The Statement of George Hutchinson

[The Good Michael]

Caz,

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

Mike

[caz]

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

[Ally]

Here's a question, just out of curiosity, what precisely are "Crystal's" credentials and who has verified them?

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.

[Ben]

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

[DVV]

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

[Sam Flynn]

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 no

I 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]

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

[Ben]

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...

[Sam Flynn]

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?

[DVV]

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]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[babybird67]

well said Ben.

[John Bennett]

You can't beat seeing an original...