George Hitchinson: a simple question

[Ben]

The problem is, Ben, that you cannot both state that Hutch´s testimony was an impossibility

Easy tiger.

Not the testimony as a whole.

Just the description.

Now, one can deliver an impossible description without necessarily being a liar, but I feel the chances of that happening are incredibly slim. But there is that chance, however remote, and for that reason I can't "prove" he lied.

An impossible description cannot a liar prove.

It just adds tremendous weight to the likelihood that he did.

The only thing I am trying to show here is that three of the most prominent Ripper authors have no objections at all to the suggestion that Hutch´s testimony could have been perceived in the way he suggested himself.

If that truly is that case, I emphatically disagree, but then there must be plenty of things that each of those authors have said that you emphatically disagree with. That's the problem with deferrng to external authorities to lend weight to your argument.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"That's as far as I am going, Fish. So what's the problem?"

The problem is, Ben, that you cannot both state that Hutch´s testimony was an impossibility and that you are not going any further than to say that there is a good case to be made for him being a liar. It adds up exceptionally poorly. But long as you acknowledge that it cannot be stated that Hutch´s testimony must have been false, I have no problems at all - then we are in total agreement.

And it matters very little, Ben, what wiews Sugden and Evans hold or have held on Ripper suspects. The only thing I am trying to show here is that three of the most prominent Ripper authors have no objections at all to the suggestion that Hutch´s testimony could have been perceived in the way he suggested himself. THAT is what I am getting at here, as you will have understood perfectly well.

This thread has taken on the likeness of some weird secteristic ritual at times, and I don´t like that at all. I think that some sobriety was called for, and that was why I quoted Evans, Rumbelow and Sugden. Ultimately, I think it is a sad thing that one has to do that to reach some recognition for points that should be extremely obvious without the support of any "authority".

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Fish,

What do you make of Klosowski and Tumblety as suspects?

I'd hazard a guess at very little. I don't think either of them are your kind of suspects at all. Sugden and Evans both wrote very good books; Sugden expressing the view that Klosowski is the best of the known suspects, and Evans championing Tumblety with Paul Gainey in "First American Serial Killer".

I disagree strongly with both theories but commend the quality of the research.

Whenever we've had discussions about either Klosowski or Tumblety, I've rarely seen anyone quote extracts from other authors to bolster their case, and moreover, I've never seen anyone advance the argument that X or Y suspect thinks this guy's a plausible suspect, so that means he must be. If someone were to do that in response to your criticisms of Klosowski's candidacy, you'd be decidedly unimpressed.

That's because it's the intellectual resort of the numpty, Fish, and a numpty you most certainly are not.

It's unaccaptable to claim that impossible degrees of mental recall are possible just because the person allegedly doing the "recalling" might have had a good reason to notice things. First of all, we only have it on Hutchinson's dubious, discredited authority that he had such a good reason, and second, no reason - good or crap - would bestow superhuman capabilities on the observer. If you see someone for second in darkness who "stands out", you'll pick out one or two of the most interesting features. That's all your brain can do.

I think that a very good case can be made for Hutch being a liar - but that is as far as anybody can go without corrupting themselves intellectually.

That's as far as I am going, Fish. So what's the problem?

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Hi all!

Since it has been discussed whether any of the more prominent authors on the Ripper have felt that Hutch may have been a reliable witness to some extent, here are a few bits and pieces:

"If Hutchinson was telling the truth he cannot have been a casual or disinterested observer. His statements, indeed, prove that he was not. For he evinced the keenest interest in Mary and her client ... Hutchinson told Abberline that his curiosity had been aroused by seeing such a well-dressed man in Mary´s company but this explanation is too thin. Inevitably, one suspects that he shared some undisclosed relationship with Mary." (Sugden)

and

"It has been suggested by modern theorists that it is in fact too detailed, particularly in relationship to the description of the man. However, the basic physical description is not really out of the ordinary and as a working man Hutchinson would be bound to notice signs of affluence such as a gold chain, pin, collar and tie, and gaiters. It has also been suggested that Hutchinson must have been lying because he would not have been able to tell the colour of the man´s handkerchief in the darkness of the night. We simply do not know enough about the ambient lighting conditions to be able to say this categorically ... In his evidence at the Stride inquest, witness Edward Spooner stated, ´I could see that she had ... a red and white flower pinned on to her jacket´, and this by the light of a match. The witness Lawende described a man he saw with Eddowes as having a ´reddish ´neckerchief, and that at 1.35 a.m. in poor lighting. Were these witnesses lying too?" (Evans and Rumbelow, "Scotland Yard investigates").

So, much as Ben and a few other posters would have us believe that it would be preposterous to offer any belief at all in Hutchinsons testimony, it seems there are others who are of a totally different - and I would go as far as to say commendably sound - wiew on the matter.

I think that a very good case can be made for Hutch being a liar - but that is as far as anybody can go without corrupting themselves intellectually. And there is nothing wrong with a good case. Closed, it is not by a long, long way, though.

The best, all!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi all,

The fact that Hutchinson faded into the background suggests one of two things, bringing us back to the exchange CD and I just had above. Either he was never suspected and his account dismissed as worthless, or he was treated with some suspicion but eventually faded owing to the lack of concrete evidence with which to snare him. Gary Ridgeway was treated with suspicion, interviewed, and released through lack of evidence. He too would probably have "faded" into near-permanent obscurity were it not for DNA advances.

Best regards,
Ben

[claire]

His silence after his story became less than believed, may speak more about his innocence of murder than we know.

Hi Mike,
Yes, and I think this is the salient point, isn't it? However suspicious GH might have looked, however oddly detailed his account and however attention grabbing his behaviour, the fact that he faded into the background (by his own accord and the police's) probably tells us as much about him as we need to know.

Nice point.

[c.d.]

Hi Ben,

I can't find the brick wall smiley so I will use this one and let it go.

c.d.

[Ben]

Hi CD,

But haven't I explored the ramifications of both possibilites?

I explored the possible outcomes of him being suspected, just as I've explored the possible outcomes of him never having been suspected.

Didn't I?

Best regards,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hi Ben,

But here is the problem I have with your argument...you want us to believe that everything about Hutchinson absolutely screams prime suspect, yet you don't want to acknowledge that anybody at Scotland Yard might have agreed with you.

c.d.

[Ben]

Ah, not really, CD.

He may well have been suspected at some point, but on the other hand, it wasn't as though the police were likely to have expected Jack the Ripper to waltz into the station and request an interview.

Cheers,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hi CD,



It wouldn't seem that at all. It would seem that if the police ever suspected him, they had no evidence with which to snare him. That's not satisfaction. Just a lack of evidence, and who could honestly expect otherwise? Ultimately, they may not have believed he was the killer, but given the interest in butchers, medical students and foreigners, that doesn't surprise me at all.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

...if the police ever suspected him? If they didn't, they make the Keystone Cops look like Sherlock Holmes.

c.d.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Bear in mind, though, that the only authority we have for Hutchinson being interested in the "suspect" is Hutchinson himself. Let's face it, if anyone needed an excuse for being interested in the locality of the court (without that excuse being murder) it was the man seen by Lewis.

And, of course, if the man seen by Lewis was Hutchinson, it follows that he needed an excuse for being interested in the court, and a scary Jew with a gold watch and a knife-shaped parcel couldn't have been more ideal for that purpose.

Cheers,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi CD,

Now that it no way clears him as a suspect but it would seem that the police were satisfied that he was not Mary's killer.

It wouldn't seem that at all. It would seem that if the police ever suspected him, they had no evidence with which to snare him. That's not satisfaction. Just a lack of evidence, and who could honestly expect otherwise? Ultimately, they may not have believed he was the killer, but given the interest in butchers, medical students and foreigners, that doesn't surprise me at all.

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Try describing the last person you saw your missus talking to in the supermarket.

Claire,

Let's be fair. Hutch, by his own account, was checking them out to see what was happening. If he wasn't the killer, he was at least sizing the guy up for some reason. Surely he had more of a reason to look at detail, even in a bit of gloom, and to remember more of it than someone bumping into a passerby. There's something between not remembering a lick and remembering a red stone and spats, and this is where he may have been but for a bit of the spotlight and a fiver. His silence after his story became less than believed, may speak more about his innocence of murder than we know.

Cheers,

Mike

[c.d.]

Hi Ben,

I've made this point before but it is worth making again. The stronger the case against Hutchinson, the more likely it is that the police checked him out. Now that it no way clears him as a suspect but it would seem that the police were satisfied that he was not Mary's killer.

c.d.