Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[IchabodCrane]

Hi Ben,

if we tend to treat Iremonger with caution based on her judgement of Badham substituting a signature, then the expert opinion would now only be 1:0 compared to previously 2:0,

Best wishes,
IchabodCrane

[Ben]

It wouldn't work like that, Ichabod. First you'd need to demonstrate that Iremonger was wrong about the first signature being penned by Badham. In the absence of any such demonstration, her views regarding Toppy are most certainly not "cancelled out".

Best regards,
Ben

[IchabodCrane]

First you'd need to demonstrate that Iremonger was wrong about the first signature being penned by Badham.

Hi Ben,
Not sure what you mean by 'demonstrate'. It's about as clear as it can get. I can't mandate another expert, but maybe Crystal can let her experts double-check Sue Iremonger's assumption regarding the signature on page 1 being Badham's while they're at it,
Best wishes,
IchabodCrane

[The Good Michael]

IFirst you'd need to demonstrate that Iremonger was wrong about the first signature being penned by Badham. In the absence of any such demonstration, her views regarding Toppy are most certainly not "cancelled out".

Whoa there Nellie! Iremonger has to prove she's right first. Opinion means nothing without detailed reasons, and to date, we haven't seen any. Without some sort of analysis, her opinions mean no more than mine. If a clergyman tells me that Adam and Eve were the first people, but he has no evidence to back it up, regardless of his education, his opinion is meaningless. Granted, religion isn't a science, but you know what I mean.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Opinion means nothing without detailed reasons, and to date, we haven't seen any.

But the source of the opinion is this instance carries tremendous weight given her experience in the field. She undoubtedly provided her reasons at the time of the analysis, most probably during the course of the lecture discussed earlier. It's only reasonable, in my view, to assume that her reasons for deciding that they didn't match are engendered by professionalism and expert insight. Give me an expert who gives his/her opinion (despite their reasons being lost to time) over a non-expert who gives his/her opinion with "reasons" that might be spurious any day.

Hi Ichabod

Not sure what you mean by 'demonstrate'. It's about as clear as it can get.

But your demonstration may be wrong, and Iremonger may be right. 'Tis all I'm saying.

Best to all,

Ben

[IchabodCrane]

Hi Ben,
whether Badham signed we might still need to establish based on other experts opinions, but I think it's fair to say at this point that he didn't try to emulate the other signatures
Ichabod

[Crystal]

Ben writes: I don't wish to speak for Crystal, but I'd hazard a tentative guess that her experience in this particular field outweighs yours or mine

Yes! I knew there was something bothering me, and now I know what it is! I actually know what I'm talking about! (although I concede some may disagree...)

But seriously, and quickly, as I must get going - I am not suggesting that people are unable to use their eyes, and make reasonable comparisons between similar and different, although - back to the lumpers and splitters again - what they see is subjective and will differ, and be the subject of their own personal interpretation.

I am suggesting, however, that the ability to recognise what is significant is learned, and the product of even more time and effort than has been spent on this thread.

More tomorrow, no doubt...x

[Sam Flynn]

Give me an expert who gives his/her opinion (despite their reasons being lost to time) over a non-expert who gives his/her opinion with "reasons" that might be spurious any day.

But what if the "expertise" is built on spurious or outdated foundations, Ben? What if the opinions are based on subjectivity?

Now, I'm not for one moment suggesting that forensic document examination is pseudoscience, but fields (even ripperology!) tend to move forward, and theories change with them. In addition, and with the best will in the world, there will almost always be an element of subjectivity to a "soft science" such as handwriting analysis.

Its "experts" simply can't be viewed in the same light as (e.g.) mathematicians or biochemists, whose work is underpinned by empirical, objectively-verifiable, methods. It follows that the opinions of handwriting analysts cannot be "definitive" in the same sense that a mathematical proof or the equations describing a biochemical reaction might be.

That being the case, the boundary between "expert" and "non-expert" may not be as clear-cut as one might think. Indeed, the more subjective the task in hand, the more blurred that boundary becomes.

[Ben]

But what if the "expertise" is built on spurious or outdated foundations, Ben?

I honestly don't feel that's the case here, though, Gareth.

Crystal's summation above more than echoes my sentiments on the subject. The fact that document examiners cannot - and don't purport to - provide definitive answers in a way that a mathematician or biochemist can, does not mean that there cannot be experts in the field of document examination or any other field than isn't predicated on black and white, right or wrong answers. Nor does it make the distinction between expert and non-expert any less clear-cut in my view.

Criminologists may not be able to provide definitive answers either, but I still recognise that their experience, background and training will enable them to arrive at certain informed conclusions, which is why I often defer to them when discussing the ripper's likely kill-tally, as we were a few threads ago. They may not be able to offer ultimate proof, but I recognise that they probably know better from experience. Same with Iremonger and chums.

All the best,
Ben

[IchabodCrane]

Unless we have been missing quite a big chunk from Iremonger's reasoning behind her assessment, the conclusion that Badham tried to emulate Hutch's signature on page 1 doesn't seem very informed to me.

[Ben]

Unless we have been missing quite a big chunk from Iremonger's reasoning behind her assessment, the conclusion that Badham tried to emulate Hutch's signature on page 1 doesn't seem very informed to me.

That's just ludicrous, Ichabod.

All you're doing, effectively, is dismissing the validity of Ms. Iremonger's opinion simply because it doesn't agree with yours. Much, much better to entertain the prospect that the experts might be right and you might be wrong. Fundamentally, don't dismiss an expert's opinion because you think it's so obvious that you're right.

[Pablito]

Sorry to interupt guys, i'm not very sure about this stuff but has anyone tried to compare Hutchinson's writing to the dear boss or from hell letters?

[IchabodCrane]

Hi Ben,
no, I'm dismissing only her opinion on Badham emulating the signature, on reasons of logic. Not because I think I'm right, but because the H's are not the same. I stated above that her opinion that Badham wrote the signature on page 1 may be right, but would need to be corroborated by other experts (not me).
Best wishes,
IchabodCrane

[The Good Michael]

the ability to recognise what is significant is learned, and the product of even more time and effort than has been spent on this thread.

Crystal,

That's just crazy! Ben and Fisherman have spent more time on this thread than any document examiner has spent on signature comparisons.

Cheers,

Mike

[IchabodCrane]

Sorry to interupt guys, i'm not very sure about this stuff but has anyone tried to compare Hutchinson's writing to the dear boss or from hell letters?

Hi Pablito,
I don't know whether it has been tried professionally but they don't match on first glance,
IchabodCrane