George Hitchinson: a simple question

[harry]

Mike,
It wasn't that I made mistakes.It's a case of I just couldn't remember.
Whether the police fabricated evidence or put leading questions,or suggested answers,the undeniable fact is Hutchinson signed to the effect,therefore he would have been signing to something he knew to be untrue.Still makes him a liar.

[The Good Michael]

Richard,

For possibility C, I assume that you are referring to the police leading the witness, yes? I think that is something they might do, and not consciously, but based upon their own beliefs.

Cheers,

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The argument that Hutchinson could not have seen such a man like Astracan seems to go on for ever.
We are a bunch of clever clogs are we not?
Why is it not simply a case of a young man aged 22 years reporting a sighting[ albeit a few days after the event] out of compassion /public duty? nothing more sinister then that.
Yes the description is fully detailed, but explanations are abundant.
a] Hutchinson simply had a eye for detail.
b] We are reading to much into the lighting issue, it should be remembered that ones sight during that period was accustomed to the dim, as it was all that was present, and people would have described peoples attire as their eyes interpreted them, rightly or wrongly[ with modern days knowledge]
c]The police with Hutchinsons help fabricated the description..
Reasons.
To keep the real description of the possible killer to themselves.
To give the killer a false sense of secruity.
I believe Hutchinson was a genuine man therefore sections A/B are the most likely.
Regards Richard.

[joelhall]

Hi Mitch,



I'm not sure why you'd doubt that so strongly, given the examples of serial killers who have done precisely that. They didn't need to have been strong police suspects before they communicated with the police either.

lack of evidence is the main reason. other killers may have, though this shows us nothing as serial killings & gruesome murders are all different. many serial killers who are known to police beforehand become that by accident.

some killers of prostitutes rape their victims too. theres no evidence that this happened in these murders, and suggesting otherwise because someone else, decades later, did does not constitute supporting evidence.

[The Good Michael]

Harry,

So, after 5 minutes of distraction, you made mistakes, yes? So did Hutchinson. It's possible he was asked questions that led him to some of the answers because they were no longer in his memory.

Cheers,

Mike

[harry]

Of course an exact duplication of an event cannot be reproduced in all cases,but a similar situation is not hard to create.Why do I believe,as others do,that it would have been improbable for Hutchinson to have seen all he said he saw,well the following might help.
I have taken memory tests.The first one was with a group of assorted persons,some 30 in all.12 small everyday items were placed in a small area on a table.We were given two(2) minutes to study them.Then our minds were distracted for about 5 minutes,and thenwe were asked to wtite down the articles.Did anyone get all 12 correct.No! 11 or ten,no.Eight was the best,with most only half right,and that only as to what the object was,not it's colouring or size,or position.
Contrast that with Hutchinson.It was seconds only sighting,in poor light,and three days later remembering,during which the distractions would have been many.and this is the important part.We knew we would have to remember,would Hutch?
I do not ask you to believe me,so try it youselves,with family or friends,or better still organise a test at the next conference.

[Mitch Rowe]

Its not really strongly Ben. Just a hunch. I know others have communicated. I just dont think Jack did.

[Ben]

Hi Mitch,

I doubt if the Ripper ever communicated to Police. At least not voluntarily.

I'm not sure why you'd doubt that so strongly, given the examples of serial killers who have done precisely that. They didn't need to have been strong police suspects before they communicated with the police either.

[Mitch Rowe]

Its not like Hutchinson was a prior Suspect who than gave a whacky Statement. I doubt if the Ripper ever communicated to Police. At least not voluntarily. Unless something comes forward that Police had more on Druitt. Like a confession or something Ill probably never accuse anyone.

And there couldnt have been a confession unless Abberline lied. I dont think Ill ever disbelieve Abberline.

[Ben]

He was cleared in their minds. He can still be a Suspect. But I dont think he was JTR

Somebody has to be, Mitch. It may not have been the man who signed that witness statement, but he's one of the more legitimately suspicious characters to have emerged from this case. A lot of people favour an "unknown local", and here we have an "unknown local" who admitted to loitering outside the Kelly crime scene with no good reason for being there, right after another witness had come forward and told the inquest that she'd seen someone loitering outside the Kelly crime scene.

If Hutchinson was suspected because of this, the only option the police had at their disposal was to keep him under discreet surveillance. They couldn't "clear" him given his perfect "alibi" (snort!) for the night in question, but as with the Ridgway case, they may have released him through lack of concrete evidence. Unfortunately, there isn't always an easy formula for determining guilt or innocence.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Pretty impressive, eh?

No, Caz.

Not at all.

Bog-standard, if anything. A jumper with some paint on it - easy. She was picking out the most significant figure of the man and the most significant feature about the truck in good timing and presumably good lighting conditions, and here's the crucial element that seperates her account from that of Hutchinson - she was the victim of the attack, not an alleged "interested party".

In the absence of a captured suspect, we have no idea of the extent to which her description reflected an accurate sighting. You say you read this in the paper. I wonder if the detail compares in any shape or form with the following, that was allened to have taken place at 2:30am in darkness and foul weather conditions for what could only have been a fleeting moment:

5"6' in height.
34 or 35 years of age.
Dark complexion.
Dark, heavy moustache turned up at the ends.
Long dark coat trimmed with Astrakhan
Dark felt hat turned down in the middle.
White linen collar
Black necktie
Horseshoe tie-pin
Dark spats
Light buttons over button boots
Waistcoat
Massive gold chain
Watch with big seal.
Red stone hanging from seal.
Bushy eyebrows
No side whiskers.
Cleanshaven chin.
Appearance of a foreigner
Small parcel about 8 inches long (woah, knife-shaped everyone!)
Covered in dark American cloth.
A pair of brown kid gloves.
Walked softly.
Red handkerchief.

All noticed, committed to memory, and regurgitated upon request in pretty much the same order, and all coincdentally describing everyone's favourite iconic "Jack the Ripper" laid on with a massive trowel.

Because he says he did.

Righty-ho.

[Mitch Rowe]

Why "cleared", Mitch? On what basis?

They may have suspected him, and released him through lack of concrete evidence, but "cleared"? No. Gary Ridgeway was interrogated as a suspect and released. He turned out to be the killer.

Relax Ben,
He was cleared in their minds. He can still be a Suspect. But I dont think he was JTR. There was just too much hoopla going on about these Cases.
The chances that JTRs name has even been mentioned are slim.

Just remember something when comparing Cases. Each is unique in its own right. What happened to Ridgeway doesnt make it a Law.

The FBI Profile could be totally right or totally wrong. Its probably more right than wrong but we dont know until Physical Evidence presents itself.

[caz]

I have - with no useful result - spent some time at the computer, looking for cases where memory-strong witnesses have reached heights similar to that of Hutchinson. If anybody sits on such material, it would be nice to see it. I´m sure that there are interesting comparisons out there, but they seem hard to find.
My own stance on Hutchinsons accomplishments in the field is that I will not call it impossible. Remarkable, certainly, and therefore also to an undeterminable degree improbable. But not impossible. This is also recognized by an authority like Stewart Evans in his and Don Rumbelow´s "Scotland Yard investigates", where the point is pressed that Astrakhan man will have been such a strange creature that this alone lent itself to an at least partial explanation to Hutch´s observations.

Now, is there anybody out there who can supply us with reports on testimonies that allow us to extend Hutch the benefit of a doubt in a more tangible manner?

The best, all!
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

You wrote this on September 17th (two days ago) and I have been keeping a little something back for just this eventuality. I have no idea what propelled Hutch forward to tell his tale, or how much of it, if any, was true. But the following may be of interest:

In our local paper, on August 13th this year, was an e-fit image of a man who allegedly attempted to abduct a girl aged 13 as she waited for a bus one morning in July. The victim worked with the Met’s Facial Imaging Team to compile the e-fit and also provided ‘a very detailed description’ of the man and the incident.

I have read nothing since about the case so I don’t know if any progress has been made, or if the police have learned anything that supports or throws doubt on her account. But they were certainly taking it ‘extremely seriously’ at the time and were ‘sure’ that someone would recognise the man from her description in combination with the e-fit.

Now cop the following detail:

First the girl noticed ‘a small white pick-up truck coming from the Overbury Crescent direction’ at about 8.40am, which pulled up by her bus stop. Then the driver jumped out and grabbed her, attempting to pull her into the truck. She screamed and he drove off ‘in the direction of King Henry’s Drive’.

She described the man as: ‘aged in his late 20s to early 30s’; white with ‘very pale skin’; ‘5ft 10ins or 5ft 11ins tall, very skinny, clean-shaven with dark eyes’. He also had ‘a bruise or a scratch on his cheek’.

He was wearing: ‘a black soft fabric round neck jumper with long sleeves. It had a blob of white paint on the front’. He also wore ‘black trousers, possibly tracksuit bottoms, with white paint on them, and black boots with one white lace and one black lace’.

The truck was: ‘small, white, with no lettering on the side and with green bars coming from the rear. It had tools in the back and black seats with a white zigzag pattern.’

Pretty impressive, eh? I know this allegedly happened in broad daylight, but that makes it more likely that it would have been all over in a flash because the man couldn’t afford to hang around when the girl screamed. It’s a built-up area and people would have been travelling to work or school at the time.

For the record, I never said that it was it was his suspect description that lost him police faith ultimately, and I've never claimed to be in any posession of any "proof" that Hutchinson the killer came forward out of elf-preservation.

Regards,
Ben

Hutch was Jack the Ripper and an elf??

Ok, Ben. You’ve gone too far now. You are obviously away with the fairies.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

They must have treated him as a suspect and he was cleared.

Why "cleared", Mitch? On what basis?

They may have suspected him, and released him through lack of concrete evidence, but "cleared"? No. Gary Ridgeway was interrogated as a suspect and released. He turned out to be the killer.

[Mitch Rowe]

To all,

Could'nt an argument be made that Hutchinson's story is, for the most part, true but embelished in parts?

Ben,
Do you consider Hutchinson dubious purely because of his statement and feel he had an alterior motive for his story?

It could be true but embellished in many parts. We dont know the Man. And there seems to be a small problem with the Witnesses of that time. They all seem to fudge the truth to help them or some-one else. To them its harmless and they have no evil intent. But it is harmful as it is always better to tell the whole and complete truth.

I dont consider any ulterior motive. I look at whats been written on the paper. If Hutchinson described what was put on the paper then his story is suspect. Any Homicide Detective and/or any experienced Policeman would read it and laugh. There would be no arguments in the Department. That guy is going to take a lie detector test or he is going to be the top suspect.

But I dont think he was JTR. Im sure he was checked out on the off chance that he was. I dont know why some People think the Police were so incompetant back then. They worked the Streets. They took Witness Statements. They knew Hutchinsons Statement was not normal and should be ignored. They must have treated him as a Suspect and he was cleared.