The Statement of George Hutchinson

[halomanuk]

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

[babybird67]

tell me about it Barry!

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

[halomanuk]

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

[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!

[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

[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]

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]

Hi All,

I’ve finally caught up from where I left this discussion at page 8. Blimey!

I’m glad I missed all the serious drama queen stuff. And now it looks like the document examiner formerly known as Crystal has flounced off in a huff and left the boards for good.

Anyway, to bring the lady’s thread back on topic:

I went to Kew, quite clearly, and I saw the statement of Hutchinson, and the rest, quite clearly. And the observations I made are all sound. I would be astonished if anyone else working in the field disagreed with me.

And back in post #78, she had addressed Richard thus:

‘…yes, I do know now whether Toppy was Hutch or not. I have no doubt, because there is no doubt.’

I don’t get any of this. How could she say that she would be ‘astonished’ if anyone else working in the field disagreed with any of her observations, when she knew for a fact that Sue Iremonger did just that over witness sig 1? Crystal appears to have been as definite about this being in Hutch’s hand as Sue was about it being in Badham’s.

And why did Crystal tell everyone early on in the 1911 thread not to trust any expert who reaches a ‘definite/no doubt about it’ conclusion and then go and do the same thing herself with Toppy and Hutch?

I neither know nor care who (or what) Crystal was. I only know that she acted like a clever dick from the start, yet she usually managed to read stuff into my posts that wasn’t there. That’s either dumb or intellectually dishonest.

Talking of clever dicks, did anyone notice that when she accused those who disagreed with her of being jealous of her cleverness she said they were suffering from ‘dick’ envy. I’d be a tad worried now if I were a male poster who had lapped up Crystal’s attentions. Even I had assumed she had no balls - in any sense.

I do hope for their sakes that Richard didn’t hit the nail on the head without even realising it:

I respect everyone on Casebook , that comes across as valid, but i am nobodys fool, and i will not give out too many chances to' carrot dangling 'posters.
Regards Richard.

It was my understanding that you had received and digested the proverbial "carrot" in this case. That's all.

You sure you don't want to wash your mouth out, Ben - and then gargle with TCP?

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

Go away. Really, just go away. You are no one and you mean nothing. You are a bit of undigested pork and nothing more.

Love,

Caz
X

[DVV]

If Toppy was the witness, then his most terrible souvenir would have been Mary's corpse in the mortuary.
But apparently, he never mentioned this.
And just remembered the money he got from the police.
A bit strange, imo.

Amitiés all,
David

[Garry Wroe]

Then, with the greatest of respect, Fisherman, why not check out the manner in which Violenia was interrogated, exposed as a liar, then simply discarded by police - despite the fact that, in attempting to implicate Pizer, Violenia placed himself with Chapman shortly before her death. Perhaps this will accord you a clearer insight into the methodology employed by Abberline and his colleagues.

Regards,

Garry Wroe.

[Fisherman]

I think Sam clinched it in his earlier answer: Whatever.

Fisherman

[Ben]

As for "since it was well known that women lived in the court, it is entirely reasonable to surmise that it wouldn't have been included in the statement", I´m afraid that is a malfunctioning supposition. To begin with, how would Abberline know that the woman in question was a lodger in the court?

He wouldn't.

All he'd need to know is that a female was seen entering the court. It wouldn't have merited any significance whatsoever given that several women lived in the court, some of whom were prostitutes who kept nocturnal hours. Of course Abberline wouldn't have considered a woman a possible suspect. If that was the case, he would have grilled Lewis, Prater, Cox and Venturney as suspects, which is so obviously a nonsensical supposition.

Apart from all of this, that woman would have been a witness that Abberline wanted to lay his hands on, at the very least.

But if he'd already worked out from Hutchinson's statement that Lewis was the woman in question, he'd already managed to "lay his hands" on her well in advance of Hutchinson appearing at the inquest. It may have been on that very basis that Abberline was able to rule out some of the scenarios you posit, such as the women in question being an accomplice of the ripper, or of her being a man in disguise (!?!) She wasn't any of those things, because he knew it was Sarah Lewis. (A bit like: "We know the loitering man is not suspicious because we know it was only George Hutchinson!")

So no, even if we from the press material allow ourselves to believe that Abberline omitted to get potentially crucial details into the protocol, we certainly have no indication that he - or any other police of a righteous mind - would ommit to mention one of the very few people that could be placed on the spot on the night of the most high-profile case in the history of crime.

Then why did he "ommit to mention" the male lodger emerging from a lodging house or the policeman who passed the end of Dorset Street? Clearly he did omit aspects of Hutchinson's testimony that were not considered essential to the capture of a potential murderer, unless you mean to suggest that the press were the more indefatigable detectives who manage to extract more from Hutchinson that the hapless police?

The possibility that he saw her and mentioned her to Abberline, and that the latter simply left her out of the protocol, is not a realistic possibility for reasons given above.

No offence, but those reasons weren't very convicing, and as such, the possibility that Lewis was mentioned (albeit not by name) by Hutchinson, remains a valid one, since we know that Hutchinson other observations (and mentioned other characters) that were omitted for whatever reason.

Moreover, if Huchinson had been an imposter, supplied with the knowledge about what was said, and by whom, at the inquest; then what possible reason could he have had for leaving her out in his testimony

I've already said: If Hutchinson deliberately neglected to mention Lewis, it may have been through fear of making it too obvious that it was her sighting of him near a crime scene that had forced his hand.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"And the chances are strong that he probably did ask that question, only to be informed that the only other person at the scene was a women who strolled in sometime after 2.00am. Since the woman in question would not have been a viable suspect in Kelly's murder, and since it was well known that women lived in the court, it is entirely reasonable to surmise that it wouldn't have been included in the statement. We KNOW that other observations made by Hutchinson - including some pretty crucial ones - were not included in the body of the text, and the Lewis detail could easily have been included among them."

To begin with, Ben, the chances that Hutchinson was asked about if he saw somebody at the scene are not only "strong" - he WAS asked that, period. We need not have it on record, even, since it is the one question that would have been prioritized over all others.
The fact that he mentions the other characters around proves that he either was asked - or volunteered the information before Abberline got round to posing the question. Of this there can be no doubt whatsoever.

As for "since it was well known that women lived in the court, it is entirely reasonable to surmise that it wouldn't have been included in the statement", I´m afraid that is a malfunctioning supposition. To begin with, how would Abberline know that the woman in question was a lodger in the court? How would he be able to rule out that she was an accomplice of the Ripper? How would he be able to rule out that she was a man in disguise? How could he be sure that she played no role whatsoever in the killing?
Apart from all of this, that woman would have been a witness that Abberline wanted to lay his hands on, at the very least. So no, even if we from the press material allow ourselves to believe that Abberline omitted to get potentially crucial details into the protocol, we certainly have no indication that he - or any other police of a righteous mind - would ommit to mention one of the very few people that could be placed on the spot on the night of the most high-profile case in the history of crime. And at the time of the Kelly murder, Abberline KNEW that the case had that magnitude.
The only possible conclusions are that:
1. Hutchinson never saw the woman.
2. Hutchinson saw her - but decided not to mention her.
3. Hutchinson saw her - but forgot about it.

The possibility that he saw her and mentioned her to Abberline, and that the latter simply left her out of the protocol, is not a realistic possibility for reasons given above.
Moreover, if Huchinson had been an imposter, supplied with the knowledge about what was said, and by whom, at the inquest; then what possible reason could he have had for leaving her out in his testimony? Mentioning the woman would have clinched his story in an emphatic manner.

Fisherman

[Ben]

the obvious thing to do would be to aske Hutchinson if he saw any other PERSON at the scene, only to later add what he mentioned to the police protocol.

And the chances are strong that he probably did ask that question, only to be informed that the only other person at the scene was a women who strolled in sometime after 2.00am. Since the woman in question would not have been a viable suspect in Kelly's murder, and since it was well known that women lived in the court, it is entirely reasonable to surmise that it wouldn't have been included in the statement. We KNOW that other observations made by Hutchinson - including some pretty crucial ones - were not included in the body of the text, and the Lewis detail could easily have been included among them.

Just to be clear. I've no doubt that Abberline asked the relevant questions. I'm only pointing out that some of the answers to those questions clearly did not merit inclusion in the body of the text.

[Fisherman]

In Abberlines case, I find it hard to believe that he would have divided the population in sexes before asking about them - the obvious thing to do would be to ask Hutchinson if he saw any other PERSON at the scene, only to later add what he mentioned to the police protocol.
When we take part of the protocols attached to the other killings, females are not ruled out from them as a bi-product of the police´s decision that the killer would have been a man. Therefore, I say that at least Abberine would have asked about ALL people at the scene, dwarves, lion-tamers, blind beggars AND women included - and he would have seen to it that each and everybody witnessed about was added to the protocol. Nothing else makes sense - and sense, I believe, is what we are looking for. Some of us, at least.

Fisherman