Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - by Batman 2 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Herlock Sholmes 5 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - by Elamarna 12 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - by Sam Flynn 17 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Monty 18 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by MrBarnett 25 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - (128 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - (19 posts)
Non-Fiction: Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? - (6 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (1 posts)
Bury, W.H.: The Spooners - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Hutchinson, George

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1541  
Old 08-31-2018, 05:52 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,804
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varqm View Post
Nonsense.It's clear he did not even know if the woman/Kelly the witness/stranger was talking about was the same as the victim/Kelly at the time he wrote the letter, promising to check it the next day - if Abberline did not know this how confident can he be?
How can it be nonsense?, I just wrote what Abberline himself wrote in the same report you are talking about.
I never said anything about proof.


Quote:
...He has yet to do a) b) c) in post #1533.The basis for his " I am of opinion his statement is true" was flimsy but it had more to do with taking action immediately,since this witness was talking straight and was able to identify the possible "suspect" as opposed to Long and Lawende,both could not,and even Schwartz.His sighting was 15 minutes, 2:00 -2:15 AM, compared to 10-30 sec from the previous witnesses.He was going to be the most significant witness.
It is sort of implied though that the 1888 Met police did not have a "handbook",automatic procedures to do a) b) c).
I haven't disagreed with the above, have I?
There isn't any point in arguing what convinced Abberline when we have no record of the interrogation, which is the source of his opinion.
That is just a basic fact.

You seem to be saying - how could he be so sure?, because a), b), c) had not been satisfied.
He didn't say he was "sure", he said it was his "opinion" based on what transpired at the interrogation.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1542  
Old 08-31-2018, 05:57 PM
DJA DJA is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Some Australian Mountain Range.
Posts: 1,647
Default

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questi...examin ations

A couple of people here have no idea what they are talking about ..... again!
__________________
My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1543  
Old 09-01-2018, 01:05 AM
Ben Ben is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,843
Default

Hi Jon,

Quote:
The argument remains the same Ben, the similarities are the clue.
That’s true, but I haven’t seen any document examiner go on record and state that similarities are more important than differences.

Quote:
Jmenges posted that she was not prepared to state it as more than just her opinion
That’s also true. It appears that while Iremonger was “definite” about the first statement signature being Badham’s, she was only prepared to state it as her professional “opinion” that the other two did not match the Toppy marriage certificate signature. The latter stance wouldn’t make any sense if she was studying the registrar’s signature, which was so different to “witness” Hutchinson’s as to render it impossible that they were written by the same hand.

I suggest (again) that you reserve judgement on Senise’s book until you’ve actually read it. That way you would know, for instance, that the proposed identification was not “the whole point of the book”.

If there was anything specific that convinced Abberline of Hutchinson’s truthfulness, he would certainly have mentioned it in his report.

In the absence of any verification for Hutchinson’s various claims, Abberline can only have believed him on faith alone.

All the best,
Ben
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1544  
Old 09-01-2018, 01:34 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post
It appears that while Iremonger was “definite” about the first statement signature being Badham’s
Bad news - she was wrong about that, too. The only real difference is the flowery "H" (which is not the same as Badham's own "H"), and if Badham wanted to copy the other two signatures, why didn't he opt to use the much more straightforward "H" we see on pp 2 & 3?

I see no reason at all to believe that Badham signed for Hutch on the first page, as - "H" apart - the bulk of the p1 signature matches closely those on subsequent pages. The "H" can be explained by Hutchinson self-consciously beginining to print his surname, then changing his mind before continuing to sign "utchinson" in his usual manner.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1545  
Old 09-01-2018, 01:49 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
The "H" can be explained by Hutchinson self-consciously beginining to print his surname, then changing his mind before continuing to sign "utchinson" in his usual manner.
And, let's not forget, this first page was almost certainly the most important piece of paper Hutchinson had ever signed up to that point in his life, and arguably the most important he'd ever have to sign. With a police sergeant figuratively looking over his shoulder as he did so, to boot. Small wonder, then, if his first attempt at a signature turned out a bit stilted.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1546  
Old 09-01-2018, 06:38 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,804
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post
Hi Jon,

That’s true, but I haven’t seen any document examiner go on record and state that similarities are more important than differences.
You might appreciate this is not the first time we have debated handwriting analysis on Casebook. I have provided links & quotes from analysts in the past. The argument is based on common sense.
They acknowledge that there are too many outside influences that contribute to differences in any two signatures or handwriting styles; physical injuries, type of pen, pen pressure, stress, nerves, writing surface, etc.
Even the same person can produce an occasional variation in parts of their writing due to outside influences.

That said, where similarities occur, and I mean notable duplication in the direction/slant of letters, loops, connections with other letters, height, and so on, it is strong evidence that the same hand is at work.
One or two similarities may be debatable, but the more we see (5, 7, 10?) the more likely the same source was responsible.


Quote:
I suggest (again) that you reserve judgement on Senise’s book until you’ve actually read it. That way you would know, for instance, that the proposed identification was not “the whole point of the book”.
It is fair game to criticise whatever is quoted from his book, accepting we can trust the source of the quote. I trust you will quote Mr Senise faithfully, so to that end it is not necessary to read the whole book.
The charge that Senise failed to make a required connection between the witness & the seaman remains true & valid.
Unless you care to quote where he did, but I doubt you will be able to.

Quote:
If there was anything specific that convinced Abberline of Hutchinson’s truthfulness, he would certainly have mentioned it in his report.
Not true. The viability of the witness was not in doubt.

Think back to all the witness statements taken by police, and their stories given at the inquest.
How many of these stories were investigated and proven true before they appeared at the inquest?
None!

It's the nature of police work that the statement of the witness is taken on faith unless they have reason to investigate it. This is normal so at this stage "proof" does not come into it.
What Abberline says is that he believed Hutchinson after the interrogation.
So, there is no point in debating what influenced him when the source is not available for us to judge.
The opinion of an experienced interrogation officer is more reliable than the opinion of a modern-day theorist, who has no experience with investigating a witness.

There is far more to a witness interrogation than simply asking, "are you being truthful George?"
Reducing an interrogation to a simple question & answer exercise is what modern theorists do to try weaken the officers opinion.
If it were that simple anyone could do it.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1547  
Old 09-03-2018, 01:19 AM
Ben Ben is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,843
Default

Quote:
Bad news - she was wrong about that, too.
According to who or what? You? I’m sorry, but that just isn’t good enough. Sue Iremonger is the professional expert in this particular equation, and her opinion doesn’t get trounced or superseded by your own conviction to the contrary purely because you invest in it so heavily.

There are similarities between statement #1 and the other two, certainly, but that’s because the first signature was scrawled in “conscious imitation” of the other two, according to Iremonger. Badham probably opted for the flowery “H” after realising he had neglected to obtain Hutchinson’s signature on the first page. He may have been concerned that questions would be asked by his superiors if the signature resembled his own handwriting too closely, and “embroidered” the “H” in an effort to solve the problem.

It certainly makes more sense than Hutchinson deciding on a flowery “H” for his first signature, then abandoning the idea for no good reason with the other two. If he was nervous with his first effort, I see no reason why those nerves should have evaporated seconds later for parts two and three.

All the best,
Ben

Last edited by Ben : 09-03-2018 at 01:26 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1548  
Old 09-03-2018, 01:26 AM
Ben Ben is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,843
Default

Quote:
You might appreciate this is not the first time we have debated handwriting analysis on Casebook. I have provided links & quotes from analysts in the past.
I don’t recall ever debating handwriting analysis with you, Jon, and to be honest I’m more than a little dismayed that I’m doing so now. For all our disagreements, you were never usually one to embroil yourself in all the Toppy silliness, and I’m perplexed at your decision to step into the fray now, so late in the day.

No, I don’t recall you providing any “links” or “quotes”, and you’ve evinced neither knowledge nor interest in handwriting analysis until just now. Your original statement - that “graphologists” (sic) are all in agreement that differences in handwriting style are trivial, whereas similarities are more important - is still sorely lacking in terms of evidential support.

You’re very knowledgeable on a lot of things, Jon, but this is very obviously not your strong suit. It is Sue Iremonger’s however, and it is her informed professional opinion we must heed when contemplating the validity of Toppy as a signatory to the 1888 statement.

Quote:
I trust you will quote Mr Senise faithfully, so to that end it is not necessary to read the whole book.
You “trust” wrong.

I intend neither to do your research for you, nor do a wonderful author out of a book sale. If you’re interested in Stephen Senise’s research and conclusions, you will have to part with the necessary dosh and obtain yourself a copy. Reading time may well have to encroach on posting time in your case, but you’ll be all the richer for it.

Quote:
It's the nature of police work that the statement of the witness is taken on faith unless they have reason to investigate it
Exactly, and that is precisely what Varqm and I have been arguing, that Hutchinson’s statement was accepted on faith, not on the basis of a secretly squirrelled-away “reason”, which Abberline mysteriously withheld from his bosses. It’s not a case of a mysterious “source” for his acceptance being “unavailable to us”; we know that there can’t have been any other “source” beyond a faith-based initial impression, at that stage at least.

Quote:
The opinion of an experienced interrogation officer is more reliable than the opinion of a modern-day theorist, who has no experience with investigating a witness.
But Abberline could not possibly have “investigated” anything by the time he sent his report on Hutchinson that evening. We’ve just established and agreed on that, remember? Or have you changed your mind again and decided there must have been an aspect of Hutchinson’s account that was verified before he wrote that report, a couple of hours after meeting the man? If so, what? And why didn’t he say anything about this verified aspect in his report?

All the best,
Ben

Last edited by Ben : 09-03-2018 at 01:33 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1549  
Old 09-03-2018, 02:01 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post
According to who or what? You? I’m sorry, but that just isn’t good enough. Sue Iremonger is the professional expert in this particular equation, and her opinion doesn’t get trounced or superseded by your own conviction to the contrary purely because you invest in it so heavily.

There are similarities between statement #1 and the other two, certainly, but that’s because the first signature was scrawled in “conscious imitation” of the other two, according to Iremonger. Badham probably opted for the flowery “H” after realising he had neglected to obtain Hutchinson’s signature on the first page. He may have been concerned that questions would be asked by his superiors if the signature resembled his own handwriting too closely, and “embroidered” the “H” in an effort to solve the problem.

It certainly makes more sense than Hutchinson deciding on a flowery “H” for his first signature, then abandoning the idea for no good reason with the other two. If he was nervous with his first effort, I see no reason why those nerves should have evaporated seconds later for parts two and three.

All the best,
Ben
Why aren't I good enough? Iremonger"s attribution of the p1 signature to Badham strikes me as decidedly dodgy, and it can be readily attributed to Hutchinson for the reasons I've already given. Hell, it's not even THAT different from the pp2 & 3 signatures!
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

Last edited by Sam Flynn : 09-03-2018 at 02:03 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1550  
Old 09-03-2018, 09:15 AM
Paddy Paddy is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 786
Default

I have been searching for Hutchinson's signature for a long time and I always look for an open topped capital G (as that was consistent in all three signatures) and a looped h in the middle of Hutchinson.
I have never found one yet like that in all marriages & Banns and 1911 census. It seems that the schools or teachers taught that the Capital G was closed looped.
Pat..........
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.