Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[babybird67]

Babybird:

"i think it has been pointed out that Leander's meanings have had slightly different emphases"

Exactly - the same meaning but more emphasis! I´m glad you caught on.

not what i meant...i was trying to say as kindly as i could that meaning had been subtly changed, eg from "cannot be ruled out", to "probably match"...those two statements are mutually exclusive in terms of meaning; as has been pointed out many times, they do not mean the same thing, even if someone says they do. If someone says they mean the same, they are mistaken.

I am saying that she may even have looked at signatures that were never even written by Toppy! When Sam filed for the signatures and payed a healthy amount of money, he got a transscription; somebody else had filled the names in. If that was what Iremonger held in her hands, she could have been way off the mark!

are you seriously suggesting that Sam would be able to tell a copy document, but a professional document examiner presented with the same document would somehow be fooled and therefore come to an erroneous conclusion? Seriously, that is a very odd position to hold.

So there are MANY possibilities involved here, and I am saying something quite different from what you suppose, I´m afraid!

i think you will find that those of us unconvinced of a match are the ones entertaining alternative possibilities. Arguments being made on the other side of the road appear to KNOW for a FACT there is a match, 100 % sure in a field which can never be 100% sure of anything, even from experts!

Also, I believe that we have to take the "Science and justice" investigation into account. If photocopies can be used to gain a 99,1 per cent accuracy, then that heavily militates against the notion that the originals are so much better. There is only a gap of 0,9 per cent left to enhance the picture!

hmmmm...i find it strange that you did not pick up what was quite clear from many of those postings by Chris, which was that professionals consistently did better (and by a significant amount) at matching the correct documents than lay-persons. In this regard, will we see a casting aside of the "a pair of eyes will do" approach which dominated the "match 100%" arguments before Leander appeared to agree there was a "probable" match (which he did not imo)

[Fisherman]

Crystal:

"If the material speaks for itself, how is it that you feel the need to constantly and repetitively speak for it?
Not to mention, for other posters on this thread as well?
Hmm?"

That is an easy one, Crystal: because you are desperately trying to stop it from gaining the recognition it deserves. In short, am am trying to supply information to weigh up the desinformation.

Fisherman

[Ben]

That is an easy one, Crystal: because you are desperately trying to stop it from gaining the recognition it deserves.

But if the material really spoke for itself, people would be able to recognise it without being influenced by any protestations to the contrary. The fact that you stick around and frantically post whenever your "opponents" do reassures me that you're not all that confident in the validity of your "material" at all.

Think on it.

[Crystal]

No.

I'm not 'desperately' trying to do anything. I'm neither desperate, obsessed, nor really have to 'try' to put your feeble 'arguments' in perspective.

All you care about is being right. With Respect.

Unfortunate, then, that in so many instances, you are demonstrably wrong.

You're out of your league. Go and play with the other children.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"What the blazes are you going on about now?"

That Iremonger may have seen the wrong material. And it´s not "now" - I have said this for ages.

"But your mate Leander says the originals are so much better, and that it would be impossible for him to arrive at a full expert opinion without them. Or are you asserting that your expert is wrong now?"

My "mate" Leander - nice, Ben! (He is in fact my uncle and ows me money - use it, Ben, use it!)

There are subtleties built in here, Ben, and that may be the reason for your misunderstanding.

A full investigation requires originals too. And there is a possibility that they may bridge at least some part of the huge 0,9 per cent gap left by the investigation in "Science and justice" - that was an irony, by the way.
"Science and justice" also teaches us - well, me at least, perhaps not you - that experts traditionally attach great weight to the originals, and they really should not, since photocopies have proven to be quite effective too. Do I need to remind you of the numbers involved once again? Yes? No? Just drop me a line and I will do so.
Now, please note that Leander at no stage says that the originals are so much better, as you will have us believe - he simply says that a full investigation includes the originals. How much they add, he does not say.

Since you castigate me for being sloppy with details in the language, I thought you may need to acknowledge that remark. Then again, perhaps you are free to do more sloppy reading than I am?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Crystal:

"All you care about is being right. With Respect.

Unfortunate, then, that in so many instances, you are demonstrably wrong."

Point it out, Crystal! You see, saying that somebody is stupid and wrong does not bite in the same manner as a clear and concise pointing pout does. So by all means, bolster this and let all the posters who have not gone to sleep see what you are reaching for! Point out just ONE instance where I am demonstrably wrong. Please?

I am waiting in awe...!

Fisherman

[babybird67]

oh my giddy aunt!!!

mud wrestling makes much more sense!

[Fisherman]

"mud wrestling makes much more sense!"

No - but coming clean does!

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Excuse me. Did you all see what Trublu posted? It shows that inexperienced people made more errors than document examiners. To the tune of roughly 19% vs 5%. That's more than 80% for the layman. Only 14% more errors than document examiners, and that is in cases of nongenuine signatures, which I take to mean forgeries or attempts to copy. We all seem to have the same capacity to spot these things save for a paltry few. Thanks Trublu. It proves a point.

Cheers,

Mike

[babybird67]

depends what you call a reasonable margin of error Mike

i think professionals did demonstrably and consistently better.

Nice to see you, by the way!

[Crystal]

"mud wrestling makes much more sense!"

No - but coming clean does!

Fisherman

Then why don't you? Just admit you haven't got a clue what you're talking about and we can all get on with more interesting things.

[babybird67]

"mud wrestling makes much more sense!"

No - but coming clean does!

Fisherman

give me the mud anyday fish, especially when attached to Crystal!

[Ben]

That Iremonger may have seen the wrong material. And it´s not "now" - I have said this for ages.

And it has been insufferable nonsense for ages.

"Science and justice" also teaches us - well, me at least, perhaps not you - that experts traditionally attach great weight to the originals, and they really should not, since photocopies have proven to be quite effective too.

The fact that photocopies have proven quite effective doesn't invalidate the necessity to target the originals wherever possible, as every expert acknowledges. You're resorting to your terrible old tactic again of using any material provided to force-feed into your preconceived conclusions, whereas a closer inspection of Chris's useful extracts will reveal that the overall gist of the observation was that the professionals in the field are far more accurate in their assessments than hobbyists.

And no, there is no statement anywhere in those findings that states that the experts are "wrong" to invest significance in the originals.

So by all means, bolster this and let all the posters who have not gone to sleep see what you are reaching for! Point out just ONE instance where I am demonstrably wrong. Please?

See, this is Fisherman's problem. According to him, he is never wrong...

[Crystal]

Jen

You know how mud I carry around with me. It's what we minxes like to do.

And you know what they say about mud sticking....

[The Good Michael]

i think professionals did demonstrably and consistently better.

Not according to that study. They did a little better, I'll grant you, but after having so much "expertise" one would have thought they'd do much better. Not this one, but one.

Mike