Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Ben]

As things stand, it's just speculation, I'm afraid.

It's speculation based on the overwhelming probability that Iremonger followed the guidlines of her profession and examined the original documents, Gareth. Dr. Leander was circumspect enough to acknowldge that the material was insufficient for him to arrive at a full expert opinion "since such things cannot be done from a material like this". No such caveat was appended to Iremonger's findings.

Besides which, Iremonger specifically volunteered her professional services, which would have been largely redundant if she had merely accessed photocopies.

Your mileage may vary, but I have no doubt whatsoever that Ms. Iremonger examined the original documents, according to the guidlelines of her profession.

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Y'know. That brings up a point. What is the difference between looking at a photocopy and the original? I realize that a photocopy should be somewhat grainier, but when we're discussing signatures, I don't see that it could mean a whit of difference. Every day I make photocopies for my students. The writing style doesn't change, nor does the print style, if I've typed it up. If an argument against Hutch as Toppy has to do with original vs photocopy, what could the difference be? Now, there are mistakes that we've seen wherein some detail is cut off, but I don't see what can be gained here and I would like for a PROFESSIONAL document examiner to explain. Gareth, I'll send you 5 pounds so you can be professional, okay?

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Y'know. That brings up a point. What is the difference between looking at a photocopy and the original? I realize that a photocopy should be somewhat grainier, but when we're discussing signatures, I don't see that it could mean a whit of difference.

With respect, that's something we might be able to understand better if the process was explained to us by the document examiners themselves. You'll note with interest that those with experience and expertise in this particular field - including Dr. Leander - has stressed the importance of analyzing the originals. Crystal did, I recall, outline the necessity for this in an earlier, but I'm damned if I can find it midst the 151 pages!

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

I remember her saying that. I do know that photocopies sometimes create anomalies; smudges, blurs, dots, that sort of thing. While I'd agree that an original must be cleaner, there are many things that can be done to clean up an image. I see no anomalies in these signatures, meaning nothing additional as I mentioned above. I am curious, however.

Mike

[Ben]

Here are Leander's sentiments on the "Original versus Copy" topic, as reported by Fisherman:

"I wish to strongly underline your view 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."

Ben

[Sam Flynn]

It's speculation based on the overwhelming probability that Iremonger followed the guidlines of her profession and examined the original documents, Gareth.

It's not an "overwhelming probability" at all, Ben - and it hasn't once been stated that Iremonger definitely handled the originals, to my knowledge.

Here, we have a golden opportunity to know something for once, rather than to speculate - so let's not do the latter. I'm sure it should be easy enough to confirm (not guess) whether Ms Iremonger trotted off to Kew to compare, side by side, the original paperwork of the witness statement and the Marriage Certificate, or whether she only compared copies of those documents.

Come to think of it, we haven't even had confirmation that she didn't see a later clerk's copy of the Marriage Cert, like wot I was stupid enough to blow £20 on (plus P+P). Against that, the issue of "originals versus photocopies" pales into insignificance, I'd say.

[Sam Flynn]

You'll note with interest that those with experience and expertise in this particular field - including Dr. Leander - has stressed the importance of analyzing the originals.

But that doesn't render examination of faithful scans a pointless exercise, Ben. If that were the case, every single hardback pictorial field-guide on wild flowers or birds, or coffee-table art books from Taschen or Thames & Hudson, should carry whopping great labels announcing that their contents are hopelessly misleading.

[The Good Michael]

I've never seen the Mona Lisa in person, but I've seen photos. D'you mean to tell me that she looks nothing like that in the original? I see another Dan Brown book in the works.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

I suspect looking at the original means looking at the full document to see if there's been any changes done or tampering with images of the document. That makes sense. Yet, if there was no tampering of the images we see now, Hutch is Toppy.

Mike

[Ben]

It's not an "overwhelming probability" at all, Ben - and it hasn't once been stated that Iremonger definitely handled the originals, to my knowledge

Oh, but it is, Gareth.

Sue Iremonger is a professional document examiner, and that's what they do - examine original documents. It's impossible to accept that a professional document examiner volunteered her services when she had no intention of doing her job properly, despite the fact that the orignal documents in question were perfectly accessible, and despite the fact that professionals in the field continue to underscore the value in examining the originals. Obviously, it would be nice to have concrete proof, but the alternative is too absurd to comtemplate, in my view.

I'm afraid the idea that she compared a modern registrar's handwriting to a document from 1888 takes us to truly abyssal depths of improbability.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

I suspect looking at the original means looking at the full document to see if there's been any changes done or tampering with images of the document. That makes sense. Yet, if there was no tampering of the images we see now, Hutch is Toppy.

No, Mike.

The purpose and importance of examining original documents is not solely to detect possible forgery. Both Leander and Crystal are aware that we're not dealing with a forgery or tampered document here, but they still underscore the importance of examining originals, and they still highlight the fact that a comparison of onscreen images in this case is seriously weakened for that reason.

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

You say, "No". For what purpose then?

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

In this instance, the purpose was to assess the likelihood of a match (or not) between the signatures.

[The Good Michael]

That doesn't answer my question. What purpose does the original serve over the image. You think it has nothing to do with the possibility of a tampered image. Okay, but what is the purpose? Just because it is always the best route? Again, okay, but why.

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

Obviously, it would be nice to have concrete proof, but the alternative is too absurd to contemplate, in my view.

"Too absurd to contemplate"???!!!

Ah, well - whatever. Far be it from me to disturb your dreams.