George Hitchinson: a simple question

[Ben]

But the wiew you keep pressing, that it is in fact not only unlikely but totally impossible discolours that simple and logic wiew, since there is nothing to back it up with.

The human condition backs it up, Fisherman, as far as I'm concerned. It's not a view I keep pressing. It's a view I intended to air only once. But if you keep chiming in and telling me I'm wrong, I'll keep chirping back with an insistence that I'm not, explaining why in so doing.

I say it's impossible.

You say no it's not.

I say yes it is.

And around and around and around we will continue to go. If I honestly can't convince you, I'm quite happy to see you settle for "unlikely" instead, but to get so aburdly horn-locked in a battle of unlikely versus impossible is an extended game of silly buggers.

I know, Ben. But when Evans, Rumbelow and Sugden (and, not to forget, yours truly!) argues not only that such a conclusion canīt be reached, but also that it wóuld have been nothing much out of the ordinary

Sorry, I don't see that. I don't see any of them going on record and stating that Hutchinson told the unembellished, unblemished truth. In fact, whevever I have a Hutchinson debate, there are a negligible number of people who subscribe to that view regardless of whether or not they agree with my overall view. I don't know why you keep dredging up those three names, since they are unlikely to have any more evidence on the matter than you or I.

And which was wrong from the outset

No, it wasn't. It was correct from the outset, unless you're arguing that horseshoe tie pins and white buttons over button boots and gold chains and a light waiscoat and a dark underjacket and American cloth "tightly grasped" parcel and a red hanky and Astrakhan cuffs and a white linen (linen!) collar and a curled-up moustache, and dark eyelashes (eyelashes!) could be noticed at the same time at 10 to 15 yards (as per your suggestion) in darkness.

Enjoy your trip.

Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"But you don't think it's "likely" that Hutchinson's reported the unblemished truth, so in that sense I'm not dismissing you, am I?"

Ben, you really, really do not understand what I am talking about, do you? Of course you do not dismiss my ideas on Hutch as a whole, since they resemble yours to a very high degree.
To understand why I say that you dismiss me, you simply have to discuss the detailed evidence for itīs own merits, unblemished by the fact that it as a whole has led us both to move for a verdict of "Probably not true".

"It's stupid to have a long-winded verbose argument that debates "impossible" versus "unlikely". It's better to argue likely versus unlikely."

It is BLATANTLY obvious that you hold that wiew, Ben, since it is what you refuse to stray from. And in that respect, there is nothing to discuss; it is more unlikely than likely.
But the wiew you keep pressing, that it is in fact not only unlikely but totally impossible discolours that simple and logic wiew, since there is nothing to back it up with. And THAT is what I wonīt swallow, and what it seems I will have to spend the remainder of my quickly escaping youth to argue against.

"I'm baffled that anyone can seriously believe otherwise"

I know, Ben. But when Evans, Rumbelow and Sugden (and, not to forget, yours truly!) argues not only that such a conclusion canīt be reached, but also that it wóuld have been nothing much out of the ordinary - does that not give you a secondīs (thank you God, for hindering me from writing "fleeting" there...!) pause, Ben? You see, that is equally amazing to me.

"Yeah, than take it outside on a dark street in poor weather conditions and then you'll see how much illumination it provides"

I will spend this weekend on a small, uninhabited island in the midst of a big lake here in southern Sweden, Ben. Me and my boys will take our (British!) boat there, and we will fish for pike and pike-perch all day long. In the evening, we will out up our tent, and dig a fireplace, and then I wll use a few torches from the fire to make a smallish experiment. That is as close that I can get, I think. Iīll let you know what we come up with, although it is of course very unscientific. Should be fun, anyhow. My guess is that a number of details will be discernible even without that fire from a few yards away, but I may be wrong. Weīll see.

"It's not stupid at all.

He had more than a second in which to observe the man in darkness, but only one or two in which to notice specific items and clothing details, which was my contention from the outset."

And which was wrong from the outset. More on that later, though - Iīm off to pack. And yes, that means that you can enjoy a Fisherman-free two days. Donīt spend it all asserting people that Hutch must have been wrong...!

The best,

Fisherman

[Ben]

Once you start discussing what is LIKELY to have happened, Ben, then you will be discussing what YOU think likely, dismissing me, Stewart Evans, Philip Sugden and Don Rumbelow, motoring along with the sensitivity and sensibility of a bulldozer.

But you don't think it's "likely" that Hutchinson's reported the unblemished truth, so in that sense I'm not dismissing you, am I?

Is it that damn hard to realize that I too hold the wiew that the testimony was untrue

See?

It's stupid to have a long-winded verbose argument that debates "impossible" versus "unlikely". It's better to argue likely versus unlikely. Otherwise, you're giving yourself a headache and wasting your own time for no good reason. Yes, I absoutely and unflinchingly believe that Hutchinson's description is impossible given the circumstances he described, and I'm baffled that anyone can seriously believe otherwise. If I'm wasting my time trying to convince you of this, then you are certainly wasting yours trying to convince me of the opposite. It's an absolute irreconcilable difference, so any further blathering about it is pointless beyond belief, especially after you've made so-called "final pleas" and so on.

It's nothing to do with how observant Hutchinson was.

It's to do with what's possible and what isn't.

Light a kerosene lamp on a winters night in a dark kitchen, Ben. Then turn the light up and down, observing how much light is emitted and how much it allows for you to see.

Yeah, than take it outside on a dark street in poor weather conditions and then you'll see how much illumination it provides. Hardly anything, certainly not enough to notice a myriad of accessorial details within a second or two. And then you'll be blessed with the pleasures of enlightenment.

Actually, Ben, I was not speaking of the wealth of objects observed here. I was saying that your assertion that one second or two at the most would have been what Hutch had on his hands to make his observations is a stupid one

It's not stupid at all.

He had more than a second in which to observe the man in darkness, but only one or two in which to notice specific items and clothing details, which was my contention from the outset.

Not that I need to do, mind you, since you are making a pretty good job of it yourself...

Of kicking out bad arguments? Yes. I am.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"The two are inextricably linked, Fish, and serve to highlight the pointlessness of debating something neither of us really believe. I think it may be more worthy of our time to discuss what was likely to have happened"

Surely, Ben, you are capable of pursuing, or at least following, a theoretical discussion? The two are linked long as you allow them to, and no further. After that, you can isolate one of them, and treat it according to itīs own values and merits, without letting prejudices from other fields affect it. Once you start discussing what is LIKELY to have happened, Ben, then you will be discussing what YOU think likely, dismissing me, Stewart Evans, Philip Sugden and Don Rumbelow, motoring along with the sensitivity and sensibility of a bulldozer. Take a look a few posts back, and you will see what I am talking about.
Is it that damn hard to realize that I too hold the wiew that the testimony was untrue - but that I wonīt go as far as to say that it was impossible until someone effectively proves it, and that canīt be done, since we have no safe timelines, no certainty about Hutchsīpowers of observation and no clear picture of the conditions?

"Positing the existence of a super-bright superlamp outside the Queen's Head public house is a pretty deft thing to do"

There you go again, Ben, putting words in my mouth. I have never spoken about such a lamp, but it suits your purposes to imply it, and what the heck; who cares about objectivity and honesty anyway?
Light a kerosene lamp on a winters night in a dark kitchen, Ben. Then turn the light up and down, observing how much light is emitted and how much it allows for you to see. Youīll be amazed - and then you can return to the boards and say "Nah, I didnīt see a goddamn thing". Thus you can share the pleasures of enlightenment and not backing off a millimetre.

"it's mighty well-founded guesswork. Try it yourself, even on a nice sunny day."

Actually, Ben, I was not speaking of the wealth of objects observed here. I was saying that your assertion that one second or two at the most would have been what Hutch had on his hands to make his observations is a stupid one, since you are guessing away. Have a look in the other hand of that leish of yours, Ben - yourīe the guy holding the flying pig, not me. You are the one suggesting fixed periods of time, while I am telling you that we cannot know how long time he had.

"You are kicking nothing out of the window."

Oh, that I am, Ben. Not that I need to do, mind you, since you are making a pretty good job of it yourself...

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Billy,

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

If Hutchinson was the man seen by Sarah Lewis, then it follows that this aspect of his story was true. He was there at 2:30am, and he was preoccupied with Miller's Court. Some people have said that this corroborates Hutchinson's account, but it doesn't quite acheive that. It might establish his whereabouts at that particular time and interest in the court, but it doesn't corroborate the rest of it. The "how" and "why" he was in that spot at that time is not corroborated, and it is my view that he learned he'd been seen by Lewis and invented a story that "legitimiately" placed him there.

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Billy,

Of course. That argument has been made over and over again.

Cheers,

Mike

[Billy Bulger]

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?

[Ben]

Oh, for Gods sake, Ben!! It has NOTHING to do with believeing him or not. The whole discussion is solely relating to the question if the detailed descrition could be correct; if the circumstances MAY have allowed it - NOT if they actually did. Keep things apart!

The two are inextricably linked, Fish, and serve to highlight the pointlessness of debating something neither of us really believe. I think it may be more worthy of our time to discuss what was likely to have happened.

The hundreds of thousands of lamps on the London streets all shone with differing strength, Ben. Do YOU know what strength the particular lamp in this case had.

All slightly different, but all sharing the same capacity for emitting only a dim gas light. Positing the existence of a super-bright superlamp outside the Queen's Head public house is a pretty deft thing to do. I'm not stopping you from conducting a bit of research into light-emitting sources from the Victorian period, but at present you seem to have a rather skewed knowledge on the subject.

Sheer, blatant, useless, no-good stupidity. More guesswork

Right. Like it's "guesswork" to suggest that pigs can't fly, that hell isn't snowswept and that there isn't an alien in my attic. Maybe, but it's mighty well-founded guesswork. Try it yourself, even on a nice sunny day.

Regretfully, it is also connected to how many sacks of horse **** I have the patience to kick out of the window

You are kicking nothing out of the window. You are failing miserably in that regard, and to claim otherwise to to cloak yourself in a comfort-blanket of total delusion.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"Hutchinson describes the predicable walking, talking, press-conjured mythical image of what "Jack the Ripper" loooks like, and we believe him because he says so. Screamingly obvious common-sense should be pinging a few major warning bells way before we get onto the specifics of the description."

Oh, for Gods sake, Ben!! It has NOTHING to do with believeing him or not. The whole discussion is solely relating to the question if the detailed descrition could be correct; if the circumstances MAY have allowed it if Hutch came clean - NOT if they/he actually did. Keep things apart!

"you seem to have drastically overestimated the light-emitting potential of these dim Victorian gas lamps that were designed chiefly as beacons."

The hundreds of thousands of lamps on the London streets all shone with differing strength, Ben. Do YOU know what strength the particular lamp in this case had. No-you-donīt. But you will not admit it in a hundred years. Instead you keep claiming and guessing away with no substantiation at all, and it is NOT becoming.

"But he could only noticed specific details pertaining to accessories and clothing in one of those seconds. Two at most"

This, Ben, is stupidity. Iīm sorry, but there you are. Sheer, blatant, useless, no-good stupidity. More guesswork, just as unsubstantiable as the rest of the mess.

"I was as cool as a cucumber until you insisted upon dredging the whole thing up again."

Sorry to have ruined your day, Ben. But long as I have a case to make and feel the need to do it, I will do so. Regretfully, it is also connected to how many sacks of horse **** I have the patience to kick out of the window, and that may ultimately owe you splendid isolation here. Just donīt mistake it for being right if it happens...

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Are you, Ben, trying to intimidate me?

No, Fisherman, I'm expressing my frustration. You keep saying that you're happy to leave it there for the sake of keeping the peace, or that you're making your final plea etc etc etc, but now I realize that whenever you say those things, you don't mean it. That does become tiresome after a while. You've already told me that you think I'm wrong, and I've respectfully disagreed. I thought that succinct summary of my position as set out on post #92 might have been the cue to agree to disagree.

What I say, and what is blatantly clear, is that these authors do not consider Hutchs detailed testimony impossible. Simple (and painful, I realize that) as that, Ben!

Not the testimony as a whole.

Just the description.

Because it is. Nothing much I can do about that, just as there's nothing I can do about anyone who seriously believes otherwise, apart from scratch my head in disbelief until it bleeds.

Havenīt you noticed, Ben, that there is no corroboration of what the man said at all? But that is not the issue at hand, is it?

It really should be. Hutchinson describes the predictable walking, talking, press-conjured mythical image of what "Jack the Ripper" loooks like, complete with a tightly-clapsed parcel (for gawd's sake!) and we believe him because he says so. Screamingly obvious common-sense should be pinging a few major warning bells way before we get onto the specifics of the description.

And it means that we had a source of light where it all went down. Actually, Ben, it did not get darker when Victorian lamps were lit - it got brighter

Barely, Fisherman. Again, you seem to have drastically overestimated the light-emitting potential of these dim Victorian gas lamps that were designed chiefly as beacons. I'm not suggesting that a gas lamp didn't improve matters somewhat, but any physical particulars (i.e. specific clothing or accesory detail) could only have been distinguished as the alleged suspect passed under the lamp, and certainly not all at the same time.

And then you donīt have to wast any more time on that as the man comes closer - you can pick item by item, the smallest one when he is closest to you

No, Fisherman. You can't. The lighting and conditions didn't allow it. He couldn't have picked out specific items until the man was under the dim gas lamp. Until then, he could only notice colours and shapes; overcoat, hat, parcel, maybe a moustache, maybe a general impression of opulence. Tops.

No I did not - but it could have been a good opportunity to take in the Astrakhan trimming and the american cloth, for example.

Astrakhan trimming - quite feasible. Again, it would have stood out, but if something stands out, it would have done so at the expense of all the other "stand-out" items. He couldn't possibly have noticed and memorized a whole armoury of "stand-out" items and non-"stand out" items in that situation.

American cloth??

Noticing specific material? Dark material? In the dark? Not in a million years.

The last ten yards covered until Astrakhan man reached the lamp could have taken eight seconds and it could have taken sixteen.

Yeah. During which time he couldn't possibly have noticed accessorial particulars, but could only have acquired a heavily generalized description based on colours and shapes.

On the basis that it may have taken fifteen seconds to cover the ten yards to the lamp, and another fifteen to move away from it thus far. Like I said.

But he could only notice specific details pertaining to accessories and clothing in one of those seconds. Two at most. But as we "know" from Hutchinson's testimony, he spent that one second stooping down and looking into his face. If he was looking at Astrakhan's face as he passed under the lamp, he couldn't have noticed tie pins and white buttons and all the rest of it at the same time.

I can only recommend that you leave the thread and cool down for some time.

That's what you've been trying to get me to do from the get go. I was as cool as a cucumber until you insisted upon dredging the whole thing up again.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:
"If that is being a bit harsh,there is one poster who has volunteered to test anyone that is willing,and though his challenge is of many years standing,I know of no one who has taken it up."

Harry, ther e is no way that we can reproduce the exact conditions and timelines along which Hutchsīpurported observation was made, for the simple reason that we have no way to measure either of them. Plus, to gain any certainty of it could be done, we can not use you or me in Hutchīs role, can we. The only man to whom the evidence applies is Hutch himself, and HIS ability to take in things.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

" The patience is starting to run very thin, Fish. "

Are you, Ben, trying to intimidate me? I certainly hope not. May I remind you that these are DISCUSSION BOARDS, and NOT a place where you bully people around. I think you are wrong, and I will have my say, make no mistake about it.

And here it is:
"I don't know that any one of them has gone on record and stated that Hutchinson recorded and memorized the absolute totality of what he claimed."

And I donīt know that I have said so. What I say, and what is blatantly clear, is that these authors do not consider Hutchs detailed testimony impossible. Simple (and painful, I realize that) as that, Ben!

My wording:

"This is what Hutch said. To begin with, letīs realize that he says that he is leaning against a lamp. That means that the meeting took place at a lit up space."

Your (curious) answer:

"According to who? Only Hutchinson. No corroboration."

Havenīt you noticed, Ben, that there is no corroboration of what the man said at all? But that is not the issue at hand, is it? The issue at hand is that he states that he was standing by a lamp, and then that is what we need to work from. And it means that we had a source of light where it all went down. Actually, Ben, it did not get darker when Victorian lamps were lit - it got brighter.

"If you're standing beneath a gas lamp with the light on you, you are not going to make out spats, horseshoe tie-pins, white-buttons over button-boots, red hankies and gold chains and dark underjackets and neckties from ten to fifteen yards away."

Perhaps not, Ben. But you ARE going to be able to start your scanning of whomever you scan, meaning that you first take in that he is wearing an overcoat for example. And then you donīt have to wast any more time on that as the man comes closer - you can pick item by item, the smallest one when he is closest to you. Itīs quite simple really, if you take a look on it. But then you wonīt do that if I put a gun to your temple, will you?

"Where? When?
After he leaves the locality of your uber-powerful gas lamp. He'd notice a man in a dark overcoat and hat walking away from him, carrying a parcel. In fact, a parcel would naturally have been conspicuous given the atmosphere at that time, which meant that Hutchinson would have noticed this at the expense of noticing the other items.
Footwear? From behind? In darkness? Beneath an overcoat? Noticing white buttons over button boots? Spats? You're having a giraffe."

And you are being as dishonest as you are wrong here, Ben.
Did I say that he would have seen the buttons? The spats?
No I did not - but it could have been a good opportunity to take in the Astrakhan trimming and the american cloth, for example.
Donīt speak about having giraffes until youīve cleared out that zoo of your own, please.


"But given what Hutchinson describes of the timing and conditions available, we're crossing the bounderies of what is possible to a nauseating ridiculous degree."

Of the timing Hutch says nothing, as you well know. The last ten yards covered until Astrakhan man reached the lamp could have taken eight seconds and it could have taken sixteen. You donīt know and I donīt know. And of the conditions, Ben, he stated that it all took place by a lamp.

My words:

"But if we give Hutch half a minute, Ben?"

Your words:

"On what basis do we give him that?"

On the basis that it may have taken fifteen seconds to cover the ten yards to the lamp, and another fifteen to move away from it thus far. Like I said.

Returning, Ben, one more time to you feeling that you may be running out of patience, I can only recommend that you leave the thread and cool down for some time. I donīt know what you are up to, telling me that it I should refrain from wanting to state my mind. When, Ben, did you ever refrain from stating yours?
Once again, these are discussion boards. Live with it, mate.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

You're pathologically desperate to keep prolonging the agony, aren't you? The patience is starting to run very thin, Fish. You're full of "there I will end my plea" and "I'll end it there", but in you barge again, seemingly affronted that one of your posts was allowed to remain unassailed as the last word on the matter. Good heavens, didn't you notice the good-natured olive branch I extended when I told you that I was not attempting to "prove" Hutchinson a liar?

And I did so to show that no matter how sure you are that the description is impossible, greater authorities that you and I have reached a completely different conclusion on the matter

No, Fish, we don't know that at all.

I don't know that any one of them has gone on record and stated that Hutchinson recorded and memorized the absolute totality of what he claimed. And if they did, they're wrong, because it isn't possible. Unless the authorities in question have more evidence on this aspect of the Kelly case than we're aware of, I consider them no more authoratative on Hutchinson's evidence and the sequence of events at Miller's Court than you or I. I don't know if you're desperately hoping for one of them to come over and pat you on the back, but from where I'm sitting, I'd say it's high time to stop piddling and moaning about authorities.

This is what Hutch said. To begin with, letīs realize that he says that he is leaning against a lamp. That means that the meeting took place at a lit up space.

According to who? Only Hutchinson. No corroboration.

Honestly, if I claimed that human beings couldn't fly, you'd be just the sort to claim "Ah, but he said he had wings". Great, because he says so. Uhuh. Right. Victorian gas lamps served the purpose of beacons. They emitted a negligible degree of light which wouldn't have eluminated the tiny items Hutchinson claimed to have alleged. Unless the suspect was walking at a freakin' snail's pace, he would have passed under the lamp within a fleeting second, and that provided the piss-poor window of opportunity to try to defy all tests for photographic memory and notice and memorise a myriad of accessorial detail.

So "fleeting second" remains the most suitable terminology, thanks to the scrutiny we've applied to it.

But if we start with the couple being ten yards away, and then let them walk towards Hutch at a slow speed, such as when you are strolling along, entertaining a conversation, then the ten yards may well have taken 10-15 seconds to cover

If you're standing beneath a gas lamp with the light on you, you are not going to make out spats, horseshoe tie-pins, white-buttons over button-boots, red hankies and gold chains and dark underjackets and neckties from ten to fifteen yards away. Don't be criminally insane, Fish. You seem to have these gas lamps mapped out as some sort of powerful electric torches in your head, but the reality was very different.

Oh, and once again, we're still going with the Hutchinson saw this because Hutchinson says so vibe. Okay.

And after that, Hutch would have had the opportunity to study Astrakhan man from behind, in a situation when footwear, coat, hat and parcel still could be observed.

Where? When?

After he leaves the locality of your uber-powerful gas lamp. He'd notice a man in a dark overcoat and hat walking away from him, carrying a parcel. In fact, a parcel would naturally have been conspicuous given the atmosphere at that time, which meant that Hutchinson would have noticed this at the expense of noticing the other items.

Footwear? From behind? In darkness? Beneath an overcoat? Noticing white buttons over button boots? Spats? You're having a giraffe.

That adds another 10-15 seconds, resulting in a total of 20-30 seconds of observation underneath a lit lamp.

You are making it up as you go along. Plucking ludicrous invented figures from nowhere and hoping they carry weight. His only opportunity to notice the physical particulars of the man's appearance resided in that fleeting moment when he passed Hutchinson under a gas lamp, and that just wasn't enough time. Before then, he could only have acquired a general description. Dark overcoat, hat, parcel.

So you see, Ben, what you state is very dependant on the time and the interest on Hutchs behalf, is it not? If we were to give a very interested Hutch five minutes of concentrated observation of Astrakhan man in tolerable lighting, I think that you must admit that Hutchs detailed description would not have been strange at all.

On the contrary, it would be very strange, and testers for photographic memory wouldn't be unimpressed. But given what Hutchinson describes of the timing and conditions available, we're crossing the bounderies of what is possible to a nauseating ridiculous degree.

But if we give Hutch half a minute, Ben?

On what basis do we give him that?

We don't give him extra "observing time" if the reported conditions didn't facillitate any "observing". We're talking about specific physical particulars. A fleeting moment was all that was available to record accessorial particulars. Before then and afterwards; before the gas lamp encounter, he could only have acquired a general description based on colours and shapes.

Best regards,
Ben

[harry]

As to whether a suspect's lying,would be the deciding factor in being found guilty of a crime,and hanged,in those days it certainly would.It was the case in many a trial.Not of it's self,but allied with other evidence.That is why,in the case of Hutchinson,there was no other evidence.And there was no other evidence,because a principal officer in the investigation decided to believe Hutchinson.This question of misplaced belief happens even today.And we know it happens today because some people own up to it.
We are fortunate that we can read the witness statement of Hutchinson and make our own judgement,and we can read what Aberline reported.
The integrity and renown of a person bothers me not one bit,neither am I interested in their beliefs.I would however sing their praises,if,by demonstration,and in similar circumstances,they could duplicate what Hutchinson did.
That may be,if some reports are true,they would have to walk ten miles in either direction,and begin their demonstration at 2AM in the morning.
If that is being a bit harsh,there is one poster who has volunteered to test anyone that is willing,and though his challenge is of many years standing,I know of no one who has taken it up.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"That's the problem with deferring to external authorities to lend weight to your argument."

No, Ben, there is no such problem around, since I only used the judgements of these authorities on Hutchīs descripition in isolation. And I did so to show that no matter how sure you are that the description is impossible, greater authorities that you and I have reached a completely different conclusion on the matter. We do not have to point to any misconclusions they may have made on other issues, we can just sit back and realize that your assertion that the evidence given by Hutch never can be true, is something that is refuted by the top authorities on the Ripper case. We do not have the information needed to reach the stance you opt for, is what they say, Ben, and I agree wholeheartedly.

Let me just point out one thing that has been brought up here; your statement that Hutch could not have seen all he says he saw in a fleeting second (which is how you like to phrase it) in the dark night.

For how long did Hutch observe Astrakhan man? And in what lighting conditions?
”I stood against the lamp of the Queens Head public house and watched him. They both came past me, and the man hung down his head with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face, he looked at me stern.”
This is what Hutch said. To begin with, letīs realize that he says that he is leaning against a lamp. That means that the meeting took place at a lit up space.
To continue, we are told that he did not direct his interest to the couple, but to Astrakhan man only.
Now, what happens to that ”fleeting second” of yours when we scrutinize it? To begin with, I think we had better admit that we are talking plural here; not second, but seconds.
How many would these seconds have been? That depends on from what distance Hutch could have seen them readily enough to make out things. But if we start with the couple being ten yards away, and then let them walk towards Hutch at a slow speed, such as when you are strolling along, entertaining a conversation, then the ten yards may well have taken 10-15 seconds to cover. And after that, Hutch would have had the opportunity to study Astrakhan man from behind, in a situation when footwear, coat, hat and parcel still could be observed. That adds another 10-15 seconds, resulting in a total of 20-30 seconds of observation underneath a lit lamp. And the light from that lamp would have been reflected in the gold chain and the horse-shoe pin, making these stand out all the more.

So you see, Ben, what you state is very dependant on the time and the interest on Hutchs behalf, is it not? If we were to give a very interested Hutch five minutes of concentrated observation of Astrakhan man in tolerable lighting, I think that you must admit that Hutchs detailed description would not have been strange at all. If we only give him a ”fleeting second” in darkness, then I would say that you wiew would have been by far the most likely one, and that the description would surely border on the impossible, probably even crossing that border.

But if we give Hutch half a minute, Ben? And light, albeit not the strongest of light sources. I think, Ben, that considerations like these must have lain behind for example Stewart Evans verdict of nothing out of the ordinary judged Hutchīs veracity. And I think we must effectively stop promoting that ”fleeting second” in darkness that you speak of. It was never true.

The best!
Fisherman