Innocent, By George!

[lynn cates]

colleague

Hello Garry. Was he a colleague of Christer, or something of that sort?

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Lynn,

a little more info: Leander was given a set of signatures of George Hutchinson that included one signature from the witness statement. I believe there were six signatures in total. Why was he given one signature? Because it was believed that the other two signatures were that of Badham the police sergeant and that was shown by Sue Iremonger, the other "expert" and so it was believed that they were unnecessary. There was no duplicity involved in this honest effort by Christer. Leander was just an expert at a university (I believe) who Christer contacted via email, out of the blue and who came up with the conclusions that though he couldn't say definitively that the signatures, all of them, were from the same man, they were close enough to warrant further research. This of course was about the best an expert could say based upon relatively little information and copies of signatures. Leander was not told any of the particulars of the two (who are one) Hutchinsons that when coupled with this recommendation of doing further research, make it overwhelmingly likely in any sane person's mind, that these men are one and the same.

Mike

[lynn cates]

hands

Hello Michael. Thanks. I vaguely recall some of that.

Regarding the signatures, I recall that there was a letter made differently; else, they looked very similar--especially the long crossing of the "t".

Cheers.
LC

[babybird67]

hi lynn

you are indeed mistaken when you suggest there have been two document examinations. Unless you believe giving a spontaneous opinion based on doctored and pre-selected electronic images are the same as the examination of original documents. (In which case we have all pretty much carried out the same professional analysis!)

Also Leander didn't say he thought they were the same at all. What he said was a match could not be ruled out. Which was circumspect since he had not seen any original documents, and, as a document examiner, was quite aware that the materials he was working from would not allow his opinion to be anything other than an informal and non-professional one. You might benefit from reading Garry Wroe's scientific deconstruction of the Analysis that Never Was.

Hope you had a Merry Christmas Garry...

[lynn cates]

fracas

Hello Baby Bird. If I recall properly, his words were something like, "I'd be surprised if they weren't the same."

Again, if I recall properly, there was a big fracas on the boards which went on and on. Gareth had a really humourous snippet he posted.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Indeed, there were never any real document examinations that incorporated the physical documents that included the several samples of Hutchinson signatures. There was only one by Leander that was comprised of electronic signatures that were re-sized so that they could be seen side-by-side. There was nothing nefarious done to the signatures of course and Leander did indeed say that they warranted closer examination and Christer's general feeling upon translating Leander's words was that it leaned in the favor of the signatures matching. Again, he wasn't giving much as he was looking at electronic comparisons. The huge factor in favor of the signatures matching is the scrutiny from unbiased eyes under which these startling similarities in handwriting have stood up.

Mike

[lynn cates]

bias

Hello Michael. Thanks.

Unbiased eyes? All but impossible for us who are sullied with the case. Perhaps more fresh people like Leander?

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Babybird is right, Leander hasn't seen the original documents.

[lynn cates]

handwriting examiner

Hello David. Thanks.

Why could not a few of us find a handwriting examiner, share the expenses, and get an opinion?

Cheers.
LC

[babybird67]

The huge factor in favor of the signatures matching is the scrutiny from unbiased eyes under which these startling similarities in handwriting have stood up.

Mike

Whereas the document examiner who examined the actual documents was biased?

Sue Iremonger had no agenda. She saw actual documents, her sample wasn't manipulated therefore she saw all alleged Hutchinson signatures from the police statement and compared them to Toppy's marriage certificate, and in her unbiased and professional opinion (the only professional opinion we have) there was no match. It is madness to suggest comparing doctored electronic specially selected signatures could possibly hold a candle to that.

But each to his own.

And no Lynn, Leander did not originally state what you suggest. Fisherman originally translated Leander's response as a match could not be ruled out. Unfortunately it was not long before that began to be twisted into more positive interpretations and that is when that thread began to disintegrate. But Leander's original circumspect and unprofessional opinion was that a match could not be ruled out.

[lynn cates]

truth

Hello Baby Bird. Thanks. Can you direct me to the post with Leander's original wording?

Also, if I recall properly, the thread ran into trouble when both sides became a bit abusive of the other side. But from my--and I presume, your--point of view, we would never engage in such behaviour. After all, we seek merely the truth.

Cheers.
LC

[babybird67]

hi Lynn

I will try to find it later for you but I am a bit busy at the moment. My daughter gave birth to a beautiful little girl on 5th December and they live with me at the moment but i distinctly remember the original wording because it was perfectly reasonable for such a conclusion to be drawn.

You may find a lot of the bad feeling came from the attempt to re write this reasonable conclusion into something else. That was my experience of the thread anyway. But perceptions are individual and unique to the perceiver.

I hope as you do that there wont be any bad feelings around now. And that people will be allowed to hold the views that the evidence they perceive persuades them of.

[lynn cates]

congratulations

Hello Baby Bird. Congratulations!

And there is no rush, whatsoever.

I entirely agree about individual perceptions. And, as your new grand daughter demonstrates, there are more important things than 125 year old events.

As for bad feelings, well, not on my part. Although I have been obsessed with the case since childhood, I recognise that, however it shakes out--or if, in fact, it does--the sun will still rise tomorrow, etc. etc.

Cheers.
LC

[babybird67]

hi Lynn

thank you for the congratulations. They are both darlings and i am blessed to have them both with me.

Here is Leander's original response. Page 126 of the Hutch in the 1911 census. My emphases. You will see he noted differences which mitigated against the similarities and which led to him coming to the entirely reasonable conclusion that a match could not be ruled out. You will also see he was well aware of the limitations imposed upon him by the fact that he had no access to original documents.

"Hello again

I wish to strongly underline your wiew that comparing research into signatures must be done using the original material and I/we would not have the possibility to write a full expert´s opinion on the material supplied. Under the circumstances, however, I would like to express myself thusly:

It cannot 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"

Happy new year to you

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Baby Bird. Thanks for taking the trouble to find that. Perhaps soon we can find a way of getting a full professional opinion that will satisfy all parties.

In the meantime, get some sleep. As I recall, not much to be had for the first six weeks.

Cheers.
LC