Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

George Hutchinson Exonerated?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • George Hutchinson Exonerated?

    I saw a crime documentary last week that reminded me of the George Hutchinson controversy.

    It involved the kidnapping of Ben Ownby, a youth who was abducted in a rural area outside of St. Louis, MO.

    In the hours following Ownby’s disappearance, a teenager named Mitchell Hults came forward, claiming that he caught a glimpse of a pickup truck speeding away from the school bus stop where Ownby was last seen. He had notice this truck before there was any hint of a crime.

    The F.B.I. interviewed Hults, and the agents later admitted rolling their eyes and looking at each other in disbelief when the young man began giving his description of the speeding pickup. In their words, it was “too detailed to be true.” For one thing, Hults had no reason whatsoever to have taken any interest in the truck, yet he was not only able to give the color and 'make' of the vehicle, he was able to describe the canopy, the shape of the rust stains around the wheel wells, and even the 2” x 2” square trailer hitch on the back tailgate. The only thing he couldn’t describe was the license plate number. Some called Hults a liar; to which the young man blurted out “I’ve never told a lie in my life!!” Others dismissed him as the typical publicity-hound witness that often comes forward in many major criminal investigations.

    Despite their doubts, the police circulated Hults’ description of the pickup truck. The owner of a restaurant in St. Louis noticed the description, and thought it was very similar to a vehicle owned by one of his employees..a man who just happened to have went home sick on the day the Ownby boy went missing. Curious, the man drove out to his employees’ apartment complex, where he noticed red dust on the tires of the man’s white pickup...which meant it must have been out driving on rural roads. To make a long story short, he then contacted the police who eventually discovered the kidnapped Ownby boy alive in the suspect’s apartment, along with Shawn Hornbeck, who had been abducted four years earlier.

    Hults’ “too good to be true” description was, in reality, accurate & truthful, while the FBI agents who doubted it had to later eat their words. The city of St. Louis later rewarded Hults by buying him a new pickup of his own.

  • #2
    Hi Rjpalmer,
    interesting, but there are major differences with Hutch.
    Your witness came forward "in the following hours".
    Hutch waited 3 days.
    Hutch said he had seen the suspect again, on Sunday morning - which is more incredible even than his description of the suspect.
    Hutch (said he has) waited 45 minutes around Miller's court, but went away before the "suspect" left - though he had nowhere to go...
    And nobody saw Hutch's suspect except Hutch, though he was highly noticeable.

    Amitiés,
    David

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi RJ,

      For one thing, Hults had no reason whatsoever to have taken any interest in the truck, yet he was not only able to give the color and 'make' of the vehicle, he was able to describe the canopy, the shape of the rust stains around the wheel wells, and even the 2” x 2” square trailer hitch on the back tailgate
      That's really isn't that "detailed" a description. All he's doing is singling out the most conspicuous details of the truck. He isn't claiming to have noticed a whopping myriad of conspicuous details (eyelashed, tie-pins, white buttons over button boots) and claiming to have committed them all to memory within the space of a few seconds.

      I'd consider the Hultz description more detailed than most, and thus on a par with the description offered by Joseph Lawende, but it doesn't even encroach on the level of detail purportedly observed by Hutchinson. Lawende had no obvious reason to notice the couple either, and at the time of his sighting there was no indication that any crime was about to be perpetrated, yet he still managed to spot an array of detail that far surpassed that of Hultz.

      Here, I suggest, is a potentially more relevent comparison:

      As the group reviewed some of the files, one particular statement (Alex Milat's) was mentioned. Small told them of the depth of detail it contained and suggested that the person who gave it must possess a "photographic" memory. Basham suggested that to retain such detail could also mean that he might have been part of the events that he had recalled so well. It was an interesting theory. - From Cime Library.

      Alex Milat was Ivan Milat, the Australian backpacker-killer.

      Best regards,
      Ben
      Last edited by Ben; 10-05-2008, 08:36 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Not Similar

        It is one thing to give very general but accurate details about something, quite another to give details about something it would not be possible to see.

        For these accounts to be taken as similar, Hult’s would not only have to give the make and tread depth on each individual tyre but the contents of the glove box as well!

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi all

          Although I am not 100% on george Hutchinson I have to say that I believe RJ Palmer has a good point. I know from personal experience - I did post this on the old boards so sorry if I am repeating, however when 2 year back when me and my partner got attacked by men jumping out of a car and attacking us it was my partner's detail of the car that got the men arrested quickly and so got a conviction as they were still wearing the clothes with blood on them and weapons in the car!!!

          I personally got the colour of the car correct but not the make or model, my partner got the colour the make the model the fact that it had been lowered tinted out windows and a few other modifications - the police admitted at first they were skeptical until they saw the car on cctv and he was 100% correct.

          Now I did put forward on the old boards that cars are a hobby of my partner's is there any chance that George could have had a significant reason for taking such close attention - i.e eyeing up to rob - any ideas.

          thanks
          tj

          Ps My partner was under considerablr stress when he took these details, so I do think that it's possible to take details in likr Rj Palmer showed.
          It's not about what you know....it's about what you can find out

          Comment


          • #6
            Sorry to hear of your harrowing experience, TJ.

            I would love to concede that RJ has offered a reasonable comparison, but regrettably cannot. I don't believe that anyone has ever disputed that detailed descriptions can and do exist, but to refer to every "detailed" description as a comparable example to the alleged Hutchinson phenonemon doesn't quite bolster the latter's case. As I mentioned earlier, Joseph Lawende provided an impressive array of clothing detail from the individual he saw near Mitre Square, but it pales in comparison to the level of detail purpotedly recorded and memorized by Hutchinson in the time and conditions available.

            If a person or object has several "stand-out" details, there's nothing unusual about being able to single out one or two of these for scrutiny whilst also acquiring a general description. To that end, it would be possible, for example, to recognize a blue Vauxhall Astra (general) plus the fact that it had body-coloured bumpers and gold-coloured alloy wheels (specific). That isn't problematic at all. What's problematic is a claim to have noticed and memorized a whole armoury of mundane AND conspicious details, within a fleeting moment, pertaining to the man's upper body and lower body at the same time.

            Concentration will exhibit a preference for the most interesting thing around (which is why some of Stanislavski's early acting exercises don't work), and if he was concentrating on the minute particulars of the man's face as he passed in close proximity to a gas lamp, he couldn't also concentrate on other minute particulars elsewhere (such as chains and seals and American cloth and white buttons over button boots and horseshoe tie-pins).

            Best regards,
            Ben
            Last edited by Ben; 10-06-2008, 03:09 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Hi Ben

              Thanks for that - Just shows what happens when you give a couple of idiots a car and baseball bats!!

              My apologies if I am raking over old coals but while I have to say that your argument is very persuasive - could he not have sized him up as a robbery target and then embellished the details over the three days?

              thanks for your time
              tracy
              It's not about what you know....it's about what you can find out

              Comment


              • #8
                Hi Tracy,

                Possibly, but if Hutchinson had mugging in mind, it seems unlikely to my mind that he'd admit such an interest in expensive items to the police. I'm also rather doubtful that anyone would parade their wealth in so opulent a fashion, given both the location and the fact that the killer was known to be haunting those particular streets, especially if that person was the real killer.

                All the best!
                Ben

                Comment


                • #9
                  I guess the real difference for me is that there are fewer distracting details about vehicles...and far more generic ones. Once the make is recognised, and then the model (and, of course, it's always possible to show witnesses piccies of these), and the colour, it's usually only necessary to remember one or two other details to make a particular vehicle identifiable (eg. Cadillac Escalade, black, step comes down when door opens so must be recent model, Apple sticker on back right bumper, fluffy handcuffs dangling from rear view mirror). It's a long way from accurately describing an individual to Hutch's extent.

                  One question I have: the incongruity of a well-to-do appearance has been touched upon before...I'm wondering how rare it was for folk in the general area to be well-dressed and clearly wealthier than the majority (not because of this aspect of the case, just because I'm a lazy bum and can't seem to find it on search). Can anyone please enlighten me about this or point me in the right direction for the info? Much appreciated
                  best,

                  claire

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X