The Statement of George Hutchinson

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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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

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]

How are we heading off into Toppy territory here? This thread is for the statement, in which currently estabished signatures of Toppy played no part. And while we're at it, I haven't yet said anything about Toppy publicly since going to Kew. I have other concerns right now, frankly.

Because, my dear Crystal, a flawed expert is a flawed expert is a flawed expert, whether they are pontificating about who wrote the three witness statement signatures or whether Toppy wrote any of them.

Until we know which expert gave us the flawed conclusion on the former, why and how they failed in their task, there's no way for the layman to identify which of you is the flawed expert, nor indeed of knowing that you aren't both flawed.

Simples - as anyone with the intelligence of a meerkat can see.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Oh, but it was your suggestion in the first place.

Hi Ben,

I think you'll find it was you who introduced the idea of 'erroneous' information being 'fed' to Sue. My hypothetical newbie, imagining what could possibly have led to Sue's certainty, involved said newbie wondering if a contemporary file note could have informed her that Badham had signed when an oversight by Hutch was discovered.

I wasn't making a case for anything of either sort. But if I have suggested, anywhere, that you should conclude that Sue was fed information beforehand, erroneous or otherwise, you will be able to quote me doing just that. Good luck.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ally]

I realize that Ben and Crystal are happy to jump on the argue endlessly with Caz train and completely overlook my very relevant and someone logical question, so I'll just repeat it:

What exactly are "Crystal's" credentials and who has verified them? There is a lot of talk of professional and expert opinion on this thread and so I want to know: who has actually determined she's an expert or professional or is any more qualified than the average joe blow?

How are we heading off into Toppy territory here? This thread is for the statement, in which currently estabished signatures of Toppy played no part. And while we're at it, I haven't yet said anything about Toppy publicly since going to Kew. I have other concerns right now, frankly.

[Ben]

"Might differ" in the sense that Iremonger's observation about the first signature "might" have been the result of being fed misinformation, rather than a representation of her personal findings, as per your suggestion. So I'm accusing nobody of lying. I'm just taking your earlier comments on board.

About as much use as a chocolate teapot - or having Ben 'supporting' your Hutch theory in your absence.

For "supporting", read flicking the occasional gnat with a spurious objection.

[Ben]

Look Ben, if you want to believe that Sue was fed erroneous information leading to one of her conclusions, that's between you and Sue.

Oh, but it was your suggestion in the first place.

Good suggestion! It might be the correct one for all we know!

That's precisely where I came in - to ask which one we should think less of, or take less seriously, in this case, and why

We're not supposed to do any of those things. Experts can be wrong without giving us cause to think "less" of them or to take them "less seriously", just as we shouldn't think any less of the various authorities on the Whitechapel Murders for arriving at errant conclusions.

[caz]

The fact that they might differ on other factors relating to the statement...

Might differ, Ben?

Which of your experts are you accusing of lying about their opposite conclusions?

Sue was definite about Badham signing page one and not Hutch.

Crystal was definite about Hutch signing page one and not Badham.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I'm glad that nothing will remove or alter the meaning of your original words.

Which is why I quoted them directly to avoid confusion. Those words said nothing whatsoever about your speculations being "wrong", and I certainly didn't "ridicule" them. You can't possibly know if your original suggestion was "wrong". It doesn't matter who made the observation anyway - it's a good suggestion that has a fair chance of being correct. Either Iremonger was supplied with an erroneous factoid prior to conducting her analysis, or she and Iremonger disagree on that point. If the latter, big whoop - experts disagree all the time. That certainly doesn't entitle us to think less of them for that reason, or dismiss them as not worth taking seriously.

That's obviously nonsense.

Look Ben, if you want to believe that Sue was fed erroneous information leading to one of her conclusions, that's between you and Sue. It's no skin off my nose.

Experts do disagree all the time. That's precisely where I came in - to ask which one we should think less of, or take less seriously, in this case, and why, if we are meant to make that assessment without using our own eyes.

Love,

Caz
X