George Hitchinson: a simple question

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

This, Ben, is where I am having all sorts of trouble trying to make ends meet. If a testimony is blatantly, obviously, ridiculously and terminally wrong, and if that is something that is beyond help, then I say that Abberline would have laughed Hutch out of his office.

And he may well have done ultimately. By the evening of 12th November, however, Abberline had little time to digest the contents of the statement and make any relevent checks. He obligation then was to circulate the statement and ask questions later. However implausible he may have considered some of that statement's components, he couldn't simply have discarded or sat on it and risk a potential murderer's trail going cold. You may yet wonder why he was initially of the opinion that the statement was true, just as I wonder why he believed Kloswoski the Ripper went on an organ-harvesting spree for an American doc.

To my mind, though, the man who killed Kelly would not cook up a story and deliver it to the police himself in such a fashion. But that is just based on my picture of who the Ripper

Fair enough, Fish. I subscribe to the opposite view as you know, but I can pefectly understand people's differing mental picture of the killer. I'm happy to leave it there.

Hi Monty,

As the inquest had finished prior to Hutchinson coming forward then it was hard for him to attend.

How do we know he would have attended?

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.

Its no secret that I question his statement, however I do have beef with those who dismiss it and state that he lied based on conjecture and supposition

I'm not dismissing the entire thing. I'm concentrating on the suspect description he provided, and he couldn't have noticed and memorized all that he alleged in the time available, not if he was a human being anyway.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben, if I had a white flag to wawe, I would do so, not a sign of me giving up, but as an implication that I have every intention of coming out of this exchange calling you a good friend.

In pursuit of this goal of mine, I will not elaborate on very much of the matter. But a few snippets have to be replied to, I think. And, if I feel it called upon, I will use any one of them smilies to make my point(s) clear, and I will urge you to accept that I have no malicious intents doing so.

Here goes, Ben:

"Abberline forwarded his endorsement a few hours after the statement had been taken down. Not enough time had elapsed in which to ponder the veracity of the account and make any relevent inquiries, suggesting that Abberline's initial priority was the circulate the description to all statements just in case."

This, Ben, is where I am having all sorts of trouble trying to make ends meet. If a testimony is blatantly, obviously, ridiculously and terminally wrong, and if that is something that is beyond help, then I say that Abberline would have laughed Hutch out of his office. If a senior police officer, who had taken down thousands of witness testimonies, actually believes that a story like Hutch´s may well be true, then your comparison with aliens living in your basement is simply not a useful one! (could not resist that one, Ben.)

Finally, I am not saying that all the suggestions I mentioned stand equal chances of being correct, just as I am not saying that Hutch should not be a viable suspect. He of course is, Ben. To my mind, though, the man who killed Kelly would not cook up a story and deliver it to the police himself in such a fashion. But that is just based on my picture of who the Ripper was and where his deeds led him, and it is NOT intended to imply that this wiew of yours is in any way unviable.

The best, Fisherman

[Monty]

Hey Ben,

I'm saying that if you want to accept his statement as fact, you have to take it as it stands, rather than chopping and changing it to make it more plausible, and then accepting it as fact.

Who has chopped and changed it?

If Hutchinson had appeared at the inquest and provided a scant description of a man with Kelly, I'd have no reason to disbelieve him.

As the inquest had finished prior to Hutchinson coming forward then it was hard for him to attend. There may have been valid reasons for him not coming forward initially, again you assume and then condenm.

My personal beliefs on Hutchinson go back on this site some 10 years now. Its no secret that I question his statement, however I do have beef with those who dismiss it and state that he lied based on conjecture and supposition. That lays false paths and murky these muddy waters even more.

Cheers

Monty

[Ben]

Thought-provoking post there, Claire.

Agreed all round!

[Ben]

No, Ben, that is not a reasonable comparison, and I think you know that.

Yes, Fish, that's a very reasonable comparison. I can't prove it didn't happen, but it's fantastically unlikely that it did, just as in the present case.

It shouldn´t, Ben - I have not spent much time and effort on it, and even if I did, it is a complex thing to search for, since it is hard to know what phrasings will turn up the stuff.

You said you spent some time on the computer. It is a complex thing to search for, unlike, say, looking for examples of people who have told lies over the decades since 1888.

That, however, is not as important as the fact that you recognize that we may be dealing with a number of different explanations here.

Explanations that can feasibly be arranged in terms of feasibility, and it's quite untrue to say that they all stand an equal chance of being correct.

I thought you said that there was no possibility that Hutch´s testimony was honestly given. Why would Abberline start a hunt for a POSSIBLE murderer using an IMPOSSIBLE description?

No "Oops" about it, Fish (less of those, if you'd be so kind). Abberline forwarded his endorsement a few hours after the statement had been taken down. Not enough time had elapsed in which to ponder the veracity of the account and make any relevent inquiries, suggesting that Abberline's initial priority was the circulate the description to all statements just in case.

In all probability, our convictions puts us both at risk of overinterpreting the different details involved - or underinterpreting them.

I really don't think so, Fish.

The capabilities of human beings in given cirucumstances impact very little on the question of Hutchinson's complicity in the crimes and whether or not he was Joseph Fleming. By the same token, Hutchinson ought to be considered suspicious even if he did see a client, given his later loitering near a crime scene.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

So you admit, we only have Hutchinsons account of the conditions and not the full factual account of the exact conditions?

No, I don't admit that.

I'm saying that if you want to accept his statement as fact, you have to take it as it stands, rather than chopping and changing it to make it more plausible, and then accepting it as fact. If Hutchinson had appeared at the inquest and provided a scant description of a man with Kelly, I'd have no reason to disbelieve him.

But he didn't say that.

I'm going on the basis of what he said.

You are assuming the lighting was too poor for Hutchinson to see, you are assuming Hutchinson could not, by any means whatsoever, recall all that he recalled. This based on what?

1) The unfiddled-with contents of his statement.

2) A knowledge of the conditions available, i.e. dark, Victorian London, poor weather conditions.

3) A knowledge of what normal human being are capable of.

That's evidence contradicting his testimony, just as I have intangible "evidence" that human beings cannot fly. If you're disatisfied by that, and believe that Hutchinson could have recorded and memorized all he could, that's up to you. Personally, I think the whole "highly-improbable versus impossible" debate is a little fruitless. I'm more interested in establishing that which is likely.

Regards,
Ben

[claire]

ps. should have said that one of the pieces of research I did was a discourse analysis of witness statements where prosecutions followed. This was followed by comparisons of individual witness accounts to the same events, defendant statements where there was a guilty plea, and comparisons of appearance descriptions. The discrepancies were immense; the least differences were in violent offences that had actually been witnessed, the most were in witness sightings. If anyone's interested I think I still have a briefing note on it somewhere. The research is, however, now about 9 years old.

[Fisherman]

Ben!

"Only to the same extent that it's hard to prove that an alien does not reside in my basement."

No, Ben, that is not a reasonable comparison, and I think you know that.

"The fact that you've been making the admirable effort to trace comparable "high detail" examples, to me, says a great deal."

It shouldn´t, Ben - I have not spent much time and effort on it, and even if I did, it is a complex thing to search for, since it is hard to know what phrasings will turn up the stuff.

"Hutchinson's evidence started to "fade" after it appeared in the press."

Yes, Ben, and any of the alternative possibilities that would go to explain it all may also have appeared post press. That, however, is not as important as the fact that you recognize that we may be dealing with a number of different explanations here.

Finally, one under the belt:
"Incidentally, it wasn't that werid for Abberline to express initial enthusiasm after so many false leads. His priority was to circulate the description to prevent the trail of a possible murderer going cold and ask questions later."

I thought you said that there was no possibility that Hutch´s testimony was honestly given. Why would Abberline start a hunt for a POSSIBLE murderer using an IMPOSSIBLE description?

Before going to war here, Ben, I think we must ponder the fact that we award Hutch different roles in our differing scenarios. Me, I don´t think he killed Mary Kelly, and I don´t think he was hiding his real identity of Joe Fleing underneath the Hutch costume. In all probability, our convictions puts us both at risk of overinterpreting the different details involved - or underinterpreting them. More needs to be done on the issue of how much a witness can capture in his mind. Until that is done, all we will produce is some heavy gunsmoke, a few blisters and an unhealthy atmosphere.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[claire]

Hi all,
There have been some instances of individuals having near photographic memory. Some folks are good at remembering long lists of numbers or words, some great at remembering faces, or details of scenes. However, to my knowledge (and I've spent a fair bit of time studying memory), examples do not include people who can recall in great detail information about individual people. Somehow, this seems to evade us--we as people tend to categorise in very general terms. The other thing is that, whereas people can pick out individuals from photographs who they only saw fleetingly, actually describing them to the extent that they are recognisable is much more difficult.

I also just mentioned in another thread the fact that our memory of detail can be sharpened when we feel threatened (when the guy's pointing a gun at us, for example), although this is by no means a universal phenomenon. But I'm not seeing that GH actually felt threatened.

As far as photographic memory goes, to drag that allegory out--if we took a photo in the dark and damp, it wouldn't have very much detail at all. And as Ben and others have repeated ad infinitum, conditions were too poor for GH to even see the details in the first place, much less encode them, and much, much less recall them later.

Does this still leave us with GH a credible witness but one who 'filled in the blanks' unwittingly? No. This amount of detail seems to me to be due to a willingness to be very, very thorough. Either Mr H saw someone and filled in all sorts because he let himself get carried away, or he deliberately invented detail...which still leaves us with an increasingly suspicious why??

[Monty]

Hi Monty,



That's completely the wrong approach.

We only have Hutchinson's account of the conditions to work from. We're not assuming anything. We're arriving at responsible conclusions based on what Hutchinson said he saw. You can't fiddle and re-jig his account to make it appear more plausible and then accuse others who take the statement as it stands as being "completely wrong".

We're working from the basis of what Hutchinson said in his account, not what you hope he might have meant, and from this is vomit-inducingly clear that he can't have recorded and memorized all the he could in the time and conditions available.

Thus far, I haven't touched upon the fact that his statement was discarded as a vehichle to catch the killer with very shortly after the description went public, but that too is a strong indication against its veracity, nor have I mentiond the fact that Sarah Lewis entered the court shortly afterwards and heard no trace of the chatty, firty pair.

Best regards,
Ben

Completely the wrong approach?

So you admit, we only have Hutchinsons account of the conditions and not the full factual account of the exact conditions? Yet you base some of your conclusions on the said statement.

You are assuming the lighting was too poor for Hutchinson to see, you are assuming Hutchinson could not, by any means whatsoever, recall all that he recalled. This based on what? On research you have done by an author who claims photographic memory is impossible?

I have not stated a belief Hutchinson did have a photographic memory. I am merely stating that unless you have evidence contradicting his testimony, you cannot say catagorically that his statement is false or part false.

Regards,

Monty

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I´m afraid I must make you further sick on this point, Ben - I think this is something you will find very hard to prove. I know we´we been here before, but I will stand by my conviction that we are speaking about differing degrees of probabilities here, and not of impossibilities

Only to the same extent that it's hard to prove that an alien does not reside in my basement. Technically, I should call it improbable, but semantics aside I feel a line ought to be drawn somewhere, and Hutchinson's statement crosses it.

The fact that you've been making the admirable effort to trace comparable "high detail" examples, to me, says a great deal. Imagine if I had to trawl the internet looking for examples of people who tell lies? The fact that I don't may hint at the more reasonable explanation in this case.

Long as we don´t know what made Hutch undergo the metamorphosis from red-hot top witness to an uninterested yawn, we cant make any assertions about it at all, I feel.

Well, I wasn't really.

I highlighted the fact that Hutchinson and his evidence dropped off the map shortly after it appeared in the press. I didn't touch upon why. However, if we examine the sequence of events as we did with Lewis evidence and the inquest, you'll notice another interesting congruity; that Hutchinson's evidence started to "fade" after it appeared in the press. My guess is that the contradictions and embellishments that appeared in the press, including the patently bogus claim that he approached a policeman who did sod all about it, compromised his original version.

That's an assumption, rather than an assertion, but a logical one.

Incidentally, it wasn't that werid for Abberline to express initial enthusiasm after so many false leads. His priority was to circulate the description to prevent the trail of a possible murderer going cold and ask questions later.

Just saw your answer to me, and I must say that your assertion that Hutch may have picked up on one or two of Astrakhan mans assets, but never on any more than that, given the time and circumstances, is something I think is going way too far.

It isn't.

It's being incredibly generous if anything. But I will agree that we've had this discussion before, and that it isn't worth repeating in the absence of useful comparisons.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"We're working from the basis of what Hutchinson said in his account, and from this is vomit-inducingly clear that he can't have recorded and memorized all the he could in the time and conditions available."

I´m afraid I must make you further sick on this point, Ben - I think this is something you will find very hard to prove. I know we´we been here before, but I will stand by my conviction that we are speaking about differing degrees of probabilities here, and not of impossibilities.

"Thus far, I haven't touched upon the fact that his statement was discarded as a vehichle to catch the killer with very shortly after the description went public, but that too is a strong indication against its veracity"

Maybe so - but there may have been other reasons for this. Whichever way it went down, the fact of the matter is that we don´t know what made the police make their minds up that they were dealing with a con artist.
It could have been that they found something within his evidence that showed it to be wrong - but we should never forget that IF it had been blatantly obvious, it is strange in the extreme that Abberline - no matter how desperate he was - did not pick up on it from the outset.
It could likewise have been somebody from within the police force telling his superiors that Hutch surfaced every now and then to tell fascinating stories to the authorities. Or it could be that somebody turned up to say that good ol´George had been playing Canasta with him on the evening. It could also be that Hutch retracted his evidence, partially or totally, leading the police to let it lie. And there may be othere explanations lurking about.
Long as we don´t know what made Hutch undergo the metamorphosis from red-hot top witness to an uninterested yawn, we cant make any assertions about it at all, I feel.

Just saw your answer to me, and I must say that your assertion that Hutch may have picked up on one or two of Astrakhan mans assets, but never on any more than that, given the time and circumstances, is something I think is going way too far. And I don´t think that article on photographic memories would have changed that wiew of mine, even if the link had come through.

Like I said, we´we had this discussion before, and I don´t think it is going to lead us anywhere until we can offer useful comparisons, and such things are not easily come by.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

If Astrakhan man stood out (because Hutchinson said he did, naturally), the best he could have acheived is a generalized description and one of two specific features that stood out. He couldn't have acheived an incredibly detailed description with a whole armoury of specific "stand-out" features. That just wasn't possible given the timing and conditions Hutchinson described.

Here's an interesting article:

http://www.pmemory.com/articles/trut...hic-memory.php

The author claims that photographic memory is impossible, for what strikes me as good reasons. I hope this helps.

Best regards,
Ben

Edit: Dammit, the link expired since I last quoted the article. Sorry, chaps.

[Fisherman]

Please, Harry; I KNOW this. It is the knowledge I have not yet procured I am after!

The best, Harry!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

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.

That's completely the wrong approach.

We only have Hutchinson's account of the conditions to work from. We're not assuming anything. We're arriving at responsible conclusions based on what Hutchinson said he saw. You can't fiddle and re-jig his account to make it appear more plausible and then accuse others who take the statement as it stands as being "completely wrong".

We're working from the basis of what Hutchinson said in his account, not what you hope he might have meant, and from this is vomit-inducingly clear that he can't have recorded and memorized all the he could in the time and conditions available.

Thus far, I haven't touched upon the fact that his statement was discarded as a vehichle to catch the killer with very shortly after the description went public, but that too is a strong indication against its veracity, nor have I mentiond the fact that Sarah Lewis entered the court shortly afterwards and heard no trace of the chatty, firty pair.

Best regards,
Ben