PDA

View Full Version : The Statement of George Hutchinson


Pages : [1] 2

Crystal
05-15-2009, 03:07 PM
5535

Hi All

As some will know, I have recently seen and examined at length the statement of George Hutchinson to Badham made on 12th November 1888 at Commercial Street Station. I cannot yet post any images of the statement, as I do not have copyright permission. I am trying to get permission for internet publishing, but am aware that this is unlikely to be forthcoming. I may get permission to publish in another format, however - I will try.

I have transcribed the statement as it appears and attach it here.

I have made several observations. They are as follows:

Regarding the hand of Badham - Badham displays certain idiosyncratic traits in his hand. He seldom capitalises new sentences, and seldom employs a 't' bar for lower case 't'. The angle of his script to the baseline is typically 38-40 degrees.

I will say this now, although I will elaborate on the 1911 thread: In my view, Badham did not sign for Hutchinson on page one of the statement. He did fill in the paperwork, amend the statement as it was in progress, and complete the top portion of the endorsement.

The statement contains 2 instances of Badham writing 'Hutchinson'. In one case, this is 'George Hutchinson'. Neither remotely resembles the witness signature on page one.

Badham's hand is of average size. His script tends to fall between 0.4 and 0.6cm in height from the baseline.

Abberline has also written on the statement of George Hutchinson. He signs for submission on page three of the statement, and also completes the endorsement on the back of page three of the statement.

Several points have emerged from detailed examination of the statement, which are these:

Badham is writing the statement as Hutchinson is telling it. This is obvious because of the frequent stops and pauses made by Badham, and the slight corrections. In general, the slowest part of the statement is the description of Mr Astracan; the most fluid being the account of the movements of Astracan and Kelly as told by the witness.

The statement has, having been signed by Hutchinson and Badham, then been altered by Abberline. This is at the point where the original statement text in Badham's hand 'Ten Bell' has been struck through and altered to 'Queen's Head'.

The implication of this is obvious, in that Abberline went through Hutchinson's statement, with Hutchinson, after Badham - and it was altered during the course of this interrogation. It seems likely that this is the interrogation referred to by Abberline in his comtemporary report.

Finally, marks on page 2 of the statement to the right of the witness signature show under magnification to be fingerprints. It appears that the witness has leant on the statement with his right hand during the course of signing, which strongly implies that he was writing with his left hand.

I await your comments!

Cx

Ben
05-15-2009, 03:22 PM
Revelations aplenty there, Crystal!

I certainly welcome the clarification with regard to Badham's hand and Hutchinsion signature #1. As we've already discussed, the major bombshell for me was the observation that Badham wrote the description incrementally, as Hutchinson supplied the details, as opposed to the previous scenario I had envisaged wherein Badham simply filled in the details after having made earlier notes. Then there's the interesting observation that Abberline, not Badham, was responsible for the latter additions, such as the replacement of "Ten Bells" with "Queen's Head".

My appreciative thanks for your indefatigable efforts. Very illuminating indeed.

Best regards,
Ben x

babybird67
05-15-2009, 03:29 PM
i hope i will be joined by everyone who has an interest in this matter in offering sincere and heartfelt thanks for taking your own time to go to Kew and look at this with your professional expertise for us...items like the fingerprint could never and would never be picked up in a perusal of photocopied documents, or documents views only onlined, and i am very excited and grateful to you for furthering our knowledge and the Hutch discussion in this way. I am sure everyone, whatever they believe, will have the manners to thank you for what you have done.

:love:

What you have established and the scientific method of your profession where you speak of measurements, angles etc etc, should put to rest the contention that everyone with a pair of eyes can make an equally informed opinion on the documents we have.

Hope so much you can get permission to reproduce them! Looking forward to ensuing discussion and hope it stays on track on the statement's physical characteristics and what these suggest rather than personals.

well done C...well done indeed! xxxx
(was worth missing a wrestling session for, but we need to catch up now ;))

Crystal
05-15-2009, 03:38 PM
thanks Ben and Jen!

It was an interesting experience - I had to view the files in Conservation, as they're not allowed out. I saw a lot of other stuff as well, and have more to say about that, but not here!

I will get to the formal analysis of the signatures of GWT Hutchinson and Hutchinson the witness. I have been refused permission to see the original Census document until 2012, and since we don't want to wait that long, I have made interim arrangements with the NRO, and will return there shortly to complete this exercise.

In the meantime, I hope everyone will appreciate that a lot of new information has emerged from my analysis of the statement itself - Ah, Sam Flynn - See? You CAN tell more from the originals! :rolleyes2:

So yes, let's keep this thread on the physciality of the statement and what it can tell us. I have a lot of imformation, so, questions?

Oh, and Ben? It's 'Ten Bell'. Learn to read! xx

babybird67
05-15-2009, 04:19 PM
I'm sooooo jealous of you C!

Not of Mr Melting Chocolate Voice ;) but of being there on that voyage of discovery....history is so fascinating...i can imagine the adrenalin as you lifted those pages and examined them for yourself!

Crystal
05-15-2009, 04:52 PM
It was the prints wot got me, BB - better than chocolate any day!

halomanuk
05-15-2009, 05:02 PM
A very very interesting piece of work there Crystal well done !!!

It's great to have a breakdown of all the pauses and amendments and the right handed fingerprint.
Well done again - im proud of ya !!! :rockon:

Crystal
05-15-2009, 05:08 PM
Thanks Baz - I think it fills in a few blanks and increases our view somewhat. Originals will do that...:laugh4:

See, Sam Flynn???:hiya:

Ben
05-15-2009, 05:09 PM
It was the prints wot got me, BB - better than chocolate any day!

But not not as sweet, comforting or addictive, Crystal.

Just remember that.

But prints are still good! :)

Crystal
05-15-2009, 05:13 PM
I actually think the suspect description is very interesting, Ben. It's very hesitant, far more so than Hutch's account of his observations of Kelly and Astracan's movements. I would say either he was having real trouble remembering - somewhat at odds with the detailed description he gave Badham - or he was making it up.

Go Figure..

Jon Guy
05-15-2009, 06:30 PM
Hello Crystal

Thanks for sharing your fascinating information.

The pauses in the suspect description may be due to Police coaxing. It reads like a police description, age, height, complexion and dress, respectable appearance, can be identified..

Crystal
05-15-2009, 06:41 PM
Hi Jon

Yes, you could be right. I still think it looks at odds with the detailed description given by Hutchinson, though. Perhaps he just had a very vivid imagination. Either that, or he was really Superman and had X-ray vision!

DVV
05-15-2009, 09:42 PM
5535

Finally, marks on page 2 of the statement to the right of the witness signature show under magnification to be fingerprints. It appears that the witness has leant on the statement with his right hand during the course of signing, which strongly implies that he was writing with his left hand.



H i Crystal,
bravissima ragazza!

Could you be a bit more precise on this ?
Where is the signature exactly? where are the fingerprints? are pages 1 and 2 on the same sheet or not? etc.

Thanks in advance, and thanks for all you've done already,
Amitiés,
David

Sam Flynn
05-15-2009, 10:08 PM
The pauses in the suspect description may be due to Police coaxing.Almost certainly, Jon. It's something that we need to be very aware of when reading Court records and press reports, as well.

caz
05-16-2009, 03:38 AM
I have made several observations. They are as follows:

Regarding the hand of Badham - Badham displays certain idiosyncratic traits in his hand. He seldom capitalises new sentences, and seldom employs a 't' bar for lower case 't'. The angle of his script to the baseline is typically 38-40 degrees.

I will say this now, although I will elaborate on the 1911 thread: In my view, Badham did not sign for Hutchinson on page one of the statement. He did fill in the paperwork, amend the statement as it was in progress, and complete the top portion of the endorsement.

The statement contains 2 instances of Badham writing 'Hutchinson'. In one case, this is 'George Hutchinson'. Neither remotely resembles the witness signature on page one.


Bravo Crystal! At last, something vaguely useful on the Hutch front. :hiya:

Now then, I'm afraid I'm only up to page 149 of the 1911 thread because believe it or not I do try to have a life away from the boards.

But I can't help but notice that we now have two experts who have done the decent thing and actually examined the original statement, and blow me down we have one reported by Martin Fido as concluding that Badham 'definitely' signed for Hutch on page one, and t'other believing he did not, even to the point of observing that when Badham wrote the name twice during the course of the statement itself there was not the remotest resemblance to the page one signature .

So while I have my own doubts about Sam's verdict that Hutch and Toppy were one and the same, in light of Sue Iremonger's opposite verdict, how exactly does all this leave us any better off, if we still have to rely on our own eyesight to help us pick which expert we consider to be the better judge?

Just wondering.

Can you tell I've been down a terribly similar road before? :rolleyes2:

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
05-16-2009, 03:46 AM
how exactly does all this leave us any better off, if we still have to rely on our own eyesight to help us pick which expert we consider to be the better judge?

Well, you suggested a solution to this yourself if you cast your mind back to the 1911 thread:

"But if I were coming fresh to this, with no knowledge and no preconceptions, I might be forgiven for wondering if (Sue Iremonger) had been given the information beforehand that the witness had only signed pages two and three."

DVV
05-16-2009, 04:22 AM
So while I have my own doubts about Sam's verdict that Hutch and Toppy were one and the same...
Caz


Hi Caz,

welcome to the club.
Who said the members were exclusively Hutchers ?
And I don't forget Babybird.
Cheers, Good Mike!

Amitiés Caz,
David

richardnunweek
05-16-2009, 10:48 AM
Hello Crystal,
Excellent work, worthy of any great detective, and it is indeed intresting to have a professional opinion on the actual statement.
Of course bias me, anxiously awaits your verdict on 'Toppy' ie, was he the Hutchinson we are looking for, or was he simply a man relaying a story , for a pint or two[ a suggestion i cannot accept as yet].
I have a feeling that your initial feeling that he was not , will be endorsed, and that will lead us back to square one, but i would of course love to be wrong upon that score , and if you suggested that he was, you would be on my xmas card list.
Well done..... in anticipation
Richard.

Bob Hinton
05-16-2009, 12:34 PM
When I was researching my book, From Hell, I spent some time down in Romford to see if I could pick up any links there.

Whilst ploughing through the local papers I came across an interesting advert. It was for ‘Stones Millinery and Mantle Emporium’ and was situated at 60 Market Place Romford. The advert showed a gentleman dressed to the nines. The interesting thing was that the picture bore a remarkable resemblance to the description Hutchinson gave, even down to the spats. (Which as I am sure we all know are morning wear only to be worn between breakfast and luncheon)

I often wonder if Hutchinson saw a dummy in a shop window and took his description from that. It would explain why the description is so theatrical and why a gentlemen wearing a warm astrakhan coat would leave it wide open on a cold, wet miserable night. A dummy feels no cold but needs to show off the waistcoat and watch chain.

Crystal
05-16-2009, 12:59 PM
Hi David - in response to your questions, the prints are to the upper right of the second page signature. Pages 1, 2 and 3 are on separate sheets. The endorsement (which means lit. on the back, as you will doubtless know) is on the reverse of page 3. If you would care to send me your email details via PM, David, I will send you some images - I am allowed to do that under copyright legislation and would be happy to do so.


Sam Flynn - Yes, in agreement, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough, sadly.

Caz - As I said, I will elaborate on the 1911 thread once I have written the signature comparative analysis. However, I would say the following: Badham didn't sign for George Hutchinson. George Hutchinson signed for George Hutchinson, on all three pages. Unless, of course, Badham was either a: a Master Forger; or b: George Hutchinson himself. The level of concurrence between the signatures, and the obvious differences in Badham's own hand is much too high for the page 1 signature to have been signed by Badham. I don't know exactly what Iremonger saw. I know what I saw, however. I saw the statement, at length, earlier this week.

And with all due respect, I think we are somewhat better off for it.


Richard - yes, I do know now whether Toppy was Hutch or not. I have no doubt, because there is no doubt. The statement has been extremely forthcoming - more than I anticipated. However, it is not my task to give my view. When I publish the report, it will be in the nature of my findings. People can then make their own minds up as to whether it was Toppy, or no.

That, however, must wait a while. I am on my way to Devon today to look at some 17th Century material, and must then find time to visit Kew next week, in between going to Lincoln for 2 days, before I can think about completing the report on the signatures. Sorry, I have a demanding life! I hope that what you can see so far is useful and interesting.

In general, I will try to get permission to publish images. The NRO are preparing high resolution images for me, but I still need copyright to get them out here. I do appreciate that a picture tells a thousand words, and I will do my best.

Cx

richardnunweek
05-16-2009, 01:34 PM
Hello Crystal,
Fair play, time will reveal all, will my hopes fade into dimness, or will a halo appear round my rather large head?
I am asking for trouble saying the latter......
Regards Richard.

Ben
05-16-2009, 02:08 PM
Hi Crystal,

Many thanks for the additional clarification with regard to Badham's handwriting and Hutchinson signature #1.

Hi Bob,

I feel your "dummy" suggestion has a great deal of merit. According to an article I posted on the pre-crash Hutchinson forum, shop window mannequins were introduced in the 1880s, thus increasing their novelty value at that time:

http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/61523/jewelry/evolution_of_mannequins_from_dressmaker_to_shop_di splays.html

All the best,
Ben

gary
05-16-2009, 02:37 PM
A very very interesting piece of work there Crystal well done !!!

It's great to have a breakdown of all the pauses and amendments and the right handed fingerprint.
Well done again - im proud of ya !!! :rockon:
I'm probably having one of my derrr moments, but how can you tell that
there were pauses in a written document?

Gary

DVV
05-16-2009, 04:28 PM
Hi David - in response to your questions, the prints are to the upper right of the second page signature. Pages 1, 2 and 3 are on separate sheets. The endorsement (which means lit. on the back, as you will doubtless know) is on the reverse of page 3. If you would care to send me your email details via PM, David, I will send you some images - I am allowed to do that under copyright legislation and would be happy to do so.
Cx

So many thanks Crystal,
just pm you.

Amitiés,
David

m_w_r
05-16-2009, 05:28 PM
Crystal -

Terrific work, but just to clarify:

1. The statement reads: "I met the Murdered woman", not "I saw the Murdered woman". (p.1)

2. The statement reads: "he then placed his right hand around her shoulders", not "he then placed his right hand on her shoulders". (p.1)

3. The statement reads: "with a kind of a strap round it", not "with a kind of strap round it". (p.1)

4. The signature you could not read on p.3 is that of Inspector Ernest Ellisdon.

5. The signature below that is that of Superintendent Thomas Arnold.

Regards,

Mark

perrymason
05-16-2009, 05:56 PM
I'm probably having one of my derrr moments, but how can you tell that
there were pauses in a written document?

Gary

Hi Gary,

I have no training as a graphologist, so this is just my educated guess, but I would imagine that the pressure applied judged by the ink left behind is one way, the continuity of the pressure and consistency of character shape and size and spacing, smudging, character angle changes, irregular character or word spacing...those kinds of criteria.

I hope that Crystals fine analysis answers some questions people have about what is assuredly the most disappointing witness interaction of the Ripper cases for the Police. a Suspect with details so precise and so detailed......and yet apparently, so fictional....

Cheers all.

Sam Flynn
05-16-2009, 06:05 PM
Thanks Baz - I think it fills in a few blanks and increases our view somewhat. Originals will do that...:laugh4:

See, Sam Flynn???:hiya:
Your triumphalism seems rather premature, Crystal. The discovery of faded fingerprints that weren't picked up by a scanner doesn't mean that originals are essential in all contexts. Handling an original might allow us to detect some etiolated smudges that bypassed the scanning process, and find similar such physical quirks on the paper, but it hardly "increases our view somewhat" in terms of examining the writing itself. Research posted on the 1911 thread demonstrated that, in terms of comparing signatures, 2nd generation photocopies were good enough to allow correct assessments to be made to a very high degree of accuracy.

I'm genuinely pleased that you've discovered something of which we weren't aware (how can we tell if they were the signatory's fingerprints, by the way?). However, that discovery should by no means be used to imply that my previous arguments about originals versus scans were incorrect, when I was arguing in the specific context of a signature-comparison exercise. That's a different ball-game entirely.

Crystal
05-16-2009, 06:56 PM
Triumphalist? Moi? Surely you jest, Sam Flynn? A couple of tiny points-the prints aren't faded, and I know what your point is. You're still wrong.

Sam Flynn
05-16-2009, 07:38 PM
A couple of tiny points-the prints aren't fadedFaded enough to have evaded the scanning process, evidently - which was what I said. and I know what your point is. You're still wrong.
No, I'm not - and research backs me up.

Garry Wroe
05-17-2009, 08:56 AM
Hi Crystal.

Back in either 1991 or 1992, a document examiner, acting on my behalf, conducted an analysis of the signature appended to the first page of Hutchinson's police statement. Her conclusion, based upon pressure points and the angle of the nib on the paper, was that Hutchinson was right-handed. If I understand you correctly, however, a fingerprint on the second page has led you to infer that Hutchinson was left-handed.

Given your stated view that Hutchinson authored all three of his signatures on this document, there must, by implication, be a conflict of opinion regarding the signature on page one. It occurs to me, therefore, that this element of your analysis hinges on the provenance of the page two fingerprint. But what if the fingerprint emanated from Badham, who certainly handled the document during and after Hutchinson's interview? A similar criterion would also apply to Abberline, of course, to say nothing of any number of pen-pushers at Commercial Street Police Station or indeed the Home Office.

Should anyone assume that I am merely being mischievious in this context, I would point out that an implication of profound importance appears to have been overlooked. Whoever he was, the Whitechapel Murderer was, beyond any reasonable doubt, right-handed. Hence, if it can be established that Hutchinson was left-handed, there exists no realistic possibility that he could have been Jack the Ripper.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Jon Guy
05-17-2009, 11:22 AM
It's something that we need to be very aware of when reading Court records and press reports, as well.

Hi Sam

Forgive me, but I don`t follow the above statement. Would you mind elaborating ?

Sam Flynn
05-17-2009, 01:26 PM
Forgive me, but I don`t follow the above statement. Would you mind elaborating ?Certainly, Jon - it's just that what might come across as smooth monologues in inquest/trial transcripts and press interviews might well have been somewhat more "stop/start" in reality. This would be especially true where non-professional witnesses (members of the public, victims' family and friends) are in the question. In some instances it seems certain that some accounts have received the "gloss" of a scribe, whether in terms of providing a precis or otherwise filling in the action for us. Note that I'm not suggesting for one moment that details were made up as a matter of course.

One thing that strikes me about otherwise faithful dramatic reconstructions of the case (documentaries and the like) is that, whereas they commendably use the transcripts verbatim, they often have the actors or voice-overs pouring forth a stream of uninterrupted speech. I doubt that this would have been the impression we'd have had if we'd been there at the time, or if the proceedings had by some miracle been recorded on wax cylinders.

Sam Flynn
05-17-2009, 01:32 PM
But what if the fingerprint emanated from Badham, who certainly handled the document during and after Hutchinson's interview? A similar criterion would also apply to Abberline, of course, to say nothing of any number of pen-pushers at Commercial Street Police Station or indeed the Home Office.... or indeed 20th Century researchers! Astute observations, Garry - particularly your closing comment:I would point out that an implication of profound importance appears to have been overlooked. Whoever he was, the Whitechapel Murderer was, beyond any reasonable doubt, right-handed. Hence, if it can be established that Hutchinson was left-handed, there exists no realistic possibility that he could have been Jack the Ripper.

DVV
05-17-2009, 04:57 PM
Right gentlemen.

Can be a Brit.
Can't be left-handed.

About fingerprints...
Well, who has sticky hands here around ?

Amitiés,
David

babybird67
05-17-2009, 05:37 PM
I understand Crystal is hoping to get permission to show the images of the documents she examined.

I've had a private sneaky peek (not equivalent to a sneaky peek of privates, please note!) and the fingerprint is inky...which suggests to my untrained and therefore quite fallible mind, that the print was contemporaneous with the statement, so i would rule out 20th century researchers and pen pushers at the station who handled the document after the statement had been taken.

Of course it could be possible that someone held the statement down for Hutchinson whilst he signed his name, in which case it could be Badham's fingerprint, or one of the other officers...i dont know enough about the relation of the print in regards to the person signing...eg the angle that might suggest it would be the signatory's fingerprint rather than someone else's, but if Badham was holding the paper still for Hutchinson to sign (if this helped him if he was unaccustomed to signing much?) i would imagine Badham would be standing either at the front of Hutchinson, which would mean he could have left a print from his left hand, or, if he was standing behind, maybe to the right of Hutchinson and kind of leaning over his shoulder holding down the paper, it would be a print from his right hand.

It seems from the evidence, without hearing more from Crystal, the fingerprint isn't conclusive evidence, or has not been proven to be conclusive as yet. I hope Crystal will enlighten us further on how she came to her conclusions regarding the documents, but appreciate she is very busy and this is not her priority right now.

It is still very interesting and a great new angle on the Hutchinson question!

BTW, newbie here, how do we know for certain that JtR was right-handed? Is it a question of the how the wounds were inflicted? If someone can point me to a thread/article which explains this i'd be grateful.

hope everyone is having a good day

DVV
05-18-2009, 12:32 AM
Hi BB,

I've already answered this: no left-handed could be bad as Jack - except, perhaps, Ahmad bin Ibrahim. But it's something else...

Seriously, simply post-mortem evidences (including Tabram's).

Amitiés,
David

Ben
05-18-2009, 01:22 AM
Hi all,

I fervently hope that we're not going to get bogged down in more suggestions that copies are as good as originals. I'd hate to have to copy and paste from the 1911 discussion where this was agonized over in painful detail. Crystal's comments have satisfactorily demonstrated, to my mind, that original documents reveal many siginificant details that aren't immediately apparent in scanned copies appearing on computer screens - pen pressure and relative size being two crucial ones.

Her discoveries increase our understanding considerably, in my view, and as for the research shared with us by Mr. Lowe, surely the most illuminating aspect is that professional document examiners consistently deliver the most accurate results over their laymen counterparts. It is freshing to see that the necessity for both document examiners and original documents in recognised by most. For those who disagree, fair enough, but I'd respectfully submit that we await Crystal's recounting of her additional findings (including the Toppy-related ones), before we repeat that argument again.

Best regards,
Ben

John Bennett
05-18-2009, 01:31 AM
You can't beat seeing an original...

babybird67
05-18-2009, 01:35 AM
well said Ben.

Sam Flynn
05-18-2009, 02:03 AM
I fervently hope that we're not going to get bogged down in more suggestions that copies are as good as originals.
No need to, Ben, when empirical research has shown this to be the case - at least in terms of signature comparison.

As I said on the other thread, it depends on the purpose for which one is using the document. If you're looking for inky prints that might not be picked up by the scanner, clearly originals are better. For simple signature comparison, as we've seen, 2nd generation photocopies (not even scans!) are eminently good enough for very accurate judgments to be made.

Sam Flynn
05-18-2009, 02:08 AM
as for the research shared with us by Mr. Lowe, surely the most illuminating aspect is that professional document examiners consistently deliver the most accurate results over their laymen counterparts.It also showed that a goodly proportion of non-experts were just as good at it. The fact that there was statistical significance is just that - a statistical effect.

DVV
05-18-2009, 02:09 AM
No need to, Ben, when empirical research has shown this to be the case - at least in terms of signature comparison.

For simple signature comparison, as we've seen, 2nd generation photocopies (not even scans!) are eminently good enough for very accurate judgments to be made.

Frank Leander does not think so, Sam.
He must be a first generation expert.

Amitiés,
David

Sam Flynn
05-18-2009, 02:17 AM
Frank Leander does not think so, Sam.We don't know that, because he wasn't asked that specific question. Document examiners might well "prefer" to have the originals, but that might just be tradition talking. Research clearly shows that copies are just as good as originals for the purpose of signature comparisons - and why shouldn't they be?

Ben
05-18-2009, 02:31 AM
It also showed that a goodly proportion of non-experts were just as good at it.

But the more salient point in that the document examiners were consistently better at it overall, Gareth, thus vindicating the necessity for the role of a document examiner for cases comparison studies such as these.

Document examiners might well "prefer" to have the originals, but that might just be tradition talking.

Ah no, Leander didn't use the expression "prefer". He stated that it wasn't possible to conduct a full expert analysis in the absence of the original documents, a view that he continued to underscore. Nothing to do with personal preference at all. The fact that they can still arrive at the correct conclusion without the originals, as demonstrated by the research, is simply a testament to the abilities of the document examiners.

Research clearly shows that copies are just as good as originals for the purpose of signature comparisons

No it does't.

Crystal's comparisons utterly demonstrate the polar opposite.

Now, where's that copy and paste button...

DVV
05-18-2009, 02:33 AM
We don't know that, because he wasn't asked that specific question.

He was asked to give his opinion as an expert and said he couldn't, since he wasn't provided with the original documents.
Right or wrong, that's what he said, and it's clear enough.

Amitiés,
David

Sam Flynn
05-18-2009, 02:44 AM
But the more salient point in that the document examiners were consistently better at it overall, Gareth, thus vindicating the necessity for the role of a document examiner for cases comparison studies such as these.No "necessity" at all. Many non-experts were just as good.Ah noI wish I could have given you a fuller explanation of what I meant, but I have neither the time nor the inclination.

As to Crystal's comparisons demonstrating the "polar opposite" of the research - she did nothing of the sort. She didn't even do the same sort of comparison task, and what she found had nothing to do with signature comparison at all.

DVV
05-18-2009, 02:52 AM
She didn't even do the same sort of comparison task, and what she found had nothing to do with signature comparison at all.

Not false, Sam,

but though she's an expert and have seen the scanned images, she felt the need to go to Kew. And there, incidentally, she found fingerprints, etc.

Amitiés,
David

Ben
05-18-2009, 03:01 AM
Many non-experts were just as good.

I'm sure that holds true for many professions and occupations, Gareth. That doesn't nullify the need for professionals, however, even for the more seemingly simple tasks.

and what she found had nothing to do with signature comparison at all.

That'll come later, but the material she has presented to date has been most informative.

All the best,
Ben

Crystal
05-18-2009, 12:31 PM
Come off it, Sam Flynn, all this amounts to is a pre-emptive strike, just in case I come out on the 1911 thread and say, 'Nope, Not Toppy'. Please do tell me I'm wrong.

Just like the disclaimer on the NRO website which tells us they don't hold original BMD cerficates - remember that one? - I did what I said on the tin. Ben, as usual, is right - oh, ok, then, he has inside information, I admit it - I do know the answer to the wretched question, and yes, the results of that analysis will be forthcoming, and also yes, the things that you cannot see from a scan - they exist, and nothing you ever say will change that FACT - have made a difference. I don't believe that you're really so dense that you cannot envisage such things, so I must instead choose to believe that this is an ego thing - OH, I think we've been here before.

Whatever. All I am trying to do here is further our knowledge of this document, and the issues surrounding it, so I think a bit of respect for the fact that I have spent days on this already - might cost a bit if I was charging - might just be due.

Now then, the prints - no, they didn't get there after the fact. Yes, it is possible that it was Badham, but not Abberline, as they do appear to be contemporary with the primary text - this as opposed to Abberline's amendments and later signaturies.

It is possible that there is another explanation for the position and nature of the prints. I don't contest that. It's a theory - it can't be more than that. The prints have been made by pressure from fingers, and from the side of the little finger of the right hand. They are consistent with a person leaning on the page whilst writing. Thus, it is possible that the witness was writing with his left hand. I cannot really go further than that - the signatures are all we have, they are a small sample. I see that a previous esaminer of the first page of the statement thought the witness was right handed. I would hesitate before reaching so firm a conclusion on the basis of one signature, personally. I see three possiblilities. I am incorrect, the person previously examining page 1 was incorrect, or the witness was ambidextrous.

Now, Abberline amending the statement. There is no doubt about this at all. The amendment is clearly in Abberline's hand, which is distinctive in many respects, and certainly very different from that of Badham. In addition to viewing the statement, I also looked at Abberline's report, and at other written material by Badham.

I am quite happy to answer questions, whoever has more.

Ally
05-18-2009, 05:25 PM
Here's a question, just out of curiosity, what precisely are "Crystal's" credentials and who has verified them?

caz
05-19-2009, 01:04 PM
Well, you suggested a solution to this yourself if you cast your mind back to the 1911 thread:

"But if I were coming fresh to this, with no knowledge and no preconceptions, I might be forgiven for wondering if (Sue Iremonger) had been given the information beforehand that the witness had only signed pages two and three."

Hi Ben,

Ah, but that clearly applies only to a hypothetical reader coming fresh to this, with no knowledge and no preconceptions, who might [still] be forgiven for wondering how Sue could have pronounced herself 'definite' in regard to the page one sig and retained her credibility, in light of Crystal's clear warning early on in the 1911 thread about not taking seriously any 'expert' who would pronounce herself certain concerning an opinion that cannot be independently verified by the facts.

Which brings me neatly on to this:


Caz - As I said, I will elaborate on the 1911 thread once I have written the signature comparative analysis. However, I would say the following: Badham didn't sign for George Hutchinson. George Hutchinson signed for George Hutchinson, on all three pages. Unless, of course, Badham was either a: a Master Forger; or b: George Hutchinson himself. The level of concurrence between the signatures, and the obvious differences in Badham's own hand is much too high for the page 1 signature to have been signed by Badham. I don't know exactly what Iremonger saw. I know what I saw, however. I saw the statement, at length, earlier this week.

And with all due respect, I think we are somewhat better off for it.

Richard - yes, I do know now whether Toppy was Hutch or not. I have no doubt, because there is no doubt.

And with all due respect, Crystal, you have just single-handedly left the ‘experts’ up a creek without a paddle and everyone else back firmly at square one, having to rely on our own eyes to reach our own conclusions.

One of you - you or Sue - is wrong about witness sig one - fact.

Both of you have committed the apparent no-no of pronouncing your directly conflicting 'expert' opinions on sig one as definitely ascertained facts - thus giving us all permission not to take either of your opinions seriously.

If you don't think that has effectively taken the wheels off whatever Toppy wagon you were planning to ride, then think again.

As laymen all we know is that we have at least one expert out of two whose judgement was fatally flawed concerning at least one of the signatures examined. If you endorse Sue's opinion on Toppy, we will have an unreliable expert either being endorsed or doing the endorsing, which doesn't bode well for the reliability of the other. If your opinions on Toppy/Hutch differ, as they do on Badham/Hutch, we won't know if the score is 1-1, saddling you and Sue with one fatally flawed judgement apiece, or 2-0 to one of you, leaving us to judge who is the real expert and who knows Jack shi*.

Love,

Caz
X

The Good Michael
05-19-2009, 01:12 PM
Caz,

It's possible they are both wrong and both know jack shi*, but I'm not going there.

Mike

caz
05-19-2009, 01:23 PM
Hi GM,

You don't need to go anywhere. Crystal is busy dragging Sue with her to a place where I'm not sure either really wanted to end up.

Shi* Creek.

I can see poor Ben trying to go after them with a life-saving paddle, but I can't quite decide who he's going to give it to.

Love,

Caz
X

PS I'm catching up with the 1911 thread - up to page 205 - and boy have I found some patent bollocks. The fact that nobody else has either seen some of the gems or bothered to comment on them speaks volumes about that thread having the Y :sleeping: factor.

Crystal
05-19-2009, 01:39 PM
Caz, I'm happy with my observations on the statement to date, and perfectly secure in my own ability in this regard thanks. I can't speak for Sue Iremonger, so I shan't try. I am quite clear on the Badham issue. I'm also right. And I can prove it beyond reasonable doubt. I have no need of a paddle, and you might perhaps consider being slightly less rude next time you post about this, hmm? It doesn't do you any favours.

Ben
05-19-2009, 02:01 PM
Oh dear, more scurrilous nincompoopery from my usual tiresome shadows.

Ah, but that clearly applies only to a hypothetical reader coming fresh to this, with no knowledge and no preconceptions, who might [still] be forgiven for wondering how Sue could have pronounced herself 'definite' in regard to the page one sig and retained her credibility

No it doesn't.

It applies to anyone.

Anyone can be forgiven for thinking that Iremonger's professed certainty on the subject of Badham's signature may have been conditioned by information that was conveyed to her beforehand as a "certainty", and if that were the case, Iremonger wouldn't even have been directly responsible the observation about signature one. So she wouldn't have been in conflict with Crystal at all.

Just what is all this pooey nonsense about two experts disagreeing "giving us permission not to take either of (their) opinions seriously". Since when was that a prudent or laudable way to go about things? Paul Begg and Philip Sugden have radically contrasting views about the case in many respects, not least about the identity of Jack the Ripper. According to your logic, their disagreement "gives us permission" not to take either of them seriously. You've made the truly frightening leap of faith that asserts that, well, since the experts disagree, the experts must be completely useless and everyone else must be just as qualified.

Or..

You can join us on our planet.

Whatever Crystal believes to have been "definitely ascertained" is the result of an in-depth analysis of the original document. Something that you haven't seen, thus deflating the worth of your advice to "rely on our own eyes to reach our own conclusions."

As laymen all we know is that we have at least one expert out of two whose judgement was fatally flawed concerning at least one of the signatures examined.

But if you cast your mind back to the suggestion you now wish you never made, you observed that the comment attributed to Iremonger regarding the first signature might not even be the result of her "judgement", but rather as a result of information being fed to her.

PS I'm catching up with the 1911 thread - up to page 205 - and boy have I found some patent bollocks.

I've dealt with most of it, thanks. Yours included.

Don't be deterred by any of this, Crystal. As you are no doubt aware, the majority of contributors are highly appreciative of your efforts, and the insulting naysayers are limited to the same unhappy few every time.

All the best,
Ben

caz
05-19-2009, 05:40 PM
Anyone can be forgiven for thinking that Iremonger's professed certainty on the subject of Badham's signature may have been conditioned by information that was conveyed to her beforehand as a "certainty", and if that were the case, Iremonger wouldn't even have been directly responsible the observation about signature one. So she wouldn't have been in conflict with Crystal at all.

Let me see if I understand you here, Ben. Are you saying it would be reasonable for any of us, including you, to infer that Sue's professed certainty was 'conditioned' by information she was given before she examined the witness statement signatures? Because that’s most emphatically not what I ever suggested, implied or believed.


Whatever Crystal believes to have been "definitely ascertained" is the result of an in-depth analysis of the original document. Something that you haven't seen, thus deflating the worth of your advice to "rely on our own eyes to reach our own conclusions."

Hardly my 'advice', Ben. It's pretty much all any layman can do if the two experts who have each carried out in-depth analyses of the same original document 'definitely ascertain' mutually exclusive facts: one that Badham signed on page one and the other that it was the witness himself.

Or are you now backing away from your previous insistence that Sue did carry out such an analysis?

Would it have been such a frightening leap of faith on my part, to take Crystal at her word when she said that no expert pronouncing their opinions as fact should be taken seriously?

If this is how you stick up for Crystal and Sue, when they most need your support, I’m glad all over again that I’m in no danger of having you as an ally.


But if you cast your mind back to the suggestion you now wish you never made, you observed that the comment attributed to Iremonger regarding the first signature might not even be the result of her "judgement", but rather as a result of information being fed to her.

My only wish is that you could kick your habit of turning a suggestion I did make into one I didn't - while still claiming to have a superior command of language. Superior command for twisting it out of all recognition more like.

I already clarified my observation to the point where even a one-eyed retarded flea could not have gone on pretending to misunderstand it. I made no attempt to imply that Sue's conclusion 'might not' be the result of her judgement alone, nor that she could have been 'fed' information beforehand, and I wrote no such thing. I merely observed that someone less well informed might be forgiven for wrongly imagining that to be a possible explanation for her certainty.


I've dealt with most of it, thanks.

Oh good. Then now I've caught up with everything over at 1911, the patent bollocks that remains must be what you failed to deal with. This is going to be such fun.

Love,

Caz
X

PS Rude, Crystal? By simply arriving at the point you have dragged your long-suffering readers to? The point where we, as unskilled amateurs, now have two opposite expert opinions and are meant to know which expert is less capable of screwing up?

caz
05-19-2009, 05:58 PM
For your own sake, don't say things like 'Toppy Is Hutch'.
It makes you look ridiculous.


Hi Crystal,

The above advice you gave Fisherman over on 1911 was a wee bit rich, if you don't mind the observation. He has never claimed to be an expert; this very obviously reflects a current belief that he has made clear could change as new info emerges; and he could of course be as wrong as anyone else with an opinion. (For the record, I have my own doubts about the Hutch/Toppy signatures being by the same individual but I'd be anyone's flexible friend if they just weren't so damned defensive all the time.)

You, on the other hand, do claim to be an expert. You also warned the layman not to take any expert seriously if they say things like 'Badham definitely signed for Hutch on page one'; or 'Hutch signed all three pages'; or 'I now know - there is no doubt - that Toppy is/isn't Hutch'.


But not being a document examiner, you wouldn't be in a very good position to "assess" her "assessment", would you?

Ben, I realise you were not addressing me when you wrote this on 1911. But it reflects the whole problem, doesn't it? Who is in 'a very good position' to "assess" the "assessments" of experts who can't agree on one of the signatures on an original document they are both meant to have examined?

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
05-19-2009, 06:15 PM
Let me see if I understand you here, Ben. Are you saying it would be reasonable for any of us, including you, to infer that Sue's professed certainty was 'conditioned' by information she was given before she examined the witness statement signatures?

Well, let's have a look at what you said:

"I have no idea which would more fairly represent Sue's position. (If anyone has found out, have any direct quotes been posted?) But if I were coming fresh to this, with no knowledge and no preconceptions, I might be forgiven for wondering if she had been given the information beforehand that the witness had only signed pages two and three."

Since that little piece of speculation would have obvious merit even if the speculator did have "knowledge" and/or "preconceptions", it is startling apparent that you brought up this suggestion because you felt it had merit, or else you would hardly have mentioned it. You said nothing about that proposal being "wrong", and the only reason you are painting it as such now is because you wish to cast irrational aspersions in the direction of professional document examiners, and Crystal in particular.

And it hasn't worked.

Because, if your suggestion holds true, that Iremonger was supplied with information prior to conducting her analysis, it naturally follows that the comment attributed to Iremonger concerning signature #1 did not reflect her actual judgement, but the information she was supplied with ny another source. But this is all according to the possibility you submitted for consideration.

It doesn't matter if you're now coming up with bad excuses for backtracking on that earlier observation. It's a good one, regardless of who made it, and irrespective of the fact that you're now trying desperately to relinquish "ownership" of that suggestion.

Would it have been such a frightening leap of faith on my part, to take Crystal at her word when she said that no expert pronouncing their opinions as fact should be taken seriously?

Obviously you cannot express certainty in the absence of "closure" either way. Since Crystal has now analysed the statement herself, she is clearly of the opinion that any doubt in the matter has been eradicated to her satisfaction.

I already clarified my observation to the point where even a one-eyed retarded flea could not have gone on pretending to misunderstand it

You didn't clarify it.

You just claimed you secretly meant something other than you said, which only a genetically modified stick-insect with the brain removed would fail to recgonise. You said nothing whatsoever about your earlier suggestion, as quoted in my first paragraph, being a wrong one.

Then now I've caught up with everything over at 1911, the patent bollocks that remains must be what you failed to deal with. This is going to be such fun.

Oh, it'll be a treat.

Please post on the 1911 thread.

Please start the ball rolling again.

I never fail to deal with any bollocks swung brazenly in my direction, but if there's more of it to come, I can't wait!

caz
05-19-2009, 06:16 PM
From 1911...

#1493 April 25


I also thought I might take a look at the Lusk letter, while I'm at it - if I have time.

#1565 April 27


Good morning all. Just to clarify, the NRO holds both the original statement and a facsimile. The latter is the version usually produced on request, and further copied for distribution in response to private request. The same is true of the Lusk letter, incidentally.

Any luck? :evil:

I always thought the original was missing, presumed misfiled, pilfered, shredded or fried and eaten with a nise bit of kidley.

Love,

Caz
X

Crystal
05-19-2009, 06:18 PM
Long-suffering? Doubt it. My posts tend not to be lengthy, since I have no need of verbosity, and I find the quote facility a bore. Besides, reading my posts is a choice, not an obligation. Do you understand the distinction, or shall I explain? Your arguments are weak, and your reasoning is flawed. Have a think and see if you can work it out. And once again, routine cynicism is not equivalent to intelligence.

caz
05-19-2009, 06:31 PM
Hi Ben,

Paint away all you like but it won't remove or alter the meaning of my original words. Odd that you ridiculed my 'suggestion' when I first made it and you mistook it for a serious possibility. Now you see it as one yourself, when I never did.

What hasn't 'worked'? I have to be more in Sue's camp than Crystal's until I learn more, because I've been told by you that I must pay attention to what the first renowned expert in the field said. If you now want me to change horses I need a bit more than a different opinion from someone calling herself Crystal, whose real name I don't even know!

Obviously I cannot express certainty in the absence of two or more experts who conclude the same things about the same set of signatures. I just wonder how you are going to assess Crystal's assessment of Sue's sig one conclusion as the expert equivalent of "patent bollocks".

Should be fascinating.

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
05-19-2009, 06:32 PM
The above advice you gave Fisherman over on 1911 was a wee bit rich, if you don't mind the observation.

She might not.

But I do.

Because it's obviously nonsense.

The people most qualified to determine whether not or Toppy was Hutch are the experts in the field of document examination, and of that number, the most qualified are those who took the trouble to examine the original documents. Since Crystal meets both criteria, I think it more than stands to reason that if anyone is in a position to claim that "Toppy was/wasn't Hutch", it's Crystal and not a layman posting on a message board.

Or you can doubt Crystal

And we can all care.

Or not.

caz
05-19-2009, 06:37 PM
Your arguments are weak, and your reasoning is flawed. Have a think and see if you can work it out.

Nope, I can't work that one out, Crystal, unless you are pulling our collective legs and you didn't really come to the opposite conclusion that Sue did about who signed page one.

Failing that, what argument and reasoning would you employ then, to reconcile the different conclusions and trust them both to be reliable?

I obviously need expert advice on this one.

Love,

Caz
X

Bob Hinton
05-19-2009, 06:38 PM
Due to my well known interest in Hutchinson I should be bang up to date on all these threads, but because of other things I am not.

I understand that a signature in the 1911 is supposed to be the same as the famous statement implying that the person in the 1911 is GH. Do I have the essence of the problem?

If this is so could someone be so kind as to post both signatures so I could compare them?

Ben
05-19-2009, 06:39 PM
I'm glad that nothing will remove or alter the meaning of your original words.

Which is why I quoted them directly to avoid confusion. Those words said nothing whatsoever about your speculations being "wrong", and I certainly didn't "ridicule" them. You can't possibly know if your original suggestion was "wrong". It doesn't matter who made the observation anyway - it's a good suggestion that has a fair chance of being correct. Either Iremonger was supplied with an erroneous factoid prior to conducting her analysis, or she and Iremonger disagree on that point. If the latter, big whoop - experts disagree all the time. That certainly doesn't entitle us to think less of them for that reason, or dismiss them as not worth taking seriously.

That's obviously nonsense.

caz
05-19-2009, 06:46 PM
Hi Bob,

I'm not sure it's 'supposed to be the same'.

It's just that we have two expert document examiners telling us what's what, but they can't even agree on who signed page one of Hutchinson's damned witness statement.

About as much use as a chocolate teapot - or having Ben 'supporting' your Hutch theory in your absence. ;)

Lots of love,

Caz
XXX

Ben
05-19-2009, 06:46 PM
Hi Bob,

The claim being made (by one or two) is that the statement signatures match that of George William Topping Hutchinson (the chap referred to with regularity by Richard Nunweek). Your book contained the interesting detail that Sue Iremonger compared the signatures, and came to the conclusion that they did not match. Since then, another document examiner has compared the signatures and has apparently arrived at the same conclusion. The fact that they might differ on other factors relating to the statement fails to nullify the fact that they do agree on the GWTH issue.

Best regards,
Ben

caz
05-19-2009, 06:52 PM
I'm glad that nothing will remove or alter the meaning of your original words.

Which is why I quoted them directly to avoid confusion. Those words said nothing whatsoever about your speculations being "wrong", and I certainly didn't "ridicule" them. You can't possibly know if your original suggestion was "wrong". It doesn't matter who made the observation anyway - it's a good suggestion that has a fair chance of being correct. Either Iremonger was supplied with an erroneous factoid prior to conducting her analysis, or she and Iremonger disagree on that point. If the latter, big whoop - experts disagree all the time. That certainly doesn't entitle us to think less of them for that reason, or dismiss them as not worth taking seriously.

That's obviously nonsense.

Look Ben, if you want to believe that Sue was fed erroneous information leading to one of her conclusions, that's between you and Sue. It's no skin off my nose.

Experts do disagree all the time. That's precisely where I came in - to ask which one we should think less of, or take less seriously, in this case, and why, if we are meant to make that assessment without using our own eyes.

Love,

Caz
X

caz
05-19-2009, 06:57 PM
The fact that they might differ on other factors relating to the statement...

Might differ, Ben?

Which of your experts are you accusing of lying about their opposite conclusions?

Sue was definite about Badham signing page one and not Hutch.

Crystal was definite about Hutch signing page one and not Badham.

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
05-19-2009, 06:57 PM
Look Ben, if you want to believe that Sue was fed erroneous information leading to one of her conclusions, that's between you and Sue.

Oh, but it was your suggestion in the first place.

Good suggestion! It might be the correct one for all we know!

That's precisely where I came in - to ask which one we should think less of, or take less seriously, in this case, and why

We're not supposed to do any of those things. Experts can be wrong without giving us cause to think "less" of them or to take them "less seriously", just as we shouldn't think any less of the various authorities on the Whitechapel Murders for arriving at errant conclusions.

Ben
05-19-2009, 06:59 PM
"Might differ" in the sense that Iremonger's observation about the first signature "might" have been the result of being fed misinformation, rather than a representation of her personal findings, as per your suggestion. So I'm accusing nobody of lying. I'm just taking your earlier comments on board.

About as much use as a chocolate teapot - or having Ben 'supporting' your Hutch theory in your absence.

For "supporting", read flicking the occasional gnat with a spurious objection. ;) ;)

Crystal
05-19-2009, 07:03 PM
How are we heading off into Toppy territory here? This thread is for the statement, in which currently estabished signatures of Toppy played no part. And while we're at it, I haven't yet said anything about Toppy publicly since going to Kew. I have other concerns right now, frankly.

Ally
05-19-2009, 08:27 PM
I realize that Ben and Crystal are happy to jump on the argue endlessly with Caz train and completely overlook my very relevant and someone logical question, so I'll just repeat it:

What exactly are "Crystal's" credentials and who has verified them? There is a lot of talk of professional and expert opinion on this thread and so I want to know: who has actually determined she's an expert or professional or is any more qualified than the average joe blow?

caz
05-19-2009, 08:49 PM
Oh, but it was your suggestion in the first place.

Hi Ben,

I think you'll find it was you who introduced the idea of 'erroneous' information being 'fed' to Sue. My hypothetical newbie, imagining what could possibly have led to Sue's certainty, involved said newbie wondering if a contemporary file note could have informed her that Badham had signed when an oversight by Hutch was discovered.

I wasn't making a case for anything of either sort. But if I have suggested, anywhere, that you should conclude that Sue was fed information beforehand, erroneous or otherwise, you will be able to quote me doing just that. Good luck.

Love,

Caz
X

caz
05-19-2009, 08:58 PM
How are we heading off into Toppy territory here? This thread is for the statement, in which currently estabished signatures of Toppy played no part. And while we're at it, I haven't yet said anything about Toppy publicly since going to Kew. I have other concerns right now, frankly.

Because, my dear Crystal, a flawed expert is a flawed expert is a flawed expert, whether they are pontificating about who wrote the three witness statement signatures or whether Toppy wrote any of them.

Until we know which expert gave us the flawed conclusion on the former, why and how they failed in their task, there's no way for the layman to identify which of you is the flawed expert, nor indeed of knowing that you aren't both flawed.

Simples - as anyone with the intelligence of a meerkat can see.

Love,

Caz
X

Crystal
05-19-2009, 09:13 PM
Hey, all I've done here is what I said I would. The results should speak for themselves. People believe as they will-their perogative. I had my own reasons for doing this analysis-my perogative. Seems fair to me.

caz
05-19-2009, 09:30 PM
You said nothing whatsoever about your earlier suggestion, as quoted in my first paragraph, being a wrong one.

Well Ben, it was clearly implied by the fact that I made my hypothetical curious observer a newbie with no knowledge or preconceptions, who was just going by Sue's 'definite' and Crystal's advice not to take experts seriously if they use language like 'definite' and then trying to reconcile the two with your own insistence that every word from both experts is equally valid.

It's not my fault if you failed to grasp that I meant anyone better informed would not think an expert of Sue's reputation would have failed to say so, if something beyond her personal judgement had informed her conclusion.

Love,

Caz
X

babybird67
05-19-2009, 09:50 PM
well, i came back to read the latest developments...


This was me in post 3, after thanking Crystal for expending her own time, effort, finances, in going specially down to Kew to look at the statement, for the benefit of all with any interest:

Looking forward to ensuing discussion and hope it stays on track on the statement's physical characteristics and what these suggest rather than personals.

well, i haven't been called an eternal optimist for nothing.:scratchchin:

Crystal, after actively inviting questions several times, then posted in post #20, the following:

Richard - yes, I do know now whether Toppy was Hutch or not. I have no doubt, because there is no doubt. The statement has been extremely forthcoming - more than I anticipated. However, it is not my task to give my view. When I publish the report, it will be in the nature of my findings. People can then make their own minds up as to whether it was Toppy, or no. (my emphasis in the underlined bit)

I can't speak for others, but i took this to me that Crystal is quite sure now of her own opinion after having seen the documents first hand, but that she fully expected everyone else, after perhaps having the courtesy to await her detailed appraisal, to make up their own minds, having weighed up not only their own views, but also hers and those of other experts and laymen as well. As we should all acknowledge, everyone is entitled to their own opinion....me, Ben, Sam, David, Richard, Caz, and, yes, even CRYSTAL!

Being a document examiner does not preclude Crystal from being permitted to have a view of her own on the matter; indeed, her almost unique position in having been able to view the documents personally in her professional capacity perhaps entitles her more than most to be sure of what she herself thinks. To suggest that the more expertise one has in a subject, the less one is entitled to express a personal opinion, would sadly render many of the posters on these boards who have studied the Ripper case for many years and have lots of expertise to share, decidedly mute on the subject. Who does that help? I would suggest no-one.

To try to disregard or to disrespect Crystal's opinion in this matter as worthless, merely because her professional opinion was not an exact carbon copy of Sue Iremonger's opinion, is really an incredible position to assume. As i believe i stated more than once on the Hutch 1911 thread, even WITH multiple professional opinions, this subject will likely never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, precisely because document examination and handwriting comparisons are not scientifically exact. At the end of the day, as is the case with every field of research, what we think depends on individual interpretation of what is significant/insignificant; merely because converse opinions are possible does not mean ALL opinions are therefore worthless. If this is the case, we might as well all pack up and go home right now!

In the absence of my own expertise, i am always happy to be guided by others honestly offering their own expertise. (i make a point of thanking people specifically when they have enlarged my understanding in any way...i've thanked many contributors to these boards for doing so)This doesn't mean i will concur 100% with an expert opinion, merely that in engaging in the process of assessing the quality of information available to me, i will more than likely afford the opinion of someone with expertise more highly than that of someone lacking said expertise. For example, although i have the greatest respect for Richard (for example), i will likely give more weight to Crystal's view, since she has both seen the originals and has the addition of expertise to boot.

Where genuine points have been made to Crystal, such as the fingerprint perhaps belonging to someone other than Hutchinson, she has taken this on board and said that the fingerprint being by someone else is possible. She also took on board the pauses in the statement as being due to the formal process of statement taking rather than her original understanding that this was the result of hesitancy, and therefore perhaps deceit, on the part of Hutchinson himself.

She has openly invited comment and questions more than once. That certain people still feel justified in conflating character assassination with genuine critical questioning of Crystal's conclusions, which once again it must be stressed she has asked us to hold back a little until she is able to find time to write and submit her full comparison, is genuinely puzzling to me; it doesn't further anyone's knowledge; it doesn't help me decide whether Hutchinson was lying that day or of his possible motivations for deceit. All it makes me feel like is that i have rewound my life a couple of decades and found myself back in the school playground with the "us and them" gang situation that so typifies the mentally of childish conflict.

There are some really interesting things coming out from Crystal's visit to Kew; there is the fingerprint issue, which did not show up on scanned copies, and may be crucial to establishing whether Hutch the witness was right or left-handed...and if left-handed, this may allow us to strike him off the list of suspects, given that there is consensus that JtR was undoubtedly right-handed. The historian in me is hugely excited by this one detail alone...how significant could this be? It could be big. Why isnt the focus of this debate on THE FINDINGS and not the personalities, or perceived personalities? Surely i am not the only person with adrenalin pumping through my veins at this discovery and what it could mean...is everyone else just engaged in a "he said, she said" tit for tat combat? Is that really what this place is for?

May i refer members to the following which appeared in Crystal's post on this thread, #49:

All I am trying to do here is further our knowledge of this document, and the issues surrounding it, so I think a bit of respect for the fact that I have spent days on this already - might cost a bit if I was charging - might just be due. (my emphasis)

Agreed. Can i thank you again for this Crystal. I don't think your efforts have been duly recognised.

Now then, the prints... Yes, it is possible that it was Badham, but not Abberline, as they do appear to be contemporary with the primary text - this as opposed to Abberline's amendments and later signaturies. (again my emphasis)

Entirely reasonable...you acknowledge, Crystal, that there are other possibilities other than the one which you believe to be true.

It is possible that there is another explanation for the position and nature of the prints. I don't contest that. It's a theory - it can't be more than that. (again my emphasis)

Again, a completely reasonable view to take.

I see three possiblilities. I am incorrect, the person previously examining page 1 was incorrect, or the witness was ambidextrous. (my emphasis)

Crystal, you have acknowledged in your postings that your professional expertise does not lead you to be infallible; it does not confer on you some godlike ability to determine facts in a field where facts are known to be elusive. This is not inconsistent with your expressed opinion that what you have seen leads you to believe with as much certainty as is possible that Hutchinson the witness was not the same person as GWTH. Just because your professional assessment of the statement needs to be circumspect, as i believe it will be, does not mean you then become disentitled to express with as much certainty as you wish your own personal opinion on the matter...as have many many others including Sam, Ben, Mike, David, Richard etc etc etc.

I'm going to stop here because i've already done an exceptionally long post, for which i apologise, but some things need to be said.

Can we PLEASE try to limit our comments to those concerning the statement itself, the methods of establishing conclusions which Crystal has used (eg angle of pen etc) which are the sorts of questions Crystal was envisaging i am sure when she invited questions and comments on her work/opinion, and dispense with the temptation to shoot down anyone as enemy if their view diverges from our own by even a nanometre!

Seeking knowledge should be a community effort...i read elsewhere on these boards that people with perhaps valuable, perhaps personal knowledge, which could have opened up other areas of debate have been scared away from the boards because of the descent of some threads into character assassination...sometimes when i read threads like these, that is sadly no surprise.

My opinion right now: we have majority professional opinion that suggests That the witness Hutchinson was not the same man signing himself GWTH in the census.

Have we reached a position of being able to state this as irrefutable fact, or even as most probably...no, i dont think we have. Have we reached the opposite position of being able to state that Hutch and Toppy were the same person...no, i dont think we have. There is one big difference...we have new information to stimulate debate and research...the fingerprint. And we have the promise of a detailed assessment from Crystal, when her busy life and personal commitments allow.

The historian in me is excited. The teacher in me is hoping she doesn't have to get her cane out and come after some of you!:lol:

remember, people, there are human beings behind these words.

Ally
05-19-2009, 10:08 PM
If she is commenting on her professional expertise, then it seems only reasonable that she provide the details to it. Which is what exactly?

Other than her saying she is, failing to provide any credentials, failing to provide any facts, her "professional opinion" is not only suspect, but meaningless.

There is NO single person allowed to claim expert status and hide behind anonymity on the boards. If they are going state they are professionals, then they ought to be willing to put their professional name behind their statements, like Leander and Sue Iremonger have done and not hide behind anonymity and fake identities.

It is pure cowardice to attempt to have equal footing with professionals who put their name behind their opinions while you refuse to do so.

babybird67
05-19-2009, 10:12 PM
Crystal said on the 1911 thread that anyone who wished to see her credentials could so so.

I know cyncism abounds in the medium of internet, but i have no reason to doubt that Crystal has the said expertise which allowed her to go to Kew and examine the documents that she has clearly examined. Why would she waste her time otherwise? And again i say i am grateful that she did do this.

i dont think it is cowardice not to shout her credentials from the rooftops; i have no doubt the accusation of arrogance may well have been flung at her if she had.

Ally
05-19-2009, 10:28 PM
Well if anyone can examine her credentials, let her put them out there. I have asked 3 times now and she's refused to respond.

And frankly, so far, I have not actually seen anything that shows she's been to Kew or examined anything. I am sure she has, but with her hiding and refusing to put forth any actual facts or data, I'll believe it when I see it.

It's not the first time she's hidden behind a fake identity on the boards so until I see some actual proof, I won't be believing anything she says.

Crystal
05-19-2009, 10:58 PM
Well, as I say, I have no monopoly on belief. Nor do I care so much what people think of me. I do care about knowledge and its pursuit. And I'll do that whatever. I don't say I outrank anyone else-just happens to be my job, that's all. It's what I do. Anyone else fancies a go at this-I say go for it. Knock yourselves out. If I can get copyright, I'll consider publishing the images here. Then everyone can see them. Or maybe I'll just give it up and publish elsewhere. Who knows? I have other issues right now, which, frankly, are somewhat more pressing. So either way, it'll have to wait.

truebluedub
05-19-2009, 11:14 PM
Crystal you haven't answered Ally's question what are your credentials? Why should we accept your analysis of the documents, over anyone else's?

Chris Lowe

Crystal
05-19-2009, 11:31 PM
Have I said that you should? I think I've been fair. I'm not publishing personal details on a public forum. I have my reasons, which are not connected to anyone here in any way. They're private. I have nothing to gain by doing this work. That should be quite obvious to anyone reading the hostility aimed at me. So why would I bother? Really, there's nothing nefarious going on.

babybird67
05-19-2009, 11:38 PM
the next comeback will most likely be "well how do we KNOW she has those qualifications? we only have her word for it".

It comes down to personal choice: nobody has to believe anything they dont want to.

Personally, i'm happy that we have something new in the Hutch arena that isn't based on supposition and guesswork: i.e., the fingerprint. I am sure it will lead to supposition and guesswork, but something important may well be forthcoming from it.

Everyone is perfectly at liberty to discount Crystal's opinion if they have any reason to doubt it. Nobody is being forced into taking it into account.

Crystal invited enquiries as to her professional expertise to be made by pm, on the Hutch 1911 thread. I am not aware that it was necessary to examine the certification held by either Iremonger or Leander before any credence was given to either of their opinions; i wonder why a special case is being made of Crystal.

Ally
05-19-2009, 11:49 PM
That's because Sue Iremonger and Leander are actual names of actual people that can be verified and their credentials can be checked. And I may be wrong, but I do believe that when Fisherman or someone asked to see her credentials, she back pedaled and refused to provide them to him. So she does refuse to give people her credentials even in PM. She flat out refused to give them to Fisherman.

And with her name, and her credentials, anyone would be able to quickly verify whether they are accurate or not.

And as for why a special case is being made: Iremonger and Leander have never created a false identity and misrepresented themselves on the board for the purpose of causing havoc.

babybird67
05-20-2009, 12:20 AM
many people posting to these boards do so under pseudonyms or are reluctant to give out personal details. In fact i often get told by people NOT to be so open about myself, as this is considered unwise and naive...still, i am who i am and i can't change that, i can only trust people not to abuse me because of it.

I am sure Crystal is an actual person with an actual name as well. How many people reading the Hutch thread actually checked Leander and Iremonger's credentials? None i would guess. Nobody would have harrassed either of them until they divulged them either.

Nobody is being forced into accepting or prioritising Crystal's opinion here...if you doubt, then doubt. It makes no difference to me. I dont doubt and i accept what Crystal has told me, that document examination is her professional field. I'm interested in what she has to contribute to a vibrant debate...note i havent said i take her word for Gospel and agree with her like a lapdog. But i am grateful for her insight, her contribution, her input. I'd be surprised if she bothers much anymore though...it would be much easier on her simply to share what knowledge she has with interested persons privately, if she is going to be abused every time she comes to the boards.

There was a reason for Fish being denied her details, one which i understand completely. There are other reasons which i also understand which make Crystal rather reluctant to post personal details on public boards.

And as for why a special case is being made: Iremonger and Leander have never created a false identity and misrepresented themselves on the board for the purpose of causing havoc.

i dont understand this...havoc? What havoc has been caused? Crystal has been to examine some documents and is kindly sharing that with us for the benefit of everyone. There is nothing even remotely resembling havoc that i can see. I also don't know what you mean by false identity...many members contribute here without providing their names, addresses, telephone numbers, professional qualifications, shoe size, star sign etc. I always understood it to be the circumspect thing to do to be guarded about private information on a public messageboard. I do not understand what has been misrepresented here either...unless you are calling Crystal a liar regarding her claim to be involved professionally in document examination?

You can believe that if you wish; i don't share your view.

The Good Michael
05-20-2009, 12:59 AM
I decided to pay myself to look at the signatures one more time. As I've been paid, in Bushmill's 16, I am now professional. Just a sec... um, yes.
Toppy is probably George Hutchinson. I can't say with certainty, but it leans heavily in that direction. No need for Kew on this one, left or righthandedness, and unknown fingerprints notwithstanding. I'm going to send Gareth some Korean won so that he might be a professional examiner too. Remember, anyone wishing to become professional too, must go through the rigor that I just have, yet, I will have more expertise because I've done it longer. Fair is fair.

Cheers, it is finished.

Mike

babybird67
05-20-2009, 01:07 AM
i was going to believe you, but you told me not to. :hiya:

The Good Michael
05-20-2009, 01:17 AM
i was going to believe you, but you told me not to. :hiya:

Well, we needed another expert, and an unbiased one. Now I am it, or something like that.

Mike

babybird67
05-20-2009, 01:23 AM
so it was Kew in Japan you went to? Now i get it.

Observer
05-20-2009, 01:29 AM
HI

You know it's a pity we can't get a professional document examiner to peruse the signatures of some of the posters to this site.
all the best

Observer

The Good Michael
05-20-2009, 01:49 AM
You know it's a pity we can't get a professional document examiner to peruse the signatures of some of the posters to this site.

That would be a graphologist; someone who reads personality traits from writing. Similar to tea leaves, astrology, phrenology, and religion.

Mike

Christine
05-20-2009, 01:59 AM
A document examiner is not a graphologist, although someone can be both. A document examiner does not attempt to determine someone's personality. A document examiner could express an opinion on whether Toppy was Hutch or whether Abberline or someone else made notes, but he would have nothing to say about personality.

Crystal
05-20-2009, 02:09 AM
As indeed, I don't. Haven't. Wouldn't. And quite right too. In my field of vision, handwriting traits are demonstrable from the physical evidence. I don't read personalities from text. In the case of Badham, ther3e are several to see. You can all go to Kew yourselves and look at the microfiche. It's free. Anyone can do it.

Archaic
05-20-2009, 02:16 AM
Well, we needed another expert, and an unbiased one.

Hey, guys, maybe I can help. Guess what I got for Christmas? A genuine vintage 1971 KRESKIN'S KRYSTAL, complete in the original box. It is an advanced scientific instrument composed of a 'Crystal Base' (actually a block of Acrylic) inscribed YES/NO on opposing sides- twice each. There is a real faux-gold chain with an Acrylic Marble or something dangling at one end. There's also a handy 36-page Owners Manual which begins: ''Kreskin's Krystal is a Highly Sensitive Apparatus consisting of a Crystal Base and Pendulum. Its operation is based solely on sound Psychological Principles; there is nothing Supernatural or Occult in its functioning. Developed by Kreskin, Internationally Acclaimed Mentalist & ESP Expert.''

The box says: ''Use Kreskin's Krystal as a Lie Detector, a Sex Detector'' (his bad grammar, not mine) ''Hold the Pendulum over someone's hand. When held over a Female hand, the Pendulum will Swing in a Circle. When held over a Male hand, it will Swing either Horizontally or Vertically'' (!!! Duh.)

All you have to do is clear your mind, hold the pendulum by its chain, and Voila!- Yes/No Answers at your beck and call.
>> Any Questions? -Archaic (please don't be silly & ask who was Jack the Ripper- it has to be Yes/No)

Ben
05-20-2009, 02:23 AM
I think you'll find it was you who introduced the idea of 'erroneous' information being 'fed' to Sue

Nope.

Definitely you.

In fact, I didn't even consider that possibility until you mentioned it.

So thanks - really thanks! - for enlightening me as to the possibility.

But pease don't back-peddle, in truly embarrassing fashion, by pretending that you claimed you knew that possibilty was wrong.

You never insinuated that it was "wrong" in your first post where that possibility was introduced, and even if you did, you'd be in error, since you've no way of knowing whether it was wrong or not.

So your suggestion remains a strong one, not that it matters much who made it in the first place. It doesn't matter if the hypothetical origin of that suggestion was new to the discussion either. He wouldn't merely be "forgiven" for submitting it for consideration. He ought to be congratulated, since its potential merit is blindingly obvious.

Because, my dear Crystal, a flawed expert is a flawed expert is a flawed expert

So, you're saying that an expert can only be "non-flawed" if he or she gets everything right all the time? Are you sure you're thinking these things through?

Ally
05-20-2009, 02:39 AM
i dont understand this...havoc?.... I do not understand what has been misrepresented here either...

Two words: Romford Rose.

Ben
05-20-2009, 02:51 AM
And as for the ridiculous aspersions cast in Crystal's direction.

Yes, I know precisely what her credentials are. In addition to which, here's a clue - you cannot enter the conservation room and handle the original document as Crystal has done unless you are a professional in the field. I know for certain that she did precisely that, and I have pictorial evidence of her findings. So too do a number of other posters. They are fully in the picture as to the extent of Crystal's experience and professionalism.

The truth is that the vast majority of decent people are behind Crystal's enlightening and proactive efforts.

Another ugly and ever-present reality is that Crystal has been the subject of a great deal of personal abuse, both publicly and privately, and her only "crime" is her association with me. Parasitical efforts have been made to discourage Crystal from having anything to do with me, and in the cases where those efforts proved unsuccessful, she was made a target of what can only be described as a hate campaign, albeit of the "Damn her for not listening to me when I urged her to accept that Ben's a bastard and agree with me instead!" variety. The orchestrators were a blissfully limited bunch, but they are also distressingly vocal.

Crystal had earlier expressed her intention to divulge her credentials to anyone who cared to contact her, but since the vitriol started, and the nasty insinuations about her motivations commenced, she grew less inclined to do that. Is anyone really surprised about that? She has a reputation to protect, not to mention a responsibility to her employers. I'd be just as discouraged if faced with the degree of hostility Crystal was subjected to, and all because she had the audacity to agree with Big Bad Ben.

Well, if people wish to doubt her, go right ahead.

I'll lose some sleep over it, but I can assure you that Crystal will lose none.

Just don't expect me to stop referring to her as the experienced professional I know full well she is. Argue against it, and I'll argue back, and round and round we will go. Anyone fancy that? I do.

I think most of us are aware of the truth of the matter.

Ally
05-20-2009, 02:58 AM
Oh what a crock of crap. First of all, so far, there has been no verified proof Crystal went to Kew.

Second, if people are heaping doubt or casting aspersions on her reliability and honesty, she damn well should have thought of that likely outcome before she invented a sock puppet and attempted to stir up even more sht on the Hutchinson thread.

An action for which she has yet to apologize to the people in the chatroom she attempted to dupe and fool into saying crap in some pathetic "spy" attempt. Or whatever it was.

If she doesn't have the basic decency to apologize to the people she attempted to screw over and hoodwink, who the hell does she or anyone else think she is that her word should be seen as good enough?

A simple statement to certain posters, and you can forget me there, but a basic attempt at recognition that her attempting to trick them was wrong, would have gone a long way towards alleviating any suspicion about her or her intentions on the board, but she hasn't done it.

She just pretends it never happened and expects everyone else to do likewise. Uh no. Not likely.

The Good Michael
05-20-2009, 03:03 AM
Hey, guys, maybe I can help. Guess what I got for Christmas? A genuine vintage 1971 KRESKIN'S KRYSTAL, complete in the original box.


Wow! Even though Kreskin was a fraud, I'm sure his Krystal (sp.) is the real McCoy. My expertise, professional though I may be, cannot compete with this little dandy. Try it out for us with the signatures. Please make sue there are some controls in place. We don't want any cheating.

Mike

Ben
05-20-2009, 03:13 AM
Nope.

None of that is "crap" at all.

She was made the target of personal abuse purely on account of her friendship with me, and the fact that we agreed on several key particulars.

I have irrefutable proof that she want to Kew precisely as she said she would. I have several images from her visit, including several of the statement itself, and so do a handful of other posters. They know the score here too. She doesn't have permission to post them on a public website. In fact, it is precisely because of the nature of internet message boards that archival institutions are so wary about releasing such images, or so I've learned recently.

Again, if this doesn't satisfy you, fair enough, but it's more than a little unrealistic to expect her to divulge her full credentials when faced with such alarming and relentless hostility. I'm sure, incidentally, that she would have made a statement to certain posters were it not for the fact that those certain posters had already cultivated an unusual degree of bitterness towards her.

When people offend or excessively irritate me, I do a good deal worse in terms of retaliation that create a sock puppet, as I'm sure you're fully aware, and I certainly don't apologise to them afterwards. Why then must Crystal be singled out for condemnation?

Ally
05-20-2009, 03:18 AM
Up until the time Crystal created a sock puppet, I had not said a single negative word to her and had chatted frequently with her in the chatroom. She still attempted to hose me in the chatroom.

There is another person who I know treated Crystal as a friend and she attempted to hose that person also, going so far as to have extended conversations wiht them under her "disguise".

Neither one of us had done a damn thing to her and quite frankly, you flatter yourself too much if you think she's disliked in anyway because of you.

I am perfectly capable of disliking her for her own actions and her own lack of apparent ethics.

And if you think creating sock puppets is an acceptable thing to do, purely for the purpose of dicking with members, then fine, you two really are perfect for each other.

And quite frankly, as you well know, I was perfectly willing to give her a second chance until she proved herself to be completely unworthy of it and completely lacking in any kind of personal responsibility and strength of character.

And if you knew all along she was Romford Rose, since you seem to believe she was only targetting those who had acted against her, you are just as much of a prat as she is.

The Good Michael
05-20-2009, 03:31 AM
I'm sure, incidentally, that she would have made a statement to certain posters were it not for the fact that those certain posters had already cultivated an unusual degree of bitterness towards her.


How do you know this? You need to go back about 150 pages in the 1911 thread and really see what begat what. On second thought, you may not be able to "see". If you could, you would tell that things developed because of certain attitudes and not because of any connection with you. Frankly, I don't see a connection with you in this regard save as a supporter.

Cheers,

Mike

Ben
05-20-2009, 03:35 AM
What does "hose" mean, in this context?

And why are you bringing up a poster's conduct in the chatroom as though it was relevant to a conversation about a witness statement from 1888?

The fact that you're seriously disputing the fact that a good portion of the hostility towards Crystal comes courtesy of her agreeing with and supporting me suggests very strongly that you aren't fully appraised of the full details. It might not be the reason that you've taken a dislike to her, but I'm afraid it's very much a reality. Some people have taken to hating her for not hating me - simple as. Whatever floats their boat, of course, but it has certainly occured.

You argue that "creating sock puppets" is an unacceptable thing to do, but I ask you, how is that any less acceptable than engaging in a vitriolic hate war that culminates in me totally melting down on the other numpty, or for that matter, you being generally caustic and rude to pretty much every poster for feck knows how many years.

When it comes to you, it's a case of "Oh, it's just Ally. She's like that. Don't rattle her cage!", but when it's Crystal, she's threatened with all sorts of punishment. Something's not right with that.

Ben
05-20-2009, 03:38 AM
If you could, you would tell that things developed because of certain attitudes and not because of any connection with you.

Oh come on, Mike.

I've never regarded you as a bad sort, but I think you know precisely why "things developed", and why Crystal suddenly became the grand 'ol enemy in the equation, and it has very little do with her position as stated in the 1911 thread.

The Good Michael
05-20-2009, 03:46 AM
Ben,

It has everything to do with attitude. I think Crystal really never gave her full opinion on Hutch/Toppy, so it can't be about that, can it? It also has nothing to do with her association with you. I've always liked you (in a manly way), you know that. She's not a good person in my view. It's hard to overcome that perception, and I hold some responsibility for being less than forgiving.

Cheers,

Mike

Ally
05-20-2009, 03:55 AM
Crystal posted on the boards under her sock Romford Rose. She created a fake persona intended solely to dupe the members of this board and dick with their heads. There was no other reason but to mislead, screw with and misinform.

If you can't see how that has bearing on those of us who are now not willing to take her statements as to her identity at her say so, then all I have to say is you are either so far up her butt you can no longer get oxygen, or you have as much of a credibility problem at this point as she does.

Crystal created a fake identity SOLELY to dick with the people on these boards. Her word is therefore suspect without proof.

Ally
05-20-2009, 04:18 AM
Oh and you know usually I don't get involved in petty Ally gets special treatment whiny rants from infantile little crybabies, but go fck yourself Ben.

You have been just as rude, just as caustic and just as much of an asshat as I have been over the years, including recently telling another poster that he deserved to be gassed and you are still here allowed to do your thing.

Grow the fck up. The fact that Crystal is still here and allowed to post is pretty indicative that most things are allowed to slide on the boards, including you and your ceaseless ranting. So quit being such a whiny little btch and just accept the fact that your girlfriend has a credibility problem.

How's that for rude and caustic. Which isn't against any of the rules. Creating Sock puppets however IS.

Ben
05-20-2009, 04:42 AM
How's that for rude and caustic. Which isn't against any of the rules

Well, therein lies the problem.

Congratulations for illustrating my point and pissing on your own bonfire in the process.

I mean, we get people like you hurling abuse at everybody all the time for years and years, despite exhibiting no knowledge whatsoever about the case and making an embarrassing prize tit of yourself when you pretend you do, and we have another individual who, according to you, created a sock puppet, never insulting anyone at any point.

Who is the more sinning of the two?

Hmmm?

Think about it.

Everyone else think about it too.

And for pity's sake: "Whiny little bitch"..? "Infantile little crybabies..."

Have you HEARD yourself recently? "Oooh, I'm Queen Mean! Please reassure me that it's cool to be mean!"

Tha fact that I'm allowed to post is the same reason that you're allowed to post, and the same is true of Crystal.

If you don't wish to take Crystal seriously, boo hoo. The people worth taking seriously do, because they possess proof that she did precisely as she claimed she did, and is a forensic document examiner, precisely as she claimed.

Sure, you'll do your damnest to get me banned for this, and if you do, that'll amount to additional vindication of my observations.

Bring on the hilarity,

Ben

Ally
05-20-2009, 04:54 AM
You know Ben, you and crystal are perfect for each other. Neither one EVER accepts responsibility for what you do wrong and every time you get caught out you blame someone else as being worse than you as an excuse for your behavior.

Oh and of course the "Now you are going to get me banned.." part 2 of the Ally gets special treatment. Jesus, will all you infants get a new act because that one is really tired.

God forbid you accept the simple fact that Crystal screwed up. She screwed up, period. All she had to do was admit and say sorry and that would have been the end of it, but god no. Neither one of you can just man up and quit pointing the finger at everyone else as an excuse for what you do.

And your attempting to deflect the blame to me AFTER I HELPED her really is just indicative that you really are pathetic and perfect for her.

Ben
05-20-2009, 05:25 AM
I never claimed you get special treatment.

I'm not criticising the administration at all.

I'm wondering why "creating a sock puppet" is any worse than anything you or I have been guilty of in the past. That's all. We've all "screwed up" at times, but I personally do not accept that any of Crystal's alleged transgressions entitle us to dismiss her earlier revelations or otherwise depict her a fraud. I know that the reverse is true. If you helped her, I appreciate that as I'm sure she does. I am fully aware of Crystal's credentials, but I personally sympathise with her reluctance to divulge them, given the relentless hostility. It is for the readership to decide whether they wish to value her contributions or not.

Ally
05-20-2009, 05:52 AM
Because it's trolling. Sock puppets are used for one purpose and one purpose only: to cause trouble. You might be rude and caustic and I might be a hard core bitch, but we aren't hiding it and we aren't doing it in a way that is subversive: it's right out there for everyone to see and people can judge accordingly. What Crystal did is dishonest. It's the equivalent of fraud in terms of internet message boards. And yes, fraud is worse than being rude.

And it is absolutely related to credibility. I am a bitch. I don't expect people to think I am nice and if I suddenly started expecting people to believe I was nice and sweet and charitable, it would be a joke because of my history. Crystal has perpetuated identity fraud on the message boards. Expecting people to believe she's now telling the truth and is not playing games with her identity is as ludicrous as people expecting me to give to alcoholics anonymous or you to be reasonable on the subject of Hutchinson.

Yes people are going to believe what they want to believe. And if they want to believe she's an expert with absolutely no proof whatsoever of that, that is fine. But when they are making up their minds, they should know that she has engaged in identity fraud before on the boards and factor that into their decision of how much they trust her analysis.

Especially when you consider she and you both appear to think there is nothing wrong creating a fake persona in a community you are a part of for no better reason than to cause trouble. There are people who go by different identities for a variety of reasons both past and present, but there is a marked difference in that and trolling, which is what she did.

But as you say, the facts are out there, and people can make up their own minds as to what her credibility in this matter is. It's obvious no one is actually going to get a straight answer in regards to her credentials, so they will have to make up their own minds without them.

halomanuk
05-20-2009, 11:27 AM
Why did Crystal create a sock puppet ? for what reason ?

Bob Hinton
05-20-2009, 11:36 AM
Can anyone post the two signatures on here so I can have a look?

The Good Michael
05-20-2009, 11:36 AM
Barry,

It was strange really. She created it to ask questions about how people felt about Crystal, Ben, their relationship, that sort of thing. It wasn't hard to detect it being her as Romford Rose and she were both quite aggressive. The questions were uncomfortable. I can tell you that much.

Mike

halomanuk
05-20-2009, 11:39 AM
Did this happen in the chatroom Mike ? or on the forum here ?

The Good Michael
05-20-2009, 11:44 AM
Bob,

Here's the first comparison: http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=74606&postcount=258

Mike

The Good Michael
05-20-2009, 11:45 AM
Barry,

In the chat and on the forum. Look at the 1911 thread for Romford Rose.

Mike

halomanuk
05-20-2009, 11:50 AM
I missed all that in the chatroom but i will have a look at the 1911 thread.
Thanks for filling me in Mike,
Barry

The Good Michael
05-20-2009, 11:52 AM
Barry,

Start with post 167 (I think). I asked her (a newbie) to go in the chat and she was there immediately. That was suspicious to me that she could navigate the site so quickly. It went downhill from there.

Mike

halomanuk
05-20-2009, 12:06 PM
Will do,
how was she found out and by whom ?

The Good Michael
05-20-2009, 01:01 PM
Will do,
how was she found out and by whom ?

I suspected, but wasn't sure. Ask Ally about it please.

Thanks,

Mike

richardnunweek
05-20-2009, 01:07 PM
Hi,
i am completely lost here, i personally have no need to doubt the poster named as Crystal, whilst i appreciate that one has no actual idea who one is posting to, i have no reason to feel i was being duped.
I agree, it is frustrating, that so many vague responses are in evidence, however, i believe there may be a reason that Crystal is sidetracked for the present time.
i suggest that we all give this poster , time to gather her thoughts, and for the time being, all those that doubt her intentions, hold back their fire , until it should become one hundred per cent clear to us one way or the other.
I have often come across as a 'softie' on Casebook, it may indeed be that case, however i would hate to see Crystal [ if proven authentic] leave the boards disapointed in her fellow members attitude.
Regards Richard.

halomanuk
05-20-2009, 01:11 PM
I am remaining neutral on all this until everything surfaces..

The Good Michael
05-20-2009, 01:15 PM
Richard,

Your reasons are why I didn't bring up the sock puppet thing, though true.
I don't think there are any attacks going on, just Q and A. Keep your helmet on just in case.

Mike

Observer
05-20-2009, 01:24 PM
Hi Mike

That would be a graphologist; someone who reads personality traits from writing. Similar to tea leaves, astrology, phrenology, and religion.

Mike

Determining personality traits couldn't have been further from my mind Mike, I was thinking more along the lines of one poster posing as two differrent entity's, or pehaps three.

all the best

Observer

The Good Michael
05-20-2009, 01:36 PM
Observer,

Well, the personality stayed kind of the same in both entities, but yeah, I see what you mean.

Mike

Bob Hinton
05-20-2009, 01:42 PM
OK. Well I think it’s fairly obvious that the Lambeth signature is completely different from the other three, it is also fairly obvious that it was written by someone who is not at home with a pen and ink. The signature is very slow and deliberate, in much the same way a young child writes for the first time. The 1898 and the 1911 signatures show some similarities, but the one labelled 1888 is different from all the rest.

None of these signatures were done by the person who signed the first page of the statement. That signature was done by someone again unfamiliar with the use of the pen and is slow and hesitating. The signature on the second page of the statement, which incidentally reads ‘Geo’ not ‘George’ was done by the same person who signed the first page.

I’m not sure where the signature above labelled 1888 came from. Can anyone enlighten me?

Observer
05-20-2009, 01:49 PM
Hi Bob

That's the witnesses statement from page three if i'm not mistaken

all the best

Observer

Ben
05-20-2009, 01:50 PM
Very interesting, Bob.

One thing that Crystal observed from her analysis last Saturday was that the signatures appended to the original statement were very large in contrast to the signatures of GWTH (Toppy), a fact which often gets lost in montages such as the one above. I've seen some images from that recent analysis, and they're quite enlightenining in this regard. But yes, 1898 and 1911 were written by the same hand.

Best regards,
Ben

Observer
05-20-2009, 01:52 PM
Hi Mike

As you said earlier it was pretty obvious really, just wonderling if our feathered freind is involved also.

all the best

Observer

Bob Hinton
05-20-2009, 01:57 PM
Hi Bob

That's the witnesses statement from page three if i'm not mistaken

all the best

Observer

For some reason I don't seem to have that one. If that is the case then it was written by a different person to the the first two.

The Good Michael
05-20-2009, 02:02 PM
Bob,

Gareth posted another list of signatures that were done by plumber George Hutchinson. He was listing family names, I believe. It is sometime after the post you looked at, but it is enlightening.
Mike

The Good Michael
05-20-2009, 02:04 PM
Hi Mike

As you said earlier it was pretty obvious really, just wonderling if our feathered freind is involved also.



Observer,

You are thinking as I am. That is a bit frightening.

Mike

Observer
05-20-2009, 02:11 PM
Hi Bob

The three signatures from the police statement of George Hutchinson can be found on the George Hutchinson in 1911 census thread, they are on page three ans were supplied by the able Mr Sam Flynn

It is a bit disconcerting Mike

all the best

Observer

The Good Michael
05-20-2009, 02:29 PM
Here's the other comparison:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=77240&postcount=567

Mike

Ben
05-20-2009, 03:24 PM
Just to clarify, that's statement signature #3 again at top of the list. The rest are Toppy, of course.

babybird67
05-20-2009, 04:40 PM
Observer,

You are thinking as I am. That is a bit frightening.

Mike

Mike, i am surprised at you, unpleasantly surprised, sadly. I now understand the context of all your little digs at not knowing who someone is. Believe me, if you can, that I am me, always have been, always will be. I've used the name babybird67 online now for about eight years. I'm not a figment of anyone's imagination, except maybe God's, if he exists.

I've said many times in chat, if you want to know anything about me, just ask. I'm an open book and perhaps to my own detriment i do not wear masks or make-up of any kind, either online or off. Whether that's good enough for you, who knows. And whether an apology is good enough for me, who knows either.

Observer, i dont know you. If i had met you in chat you would have by now got an understanding of who i am, and that i am most definitely and certainly NOT an incarnation of anyone else. I am a regular in chat. I speak to everyone without prejudice; i have friends (or at least thought i had) on both sides of the Hutch debate. I don't believe in gang warfare...that much should be clear also from my posts.

Anyone who doubts who i am or has one of these weird double computer arguments (the same people who would poo poo the theories of double identity in the Ripper world i would imagine) is quite welcome to check with Stephen Ryder whether there is any connection whatsoever in IP address with Crystal's...but i will save you the trouble, there won't be.

FYI, and anyone else interested, when i joined this forum, i posted in the pub, with PERSONAL details of who and where i am. My real name, Jen, my marital status, my location etc etc...i've been warned several times since not to be so open about myself, but i can't help it, it's who i am.

At that time, i started to come into chat; both Ben and Crystal were often there, probably because we all live in the same country, so same time zone etc, and we all got on and they made me very welcome.

I was immediately attracted to the Hutch thread, BEFORE discussing this with Ben and Crystal, because it was a popular thread, so started reading it. I've been completely consistent in not agreeing with either Ben or Crystal that Hutch is the Ripper...in fact my view is there on the thread for the record that i revised my opinion to be less in line with Ben's...eg i began by stating there was no match, when Crystal posted up two apparently matching signatures that she later revealed were not matches, i decided i did not have experience enough to decide either way, and that has been my consistent position since.

I am so naive...i had absolutely no idea any of this was going on. It makes me sad to think my own credibility has been and is being questioned merely because i was kept out of the loop and had NO idea what was going on whatsoever.

Conversations that i have had in chat are coming back to my recollection with new significance...for example. Ally was posing a question about lying and forgiveness etc...Ally can be mean at the best of times (sorry A but you know it's true:1tongue: ) and she was quite aggressive with her questioning...it was late over here, time zone difference, and i didnt understand what she was trying to get at or why she was being so belligerent about it, so i declined to get involved, although now i can see that might have made it look even MORE like i wasnt a genuine person. Multiple comments from Mike, despite my being very open with my fondness for him and his sense of humour, about things not being what they seem...how stupid i must be.

I might be stupid but i'm not duplicitous.

For the record, i do not condone dishonesty. I do not condone creating multiple user accounts for the purpose of stirring trouble or deceiving others. I do believe if someone has done something wrong then they ought to apologise for that wrong. I try to apologise myself when i've done something wrong. I try to be honest in all my dealings with other people. I have no alternative names or user accounts. Check with admin if you have any doubt.

Mike, and Ally, can give accurate accounts of my utter bafflement at some of the things that have been said to me. I see now that those things were designed to establish whether i myself was a sock puppet. I hope by now both of them are satisfied that i am not.

Anyone with any other questions regarding my identity is quite welcome to walk into chat and ask me, or PM me.

I'm me, Jen, babybird, nobody else.

Observer
05-20-2009, 05:41 PM
Hi babybird

If you read my post I did use the word "wondering", so you see I am still very much in two minds (pardon the pun) regarding triple identity. However, I don't think there's much doubt that we do have a case of double identity.



Your vociferous defense of Crystal might have had a bearing on my conclusions, but If you are who you say you are then fair enough, please accept my apologies.

all the best

Observer

babybird67
05-20-2009, 05:50 PM
Hi babybird

If you read my post I did use the word "wondering", so you see I am still very much in two minds (pardon the pun) regarding triple identity. However, I don't think there's much doubt that we do have a case of double identity.



Your vociferous defense of Crystal might have had a bearing on my conclusions, but If you are who you say you are then fair enough, please accept my apologies.

all the best

Observer

Hi Observer,

I am who i say i am. I did not know there was anything duplicitous going on. If i did, i certainly would not have been a party to it. I had no reason to believe there was anything dishonest going on.

I told you, stupid i may be, duplicitous, never.

I appreciate your apology.

catch you around sometime

Ben
05-20-2009, 05:51 PM
If you read my post I did use the word "wondering", so you see I am still very much in two minds (pardon the pun) regarding triple identity

I don't blame you, Observer.

I'm secretly John Eddleston and Chris Miles.

Best regards,

Hornchurch Harry

Observer
05-20-2009, 05:58 PM
No Problem babybird.

Hehehe nice one Ben

all the best

Observer

perrymason
05-21-2009, 03:18 AM
Just caught up on whats been bantied about since Ive been off for a few days.....and I can say now that I have, for me, the issue of George Hutchinson is resolved, hes the one that had an unbelievable suspect sighting on the 5th Canonical murder. Thats his rap sheet, and I dont see why it should change. They thought he lied, so do I. Done.

I think perhaps some of you should re-evaluate what youre doing and how your doing it. The mean spirited crap that gets slung around for the sake of a less than critical issue about a DISCREDITED WITNESS is beyond me.

Catch you on more relevant discussions.

Best regards

The Good Michael
05-21-2009, 05:51 AM
BB,

If you look closely, you'll see that I never said anything against you, only that things are not what they seem and that this forum isn't a great way to know the truth about people. Never once did I knock you. I was only being guarded at times, and you surely see why now.

Cheers,

Mike

babybird67
05-21-2009, 10:20 AM
Observer,

You are thinking as I am.

Mike

You were thinking as Observer commented, that your little feathered friend may also be involved.

Talking with you has been like talking riddles at times, and i didn't know why. Now i do. And i understand your doubts within that context. But i have chatted with you many times in the chatroom and i do believe any pretense on my part to be anything other than what i am would have been apparent to those members here with whom i have had regular and frequent contact and conversations.

I am pleased to hear that you havent said anything detrimental about me apart from the above, which, as i say, i do understand within the context of what i now know. I just wish you (or someone else) had told me before...i'm not good with riddles. I need things

s-p-e-l-l-e-d o-u-t l-e-t-t-e-r b-y l-e-t-t-e-r. :lol:

You may like to have a gander at my new signature which Mark designed for me last night...thought it was fairly apt under the circumstances and will probably keep it for a few weeks at least.

You can imagine that the duplicity that was a great annoyance to some, was more than a little devastating for me. Everything i did and said regarding Crystal was done in good faith and complete ignorance of what, it now seems, others were aware of. I can only apologise for my utter stupidity, and i would particularly like to apologise to Ally, to whom in my ignorance i had ascribed a disliking of Crystal, and therefore me by association, based on personal preference alone. I am sorry Ally that i doubted your motives. It is more than apparent to me now that yours were not the motives that i should have been doubting.

Crystal
05-22-2009, 12:28 PM
Hi! Or maybe that should be - HAH! I bet none of you expected to see me here again, did you? Oh well, tough. I have things to say, and I'm bloody well going to say them. Or did we all imagine I'd a: just roll over and let myself be kicked; or b: come back wearing sackcloth and ashes with a bell round my neck? Shame for those who thought they'd killed me off, hey? Life's a bitch.... or somebody is, at least. Notice, please, that I don't say who. Maybe I'm referring to myself, maybe that was just a general comment, or maybe.... Well, who can say?

You all should know by now that I'm not prepared to. OH NO, not duplicitous Crystal. All my secrets are my own.

First - the people who have doubted and vilified Jenny, in public and in private, are hideous, despicable morons. I am not culpable for the mentally deficient antics of people who scheme and plot in bizarre ways against innocent members of this community. All Jen ever did was be friendly and open to all. I would suggest, and I'm utterly correct, that anyone who thought otherwise is an extremely unpleasant person, which, by the way, is nothing to be proud of.

Second. The Romford Rose debacle. Whatever anyone chooses to believe about this, the FACT of the matter is that I apologised, UNRESERVEDLY at the time. I have the response submitted to me by Admin. Look, here it is:


After receiving your message from this afternoon and considering it, the restrictions have been lifted from your account. Your willingness to accept responsibility weighed heavily in your favor as very few people do that these days.

Understand clearly that this issue has used up two strikes. A third of this magnitude and you are out, there will be no warning and no appeal.

I appreciate that this was out of character for you and I don't expect it will happen again.

Hmm.. Well, I bet you didn't expect me to do THAT, did you? OH that bloody Crystal, full of surprises.

And, by the way? Anyone who says that is not the response I had from Admin at the time is a fraud and a liar. I liked that! Funny, huh? See, I do have a sense of humour!

Now then, if anyone reading this is actually intelligent enough to grasp it, there are a few things in there that may perhaps be noted. 1. I apologised unreservedly at the time. 2. Admin accepted that apology, and that it was out of character. 3. I wasn't allowed to do it, EVER AGAIN. And look. I havent'. Because - OH LOOK! Jenny isn't me and I'm not her. How utterly, bloody ridiculous and infantile all this hysteria has been. Back to the playground with you, children. Since my apology was accepted at the time, I rather think that should have been the end of the matter, and I know exactly why this has come up again now - and I know, and so do others, perfectly well, that is has nothing at all to do with Romford Rose.


As to my 'motives' - what bloody motives? OH, SURE, of course I want to be vilified in public. Who wouldn't? I love it. Yep. No.

I'm not looking for applause, I couldn't care less. I haven't been paid for any of the work I've done at Kew, so look it can't be that! Hmm... running out of ideas here - anyone else got any?

Well, since you all may struggle with that one, I'll give you a clue. I wanted to help. Ready? Here is comes....I wanted, in fact to further debate, because, like it or not, people, that's what I do. It's my job, and my main concern in life. That's what motivates me. And from the very beginning of my time on this forum, that has been my primary motivation. In fact, that was what drew me in the first place.

But hey, what the hell? I can still do that, you know, and nobody here can do a bloody thing about it. Life's a Bitch, hey? I couldn't care less what people think about that. I went to Kew, quite clearly, and I saw the statement of Hutchinson, and the rest, quite clearly. And the observations I made are all sound. I would be astonished if anyone else working in the field disagreed with me. Where I have not been certain, I have said as much. I haven't made any wild claims here. It's my work, my reseach, and my intellectual product. I can do what I bloody well like with it. Sit on it, publish it.... hmm... decisions, decisions....

But of course, I realise that some people just have dick envy, and are desperately small, petty individuals - without pointing the finger in any particular direction, I must stress - who have no life to speak of outside this forum, and who find it utterly threatening when somebody like me gets up off their arse and actually does something, instead of choosing to engage in endless, tedious, circular arguments.

For those that would prefer to continue said circular arguments, knock yourselves out. I, on the other hand, will publish my findings, possibly in Swedish - Um, Ok, not Swedish - but maybe, let's say, in Medieval Latin, Old or Middle English? Yes, you know, I'm warming to that idea. It'd be so much fun watching people try and translate it! OH Damn that Crystal, she's bloody cleverer than all of us put together. Shame, huh? Life really is a bitch, isn't it?

Another day. My motivations, and reasons for being here have all left me, and so, with regret, I have no reason to post again.

Thank you and goodnight.


C.E.J. Day.


OR AM I???

The Good Michael
05-22-2009, 12:51 PM
Well, that meant a lot. Yawn.

Mike

The Good Michael
05-22-2009, 01:13 PM
Looking at Crystal's post one more time, I suggest it is the typical sort of rant that a child has wherein, the fingers are pointed at others as if they are responsible for her actions. By some of us wondering what the truth about Jenny was, we are all of a sudden morons, as if believing everything in this forum is true, is somehow an intellectually superior position to take. No one vilified BB. It is another bit of posturing to redirect guilt. There is no mention of her private messages to others insisting one of us had a vendetta against her because he "came on" to her in private but was rejected. This is revolting at the very least, if not slander. It is the kind of thing that makes me ill. This woman is manipulative and vindictive in my opinion, and is to be avoided at all costs, much like that Felicity Lowndes character. I see the same personality flaws in both of them. This latest post supports that hypothesis.

Cheers,

Mike

halomanuk
05-22-2009, 01:23 PM
She said you came onto her Mike ?
Weird...

babybird67
05-22-2009, 02:22 PM
I posted publicly about the doubts over my identity, because those doubts had been expressed publicly. Given the circumstances, i understood the doubts, and trust any such doubts have now been resolved.

I received no messages villifying me, either privately or publicly.

Other issues can be dealt with privately.

I hope this thread can return to its primary purpose of discussing the statement of George Hutchinson.

Ally
05-22-2009, 03:03 PM
[QUOTE]Hi! Or maybe that should be - HAH! I bet none of you expected to see me here again, did you? Oh well, tough. I have things to say, and I'm bloody well going to say them.

Oh and what it only took you a solid week to come here and "defend" yourself? Shows conviction that does.

All Jen ever did was be friendly and open to all. I would suggest, and I'm utterly correct, that anyone who thought otherwise is an extremely unpleasant person, which, by the way, is nothing to be proud of.

Yep. All she did was be friendly and open to all AND DEFEND YOU AND YOUR HONOR right from the start, immediately after Rose. And you let her, knowing full well people who were doubting it had good cause, and you just let her go on defending you because you were too much of a coward to come clean.


Second. The Romford Rose debacle. Whatever anyone chooses to believe about this, the FACT of the matter is that I apologised, UNRESERVEDLY at the time. I have the response submitted to me by Admin.

So what if you apologized to Stephen in private? Did you ever apologize to me for attempting to hose me? NO. You sent me a PM two days ago that was one of those wussy "IF I OFFENDED you, tell me what I did and I will apologize" crap. You never apologized to me. Did you apologize to Mike for going in the chatroom and hosing him? We considered you chat buddies, we talked to you all the time in there and you still decided to play your stupid, infantile mindgames and NO ONE not one single person has received an apology from you for doing it. The only reason you apologized to the admin was to keep your lying butt on the forums. How about ponying up and apologizing to everyone on the Hutchinson thread and the chatroom for your deception. WHERE'S THAT APOLOGY.

Where's the apology to Jen to lying to her and allowing her to defend you when you were rightly being doubted?

Where's the apology to Mike for slandering him and making him out to be some dog in heat?

Where's those apologies?



As to my 'motives' - what bloody motives? OH, SURE, of course I want to be vilified in public. Who wouldn't? I love it. Yep. No.


How about the motives of why you would don a sock to trick, lie to and deceive people who counted you as a friend and more?



But of course, I realise that some people just have dick envy, and are desperately small, petty individuals - without pointing the finger in any particular direction, I must stress - who have no life to speak of outside this forum, and who find it utterly threatening when somebody like me gets up off their arse and actually does something, instead of choosing to engage in endless, tedious, circular arguments.

Oh yeah, I know I can speak for myself when I say I have total envy of a person who is so mentally and emotionally deficient that they have to play childish sock puppet games with the members here. You are truly someone I admire and aspire to emulate. Why, maybe I'll go out and write my very own hoax diary and dedicate it to you. Because you know, the pathetic liars of the world are EXACTLY who I want to be like.

You know what. Kudos, you went to Kent to expand debate.

The problem is the person giving opinions has to be trustworthy. You are a liar. You lie all the time to everyone. How could we even trust your conclusions for a single second? Anyone who knows you knows full well when it comes to your "obsession" you will lie, trick and manipulate the truth to have the facts come out in your favor. So no one can actually believe any of your conclusions anyway.

Observer
05-22-2009, 04:22 PM
Hi

What a strange woman women, Crystal that is. As I have stated in a previous post my suspicions were not 100% certain regarding the possibility that babybird might be an alter ego of Crystal/Romford Rose. I was in two minds you see, which one I can't remember at the moment, ask the other fella, hullo this dual personality carry on is catching.

Thing is a precedent had been set, and with babybird being so supportative of Crystal the alarm bells started to ring, falsely so as it turns out.

Babybird has reacted with incredible calm since my insinuation that she might be an alto ego of Crystal, and accepted my apology, so good on her. She admits above that no one vilified her, so where Crystal is coming from in her last post is beyond me.

This has left a sour taste in my mouth, and in hindsight, I now regret what I said but that's life. As babybird says best thing is to put this little episode behind us, and hope that this thread can return to some kind of normality. Although threads discussing Mr Hutchinson seem to get a bit out of hand do they not

All the best

Observer

Ben
05-22-2009, 04:28 PM
Although threads discussing Mr Hutchinson seem to get a bit out of hand do they not

They certainly do, Observer.

And it provides us - well, me at least - with an opportunity to observe that he's still wreaking havoc even from beyond the grave. ;)

The Good Michael
05-22-2009, 04:30 PM
Observer,

Of course you have nothing to apologize for. Crystal was trying to play the victim and to redirect the outrage. I think Hutch can rest easy now.

Mike

halomanuk
05-22-2009, 04:30 PM
Hutch is a proverbial pain in the arse...official.

Observer
05-22-2009, 04:31 PM
Hehehe, he's certainly doing that Ben. Laughing his wideawake hat off no doubt

all the best

Observer

The Good Michael
05-22-2009, 04:34 PM
Hutch is a proverbial pain in the arse...official.


It isn't Hutch, if you think about it.

Mike

halomanuk
05-22-2009, 04:35 PM
so it's coincidence that all the threads with bust ups are Hutch threads ? Not only recently but earlier times as well ?

Observer
05-22-2009, 04:37 PM
Hi Mike

I think you'll agree that these episodes don't do this web site any favours. I've heard it's the first place the script writers of Coronation Street, Eastenders, Emmerdale et al turn to when they have a writers block. Shakespeare would have loved this place.

all the best

Observer

The Good Michael
05-22-2009, 04:44 PM
Yeah, and you just wait until my movie comes out. The battle scenes will be well worth the admission price of $10,000. 900 hours of action... and that's before the death scenes.

Mike

Observer
05-22-2009, 04:51 PM
hehehehehe...always look on the bright side of life Mike

all the best

Observer

Bob Hinton
05-23-2009, 12:12 PM
I am now officially totally confused. What on earth is going on here? I was under the impression that Crystal was some kind of document examiner and had something to say about the Hutchinson statement. I read loads of her posts hoping she was going to say something but she never seemed to get there.

Then I read the incredible post number 147 and I am wondering what the hell is this all about? Is this Trenouth in another disguise or what?

Can anyone explain to me what is going one here?

The Good Michael
05-23-2009, 12:22 PM
Bob,

She became a bit unraveled and lied to several people, taking on the guise of a different person at times, and concurrently with her Crystal persona. We don't really know if she is a document examiner, and neither do we trust her in that or any capacity. She committed these acts in chat, with the use of PMs, and on the boards until she was found out. I would say she is somewhat like that Felicity character and needs help, but I'm no expert on personality disorders.

You can wade through everything if you want to, but I think I've encapsulated everything for you.

Cheers,

Mike

Bob Hinton
05-23-2009, 01:25 PM
Bob,

She became a bit unraveled and lied to several people, taking on the guise of a different person at times, and concurrently with her Crystal persona. We don't really know if she is a document examiner, and neither do we trust her in that or any capacity. She committed these acts in chat, with the use of PMs, and on the boards until she was found out. I would say she is somewhat like that Felicity character and needs help, but I'm no expert on personality disorders.

You can wade through everything if you want to, but I think I've encapsulated everything for you.

Cheers,

Mike

No I think you have summed it up perfectly. I must admit I am always a bit sceptical of people who promise the earth - tomorrow!

celee
05-23-2009, 01:39 PM
No I think you have summed it up perfectly. I must admit I am always a bit sceptical of people who promise the earth - tomorrow!

Hi,

Okay, It boils down to this, you either believe Hutchinson or not. Crystal believes Hutchinson is not being truthful. However, the Inspecter who took down the statement believed Hutchinson. I suggest he gave a good interview.

I cant fault Crystal. This thread has been interesting.

Your friend, Brad

The Good Michael
05-23-2009, 02:29 PM
Brad,

You'd fault her if you read this entire thread.

Mike

Ben
05-23-2009, 02:40 PM
Any chance we can move on from this now?

Whatever Crystal's other transgressions, you can choose to take it from me - or not - that she is at the very least, a professional document examiner who made her findings public on the first page of this thread. It is for the readership to decide whether she'd invent all of those details. If they choose not to believe it, fair enough, but further reiteration of how terrible Crystal is may not be wholly productive now that she has left the thread.

Ally
05-23-2009, 03:17 PM
Discussing how terrible she is may not be productive, however, an analysis of whether Crystal can be relied upon to give an objective an unbiased and TRUTHFUL analysis would be extremely productive.

She couldn't be called an unbiased eye before it came out that she was willing to deceive and manipulate, now that we know she is willing to deceive and lie, how can any of her analysis be trusted to not be likewise biased?

It goes to credibility and objectivity.

Ben
05-23-2009, 03:31 PM
Hi Ally,

Several of her observations were borne out by the detailed images she sent me. For an example, accompanying the statement there is a handwritten note from Inspector Abberline outlining the nature of the statement. I'd never seen it before, and had even forgotten its existence until Crystal sent me an image and compared it to the handwriting on the ammended statement, observing that the phrase "ten bells" matched Abberline's handwriting, which I conceded it did. She has also expressed her intention to publish her findings.

All the best,
Ben

Ally
05-23-2009, 03:34 PM
And that's fine. And observations that can be independently verified are lovely. It's her conclusions and opinions that are unfortunately going to be suspected and the entire thing is tainted at the source.

However, people have believed much shadier things with a much worse provenance, so if she wants to come back on here, I'll be happy to bow out and let everyone who believes in her reliability continue the debate.

The truth about it is out there, everyone can judge for themselves the reliability of her information based on knowing that truth and make up their own minds.

perrymason
05-23-2009, 03:40 PM
so it's coincidence that all the threads with bust ups are Hutch threads ? Not only recently but earlier times as well ?

Hi Barry,

I agree with you, and think that this topic now belongs to the same folks who exchange similar ideas on the diary threads.

It would seem that many people still believe they can make a silk purse from a sows ear.

All the best.

Brenda
05-23-2009, 08:26 PM
If she publishes her findings, will she use her real name so her credentials as a document examiner can be verified, or will she publish under a pseudonym?

celee
05-23-2009, 08:35 PM
Hi,

I am missing something. What did she tell us that was all that important any way. I dont think anything she claimed was earth shattering. She feels in her "expert" opinion that Hutchinson was lieing. Let her publish her findings. People are either going to believe her or not. It is not that important

Your friend, Brad

babybird67
05-23-2009, 08:43 PM
well, it could have been important.

The fingerprint is still interesting to me.

If as was originally claimed this showed conclusively that Hutch was signing the statement with his left hand, it would have allowed us to eliminate him from the suspect list.

However other experts have said the signatures were signed with the right hand, so we cant rule him out on this evidence.

:hiya:

Ben
05-23-2009, 09:10 PM
Hi Brad,

A lot of it was very interesting to me, at least. I don't think it had ever been observed before that Abberline had apparently ammended the statement after Badham's initial write-up. Having seen the images, I recongise the merit in that observation. I don't think her analysis was intended to prove or demonstrate that Hutchinson was lying, but rather to recount her findings and leave it to the readership to assess their potential significance.

Best regards,
Ben

Crystal
05-23-2009, 09:11 PM
It's easier to publish fiction under a pseudonym than it is factual information. It may be published, but not by me. It's out of my hands. I'm leaving the country next week, ought to be far enough away for you, I should think. So long, and thanks for all the fish...(Exits stage left, pursued by a bear)

Stephen Thomas
05-23-2009, 10:30 PM
Thank you and goodnight.

richardnunweek
05-23-2009, 11:13 PM
Hi Guys,
I wish to make it clear that i bear no malice towards the poster known as Crystal, now or at any time in the past, infact i have made it clear that i supported her via PM, but this nonsense has gone on long enough, all this old hat 'I shall take leave of you all' is not worthy of a person that claims to have acted out on behalf of the vast majority of 'Casebook' by visiting Kew in her own time.
I have attempted many times in the chatroom, to make conversation with Crystal, but i cannot get a sensible answer, so therefore i find myself reluctantly joining the majority who vote this person as a 'waste of time' but i truely wish things were not that way.
Regards Richard

Ben
05-23-2009, 11:28 PM
Just to clarify, Richard, you're dismissing Crystal as a "waste of time" because you didn't think she was very forthcoming in terms of conversation in the chatroom?

Thanks in advance,

Ben

richardnunweek
05-23-2009, 11:39 PM
Ben,
I hate that term 'Waste of time' but i am sure that you are fully aware that the good lady has hardly expressed herself to members that were sympathetic towards her, when she has had a chance to, infact the only reply i had was, via you, speaking on her behalf [ PM]
I respect everyone on Casebook , that comes across as valid, but i am nobodys fool, and i will not give out too many chances to' carrot dangling 'posters.
Regards Richard.

Ben
05-23-2009, 11:49 PM
S'okay, Richard.

I was just under the impression you had seen the same images from Crystal's visit to Kew that I had, and would therefore know that, despite her other sins, she had not "wasted her time" in terms of being proactive in her approach to the Hutchinson debates, which would otherwise consist of endless repetetive circles and stamina wars of the order that I - guilty! - find myself getting embroiled in with some regularity.

It was my understanding that you had received and digested the proverbial "carrot" in this case. That's all.

Best regards,
Ben

DVV
05-24-2009, 12:23 AM
Hi Richard, Ben and all,

I've already thanked her by email, but I perhaps should publicly thank Crystal for what she has done, re Hutch's statement and signatures.

She sent to me the images of the statement, and i'm thankful (and happy) for that.

Her posts, in the big thread and elsewhere as well, have always been sensible, well written and humoristic. I'm always pleased to read her thoughts, and certainly she's an expert in her field.

We all must know what she thinks about the signatures. It would be so stupid to ignore her work.

So again, thanks Crystal.

I'll work so hard till October... I'll have no time to come back here again, I'm afraid... Maybe one time or two, God willing...

To all, the sweetest summer.
Let's do rocksteady...
Amitiés,
David

Crystal
05-24-2009, 12:26 AM
Richard, I offered. And the offer still stands.

Ben
05-24-2009, 12:27 AM
Agreed wholeheartedly, David.

Good to see you here.

All the best,
Ben

perrymason
05-24-2009, 12:44 AM
It would seem that some members like my compadres Ben and David would like to selectively accept some portions of Crystals statements.....and I humbly submit that both of you fine gentlemen do the very same thing with Hutchinsons statements...knowing full well that he didnt see any Astrakan Man that night, but allowing him credibility anyway by suggesting the part of his story about merely being there is acceptable and accepted...because its possible that is corroborated by another witnesses statement.

But the contemporary authorities dont qualify what they thought he lied about and what he didnt....they discarded the whole story. They thought he was delusional or a liar...I think thats clear in the records as of November 16th. As well they should have, proving or even just believing that any portion of his tale was a fabrication. If they were right, he wasnt likely there at all, and didnt know Mary personally.

I know there is desire to place something other than Discredited Witness on his rap sheet, but that is all he was...and is, based on whats available. Just like Caroline Maxwell....she was not believed. And Mathew Packer....he was not believed. And one must assume by the absence of his story at Inquest or any mention of it or him, that Israel Schwartz was not believed either.

The point being that we know some witnesses made up stories or believed them in their own heads, but none were trusted or believed relevant for any portion of their tale once they fell from investigative graces.

This is a topic as relevant to the investigation of Jack the Ripper murders as The Maybrick Diary is. And Case Closed by Pat Cornwell. And Uncle Jack, by Tony Williams.

Its merely beating a dead horse my friends. Ive read a lot of suggestion about Hutchinson in the last year or two here....and have only learned that he roomed at the Victoria Home. There is no case against this man, ....and like all of the suspects in these cases, no evidence suggesting their involvement in Ripper murders at all.

I know, negativity....but you know I am summarizing the situation accurately. Even if Hutch signed a 1911 census form, so what? That just means if he was the one that made the statement he was not worried about it or attempting to hide from it 23 years later, and it would suggest that George Hutchinson of 1888 was no alias.

In effect.....even further distancing himself from anything remotely suspicious,... like a fake name would be.

Best regards all.

DVV
05-24-2009, 01:05 AM
Hi Mike,

you may like it or not, but Maxwell, Packer and Schwartz won't ever be seriously suspected.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

Ben
05-24-2009, 01:50 AM
It would seem that some members like my compadres Ben and David would like to selectively accept some portions of Crystals statements...

Which implies that I've been dismissing other bits, Mike - which ones?

The only aspect of Hutchinson's account that could be "corroborated" is his loitering presence outside the crime scene at 2:30am, since Sarah Lewis described someone doing precisely that at the same time. This establishes his presence for a brief moment during the night's events. It doesn't corroborate any other aspect of that account, or perhaps most crucially, why he was loitering there at that time with an apparent fixation with Miller's Court.

We know that other serial killers have loitered outside their crime scenes, surveying the scene prior to attacking.

We know that other serial killers have injected themselves into their own investigations after discovering that they could potentially be linked to the crime or crime scene by eyewitness evidence, including killers who didn't resort to an alias for that purpose.

There's no proof against any one suspect, but he remains a legitimate suspect in Kelly's murder.

And witnesses claiming to be witnesses seen by independent witnesses has zero historical precedent, which is why I doubt very much that Hutchinson was a publicity-seeker on a par with Packer, Violenia et al. Their cases are entirely different, and the idea that Hutchinson's coming forward as soon as Lewis' evidence being made public knowledge should be dismissed as some random quirk of coincidence is simply untenable. The circumstances surrounding his involvement in the case oblige us to avoid restricting our perception of him to "just a discredited witness".

This is a topic as relevant to the investigation of Jack the Ripper murders as The Maybrick Diary is. And Case Closed by Pat Cornwell. And Uncle Jack, by Tony Williams.

Well, I'm afraid that's just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are very reasonable indications that Hutchinson lied about his behaviour near a crime scene, with doesn't compare remotely to Maybrick and Sickert, for whom there is no evidence that they were even in the East End at the time, let alone one of the crime scenes.

Even if Hutch signed a 1911 census form, so what? That just means if he was the one that made the statement he was not worried about it or attempting to hide from it 23 years later

If he was the killer, he didn't need to be "worried" about that. As it happens, I've seen no evidence to suggest that the individual known to the police as George Hutchinson "signed a 1911 census form".

I know, negativity....but you know I am summarizing the situation accurately

Not really, no.

This thread is for tackling statement as it pertains to handwriting, and I'd be concerned if it mutated into another generic Hutch thread discussing his suspect candidacy. Obviously, nobody is forced to contribute to any aspect of the case that they do not consider to be "relevant to the investigation".

All the best,
Ben

Sam Flynn
05-24-2009, 02:02 AM
As it happens, I've been no evidence to suggest that the individual known to the police as George Hutchinson "signed a 1911 census form".On the contrary, Ben, there is more than enough evidence that suggests that, and it's not confined to the census either.

Ben
05-24-2009, 02:06 AM
It is by no means impossible (or even unlikely) that the individual we seek signed the 1911 census, Gareth, but I don't believe the individual in question was Toppy, for reasons we've debated ad neausam. ;)

Best regards,
Ben

perrymason
05-24-2009, 02:50 AM
I Just wanted to say to David and Ben that I am not intending to display nor feeling any disrespect for either of your opinions, both of which I enjoy reading.

Im just getting tired of the misuse of the term "Suspect" in general terms more than anything.

The term is defined for legal purposes as "A person believed to have committed a crime and who is, therefore, being investigated by the police." The unspoken implication of course is that the investigation would concern the crime he is believed to have committed.

Obviously then that term cannot be applied to many of the so called "Suspects" in the Ripper cases, only the ones that were actually designated as Suspects in one or more Canonical murder investigation(s) by the contemporary authorities.

What you raise as possibilities with Hutchinson's presence in these affairs is interesting and cleverly constructed guys, what is lacking is a single supporting piece of evidence that suggests Hutchinson was either suspected by the authorities or believed by the authorities to be suspicious by virtue of his story or its details. What is there does not suggest that they found him suspicious beyond what they must have felt when they determined his story was not to be trusted, which may have left them feeling angered and perhaps betrayed. Particularly Abberline.

What this whole premise is based on is a belief that he is Widewake and therefore a person of suspicion by his behaviour, and that his story when given is without knowldege of Sarah Lewis's story....a story from a man claiming to be a friend and occasional loans officer for Mary, given 3 days late, after the Inquest and details of Wideawake were available to the public. He could have heard it at the Inquest from the back row and walked to the station after 6pm with his tale. No-one who testified at the Inquest from Marys life would ever have had to see him....and apparently didnt, because we do not get verification of his friendship or his presence that night by another witness who knew Mary by identifying him or meeting him after his statement.

I dont side with all that the police or medical men thought, said or did, but when it comes to being able to have sat down with a witness eye to eye then check their details...unless they had a problem with someone I dont see the need for us to create one.

Its curious why he would do this...but in the big picture of those events, he has company. Letter writers, men claiming to be Jack in pubs or alleys.....nuts fell from trees a lot that fall.

I dont want to be seen as coming off as dismissive without reason. We DO have reasons to set him aside, because they obviously did...even if we dont know what their reasoning was, he became unimportant quickly.

My best regards as always gents.

Ben
05-24-2009, 03:17 AM
Im just getting tired of the misuse of the term "Suspect" in general terms more than anything.

But it's not a misuse of the term in the context we're applying it, Mike. Here, a suspect means a person who is suspected. The question is whether or not Hutchinson is suspected with good reason, and as far as I'm concerned, he is. There were contemporary suspects, and there are modern suspects. We don't know if Hutchinson was ever considered in the former catergory, but even if he wasn't, there was never any rule that said that the individual(s) most likely to have committed the murders were those who were suspected at the time, or that if the real killer ever came under the spotlight at the time of the murders, the police would definitely have suspected him.

what is lacking is a single supporting piece of evidence that suggests Hutchinson was either suspected by the authorities or believed by the authorities to be suspicious by virtue of his story or its details

And that counts for very little, considering that it can be explained on the following two crucial counts:

1) They never suspected him because they never imagined that the real killer would approach the police requesting an interview. Hardly surprising given that we're dealing with an 1888 police force with no experience of serial killers. Serial killers duping the police is a very well known phenomenon, so using an assumption that they didn't suspect him to argue that the lack of apparent suspicion argues against his candidacy simply won't work. If anything, it argues in favour of a hypothetical Hutchinson-as-killer succeeding in fooling the police. Peter Sutcliffe was interviewed many times without eliciting suspicion.

2) They did suspect him, but the evidence was very unlikely to have been anywhere near sufficient for a conclusive result.

If they dismissed him as a publicity-seeker without considering the implications of Lewis' sighting, then yes, it's entirely on the cards that they made an oversight. There's no evidence that the police ever suspected him, that is true, and that can signify either that the evidence in question was lost over time (not surprising at all) or that it never existed because they really didn't suspect him. Neither options renders him any less suspicious.

Its curious why he would do this...but in the big picture of those events, he has company. Letter writers, men claiming to be Jack in pubs or alleys.....nuts fell from trees a lot that fall. I dont want to be seen as coming off as dismissive without reason. We DO have reasons to set him aside

I don't think we do, Mike.

I think we have very good reasons to avoid lumping him into the same catergory as publicity or money seekers, and I discussed most of them in my previous post. I think we have very good reasons to avoid at all costs the assumption that a discredited witness automatically equates to a discredited suspect. It just doesn't.

I don't feel you're being disrepectful at all.

But I do disagree very strongly.

But we're off topic! :)

All the best,
Ben

richardnunweek
05-24-2009, 10:20 AM
Hi Ben,
With reference to the whole Crystal saga, confusion is creeping in.
I have received the said images.
I received them via another member.
It is not those that i was refering to, for there can be little doubt of Crystals
status, as a document examiner.
I am not concerned with Crystals alleged deception in the chat room ,as Romford Rose.
My post was meant to relay my annoyance, at all the cloak and dagger antics which take place in chat regarding her, she signs in, then out, then in . then out, leaving it impossible to have a respectable conversation, yet by some miracle she can stay in for long periods at a stroke.
This action is extremely annoying to everybody in chat who witness that behaviour, and to be honest does not leave any reason to respect her.
she comes across as somewhat deranged, and i am sure that is not the case.
Her posts on casebook, have always been articulate, her views have always been presented well, so why all this Greta Garbo tactics?
I am normally not a Casebook moaner, but i would ask the good lady to at least treat others with respect.
i would have addressed this post , directly to Crystal, but the good lady seems to function via you, as your private to me the other day seemed to indicate.
Regards Richard.

Crystal
05-24-2009, 11:12 AM
Er, well, Richard, I'm glad you have the images. Please be aware of, and respect, the copyright restrictions. I'm sorry my connection problems in Chat have annoyed you so. But actually-and believe it or not as you choose-I have connection problems in that my home connection keeps kicking me out. It's a bit difficult to converse under such conditions. That's all.

celee
05-24-2009, 11:38 AM
Hi,

Has there ever been a thread that has been filled with such ill will that contained such useless information. Really this thread tells us very little. Crystal gives us her expert, or not, opinion about a document that is of little value. I know Ben and Jen find some points interesting and I respect that but what are we trying to prove here. That Hutchinson was left handed.

I have no reason not to believe that Crystal has been trained and is capable of giving an educated opinion. However, I do not put much faith in such science. If we are trying to prove Hutchinson is lieing then it is going to take more then someone's opinion to convince me. I am going to take in account that the men who looked Hutchinson in the eye and took down his statement believed him. He must have given a good interview regardless of the stops or the flow of the writtten word in Hutchinsons statement.

I have been in the chat room when Crystal has been there and never had a problem chatting with her but I have no doubt that some childish activities have taken place. Just stop. We are all are a bunch of good eggs. I hate to see something so petty as this tear people apart.

Your friend, Brad

The Good Michael
05-24-2009, 12:32 PM
Brad,

I agree with that. The interrogation of Hutchinson simply must include corroboration of his identity and his residence. We have trained professionals, not unlike document examiners, that questioned, probed and prodded, including the highly regarded, world-famous detective, Abberline. When professionals are involved with taking statement of and interrogating such a young and lower status man as Hutchinson, how are we to believe they did such a terrible job as to not only let a killer go, but never look back at him. Not bloody likely.

Mike

richardnunweek
05-24-2009, 01:10 PM
Hello Crystal,
I am well aware of copyright, and i am a man of my word, i am sorry if the chatroom exchanges[ or lack of] are beyond your control, and if that is a public explanation, then fine.
Regards Richard.

Ben
05-24-2009, 01:47 PM
Has there ever been a thread that has been filled with such ill will that contained such useless information. Really this thread tells us very little

I'm not sure quite what you mean, Brad.

Are you saying that information is only useful if it impacts on someone's suspect status? I find it rather astonishing that anyone can say that Hutchinson's original statement is "of little value", since the reverse is so obviously the case and no elaboration is really required to explain why (I dearly hope?). As others have noted, several of Crystal's observation do impact on Hutchinson's suspect status.

If we are trying to prove Hutchinson is lieing then it is going to take more then someone's opinion to convince me. I am going to take in account that the men who looked Hutchinson in the eye and took down his statement believed him

Crystal wasn't attempting to "prove" anything in her original analysis. The likelihood that he did not report the squeaky-clean unblemished truth is self-evident from the actual content. As we've already established, his statement was discredited very shortly after Hutchinson's initial appearance at the police station, with his "Astrakhan" suspect clearly dropping off the map at around the same time. Clearly this rather militates against the suggestion that he was the star witness for very long.

I've never really understand this habit people have of dismissing the subject of a particular conversation as "useless" or "not worthy of discussion/investigation" and then posting just to make that point.

Hi Mike,

that questioned, probed and prodded, including the highly regarded, world-famous detective, Abberline

It isn't my opinion that they did a "terrible" job, but on the other hand, we want to aviod putting Abberline on a pedastal he doesn't warrant. He was competent detective, certainly, but more experienced detectives that Abberline have been duped by criminals since. Hutchinson may have succeeded in pulling the wool over Abberline's eyes, yes, but then Abberline also believed that Klosowski the expert physician went on an organ-harvesting commission on behalf of an American innards-collecter, who then went to America himself after realising that he didn't collect enough innards in the East End.

Or...

He wasn't duped.

He did suspect Hutchinson, but wasn't able to rule him conclusively in or out.

In the above scenario, they wouldn't have let him go, but monitered him discreetly thereafter in the event of more murders, and of course, there weren't any for some considerable time.

Best regards,
Ben

Fisherman
05-24-2009, 01:49 PM
Bob Hinton writes, concerning the third page signature from the police protocol:

"I’m not sure where the signature above labelled 1888 came from. Can anyone enlighten me?"

I hope, Mr Hinton, that you will allow me to ask you a couple of questions in connection with this!
To begin with, I know that you have authored a book in which the Iremonger investigation and your own thinking on the signatures involved are discussed. I do not, however, have the book in question - mea culpa - and I therefore would very much like to know:

- Do you in your book, based on your own observations, draw the conclusion that the police protocol signatures were not written by the same man that signed the wedding paper? And if so, which of the police protocol signatures did you use? All of them, two of them - or just the one?

- Since you clearly did not immediately recognize the signature from the third page, I would like to ask you what your verdict is on that signature in comparison with the census signatures and the wedding signature? Do you regard them alike or unalike - or somewhere inbetween?
My own stance on the question who wrote what in the protocol, is that I believe that signature number three is the one most likely to have been authored by the witness. The protocol consists, I believe, of two full pages of text, and a third page on which there is only quite a few lines. And when you sign a collection of pages concerning themselves with the same topic throughout, you normally sign on the last page.
That is what I feel the witness did. If I was to sign a bunch of papers myself, perhaps paper-clipped together, I would turn up the last page to supply my signature. And if there was only the odd line on it, it would make it feel very much superfluous to turn to the preceding page and add a new signature - anybody who puts his signature to a single line or two do not do so to confirm only those few lines, I think - they do so believing that they confirm the contents in their entirety. Just my five pence, but that is how I see things - to me, signature number three is our best bet, for these reasons.

- Do you have any clarification to offer on the Iremonger issue? Are you in possession of the details she used to reach her verdict?

Thanking you in advance,
Fisherman

The Good Michael
05-24-2009, 01:57 PM
It isn't my opinion that they did a "terrible" job, but on the other hand, we want to aviod putting Abberline on a pedastal he doesn't warrant. He was competent detective, certainly, but more experienced detectives that Abberline have been duped by criminals since. Hutchinson may have succeeded in pulling the wool over ...

Ah, but these were professionals. Shouldn't I have complete faith in their methods? Would you or I have done a better job?

Mike

Ben
05-24-2009, 02:00 PM
I'm exploring both possibilites, Mike, that's all.

It is possible that they suspected him at some stage, but just as possible that they didn't.

Welcome back, Fish!

Best regards,
Ben

Bob Hinton
05-24-2009, 02:16 PM
Why is it believed that Abberline corrected GH's statement by writing 'Queens Head'?

The Good Michael
05-24-2009, 02:23 PM
Bob,

Crystal said that the corrections matched Abberline's handwriting. At least I think that's what she said. I'm not wading back to look it up though.

Mike

Ben
05-24-2009, 02:26 PM
That's correct, Mike:

"Abberline has also written on the statement of George Hutchinson. He signs for submission on page three of the statement, and also completes the endorsement on the back of page three of the statement....

The statement has, having been signed by Hutchinson and Badham, then been altered by Abberline. This is at the point where the original statement text in Badham's hand 'Ten Bell' has been struck through and altered to 'Queen's Head'."

(From Crystal's first post)

babybird67
05-24-2009, 04:07 PM
is it physically possible to be kicked from chat because the internet connection has failed, yet still be showing online under the "who's online" facility, perusing the message boards?

Ally
05-24-2009, 04:56 PM
I am quite sure Crystal is a document examiner also. However, there are incompetent people in every profession, and we have no way of knowing what degree of competency she has. When you add that to her willingness to completely fabricate, lie and manipulate the truth, her conclusions are suspect.

However, for those who are willing to believe that she is competent and professional it must come as a relief that she has ruled out Hutchinson as a suspect completely by virtue of identifying him as left handed.

Bob Hinton
05-24-2009, 05:33 PM
That's correct, Mike:

"Abberline has also written on the statement of George Hutchinson. He signs for submission on page three of the statement, and also completes the endorsement on the back of page three of the statement....

The statement has, having been signed by Hutchinson and Badham, then been altered by Abberline. This is at the point where the original statement text in Badham's hand 'Ten Bell' has been struck through and altered to 'Queen's Head'."

(From Crystal's first post)

I just don’t see that Abberline did the correction. Here are some samples. The H in Queens’s head is quite a straightforward two vertical and one horizontal. Abberline’s H’s are much more florid. Abberline’s handwriting is much more flowing and practiced, he is quite at home with the pen.

The correction is much more stilted and hesitant.

Brenda
05-24-2009, 05:37 PM
It appears that he had very little room to put in the words "Queen's Head" so maybe he just didn't have enough space for fancy flourishes.

Ally
05-24-2009, 05:42 PM
Even without fancy flourishes, the lines of his H's CURVE inward every single time he writes them, in direct contrast to the H's alleged to be his.

Fisherman
05-24-2009, 05:42 PM
Brenda writes:

"maybe he just didn't have enough space for fancy flourishes."

Maybe, Brenda. But the space afforded would not have had an impact on which way he bent the left hand leg of his "H", would it? It is bent the other way in "the Queens Head", producing a "bow" pointing to the left, whereas Abberlines left "H" leg "bows" consistently point to the right.

Fisherman

Fisherman
05-24-2009, 05:43 PM
That´s a narrow win for you, Ally!

Fisherman

Ben
05-24-2009, 05:54 PM
Hi Brenda,

I'd agree with your intepretation. It would appear that the limited space available may have prompted Abberline to forgo his usually more embroidered "H". It might be worth reminding everyone that Crystal never said anything about ruling out Hutchinson as a suspect, nor did she assert that he was left-handed. Only that the markings and prints may indicate that he used his left hand to write the signature. But I'm sure you'd agree that it's probably best that we await Crystal's elaborations if she's willing to participate.

Best regards,
Ben

The Good Michael
05-24-2009, 06:07 PM
But I think it's probably best that we await Crystal's elaborations if she's willing to participate.


Are you a glutton for punishment? No one will believe her interpretation. She's nuts. Really, I don't understand why anyone would want her input on this. If you can trust her, you have a short memory.

Mike

Ben
05-24-2009, 06:11 PM
Fair enough, Mike, but if people feel that way about her, it doesn't make sense to pay her comments such inordinate attention. Just move on, if that's the way you feel. I'm not criticising you for it, but at the same time, I hardly see this as a cue for another relentless Hutchinson brawl.

Ben

Crystal
05-24-2009, 06:16 PM
Thank you Ben. What I said about the statement is correct. As I have now said a really tedious number of times, I can prove those observations. Where I cannot I have said as much. But as you will. Bring on the circular arguments. As to the Chat, guess it must be possible since its been happening to me for days. The Chatroom. Not the site. The Flash Player, maybe? I wouldn't know-I leave it to the experts. But what on earth has that got to do with anything?

Ally
05-24-2009, 06:35 PM
Hi Brenda,
, nor did she assert that he was left-handed. Only that the markings and prints may indicate that he used his left hand to write the signature.

Best regards,
Ben

Ben,

I mean really. Come on. I realize reason isn't your strong suit when it comes to either of the two subjects being discussed here, but really, COME ON.

And the limited space doesn't change the dynamics of curving in instead of out on a h.

Ben
05-24-2009, 06:45 PM
And the limited space doesn't change the dynamics of curving in instead of out on a h.

Ally,

How do you know? It might well change when the space for embroidery is limited.

Ally
05-24-2009, 06:47 PM
Embroidery yes, basic format, no. There's a curve to the letter in the H. It's in the WRONG direction to his usual. He completely changed the DIRECTION of the curve because of limited space? No. I don't think so. The curve might have been lessened, but the direction changed? There is no need.

Ben
05-24-2009, 06:53 PM
But as Bob observed, the larger Abberline H was far more "florid" in design, and such detail is more difficult to create on a very small scale. Two vertical bars with a cross bar simply does the job quicker. It is likely that Hutchinson himself altered between ornamental "H"s and conventional ones.

Ally
05-24-2009, 06:55 PM
Ben.

There is a curve. It is in the WRONG direction. It is not a matter of two simple bars. The curve occurs in the WRONG direction. If he were using limited space and there were a curve, it would still be in the CORRECT direction, just lessened. It is not a straight bar. It is curved. In the WRONG direction.

Ben
05-24-2009, 07:00 PM
Hi Ally,

I'm not sure what you mean by the "wrong" direction. A left H bar that curves inwards is an ornamental feature designed to make the letter look prettier when capitalized. On a miniscule scale, the need for ornamentation is not only rendered pointless but rather difficult, so it is apt to be rejected in favour of a conventional "H".

perrymason
05-24-2009, 07:09 PM
On our site here under Witnesses and George Hutchinson it suggests the following related to 'Toppy"...

"In truth, little is known about George Hutchinson, other than the brief personal details given in 1888. Author Melvyn Fairclough interviewed a Reginald Hutchinson who claimed that his father, George William Topping Hutchinson, was the man who knew Mary Kelly. He claimed he was born on 1st October 1866, employed as a plumber (and apparently rarely, if ever, out of work) and that he knew one of the victims and was interviewed by police at the time. When pressed by his son as to the identity of Jack the Ripper, this George Hutchinson replied that "it was more to do with the Royal Family than ordinary people"[10]. Although a photograph of him also surfaced, this particular identification of Hutchinson has been greeted with a great deal of scepticism."

As I was saying earlier, are we now in the business of selecting just what we think are the believable aspects of claims that are seemingly either lies, inaccurate or incorrect? So that would make the parts of his story related to Astrakan Man and the story that he felt he knew of Royal connections as being unbelievable. Maybe also his later alleged sighting of the man as well. Perhaps also his walk from Romford. Maybe also his prior relationship with Mary.

And maybe also his claim that he was there at all that night. Maybe GH was just a flash in the pan....just like he appears historically.

Sarah Lewis had only hours earlier recited her story to a full room at the Inquest, and it had been published and talked about for 3 days before his appearance at the station...leaving the only aspect of his story that some people are willing to continue to believe despite the discrediting of the source generally by the authorities, is that he was actually there watching the court that night, and using Sarahs description, that he may have been wearing a Wideawake Hat. Does that make him any kind of a suspect in even the most generous use of the word?

Knowing that they thought he fabricated his story, not just parts of it apparently....why then would we care who signed the 1911 census,...whether THE Hutch that made the statement or some other GH.

If GH's statement was not relevant in the opinion of the investigators, then it should not be to us....there is nothing that has come to light in 120 years since that time regarding this man that suggests any kind of involvement in a crime other than his falsifying a statement to Police. If the contention is that Fleming was Hutchinson, then all we would need to entertain that idea is some form of proof or compelling evidence that suggests and supports that supposition...but we dont have that,... and in my opinion, we never will.

Being willing to explore a false claim like the Maybrick Diary is an individuals choice, but it shouldnt be confused with pursuing leads related to the suspects in the Ripper crimes.

Best regards all.

Brenda
05-24-2009, 07:17 PM
Well, I'm no handwriting expert, but I AM left-handed. "Lefties" face certain issues with writing that "righties" don't have to think about. Most lefties curve their wrist inward while writing, often the result being smeared ink/pencil left in their wake. I learned to write holding the pen "correctly" with my wrist held straight, but I tilt my paper at an outrageous angle to achieve this. I've come across a few other lefties in my lifetime that learned the same trick. My handwriting is very good (if I do say so myself). However, when I'm in a situation where I can't tilt the paper to suit my writing style, chaos can sometimes be the result. Give me a situation where I have to write something in a very small space, unable to tilt the paper AND a worry of smeared ink, and anything could result. I've had letters going the other direction from my norm many times, simply trying to compensate for the left-handedness. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but it COULD have. Any sort of writing requirement outside the norm ( like having to cram info into a small writing space) can present special problems for a leftie.

Ben
05-24-2009, 07:19 PM
Does that make him any kind of a suspect in even the most generous use of the word?

Yes it does, Mike.

It makes him a suspect in the sense that those who are familiar with this case and others from history (and true crime in general) are likely to use the word.

Because it naturally and inevitably invites suspicion that he was the wideawake man, and that he came forward with a bogus story and false suspect lead as soon as he realised he'd been seen near the crime scene. That doesn't automatically make him a murderer, since it isn't unreasonable to surmise that he did all those things for other reasons, but since serial killers have resorted to both strategies in the past - loiter fixatedly near crime scenes and inject themselves into investigations - we're obliged to take him seriously as a potential suspect.

Your argument seems to be that we should forget about him because he lied to the police, which I feel would be a disasterous move. The question is why he would do that, and I feel Sarah Lewis' inquest statement answers that question, thus seperating him from the average bobby-botherer seeking money or publicity.

If GH's statement was not relevant in the opinion of the investigators, then it should not be to us

It was not relevant to the police in terms of the suspect description being used as a potential vehicle to capture the ripper, but that may be because he was discredited as a witness (not as a suspect!).

If the contention is that Fleming was Hutchinson, then all we would need to entertain that idea is some form of proof or compelling evidence

I think there are reasonable indications in that regard, but that's a completely different discussion to the one we're having. There is nothing against Hutchinson that wouldn't be turfed out in a court of law, but in terms of circumstantial support for the possibility, he does a hellova lot better than most.

Best regards,
Ben

Fisherman
05-24-2009, 07:40 PM
Ben writes, to Ally:

"I'm not sure what you mean by the "wrong" direction. "

I am, Ben - Ally would refer to the fact that the left leg of the capital H in Abberlines handwriting normally bends clockwise in a very apparent fashion, whereas the left leg of the capital H in "Head" bends anticlockwise, in a less apparent, but still quite prominent way.

And that is something that must carry relevance when establishing who wrote. It is, in a way, related to the "Toppyism" you spoke about on the 1911 thread, when you pointed out that the last n in "Hutchinson" curved markedly anti-clockwise in the 1898 and 1911 examples. If we are to imagine the writer of such a "n" writing the signature in smaller letters, it would be hard to imagine that he would change the bend to a clockwise one, would it not?

...and that is what I believe Ally (and I) are pointing to.

Fisherman

Ben
05-24-2009, 07:48 PM
Hi Fish,

I'm not expressing any personal opinion as to the likelihood of Abberline being responsible for the ammendment. It just occured to be that the inward-bending H's that were evident in his handwriting may have been a by-product of style ornamentation of the type that needed to be "downgraded" or dispensed with altogether if the writing had to be particularly small. I could be way off, however, and the observation concerning the Queen's Head could have nothing to do with the "H".

Hope your fishing trip was an enjoyable one.

Best regards,
Ben

Fisherman
05-24-2009, 07:54 PM
It´s the darndest thing, Ben - but no options can be excluded. Therefore, Abberline MAY have been in the habit of switching from clockwise to anti-ditto when minimizing his letters. But I think it would be a lot more logical option to chance that he did not do so. The smaller space afforded to him was not the result of a retraction of the space to the right of his letters only, and so the more reasonable thing to do would be to write smaller letters with the same general leaning and the same clockwise turning of them.

The reverse, though (in a doubled meaning) can not be excluded. Only very strongly questioned.

Fisherman

Crystal
05-24-2009, 11:00 PM
You're right Ben. It has nothing to do with the 'H'. For once. Another round of speculation, anyone? Er.. This IS the 1911 thread...isn't it?

Ally
05-24-2009, 11:07 PM
Well then Crystal, then what precisely does it have to do with. I mean I am sure we are all just dying to hear what your so-called EXPERT opinion is? Or do you have nothing further to add and are just hanging around to say nothing whatsoever? You did indicate you were leaving forever right? If you aren't going to actually add anything productive, why don't you stick to that?

Christine
05-25-2009, 02:01 AM
The u is different. The Abberline u has left arm higher. Queen's Head u has both arms the same height.

Queen's Head n has an open downstroke--it looks like a v with an extra stroke, or a w missing the last stroke. Abberline n has matched vertical downstroke and upstroke that curves away exactly halfway up.

Aberline s is convex on the right side. Queen's Head s is shaped like an s on the right. (This sort of cursive s was originally a regular zig-zag s with a connecting stroke from the left, but many people were taught to write it so it looks almost like an o.)

Abberline a is entered from the top and is an almond shaped loop. Queen's Head a is open at the top, resembling u.

Abberline d is very distinctive. It's upstroke to a midpoint, small almost closed loop to the same midpoint, upstroke to make the ascender, then trace upstroke back to the midpoint. It looks like a five way intersection. Queen's head d is also distinctive, but not at all the same.

Ben
05-25-2009, 03:22 AM
The u is different. The Abberline u has left arm higher. Queen's Head u has both arms the same height.

If you ever get an opportunity to consult Abberline's original endorsement appended to the back of the statement, Christine, you'll notice that his "u"s varied considerably with regard to the height of his left and right stems. For example, when he wrote the word "Hutchinson" the right stem was higher than the left.

Abberline n has matched vertical downstroke and upstroke that curves away exactly halfway up

This is an interesting one. Abberline's "n" tails are skyward-pointing, just like Toppy's. When Abberline wrote the words "Hutchinson" and "Description", the final n-tails both had a conspicuously northerly inclination. Whenever an "n" was included in mid-sentence, however, they tended to have the appearance of a "w missing the last stroke" as you describe it. The first lower-case n of Abberline's "Hutchinson" provides a good example of this.

As for Abberline's "s", check out Bob Hinton's attachment. Compare the "s" at the end of "Queens" with the "s" at the end of the word "constables" in Abberline's report.

You make the observation that the "a" of "Queen's Head" is open at the top, which is a sound one, but then Abberline's "a"s were very much open-topped when he wrote the sentence "Description of a man seen with Marie Jeanette Kelly...". In both cases, the bold-highlighted "a"s were open-topped and strongly resembled "u"s.

All the best,
Ben

Christine
05-25-2009, 06:09 AM
Hi Ben.

The s at the end of "Queens" does not look like the s at the end of "Constables." All of Abberline's s are round, and could be mistaken for the letter o (although like most people, Abberline wrote his o counterclockwise and his s clockwise). The s at the end of Queens is a zig-zag s with a leading stroke--it looks sort of like an ampersand, written backwards.

I don't claim to know how significant this is, but these are the sorts of markers that do not usually change, even if a person switches pens, or gets older. I'm certainly not a document examiner, just someone who has more than a passing interest in handwriting. I haven't seen the other statement, though, so I can't comment on that. Anyhow, I doubt if you can get much out of ten letters, but it really doesn't look like Abberline to me.

Ben
05-25-2009, 01:18 PM
Hi Christine,

The s at the end of "Queens" does not look like the s at the end of "Constables."

I'd have to disagree. They resemble eachother pretty strongly, both exhibiting the same rather dumpy circular traits which, as you note, make them difficult to distinguish from "o"s. I don't see anything remotely zig-zagging about the last letter of "Queen's". If you ever get an opportunity to see Abberline's statement endorsement, you'll notice that most of the traits you referred to as being absent or different from the "Queens Head" are present in that report, perhaps most notably the open topped "a"s you referred to earlier.

This thread has a perilous chance of resembling another "1911"!

All the best,
Ben

The Good Michael
05-25-2009, 01:25 PM
Ben,

Why do you want them to resemble each other when they don't. If it is going to become 1911, it's because you can't let go of Hutch, when he's only hanging on by his baby finger. Drop him.

Mike

Ally
05-25-2009, 01:26 PM
I agree with Christine. The "s" in Queens shows a distinct point and a line on the left side, whereas Abberline's "s's" tend to be rounded, without a distinct point at the top.

Not a match.

Ben
05-25-2009, 01:34 PM
Why do you want them to resemble each other when they don't. If it is going to become 1911, it's because you can't let go of Hutch, when he's only hanging on by his baby finger

It makes no difference to me whether they resemble eachother or not. I'm just pointing out that some of the traits being referred to as indicative of "difference" are nothing of the sort when we examine the statement endorsement written by Abberline. If I come across a good reason to "let go of Hutch", I'll do so. So far, nothing on this thread had prompted me to do that, and I'm afraid document examiners behaving badly in serial killer message board chatrooms don't make a character from 1888 any less suspicious.

But if people want to keep endlessly arguing with me about it, bring it on.

Clearly I'm not going anyhere.

If people want another posting war resembling the 1911 thread, by all means join me and I'll see you on page 1,000,000.

Ally
05-25-2009, 01:38 PM
Which is of course your way of hoping people will be scared off and you have a defacto win.

But that's okay, I for one and completely comfortable also sticking around and pointing out how your reason and eyesight tend to fail completely in this matter.

As often as it takes.

Ben
05-25-2009, 01:44 PM
Wonderful.

No, I'm not hoping you'll go anywhere. If I'm supposed to be the Hutchinson zealot in this equation, I guess the logic goes that I utterly thrive on the prospect of interminable debates on the topic of Hutchinson. But glad to have hypnotized another one. We're almost on 4000 posts.

Stick around,

Ben

The Good Michael
05-25-2009, 02:07 PM
Ben,

Serious question: What do you lose by not posting on this thread? What compels you to stand in there with Hutch/Toppy in leg-irons, as if by not posting, you will cease to exist? Fisherman took time off and it all stayed right where it was. Why is this a battle you must win?

Mike

Ben
05-25-2009, 02:14 PM
Mike,

I'm genuinely not interested in battles, and for the record, I have never started a Hutchinson thread in my life. All I've done is address the points raised, and where the arguments and counter-points have been expecially vocal, I've been tenacious. If there were no contributions to the Hutchinson threads, I can guarantee you I would not have started a fight for no reason. I've reacted, that's all.

All the best,
Ben

The Good Michael
05-25-2009, 02:38 PM
You address them each and every time, over and over again. You keep the battle alive, so that means you are interested, or have a stake in it.
You battle to get the last word in, every time. You are the resistance movement that will fight to its dying breath in order to keep Hutchinson alive. It's as if he were Achilles and you are Homer, and despite his fatal flaws, you are determined to protect his heel by not admitting he has one.

You say, "All I've done is address the points." All you do is refute everything regardless of the unsupportability of the refutation. It is an effort to keep the battle for Hutch's guilt alive, and no matter how completely likely a point might be, you will find a way to put holes in it, imagined or otherwise, so that Hutch remains immortal. It is absolutely unthinkable to me that you continue this war of attrition that you blame others for starting when it conclusively isn't the case.

Mike

Ben
05-25-2009, 02:51 PM
Yes, but "keeping the battle alive" is not the same as starting the battle, which is something I've never done, not that I view discourse on a messageboard to be comparable to a battleground anyway. You claim that my refutations are unsupported and that I secretly believe certain observations from the opposing camp to be "likely", but argue against them anway. That, with respect, is fantasy, and if I felt inclined, I could level precisely the same accusations in your direction. If I challenge a point it is because I genuinely believe it to be flawed, and if I claim that something is unlikely, it is because I feel it is.

If you want to depict me as an aggressive warrior who'll naysay no matter what, go ahead, but if that truly reflects your characterization of me, there are better antidotes to that kind of mentality than engaging the perceived zealot in fight-to-the-death wars.

Best regards,
Ben

Ally
05-25-2009, 02:55 PM
If you challenge a point you genuinely believe it is flawed? Are you joking? Like trying to say Crystal didn't claim Hutch was left handed, he just WROTE left-handed?

Bob Hinton
05-25-2009, 02:55 PM
So anyway, who started this Hutchinson nonsense anyway? It was that bastard Bob Hinton - lets get him!!!!

Fisherman
05-25-2009, 03:08 PM
Bob Hinton writes:

"So anyway, who started this Hutchinson nonsense anyway? It was that bastard Bob Hinton - lets get him!!!!"

Well, sort of ... but not really. But I WOULD like some sort of answer to my post 199 on this thread if you feel up to it...?

The best,
Fisherman

celee
05-25-2009, 03:12 PM
I'm not sure quite what you mean, Brad.

Are you saying that information is only useful if it impacts on someone's suspect status? I find it rather astonishing that anyone can say that Hutchinson's original statement is "of little value", since the reverse is so obviously the case and no elaboration is really required to explain why (I dearly hope?). As others have noted, several of Crystal's observation do impact on Hutchinson's suspect status.



Crystal wasn't attempting to "prove" anything in her original analysis. The likelihood that he did not report the squeaky-clean unblemished truth is self-evident from the actual content. As we've already established, his statement was discredited very shortly after Hutchinson's initial appearance at the police station, with his "Astrakhan" suspect clearly dropping off the map at around the same time. Clearly this rather militates against the suggestion that he was the star witness for very long.

I've never really understand this habit people have of dismissing the subject of a particular conversation as "useless" or "not worthy of discussion/investigation" and then posting just to make that point.

Ben

Hi all,

Happy Memorial Day,

Thanks to all the men and women who served in the armed forces to protect my freedom.

Hi Ben,

What I am saying is Crystal is giving her opinon about Hutchinson's statement that is all she is giving her opinion. Crystal's observations do not impact Hutchinson's suspect status. How does it impact his status. It is a very interesting document that alot of people can give an opinion. What ground breaking observations did Crystal post. Was Hutchinson left handed or not? Abberline was present, What?

Everyone is beating up on eachother over Crystal posting her observations. Why? Even if she did fudge about her credentials it would not be the first time, I am sure, someone has built them self up to be more of an expert then they are. It is not like she is trying to pass off a bogus diary.

Hutchinson had to have given a good interview. We know Abberline believed him after interviewing him. Someone comes along 131 years later, looks at his official statement and claims he was not being truthful. When given a choice, I am going to side with the Detective that looked the suspect in the eye when he was taking the statement. What ever caused Abberline to doubt Hutchinson, and he obiously did not think Hutchinson saw the Ripper, did not happend in the course of the interview.

The document is an interesting piece of paper, enjoy.

Your friend, Brad

Ben
05-25-2009, 03:18 PM
Hi Brad,

I don't know if the observations were intended to be "ground-breaking", but personally I found them interesting. You highlight the fact that Abberline believed Hutchinson in the immediate aftermath of the interview on the evening 12th November, at which point no opportunity had arisen to investigate Hutchinson's claims. Shortly thereafter, it became apparent that his suspect sighting was "discredited", a reality that was borne out by the observations of other senior police officals who were inclined to use a Jewish witness (one who acquired a much weaker sighting than alleged by Hutchinson) in preference.

All the best,
Ben

babybird67
05-25-2009, 03:30 PM
when it is claimed that Hutch's statement was discredited, is this based upon the choice not to use him as a witness?

Ben
05-25-2009, 03:35 PM
Hi Jen,

Hutchinson's "discrediting" was first mentioned in The Star on 15th November, the same newspaper that had given it an enthusiastic endorsement the previous day, suggesting fairly strongly that whatever "discredited" him as a witness had occured at some point on 14th or 15th November, quite conceivably as a result of the various contradictions and embellishents that appeared in the press version of his account.

Best regards,
Ben

babybird67
05-25-2009, 03:39 PM
thanks for that.

Why was nothing officially confirmed as to what had discredited him? If his account was quickly thought to be untrue, was there really no investigation as to what had led him to lie?

How reasonable would it be to surmise in the circumstances that the Police were satisfied that there was no nefarious motive at the time?