Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[babybird67]

Wouldn't it be more prudent to read up about what "experts" in this field might or might not be able to achieve first, Ben, before assessing their findings? Indeed, ought one not consider the research that may have been done into whatever frameworks they might use, and the contexts in which they might be applicable?

Not to do so would seem, on the surface, to resemble an act of faith.

HI Sam

believing one's own eyes, where one is untrained, strikes me also as an act of faith. As i have said elsewhere on this thread, at the end of the day, we will go round and round and round in circles on this, precisely because it is not an exact science.

Some of us "believe" our own eyes; some of us "believe" our own eyes arent qualified to judge as we dont know the commonalities/differences that we should be looking for; some of us "believe" expert testimony will be conclusive.

Personally i believe we will never have a conclusion to the satisfaction of everybody, precisely because, whatever the experts say, it is not an exact science and therefore conclusions are based on "possibilities/probabilities" etc.

In the circumstances, isn't it wiser just to accept we will/can never "know" in terms of either a match or a mismatch being proven, and move on?

tc

[The Good Michael]

if you don't behave like a gentleman and perhaps consider apologising to Crystal for those baseless and mean remarks.

Baseless? Hahahaha!


Mike

[babybird67]

ok, that's it...

i didnt want to do it but you made me, you forced my hand!


"BAD Michael" you disappointed me.

[Sam Flynn]

The field of forsensic document examination has been around for a fairly long time now

So have various flavours of psychology, Ben, and much eyewash has been spouted in that area, by lay-people and "experts" alike.

and since every experienced professional in that field has stressed the importance of accessing the originals in preference to copies, it is only reasonable, in my view, to accept that they have compelling reason to think so.

But what IS their reason for thinking so, though? Is it because scanned signatures are so incredibly "wrong" that, in a scenario where forgery is not in question, one can't pronounce on whether two signatures match? I rather doubt it - indeed, I'd go so far as to say that if someone claimed as much then they really haven't thought things through.

Crystal is one such experienced professional

And so-and-so might be an experienced dermatologist, but that doesn't legitimise their every opinion on other diseases - nor does it make them an "expert" even in the field of dermatology. Even in those fields which allow expertise, those who have served a considerable amount of time could never be said to be "experts", but merely practitioners.

We're going back over old territoriy again here!

Only because people have a misplaced faith in "experts". I don't harbour any such illusions, because I know that experts are as susceptible to being wrong-headed as the next man.

Please reflect on the fact I have in the past used the selfsame argument to cast doubt on Abberline's "expert opinion" of our mate Hutchinson, and I stick by that.

[Ben]

So have various flavours of psychology, Ben, and much eyewash has been spouted in that area, by lay-people and "experts" alike.

I don't think this particular field can be dismissed on those grounds though, Gareth.

Graphology is widely regarded as a pseudo-sciene, but generally, very few criticisms are levelled at forensic document examination, which is another discipline altogether. Melvin Harris addressed this crucial distinction when commenting on the various "experts" weighing in to either endorse or debunk the Maybrick diary. The graphologists did the former while Sue Iremonger did the latter - there's the crucial clue!

Is it because scanned signatures are so incredibly "wrong" that, in a scenario where forgery is not in question

You'll have to ask the document examiners themselves. 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. Crystal has outlined several reasons 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, and I don't consider it reasonable that they must all be considered "wrong-headed" in this regard.

Please reflect on the fact I have in the past used that argument to cast doubt on Abberline's "expert opinion" of our mate Hutchinson, and I stick by that.

That is true, although to be fair, Abberline never claimed to be an expert barometer of truth (or an expert on serial killers for that matter).

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hi BB,

believing one's own eyes, where one is untrained, strikes me also as an act of faith.

On the contrary - it's an act of perception, which has several hundred million years' worth of experience in its field.

we will go round and round and round in circles on this, precisely because it is not an exact science.

Indeed - which is why it sometimes pays to trust one's eyes. And just the eyes, note, not the devious belief-factory that lurks behind it.

the circumstances, isn't it wiser just to accept we will/can never "know" in terms of either a match or a mismatch being proven, and move on?

The really sad thing is that the match has now been established beyond reasonable doubt, yet we seem more intent on peeing on the bonfire than accepting this as the welcome discovery that it is.

[Sam Flynn]

That is true, although to be fair, Abberline never claimed to be an expert barometer of truth (or an expert on serial killers for that matter).

... and who has claimed to be an expert on document analysis?

[Ben]

The really sad thing is that the match has now been established beyond reasonable doubt

I think the "really sad thing" is when people make those sorts of ridiculous claims when the reverse stands a much greater chance of reflecting the truth, and the majority of expert opinion to date has expressed the view that Toppy wasn't the witness.

Here until hell freezes.

[Sam Flynn]

Crystal has outlined several reasons herself, one of which included pen pressure, which is readily detectable in orginal documents in a way that cannot compare to a computerized image.

Why is pen-pressure relevant in a scenario where forgery is not in question, though, Ben?

Why do people accept such things without asking for the reasons behind them? We've got some intelligent people here, yourself included, but going on someone's "say-so" is surely something that our inquisitive minds should not tolerate? That's part of the reason we're here, surely - to challenge, to find or work things out, not wait to be spoon-fed?

[Sam Flynn]

Here until hell freezes.

I hear the Devil has just caught a chill. I believe it, too. An expert told me.

[Ben]

Why is pen-pressure relevant in a scenario where forgery is not in question, though, Ben?

Hi Gareth - Because if the analysis of the original documents reveals a dissimilarity of pen pressure between two signature samples, it may lend weight to the premise that the signatures were not written by the same person, which would assume a relevance whether we're dealing with a case of possible forgery, of if we're dealing with a simple case of determining if one person wrote both signatures.

It is of couse essential to challenge opinions, but when I'm dealing with a situation in which the majority of experts say the opposite of what I'm claiming, i.e. that originals are just as good as copies, I 'm strongly inclined to embrace their unanimous view, simply because I lack the professional experience and insight that they undoubtedly possess.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Gareth - Because if the analysis of the original documents reveals a dissimilarity of pen pressure between two signature samples, it may lend weight to the premise that the signatures were not written by the same person, which would assume a relevance whether we're dealing with a case of possible forgery, of if we're dealing with a simply case of assessing whether or not the same person wrote both signatures.

Why would a difference in pen-pressure be relevant to a scenario where forgery is not in question, Ben? The shape of the letters, and their consistency over time, has more bearing in a case like this - as opposed to whether someone tentatively formed the letters because they were intent on forgery.

I 'm strongly inclined to embrace their unanimous view, simply because they have the professional experience and insight which I lack.

Very little insight has been forthcoming from the experts so far, Ben, as to why (and in which specific contexts) an "original" is to be preferred over a good scanned copy.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

Pen-pressure has a direct bearing on the issue of whether or not two signatures were written by the same individual, since different people would apply pressure at different intervals in their writing. Thus, an appreciable dissimilarity in detected pressure could speak less favourably for the possibility of a match. I'm not a "practitioner" in this particular field, so I daren't go into any more detail than that, other than to observe that those who are practitioners and/or experts are clearly of the view that such things carry weight.

Very little insight has been forthcoming from the experts so far, Ben

Personally, I found Crystal's comments on the subject very insightful indeed, with regard to both the specifics and the generalities of why originals are preferable.

Best regards,
Ben

[babybird67]

Hi BB,On the contrary - it's an act of perception, which has several hundred million years' worth of experience in its field.Indeed - which is why it sometimes pays to trust one's eyes. And just the eyes, note, not the devious belief-factory that lurks behind it.The really sad thing is that the match has now been established beyond reasonable doubt, yet we seem more intent on peeing on the bonfire than accepting this as the welcome discovery that it is.

Exactly, Sam, "perception." Yet everyone perceives differently, don't they?

You have looked at the signatures and to your eyes they match.

I have looked at the signatures and to my eyes they don't.

What made me mistrust my own eyes, was Crystal's posting of two incredibly similar "George" sigs, which were NOT a match..but they looked like a match to me.

That made me realise my eyes are not the independent receivers of information that i would like them to be; i have no experience in how people were taught to write in that era; i have no knowledge of what the similarities suggest or what the differences suggest or on which to put emphasis and meaning.

My perception is flawed.

I would argue, with respect, so is yours. Not because there is something lacking in you in the slightest. But just because i believe everybody's perception is flawed...it's not an objective reception of information, even if we would like it to be.

The "experts", or, if you prefer, those who have the experience in this field, will never be completely objective either, but they are aware of what similarities/differences suggest, and with an awareness of the pitfalls of making a conclusive match/mismatch, i acknowledge stand a better chance than me of making any decision with a modicum of authority. I hope you understand what i am trying to say.

In the end, because of the lack of exact science, it will never be proven, because we lack the tools to authoritatively state that is HAS been proven.

In the end, if you believe the sigs have been matched, that is as much a leap of faith as if i were to say that in my honest opinion they aren't matched (my opinion at the moment is with-held...i don't know which is more likely at this time).

I know you probably think Ben is biased in that he thinks Hutch is JtR. I have no such opinion. I have nothing behind my view on the sigs apart from honestly trying to make an appraisal of what is possible/likely etc. And i feel the best course of action is to be circumspect, admit i don't know enough to be confirmed either way, and wait for those who have more experience and understanding of the pitfalls of the field to have a look and let us know what she honestly thinks.

utmost respect to you Sam and to all...and i hope you understand i am not dissing your view...i am just questioning the certainty and the objectivity of perception...

tc

[Sam Flynn]

Pen-pressure has a direct bearing on the issue of whether or not two signatures were written by the same individual, since different people would apply pressure at different intervals in their writing.

But, again, Ben - how can that possibly be relevant in a scenario where forgery is not in question?