The Statement of George Hutchinson

[Jon Guy]

It's something that we need to be very aware of when reading Court records and press reports, as well.

Hi Sam

Forgive me, but I don`t follow the above statement. Would you mind elaborating ?

[Sam Flynn]

Forgive me, but I don`t follow the above statement. Would you mind elaborating ?

Certainly, Jon - it's just that what might come across as smooth monologues in inquest/trial transcripts and press interviews might well have been somewhat more "stop/start" in reality. This would be especially true where non-professional witnesses (members of the public, victims' family and friends) are in the question. In some instances it seems certain that some accounts have received the "gloss" of a scribe, whether in terms of providing a precis or otherwise filling in the action for us. Note that I'm not suggesting for one moment that details were made up as a matter of course.

One thing that strikes me about otherwise faithful dramatic reconstructions of the case (documentaries and the like) is that, whereas they commendably use the transcripts verbatim, they often have the actors or voice-overs pouring forth a stream of uninterrupted speech. I doubt that this would have been the impression we'd have had if we'd been there at the time, or if the proceedings had by some miracle been recorded on wax cylinders.

[Sam Flynn]

But what if the fingerprint emanated from Badham, who certainly handled the document during and after Hutchinson's interview? A similar criterion would also apply to Abberline, of course, to say nothing of any number of pen-pushers at Commercial Street Police Station or indeed the Home Office.

... or indeed 20th Century researchers! Astute observations, Garry - particularly your closing comment:

I would point out that an implication of profound importance appears to have been overlooked. Whoever he was, the Whitechapel Murderer was, beyond any reasonable doubt, right-handed. Hence, if it can be established that Hutchinson was left-handed, there exists no realistic possibility that he could have been Jack the Ripper.

[DVV]

Right gentlemen.

Can be a Brit.
Can't be left-handed.

About fingerprints...
Well, who has sticky hands here around ?

Amitiés,
David

[babybird67]

re the finger print...

I understand Crystal is hoping to get permission to show the images of the documents she examined.

I've had a private sneaky peek (not equivalent to a sneaky peek of privates, please note!) and the fingerprint is inky...which suggests to my untrained and therefore quite fallible mind, that the print was contemporaneous with the statement, so i would rule out 20th century researchers and pen pushers at the station who handled the document after the statement had been taken.

Of course it could be possible that someone held the statement down for Hutchinson whilst he signed his name, in which case it could be Badham's fingerprint, or one of the other officers...i dont know enough about the relation of the print in regards to the person signing...eg the angle that might suggest it would be the signatory's fingerprint rather than someone else's, but if Badham was holding the paper still for Hutchinson to sign (if this helped him if he was unaccustomed to signing much?) i would imagine Badham would be standing either at the front of Hutchinson, which would mean he could have left a print from his left hand, or, if he was standing behind, maybe to the right of Hutchinson and kind of leaning over his shoulder holding down the paper, it would be a print from his right hand.

It seems from the evidence, without hearing more from Crystal, the fingerprint isn't conclusive evidence, or has not been proven to be conclusive as yet. I hope Crystal will enlighten us further on how she came to her conclusions regarding the documents, but appreciate she is very busy and this is not her priority right now.

It is still very interesting and a great new angle on the Hutchinson question!

BTW, newbie here, how do we know for certain that JtR was right-handed? Is it a question of the how the wounds were inflicted? If someone can point me to a thread/article which explains this i'd be grateful.

hope everyone is having a good day

[DVV]

Hi BB,

I've already answered this: no left-handed could be bad as Jack - except, perhaps, Ahmad bin Ibrahim. But it's something else...

Seriously, simply post-mortem evidences (including Tabram's).

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi all,

I fervently hope that we're not going to get bogged down in more suggestions that copies are as good as originals. I'd hate to have to copy and paste from the 1911 discussion where this was agonized over in painful detail. Crystal's comments have satisfactorily demonstrated, to my mind, that original documents reveal many siginificant details that aren't immediately apparent in scanned copies appearing on computer screens - pen pressure and relative size being two crucial ones.

Her discoveries increase our understanding considerably, in my view, and 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 is freshing to see that the necessity for both document examiners and original documents in recognised by most. For those who disagree, fair enough, but I'd respectfully submit that we await Crystal's recounting of her additional findings (including the Toppy-related ones), before we repeat that argument again.

Best regards,
Ben

[John Bennett]

You can't beat seeing an original...

[babybird67]

well said Ben.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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?

[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...

[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