witness statement at a ‘relatively young’ age, I don’t need to go any further to consider his verdict a relatively positive one (certainly compared with Sue Iremonger’s). It’s not like he found any of the differences tricky to account for.

But Ben prefers his own black and white version:

“There are similarities, but against them there are differences, so on balance, the possibility cannot be excluded”.

What he ignores is that only Leander himself has the authority to say how close this comes to his considered opinion.

Again, Ben chimes in with:

…“cannot be ruled out”, which literally means “not completely impossible”…

Well of course it can mean that, but it doesn’t exclusively mean that, and Leander has given no indication that it’s what he meant to say. Context is everything and language is not merely a case of sticking rigidly to literal meanings, or there’d be no need for language teachers and Ben could do it all with just a dictionary and never risk misunderstandings or confusion ever again. If Leander had literally meant “not completely impossible” he’d have literally said “not completely impossible” and not something else.

If Ben were to dig up an old vase in the garden and take it excitedly along to the Antiques Roadshow, and we saw him on tv being told by one of the experts: “I can hardly rule out that you have a priceless Roman artefact here, me lad”, he’d be the only person on earth to apply the literal meaning of “not completely impossible (but it’s just as likely, if not more likely to be a 1970s piece of unadulterated crap from Woolworths)".

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

"No, I wasn't." Followed by "blah, blah blah..." ..but NOT by any example of where I was wrong on the Kidney thread. Now that you were so eager to point to my mistakes, why don´t you show something for it instead of balbbering around in circles? It would be much more productive: You say "that was wrong", I disprove it, and we can move on.

"You never provided a single scrap of credible evidence for this, and as such, I think we'll listen to what everyone else says "

"Everyone else" being Wikipedia, mind you... And the evidence was supplied by for exemple the link

file:///Users/schon/Desktop/Men's%20Clothing%20-%201880s%20-%20Clothing%20-%20Dating%20-%20Landscape%20Change%20Program.webarchive

at the time, showing a nice pic of two gents in cutaways - the text reading:

"A cutaway jacket was introduced during the 80s that allowed the bottom of the vest and the watch chain to be seen. The jacket had three or four buttons that were buttoned to the top. Notice how the men's jackets in the image below are cut up from the bottom."

So, as usual, you are lying. You state that I have provided no evidence - but I have. Plus, don´t forget, I KNOW how to dig out evidence, so I may well find more for you. So it is all a question about how you want things:
1. Should I leave you with the possibility of claiming that I am wrong, or
2. Should a put a definite end to it, by digging out more?

You choose!

"But it also has a tail."

Like the ones in the pic of the link, you mean?

"They can believe the neutrality of his original stance if they want to. I'm not stopping them."

Ah - you finally realized that there were no more wriggling options open to you - good!

"You've finally had the gonads to admit to your intention to follow me all over a serial killer message board like a crazed mutt on heat"

Not really, Ben. I follow up on your conscious misleadings (and a few unconscious ones too, while I´m at it) and correct them. Different thing. But that should not come as something new to you - I have said as much before.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"It's unacceptably and unuttterably outlandish to consider "

...while it is acceptable and comme-il-faut to - from a nitwits wiew - question the integrity and discerning helpfulness of an expert like Leander.

Try again, Ben!

No, wait! On second thoughts; don´t! You´ll just bring up THEM stupidities about Iremongers untouchability again.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"If Leander thought the differences could be explained, for instance, by Toppy signing that witness statement at a ‘relatively young’ age, I don’t need to go any further to consider his verdict a relatively positive one (certainly compared with Sue Iremonger’s). It’s not like he found any of the differences tricky to account for.
But Ben prefers his own black and white version"

Now WAIT A MINUTE, CAZ!!

This is logicaly grounded, discerning, honest and truthful. It will take me some time to digest that! I am NOT used to such an approach (laughter and applause).

Yes, Caz, yes, yes, yes: That is the only way it was ever meant to be read, and I am very happy to add you to the list of people that sees it in this way. Of course, once we have realized this, Leanders further assertions that he would be surprised if it was not a match come as a logical confirmation and nothing else. Which is why I ask Ben why he thinks that anybody with a head on their shoulders would ever prefer his linguistic roller-coaster of an intrpretation (dubbed "malicious" by a disappointed Leander) to the one given and substantiated by Leander himself.

"Well of course it can mean that, but it doesn’t exclusively mean that, and Leander has given no indication that it’s what he meant to say."

Exactly. Instead he has worded it "The expression CANNOT BE RULED OUT in my world means that THERE ARE OBVIOUS LIKENESSES IN CERTAIN RESPECTS". Plus he has pointed out that it is one of three expressions, professionally used when employing his manual, to point to a probable match.

"If Ben were to dig up an old vase in the garden and take it excitedly along to the Antiques Roadshow, and we saw him on tv being told by one of the experts: “I can hardly rule out that you have a priceless Roman artefact here, me lad”, he’d be the only person on earth to apply the literal meaning of “not completely impossible (but it’s just as likely, if not more likely to be a 1970s piece of unadulterated crap from Woolworths)".

...and that was a nice way of showing that Ben does not posess the capacity to judge the true value of things. But it should be added that if he was the owner of the vase himself, he would state that no doubt, the expert was correct in him having found a priceless thing. It´s not until the vase passes into my hands that he will say that the expert was totally neutral!

Im not ruling out that you are smack on here, Caz! You can call me Fishypoo whenever you like to!

The very best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Oh joy.

One infatuated follower was flattering enough, but commanding the undivided attention of both of them is a rare treat. It must be Christmas.

“Why should you be embarrassed and annoyed by anyone’s ignorance but your own?”

Well I’m embarrassed for you. It’s so poignant that even I’m deterred from laying into such ignorance with naked aggression, so I elected instead to wince in appalled disbelief from the wings.

“I suppose that must literally mean 'you', because you are the only one failing to make sense of my posts on the subject.”

I don’t understand what it is about my twin poodles that prompt them to keep appealing to imaginary crowd whenever they engage in debate with me. “Everyone thinks I’m correct, and brilliant and astute, Ben, but they all think you’re a bastard”. It’s usually because they don’t have the emotional and intellectual security to keep blitzing away at me without some external help from a felloe Ben-botherer. Trust me, if I wanted to emulate the level of comprehension shared by an unhealthy amount of Leander-thread contributors, it would not be an elevation!

“If you want to speculate that George/Geo was not the name of the witness, you have to come up with wholly reasonable supporting arguments.”

I have done.

You just came up with bad easily refutable excuses for dismissing them. High profile investigations are bombarded with alias-users – that’s one. The evidence that he fabricated aspects of his account was discredited for doing so would tally nicely with an equally fabricated name – that’s another. A person who is unfamiliar with writing his alias might well exhibit some degree of inconsistency when writing it, particularly under pressure – yet another. They are all viable suggestions, and they are not obfuscated by claims that it would be oh-so-natural for someone NOT using an alias to deviate all of a sudden from one’s established signature on three successive occasions. No superpowers required here.

“So you seriously think that if a doctor warns a patient: “I’m afraid the possibility of (insert horrid condition here) cannot be ruled out and more tests will need to be done” he’s resorting to sarcasm if he actually thinks it likely but doesn’t want to scare the poor sod half to death”

The point is that no self-respecting doctor wishing to provide an accurate diagnosis to a patient who is obviously suffering would beat about the bush by stressing that the horrid condition cannot be ruled out when he actually thinks the horrid condition is likely. If it’s a possibility, fine, otherwise you’d have a clarity issue of a far more serious nature than some bloke arguing about signatures from a 120 year old murder case.

“Of course it would be unprofessional conduct to revise one’s opinion in a certain direction to ‘appease a nuisance’”

No, it isn’t.

Not in the real world, as I’ve just told you, with examples. Obviously a doctor dealing with life and death would be ill-advised to go there, but poor, pestered Frank being asked to give his spontaneous comment in a non-professional capacity had really nothing to lose, and indeed everything to gain in terms of peace and quiet.

“All I said was that you were quick to accept Iremonger’s verdict, which was based on a comparison with only one verified Toppy signature”

I don't know where you got "quick" from? How can you possibly know how "quick" I was to accept her verdict? I wasn’t saying it wouldn’t have been preferable had Iremonger been supplied with more examples of Toppy’s signature, but since those additional 1911 census samples only reinforced the differences with the statement three, it’s almost impossible to fathom how they could possibly prompted her to sway her more in favour of Toppy-as-witness. The opposite would be far more likely. Not only was Leander supplied with one signature, there was an OPPORTUNITY to provide the other two whereas there wasn’t in the case of the 1992 comparison. At least, that opportunity wasn’t as readily accessible at the click of a mouse.

“or you’re just going round in ever decreasing circles trying to convince people of a mismatch.”

I’m not especially eager to convince anyone of anything, since I’m never the one who insists on returning to acrimonious long dead threads in the interests of stirring up further trouble. I was quite content for people to make their minds up on the basis of the previous rounds of “No, it isn’t”, “Yes, it is”, but boy do some people seem hell-bent of puking it up again.

“Once again, I haven’t come to any conclusion yet on Toppy, but if I do, and it matches yours, it will be down to much clearer evidence emerging, and it won't be remotely influenced by your own reasoning, which so often stinks.”

All that reveals is that your criticisms are personal, despite your unconvincing protestations to the contrary. Anyone who can revive a thread in general agreement with me, but can’t resist taking an extended pop at me in the process can only have such a fundamental disdain for me that they can’t bear to express that agreement without depicting me as villainous throughout. “You’re probably right, but I want to concentrate mainly on the fact that your reasoning stinks”. What a fascinating coincidence then that we just came to the same conclusion anyway?

Very few of your “reasons” for thinking that Iremonger scores over Leander is terms of a credible verdict differ appreciably to mine. I just suspect that you’re reluctant to concede as much, and it would take a lot of convincing that personal reasons have nothing to do with it…Sunshine.

[caz]

Hi Fishypoo,

Well I was giving Ben the benefit of the doubt by assuming that his ownership of the potentially priceless vase would not affect his claim about what an expert literally means when he says something can hardly be ruled out.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"I was giving Ben the benefit of the doubt"

Uh-uh - you wanna watch out with such things, Caz! He won´t do the same for you.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"...my twin poodles..."

Speaking of that, Ben - d´you know which animal it is that has four legs and an arm...?

Fisherman
who knows - that too

[Ben]

You guys should attend a Ben-Botherer’s convention.

I can’t make it there myself, but I hear they’re a veritable mecca for the unoccupied, pathologically obsessed and past their prime. “You follow Ben around all day on serial killer message boards? I follow Ben around all day on message boards! It fits, we’re in sync!”

Not for them the “life’s too short” approach.

“If Leander thought the differences could be explained, for instance, by Toppy signing that witness statement at a ‘relatively young’ age, I don’t need to go any further to consider his verdict a relatively positive one (certainly compared with Sue Iremonger’s). It’s not like he found any of the differences tricky to account for.”

Relatively positive, yes, but it is easy to convey relative positivity without declaring a thing probable. We need to bear in mind that the differences are only suggested as factors that could account for the differences. He’s not asserting that his suggestions actually do account for them, or that they were any more likely to account for them than Toppy not being the writer.

“What he ignores is that only Leander himself has What he ignores is that only Leander himself has the authority to say how close this comes to his considered opinion..”

Exactly, so why did you just ignore it when you conjured up your own interpretation of what he meant, bearing in mind that only Leander has the authority to say how close this comes to his considered opinion. If you’re going to employ ludicrous double standards, at least attempt to make it less obvious next time.

“Well of course it can mean that, but it doesn’t exclusively mean that, and Leander has given no indication that it’s what he meant to say.”

If you’re using the expression “cannot be ruled out”, you’re actually communicating the view that the thing under scrutiny is “not impossible”. That is what it means if the words included in that well-known and unambiguous phrase are being used properly. It does not mean likely. There was no reason for Leander to say “not completely impossible” if he meant it because “cannot be ruled out” means the same thing, whereas if he thought the match likely, there was NOTHING preventing him from saying so – “I think the match likely”. Never happened.

“If Ben were to dig up an old vase in the garden and take it excitedly along to the Antiques Roadshow, and we saw him on tv being told by one of the experts: “I can hardly rule out that you have a priceless Roman artefact here, me lad”

And I’d infer from the above that expert considered it a “possibility”, as distinct from a “likelihood”, and I’d depart happy that the presenter or expert knows how to use words and phrases properly, regardless of whether my relic turned out to be the real deal. Speaking of antiques, whose turn is it next?

Don’t fight over me, now.

P.S "Fishypoo" is a come-on, by the way.

[Fisherman]

Ben, to Caz:

"How can you possibly know how "quick" I was to accept her verdict?"

Haha! Hahahahahahaha! Lightning fast, Ben!

"why did you just ignore it when you conjured up your own interpretation of what he meant"

HAHAHAAAAAA! HOLY CRAP, I CANT STOP LAUGHING!! HIHIHIII!

Fisherman
with running eyes and aching stomach

[lynn cates]

Hardy har har

Hello. This discussion reminds me of a priceless quote from Thomas Hardy:

"In common conscience every man ought either to marry or go for a soldier. 'Tis a scandal to the nation to do neither one nor t'other. I did both, thank God! Neither to raise men nor to lay 'em low-- that shows a poor do-nothing spirit indeed."

Laying 'em low! Very spirited discussion!

Rgds, LC

[Ben]

Yes, Caz, yes, yes, yes

I don't need the sound effects please.

What you get up to at the conventions doesn't need any narration here.

(Shudder)

That is the only way it was ever meant to be read, and I am very happy to add you to the list of people that sees it in this way.

Oh, we love the list.

Lists are fun.

The people who start writing lists of people who agree with them are generally those who know full well they're on dodgy and uncertain terriroty and seek solace in numbers in the absence of credible points. The reason Leander dubbed me malicious is because you deliberately sought to engineer a biased response. "Hey Frank, I like you, you're great. Ben doesn't like you. He's been slagging you off and calling you a liar. He thinks this, so what have you to say to him? Oh, and um, y'know, it is still Toppy isn't it?" What were you expecting? To pass on an offer for a cup of tea?

Exactly. Instead he has worded it "The expression CANNOT BE RULED OUT in my world means that THERE ARE OBVIOUS LIKENESSES IN CERTAIN RESPECTS".

That's fine.

Phrase correctly applied.

But there were also obvious dissimilarities in certain respects.

We know that because he listed them.

Im not ruling out that you are smack on here, Caz!

Exchange the "smack" and "on" and you're nearer the mark.

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates:

"This discussion reminds me of a priceless quote from Thomas Hardy"

Really? It reminds me of nothing else I have ever seen. We are actually discussing - wait for it - if the Swedish forensic document expert Frank Leander was allowed to word his opinion in the manner he found suitable or not - or if we should disallow him to do so. Ben opts for the latter alternative. He is the Lewis Carroll of our day, believe me!

Surely Thomas Hardy would never have seen such a rare bird as this discussion...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Oh, we love the list.
Lists are fun."

Sign up on one, then!

"Phrase correctly applied.
But there were also obvious dissimilarities in certain respects.
We know that because he listed them."

Somehow though, Ben he managed to leave them out of his sentence "The expression CANNOT BE RULED OUT in my world means that THERE ARE OBVIOUS LIKENESSES IN CERTAIN RESPECTS"

Now, I wonder (no, I do not, but let´s enjoy ourselves...!) why that was? Why did he not phrase himself "The expression CANNOT BE RULED OUT in my world means that THERE ARE OBVIOUS DISSIMILARITIES IN CERTAIN RESPECTS"?

And why is it that his later assertion that he would be surprised to find out that it was not a match seems to support only the first of these two phrases - the one he used, that is?

Is that not truly remarkable, Ben? Hmmm? Or did the sentence come about AFTER he had decided to say anything just to get rid of me?

Hey, did you catch up on my joke about the strange animal? Wanna hear the solution?

Fisherman