the most reliable conclusion we can come up with is that when we have a George Hutchinson of whom it was said that he stated that he was the Dorset Street witness, is that this points very much in a direction AWAY from him...?
This is due to Reg's claims with regard to his father, which are both dubious and biographically at odds with what scant details can be gleaned about the witness. This, combined with what Iremonger, myself, Crystal, Bob and others believe to be a mismatch with the signatures militates very heavily against Toppy being the witness.
If you think a second-hand claim to have been the witness automatically puts him highest on the list of probable candidates, I'd have to disagree very strongly. That logic would propell Maybrick to the top of the suspects list.
I know she is. But it would seem that she may be an authority that has left us with no written or pictorial evidence.
But if she has left us without substantiation, then her assertion becomes close to useless.
We'd only need the sort of substantiation you require if any serious doubts were entertained as to what Iremonger compared, and what she concluded from that comparison. There can be no reasonable doubt that any of the parties conspired to invent the whole thing for the hell of it, just as there can be no reasonable doubt that she compared the signatures mentioned by Bob and Jonathan.
So it isn't useless at all. Pretty much everyone here would concede the overwhelming probability that Iremonger DID compare the signatures, and DID come to arrive at the opinion that they didn't match. Your demands for additional "substatiation" don't detract in the least from that overwhelming probability.
And at the end of the day, we still have not been presented with one scrap of details from the Iremonger investigation, not one picture, not one quotation - nothing.
Best regards,
Ben
Comment