Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Crystal]

Crystal is NEVER wrong, Roy. What a silly idea...

[Sam Flynn]

Apart from the obvious truth that a copy is always an imitation of the original, and thus NOT comparable

Non-sequitur. It does not follow that, because a copy is an imitation of the original, that they are not comparable to one another. They often are.

much is lost in a photocopy or scan.

Indeed - but is that loss sufficient to make it any more accurate to compare a signature on a paper original versus a good scan of the same?

Whilst I don't doubt your intelligence (even if you insist on talking down to mine) please understand that I don't want generalities, beliefs or platitudes in response. They are simply not good enough to answer the question I'm asking, namely: "where has it been proven that the task of signature comparison is significantly compromised by using a scanned image, as opposed to an original?"

While you're finding that out, perhaps someone would be good enough to confirm whether Sue Iremonger compared the original hard-copy Marriage Certificate signature with the original hard-copy Hutchinson Witness Statement signatures... or whether she only had access to scans/photocopies/faxes of one, other or both?

[Ben]

This is getting ridiculous.

Gareth, with respect, Crystal has told you precisely why document examiners use original sources rather than copies. Given that she is a professional in this particular field, I feel her views should be accorded respect. I'm really not sure what "proof" you would be seeking, since document examiners won't always agree on a conclusion anyway. It is enough, surely, that an experienced professional has outlined her - very sound - reasons for seeking out the originals (which came in the form of specificities, not "generalities" I might add). Added to which, another document examiner from Sweden has expressed the same sentiments.

[Sam Flynn]

Gareth, with respect, Crystal has told you precisely why document examiners use original sources rather than copies. Given that she is a professional in this particular field, I feel her views should be accorded respect.

I respect her views, but that needn't mean I should automatically subscribe to them. Just to make it clear: I'm being neither disrespectful nor unreasonable if I ask for evidence instead of opinion.

I'm really not sure what "proof" you would be seeking.

I've spelled it out often enough, Ben - and I've even devised an experiment that would do the trick.

To rephrase my earlier questions, the proof I require is that which would answer this question: "Where are the data that prove that scans are significantly less reliable than originals in the task of signature comparison?"

[Ben]

I appreciate that you're not being disrespectful or unreasonable, Gareth, but I also feel you should have been disabused by now of any doubts you might be harbouring as to why document examiners use originals in preference to scanned copies. A professional has given you her reasons, which strike me as eminently reasonable, and they are undoubtedly reasons that are shared by all those in the profession. I think that's more than enough, and I don't see how the issue of "proof" is remotely applicable (or even quantifiable) here.

Best regards,
Ben

[Roy Corduroy]

This comes up repeatedly in professional document examination. Disputed wills, etc. To compare signatures for any and all reasons. For instance, the Iowa bureau says "The bottom line is: don't send the lab a photocopy if the original is available." Read article here (click)

The data is the years of experience. Crystal descibed the actual mechanics of it.

Roy

[Sam Flynn]

I also feel you should have been disabused by now of any doubts you might be harbouring as to why document examiners use originals in preference to scanned copies.

I don't work like that, Ben, I'm sorry. I've not been shown that there is a statistically significant difference between judgments based on scans versus judgments based on originals in the context of signature comparison.

Besides, I have already acknowledged that I can see why having access to the originals would help in the context of fraud detection - but that's an entirely different problem.

[The Good Michael]

Roy,

Here's a snippet from that website: "When the question involves the possible alteration of a document prior to the production of the copy, attempt to get the original, or any copy of the original which differs from the suspect document. The positive determination of alteration is much more likely if the examiner has another version of the document to compare with the suspect copy. it might be found that the suspect document is a "true-" copy, and the copy believed to be "true" is the alteration."

So it's about fear of alteration and comparisons of copies with originals. That's what we're talking about, and with the examples of Hutchinson's signature that we have, because they match so closely, the Pro-Hutchers must hope to find some alteration so they can cling to their beliefs. I'm all for looking at the originals, but if the copies are good facsimiles, then they have shown us much, if not all of what we need to know.

I completely understand that if I look at a photograph of someone, I will not see all the lines and crevices in their face. I also know that I won't see anything resembling 3D. What we are talking about are signatures, nothing greater than that, and the protestations that an original will show us the light doesn't feel right. Indeed, it feels as if the argument has become one of, "You just don't get it because you are not as smart as me." I see a parallel here with preachers who try to tell us that the Bible is true because it says so. Yet we who know it's nothing but a collection of myths, are condemned for not having the faith to see the truth. Having faith in someone who tells you that something is so, without supporting evidence, is the antithesis of reason. Saying that experts say this or that, doesn't mean much to me.
Calling someone professional doesn't necessarily make them more knowledgeable. There are amateurs in all fields who are as good if not better than professionals because they have an interest in something because of passion and natural curiosity and not because they get a paycheck. I'd sooner trust an amateur with no agenda than a dozen professionals with one.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Thanks for the link, Roy.

It just goes to show that the necessity for seeking out and analysing original documents goes way back and is, as you say, the result of years of experience. With sincere respect to Gareth, I don't see how this can be challenged at this stage. With professional experience comes a realisation of the correct way to go about things, hence the uniformity of opinion amongst those who work in the field. Crystal has indeed described the mechanics of it, for which I'm sure most of us here are hugely appreciative.

Best regards,
Ben

[jmenges]

I've only glossed over this thread, but all this talk of originals has me puzzled. Isn't it apparent that at the very least the first page of the police statement held at Kew is a photocopy of some sort? (Remember the cut off 'n' along with the number in the bottom right) So, whether or not the original exists now, or the original existed when Iremonger examined the signatures is very much in doubt.

Crystal's hopes to see the original police statement may be in vain.

JM

[Ben]

That's what we're talking about, and with the examples of Hutchinson's signature that we have, because they match so closely, the Pro-Hutchers must hope to find some alteration so they can cling to their beliefs

You're the one clinging to your belief, mate.

I don't need to find an alteration. The preponderance of expert opinion has already subscribed to the view that the signatures don't match, and that should be good enough for those of us without an agenda. Are you suggesting that Dr. Leander had some sort of "agenda" when he stated that HE COULDN'T OFFER HIS FULL EXPERT OPINION IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS? I rather hope not. Leander knew full well that we wasn't dealing with a forgery, and that there was no suggestion of tampering or interference, and yet he still stated that the material was inadequate for the purposes of a full comparison.

and the protestations that an original will show us the light doesn't feel right. Indeed, it feels as if the argument has become one of, "You just don't get it because you are not as smart as me."

It has nothing to do with being smart or not. It's about having professional experience in a given field. You lack it. Therefore your opinion of what does and does not "feel right" is not especially valid. You say it doesn't feel right, but the actual experts in the field, i.e. the people worth listening to - no offense - say otherwise. It's not exactly a coin-flip when contemplating whose opinion to take on board here.

I see a parallel here with preachers who try to tell us that the Bible is true because it says so.

Well no, most of them don't do that either. Most clergyman will tell you that the Bible is comprised, to a large degree, of illustrative stories. They won't tell you it's a collection of "myths", because it isn't true either. But y'know, let's have a religious debate too. I'm here to perdition's flames, as usual.

Calling someone professional doesn't necessarily make them more knowledgeable.

It certainly does in this case.

I'm afraid the whole "I'm an amateur who thinks he knows better than the professionals" is the scourge of any place it has the audacity to infest, and worse on serial killer message boards than anywhere else.

[Sam Flynn]

With professional experience comes a realisation of the correct way to go about things.

With my experience of visual cognition experiments and in implementing large-scale electronic scanning and records-management solutions, I realise that there is a continuum of image quality, at one end of which the results become subject to error. However, using a good scanned image for the purposes of signature comparison does not come anywhere near the "unreliable" end of that continuum.

But, even there, I would be prepared to test my hypothesis - for I also acknowledge that my experience in the aforementioned areas (and it's actually quite considerable) shouldn't be automatically accepted by others as absolute proof.

[The Good Michael]

Crystal's hopes to see the original police statement may be in vain.

Though I don't believe in it, I'll pray you're wrong on this. This is a great opportunity to get rid of a suspect. Without the originals (maybe even with), Hutchinson will still be around, unethically or no.

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Jonathan,

The National Archives refer to the following: Statement of George Hutchinson regarding a last sighting of Mary Jane Kelly - (12 November 1888). A rare survival is this original witness statement of George Hutchinson, which gives Hutchinson's important account of his sighting of Mary Kelly on the morning of her murder, together with his very detailed description of the suspect he saw with her.

Hope this helps,

Ben

[DVV]

Belle boule, Ben !