George Hitchinson: a simple question

[Fisherman]

I hear you, Mike. And I really don´t see much of a difference in how we think. In the end, we both hold a hope to achieve as much as can be achieved from the exchange out here. Sometimes it is best done by a very gentle approach, and at other times constructive, and sometimes hard, criticizm is what does the trick. It all lies in judging the people you are posting against.
However, it stands to reason that a charitable and generous approach is always a good way to start out - long as it isn´t about blood and ponies...

The best, Mike!
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Actually, this wasn't about Ben. It was an opportunity to bring in the idea of attempting to support theories rather than shooting them down. As I said, that is much harder to do and requires creativity, or more creativity, in my mind. I think helping to remove obstacles is even more helpful than refutation sometimes, and if it can't be done, there's where an argument truly fails. I mean, of course, if it can't be done in a less than fantastical way.

There are times when the dissecting of a theory gets personal and stifles argument, and that is counter-productive to any discussion. Trying to assist on a hypothesis, but coming up completely flummoxed, shows an effort of support, I believe. You know, I'm a teacher and if I told kids their work is wrong and here's why, I would have shy students who can barely produce anything for fear of ridicule, as well-intentioned as I might be. When I approach their work (sometimes abominable, mind you) with the attitude of, "Okay, let's try wording it this way," or "What do you think about this approach?", it allows them to feel at least a modicum of usefulness. Should this site be about stroking egos? At times, yes. If the ego is out of control, there are plenty of posters ready to reel someone back.

Just my thoughts. Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to express them.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:
"Okay, but instead of always refuting, it would be nice to see people help make a scenario work. Refutation is so easy, and then it goes back and forth, back and forth. If there's a fly in the ointment, sometimes it does a world of good to pluck the fly out so the ointment is smoother."

Okay, Mike. Horses never shy away from blood.

Better?

Seriously, Mike, I don´t think we are here to pick flies out of the ointment - I think we are here to point them out.
I really think that the main use of these boards is to throw something up on the table and have it examined, the reason being that it is often hard to see where your thoughts and theories do not hold water. Being provided a critical wiew on it is what you need in such cases. When it all works the way it is supposed to do, it will spare many posters a lot of unneccessary work.
When I criticize, I do not do so to lower the hearts of the ones I post to. I do it to show factors I think should be weighed in to reach a fuller understanding of different matters. When I post ideas of my own, I do so with the hope of having it scrutinized and criticized by other posters, who have knowledge that I have not. And when I find something a good idea, I say so.
Since we are discussing this in relation to my exchange with Ben, I think it is fair to say that I at a number of times have pointed out that I think that Ben is a very good guide in this field, knowledgeable and imaginative. He knows this well, I should think. And he will in all probability realize that my opinion on the matter discussed, that of Abberlines believing in Hutch or not, is not something I hold because I have any malicious intents. I hold it because I think that the evidence points away from Bens wiew.


The best, Mike!
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

Okay, but instead of always refuting, it would be nice to see people help make a scenario work. Refutation is so easy, and then it goes back and forth, back and forth. If there's a fly in the ointment, sometimes it does a world of good to pluck the fly out so the ointment is smoother.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"You keep saying you're happy to leave it there and so on, and I sort of nod in acquiescence, but then you want to get a last pop in"

That, Ben, seems to apply to more than me.

"what you really mean is that you're only prepeared to "leave it there" on the condition that I don't respond. I think that's asking a bit much, personally."

So do I, Ben - so do I. I am just as opposed to leaving it and letting it lie in a position that does not tally with my own convictions. That´s the marvellous thing about the boards - we are all allowed to express our wiews and refute the ones of those who we think are wrong.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

One thing in favor of Hutch-as-suspect, and one against.

Against: You typically say something along the line of, "Hutchinson came forward as soon as Lewis' testimony was given, or the moment it was given."
You point to the timing as too coincidental to be coincidental. What does "as soon as" mean to you? Wasn't it several hours later that Hutchinson came forward? Wouldn't he have been more suspect had he been waiting in the hearing room and then, upon seeing Lewis go into testify, had gone to the police? Better yet, if the hearings were such public knowledge that Hutchinson could have known everything, why not, upon reviewing the day's witnesses, go forward [B]before[B] Lewis gave testimony? This statement of Hutchinson's timing indicates to me a man who, upon hearing that no one knew anything, thought he could create a believable case in order to earn a reward. Police have/had petty cash for such things, and it would make more sense because of his actual delay in coming forward, to have taken the time to embellish a story he already had, or to make up one he thought the police wanted to hear.

For Hutch (sort of): It sounds as if Abberline was so willing to have a good, solid lead, that he was ready to believe anything Hutchinson told him. It's like when clairvoyants (so they call themselves) tell people about the loved ones who have passed on. These folks want desperately to believe. They want closure, so they eat up what they are told. This state of mind seems agreeable for a killer who wants to hide his guilt as the police may have been ready for any alibi, so long as there was a good lead coming out of it.

Cheers,

Mike

[Marlowe]

"Chinese-Whispering"? I don't think so. Kennedy's parents lived next to Kelly and so she knew who Kelly was.

In fact, she said she saw Kelly (and another woman) that night with a well-dressed man -- the same man who had tried to lure her and her sister into a GATEWAY on a previous night.

Hutchinsonites need to assassinate Kennedy in order to advance their evil ONE SUSPECT ORDER agenda. But...they can't.

[jmenges]

Please point me to the evening 12 November paper in which Kennedy describes GH standing alone outside Miller's Court.

Thanks,

JM

[Ben]

Hi JM,

I'm using the literal definition. The inquest was public, making the witness evidence therein public knowledge.

The manner in which that public knowledge was distributed could range from press accouts, to personal attendance at the inquest, to observing individual witnesses enter the building, to word of mouth (which spread through the populace like wildfire as we learn from "Leather apron"). Mrs. Kennedy, who was almost certainly Chinese-Whispering Lewis' account, appeared in the evening papers of 12th November.

Regards,
Ben

[jmenges]

His coming forward and admitting to loitering near the crime scene at 2:30 the moment it became public knowledge that someone had seen a man doing precisely that is too much of a coincidence to simply brush aside as unrelated.

Public knowledge.

I assume you still are defining this as some word of mouth or gossip on the street that came to Hutch's ears? Or that he was possibly in the crowd outside the inquest etc?

Unless you have located a press report of Lewis' testimony that he could have read prior to his coming forward?



JM

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I thought we agreed to be friends? I was so looking forward to staying friends. I don't know what it is about long posts, but they tend to get me all stroppy and combative. An odd psychological quirk on my part and one which I'll have to work on, I know, but there it is. You keep saying you're happy to leave it there and so on, and I sort of nod in acquiescence, but then you want to get a last pop in.

To me, "interrogated" does not point to a hastily taken down testimony, something he did not give much thought until afterwards.

Formal police jargon, Fish, which is undertandable given that he was forwarding his report to his immediate superiors. It wasn't as if "had a cosy fireside chat wih Hutchinson" was likely to hit the right note with Swanson, Anderson, Monro and chums. He was simply conveying a favourable impression; one of thoroughness, and yet we know it can't have been exceptionally thorough because he forwarded his report a few hours after Hutchinson introduced himself to police.

Not enough time had elapsed in which to investigate the claims throroughly.

Therefore we KNOW that a questioning, thorough enough to qualify as an interrogation, took place, and that Abberline satisfied himself during this interrogation that Hutch had come clean.

Yes, he did.

But we know that wasn't to last.

So "dealing" with it becomes simplicity itself. Please don't talk to me about large gaps and bridges. If Abberline persisted in his belief that Hutchinson's account provided a vital tool by which to track down the Whitechapel murderer, then we'd have a bridge. But he didn't. So we don't. Maybe there's a huge bridge between Abberline's belief that Klosowski the Ripper embarked on an organ-collecting spree on behalf of an American doctor on the one hand, and you and I confidently dismissing it an stupendously unlikely on the other. I don't know about you, but I'd confidently stand by that dismissal rather than sticking my head in the sand like an osterich or a hobbyist and saying "but, but, but...Abberline thought so!" I'm sure you're with me on that.

One thing that we must keep in mind here is that you take your stance from Hutch´s testimony as it has been handed down to us, whereas Abberline took his after an interrogation of the man, allowing Abberline so much more information than we have

It's far more important to appreciate that Abberline would certainy have forwarded the most salient details of Hutchinson's account in his police report, rather than withholding them in negligent fashion. Whatever reasons promped Abberline to give him a temporary clean bill of health, those were the reasons to cite when penning a report on the interview to police colleagues and superiors. The details he would have forwarded would have been those that pertained specifically to the credibility of that account.

But then he would have asked about HOW Hutch was able to make such a rich observation, and how he could see the colour red in the darkness

But rather than positing the existence of imaginary "brilliant" answers to the above that magically explain away these descrepencies, and which Abberline forgot to mention, why not take the statement as it stands, accept that Abberline forwarded the relevent information and draw conclusions from there?

I will leave the subject for now, unless you direct any question to me, Ben.

So you keep saying, Fish. But what you really mean is that you're only prepeared to "leave it there" on the condition that I don't respond. I think that's asking a bit much, personally. 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

[Monty]

Ben,

Again, you use the phrases such as 'strong inferential probability'. Probablility is by no means fact. So yes, it is moot, we can only suggest what he would have done, not state with certainty.

If you believe it 'certainly is impossible' then thats your choice. All I know is that there is not enough contradicting evidence to catagorically dimiss Hutchinsons statement.

As I say, we are not going to agree on this.

Cheers

Monty

[Fisherman]

"An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true."

That, Ben, is how Abberline worded things. To me, "interrogated" does not point to a hastily taken down testimony, something he did not give much thought until afterwards. To me, the implications are that it was a very thorough questioning, perhaps even involving an interest in Hutch as a possible killer.

What I have been saying all along, Ben, and what I will stand by, is that if Abberline thought that the testimony was perhaps just a little too good to be true, then he may have had second thoughts about it.
If, on the other hand, he interrogated Hutch and found the testimony ludicrous, then he would not have been of the impression that it was true, right?
Therefore we KNOW that a questioning, thorough enough to qualify as an interrogation, took place, and that Abberline satisfied himself during this interrogation that Hutch had come clean.

That is what we´we got to deal with, and there is no way around it. The span between a green light on behalf of a thorough, experienced police officer and your red light and assertion that it was an impossibility is way too big to bridge, Ben.

One thing that we must keep in mind here is that you take your stance from Hutch´s testimony as it has been handed down to us, whereas Abberline took his after an interrogation of the man, allowing Abberline so much more information than we have. Anything could have come up during that interrogation that could well offer explanations to things we question. Abberline may well have come up with the same conclusion as you - that it was too good to be true. But then he would have asked about HOW Hutch was able to make such a rich observation, and how he could see the colour red in the darkness. Whatever was said at that interrogation, Ben, it was enough to make Abberline move for a verdict of truthfullness. Then, afterwards, we have no means to come up with a certain answer to why Hutch was dismissed - for that he was. But I think that the answer to that question lies elsewhere than in the wealth of details in his description. Since Abberlines verdict had already been passed, it is the most logical wiew.

And there I end my plea. I will leave the subject for now, unless you direct any question to me, Ben. I´m very much with Monty here - we cannot take the liberty to dismiss Hutch, just as we cannot take the liberty to state that his detailed description must have been what made him disappear from the limelight, or treat the fact that he appeared timely to save his butt as proof that he had been up to anything else than what he said himself.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

There is nothing to suggest either way so this issue is moot

I disagree.

There is something.

If we examine the timing and congruity of detail, there is a very strong inferential probability that Hutchinson only came forward when he learned of Sarah Lewis' potentially incriminating evidence. That is based on my rejection of the idea that that sequence of events was random, freak coincidence.

It certainly isnt impossible, so to state he 'couldnt' have done that is misleading.

Well, herein lies the bone of contention.

I strongly believe that it certainly is impossible.

Best regards,
Ben

[Monty]

Ben,

With all due repsect, you are missing my point.

OK, How do we know he would have attended the inquest? Well, are you certain he wouldnt? There is nothing to suggest either way so this issue is moot.

I don't assume. I examine the evidence, and where the evidence tells me an unlikely "coincidence" occured, I'm going to explore it and arrive at conclusions based on intferential probability. His coming forward and admitting to loitering near the crime scene at 2:30 the moment it became public knowledge that someone had seen a man doing precisely that is too much of a coincidence to simply brush aside as unrelated.

Bit of a contradiction there Mate, with words like 'probability' and 'unlikely' being assumptions in themselves, however Im not contesting that.

Again, to be clear, its when you take your conclusions and state Hutchinson is catagorically lying....thats when it becomes an issue.

....and he couldn't have noticed and memorized all that he alleged in the time available, not if he was a human being anyway.

It certainly isnt impossible, so to state he 'couldnt' have done that is misleading.

Obviously Im going to disagree with your views on this, and I do not see the point of continually persuing our contrasting stances. However, I do see your point and agree in essence, though you conclusions, in my humble opinion, are not proven.

Cheers

Monty