Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"And it has been insufferable nonsense for ages."

Some of suffer it more lightheartedly than others, shall we say?

"The fact that photocopies have proven quite effective doesn't invalidate the necessity to target the originals wherever possible"

Correct! And that is exactly what Leander says too. But since we now agree that photocopies ARE quite effective, we may also need to realize that Leander has dealt with very useful material, and that the difference inbetween the quality of his material and that used by Iremonger - IF she had the originals in her hand - seems to be a very small one. Statistics, at least, tell us this. Then again, every sample wil have itīs own built-in qualities, and there may be something hidden in the originals. I have said it before and I say so again - but this time I say it against a background where we have another understanding altogehter on the quality of photocopied material.

"See, this is Fisherman's problem. According to him, he is never wrong..."

Oh, but I am! And when I am, I need to have it pointed out to me - and proven! That is why I am asking for that proof!

Fisherman

[Ben]

And if Iremonger only had the signature from that paper to go by - and once again, we do not know what she DID have

She had Toppy's marriage certificate signature to go by, and the inspid, laughable and libellous suggestion that a professional document examiner confused it with a modern piece of paper filled with modern handwriting can be dismissed as an total impossibility. There is no way that such a thing could have occured.

whereas Leander seem to be saying only a probale one

No, he said the possibility "cannot be ruled out".

Which doesn't mean "probable".

[babybird67]

i'm getting dizzy

stop the thread, i want to get off!!!!

[babybird67]

oh god

Not according to that study. They did a little better, I'll grant you, but after having so much "expertise" one would have thought they'd do much better. Not this one, but one.

Mike

one wouldn't have thought they would do that much better in a field which is not an exact science.

They did demonstrably better, consistently better, overall.

sorry, that's just my reading of the results.

[Fisherman]

Crystal:

"Then why don't you? Just admit you haven't got a clue what you're talking about and we can all get on with more interesting things."

Oh, but I do, Crystal. That is why Leander concurs with me to a significant extent, just as it is why the investigation on photocopied signatures confirms what Sam and I have suggested from the outset. Prove me wrong instead of using substanceless insults, and you may be worth listening to.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"i was trying to say as kindly as i could that meaning had been subtly changed, eg from "cannot be ruled out", to "probably match"...those two statements are mutually exclusive in terms of meaning; as has been pointed out many times, they do not mean the same thing, even if someone says they do."

Well, that someone is Leander, BB. Please ponder that.

"are you seriously suggesting that Sam would be able to tell a copy document, but a professional document examiner presented with the same document would somehow be fooled and therefore come to an erroneous conclusion? "

Well, BB, from the outset, Sam did NOT tell it! It was not until another poster pointed it out that he realized what it was. And if Iremonger only had the signature from that paper to go by - and once again, we do not know what she DID have - there is no telling what she would have concluded. Perhaps that on balance, she believed that it was not a match?

"Arguments being made on the other side of the road appear to KNOW for a FACT there is a match, 100 % sure in a field which can never be 100% sure of anything, even from experts!"

If I am that "other side", BB, I am not saying 100 %. I am saying a very probable match, whereas Leander seem to be saying only a probale one. My reason for adding the "very" is the context.

"i find it strange that you did not pick up what was quite clear from many of those postings by Chris, which was that professionals consistently did better (and by a significant amount) at matching the correct documents than lay-persons."

Leander, BB, IS a professional, and so were the fifteen experts from the investigation.

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

i think professionals did demonstrably and consistently better.

Not according to that study. They did a little better, I'll grant you, but after having so much "expertise" one would have thought they'd do much better. Not this one, but one.

Mike

Jen

You know how mud I carry around with me. It's what we minxes like to do.

And you know what they say about mud sticking....

[Ben]

That Iremonger may have seen the wrong material. And itīs not "now" - I have said this for ages.

And it has been insufferable nonsense for ages.

"Science and justice" also teaches us - well, me at least, perhaps not you - that experts traditionally attach great weight to the originals, and they really should not, since photocopies have proven to be quite effective too.

The fact that photocopies have proven quite effective doesn't invalidate the necessity to target the originals wherever possible, as every expert acknowledges. You're resorting to your terrible old tactic again of using any material provided to force-feed into your preconceived conclusions, whereas a closer inspection of Chris's useful extracts will reveal that the overall gist of the observation was that the professionals in the field are far more accurate in their assessments than hobbyists.

And no, there is no statement anywhere in those findings that states that the experts are "wrong" to invest significance in the originals.

So by all means, bolster this and let all the posters who have not gone to sleep see what you are reaching for! Point out just ONE instance where I am demonstrably wrong. Please?

See, this is Fisherman's problem. According to him, he is never wrong...

[babybird67]

"mud wrestling makes much more sense!"

No - but coming clean does!

Fisherman

give me the mud anyday fish, especially when attached to Crystal!

"mud wrestling makes much more sense!"

No - but coming clean does!

Fisherman

Then why don't you? Just admit you haven't got a clue what you're talking about and we can all get on with more interesting things.

[babybird67]

depends what you call a reasonable margin of error Mike

i think professionals did demonstrably and consistently better.

Nice to see you, by the way!

[The Good Michael]

Excuse me. Did you all see what Trublu posted? It shows that inexperienced people made more errors than document examiners. To the tune of roughly 19% vs 5%. That's more than 80% for the layman. Only 14% more errors than document examiners, and that is in cases of nongenuine signatures, which I take to mean forgeries or attempts to copy. We all seem to have the same capacity to spot these things save for a paltry few. Thanks Trublu. It proves a point.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

"mud wrestling makes much more sense!"

No - but coming clean does!

Fisherman

[babybird67]

oh my giddy aunt!!!

mud wrestling makes much more sense!