George Hitchinson: a simple question

[Monty]

Its not the mans memory thats questionable, its his recall of the said memory.

The brain takes a bucketload of info in but most of us cannot recall that info unless there is something significant about that particular memory. And in Hutchinsons case there was. As someone who has conducted obs, I can identfy with that.

Monty

[Ben]

The brain takes a bucketload of info in but most of us cannot recall that info unless there is something significant about that particular memory

Something significant, Monty, yes.

Not an enitre wealth of "significant somethings" noticed and committed to memory all at once within a tiny space of time and in dark conditions.

Regards,
Ben

[Monty]

Ben,

Why not?

Monty

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

Because it's beyond the capacity of the human eye and brain. Even scientific tests for so-called "photographic memory" don't involve anything encroaching upon the level of detail purportedly noticed and memorized by Hutchinson in those circumstances. I provided a URL to an interesting article a while back that detailed this subject in an earlier thread. I'll have to re-locate it.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Tom/Roy,

Your best bet in getting a copy of Bob Hinton's book is www.abe.com. I'm sure you could get a copy at a comparatively decent price there.

While he's waiting for Bob's splendid book, Roy might like to read the e-text version of Garry Wroe's excellent "hutchdunnit", Person or Persons Unknown, by clicking on
this link.

[Mitch Rowe]

Ben is right as far as I know. From what I know the brain is mostly interested in surviving at first. It quickly grabs only enough info to ensure that situation for the present. It will then go back and fill in the details if time permits. But that still doesnt mean that if you feel comfortable walking to work every day that the brain is going to memorize every licence plate you see. Thats too much info and a waste of energy wich could be used to jump away from a moving car.

[Monty]

Ben,

This is old ground we are treading over. Its not the memorising I am talking about, its the recall.

Your arguement is based on Hutchinsons statement and the assumption of the conditions he experienced, plus an article supporting your opinion from the internet. Hutchinson is an individual, not a stat.
Regards

Monty

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

Hutchinson is an individual, not a stat.

Indeed, and as such he'd utterly defy all stats if he was not only truthful but correct in what he saw. He'd be an incredibly unique specimen indeed. Personally, I have an easier time believing he lied to save his bacon and conjured up the most convenient "distraction" he could think of: a sinister Jewish toff with a knife-shaped black parcel.

Nothing statistic-defying about basic lies.

Best regards,
Ben

[Mitch Rowe]

Its not the memorising I am talking about, its the recall.

And as far as I know the brain would not have recorded such details in the first place. What the brain will do then is fill in the next logical "block" of information to fill in the missing pieces.

Heres an example:
A man looks at another mans coat and notices 6 brass buttons. there are scratches on some but not on others. The brain doesnt memorize every scratch on every button. When asked to recall the brain may think it has seen a certain scratch on a certain button because it has only taken in some of the scratches on some of the buttons. It just makes up something from the pieces and believes thats the case. This works great for survival. Not so great for other activities.

[Ben]

Thanks for that, Mitch.

A good example of what I'm getting at.

[Monty]

Ben,

Cite the evidence that proves Hutchinson was lying or erronous about the description. As I say, his man wasnt the norm, he stood out.

Mitch,

Encoding, storage, recall. The brain takes in a hell of alot. However the storage and recall defines the memory. Somewhere, in there, are scratches, and some have stored them and can recall them.

[Ben]

Cite the evidence that proves Hutchinson was lying or erronous about the description.

With respect, Monty, that's like asking me to cite the evidence that proves there isn't an alien secretly basking in my basement. Pure proof exists only in science and mathematics, and Hutchinson's claims go beyond the capability of normal human beings. Tests for "photographic memory" involve someone studying something for a period of time in good lighting conditions at close quarters, and even then it's supposedly a big wow if they can recall more than a few details. That pales into insignificance alongside Hutchinson's alleged sighting.

If his man stood out, he'd be able to reel off a very generalised description and perhaps pick off one or two significant features; the Astrakhan cuffs and and the spats perhaps. Not dark eyelashes, gold chains, dark eyes and eyelashes, horseshoe tie-pins, white buttons over button boots, a hat turned down in the middle, white collar and tie, a dark under-jacket, waiscoat, red hanky, tightly-clasped parcel, pale complexion, turned-up moustache and so on and so forth.

He's claiming to have memorized all that within a fleeting second in Victorian November darkness, despite the fact that he couldn't possibly even have noticed most of those tiny accessorial details. Honestly, it veers over the boundry-line of what is possible by many long sea miles.

Even setting aside the common-sense deduction that we're dealing with an absurdly unsubtle bogeyman/pantomime villain suspect, I would respectfully, and without antagonism, submit that we're dealing with a "no-brainer" here.

Best regards,
Ben

[Monty]

So basically Ben, you cant. You merely suggest it.

Are you stating the sighting never happend or that the recall of it is erronous?

Monty

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

If you honestly wish to believe that Hutchinson faithfully recorded and memorized (!) all that he did in that time and those conditions despite all I've said, I'm not stopping you. I am a little astonished, though.

Are you stating the sighting never happend or that the recall of it is erronous?

I'm of the opinion that Hutchinson realised he'd been seen by another witness and wanted to validate his presence near the crime scene to pre-empt any future suspicion. To do that, he needed to convey the impression that his presense there was engendered by happenstance rather than deliberate intention, and for that he needed a substitute "suspicious" character. "I wouldn't have been there at all if it wasn't for the scary man". Enter the all-too-predictable Penny Dreadful music hall Jewish villian with a gold chain and a surly countenance. It validates the "loiterer's" presence near a crime scene AND deflects suspicion in a convenient direction.

So no, I don't believe the sighting ever happened.

I could be wrong in that interpretation. I sincerely don't believe I am. But it's infinitely preferable to the notion of a superhuman witness observing the walking, talking embodiment of the mythical, iconic Jack; wealthy, Jewish and scary-looking.

Best regards,
Ben

[Monty]

Hey Ben,

Unless I see evidence contradicting his ID then I have no option to take on board his description of that man, I cannot dismiss it out of hand.

To do that is, in my opinion, judgemental and leads one to assume that all the facts of that particular sighting (Conditions, Hutchinson as a person etc) are known. This is completely wrong as all the facts regarding this event are not known and, until they are, Im the one who is astonished that his statement is dismissed without evidence to prove it.

However to question his statement is extremely valid, to remove based on conjecture and assumption is unjustified without supporting fact.

Cheers

Monty