Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Sam Flynn]

I wonder what the alternative is supposed to be? That document examiners the world over all conspired to create a grand "pretense" that the originals are preferable to scans?

Supposition isn't good enough, where proof might be easily obtained, Ben. And no "pretence" is implied either - I can well imagine scenarios where having the paper in front of one makes a genuine difference, e.g. in assessing the pressure exerted by the writer or other artefacts that might betray an attempt to forge or defraud. But, as I've said countless times, this isn't a case of a contested will or anything of that nature, it's simply a matter of comparing signatures.

Documents of record are scanned and stored on a mind-boggling scale these days, and there are standards in place to ensure that the citizen is protected when such scanned records are retrieved for evidential purposes later down the line (e.g. DISC-PD0008, ISO-15489). In short, scanned images of records, official forms and the like are perfectly admissible in Law, provided the standards for document capture and storage are adhered to.

One would have thought that, if there were any doubt about the appropriateness of imaging technology, we'd still have mountains of paper filed away in every government/enforcement organisation, bank or insurance company in the land.

We don't, though - doesn't that tell us something about scanned images?

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

Supposition isn't good enough, where proof might be easily obtained, Ben.

I realise that, but when we contemplate that all professional document examiners underscore the value of accessing the original documents for comparison and analysis, in preference to scanned copies, it's pretty clear that we're not dealing with a professional body that decided, on a collective whim, to "suppose" something that hasn't been successfully demonstrated already.

Let's try and steer clear of this forgery issue. Obviously, that's not what we're dealing with here, and yet despite this we know that the document examiners involved in this particular comparison, in whatever capacity, have reiterated the importance of accessing the actual documents. They did so despite the fact that we're only discussing a signature comparison, and not a case of forgery. Clearly then, we're dealing with a case in which "having the paper in front of one makes a genuine difference", and that's according to those with professional insight and expertise in the field.

Documents of record are scanned and stored on a mind-boggling scale these days, and there are standards in place to ensure that the citizen is protected when such scanned records are retrieved for evidential purposes later down the line (e.g. DISC-PD0008, ISO-15489).

That's chiefly due to the information it contains, not because of the appearance of the letters. Scanned documents are often presented as evidence, yes, but because of the information contained therein, not because they're seeking to ascertain penmanship. The former reason accounts for the "appropriateness of imaging technology", the majority of which is typed anyway.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

I realise that, but when we contemplate that all professional document examiners underscore the value of accessing the original documents for comparison and analysis

Where's their evidence for the "value-add" of doing that, Ben, and in what specific context might such value be added? People swear that vinyl sounds better than CD, or that printed magazines are better than online magazines, but the information content is the same (better, in fact, in the case of CDs versus LPs). In such cases, it's clearly not any empirical difference that gives rise to the judgment of comparative value, it's only a personal preference borne, one suspects, out of familiarity with a tried and trusted medium.

Let's try and steer clear of this forgery issue.

Not if the benefit of paper over scanned images only applies in cases where the authenticity of a document is in question - which I suspect it is.

That's chiefly due to the information it contains, not because of the appearance of the letters.

In matters of dispute, it often has to be demonstrated that the person(s) concerned actually signed a given document. Where such documents have been scanned, various records management standards have been instituted in order to assure both sides of the debate that the original (paper) document was not tampered with after it was captured and stored electronically.

[Ben]

Where's their evidence for the "value-add" of doing that, Ben, and in what specific context might such value be added?

Well, obviously I'm not a document examiner, Gareth, and while I might have very good reasons for suspecting why an original document is preferable to a scanned copy, I'm naturally inclined to defer to their expertise when it comes to the particulars.

I think we can be pretty secure in the realisation that we're not dealing with mere "personal preference" here. Crystal has explained why the originals are necessary, and Leander acknowledged that he cannot offer a "full expert opinion" without being able to access the original documents. It wasn't just a case of "Me, I'm old fashioned and prefer to use originals", but rather an acceptance within the professional that they're necessary for the task.

Best regards,
Ben

[Roy Corduroy]

Document examiners look at the original instead of a copy the same way that a symphony audition is done in person and not via tape recording.

Roy

[Sam Flynn]

Well, obviously I'm not a document examiner, Gareth, and while I might have very good reasons for suspecting why an original document is preferable to a scanned copy, I'm naturally inclined to defer to their expertise when it comes to the particulars.

There's absolutely no reason that you should, Ben. You see, it's not a question of "trust" or "deferring to expertise" - it's one of proof. Where is the proof that comparing images of signatures is somehow "deficient" in comparison with comparing paper copies of the same?

I know of no empirical study that has been cited in support of this assumption, and it's not unreasonable to ask for such evidence. I've already given an example of a very simple experiment that would do the trick. That said, I was rather hoping that such information was already available, for how otherwise could the document examining community be so confident that "originals are best" when it comes to comparing signatures?

[Roy Corduroy]

Sam, it is such a basic tenet of document examining that, whenever possible, use the original, that no such study exists. I would not expect it to.

It's so basic.

And besides, no two copy machines are created equally.

Roy

[Ben]

Good points there, Roy, and an apt comparison to boot!

There's absolutely no reason that you should, Ben.

There's no other reasonable alternative to accepting their judgement though, Gareth, even in the apparent absence of proof. If the experts in the field assure us that they cannot offer a "full expert opinion" in the absence of the original documents, there is little reason to doubt it, and as Roy points out, we're dealing with a well-known fundamental criterion for document analysis. It is basic, and I just don't see the grounds for any reasonable doubt here. Clearly, Leander and Crystal (and I'd imagine all document examiners worldwide) recognise the necessity for the originals, and it clearly isn't an "assumption" on their part.

It isn't unreasonable to inquire into further details (in which case, you can always ask), but it's another thing to dismiss it as false.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, it is such a basic tenet of document examining that, whenever possible, use the original, that no such study exists. I would not expect it to.

I would, Roy - again, where's the proof that it makes any difference in the context of comparing signatures? If there's no material difference between images and originals, it could save the world of document examination a heap of money if that could be established, so it's not all doom and gloom.

[Sam Flynn]

There's no other reasonable alternative to accepting their judgement though, Gareth, even in the apparent absence of proof.

I'm sorry, Ben, but if it were just a case of accepting something on the basis of "because we've always done it that way" or "we believe it makes a difference", then document examination may be less of a science than some credit it to be. No professional discipline worth its salt should be above challenging its assumptions.

[Crystal]

Tedious, very tedious. But hey, in for a penny... Right. Apart from the obvious truth that a copy is always an imitation of the original, and thus NOT comparable, even if a facsimile, much is lost in a photocopy or scan. An original handwritten document is virtually 3 dimensional under magnification, whilst an image of said document is not. Information which cannot be discerned from a copy can be extracted from an original in this way. A copy can be altered, resized, etc. Comparative size, as well as depth of letter formation cannot be determined with sufficient accuracy using a copy. Evidence of pressure, both in the script, and on the document, cannot be determined accurately from a copy - More? Or will that do? Tell you what, never mind. I won't bother.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

If there's no material difference between images and originals, it could save the world of document examination a heap of money if that could be established, so it's not all doom and gloom.

But given the regularity with which the professionals in question refer to the importance of original document analysis, it's fairly safe to conclude by now that they've carried out the necessary inquiries to satisfy themselves that the originals hold the most salient details. I just can't see why or how else they'd arrive at what appears to be a unanimous conclusion within the profession. If copies were just as good, they'd use copies, but they don't, so the reasonable conclusion is that extensive experience has led them to conclude otherwise.

Obviously, the idea that it has never occured to any of them that copies might be just as good as originals can be safely disregarded as untenable.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hello All ,
I cant wait for a [expert] opinion?, on the signatures to be revealed, will those of us who believe our own eyes, be forced to admit we are all thick, or will those of us that have ultimate faith in Topping to be a complete fraud, be in seventh heaven?.
Will i be forced to concede[ god forbid] that Reg was a complete hoaxer, who for some reason attempted to 'Have a laugh'.
Or will I say 'I told you so, many moons ago'.
Will Sam have victory over Ben?
Will Crystal say 'I was Wrong?
Or will yours truely, and his small army of believers have total victory in at least identifying Mr Hutchinson .
Of course his honesty will never be believed, except for proberly Me.
Regards Richard.

[Crystal]

Sorry - none of that had occurred? When I said this thread was an endless tirade of repetitive, unqualified nonsense, I had good reason. Ben, words fail me - out here, at least. I'm going. The rest of you can go round in a few more circles if you like. Who cares?

[Roy Corduroy]

Keep the faith Richard, and Crystal your efforts are certainly appreciated. Don't give up the ship.

And no Sam no doom and gloom on a beautiful Sunday afternoon. Who knows, the originals may confirm what you think anyway. Me, I've got no dog in this hunt

Cheers Ben and all.

Roy