Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

The field of document examination is concerned with a good deal more than the discernment of fraud, though, as I'm sure you're aware. The analysis of signatures undoubtedly comprises a large body of their work. With regard to your shapes analogy, it would depend what the objects are. If you're comparing two flowers, I'd be deferring to the experts for the same reason.

Fundamentally, I cannot agree with the premise that the apparent simplicity of the task makes the intervention of experts any less necessary. What might appear simple may be markedly less so in reality.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

With regard to your shapes analogy, it would depend what the objects are. If you're comparing two flowers, I'd be deferring to the experts for the same reason.

It doesn't take Alan Titchmarsh to tell me that I have two daffodils in my garden, Ben. He might be able to tell me which sub-species of Narcissus they belong to, but that's not what I need to know. Likewise, a forensic document examiner might be able to tell me all kinds of things about a set of documents, but I don't need their opinion to tell me whether a pair of signatures matches when there is no fraud implied.

Fundamentally, I cannot agree with the premise that the apparent simplicity of the task makes the intervention of experts any less necessary.

Oh, I can. I know what nonsense is spouted in the name of "soft science" at first hand. I also know at first hand how some fields invent their own "mystique" in order to make what they do appear "special" or "difficult".

[Ben]

It doesn't take Alan Titchmarsh to tell me that I have two daffodils in my garden, Ben. He might be able to tell me which sub-species of Narcissus they belong to, but that's not what I need to know.

But the above analogy is based on your belief in the similarity of the signatures, Gareth. In the view of others, the signatures might be more analogous to a foxglove standing alongside a hollyhock. Not wildly dissimilar, but quite clearly not the same. Again, document examiners aren't wholly concerned with fraud, and when they compare such minimal visual stimuli as two signatures, they have have the same set of a assessment criteria, but they're likely to have the training and experience to know precisely what to look for and make better judgements than the layman accordingly.

I also know at first hand how some fields invent their own "mystique" in order to make what they do appear "special" or "difficult".

Such accusations may be levelled at "graphology" with some justification, but the field of document examination isn't generally viewed with much suspicion, for good reason.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

"But we haven't got only two signatures, have we? Turns out, thanks to Gareth's efforts, that we have several other examples of Toppy's handwriting from 1911, and the impression conveyed in that over a 13-year-period, Toppy reveals remarkable consitency. The differences with the witness signature are very much in place 13 years down the line, thus "cementing" them. It's also pretty ridiculous to accuse Crystal of making "the same mistake". "

It does not matter, Ben, if we have ten thousand signatures from 1898-1911. They still cannot be used to establish how Toppy wrote in 1888. That´s schoolbook stuff, and there is no way around it. You´re slithering, Ben, and you really ought not to.

"given that this inflexibility revealed itself over a 13 period, we might reasonably assume he was just as inflexible 10 years earlier"

Once again: NO! We "may assume" no such thing at all. There is no support for it at all.

"So as a result of your surfing the web, you've been led to believe that the actual style and appearance of the signature is less important than its angle."

Ah, nice tactic, Ben! Lead people to believe that I am just "surfing the web" while you ground your stupi... sorry, your knowledge on other, more reliable sources. Undermine, cast doubt, anything...!
Thing is, you are just as wrong as always. And since you may be trying to push bookly knowledge (of which I have loads, thank you very much) over Interenet sources, I would very much like for you to explain to us all why internet sources would be of less value than books. Don´t be shy now - tell us!
The fact remains that the leaning of a text is more likely to remain consistent than are different elements of style. If you dispute this, you will be wrong, and there are tons of sources that tells us so - in books AND on the net. It is not hard to understand given a little effort - people change their letters all the time, but how often do they start writing with another leaning? The leaning is connected to how you put your hand to the paper as you write, and that remains very constant throughout the normal writer´s life.

"I don't know if that's true or not. I'm not for a moment suggesting that you're lying"

Yes, Ben, you are - and you have done it before on other threads. It is low, it is measly, it is totally unforgivable - and totally you. Besides, it is selling your soul to the devil for no good use at all: it does not matter. If you are saying that nobody else but me have changed their way of writing the capitals in their signatures in their twenties, well, then you are being a complete moron. There will be dozens of posters on this very thread who have done so. And we dont want to be moronic, do we, Ben?

"No, they don't. Everyone, please, visit Gareth's montage and revisit those signature again. Don't lie to yourselves. Try to exercise some inner circumspection. Is there any justification for saying that Toppy's handwriting differs "rather wildly" in Gareth's column of 1911 Toppy signatures?"

Very funny, Ben! Really! "Dont lie to yourselves, brothers and sisters - stay true, always stay true!" It´s just that I was speaking of Sams OWN signtures, connected to the Freud portrait.
But perhaps you don´t think they differed either?

You sure you know what signatures I´m speaking of now? I don´t want you to get it wrong and embarrass yourself again!


"Because I'd then be wondering why he doesn't exhibit a similar capacity for change over the next decade or so; from 1898 to 1911."

Fantastic! You are trying to pull the same stunt again! Oki-doki! Here goes:
Proving that a man writes in very much the same fashion in 1898 and 1911 has NOTHING to do with proving that he ALSO did that in 1888.
Can I put it differently? No, it´s crystal cl... extremely clear, I mean.

You have said yourself that there is no reason not to admit that Toppy may have changed his elements of style. But you still try to tell us that this would not have happened inbetwwen 1888 and 1898, and the eminent reason you give is "it did not change between 1898 and 1911.
Won´t wash.
Won´t do.
Not useful.
Won´t work.
Untenable.
Unviable.
Bordering on... no, let´s leave that. But it is, in fact!

Now, let´s be honest in the future and stop throwing forward silly suggestions like this. It won´t hold up for any scrutiny at all, and it must be kicked out of any functional discussion. And I do hope that you intend to have such a discussion instead of obstructing things in a childish manner, which is exactly what you are doing now: "They were the same, they must have been, I KNOW they were, I just know!"
You don´t know, Ben. You are selling a fart in a bag and nobody is buying.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

But the above analogy is based on your belief in the similarity of the signatures, Gareth.

Not at all, Ben - it's based on my knowledge of the biology of perception and my appraisal of the simple visual comparison task that this represents.

[The Good Michael]

Gareth,

Just to add to your note: It IS a rather simple task making comparisons. If it forgery, that's a completely different story and I would, of course, defer to the experts of which there are many. This is eyeballing, and I think we are all pretty good at it, as long as we use an unbiased judgement.

Cheers,

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

Such accusations may be levelled at "graphology" with some justification, but the field of document examination isn't generally viewed with much suspicion, for good reason.

I don't view it with suspicion, either - but neither do I hold it in awe. Just because someone does something for a living doesn't mean that they're an expert in anything special - I wouldn't consider my local rubbish-collector to be an "expert lifter" simply because his profession involves hoiking wheelie-bins onto a truck.

[Sam Flynn]

Just to add to your note: It IS a rather simple task making comparisons. If it forgery, that's a completely different story and I would, of course, defer to the experts of which there are many. This is eyeballing, and I think we are all pretty good at it, as long as we use an unbiased judgement.

Exactly so, Mike.

[Crystal]

Well I'm glad that's all been cleared up.

Fisherman, you ask - what say I? I say Zzzzzzzz.....

Give it a rest, hey? You haven't a clue what your'e talking about - really.

And even if after all is said and done I see enought evidence to alter my initial impression that these signatures are not by the same hand, and conclude that they MAY, or even ARE QUITE LIKELY TO BE

[Crystal]

...Sorry, pressed wrong button - where was I? Ranting!

..by the same hand, there will still be other details to clear up, right? Like the fact that the statement of the witness and what we actually know of GWT's life do not appear a very good match?

Or maybe we can just ignore that in favour of our own pet theories? What say you, Fisherman and Sam?

[Ben]

It does not matter, Ben, if we have ten thousand signatures from 1898-1911. They still cannot be used to establish how Toppy wrote in 1888

It gives us a pretty reasonable idea, though, doesn't it?

Whenever we encounter examples of Toppy's handwriting, which derive from 1898 and 1911, we see remarkable consistency exhibited. Reasonable deduction? That consistency is likely to extend to other time periods as well. The fact is that he demonstrated a susceptibility towards great consistency over a 13-year-period, which suggest that his particular "elements" of style weren't really prone to much change at all.

Ah, nice tactic, Ben! Lead people to believe that I am just "surfing the web" while you ground your stupi... sorry, your knowledge on other, more reliable sources. Undermine, cast doubt, anything...!

Well, to be fair, that's pretty much what you've been doing, isn't it? It's pretty much all you do. You've been churning out that "element of style" expression how many times now? I'm not suggesting that books are more valuable than the internet. I'm saying that, in my humble opinion, you resort to it all too often and end up misinterpeting - or drawing errant conclusions from - the source you uncovered.

The fact remains that the leaning of a text is more likely to remain consistent than are different elements of style.

But style refers to the entire appearance of the signature, including the angle as far as I'm concerned. In English, "style" is a hugely encompassing term when applied to signatures. That's why I'm dubious about the "element of style" construct, and feel you've run away with the idea somewhat. When we look at examples Toppy's handwriting over a gap spanning 13 years we disover that his particular "style" remains remarkably intact.

The leaning is connected to how you put your hand to the paper

But how can the style and general appearance of the signature possibly be "unconnected" to "how you put your hand to the paper".

If you are saying that nobody else but me have changed their way of writing the capitals in their signatures in their twenties, well, then you are being a complete moron

Of course I'm not, but it's also pretty obvious that Toppy was not in the habit of altering the appearance of his capital letters, as we learn from examples of his signature spanning a 13-year period.

Proving that a man writes in very much the same fashion in 1898 and 1911 has NOTHING to do with proving that he ALSO did that in 1888.

Not trying to establish proof here, but it can be logically inferred that a person who can retain such consistency over a 13 year period is perfectly capable of being equally consistent over a different time-span. Better than deciding that an otherwise very consistent handwriting will change when just you want it to have done, despite the lack of credible reasons for thinking so.

Won´t wash.
Won´t do.
Not useful.
Won´t work.
Untenable.
Unviable.

Y'know, you really just injure your own credibility when you write so hysterically, and adding extra unnecessary emphasis in the above fashion doesn't do the trick of making your observations any more pursuasive.

Now, let´s be honest in the future and stop throwing forward silly suggestions like this. It won´t hold up for any scrutiny at all, and it must be kicked out of any functional discussion

I utterly disregard you as some sort of barometer for sensibe suggestions, and if you think you're kicking anything out, I'm afraid you're painfully deluded. I don't care what "you" aren'y buying either. I find you profoundly ignorant and ill-informed.

You know, the Ben-has-not-got-a-stinking-idea-how-Toppy-wrote-in-1888-thing-but-he-would-sell-his-mother-to-make-it-look-that-way-thing.

You should really avoid your mouth running cheques your body won't cash. If this was a face-to-face discussion, and you were making slanderous insinuations about how I'd treat my mother, you'd certainly rue the day you did so. It's not as if you're not above using your own kids as pawns for use in experiments to try to score points over me. I have a great idea what Toppy's 1888 signature would look like in 1888. He revealed an incredible consistency over a 13-year period. He was probably just as consistent elsewhere.

I, on the other hand can tell you how Toppy wrote in 1888 - I have seen it

No, you haven't.

That was easy.

[Ben]

Just because someone does something for a living doesn't mean that they're an expert in anything special - I wouldn't consider my local rubbish-collector to be an "expert lifter" simply because his profession involves hoiking wheelie-bins onto a truck.

Ah, but dustmen don't purport to be expert "lifters", Gareth, though we might reasonably observe that they'd develop an aptitude for lifting through experience and practice on the job. But most of us recognise that the views of document examiners carry more weight than that of the amateur, which is why we employ them, and which is why Messrs. Hinton, Fido and Begg were inclined to listen to her opinion and discuss it with her.

Best regards,
Ben

[jmenges]

Having read Sue's phone message, I agree that "all those with functioning retinas" can be called experts.

Hi all,

I've not had time to catch up on all of the posts, but...

I received the following comments about Iremonger from Martin Fido this morning. Note the comments he makes on the Dear Boss letter that seems to argue against the "all those with functioning retinas" opinion.

I don't know any more details of Sue Iremonger's arguments on
Hutchinson. But...
She was the first hand-writing examiner for whom I ever had any respect. It
sounds, alas, like swank, but I have to start by noting that prior to my
bringing my paleographically trained eye to the Dear Boss letter, all the
handwriting experts (and non-expert historians) who had examined at it had
read it as starting "Sir". It was apparent to me that it read "Sor" (and
this, combined with the "Mishter" revealed a crude Victorian imitation of
uneducated Irish). Sue did as I did - compared the construction of each
doubtful letter with other definite ones (whose identity was proved by their
appearance in clearly correctly written words) - and confirmed at once that
this said "Sor". Every single thing she said about the Maybrick diary
appeared to me sensible and properly verified by observation and comparison
that she could demonstrate. Every reservation she made about handwriting she hadn't (e.g.) been able to submit to magnification, seemed valid. The
contrast with the "experts" who had blundered around the territory before
her, often making absurd claims, was striking.
I was further impressed that "Bones" Thomas, the Serious Crimes Squad
detective sergeant assigned by Scotland Yard to investigate the Sunday
Times' claim that Robert Smith had attempted to defraud them by the sale of
diary rights, was equally sceptical about the claims of the handwriting
examiners he'd encountered, and equally impressed that Sue was that real
rarity - one he completely trusted.
Subsequently I was also impressed by Maureen Casey Owens, whom Rendell
used, and someone - who, I now forget - who discussed the extreme difficulty
of altering the ratio between upper and lower case letters and the
comparative heights and depths of loops and hooks when disguising writing. I
found this to be effective when looking at the disguised hands used by
Madeleine Smith, which would have completely deceived me.
(Need I add that the Israeli woman Feldy dragged in was a complete nut
case - a graphologist who purported to read character from handwriting
through noting such absurdities as the E in Elvis's signature looking...
Like a Guitar!!! She even admitted to being unable to make comparisons to
establish that one hand was identical with another. If it was true that she
had appeared as a consultant in Israeli court cases, and never lost a case,
it speaks ill for Israeli justice and intelligence!).

Martin said I could quote him, so I repost this part of his email as is. Whether its helpful to the current discussion is doubtful, but I thought I'd pass it along.

JM

[Sam Flynn]

Note the comments he makes on the Dear Boss letter that seems to argue against the "all those with functioning retinas" opinion.

Thanks for posting that, Jon. Apart from the fact that Martin was clearly referring to the "From Hell" letter, that only reinforces the point that Iremonger wasn't doing anything particularly special there - and this is no slight on her character or her profession. However, some of it is pretty much stating the "bleedin' obvious".

I acknowledge, of course, that things aren't always that "bleedin' obvious" to some, which is why why we have debates like this on Casebook It's also why we have people like document examiners who are dedicated enough to do what I'm sure would be tedious and unengaging work for many. That doesn't mean they are possessed of any special powers, however.

[jmenges]

Apart from the fact that Martin was clearly referring to the "From Hell" letter...

Of course.

I just woke up.

Can't say what Fido's excuse would be.



JM