Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Darryl Kenyon
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    I never agreed that "he couldn't possibly" have made some investigation in the four or five hours prior to the end of the day. I wouldn't suspect for one minute that they sat on their hands at the detective department.

    Are you saying that Abberline "couldn't possibly" have had his men speak to any beat constables on the Commercial St. / Dorset St. beat for a hint of confirmation?
    Or, "couldn't possibly" have sent his men to Sarah Lewis's address to bring her to Commercial St., or at the very least speak to her intently on the subject of the loiterer she saw, and the couple she saw walk up the court?
    Or, "couldn't possibly" have sent a man to Millers Court to speak with Bowyer (as we read in the press), or bring him to the station?
    Abberline was not a one-man operation, he had men at his disposal, and 4-5 hours with which to do something before he wrote his report.

    A detective dept. can make a number of inquiries in the 4-5 hours available to them on Monday evening.
    All this could have happened during the interrogation of Hutchinson, the total result of which gave Abberline the opinion the witness was being truthful.
    One possible enquiry the police could have followed is following up on Hutch's testimony at the Victoria home. IE - Did he not have a bed for the night in question? and did he come into the premises the following morning at the time he said? I am not sure if this sort of establishment would keep ledgers of the comings and goings of its lodgers but its a possibility.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    It's beginning to look like the Smyth-Holm, or Holm-Smyth Summit is never going to happen. Too bad. I could supply the quality ale.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Thankyou Gareth.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    In this case, because we have no alternate professional opinion on this subject (that I know of), does not mean Sue Iremonger must be correct.
    Actually, Jon, Fisherman obtained the advice of forensic document analyst Frank Leander, whose opinion on the signatures was somewhat at variance with that of Sue Iremonger.
    Last edited by Sam Flynn; 09-03-2018, 02:36 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben View Post
    I don’t recall ever debating handwriting analysis with you, Jon, and to be honest I’m more than a little dismayed that I’m doing so now.
    Hi Ben.
    Agreed, I don't recall the two of us debating handwriting either. But we have on Casebook many times when debating a number of documents.
    And, I don't view the "Toppy" subject as silliness, though you are right I rarely comment on the subject.
    I have no reason to dismiss Toppy as being the long sought witness, but I've said before some of the background information attributed to him by others is in my opinion nothing less than rubbish.


    You’re very knowledgeable on a lot of things, Jon, but this is very obviously not your strong suit. It is Sue Iremonger’s however, and it is her informed professional opinion we must heed when contemplating the validity of Toppy as a signatory to the 1888 statement.
    You may be correct, however it is not uncommon to find professional opinion on both sides of any subject, where both professionals cannot be correct. One of them must be wrong.
    In this case, because we have no alternate professional opinion on this subject (that I know of), does not mean Sue Iremonger must be correct.
    We still only have one side of the argument at her level of expertise.


    You “trust” wrong.

    I intend neither to do your research for you, nor do a wonderful author out of a book sale.
    If you are unable to faithfully offer a quote from the book, perhaps you need to resist the temptation to do so.
    I manage to faithfully quote from any number of sources that I know you have never read, nor do I expect you to.

    If you’re interested in Stephen Senise’s research and conclusions, you will have to part with the necessary dosh and obtain yourself a copy. Reading time may well have to encroach on posting time in your case, but you’ll be all the richer for it.
    The primary value in writing a book aimed at identifying the Witness George Hutchinson, is to make the connection between his subject and the real Witness in that book.
    As he did not do that, where is the value of his claim?


    But Abberline could not possibly have “investigated” anything by the time he sent his report on Hutchinson that evening.
    I never agreed that "he couldn't possibly" have made some investigation in the four or five hours prior to the end of the day. I wouldn't suspect for one minute that they sat on their hands at the detective department.

    Are you saying that Abberline "couldn't possibly" have had his men speak to any beat constables on the Commercial St. / Dorset St. beat for a hint of confirmation?
    Or, "couldn't possibly" have sent his men to Sarah Lewis's address to bring her to Commercial St., or at the very least speak to her intently on the subject of the loiterer she saw, and the couple she saw walk up the court?
    Or, "couldn't possibly" have sent a man to Millers Court to speak with Bowyer (as we read in the press), or bring him to the station?
    Abberline was not a one-man operation, he had men at his disposal, and 4-5 hours with which to do something before he wrote his report.

    A detective dept. can make a number of inquiries in the 4-5 hours available to them on Monday evening.
    All this could have happened during the interrogation of Hutchinson, the total result of which gave Abberline the opinion the witness was being truthful.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paddy
    replied
    I have been searching for Hutchinson's signature for a long time and I always look for an open topped capital G (as that was consistent in all three signatures) and a looped h in the middle of Hutchinson.
    I have never found one yet like that in all marriages & Banns and 1911 census. It seems that the schools or teachers taught that the Capital G was closed looped.
    Pat..........

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben View Post
    According to who or what? You? I’m sorry, but that just isn’t good enough. Sue Iremonger is the professional expert in this particular equation, and her opinion doesn’t get trounced or superseded by your own conviction to the contrary purely because you invest in it so heavily.

    There are similarities between statement #1 and the other two, certainly, but that’s because the first signature was scrawled in “conscious imitation” of the other two, according to Iremonger. Badham probably opted for the flowery “H” after realising he had neglected to obtain Hutchinson’s signature on the first page. He may have been concerned that questions would be asked by his superiors if the signature resembled his own handwriting too closely, and “embroidered” the “H” in an effort to solve the problem.

    It certainly makes more sense than Hutchinson deciding on a flowery “H” for his first signature, then abandoning the idea for no good reason with the other two. If he was nervous with his first effort, I see no reason why those nerves should have evaporated seconds later for parts two and three.

    All the best,
    Ben
    Why aren't I good enough? Iremonger"s attribution of the p1 signature to Badham strikes me as decidedly dodgy, and it can be readily attributed to Hutchinson for the reasons I've already given. Hell, it's not even THAT different from the pp2 & 3 signatures!
    Last edited by Sam Flynn; 09-03-2018, 02:03 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    You might appreciate this is not the first time we have debated handwriting analysis on Casebook. I have provided links & quotes from analysts in the past.
    I don’t recall ever debating handwriting analysis with you, Jon, and to be honest I’m more than a little dismayed that I’m doing so now. For all our disagreements, you were never usually one to embroil yourself in all the Toppy silliness, and I’m perplexed at your decision to step into the fray now, so late in the day.

    No, I don’t recall you providing any “links” or “quotes”, and you’ve evinced neither knowledge nor interest in handwriting analysis until just now. Your original statement - that “graphologists” (sic) are all in agreement that differences in handwriting style are trivial, whereas similarities are more important - is still sorely lacking in terms of evidential support.

    You’re very knowledgeable on a lot of things, Jon, but this is very obviously not your strong suit. It is Sue Iremonger’s however, and it is her informed professional opinion we must heed when contemplating the validity of Toppy as a signatory to the 1888 statement.

    I trust you will quote Mr Senise faithfully, so to that end it is not necessary to read the whole book.
    You “trust” wrong.

    I intend neither to do your research for you, nor do a wonderful author out of a book sale. If you’re interested in Stephen Senise’s research and conclusions, you will have to part with the necessary dosh and obtain yourself a copy. Reading time may well have to encroach on posting time in your case, but you’ll be all the richer for it.

    It's the nature of police work that the statement of the witness is taken on faith unless they have reason to investigate it
    Exactly, and that is precisely what Varqm and I have been arguing, that Hutchinson’s statement was accepted on faith, not on the basis of a secretly squirrelled-away “reason”, which Abberline mysteriously withheld from his bosses. It’s not a case of a mysterious “source” for his acceptance being “unavailable to us”; we know that there can’t have been any other “source” beyond a faith-based initial impression, at that stage at least.

    The opinion of an experienced interrogation officer is more reliable than the opinion of a modern-day theorist, who has no experience with investigating a witness.
    But Abberline could not possibly have “investigated” anything by the time he sent his report on Hutchinson that evening. We’ve just established and agreed on that, remember? Or have you changed your mind again and decided there must have been an aspect of Hutchinson’s account that was verified before he wrote that report, a couple of hours after meeting the man? If so, what? And why didn’t he say anything about this verified aspect in his report?

    All the best,
    Ben
    Last edited by Ben; 09-03-2018, 01:33 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    Bad news - she was wrong about that, too.
    According to who or what? You? I’m sorry, but that just isn’t good enough. Sue Iremonger is the professional expert in this particular equation, and her opinion doesn’t get trounced or superseded by your own conviction to the contrary purely because you invest in it so heavily.

    There are similarities between statement #1 and the other two, certainly, but that’s because the first signature was scrawled in “conscious imitation” of the other two, according to Iremonger. Badham probably opted for the flowery “H” after realising he had neglected to obtain Hutchinson’s signature on the first page. He may have been concerned that questions would be asked by his superiors if the signature resembled his own handwriting too closely, and “embroidered” the “H” in an effort to solve the problem.

    It certainly makes more sense than Hutchinson deciding on a flowery “H” for his first signature, then abandoning the idea for no good reason with the other two. If he was nervous with his first effort, I see no reason why those nerves should have evaporated seconds later for parts two and three.

    All the best,
    Ben
    Last edited by Ben; 09-03-2018, 01:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben View Post
    Hi Jon,

    That’s true, but I haven’t seen any document examiner go on record and state that similarities are more important than differences.
    You might appreciate this is not the first time we have debated handwriting analysis on Casebook. I have provided links & quotes from analysts in the past. The argument is based on common sense.
    They acknowledge that there are too many outside influences that contribute to differences in any two signatures or handwriting styles; physical injuries, type of pen, pen pressure, stress, nerves, writing surface, etc.
    Even the same person can produce an occasional variation in parts of their writing due to outside influences.

    That said, where similarities occur, and I mean notable duplication in the direction/slant of letters, loops, connections with other letters, height, and so on, it is strong evidence that the same hand is at work.
    One or two similarities may be debatable, but the more we see (5, 7, 10?) the more likely the same source was responsible.


    I suggest (again) that you reserve judgement on Senise’s book until you’ve actually read it. That way you would know, for instance, that the proposed identification was not “the whole point of the book”.
    It is fair game to criticise whatever is quoted from his book, accepting we can trust the source of the quote. I trust you will quote Mr Senise faithfully, so to that end it is not necessary to read the whole book.
    The charge that Senise failed to make a required connection between the witness & the seaman remains true & valid.
    Unless you care to quote where he did, but I doubt you will be able to.

    If there was anything specific that convinced Abberline of Hutchinson’s truthfulness, he would certainly have mentioned it in his report.
    Not true. The viability of the witness was not in doubt.

    Think back to all the witness statements taken by police, and their stories given at the inquest.
    How many of these stories were investigated and proven true before they appeared at the inquest?
    None!

    It's the nature of police work that the statement of the witness is taken on faith unless they have reason to investigate it. This is normal so at this stage "proof" does not come into it.
    What Abberline says is that he believed Hutchinson after the interrogation.
    So, there is no point in debating what influenced him when the source is not available for us to judge.
    The opinion of an experienced interrogation officer is more reliable than the opinion of a modern-day theorist, who has no experience with investigating a witness.

    There is far more to a witness interrogation than simply asking, "are you being truthful George?"
    Reducing an interrogation to a simple question & answer exercise is what modern theorists do to try weaken the officers opinion.
    If it were that simple anyone could do it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    The "H" can be explained by Hutchinson self-consciously beginining to print his surname, then changing his mind before continuing to sign "utchinson" in his usual manner.
    And, let's not forget, this first page was almost certainly the most important piece of paper Hutchinson had ever signed up to that point in his life, and arguably the most important he'd ever have to sign. With a police sergeant figuratively looking over his shoulder as he did so, to boot. Small wonder, then, if his first attempt at a signature turned out a bit stilted.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben View Post
    It appears that while Iremonger was “definite” about the first statement signature being Badham’s
    Bad news - she was wrong about that, too. The only real difference is the flowery "H" (which is not the same as Badham's own "H"), and if Badham wanted to copy the other two signatures, why didn't he opt to use the much more straightforward "H" we see on pp 2 & 3?

    I see no reason at all to believe that Badham signed for Hutch on the first page, as - "H" apart - the bulk of the p1 signature matches closely those on subsequent pages. The "H" can be explained by Hutchinson self-consciously beginining to print his surname, then changing his mind before continuing to sign "utchinson" in his usual manner.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    Hi Jon,

    The argument remains the same Ben, the similarities are the clue.
    That’s true, but I haven’t seen any document examiner go on record and state that similarities are more important than differences.

    Jmenges posted that she was not prepared to state it as more than just her opinion
    That’s also true. It appears that while Iremonger was “definite” about the first statement signature being Badham’s, she was only prepared to state it as her professional “opinion” that the other two did not match the Toppy marriage certificate signature. The latter stance wouldn’t make any sense if she was studying the registrar’s signature, which was so different to “witness” Hutchinson’s as to render it impossible that they were written by the same hand.

    I suggest (again) that you reserve judgement on Senise’s book until you’ve actually read it. That way you would know, for instance, that the proposed identification was not “the whole point of the book”.

    If there was anything specific that convinced Abberline of Hutchinson’s truthfulness, he would certainly have mentioned it in his report.

    In the absence of any verification for Hutchinson’s various claims, Abberline can only have believed him on faith alone.

    All the best,
    Ben

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questi...g_examinations

    A couple of people here have no idea what they are talking about ..... again!

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Varqm View Post
    Nonsense.It's clear he did not even know if the woman/Kelly the witness/stranger was talking about was the same as the victim/Kelly at the time he wrote the letter, promising to check it the next day - if Abberline did not know this how confident can he be?
    How can it be nonsense?, I just wrote what Abberline himself wrote in the same report you are talking about.
    I never said anything about proof.


    ...He has yet to do a) b) c) in post #1533.The basis for his " I am of opinion his statement is true" was flimsy but it had more to do with taking action immediately,since this witness was talking straight and was able to identify the possible "suspect" as opposed to Long and Lawende,both could not,and even Schwartz.His sighting was 15 minutes, 2:00 -2:15 AM, compared to 10-30 sec from the previous witnesses.He was going to be the most significant witness.
    It is sort of implied though that the 1888 Met police did not have a "handbook",automatic procedures to do a) b) c).
    I haven't disagreed with the above, have I?
    There isn't any point in arguing what convinced Abberline when we have no record of the interrogation, which is the source of his opinion.
    That is just a basic fact.

    You seem to be saying - how could he be so sure?, because a), b), c) had not been satisfied.
    He didn't say he was "sure", he said it was his "opinion" based on what transpired at the interrogation.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X