The Leander Analysis

[babybird67]

I wasn't suggesting it was, Jen.

Good. I'd like to think i can debate a topic with a little more sophistication than poking my tongue out at you and running away.

How many samples, apart from the witness statement, did she see? Precisely one - and, even then, I still haven't had an answer as to whether she was looking at the original marriage certificate, or an authorised copy of the same in some clerk's handwriting, like I bought by mistake from the NA.

But again Sam, that is assumption...assuming her opinion must have been flawed because otherwise nobody could fail to identify the two writers. I doubt sincerely that something that was obvious to you when you saw it would not have been obvious to Ms Iremonger. Her findings were published in the relevant books, and she was happy to stand on her professional credentials in that regard with her opinion that they did not match. That is a strong position to take...one which i myself don't take. I still think it's possible....but nobody has addressed the sticking points for me, which are basically the commonalities of the time could easily account for the similarities...and we can't even be sure which of the witness signatures on the three pages of Hutchinson's statement are actually his signature! One expert, if i remember rightly, said the third had been signed by Badham, while another said it was the first.

If we cannot even establish whether Hutchinson the witness signed his own name, and those are the only 3 examples we have, we are on shaky ground indeed. They all look similar dont they...yet one wasn't his signature...doesn't this show you how easy it is to see similarities in the handwriting of the day? Indeed, perhaps it was familiarity with handwriting of the LVP, an expertise perhaps developed during the course of her occupation examining documents, that allowed Ms Iremonger to conclude as forcefully as she did that there was no match? I am just suggesting here, not asserting.

Apropos Ms Iremonger - and with sincere respect - she belongs to a somewhat earlier generation of document examiners, a factor which needs to be borne in mind if we are to talk sensibly about this matter. Failure to do so is a bit like citing Lamarck in an argument about evolutionary biology, or Freud in a discussion on psychiatry. The field of document examination has moved on in recent years - to the point where, for example, it has been shown that photocopies are perfectly usable for the purpose of signature comparison.

I'm sorry Sam but i cannot agree.

How can one establish how faithful any electronic copy is in reflecting all the nuances of the original without seeing the original?

It would be like me photographing the Mona Lisa with a smudge on my camera that obscures the smile...how would anyone know the smile was even there if they had not seen the original? They wouldn't. Leander doesn't know what the originals would have told him because he hasn't seen them, nor can he comment on the quality of the copies he was provided with because he has nothing valid to compare them with.

There are any number of variations, and it has already been pointed out that the montages of electronic signatures supplied have been altered in size, with gaps minimised, and i still dont know whether the angles have been altered, to facilitate positive identification...to deliberately emphasise the things that match. Not for any nefarious reason either...just to be helpful to show there are similarities. However, they have been altered, and alteration invalidates the comparison in my opinion. Originals must be used...document examiners have to examine documents, not computer images. I don't know how else to say this but i do not understand your reluctance to admit that this is a valid point.

I'm really not being deliberately stubborn, and i do see similarities as well, i just think it is easy to place too much faith in the significance of the similarities and to dismiss the differences without due consideration.

anyway...we can agree to disagree i am sure and retain our hopefully mutual respect for eachother...

enjoy the rest of the weekend, Sam

[Sam Flynn]

I'm sorry Sam but i cannot agree.

How can one establish how faithful any electronic copy is in reflecting all the nuances of the original without seeing the original?

How many more relevant nuances might apply in a task involving the comparison of two-dimensional visual stimuli? I can understand why, in a potential fraud case, one might wish to examine the paper for the type of paper, the type of ink, handprints, the pressure exerted by the pen (although quite how significant the latter is when using an inkpen nib, as opposed to a biro, is a moot point), but fraud doesn't enter into the equation here. It's a task comparable to deciding whether this "b" is the same as this "6" - and you don't even need to print out this post onto a sheet of paper in order to be able to do that.

[babybird67]

How many more relevant nuances might apply in a task involving the comparison of two-dimensional visual stimuli?

Yes but it is two dimensional to look at...it wasn't to write. Things like pen pressure and angle the writer uses are relevant and you cannot assess them from a copy.

Back to the Mona Lisa...if something on my lens obscures her smile, how would you know it was there, other than having been to see the original? How do we know what evidence would be forthcoming from the original documents if we decline to study them?

[The Good Michael]

BB,

Brass tacks: There is an absolute abundance of circumstances that can be assembled to create an argument for Toppy as Hutch, a veritable bounty. On the other side there is absolutely nothing but refutation of that bounty. There isn't an iota of extant knowledge that we can sift through that says Toppy wasn't Hutch. There is absolutely only dubious surmise. That is where the Toppy Ain't Hutch camp sits, on nothing concrete, only conjecture and surmise. In a sane world, a collection of little things that actually exist, would seem to outweigh: I don't think so.

Tell me how I can be possibly wrong on that stance, that concrete items would be by preponderance more acceptable than even rational thought(though that is another argument) founded on nothing but refutation.

Cheers,

Mike

[babybird67]

BB,

Brass tacks

If they are brass tacks, please address them. You are convinced of the truth...convince me.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes but it is two dimensional to look at...it wasn't to write. Things like pen pressure and angle the writer uses are relevant and you cannot assess them from a copy.

Pressure is only truly relevant, Jen, if (a) you're dealing with a case of fraud (fraudsters, because they're copying, may not "attack" the paper in the same way that the true writer would); or (b) if you're dealing with a writing implement that requires the writer to exert enough pressure on the paper to make indentations in it. Neither of those conditions applies here - we're dealing with a non-fraud situation, and with signatures wrought with free-flowing inkpens.

In other words, 2D is plenty good enough for this exercise. In point of fact, research shows that even Nth-generation photocopies (never mind colour scans in decent resolution) are good enough to make remarkably accurate judgments in respects of signature comparisons.

In terms of angle - the way one constructs one's letters can change significantly over time. The remarkable thing about the set of signatures we're looking at here is the consistency (yes, consistency) exhibited in the lettering over a period of 23 years.

[babybird67]

those were just examples Sam...

but there are things in originals that get lost in transforming them into copies, in every sphere.

Nobody has answered the fact that regarding the witness statement:

a/ of the three signatures, which are genuinely the witnesses and which are Badhams?

b/ considering the three signatures are similar, why this doesnt constitute a valid point that similarities between signatures could be attributed to commonalities at the time

[The Good Michael]

b/ considering the three signatures are similar, why this doesnt constitute a valid point that similarities between signatures could be attributed to commonalities at the time

Could be. That's one refutation. If I said that this is an equally weighted argument (though I don't think so), that would be one 50/50 and then you'd have to refute everything else. You see, it doesn't really work. Nothing substantial, merely refutation of the substantial from the other side.

Mike

[babybird67]

right Mike...

so you are happy being completely 100% certain of identification between one man and three signatures, any one of which might not actually be his?

Don't you see the only rational position is to be circumspect and to say, it is possible, but not proven?

I still find it hard to understand how contentious my position appears to be...

[Jane Welland]

Afternoon...

and Hello All.

Well, then, originals and copies - argument with this is futile - I give you fair warning!

An original - what is that? Why, that is primary evidence. It is the evidence for the thing that predated any other version of itself. It is the originator, the origin, of all subsequent derivatives.

So, I'm afraid it must be a fact that all subsequent copies are derivative.

Nope, there's no getting away from it.

To take your Mona Lisa example, Jen - we could not seriously suggest that there was no difference between the original and a reproduction - not a chance. They look different in many respects - because indeed they are different - one is a portrait created in 16th Century Italy, whereas the other(s) may have been made pretty much anywhere these days, and are not portraits painted in 16th Century Italy by any stretch of the imagination.

They are copies of the origianal image - they are images of the original image. They are by the fact of their existence - derivitave.

Now, just imagine fora moment that another Mona Lisa appeared on the market, having emerged from a private collection perhaps. It purports to be the work of Leonardo - but obviously, checks will need to be made. How will the experts in 16th Century Italian portraiture go about this? Will they, perhaps, consult a postcard from the local market? Will they, perhaps, consult a photocopy from a book on the subject they happen to have on the shelf at home? Do they take a fax (say) of the purported second version and use it for comparision, even?

I think not. No, I'm pretty sure that what they would do would be to take the potential match and consult the original for comparison - for all the features of Leonardo's work at that point in his career that may either confirm or exclude the possibility that this is another version of the famous masterwork in the Louvre.

They would do this because a copy loses in translation those details that make the difference - yes, perhaps there are good copies, etc, but they will not do the job, ultimately. The only way to know for sure - if such a thing is possible, is to consult the points of origin - the original paintings in this instance, the original signatures in this current debate.

It is because - and really, this is quite simple and obvious - copies are derivative - there is a constant risk of alteration. We can see this clearly here - the examples posted on these boards take no accound of differences in size, which are apparently a feature of the originals. It makes a difference, it must, because it is a change.

You cannot hope for a fair or accurate comparison if you don't have accurate information in the first place. Stands to reason.

You will be hindered by potential inaccuracies, and if you reach any conclusions at all based on inaccurate and potentially misrepresentative material, you should do so very tentatively indeed.

Finally, Sam, I'm sure you're a very clever man, but I have to say the idea that Iremonger mistook a modern copy by a registrar for the real thing seems to me to be quite ridiculous! Whatever makes you think so?

Best to all

Jane x

[claire]

Such an interesting debate...

I agree with you, Sam, that the angle at which people form letters will change over time (and even within time, as anyone who has bashed their hand or suffered from arthritis will testify).

But I do wonder, along with babybird, whether time-related commonalities aren't something to consider. When we examine handwriting these days, we tend to use our experience that has been gained contemporaneously. That is, we are used to seeing very varied handwriting amongst the population (for lots of obvious reasons, not least that handwriting is rarely taught these days). I often wonder whether this is the case, and whether signatures were so varied in the LVP. The only ones I have seen have been those of writers, who would naturally have developed their own 'signature' (ie. style of writing) due to increased usage. The average Joe on the street (no pun intended) might not have developed such a signature.

[Fisherman]

Claire asks:

"I do wonder ... whether time-related commonalities aren't something to consider."

Hi Claire!
What I wonder is whether there are any good grounds for the assumption that the Victorian lower class was subjected to a form of education that made them all write very much alike? That suggestion has been thrown forward, but I don´t think I have seen any substantiation for it.
Do you - or anybody else - know if there is such a thing around? Does any handstyle expert or -historian ever mention this, or is it just a suggestion?

In post 18 of the "Hutch in the 1911 census" thread, Sam posted a number of signatures made by working class George Hutchinsons, and to my eye, they differ just as much as do my signature from my former classmates - and we were ALSO taught to write in a certain fashion.

So, once again, the question we need to ask ourselves is: Is there any substantiation for the belief that the East-enders developed handstyles that differed less inbetween them than is the case in other eras of time?

The best, Claire!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

But I do wonder, along with babybird, whether time-related commonalities aren't something to consider. When we examine handwriting these days, we tend to use our experience that has been gained contemporaneously. That is, we are used to seeing very varied handwriting amongst the population (for lots of obvious reasons, not least that handwriting is rarely taught these days). I often wonder whether this is the case, and whether signatures were so varied in the LVP.

Interesting points, Claire, but I've looked at the handwriting of every potential "George Hutchinson" in London from the 1911 Census - most, if not all of whom, if memory serves, were long-term London residents and hence stand a high chance of also having been there in 1888. None of their signatures came close to matching either Toppy's 1898 marriage certificate or those on the 1888 police statement - apart, of course, from the 1911 signature of Toppy himself, which was remarkably similar.

There was only one exception - a man I dubbed "Lambeth George". However, this man transpired to be a long-term resident of Lambeth, and his signature varied in key aspects - e.g., he did not use the "top-launched" letter "t"'s seen on the police statements; the self-same "top-launched t's" consistently used by Toppy on the marriage certificate and the 1911 Census (amongst other differences).

Toppy, we know, moved around quite a bit - which is more than can be said of his handwriting. I find it extremely improbable that a man with such an unusual name, almost as rare as hens' teeth in Late Victorian London, should coincidentally have acquired the same writing habits as our witness of 1888. That improbability gains significantly more weight when one considers Topping's proven connections with the East End, his social status, the type of job he held, his family story identifying himself as the Dorset Street witness, etc.

Here and elsewhere, we sometimes see a tendency to focus on minor points, or single issues, whilst neglecting the bigger picture. The current debate embodies this tendency to a top-launched "t".

[Sam Flynn]

Just saw this on the BBC News website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8158097.stm

... that's three other Toppys we need to worry about

[babybird67]

hahaha

absolutely fabulous Sam! Love it!


Co-incidence that they are from Korea? Hmmmmm...Michael? Explanation please!