The Statement of George Hutchinson

[Ben]

Hi Bob,

The claim being made (by one or two) is that the statement signatures match that of George William Topping Hutchinson (the chap referred to with regularity by Richard Nunweek). Your book contained the interesting detail that Sue Iremonger compared the signatures, and came to the conclusion that they did not match. Since then, another document examiner has compared the signatures and has apparently arrived at the same conclusion. The fact that they might differ on other factors relating to the statement fails to nullify the fact that they do agree on the GWTH issue.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Bob,

I'm not sure it's 'supposed to be the same'.

It's just that we have two expert document examiners telling us what's what, but they can't even agree on who signed page one of Hutchinson's damned witness statement.

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

Lots of love,

Caz
XXX

[Ben]

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.

[Bob Hinton]

Help!!

Due to my well known interest in Hutchinson I should be bang up to date on all these threads, but because of other things I am not.

I understand that a signature in the 1911 is supposed to be the same as the famous statement implying that the person in the 1911 is GH. Do I have the essence of the problem?

If this is so could someone be so kind as to post both signatures so I could compare them?

[caz]

Your arguments are weak, and your reasoning is flawed. Have a think and see if you can work it out.

Nope, I can't work that one out, Crystal, unless you are pulling our collective legs and you didn't really come to the opposite conclusion that Sue did about who signed page one.

Failing that, what argument and reasoning would you employ then, to reconcile the different conclusions and trust them both to be reliable?

I obviously need expert advice on this one.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

The above advice you gave Fisherman over on 1911 was a wee bit rich, if you don't mind the observation.

She might not.

But I do.

Because it's obviously nonsense.

The people most qualified to determine whether not or Toppy was Hutch are the experts in the field of document examination, and of that number, the most qualified are those who took the trouble to examine the original documents. Since Crystal meets both criteria, I think it more than stands to reason that if anyone is in a position to claim that "Toppy was/wasn't Hutch", it's Crystal and not a layman posting on a message board.

Or you can doubt Crystal

And we can all care.

Or not.

[caz]

Hi Ben,

Paint away all you like but it won't remove or alter the meaning of my original words. Odd that you ridiculed my 'suggestion' when I first made it and you mistook it for a serious possibility. Now you see it as one yourself, when I never did.

What hasn't 'worked'? I have to be more in Sue's camp than Crystal's until I learn more, because I've been told by you that I must pay attention to what the first renowned expert in the field said. If you now want me to change horses I need a bit more than a different opinion from someone calling herself Crystal, whose real name I don't even know!

Obviously I cannot express certainty in the absence of two or more experts who conclude the same things about the same set of signatures. I just wonder how you are going to assess Crystal's assessment of Sue's sig one conclusion as the expert equivalent of "patent bollocks".

Should be fascinating.

Love,

Caz
X

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.

[caz]

From 1911...

#1493 April 25

I also thought I might take a look at the Lusk letter, while I'm at it - if I have time.

#1565 April 27

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

[Ben]

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!

[caz]

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'.

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

[caz]

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Ben]

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

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.

[caz]

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.