George Hitchinson: a simple question

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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. Iīm 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 Rumbelowīs "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 Hutchīs 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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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 really strongly Ben. Just a hunch. I know others have communicated. I just dont think Jack did.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.