George Hitchinson: a simple question

[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]

I hear you, Mike. And I really donīt 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 isnīt about blood and ponies...

The best, Mike!
Fisherman

[harry]

I believe there is no chance of coming to any amicable agreement on anything,unless there is a willingness to set limits.For instance we hear time and time again the challenge that this or that has not been proven,that it is possible that this or that happened.If you want to take proven and possible to the absolute limit,then there never will be agreement.
But is it neccessary to do that.'Beyond reasonable doubt' is as good a benchmark as any,it allows a judge or jury to reach a decision in cases where absolute is unobtainable.Many of the notable murder cases were decided on what was believed to have happened,and not on what was possible to prove absolutely.Circumstancial evidence,medical evidence,expert opinion.All are open to challenge as to being absolute proof,but decisions are based on their offering.
So to Hutchinson.I believe Ben has,'Beyond reasonable doubt',established Hutchinson as having lied.It does not prove Hutchinson as being the killer,but it places a liar at the scene of a crime,and it places him there to the exclusion of all others.
Persons have been hanged for less.

[Monty]

Harry,

Beyond reasonable doubt is one thing, however Ben has not 'proven' for certain Hutchinson to be a liar.

So no, a liar has not been placed at the seen of the crime. Only a likely one.


Yes, Im being pedantic but such allegations are the thin end of the wedge. Next thing we will have is that Jack was left handed and Ward was a Ripper victim.

Regards

Monty

[Fisherman]

Hi Harry!

I agree with you that a verdict of "beyond reasonable doubt" is sometimes useful. The trouble at hand, though, is that we have differing opinions on whether Ben has reached that stage, asserting us that Hutch was a liar.

You think so. I - and Monty - think not. And although the two of us may not impress you all that much, I have also pointed out that Stewart Evans, recognized by most of us out here as one of the top authorities on the subject of Jack the Ripper, makes a very good case for Hutch NOT necessarily being a liar in his latest book.
What you must ask yourself, Harry, is "Could Hutch have come clean?"
If you answer that with a "no", you must move on to "WHY could he not have come clean?". That will probably lead you to the suggestion that nobody can register as many details as Hutch did in that bad light and using that little time.
But that is NOT enough, Harry! After that, the questions "How much do I know about the lighting conditions on the occasion?", "How long time did Hutch really have on his hands?", "How do other witness reports, taken down after roughly similar occurences in roughly similar conditions, compare to Hutchīs achievments?", "How much of Hutchīs evidence, given at Abberlines interrogation, eludes us, and in what way can it cast a different light on things?" and a number of other questions, must be asked. And not only asked, they must be answered in such a conclusive and evidence-supported way, so as to sweep away all possibilities that Hutch was not lying.
What you are saying here, Harry, is that if lying in the matter had been a capital offence, earning the perpetrator a death sentence, the material presented would have been quite enough to let George Hutchinson swing.
And if that is cool with you, itīs your own decision. To me, it would be intellectually corrupt and a major miscarriage of justice.

The best, Harry!
Fisherman

[Ben]

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

Please read what I said, JM.

It is obvious that Mrs. Kennedy was chinese-whispering Mrs. Kennedy's account, which appeared in the evening papers - I believe - of 12th November. If it was apparent that Mrs. Kennedy was parrotting Sarah Lewis, or at the very least another witness, it must have been obvious that Sarah Lewis was discussing her witness account. That, to me, is interesting, although personally I don't believe Hutchinson gained his information from any press article. In the East End, the press very reguarly reported on gossip, rumour, or second/third-hand hearsay. For that to happen, the rumous must necessarily have predated the press disclosures about those rumours.

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.

Marlowe, what the hell are you talking about, mate? Thanks in advance.

Hi Mike!

You point to the timing as too coincidental to be coincidental. What does "as soon as" mean to you?

Precisely the amount of time to have learned of Lewis' inquest evidence, conjured up his self-legitimizing reason for being there and created a description. Obviously, he couldn't have walked straight from hearing the evidence to the commercial street police station without giving any thought to the content of his "I was there because.." excuse. In fact, his appearence at the latter location - which I believe was 6pm - was nigh-on perfect for someone who had learned of the evidence, considered the implications and planned his move accordingly.

If he arrived before the inquest, as Mrs. Kennedy did, with a hastily contrived piece of nonsense, cherry-picked from elsewhere, there'd be a stronger argument for his motivations being of a pecuniary nature.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

But that is NOT enough, Harry! After that, the questions "How much do I know about the lighting conditions on the occasion?", "How long time did Hutch really have on his hands?", "How do other witness reports, taken down after roughly similar occurences in roughly similar conditions, compare to Hutchīs achievments?", "How much of Hutchīs evidence, given at Abberlines interrogation, eludes us, and in what way can it cast a different light on things?" and a number of other questions, must be asked.

It wouldn't matter, Fisherman.

Because whatever answers were provided to those questions, it still wouldn't bestow upon Hutchinson super-human capabilities for noticing and memorizing all that he did in the time and conditions he described. You'd have to alter the circumstances of his statement to an utterly preposterous degree to facilitate the concept that he was both truthful and correct, and as responsible historians, we just can't be permitted to stretch existing evidence to fit a pre-conceived mould.

You have to take the evidence as it stands, not on the basis of what you hope he might have meant. Remember that Abberline would woud have forwarded the most salient details of the account; the details that impacted most upon the question of his truthfulness (or lack thereof).

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"we just can't be permitted to stretch existing evidence to fit a pre-conceived mould"

...and that wording, Ben, is something I send in return to you to ponder. The only preconceptions I can see in this whole mess are on your own behalf, Ben.

The best!
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

You say that it was precisely the amount of time, but that doesn't mean anything to my analytical mind trying to reconcile all the variables that make up the situation.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Apologies, I'll retract "precisely".

It's my humble opinion that the time that elapsed between the termination of the inquest and Hutchinson's appearance at Commercial Street police station is consistent with somebody who had learned of the Lewis' (and perhaps other?) evidence, and planned his next move (reason, description, "alibi" etc) accordingly.

Great post #61, by the way.

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

Thanks for the indulgment. You arguments, of course, make sense. If it was I who was a murderer, and because I am good at ruses, I would have slunk off to the police before Lewis took the stand if at all possible, thinking up my alibi along the way. That's me, and it ain't Hutch, so anything is possible.

Cheers,

Mike

[Billy Bulger]

See this is just what I'm taking about...

Now I dont want to upset anyone here, we are, afterall, a community sharing an interest in a very important piece of history and I would like to think friends also but in my humble opinion the vast amount of contributions to this topic demonstrate the very problem with the study of Jack the Ripper; so many cite texts to suit their own ends Hutch's brain could'nt possibly have retained all that information, quite frankly this is a ridiculous and baseless assumption. In scenarios of significance its highly common for all human beings to remember trivialities in great detail. For example, many of us can recall effortlessly the clothing worn by future spouses on first dates, certain scents, make up worn etc. I am currently reading a book on the Titanic written by one of the great ship's survivors and the author reinforces the above by noting how right down to his last days (the book was published in 1979- author has since passed away) details of his quarters on the ship remained deeply embedded in his memory. I acknowledge that over time our memory does indeed start to mutate and morph but George Hutchinson's testimony was recorded 3 days after the incident (please dont start about the delay, lads, we'll be here all nite! lol jk), surely this can be accepted by all to qualify as a fresh memory. When we take into account that GH had a relationship with Mary Jane (the depth of which may, admittedly, never be fully known) he would of course have been struck by her accompanying an apparent toff- think about it, if you, a working class eastender saw a love-interest or someone close to you in the exquiste company of a Gentleman you, too, would more than likely be arrested by the encounter especially when one takes into account the incident took place in what was regarded in Victorian London as one of the most deplorable and dangerous streets in the Empire's capital!!
And finally, I expect there are a great many students of Ripperology on here who could wipe the floor with me in terms of literature devoured on the subject but I have read what are universally regarded as the more reliable books on JTR (Begg, Skinner, Fido, Sugden, Rumbelow) and while all do accept GH's 'story' is debatable most do come down in favor of the labourer. So if such seasoned students of Whitechapel can at least acknowledge the sighting of Novemeber 9th 1888 as likely, why cant we, the more casual student?

_______________________________
It was Dr. Gull and you know it was!!

[The Good Michael]

BB,

It isn't just the details. It is the timing of the statement and the seeming lack of knowledge about how a toff would dress.

I do agree with you about the details one can recall in certain situations. Some people have eidetic memories as well, and such a skill isn't class dependent. After I've read a book that interests me, I can recall much of the book and on what page a particular item might be. I can picture it in my head and what side of the book and where on the page it is. This came in handy in college. As you say, I also remember what people were wearing when I first met them if I am interested in them intellectually or physically. I remember those things for a long time. I'm sure many are similar in these regards. Yet, I think it isn't the details so much as other things associated with Hutch that gets people going.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

so many cite texts to suit their own ends Hutch's brain could'nt possibly have retained all that information, quite frankly this is a ridiculous and baseless assumption.

Oh, what preposterous nonsense, Billy.

His brain couldn't possibly have noticed and memorized all that he alleged in the time and conditions available. Try it yourself, or get someone else to try it for themselves.

For example, many of us can recall effortlessly the clothing worn by future spouses on first dates, certain scents, make up worn etc

Yes, because you were with them for the entirely of that evening. You didn't pass them in a fleeting second in darkness and bad weather. I urge you to think things through in future before establishing comparisons. Was this a fair comparison? Was Hutchinson in the company of Astrkahan man for the duration of the night? No, so obviously that comparison is deeply flawed.

I am currently reading a book on the Titanic written by one of the great ship's survivors and the author reinforces the above by noting how right down to his last days (the book was published in 1979- author has since passed away) details of his quarters on the ship remained deeply embedded in his memory.

Billy, I've been studying Titanic's passengers and crew for over a decade. In 2004, I was interviewed for a French documentary about the alleged "psychic forewarnings" associated with the tragedy, and have written articles on the subject. Nobody delivered an account that even teetered on the brink of the details allegedly recorded by Hutchinson. I don't know which author you're talking about - possibly Lawrence Beesley - but there's no way in hell that he compares to Hutchinson in terms of the detail he claimed to have noticed and memorized.

Certainly, you had liars on the Titanic.

There were men who felt embarrassed about leaving the ship on one of the earlier boats, and felt compelled to jazz up their account to vindicate and legitimize their survival and presence on the Carpathia when so many other men had died, and some of those are ludicrously rich on detail, but they were lying.

Or let's consider other serial cases. Ivan Milat gave a witness account full of unrealistically rich detail. It was initially chalked up to "photographic memory", and people made excuses to the effect that he must be very observant blah blah blah. That was until the reality of the situation was made apparent, and Milat was convicted and imprisoned for the murders. A cautionary tale. Ask yourself this:

How many people have eidetic memory or photographic memory in real life?

How many people tell lies in real life?

I acknowledge that over time our memory does indeed start to mutate and morph but George Hutchinson's testimony was recorded 3 days after the incident (please dont start about the delay, lads, we'll be here all nite! lol jk), surely this can be accepted by all to qualify as a fresh memory

It doesn't matter.

It could have been two seconds after the sighting for all I care. He still couldn't have noticed and memorized all that he could in the time available. If you want to chime in with those who are prepared to settle for "very unlikely" as opposed to "impossible" - which I adamantly stand by - that's one thing, but to claim that it actually likely to have happened is forsaking your reason to keep Gentleman Jack alive. And Gentleman Jack is serial murder sexed-up to make it more interesting.

And we know the account was discarded as having little to no value shortly after it appeared in the press.

When we take into account that GH had a relationship with Mary Jane (the depth of which may, admittedly, never be fully known

Woah. Take into account?

How do we know that GH had a relationship with Kelly? Who tells us? Only Hutchinson. Where's the corroboration? What if he's lying? You're filling in blanks in an effort to make an impossible claim seem more plausible. It doesn't matter how "interested" or "observant" he was. If he was either of those things, he'd reel of a general description of the man and single out one or two interesting features. He wouldn't notice the most minute, fiddly details of the man's upper and lower body in additon to everything else, memorize it and regurgitate it upon command in a fleeting second it the dark.

It doesn't just cross the represented by human capability. It urinates and stamps upon it.

Does it not ring slight alarm bells with you that Hutchinson just happened to have described the blinged-up generic scapegoated image of what the populace imagined the killer to have looked like; wealthy, out-of-place, Jewish, black bag, pointy moustache, surly countenance? I mean, come on, could he have been less sutble if he tried? Could I have been less subtle if claimed to have seen the lock ness monster chewing a thistle, sporting three humps and a tartan scarf?

It's so screamingly "obvious".

(Begg, Skinner, Fido, Sugden, Rumbelow) and while all do accept GH's 'story' is debatable most do come down in favor of the labourer.

Not really.

They just report it, for the most part, exept for Sugden who made the case for dark-moustachioed Klosowski. If you're not prepared to take it from me that the description, as imparted by Hutchinson, couldn't possibly have reflected what he actually recorded, you may be more persuaded by Bob Hinton, a magistrate, whose book on the subject was mentioned earlier. I'm not saying I can prove that Hutchinson lied about the whole thing, but when it comes to the description, we're dealing with an absolute no-brainer.

Ben

[c.d.]

Ben,

Thanks for the indulgment. You arguments, of course, make sense. If it was I who was a murderer, and because I am good at ruses, I would have slunk off to the police before Lewis took the stand if at all possible, thinking up my alibi along the way. That's me, and it ain't Hutch, so anything is possible.

Cheers,

Mike

Had I been Hutchinson, I would have gotten out of Whitechapel as quickly as possible. I would have changed my name and my appearance. Unless Hutchinson was known to Barnett, Lewis or the other residents of Miller's Court, I don't think there was a snowball's chance in hell that they would ever have caught him.

c.d.