Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Statement of George Hutchinson

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Ben View Post
    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.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
      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

      Comment


      • #48
        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

        Comment


        • #49
          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.

          Comment


          • #50
            Here's a question, just out of curiosity, what precisely are "Crystal's" credentials and who has verified them?

            Let all Oz be agreed;
            I'm Wicked through and through.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Ben View Post
              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:

              Originally posted by Crystal View Post
              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
              Last edited by caz; 05-19-2009, 01:11 PM.
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • #52
                Caz,

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

                Mike
                huh?

                Comment


                • #53
                  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 factor.
                  Last edited by caz; 05-19-2009, 01:33 PM.
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • #54
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      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

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Ben View Post
                        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.

                        Originally posted by Ben View Post
                        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.

                        Originally posted by Ben View Post
                        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.

                        Originally posted by Ben View Post
                        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?
                        Last edited by caz; 05-19-2009, 05:44 PM.
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Crystal View Post
                          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'.

                          Originally posted by Ben View Post
                          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
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • #58
                            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!

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              From 1911...

                              #1493 April 25

                              Originally posted by Crystal View Post
                              I also thought I might take a look at the Lusk letter, while I'm at it - if I have time.
                              #1565 April 27

                              Originally posted by Crystal View Post
                              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?

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

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • #60
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X