Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"it irritates me to the point of desiring a vicious public boxing match that you should accuse her of such an oversight"

Hmmm, Ben - a few days ago David told me that I was lucky not to be standing opposite him, and now you are speaking about a boxing match...?

What is this all about? Are you threatening to beat me up, or what? Not very many people fancy their chances, Ben, since I am 193 centimetres tall and weigh around a 110 kilograms. Moreover, I have a boxing background.

Still, I think you would be in with a fair chance to do at least some damage, since I am also a pacifist and have been so for decades - I would not strike back if you decided to have a go. I would just restrain you.
The reason for my pacifism is that I am of the mindset that the one who deals the first blow is also the one who has realized that his arguments will do him no good, and so he resorts to less subtle methods.
...but does not all of this border on being very silly? Is this not a discussion board? I suggest we make do with that and leave the testosterone for other purposes.

"I listened to Leander before his views were distorted."

But they never were, Ben - we even have him telling us that "cannot be ruled out" is a verdict that traditionally belongs to the positive end of the scale! And that was something you categorically ruled out; to you, "cannot be ruled out" could NEVER classify a hit on the positive side. We now KNOW that this was not so, it is common procedure to classify the lowest, most careful hit on the positive side as EXACTLY "cannot be ruled out". Or is this something I have invented myself? Or something I distorted? Or did I hypnotize Leander into telling us this?
Of course not. He himself has the hit down as the lowest one on the positive side. That means that he thinks that Toppy was the witness. He is in no way sure, and apparently the match could be better than "the lowest, most careful one". And when Leander tells us that he would be surprised to have another outcome, we must realize that he would probably not be extremely surprised - but surprised nevertheless.
It is a match in Leanders wiew, it is by no means the best one he has seen, but it is good enough for him to expect it to hold water.

Fisherman

[truebluedub]

JFS Volume 47, Issue 4 (July 2002)




ISSN: 0022-1198
Published Online: 1 July 2002
Page Count: 17


Click here to download this paper now for $25

View License Agreement

Individuality of handwriting
Srihari, SN
University distuinguished professor, Department of Computer Science and Engineering and Director, Center of Excellence for Document Analysis and Recognition, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14228.

Cha, SH
Assistant professor, Pace University, Pleasantville, NY 10570.

Arora, H
Research scientist, IBM, Endicott, NY.

Lee, S
Doctoral candidate, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Unversity at Buffalo, State Unversity of New York, Buffalo, NY 14228.


Abstract
Motivated by several rulings in United States courts concerning expert testimony in general, and handwriting testimony in particular, we undertook a study to objectively validate the hypothesis that handwriting is individual. Handwriting samples of 1500 individuals, representative of the U.S. population with respect to gender, age, ethnic groups, etc., were obtained. Analyzing differences in handwriting was done by using computer algorithms for extracting features from scanned images of handwriting. Attributes characteristic of the handwriting were obtained, e.g., line separation, slant, character shapes, etc. These attributes, which are a subset of attributes used by forensic document examiners (FDEs), were used to quantitatively establish individuality by using machine learning approaches. Using global attributes of handwriting and very few characters in the writing, the ability to determine the writer with a high degree of confidence was established. The work is a step towards providing scientific support for admitting handwriting evidence in court. The mathematical approach and the resulting software also have the promise of aiding the FDE.

Keywords:
document analysis, feature extraction, forensic science, handwriting identification, handwriting individuality

Paper ID: JFS2001227_474

regards
Chris Lowe

[truebluedub]

Citation Information
Journal of forensic science
Stock #: JFS9511
Volume: 40
Issue: 6
Year: 1995
Pages: 1045-1051
Author(s): Hicks AF
Title: Computer Imaging for Questioned Document Examiners I: The Benefits
Keywords: computer imaging, computers, digital image processing, document examiners, forensic science, questioned documents


Abstract: Computers are touching every aspect of our lives. Many computer software programs are beneficial to Forensic Document Examiners. These include word processing programs and databases for typewriter reference files. A new area of interest is the use of digital imaging programs to address some document problems. Many imaging packages, such as Adobe Photoshop 3.0, allow the examiner to quickly and easily tackle problems that, otherwise, would require some very expensive instrumentation and/or a great deal of time and trouble. This software can also be of benefit in preparing demonstrative exhibits of the examiner's findings. Illustrations and step-by-step instructions will assist examiners in putting this technology to work for them.

kind regards
Chris Lowe

[truebluedub]

Journal of forensic sciences:

Volume 46, Issue 4 (July 2001)




ISSN: 0022-1198
Published Online: 1 July 2001
Page Count: 5


Click here to download this paper now for $25

View License Agreement

Signature authentication by forensic document examiners
Kam, M
Data Fusion Laboratory, Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA.

Gummadidala, K
Data Fusion Laboratory, Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA.

Fielding, G
Data Fusion Laboratory, Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA.

Conn, R
RABA Technologies, Inc., 10500 Little Patuxent Parkway, Suite 790, Columbia, MD.


Abstract
We report on the first controlled study comparing the abilities of forensic document examiners (FDEs) and laypersons in the area of signature examination. Laypersons and professional FDEs were given the same signature-authentication/simulation-detection task. They compared six known signatures generated by the same person with six unknown signatures. No a priori knowledge of the distribution of genuine and nongenuine signatures in the unknown signature set was available to test-takers. Three different monetary incentive schemes were implemented to motivate the laypersons.
We provide two major findings: (i) the data provided by FDEs and by laypersons in our tests were significantly different (namely, the hypothesis that there is no difference between the assessments provided by FDEs and laypersons about genuineness and nongenuineness of signatures was rejected); and (ii) the error rates exhibited by the FDEs were much smaller than those of the laypersons. In addition, we found no statistically significant differences between the data sets obtained from laypersons who received different monetary incentives.
The most pronounced differences in error rates appeared when nongenuine signatures were declared authentic (Type I error) and when authentic signatures were declared nongenuine (Type II error). Type I error was made by FDEs in 0.49% of the cases, but laypersons made it in 6.47% of the cases. Type II error was made by FDEs in 7.05% of the cases, but laypersons made it in 26.1% of the cases.

Keywords:
examination, forensic science, handwriting, questioned documents, signatures, validation

regards
Chris Lowe

[truebluedub]

Here's an abstract, I'll track down more.

Title: PROFICIENCY OF PROFESSIONAL DOCUMENT EXAMINERS IN WRITER IDENTIFICATION
Journal: Journal of Forensic Sciences Volume:39 Issue:1 DatedJanuary 1994) Pages:5-14
Author(s): M Kam ; J Wetstein ; R Conn
Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation
United States
Publication Date: 1994
Pages: 10
Type: Technical reports
Origin: United States
Language: English
Contract No.: J-FBI-91-352
Annotation: This experiment found that professional document examiners from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) were significantly better in performing writer identification than college-educated nonexperts.
Abstract: A comprehensive writer identification test was designed and administered to a group of professional document examiners and a control group of nonprofessionals. The professional group consisted of seven document examiners from the FBI, while the control group consisted of 10 graduate students in the areas of engineering and business. A data base of 86 documents created by 20 writers was used for the test. Each participant was given the same 86 documents and was instructed to sort them into separate piles. Each pile was to include documents created by the same writer. Professional document examiners from the FBI performed significantly better than control group members, indicating that handwriting identification expertise exists. The findings call into question the conclusions of previous studies in this area. Methods used by professional document examiners are discussed. 16 references and 5 tables
Main Term(s): Police effectiveness
Index Term(s): Federal Bureau of Investigation ; Document analysis ; Evidence identificatn and analysis/ ; Handwriting analysis ; Technology ; Criminal investigation/ ; Forensic sciences

To cite this abstract, use the following link:

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=146638

regards
Chris Lowe

[Ben]

My scientific background tells me that we need to see empirical evidence - studies, papers (electronic or otherwise!), research - that proves that using scanned images is significantly worse than using original documents, before we believe the "just so" stories we've had so far.

But your doubt is unreasonable, with respect, Gareth, since every document examiner knows that an analysis of the original documents is necessary. The idea that they all alighted on this decision, collectively, for no good reason and without any compelling reason to do so, is regrettably outlandish.

The fact that they alll agree on this necessity is sufficient to rule out the idea that they all just "decided" on the assumption that originals were preferable to scans. The reasons offered by the expert practitioners in the field are eminently logical ones, and Crystal has outlined several of these herself, one of which included pen pressure, which is readily detectable in orginal documents in a way that cannot compare to a computerized image. Experts will of course disagree on certain aspects, but it is significant that they all agree on this issue (which is why "proof" in this case, cannot be quantified for the purposes of the "experiments" you're suggesting), and I don't consider it reasonable that they must all be considered wrong-headed in this regard.

If that was the case, it's impossible to accept that they wouldn't have been exposed by now.

ARE they, though, Ben? And, if they are, did Sue Iremonger actually use them?

It really is not good enough assuming that she did. Not good enough at all

Is is when we know that the alternative is too unutterably outlandish to contemplate.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

But then I know you don't have the background in document examination that Crystal, Sue Iremonger and Frank Leander do, Gareth, so my scientific background means nothing.

My scientific background tells me that we need to see empirical evidence - studies, papers (electronic or otherwise!), research - that proves that using scanned images is significantly worse than using original documents, before we believe the "just so" stories we've had so far.

What is the proof that originals are significantly better than scans in a signature-comparison task, and - if they ARE better - under what circumstances, and in which scenarios, are those benefits most relevant?

If document examination is a science rather than a subjective "art", then I'd have expected that such information would be readily available and, indeed, in the public domain. I've not seen or found anything of the kind so far, and that is what puts all my scientific instincts on amber alert.

[Ben]

And still, despite all of these mental deficiencies of mine, here we are with a judgment from Frank Leander that tells us that he concurs with me in my assessment that Toppy probably was the Dorset Street witness!

Ah, but he never said that.

He never once claimed that Toppy was "probably" the Dorset Street witness, although I've every faith that you'll contact Leander again, and that with the regularity of clockwork, he'll come through with the same suspiciously timely endorsement that, yes, yes, he meant what Fisherman says all along. It's decidedly dodgy, Fishster, and your efforts have extracted any worth in Leander's comments that might initially have existed. In Leander's initial "spontaneous" reaction, there was never any suggestion that Toppy was "probably" the Dorset Street witness.

He said that Toppy "cannot be ruled out", and that the differences militated "against" the similarities. You then continued to make various bogus claims about the contents about his original letter, and when I challenged these bogus claims, you suddenly reappear with a "second post" from Leander where these bogus claims magically appear. Something's decidely wrong with this. Since you're telling me that you didn't lie or mistranslate, the only realistic option is that the "expert" you recruited changed his tune in response to your unseemly bombardment, and when you supplied with with errnoeous information.

Crystal is also an expert document examiner. She has examined the documents as they appear on a computer screen and has come to the conclusion that they probably weren't written by the same hand. She contacted a colleague who works in the same field, who also subscribed to the view that they didn't match. Crystal intends to examine the originals, and I applaued her good intentions in that regard. Sue Iremonger has also examined the original documents, and has come to the conclusion that they didn't match.

I simply creep into his head and hypnotize him, and BANG...!

Oh, no - no hypnotism involved.

That's what I do to you, which is why you keep following around, and why I effectively dictate your internet activity.

What you do is bombard.

The gentleman you contacted was very adamant from the outset that his views should not be misconstrued as a full expert opinion, and when I addressed his views, I took the trouble of quoting him directly so as to avoid any possible confusion on the subject. What you then did was put words in his mouth, and when I claimed those words weren't there, you contacted Leander and suddenly those words appeared. Don't feed him misleading information about the number of potential candidates around, and don't inform him that his words have kicked up a storm on a message board. That's just screamingly obvious. If you don't wish to tarnish or colour his views, such extraneous information is unhelpful.

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”.

But that's what I've been saying all along. It's the "lowest" expression that can be used when describing anything that could possibly be construed as "positive". What it doesn't mean is "probable". Cannot be ruled does not mean "probable" ever, unless the person misusing them as synonyms is terminally dim or appallingly sarcastic. I had hopes that Leander was neither, but if he really is the sort to succumb to continued pestering, I'll have to think about revising that stance.

And so I put the question bluntly to him; Am I correct in believing that you think that the match is on the positive side of the scale? And he answered yes, and added that he would be surprised if it proved not to be a match.

...And he radically and suspiciously altered his stance, to the extent that he is no longer worth taking seriously, since both views effectively cancel eachother out. I find this depressing, since his initial, uncorrupted reaction was anything but Toppy-endorsing. You didn't like that, so you tried to extract as many Toppy-endorsing comments out of him as you could. It really was a case of "Bit more...bit more....bit more", and eventually, the poor beleagured man succumbed. Anything for a quiet life I guess, which is what you should be interested in.

"Overall likeness" was a comment you erroneously attributed to Leander. I point out that he said no such thing, and then from out of the implausible aether comes a "second post" where he starts talking about an "obvious likeness", and since then he's upgraded even further.

To me, that "engenders a feeling of scepticism".

[Sam Flynn]

Not applicable in this case, though, Gareth, since the orignals in this case are all perfectly accessible.

ARE they, though, Ben? And, if they are, did Sue Iremonger actually use them?

It really is not good enough assuming that she did. Not good enough at all

You know, Fisherman, you're right . Somebody has lost their grip around here.

I'm just not so sure it's Ben.

[Ben]

What are you all doing, blitz-posting into the evening?

Think about this logically for a moment.

You know me. If I'm supposed to be the Hutchinson zealot you claim I am, who will puruse matters to eternity and beyond, what are you hoping to acheive? Your assessment of me dictates that I will get the last word in this discussion whatever happens, so what is the motivation for sticking around? It's a serious question.

and that is because she seems to have mystically overlooked a very close match

No mysticism involved, Fish.

No "overlooking" either, and it irritates me to the point of desiring a vicious public boxing match that you should accuse her of such an oversight. Her professionalism and expertise led her to the opinion that Toppy was not the witness, and that was almost certainly as a result of examining the original documents.

The entrenched guy here is you, Ben, who will listen to an expert like Leander only when his words are apt for a little distorting and misinterpreting.

No, Fish.

I listened to Leander before his views were distorted. Since then, I believe his views have been corrupted as a result of continued bombardment and the erroneous information that was fed to him.

But, with respect, Ben, I don't think you have a background in science like wot I do. I've not seen anything - and certainly not any empirical data

But then I know you don't have the background in document examination that Crystal, Sue Iremonger and Frank Leander do, Gareth, so my scientific background means nothing. I am not s document examiner. Every single document examiner knows full well that the originals are necessary for establishing a comparison, andn that scans or computerized images aren''t as suitable for the job. The notion that it somehow requires one poster on a serial killer message board to somehow disabuse them of a concept that they all share is obviously untenable. If ripperology as a an area of interest is to be taken seriously, it's got to stop pretending it knows better than those with actual expertise, and claiming that they are the replacement experts. People do it here here, just as they do in the Tabram threads. It doesn't work, and having the loudest voice doesn't help.

Not invariably, Ben. Sometimes the originals no longer exist, only scans.

Not applicable in this case, though, Gareth, since the orignals in this case are all perfectly accessible.

[Fisherman]

Ben tries:

"What I find galling in the extreme is that whenever Leander's observations are made known in all their circumspect, non-Toppy-endorsing glory, those arguing for Toppy go straight back to Leander.

Not quite Toppy-favouring enough, Frank!

Bit more?

Better. Bit more?

Nearly there.

Bit more?

There! That'll do!

...With Leander's views mutating over time as he is bombarded, and as his views are effectively poisoned."

That, Ben, is quite a theme for a nice book! I particularly like MY role, where I can effectively lure Leander into believing that he is thinking something he would never had sworn to otherwise - I simply creep into his head and hypnotize him, and BANG...! Kind of phantomizes me in a manner that you normally donīt award me - normally you save the role of the stupidest participator for me. So itīs refreshing to suddenly gain superhuman powers!

Then again, this all tallies very poorly with real life (but never mind, we are speaking fiction here, ainīt we..?).
For in the real life, Leander posted a wiew that said that “the expression CAN NOT BE RULED OUT belongs to the same parish as THERE ARE OBVIOUS LIKENESSES IN CERTAIN RESPECTS” and ”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”.
To most people, this would mean that he tells us that he thinks that the match lies on the positive side, but not to you! No, you keep telling us that “cannot be ruled out” can NEVER point to the positive end of the scale. And yet, here is Frank Leander telling us that there has formerly even been an INSTITUTIONALIZED scale, whereupon “cannot be ruled out” represented a hit on that positive end!

Now, what happened when the post arrived? Exactly – you refused to admit that Leander was of the meaning that the match was on the positive side, and stated that he never had said that the scales were weighing over in that favour.
And so I put the question bluntly to him; Am I correct in believing that you think that the match is on the positive side of the scale? And he answered yes, and added that he would be surprised if it proved not to be a match. And there is only so much I can do if he feels that he needs to be a bit clearer - it is his choice and his wording. Itīs not me in the ventriloquistīs role. Implying that is saying bluntly that Leander lacks working ethics - but you wonīt mind adding further insults to the earlier ones, do you?
You were the one that forced me to put the question to Leander. I published the exact wording of that question, in both Swedish and English, and I published Leanders answer. There really is effectively nothing to whine over in that respect, Ben. And Sam did not take long time to step in and tell you that there is nothing semantically strange about Leanders posts at all - and it seems Sam has a background that makes him well suites to know about these things.
Nor is there any turn-around. The only thing there is, is a reinforcement and clarification of the earlier post. And you were the one who asked for it.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Crystal:

"I didn't say you were a 'biased liar' Fisherman."

Well, apparently not, since that was my wording. Itīs just that when somebody decides to go to Leander the way you propose to, it kind of implies that you are not willing to believe me without checking. So it is, more or less, a way of pointing to a deep distrust.
But that is in no way new to me. You and - mainly - Ben have spent a lot of time and effort trying to diss both me and my wiews and paint me out as a stalker, unreliable, desperate und so weiter - oh, and "raving", of course - so whoīs to be surprised? Not me, anyways!
And still, despite all of these mental deficiencies of mine, here we are with a judgment from Frank Leander that tells us that he concurs with me in my assessment that Toppy probably was the Dorset Street witness! Well, he only goes so far as to say that he would be surprised if the police report signature was NOT written by Toppy, but you have to admit that is just about the same.
Who would have thought it? A top authority in the game tells me that it seems I was right throughout the blizzard of insults! Well, well...!

Of course, Ben would be on the right track here - either I am lying or misrepresenting Leander totally, or he has just lost the grip. You really should ask him what is going on here, for it is obvious, is it not, that this cannot be true?

What was it you said some posts back, Crystal? This thread has come to a sad state, or something along those lines. Well, you are right about that!

Fisherman

I didn't say you were a 'biased liar' Fisherman.

Try to get your facts straight before you start raving.

You did invite us all not to take your word for Leanders. And that's what I'm doing.

Seems fair to me.

[Sam Flynn]

Simplicity is not the crowning criterion. Professional document examiners analyze original documents. That is what they do

Not invariably, Ben. Sometimes the originals no longer exist, only scans. I presume that document examiners, when presented with such a scenario, wouldn't just shrug their shoulders and go home.

otherwise - as all practitioners in this field appear to acknowledge - she would not have been doing her job.

I don't think that all practitioners in this field would think anything of the kind. Seems rather a harsh judgment to me. In situations where the originals are inaccessible or (as might be the case in this instance) no longer in existence, scans ought to be perfectly adequate.