The Leander Analysis

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

one doesn't need a BSc in something-or-other to be able to point out the bleedin' obvious.

Although it's handy to have an expert practitioner such as Sue Iremonger spell out just what the bleedin' obvious is in this case.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

...even if you're now claimingthat people can't be forgiven for assuming that Iremonger had been supplied with the pre-analysis piece of information that signature #1 wasn't written by the same person who authored signatures #2 and #3, you'd be wrong anyway, since anyone could be forgiven for arriving at such a conclusion, irrespective of their familiarity with the topic.

You mean you still didn't understand what I actually wrote? I'm not 'now' claiming that, and what I wrote and what I meant has not changed, and neither has my opinion. You are free to have your own opinion, but you are not entitled to change my words to match what you think, or what you think I really meant.

So please read my paragraph again for a full explanation of who I think might have been forgiven for wondering if (not 'assuming that') Sue's conclusion could have been based on something beyond her own expertise. The circumstances were also very specific, in that Crystal had advised people not to take experts seriously if they pronounced themselves 'definite' about a signature comparison. Had she (or he) not done that, I would have had no reason to say what I said. In short, newbies - exclusively - would have been unable to reconcile the advice of one 'expert' - Crystal - with the 'definite' conclusion of another expert - Sue. There is nothing for newbies to reconcile now if Crystal's advice was plain wrong.

The only reason for you to alter what I wrote would be to alter the meaning so you can challenge it. What the hell is the point of challenging your own misinterpretation?

Which of Sue's findings have I even attempted to invalidate? I said at the start that I had noticed Badham's H's were just like the one on the page one sig, and where I've expressed any opinions re Toppy, it's to say I'm on the fence but leaning, if anything, towards Sue's opinion. You are so trigger happy that you missed all this.

To sum up, you are the one undermining the validity of Sue's professional opinions by suggesting she either got her page one sig comparison wrong (while you know better just using your own eyesight - being wrong is not one of your faults, is it? ) or she got it right but only because she had 'help' from another source but neglected to say anything.

Don't drag me into it by twisting my words until they match with your own speculation. Personally I suspect Sue used only her skill and considerable experience on each occasion and got nothing wrong, but there you go. If you think otherwise, that's your affair.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

“You mean you still didn't understand what I actually wrote? I'm not 'now' claiming that, and what I wrote and what I meant has not changed, and neither has my opinion.”

I’m not saying it has, which is a relief since you’ve never previously cast doubt on Iremonger’s findings, and I’d be deeply disappointed if you were to do so now. I’ve merely pointed out that you have made a “suggestion” – I’m not saying it reflects your opinion either than or now, or that you’ve radically changed your mind, but suggest it you most assuredly did. You’re now saying that you consider it a very bad suggestion, which, with the greatest respect, was not immediately clear at the time, while I don’t consider it particularly bad at all. Not my favoured explanation by a long shot, since I’m also inclined to your view that she “used only her skill and considerable experience on each occasion and got nothing wrong”, but I wouldn’t completely dismiss the alternative.

“To sum up, you are the one undermining the validity of Sue's professional opinions by suggesting she either got her page one sig comparison wrong (while you know better just using your own eyesight - being wrong is not one of your faults, is it? ) or she got it right but only because she had 'help' from another source but neglected to say anything.”

I’m not suggesting that she “got her page one sig comparison wrong” at all. I’ve said that if I were to look at the three signatures and chalk them up to the same source, only to be met with the views of a professional document examiner explicitly stating otherwise, I’d be the very first to relinquish my hobbyist first impressions and defer to her vastly more extensive experience. That’s not declaring her wrong at all, and it's the polar opposite of claiming that my eyesight counts for more. The notion that she was supplied with prior misinformation as to what had already been established pre-analysis isn’t probable necessarily, but I wouldn’t rule it out completely.

“…where I've expressed any opinions re Toppy, it's to say I'm on the fence but leaning, if anything, towards Sue's opinion. You are so trigger happy that you missed all this.”

Guilty as charged, most probably. Yours is a commendable view, but I can hardly be blamed for having misread you slightly when so many of your posts – even the ones in which you express agreement with me – are so perpetually peppered with negative insinuations about my character and motivations.

[Sam Flynn]

Although it's handy to have an expert practitioner such as Sue Iremonger spell out just what the bleedin' obvious is in this case.

What, Ben - that, because one letter "H" is written differently, the three 1888 witness statement signatures were written by different people? Call me picky, but I think I can live without such "handy" expertise.

[Ben]

I doubt very much that the "H" alone was responsible for Iremonger's judgement, Gareth, although it was undoubtedly a contributory factor. I was referring to her overall conclusion, however, when I spoke of the "bleedin' obvious", as per your coinage!

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Ben,

I doubt very much that the "H" alone was responsible for Iremonger's judgement...

A judgment which, it seems, was entirely erroneous - at least in terms of her idea of "multiple signatories" to the witness statement.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

I rather doubt that the judgement was erroneous. Whatever the evidence would "seem" to suggest to me, I'd be the first to acknowledge that her interpretation is more valuable than mine, given her extensive experience.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

I rather doubt that the judgement was erroneous. Whatever the evidence would "seem" to suggest to me, I'd be the first to acknowledge that her interpretation is more valuable than mine, given her extensive experience.

I disagree, Ben, and you shouldn't put yourself down. Even "experts" make mistakes - if that's true in the "proper" sciences, then it's arguably more likely to happen in a subjective discipline like document examination. In this case, it appears that Iremonger was swayed by a single "H" into making an error of judgment. In saying so I don't disregard her experience, extensive as it is supposed to be. I should add that I'm not fazed by her experience either, nor do I feel compelled to jettison my own critical faculties because of it.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

In this case, it appears that Iremonger was swayed by a single "H" into making an error of judgment.

It would "appear" so to you, and that's fine, providing your interpretation (or mine, for that matter) isn't misconstrued as somehow trumping or invalidating that of Sue Iremonger. While it is axiomatic that experts make mistakes, the question is begged: who are we to pronounce judgement as to whether the expert has made a mistake or not? I could disagree with her interpretion and argue that it would appear to me that she was wrong, but she could so easily counter that by claiming that it "appears" I was wrong for doubting her judgement. The difference being that she has the experience and background to bolster her interpretations of "appearances" whereas I don't.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Ben,

While it is axiomatic that experts make mistakes, the question is begged: who are we to pronounce judgement as to whether the expert has made a mistake or not?

If an expert required significant "advanced" knowledge or intricate skills to undertake their work - such as that required by particle physicists, professional mathematicians, or scholars of Ancient Greek - I would be more inclined to sympathise with that sentiment. However, the act of comparing signatures does not remotely require such levels of knowledge or skill.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

However, the act of comparing signatures does not remotely require such levels of knowledge or skill.

Perhaps not when compared to particle physics or mathematics, but the skill and experience required here would still be sufficient to prioritize the views of someone with extensive professional experience in the field over a layperson, especially when the latter is working from inferior material.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Perhaps not when compared to particle physics or mathematics, but the skill and experience required here would still be sufficient to prioritize the views of someone with extensive professional experience in the field over a layperson, especially when the latter is working from inferior material.

I couldn't disagree more, Ben - we've all got eyes and visual centres in the brain, each of which work in precisely the same way in the vast majority of the population. Furthermore we're only unscrambling 2D images - something which the most rudimentary non-mammalian brain is capable of doing - and the material I'm working with are good resolution scans. Precisely the material Sue Iremonger had at her disposal, one presumes... although it might have been a photocopy. Not that it matters, because empirical research has shown that even "Nth" generation photocopies are perfectly adequate in terms of signature comparison, and that lay-people are almost as good as document examiners when it comes to such a basic task as the one we're discussing here. You can't argue with empirical data, Ben. Then again...

[Ben]

the material I'm working with are good resolution scans. Precisely the material Sue Iremonger had at her disposal, one presumes... although it might have been a photocopy

No, Gareth.

Most assuredly not.

Sue Iremonger was not working with "scans", and expert document examiners are infinitely better suited to the task of document examination (even with regard to the more "simple", non-forgery-related cases) or else we'd have no need for them at all. The fact that document examiners are requested, more often than not, for such comparisons is a testament to the high regard in which they are held. If they weren't necessary or desirable for such tasks, you'd think they would have been "rumbled" by now. Incidentally, one of the reasons that original documents are preferred over scanned copies is that the former are not entirely "2D".

Not that it matters, because empirical research has shown that even "Nth" generation photocopies are perfectly adequate in terms of signature comparison, and that lay-people are almost as good as document examiners when it comes to such a basic task as the one we're discussing here.

A) I dispute that "empirical research" has shown any such thing.

B) If you're to embrace that advice, then I'm afraid you cannot also listen to anything "Leander" has to say without being hideously selective, since he specifically stated that a "full expert opinion" was not even possible in the absence of the original documents, and given the material supplied to him. That's a near polar opposite of claiming that scanned material was "perfectly adequate".

Best regards,
Ben

[Victor]

expert document examiners are infinitely better suited to the task of document examination (even with regard to the more "simple", non-forgery-related cases) or else we'd have no need for them at all. The fact that document examiners are requested, more often than not, for such comparisons is a testament to the high regard in which they are held. If they weren't necessary or desirable for such tasks, you'd think they would have been "rumbled" by now.

Hi Ben,

"Infinitely better" is absolutely wrong. Actually I can only think of experience that would make me put more weight behind Iremonger's conclusions rather than Gareth's or mine. Mysterious and vague "additional information" turning up is just a disclaimer that is appended to everyone's conclusions including Gareth's.

Furthermore as Gareth has clearly expressed and concisely demonstrated why he has formed the opposite opinion to Iremonger, everyone can follow those reasons and form their own opinion about them.

Now if something were to emerge explaining why Iremonger formed the conclusions she did then her experience and expert status would mean that her reasoning and explanations are much more likely to be pertinent and valid, and therefore should definitely be considered. However, I thing that using a big stamp saying "Expert Opinion - Do Not Question" is just wrong.

Anyway for everyone; how likely is it for Hutch to sign the statement and then later Badham notices that the "H" is indistinct or smudged on page one, and so overwrites just that letter?

KR,
Vic.

[Ben]

Hi Victor,

Actually I can only think of experience that would make me put more weight behind Iremonger's conclusions rather than Gareth's or mine.

Well, a certain ability for the task would help. If it was simply a case of starting from scratch, with no natural aptitude when it comes to such analyses, then anyone can become a document examiner. Since that isn't the case, it ought to follow that both experience and skill are requried for the task, especially when those in possession of same are also working from original documents and a decent number of samples, rather than scanned copies of a selected sample.

I wasn't suggesting for a moment that Gareth's views weren't clearly or concisely expressed, but that doesn't mean they carry more weight than Iremongers. With no disrespect to Gareth, I'd argue the reverse for aforementioned reasons.

Now if something were to emerge explaining why Iremonger formed the conclusions she did then her experience and expert status would mean that her reasoning and explanations are much more likely to be pertinent and valid, and therefore should definitely be considered.

There's no question that they "should definitely be considered", and they remain both pertinent and valid. At least, they certainly don't become any less valid because some of us disagree with her views, and it is only reasonable to conclude that she arrived at her opinion as a result of applying her extensive expertise and experience.

However, I thing that using a big stamp saying "Expert Opinion - Do Not Question" is just wrong.

Granted, but it's far worse to dismiss an expert on flimsy grounds and then set yourself up as the replacement expert, not that I'm suggesting you've done so.

All the best,
Ben