Tweet
Okay, Garry – you bring things up again, at a stage where I have clearly inidcated my purpose to stay away from this debate, and you do it in a manner that calls for answers - many of them. And you shall have them - each and every one.
I am not at all sure if my answers will satisfy you in a scientific manner. I do not have the same kind of background as you do. I am a journalist, though, and as such, I am quite accustomed to evaluating sources from that perspective.
To begin with, I am not at all sure that you have seen all the material involved, when it comes to what Leander stated. Therefore, I will provide you with a complete listing of it all. It reads like this:
"Post 1:
”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 expertīs 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 (the police report signature from page three of the protocol – my remark) 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”
Post 2, which answered my query about whether he could see the age in the signature of the man who signed the police report is:
"It was just one of many possible explanations to the differences (I had no idea of the persons age and you can normally not make any too certain assessments of age from a persons handwriting)!"
Post 3:
”The overall and general impression is one of an obvious likeness, and it offers far too much of a handstyle resemblance to offer any reason to discard it".
Post 4:
Semantics is a hard thing! I do not wish to embark on any further elaboration on the issue since I have only commented on a few pictures via mail, but in ”my world”, the expression CAN NOT BE RULED OUT belongs to the same parish as THERE ARE OBVIOUS LIKENESSES IN CERTAIN RESPECTS. But once again: It is not until you have an original material with a sufficient number of signatures to compare that you can tell what the indications are worth!
Friendly greetings,
Frank
Post 5, in response to my question:
”My wiew is that you in your latest mail write that you think that the likeness between the signatures means that you place the match on the positive end of the scale, but that you would need the original documents and more signatures to be a bit more sure about it.
Is that a correct wiew?”
And hereīs Frank Leanders answer:
”Yes, thatīs about it, or put differently: In an investigation or a search for a wanted person, it is worth to move on with this person because – as I am inclined to think at present – get the suspicions confirmed – OR to realize that the similarities were coincidental (which I at present would be surprised by).
Greetings,
Frank”
PS. ”Can not be ruled out” has earlier been used as the lowest, most careful expression on the positive side in a scale that we have used in investigations of handstyles, and it serves well to underline when we cannot see any discrepancies other than in the ”amplitude” between the expressions. DS."
Clearly, this compilation involves a number of statements on behalf of Leander, that you for some reason have left out in you posts on the matter. And as far as I am concerned, the bearing of it all is immense.
You write:
"as I previously explained on another thread, “cannot be ruled in; cannot be ruled out” is science-speak for there being insufficient evidence to make a determination one way or the other. In other words, the null hypothesis has been upheld. No significant effect has been detected."
But we actually know that in Leanders case, "cannot be ruled out" does not mean that the null hypothesis has been upheld - it instead means that we are dealing with "the lowest, most careful expression on the positive side in a scale that we have used in investigations of handstyles, and it serves well to underline when we cannot see any discrepancies other than in the ”amplitude” between the expressions".
That, effectively tells me that we are nowhere even near a "null hypothesis" in this particular case - we are instead handling material where the only discrepancies we can find are to be found in the "amplitudes" between the expressions.
And of course, Leander bears out that he is not - and has never been - of the meaning that a null hypotheses applies in this case, when he writes "it is worth to move on with this person because – as I am inclined to think at present – get the suspicions confirmed – OR to realize that the similarities were coincidental (which I at present would be surprised by)."
Putting it differently - and I am fully aware that you donīt want me to put things differently, but since I have not the scientific tools, I make do with what I got: my journalistic experience and the respect it has brought me for the need on the publics behalf to have things clarified at times - Leander is of the meaning that AS THINGS STAND, he is inclined to believe that we have a match.
My own stance on the matter is that I believe that, weighing together the fact that he states that the only discrepancies he can see inbetween the signatures are of an "amplitude" character, and the fact that he tells us that he would be surprised to find out that he was wrong (although he of course does not exclude the possibility), what Leander tells us is that if he had had access to the originals and if he had had access to a handful more signatures by the Dorset Street witness, it would have taken major dissimilarities in the elements for him NOT to move the verdict up to a hit on the upper hand of the scale. That is how I personally read it all; he never gave the verdict "a hit on the lower end of the scale" because the match was in any respect a poor one, but because of the lack of material and inherent material quality he experienced.
Of course, Leander is still out there, and I could ask him if this is something he can confirm or deny. But the trouble with such a thing would be that if Leander answered that he did not concur, it would be detrimental to me, and if he answered that he in fact did concur, the exact same thing would apply, since in such a case, Ben would step in and tell me that it is extremely strange that every time I ask Leander something, he sides with my wiew, implying that either Leander changes his mind or that I am lying. Of course, to ME a concurrance would not mean that he has changed his mind at all - quite the contrary - but Ben would keep pressing that "cannot be excluded" means that Leander from the outset gave a verdict of a "null hypothesis", just as you are suggesting yourself - but which I am denying for reasons outlined above.
And science may well have itīs merits and good sides, but if it is science to disallow a researcher to use the vocabulary he has been trained to use, simply because we dislike the fact that it swears against our own convictions or the praxis we have been using ourselves, then Iīm afraid I say so much for science in this case!
You write:
"you have consistently overstated the ‘evidence’ that appears to lend plausibility to the ‘Toppy was Hutchinson’ argument, whilst at the same time dismissing anything that fails to dovetail with your own beliefs."
In all honesty, how can I have been overstating things - if I am proven right in the future? We do not have the answer, Garry, and so I am very reluctant myself to pass judgment on who has been over- or understating things. If you mean that the evidence I am using is to weak to tie any substantial hopes to it, I simply disagree, while I respect any scientifically trained persons wiew that I may be too optimistic at too early a stage. It is everyones prerogative to use whatever training he or she has to judge the material, and the fact that most historians will listen to the scientifically trained and those who are more accustomed to evaluate scientific value is something I accept, respect and live with. To me, the signatures together with Leanders wiew, are quite enough for me to make my own mind up.
"you have exhibited a tendency to be rude and even abusive to those posters whose opinions fail to accord with your own. Was it really necessary to brand Babybird a liar when all she did was quote your own words?"
I have been rude. Absolutely. Moreover, it is not the first time it happens in exchanges with Ben. We have had a number of extremely heated debates where we have both repeatedly stepped over the line. I will only say that it takes two to tango, and leave it up to anybody who cares to do so to find out who leads and who follows when the two of us go Latin-American.
"Even when Ben reconsidered his position with regard to Frank, held up his hands and admitted that he had been in error, you embarked on a campaign of taunting and ridicule. As I have stated previously, Fisherman, it is more than possible to disagree without being disagreeable."
Normally, yes. But this time over I was of the meaning that Ben was trying to straddle a cleft of opinions on his own behalf that was way too wide to allow it. He chose to change his mind about Leanders status in the exchange with you, whereas he told me that Leander had been led by me to throw his obligations as a discerning researcher overboard. And frankly, Garry, it is either or; either you trust a scientist fully and wholly, or you are of the opinion that he cannot be trusted. It is also very unbecoming if you trust a researcher and hail his integrity as long as he concurs with your own wiews, but speak of him as being totally irresponsible when his findings and statements go against your own convictions. Whatever THAT is, it is not named science.
As for calling Babybird a liar, that emanated at a point where she claimed that I had stated that Leander had said that Toppy was Hutch. He would, in other words, according to me have passed a definitive verdict, leaving no room for doubts.
One post that goes to illuminate tha affair is this:
Babybirds wording:
"You have quite clearly said at different points in the discussion, that Toppy = Hutch, that Leander states that Toppy = Hutch (not true at all), that you concur with me when i state you cannot "close the case" (or be 100% certain in other words) that Toppy does = Hutch, that Toppy is probably Hutch etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc..."
My answer:
"I do believe that Toppy is Hutch. The evidence for it is overwhelming. That has remained my stance throughout. I have just posted and told you that I regard it a 99 per cent plus chance. The remaining fraction of a per cent means that I am honest enough to admit that no absolute certainty can be reached as yet, but that owes mostly to the lack of more signatures. I have every faith that when such signatures surface, they will confirm what I say - that Toppy in all probability is Hutch.
I have never said that Leander has stated that Toppy is Hutch. It is semantically twisted to begin with, since Leander has never used any of these names. Furthermore, he has never - and would never, as a discerning expert - said such a thing. He speaks in probabilities and possibiliteis only, and if you have not yet seen this, I fear you will never do so.
If you want to point me out as not being steadfast, Babybird, then you really ought not fabricate things.
Leander has stated that he would be surprised if the man (Toppy) who wrote the wedding signature and the census signatures, was not the same man that signed the police protocol back in 1888. That means that he sees the match as a probable one, and he is careful to tell us that he puts the hit on the lower side of the positive scale.
Can I be much clearer? I donīt think so.
In a fashion, you were also quite clear when you posted things that I have never said. It makes for quite a telling story too.
Fisherman"
When this post reached the boards, Babybird reacted to my suggestions that she had fabricated things and posted things that I had never said by retorting:
"point this out or apologise; if you do not i will report you. I cannot abide liars"
...and at that stage, of course, we had BOTH called each other liars!
So where do we find the truth? We find it in this wording, from another exchange:
My wording:
"I have never said that Leander has stated that Toppy is Hutch."
Babybirds wording:
"Right. You never said: 'At present, Toppy is Hutch". That means that I concur with Leander'
Funny how i am able to quote something you said, as you apparently now never said it."
And so, I never DID say that Leander at any stage stated that Toppy was Hutch. What I DID say was that I believed that at present, as things were standing, my OWN stance was that Toppy would in all probability be Hutch (I have since upgraded that to saying that to me, the case is closed until any evidence surfaces that disproves the match - but that is a different story, fools gold and all that....), and that in thinking so I concur with Leander, who ALSO is of the opinion that as it stands, he would be surprised to learn that Toppy was not our man.
You will appreciate that there is a very clear difference involved here, and that I will not go down as the man who made Leanders mind up for him - for he clearly and abundantly stated from the outset that he would NOT go beyond his verdict of a hit on the lower end of the scale as long as the lack of material and an investigation of the originals hindered him to do so.
Make of this what you want, Garry - at least now you have the whole picture, and just as Leander says, no verdicts should be passed without it. Well, he actually never said that explicitly - but he leaves us in little doubt about it, does he not?
The best,
Fisherman
PS. Unless I am forced to do so, I will not discuss this matter further with anybody but you, for the moment being. Like I said, I have retracted from the discussion as things stand, but felt I owed you an answer to your long posts.
I am not at all sure if my answers will satisfy you in a scientific manner. I do not have the same kind of background as you do. I am a journalist, though, and as such, I am quite accustomed to evaluating sources from that perspective.
To begin with, I am not at all sure that you have seen all the material involved, when it comes to what Leander stated. Therefore, I will provide you with a complete listing of it all. It reads like this:
"Post 1:
”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 expertīs 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 (the police report signature from page three of the protocol – my remark) 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”
Post 2, which answered my query about whether he could see the age in the signature of the man who signed the police report is:
"It was just one of many possible explanations to the differences (I had no idea of the persons age and you can normally not make any too certain assessments of age from a persons handwriting)!"
Post 3:
”The overall and general impression is one of an obvious likeness, and it offers far too much of a handstyle resemblance to offer any reason to discard it".
Post 4:
Semantics is a hard thing! I do not wish to embark on any further elaboration on the issue since I have only commented on a few pictures via mail, but in ”my world”, the expression CAN NOT BE RULED OUT belongs to the same parish as THERE ARE OBVIOUS LIKENESSES IN CERTAIN RESPECTS. But once again: It is not until you have an original material with a sufficient number of signatures to compare that you can tell what the indications are worth!
Friendly greetings,
Frank
Post 5, in response to my question:
”My wiew is that you in your latest mail write that you think that the likeness between the signatures means that you place the match on the positive end of the scale, but that you would need the original documents and more signatures to be a bit more sure about it.
Is that a correct wiew?”
And hereīs Frank Leanders answer:
”Yes, thatīs about it, or put differently: In an investigation or a search for a wanted person, it is worth to move on with this person because – as I am inclined to think at present – get the suspicions confirmed – OR to realize that the similarities were coincidental (which I at present would be surprised by).
Greetings,
Frank”
PS. ”Can not be ruled out” has earlier been used as the lowest, most careful expression on the positive side in a scale that we have used in investigations of handstyles, and it serves well to underline when we cannot see any discrepancies other than in the ”amplitude” between the expressions. DS."
Clearly, this compilation involves a number of statements on behalf of Leander, that you for some reason have left out in you posts on the matter. And as far as I am concerned, the bearing of it all is immense.
You write:
"as I previously explained on another thread, “cannot be ruled in; cannot be ruled out” is science-speak for there being insufficient evidence to make a determination one way or the other. In other words, the null hypothesis has been upheld. No significant effect has been detected."
But we actually know that in Leanders case, "cannot be ruled out" does not mean that the null hypothesis has been upheld - it instead means that we are dealing with "the lowest, most careful expression on the positive side in a scale that we have used in investigations of handstyles, and it serves well to underline when we cannot see any discrepancies other than in the ”amplitude” between the expressions".
That, effectively tells me that we are nowhere even near a "null hypothesis" in this particular case - we are instead handling material where the only discrepancies we can find are to be found in the "amplitudes" between the expressions.
And of course, Leander bears out that he is not - and has never been - of the meaning that a null hypotheses applies in this case, when he writes "it is worth to move on with this person because – as I am inclined to think at present – get the suspicions confirmed – OR to realize that the similarities were coincidental (which I at present would be surprised by)."
Putting it differently - and I am fully aware that you donīt want me to put things differently, but since I have not the scientific tools, I make do with what I got: my journalistic experience and the respect it has brought me for the need on the publics behalf to have things clarified at times - Leander is of the meaning that AS THINGS STAND, he is inclined to believe that we have a match.
My own stance on the matter is that I believe that, weighing together the fact that he states that the only discrepancies he can see inbetween the signatures are of an "amplitude" character, and the fact that he tells us that he would be surprised to find out that he was wrong (although he of course does not exclude the possibility), what Leander tells us is that if he had had access to the originals and if he had had access to a handful more signatures by the Dorset Street witness, it would have taken major dissimilarities in the elements for him NOT to move the verdict up to a hit on the upper hand of the scale. That is how I personally read it all; he never gave the verdict "a hit on the lower end of the scale" because the match was in any respect a poor one, but because of the lack of material and inherent material quality he experienced.
Of course, Leander is still out there, and I could ask him if this is something he can confirm or deny. But the trouble with such a thing would be that if Leander answered that he did not concur, it would be detrimental to me, and if he answered that he in fact did concur, the exact same thing would apply, since in such a case, Ben would step in and tell me that it is extremely strange that every time I ask Leander something, he sides with my wiew, implying that either Leander changes his mind or that I am lying. Of course, to ME a concurrance would not mean that he has changed his mind at all - quite the contrary - but Ben would keep pressing that "cannot be excluded" means that Leander from the outset gave a verdict of a "null hypothesis", just as you are suggesting yourself - but which I am denying for reasons outlined above.
And science may well have itīs merits and good sides, but if it is science to disallow a researcher to use the vocabulary he has been trained to use, simply because we dislike the fact that it swears against our own convictions or the praxis we have been using ourselves, then Iīm afraid I say so much for science in this case!
You write:
"you have consistently overstated the ‘evidence’ that appears to lend plausibility to the ‘Toppy was Hutchinson’ argument, whilst at the same time dismissing anything that fails to dovetail with your own beliefs."
In all honesty, how can I have been overstating things - if I am proven right in the future? We do not have the answer, Garry, and so I am very reluctant myself to pass judgment on who has been over- or understating things. If you mean that the evidence I am using is to weak to tie any substantial hopes to it, I simply disagree, while I respect any scientifically trained persons wiew that I may be too optimistic at too early a stage. It is everyones prerogative to use whatever training he or she has to judge the material, and the fact that most historians will listen to the scientifically trained and those who are more accustomed to evaluate scientific value is something I accept, respect and live with. To me, the signatures together with Leanders wiew, are quite enough for me to make my own mind up.
"you have exhibited a tendency to be rude and even abusive to those posters whose opinions fail to accord with your own. Was it really necessary to brand Babybird a liar when all she did was quote your own words?"
I have been rude. Absolutely. Moreover, it is not the first time it happens in exchanges with Ben. We have had a number of extremely heated debates where we have both repeatedly stepped over the line. I will only say that it takes two to tango, and leave it up to anybody who cares to do so to find out who leads and who follows when the two of us go Latin-American.
"Even when Ben reconsidered his position with regard to Frank, held up his hands and admitted that he had been in error, you embarked on a campaign of taunting and ridicule. As I have stated previously, Fisherman, it is more than possible to disagree without being disagreeable."
Normally, yes. But this time over I was of the meaning that Ben was trying to straddle a cleft of opinions on his own behalf that was way too wide to allow it. He chose to change his mind about Leanders status in the exchange with you, whereas he told me that Leander had been led by me to throw his obligations as a discerning researcher overboard. And frankly, Garry, it is either or; either you trust a scientist fully and wholly, or you are of the opinion that he cannot be trusted. It is also very unbecoming if you trust a researcher and hail his integrity as long as he concurs with your own wiews, but speak of him as being totally irresponsible when his findings and statements go against your own convictions. Whatever THAT is, it is not named science.
As for calling Babybird a liar, that emanated at a point where she claimed that I had stated that Leander had said that Toppy was Hutch. He would, in other words, according to me have passed a definitive verdict, leaving no room for doubts.
One post that goes to illuminate tha affair is this:
Babybirds wording:
"You have quite clearly said at different points in the discussion, that Toppy = Hutch, that Leander states that Toppy = Hutch (not true at all), that you concur with me when i state you cannot "close the case" (or be 100% certain in other words) that Toppy does = Hutch, that Toppy is probably Hutch etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc..."
My answer:
"I do believe that Toppy is Hutch. The evidence for it is overwhelming. That has remained my stance throughout. I have just posted and told you that I regard it a 99 per cent plus chance. The remaining fraction of a per cent means that I am honest enough to admit that no absolute certainty can be reached as yet, but that owes mostly to the lack of more signatures. I have every faith that when such signatures surface, they will confirm what I say - that Toppy in all probability is Hutch.
I have never said that Leander has stated that Toppy is Hutch. It is semantically twisted to begin with, since Leander has never used any of these names. Furthermore, he has never - and would never, as a discerning expert - said such a thing. He speaks in probabilities and possibiliteis only, and if you have not yet seen this, I fear you will never do so.
If you want to point me out as not being steadfast, Babybird, then you really ought not fabricate things.
Leander has stated that he would be surprised if the man (Toppy) who wrote the wedding signature and the census signatures, was not the same man that signed the police protocol back in 1888. That means that he sees the match as a probable one, and he is careful to tell us that he puts the hit on the lower side of the positive scale.
Can I be much clearer? I donīt think so.
In a fashion, you were also quite clear when you posted things that I have never said. It makes for quite a telling story too.
Fisherman"
When this post reached the boards, Babybird reacted to my suggestions that she had fabricated things and posted things that I had never said by retorting:
"point this out or apologise; if you do not i will report you. I cannot abide liars"
...and at that stage, of course, we had BOTH called each other liars!
So where do we find the truth? We find it in this wording, from another exchange:
My wording:
"I have never said that Leander has stated that Toppy is Hutch."
Babybirds wording:
"Right. You never said: 'At present, Toppy is Hutch". That means that I concur with Leander'
Funny how i am able to quote something you said, as you apparently now never said it."
And so, I never DID say that Leander at any stage stated that Toppy was Hutch. What I DID say was that I believed that at present, as things were standing, my OWN stance was that Toppy would in all probability be Hutch (I have since upgraded that to saying that to me, the case is closed until any evidence surfaces that disproves the match - but that is a different story, fools gold and all that....), and that in thinking so I concur with Leander, who ALSO is of the opinion that as it stands, he would be surprised to learn that Toppy was not our man.
You will appreciate that there is a very clear difference involved here, and that I will not go down as the man who made Leanders mind up for him - for he clearly and abundantly stated from the outset that he would NOT go beyond his verdict of a hit on the lower end of the scale as long as the lack of material and an investigation of the originals hindered him to do so.
Make of this what you want, Garry - at least now you have the whole picture, and just as Leander says, no verdicts should be passed without it. Well, he actually never said that explicitly - but he leaves us in little doubt about it, does he not?
The best,
Fisherman
PS. Unless I am forced to do so, I will not discuss this matter further with anybody but you, for the moment being. Like I said, I have retracted from the discussion as things stand, but felt I owed you an answer to your long posts.
)
Comment