Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Crystal]

Very wise, Ben, very wise. We wouldn't want to frighten her off, would we - if we haven't already!

[The Good Michael]

Y'know, after watching Ben and Fisherman battling back and forth on this, the name "Iremonger" becomes somewhat ironic.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Let´s just not hope that Miss Iremonger has the same sense of humour as the former boss of our newspaper archive had. We used to have a line open for the public to call and inquire about things, and one Saturday evening there was this bloke who called, apparently gloriously drunk, and told Thomas (the archive boss) that he was having a bit of an argument and a bet going on. It was about which airport was the largest one in the world.

The drunken guy had his money on O´Hare, and his buddy went for Orly.

Thomas just said "Hold on, and I will find out!". Then he put the phone away for two minutes and tended to other things. After that, he picked the phone up again, and said "I´m pleased to confirm that you are right, sir! It´s O´Hare alright!"

That made the drunken bloke a very happy man, and since he was eager to let his buddy know, he said "Just a minute; could you tell my buddy what you just said? Here he is on the phone now"

Then Thomas casually leant back in his chair and as he heard the voice of the drunken mans buddy in the other end, he said "Good news, sir, you were right all along - it´s Orly!"

Then he hung up.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Malcolm X writes:

"the donkey is dead....drop it on the floor, time to move on"

Some will, some won´t and some will lean in over that donkey and claim that it´s still breathing.

Steady, Fish! Let's hire a professor of veterinary surgery to confirm that it actually is a donkey first!

[Fisherman]

Good suggestion, Sam - I´m all ears!

Then again, perhaps that makes ME the donkey...?

The best,
Fisherman

[claire]

I knew I shouldn't have come on here before I'd had my coffee. Or a stiff gin.

Sam and Fish...you know full well if you had just the one expert to identify said equine beast you'd never agree with him...it would require at least three experts, one would have had to have been there when the beast keeled over (in case of post-mortem transmutation), and one would need to be an expert in equine taxonomy. Then a psychic would chip in with the donkey's perspective. At the end of the day, someone would end up making an ass of themselves.

Coffee.

Gin.

[Crystal]

Steady, Fish! Let's hire a professor of veterinary surgery to confirm that it actually is a donkey first!

Ah, but[B] is[/B] it really a donkey, Sam, or is it an Ass? (Even though Claire beat me to it...Damn!)

Let's see what Miss Iremonger says, if indeed, she says anything at all. Whether or not you subscribe to the idea that expertise carries any weight or not, I think it's reasonable to concede that this is her profession, that she has seen and studied the said signatures (yes, I know we can argue about exactly which ones..) and she has reached a conclusion based on the above. I for one am interested in her view.

[Fisherman]

Claire writes:

"At the end of the day, someone would end up making an ass of themselves."

I´m not so sure about that, Claire - since Ms Iremonger apparently HAS made at least some sort of comparison and purportedly come up with the assertion that the signatures she compared were not by the same man, Ben et al would be asinine not to point to that circumstance.
And since we who go along with Sams suggestion that the signatures are too alike NOT to be by the same man, especially when we take the surrounding circumstances into account (and I subscribe to it; in fact I would even drink to it) would be just as donkeyish if we were NOT to follow this conviction and call the assertion made by Iremonger and seconded by Ben & Co into question.
Both camps have seemingly very legitimate reason to stand by their respective convictions, I feel. In fact, for my own part, I am having great difficulties to see - given that the signatures Iremonger compared WERE in fact the signatures she OUGHT to have compared - how any argument on her behalf could convince me. That is not to say that I won´t listen to argumentation that does not go along my own lines, for listen I must and listen I will. After all, she IS a renowned expert, judging by what people tell me, and her words must carry weight. But the task she is facing is to explain how two signatures that are graphically ridiculously similar to my eyes (AND to Sams AND to lots of other peoples eyes too) cannot possibly have been written by the same hand.

That said, I can only repeat that neither I, nor Ben, should be awarded the donkeys role for digging deep in search of the truth. That role is reserved for those who meekly accept things without going through the bother of checking them out first.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Whether or not you subscribe to the idea that expertise carries any weight or not

Not quite, Crystal. The point is that I don't subscribe to the view that expertise is even necessary when faced with such a straightforward task as this, being as it is the comparison of a set of rather mundane signatures, when there are no "tricky" issues (such as forgery) around to muddy the waters.

[Ben]

I for one am interested in her view

Me too, Crystal. I anxiously await a posiive reponse in my inbox. I, of course, subscribe to the view that her professional expertise makes her infinitely more qualified to make meaningful handwriting comparisons than those who lack the professional expertise.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

Me too, Crystal. I anxiously await a posiive reponse in my inbox. I, of course, subscribe to the view that her professional expertise makes her infinitely more qualified to make meaningful handwriting comparisons than those who lack the professional expertise.

Sue Iremonger analyses contested documents to a specific end - all well and good, and no doubt an essential service in its place. That does not, however, make her any more special than you or I at comparing scanned images of bog-standard signatures such as these. I say again that ALL of us is equipped to do this - as were our ancestors, and innumerable other ocularly-equipped species who preceded them.

Let me say that in saying this, I am neither questioning Sue Iremonger and her colleagues, nor the subject of document examination. On the contrary, it seems well attested to in its proper context, and I'm sure that the forensic techniques employed in paper and ink analysis are well beyond the reach of lay-people such as I. However, the context here is NOT about comparing bits of paper to determine authorship, neither is it about carbon-dating paper, analysing ink or assessing wills, in cases of suspected fraud.

What we have here is a very, very basic problem: do these signatures appear so different that they could not have been written by the same man? Extending that further - if they're that similar, were they written by the same man?

These sorts of tasks were regularly performed by millions of pimply cashiers and junior bank staff worldwide, and on a daily basis, before the advent of chip and pin spelt the demise of the paper cheque-book and the cheque guarantee card. Not rocket-science, not even forensic document examination... just using our minces.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

That does not, however, make her any more special than you or I at comparing scanned images of bog-standard signatures such as these.

I still can't agree, I'm afraid. While Iremonger and her colleagues undoubtedly involve themselves in more complicated and in-depth tasks than signature comparison, it would still form an important and sigificant part of their body of work, and her training and expertise simply better equips her to arrive at informed conclusions than you or I. Experience and background still count for a great deal, irrespective of the sigificance of the task or apparent lack thereof.

What we might regard as basic and uncomplicated may not be so considered by professionals accustomed to knowing precisely what to look for. That's not to say that laymen are especially likely to make a conspicuously bad job of comparing the signatures; rather, that the expert is more likely to make a better one, given her experience.

A comedy sketch or an advertisement is infinitely less demanding on a professional actor's ability than a leading Shakespearean role or a one-man production of Under Milk Wood, for example, but it certainly doesn't mean that non-actors could do the job just as efficiently. They still hire professional actors for these smaller, seemingly trivial jobs for that reason, and we might reasonably argue the same for document examiners. Yes, it requires less of their talent, but they remain the most qualified individuals to assess such matters, in my view.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

While Iremonger and her colleagues undoubtedly involve themselves in more complicated and in-depth tasks than signature comparison, it would still form an important and sigificant part of their body of work, and her training and expertise simply better equips her to arrive at informed conclusions than you or I.

Not in this context, Ben. I've seen clerks who process, between them, literally tens of millions of forms and cheques every year. It's surprising how easy it is for them to spot duds and discrepancies, even when working at pace. However, they are not trained specifically to do so - it comes naturally to them.

I do know what I'm talking about - I've seen how people (and brain-cells!) deal with visual comparison scenarios on a far larger, and more diverse, scale than you might imagine. There is no "mystique" to this. We can ALL do such simple visual tasks, and - the visually impaired excepted - we are ALL basically as good at it as anybody else, including Sue Iremonger.

[Sam Flynn]

They still hire professional actors for these smaller, seemingly trivial jobs for that reason, and we might reasonably argue the same for document examiners. Yes, it requires less of their talent, but they remain the most qualified individuals to assess such matters, in my view.

There are "naturals" in all fields, I dare say, where talent can trump qualifications - and even experience - on an annoying basis (annoying for those with experience and qualifications, that is ). However, I'm not talking about talent, qualifications or experience - I'm talking about the basic processing power of the eye/brain combo. In this sense, we're all "naturals".

[Ben]

We can ALL do such simple visual tasks, and - the visually impaired excepted - we are ALL basically as good at it as anybody else, including Sue Iremonger.

I still don't agree, Gareth. We might think we are, but that may be based on our - possibly quite erroneous - belief in the simplicity of the task. We employ document examiners because we accept, quite naturally, that the training and experience that they have undertaken has bestowed them with the discernment and abilities to know precisely what to look for. The more accustomed we are to a certain practice, the more likely we are to develop an aptitude for it. That doesn't mean that any "mystique" is involved, necessarily, but it may well mean that it involves a much more in-depth analysis that we might realise.

Bank clerks may be able to spot a glaringly obvious forgery, but they're certainly not experts either; more relibale, perhaps, than a laymen given the frequency with which he or she examines signatures.

We can all do funny voices and silly walks, but that doesn't mean we're all as good as professional actors.

Best regards,
Ben