The Leander Analysis

[Sam Flynn]

any deductions made from 2-D scanned material that convey false impressions (not deliberately, I should stress) of size and angle must play second fiddle to inferences derived from original documents.

Such as, Ben? I'm referring specifically to comparing signatures here. Can't size and angle be determined from a scan? (And are signatures invariant in size anyway?)

As such, Gareth’s interpretation cannot possibly be construed as “carrying more weight” than Iremonger’s, and they certainly don't undermine her findings.

I'd agree with the "not carrying more weight" bit, although I'd insist on "as good as". At least, I don't entertain the opinion that different people signed the witness statement.

[Ben]

Hi Victor,

but the rest is comparison which I suppose could be an ability in that some are better than others due to things like attention to detail, and like most human traits it gets better the more it's exercised

That's essentially what I mean - you perfect a natural predisposition through practice, which is why experienced professional document examiners are invariably used in preference to non-experts even for the seemingly simpler tasks.

Unfortunately, the ability to phrase things clearly and concisely does not bestow a non-expert with professional experience to rival that of a forensic document examiner, nor does it enhance the quality of the substandard material used in the argument. I'm not saying I don't follow Gareth's logic, and I daresay I agree with him more often that not, but any deductions made from 2-D scanned material that convey false impressions (not deliberately, I should stress) of size and angle must play second fiddle to inferences derived from original documents. As such, Gareth’s interpretation cannot possibly be construed as “carrying more weight” than Iremonger’s, and they certainly don't undermine her findings.

All the best,
Ben

[Victor]

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...

Hi Ben,

What special "ability" do you need for document examination? Certainly there are pre-requisites like being able to see, but the rest is comparison which I suppose could be an ability in that some are better than others due to things like attention to detail, and like most human traits it gets better the more it's exercised, so essentially I think that anyone can become a document examiner with the proper training.

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.

I wasn't arguing that Gareth's views "carry more weight" than Iremonger's directly because of the way they were expressed, I was saying they "carry more weight" because I can follow the logic used, and that that is due to the way they are expressed.

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.

But "flimsy" is subjective, and to make it clear, I don't think Gareth has attempted to set himself up as a "replacement expert", I think he's made valid observations that undermine Iremonger's conclusions.

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

[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]

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

[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]

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]

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,

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]

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,

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]

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]

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]

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.