The Statement of George Hutchinson

[Crystal]

Hey, all I've done here is what I said I would. The results should speak for themselves. People believe as they will-their perogative. I had my own reasons for doing this analysis-my perogative. Seems fair to me.

[caz]

You said nothing whatsoever about your earlier suggestion, as quoted in my first paragraph, being a wrong one.

Well Ben, it was clearly implied by the fact that I made my hypothetical curious observer a newbie with no knowledge or preconceptions, who was just going by Sue's 'definite' and Crystal's advice not to take experts seriously if they use language like 'definite' and then trying to reconcile the two with your own insistence that every word from both experts is equally valid.

It's not my fault if you failed to grasp that I meant anyone better informed would not think an expert of Sue's reputation would have failed to say so, if something beyond her personal judgement had informed her conclusion.

Love,

Caz
X

[babybird67]

hmmmmm

well, i came back to read the latest developments...


This was me in post 3, after thanking Crystal for expending her own time, effort, finances, in going specially down to Kew to look at the statement, for the benefit of all with any interest:

Looking forward to ensuing discussion and hope it stays on track on the statement's physical characteristics and what these suggest rather than personals.

well, i haven't been called an eternal optimist for nothing.

Crystal, after actively inviting questions several times, then posted in post #20, the following:

Richard - yes, I do know now whether Toppy was Hutch or not. I have no doubt, because there is no doubt. The statement has been extremely forthcoming - more than I anticipated. However, it is not my task to give my view. When I publish the report, it will be in the nature of my findings. People can then make their own minds up as to whether it was Toppy, or no.

(my emphasis in the underlined bit)

I can't speak for others, but i took this to me that Crystal is quite sure now of her own opinion after having seen the documents first hand, but that she fully expected everyone else, after perhaps having the courtesy to await her detailed appraisal, to make up their own minds, having weighed up not only their own views, but also hers and those of other experts and laymen as well. As we should all acknowledge, everyone is entitled to their own opinion....me, Ben, Sam, David, Richard, Caz, and, yes, even CRYSTAL!

Being a document examiner does not preclude Crystal from being permitted to have a view of her own on the matter; indeed, her almost unique position in having been able to view the documents personally in her professional capacity perhaps entitles her more than most to be sure of what she herself thinks. To suggest that the more expertise one has in a subject, the less one is entitled to express a personal opinion, would sadly render many of the posters on these boards who have studied the Ripper case for many years and have lots of expertise to share, decidedly mute on the subject. Who does that help? I would suggest no-one.

To try to disregard or to disrespect Crystal's opinion in this matter as worthless, merely because her professional opinion was not an exact carbon copy of Sue Iremonger's opinion, is really an incredible position to assume. As i believe i stated more than once on the Hutch 1911 thread, even WITH multiple professional opinions, this subject will likely never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, precisely because document examination and handwriting comparisons are not scientifically exact. At the end of the day, as is the case with every field of research, what we think depends on individual interpretation of what is significant/insignificant; merely because converse opinions are possible does not mean ALL opinions are therefore worthless. If this is the case, we might as well all pack up and go home right now!

In the absence of my own expertise, i am always happy to be guided by others honestly offering their own expertise. (i make a point of thanking people specifically when they have enlarged my understanding in any way...i've thanked many contributors to these boards for doing so)This doesn't mean i will concur 100% with an expert opinion, merely that in engaging in the process of assessing the quality of information available to me, i will more than likely afford the opinion of someone with expertise more highly than that of someone lacking said expertise. For example, although i have the greatest respect for Richard (for example), i will likely give more weight to Crystal's view, since she has both seen the originals and has the addition of expertise to boot.

Where genuine points have been made to Crystal, such as the fingerprint perhaps belonging to someone other than Hutchinson, she has taken this on board and said that the fingerprint being by someone else is possible. She also took on board the pauses in the statement as being due to the formal process of statement taking rather than her original understanding that this was the result of hesitancy, and therefore perhaps deceit, on the part of Hutchinson himself.

She has openly invited comment and questions more than once. That certain people still feel justified in conflating character assassination with genuine critical questioning of Crystal's conclusions, which once again it must be stressed she has asked us to hold back a little until she is able to find time to write and submit her full comparison, is genuinely puzzling to me; it doesn't further anyone's knowledge; it doesn't help me decide whether Hutchinson was lying that day or of his possible motivations for deceit. All it makes me feel like is that i have rewound my life a couple of decades and found myself back in the school playground with the "us and them" gang situation that so typifies the mentally of childish conflict.

There are some really interesting things coming out from Crystal's visit to Kew; there is the fingerprint issue, which did not show up on scanned copies, and may be crucial to establishing whether Hutch the witness was right or left-handed...and if left-handed, this may allow us to strike him off the list of suspects, given that there is consensus that JtR was undoubtedly right-handed. The historian in me is hugely excited by this one detail alone...how significant could this be? It could be big. Why isnt the focus of this debate on THE FINDINGS and not the personalities, or perceived personalities? Surely i am not the only person with adrenalin pumping through my veins at this discovery and what it could mean...is everyone else just engaged in a "he said, she said" tit for tat combat? Is that really what this place is for?

May i refer members to the following which appeared in Crystal's post on this thread, #49:

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.

(my emphasis)

Agreed. Can i thank you again for this Crystal. I don't think your efforts have been duly recognised.

Now then, the prints... 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.

(again my emphasis)

Entirely reasonable...you acknowledge, Crystal, that there are other possibilities other than the one which you believe to be true.

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.

(again my emphasis)

Again, a completely reasonable view to take.

I see three possiblilities. I am incorrect, the person previously examining page 1 was incorrect, or the witness was ambidextrous.

(my emphasis)

Crystal, you have acknowledged in your postings that your professional expertise does not lead you to be infallible; it does not confer on you some godlike ability to determine facts in a field where facts are known to be elusive. This is not inconsistent with your expressed opinion that what you have seen leads you to believe with as much certainty as is possible that Hutchinson the witness was not the same person as GWTH. Just because your professional assessment of the statement needs to be circumspect, as i believe it will be, does not mean you then become disentitled to express with as much certainty as you wish your own personal opinion on the matter...as have many many others including Sam, Ben, Mike, David, Richard etc etc etc.

I'm going to stop here because i've already done an exceptionally long post, for which i apologise, but some things need to be said.

Can we PLEASE try to limit our comments to those concerning the statement itself, the methods of establishing conclusions which Crystal has used (eg angle of pen etc) which are the sorts of questions Crystal was envisaging i am sure when she invited questions and comments on her work/opinion, and dispense with the temptation to shoot down anyone as enemy if their view diverges from our own by even a nanometre!

Seeking knowledge should be a community effort...i read elsewhere on these boards that people with perhaps valuable, perhaps personal knowledge, which could have opened up other areas of debate have been scared away from the boards because of the descent of some threads into character assassination...sometimes when i read threads like these, that is sadly no surprise.

My opinion right now: we have majority professional opinion that suggests That the witness Hutchinson was not the same man signing himself GWTH in the census.

Have we reached a position of being able to state this as irrefutable fact, or even as most probably...no, i dont think we have. Have we reached the opposite position of being able to state that Hutch and Toppy were the same person...no, i dont think we have. There is one big difference...we have new information to stimulate debate and research...the fingerprint. And we have the promise of a detailed assessment from Crystal, when her busy life and personal commitments allow.

The historian in me is excited. The teacher in me is hoping she doesn't have to get her cane out and come after some of you!

remember, people, there are human beings behind these words.

[Ally]

If she is commenting on her professional expertise, then it seems only reasonable that she provide the details to it. Which is what exactly?

Other than her saying she is, failing to provide any credentials, failing to provide any facts, her "professional opinion" is not only suspect, but meaningless.

There is NO single person allowed to claim expert status and hide behind anonymity on the boards. If they are going state they are professionals, then they ought to be willing to put their professional name behind their statements, like Leander and Sue Iremonger have done and not hide behind anonymity and fake identities.

It is pure cowardice to attempt to have equal footing with professionals who put their name behind their opinions while you refuse to do so.

[babybird67]

as far as i remember Ally

Crystal said on the 1911 thread that anyone who wished to see her credentials could so so.

I know cyncism abounds in the medium of internet, but i have no reason to doubt that Crystal has the said expertise which allowed her to go to Kew and examine the documents that she has clearly examined. Why would she waste her time otherwise? And again i say i am grateful that she did do this.

i dont think it is cowardice not to shout her credentials from the rooftops; i have no doubt the accusation of arrogance may well have been flung at her if she had.

[Ally]

Well if anyone can examine her credentials, let her put them out there. I have asked 3 times now and she's refused to respond.

And frankly, so far, I have not actually seen anything that shows she's been to Kew or examined anything. I am sure she has, but with her hiding and refusing to put forth any actual facts or data, I'll believe it when I see it.

It's not the first time she's hidden behind a fake identity on the boards so until I see some actual proof, I won't be believing anything she says.

[Crystal]

Well, as I say, I have no monopoly on belief. Nor do I care so much what people think of me. I do care about knowledge and its pursuit. And I'll do that whatever. I don't say I outrank anyone else-just happens to be my job, that's all. It's what I do. Anyone else fancies a go at this-I say go for it. Knock yourselves out. If I can get copyright, I'll consider publishing the images here. Then everyone can see them. Or maybe I'll just give it up and publish elsewhere. Who knows? I have other issues right now, which, frankly, are somewhat more pressing. So either way, it'll have to wait.

[truebluedub]

I'll second Ally's request

Crystal you haven't answered Ally's question what are your credentials? Why should we accept your analysis of the documents, over anyone else's?

Chris Lowe

[Crystal]

Have I said that you should? I think I've been fair. I'm not publishing personal details on a public forum. I have my reasons, which are not connected to anyone here in any way. They're private. I have nothing to gain by doing this work. That should be quite obvious to anyone reading the hostility aimed at me. So why would I bother? Really, there's nothing nefarious going on.

[babybird67]

is there any point to her doing so?

the next comeback will most likely be "well how do we KNOW she has those qualifications? we only have her word for it".

It comes down to personal choice: nobody has to believe anything they dont want to.

Personally, i'm happy that we have something new in the Hutch arena that isn't based on supposition and guesswork: i.e., the fingerprint. I am sure it will lead to supposition and guesswork, but something important may well be forthcoming from it.

Everyone is perfectly at liberty to discount Crystal's opinion if they have any reason to doubt it. Nobody is being forced into taking it into account.

Crystal invited enquiries as to her professional expertise to be made by pm, on the Hutch 1911 thread. I am not aware that it was necessary to examine the certification held by either Iremonger or Leander before any credence was given to either of their opinions; i wonder why a special case is being made of Crystal.

[Ally]

That's because Sue Iremonger and Leander are actual names of actual people that can be verified and their credentials can be checked. And I may be wrong, but I do believe that when Fisherman or someone asked to see her credentials, she back pedaled and refused to provide them to him. So she does refuse to give people her credentials even in PM. She flat out refused to give them to Fisherman.

And with her name, and her credentials, anyone would be able to quickly verify whether they are accurate or not.

And as for why a special case is being made: Iremonger and Leander have never created a false identity and misrepresented themselves on the board for the purpose of causing havoc.

[babybird67]

Ally with respect i dont think that is fair...

many people posting to these boards do so under pseudonyms or are reluctant to give out personal details. In fact i often get told by people NOT to be so open about myself, as this is considered unwise and naive...still, i am who i am and i can't change that, i can only trust people not to abuse me because of it.

I am sure Crystal is an actual person with an actual name as well. How many people reading the Hutch thread actually checked Leander and Iremonger's credentials? None i would guess. Nobody would have harrassed either of them until they divulged them either.

Nobody is being forced into accepting or prioritising Crystal's opinion here...if you doubt, then doubt. It makes no difference to me. I dont doubt and i accept what Crystal has told me, that document examination is her professional field. I'm interested in what she has to contribute to a vibrant debate...note i havent said i take her word for Gospel and agree with her like a lapdog. But i am grateful for her insight, her contribution, her input. I'd be surprised if she bothers much anymore though...it would be much easier on her simply to share what knowledge she has with interested persons privately, if she is going to be abused every time she comes to the boards.

There was a reason for Fish being denied her details, one which i understand completely. There are other reasons which i also understand which make Crystal rather reluctant to post personal details on public boards.

And as for why a special case is being made: Iremonger and Leander have never created a false identity and misrepresented themselves on the board for the purpose of causing havoc.

i dont understand this...havoc? What havoc has been caused? Crystal has been to examine some documents and is kindly sharing that with us for the benefit of everyone. There is nothing even remotely resembling havoc that i can see. I also don't know what you mean by false identity...many members contribute here without providing their names, addresses, telephone numbers, professional qualifications, shoe size, star sign etc. I always understood it to be the circumspect thing to do to be guarded about private information on a public messageboard. I do not understand what has been misrepresented here either...unless you are calling Crystal a liar regarding her claim to be involved professionally in document examination?

You can believe that if you wish; i don't share your view.

[The Good Michael]

I decided to pay myself to look at the signatures one more time. As I've been paid, in Bushmill's 16, I am now professional. Just a sec... um, yes.
Toppy is probably George Hutchinson. I can't say with certainty, but it leans heavily in that direction. No need for Kew on this one, left or righthandedness, and unknown fingerprints notwithstanding. I'm going to send Gareth some Korean won so that he might be a professional examiner too. Remember, anyone wishing to become professional too, must go through the rigor that I just have, yet, I will have more expertise because I've done it longer. Fair is fair.

Cheers, it is finished.

Mike

[babybird67]

oh dear Mike

i was going to believe you, but you told me not to.

[The Good Michael]

i was going to believe you, but you told me not to.

Well, we needed another expert, and an unbiased one. Now I am it, or something like that.

Mike