Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Crystal]

I didn't say you were calling Miss Iremonger's professionalism into doubt.

I was 'merely' defending professional expertise, which more than one poster on this thread has seen fit to dismiss and deride without, I would suggest, actually knowing what they were talking about.

Well, it makes a change for it not to be me, hey?

Enjoy your fishing. Its a nice day here, too.

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"Enjoy your fishing."

I will, Crystal - thanks!

Fisherman

[jmenges]

It’s refreshing that Iremonger said it was ‘merely’ her opinion

Hi Caz, all...

Merely was my word, not Sue Iremonger's. I wasn't directly quoting her (or anyone else) when I said "She also stated that is was merely her opinion", but rephrasing the 2nd hand information as I was explained it. I should have picked my words more carefully. Apologies.

Her comments on Badham's page one and her non-definite opinion on the marriage certificate stems from a telephone message she left with Martin Fido which he relayed to Paul Begg, and Paul Begg, in turn, gave me the info verbatim as he received it from Martin.

I didn't want to repost private emails sent to me so I wrote what is the gist of the Iremonger message.

Hope that clears things up...

JM

[Sam Flynn]

I was 'merely' defending professional expertise, which more than one poster on this thread has seen fit to dismiss and deride without, I would suggest, actually knowing what they were talking about.

With respect, Crystal, did you "know what you were talking about" when you asserted that Sue Iremonger was a "renowned expert in her field"? That's news to me. I'm sure she is more than competent, but is it not rather the case that she is "a" document examiner who, by association with a couple of Ripper investigations, is comparatively well-known to the likes of us?

And - frankly - I DO know what I'm talking about, at least as far as the psychobiology of perception is concerned. Furthermore, I have NOT dismissed OR derided professional expertise, merely pointed out that there are specific contexts in which such expertise may be relevant - a basic visual comparison task, of which we are ALL capable, not being one of them.

[Crystal]

Crystal Responds..

With respect, Crystal, did you "know what you were talking about" when you asserted that Sue Iremonger was a "renowned expert in her field"? That's news to me. I'm sure she is more than competent, but is it not rather the case that she is "a" document examiner who, by association with a couple of Ripper investigations, is comparatively well-known to the likes of us?

And - frankly - I DO know what I'm talking about, at least as far as the psychobiology of perception is concerned. Furthermore, I have NOT dismissed OR derided professional expertise, merely pointed out that there are specific contexts in which such expertise may be relevant - a basic visual comparison task, of which we are ALL capable, not being one of them.

Now then, Sam Flynn, I don't recall writing 'Sam Flynn does not know what he's talking about'. I can't seem to see that - perhaps you could point it out? Of course, if I'm going to be damned by inference, whether real or imagined, then we might all as well take off our comedy beards and go home. At least you call a spade when you see one, hey? Even when half the people you show it to say its a shovel - very commendable. You know what you think, in any case.

As for Sue Iremonger being a 'renowned expert' in her field, yes, you have me there, I was thinking of the one with a Phd in Forest Ecology. Now I find out its not the same one! Oh well, then, who cares what the other one said - she only has Bsc, anyway? Did you tear your degree up in the end, by the way? I might have done the same, if I could have found the blasted things.

Frankly, I don't personally need the endorsement of anyone else to support my view either. It would be useful to know what Sue Iremonger (the other one, not the Forest Ecology expert) had to say on the matter, since she and her ability to do a decent job has been the subject of lengthy debate on this thread, but there it ends. Her view, whether we have it or not, will not prove the case either way, because the case cannot currently be proven - neither is there currently sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion which is remotely reliable.

In short, we do not and cannot know on present evidence whether George W.T. Hutchinson was the same one whose signature appears on the witness statement of 1888.

There we are then. I have plenty of respect, Sam Flynn. I did not say you were stupid, I don't doubt your knowledge of whatever it is you know about (big words all too much for me...)and we don't know the answer. You think one thing, I think another.

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"In short, we do not and cannot know on present evidence whether George W.T. Hutchinson was the same one whose signature appears on the witness statement of 1888."

That, Crystal, boils down to a question of the juridical term "reasonable doubt", at least as far as I am concerned. And as it stands, I believe that the signatures are quite enough to allow us to deduct that the possibility that ANOTHER George Hutchinson was around at that time and place, who wrote his name in a fashion that equalled or came even closer to the ones on the police reports, is a ridiculously slender one.

You can keep telling me that it is just my own way of seeing it for a hundred years, and that wonīt change anything - I am perfectly happy to live with the fact that there are those who choose to disagree, and who would even go as far as to say that the signatures are not remotely alike. I still say that the likeness inbetween the signatures put us as as close to a definitive certainty as we could ever hope to ask for.

On the Iremonger issue, I think it is of very little interest exactly what kind of education she loads her gun with when she tells us that the signatures would not have been written by the same man. If she graduated from the worldīs finest universities or if she had to settle for a mail order degree is very much subordinate to the fact that we do not know next to nothing of her incentives, of the details involved and - once again - of which signatures she compared to each other.

One would hope that someone who attended the lecture she gave is still around on these boards and able to share at least some of the details she disclosed - if she disclosed any details at all. But not one word has so far been said along the lines "She deemed the signatures incomparable SINCE..."

Until such material surfaces, I will treat Iremongers claim as EXACTLY what it is BECAUSE we have not seen the goods we need to see - unsubstantiated. In fact, it represents all that lack of substantiation is about: a claim that is left with no support whatsoever. And such claims are utterly useless no matter what education lies behind the one who makes them.

Regards,
Fisherman

[Malcolm X]

We need one of those writing experts here...two experts would be better, or this will drag on for ages

[Crystal]

All well and good, Fisherman. Isn't the point that we've gone as far as we can go with this one? We all think what we think. None of can prove anything remotely like enough to consider the case closed because we don't have enough evidence. Anyway, I don't care who has what qualification or not - I don't even know where mine are, come to that. I'm more interested in open debate. I don't find much use or worth in an entrenched position - I think it hampers the advancement of knowledge - and before anyone shouts at me, that was a general observation!

[Crystal]

We need one of those writing experts here...two experts would be better, or this will drag on for ages

I don't think we do, Malcolm. If we had 10 or more, nobody would take any notice of what they said..

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"None of can prove anything remotely like enough to consider the case closed because we don't have enough evidence."

I am not sure, Crystal. I believe that an unbiased examination of the signatures made by a forensic handstyle expert would render a verdict of them very probably being written by the same man. And that would be good enough for me.
I donīt know if such an examination will take place, though. Until it does, we will be dead-locked, just as you say. To my mind, though, the dead-lock would not owe to lacking evidence involved in the signatures.

Best regards,
Fisherman

[Crystal]

And to my mind, Fisherman, it would. Deadlocked, as you say.

[Fisherman]

Yes.

But youīre the one using the appendix "clear as mud"...

Regards,
Fisherman

[Observer]

Forget ther signatures people, there are other ways to determine if George Hutchinson i.e. the one who gave the police statement 12th Nov 1888 was who he said he was. I know all attempts to pin him down have failed so far, but I have a feeling that he will turn up somewhere.

all the best

Observer

[Fisherman]

Thanks for that, Observer! But I think that it would be to let a good thing go to waste to forget about the signatures - and I donīt think we need to wait for something else to turn up. It already has.

The best, Observer!
Fisherman

[Crystal]

Ah yes, but I do not say I refer to myself (or indeed to any other person specifically or by inference) only that I drop in to browse the boards from time to time and that is something I routinely think.