The Statement of George Hutchinson

[Ben]

Not you again?

Why argue with people who are no longer capable of defending themselves? I know you have a problem with me talking to other women, but the target of your latest attack doesn't even post here anymore, so why worry? She and Iremonger disagreed on the subject of the first statement signature. Not such a big whoop there, since we know experts in any field disagree all the time. You can decide for yourself if either of the two combatants you cite is an expert or not - it doesn't bother me - but the principle remains intact irrespective of who offered the observation. Experts often disagree.

For the record, she stated that nothing should be pronounced as a certainty without good reason. She obviously felt she did have good reason in this instance, which is why she phrased her opinions as she did. Sue Iremonger obviously felt the same.

Last word on Priscilla - I mean Crystal - definitely goes to the Good Michael:

Nope, it goes to me:

Go to bed, Caz.

[caz]

She and Iremonger disagreed on the subject of the first statement signature. Not such a big whoop there, since we know experts in any field disagree all the time.

Afternoon Ben. I'd call it a whopping great 'whoop' because it demonstrates that ascertaining whose hand a signature is in and whose hand it's not in is an art, not a science, otherwise the evidence, when examined and analysed correctly, would point one way only (or be universally found inconclusive) no matter how many pairs of 'expert' eyes were on the case.

Here the layman is left to judge the individual document examiner's 'art' and to choose whose opinion we prefer to trust and why. And that's where personal bias can creep in. It's even more precarious if we don't have the full monty on how each examiner judged a particular signature, let alone if they managed to reach quite definite, yet polar opposite conclusions, as is the case with the George Hutchinson signature on page one of the very document this thread is all about.

As bb kept trying to tell everyone, it all comes down to: "We simply don't know either way" without further information to consider.

And as far as I'm concerned if that applies to any of the signatures examined it applies to all of them. It's the same 'art' being employed after all. If one gas man had left your neighbour's boiler in an unsafe condition and gassed the budgie, while another had left it safe as houses, but you had no idea which was which, would you employ either - or both - to tinker with your own faulty gas oven on the basis that the boiler job was different, not your problem anyway, and besides, gas men work differently from each other all the time? Not so much a big whoop as a big bang and no more oven chips for Ben's tummy - if he still has a tummy.

If your two expert 'gas men' are so completely divided over one of the signatures on this document, then I see it as at the very least a cause for concern over the very nature of their work and any claims made for its quality and accuracy.

That's perfectly fair comment, isn't it?

As I don't really expect you to say yes Caz, it is, I have my 'whatever' reply ready and waiting.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Afternoon, Caz.

I'd call it a whopping great 'whoop' because it demonstrates that ascertaining whose hand a signature is in and whose hand it's not in is an art, not a science

It wouldn't make any difference.

Scientists disagree very often too, and will often have radically contrasting opinions, just so with document examiners. I don't know how familiar you are with the Zodiac case, but a document examiner recently came to the rather definite conclusion that the Zodiac's handwriting matched that of "suspect" Jack Tarrance, only for another document examiner (her boss, as it turns out) to arrive at the opposite conclusion.

In neither case was much doubt professed.

One of them must be wrong, of course, but that doesn't mean that the wrong expert is somehow incompetent in general. Practitioners in any art or science can be wrong on occasions, but that doesn't remotely permit us to dismiss the expert responsible for the errant conclusion as a charlatan.

If your two expert 'gas men' are so completely divided over one of the signatures on this document, then I see it as at the very least a cause for concern over the very nature of their work and any claims made for its quality and accuracy.

That's perfectly fair comment, isn't it?

Not really, no, because according to that logic, we should dismiss any ripper expert (for example) who arrives at a wildly contrasting conclusion to another ripper expert and assume that the "very nature of their work" must be suspect for that reason. That doesn't make much sense to me. You can easily find two experts in a reputable field of study arriving at polar opposite conclusions, and it shouldn't cause us to doubt either the experts or the field of study. The idea that a given art or science is only rendered legitimate when all experts agree with eachother is quite untenable.

Best regards,
Ben

[babybird67]

As bb kept trying to tell everyone, it all comes down to: "We simply don't know either way" without further information to consider.

yes, Caz, but nobody listens to me!

[halomanuk]

Maybe they should have done Jenny and this thread wouldn't have turned into the monster it has !!

[babybird67]

tell me about it Barry!

think of all that server space freed up for rational debate!

[halomanuk]

And more room for name calling,not forgetting that fun part...