George Hitchinson: a simple question

[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]

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]

Thanks, guys. Glad to have helped out.

I try my best to be good peepage, and it's good to hear I'm succeeding for the most part.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Billy Bulger writes:

"the Ripper was a fisherman"


...ouch!!

Fisherman

[Mitch Rowe]

Any Homicide Detective would know there is something wrong right off the bat.
A Psychologist will tell you that the Human brain does not process the information in such great detail the first second or third time around.
The Human eye is incapable of seeing colors in darkness. Oh you may see colors under some form of artificial light but the darker the less color in general.

Either Hutchinson was a big fibber or he was so odd that he thought he could give details and his brain just filled the details in for him without him realizing it.

[Tom_Wescott]

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. I find it to be the overall best source for out of print books. And yes, Ben most certainly is good peeps.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Roy Corduroy]

Ben, yes I have heard of killers coming forward in modern day crimes. Who knows, maybe it did happen that way back then. And Ben, thank you for so carefully and patiently explaining it to those of us who are disbelievers. It is my pleasure. I understand Bob Hinton has written a whole book about exactly this but still trying to locate a bookseller in the states that has it.

Roy

PS: I will get off now because, like Kudzu, Hutch does seem to go everywhere. Kudzu was imported from Japan down south here and it has even crossed the Mississippi River. Don't ask me how.

[Ben]

That is a hard concept. A killer coming forward.

It really shouldn't be, Roy.

Killers coming forward under false guises isn't uncommon at all, as any criminologist will tell you. It may have been uncommon back in 1888 when the authorities at the time time didn't know anything about serial killers, but the fact that modern day authorities have actually predicted, on occasions, that their uncaught offenders would forward, and laid traps accordingly, should tell us immediately that it wasn't a "hard concept" for them to entertain. They knew better from experience.

I didn't say that the overblown description in particular gives rise to suspicion. That just tells us he probably lied. The fact that he came forward so soon after Sarah Lewis' "loitering man" account was made public knowledge is more of a concern to us in that regard. As I explained in the "Two things that don't make sense" thread, the police were hardly in a position to arrest Hutchinson, even if they were inclined to.

Regards,
Ben

[Roy Corduroy]

As Graham said*, George's Hutchison's overblown, too descriptive statement is simply like how a bloke would describe a Victorian music hall villain. This is a perfectly believable, logical explanation firmly rooted in a knowledge of the times and the context.

Trow mentioned "racial sparring" between witnesses. Notice only Long and Hutch said "foreign", code for Jewish. Reflecting their underlying worldview and fears. Schwartz and Lawende did not. Doesn't matter, you analyze each witness statement as best you can through an understanding of the situation. The context.

So an overblown description leads to suspicion to this to that. Not really. I beg to differ, Ben. Then the idea he just had to come forward to clear himself. That is a hard concept. A killer coming forward. All these guys coming forward and police arresting no one. Kidney, Barnett, Hutch.

Roy

* can't recall which post Graham said that, but it made perfect sense to me.

[Ben]

Thanks, Billy.

Hope I didn't come on too strong.

[Billy Bulger]

Ben, very well said and as much as I'd like to I cannot find a chink in your argument's armour.

[c.d.]

...red handkerchief, surely

A handkerchief? Yes, you're right, Sam. Guess I blew it. Blew it!!!.Get it?? Hee Hee

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Talk about waving a red flag...

...red handkerchief, surely

[c.d.]

Ben...?

Fisherman

Talk about waiving a red flag in front of a bull.

c.d.

[Ben]

Hi Billy,

Couldn't you have popped this question in the "George Hutchinson" forum?

In recent threads I've noticed an odd trend: the dismissal of George Hutchinson's identification of what has long been regarded by many students of the Autumn of Terror as the closest description on record of the Whitechapel Fiend (if that is indeed who he saw).

I keep hearing this asserted.

What's the basis for this "long been regarded" factoid?

There was a discussion recently which discussed the most likely witnesses to have seen Jack the Ripper, and Lawende and Long were among the most popular contenders.

Why? Well, let's consider Lawende:

He saw the suspect in the company of a woman identified as Eddowes ten minutes before her body was discovered, his name and description appeared on an internal police report on witnesses, and he was used in subsequent attempts at suspect identification. Even if we disregard the specific problems with Hutchinson's testimony (of which more later), his evidence fails on all three counts.

George Hutchinson stated that he loitered about Dorset Street after Mary Jane disapeared and this is corroborated by Sarah Lewis (a neighbor) who stated she saw a man staring intently up Dorset Street around 2am.

That isn't corroboration.

In order for it to be corroboration, they would have to be independant witnesses who couldn't have learned of the other's testimony beforehand. The absolute reverse is suggested by the evidence here. Sarah Lewis attended the inquest and said she saw a man near the crime scene at 2:30am who appeared to be preoccupied with it. Hutchinson came forward as soon as that evidence became public knowledge and said that he was precisely there at 2:30am with a preoccupation with the crime scene. Coincidence? No.

Whoever introduced himself to the police as George Hutchinson and signed that witness statement had obviously learned of Lewis' evidence and acted accordingly. Unless, of course, we're prepared to accept that a bizarre coincidence of timing and detail occured and that they "accidentally" followed in such quick succession and with such congruity.

But I'm not.

Why he did is anyone's guess, but it may reasonably be surmised that he discovered he'd been seen, panicked, and came up with a story that "innocently explained" his presence and behaviour there. The man Lewis saw was a legtimately suspicious character given what happened an hour thereafter, and we only have it on the dubious authority of Hutchinson himself that his presence there was innocent "happenstance". The only "corroboration" (if you can call it that) is Hutchinson's presence there at 2:30am and apparent interest in the court. What isn't corroborated is why he was there and what he did next.

Surely if such a decorated, intelligent and experienced senior officer was of this opinion- the same senior officer who dismissed Mathew Packer's story- then we, too, should not be so eager to dismiss it.

That's until we discover that Abberline discredited Hutchinson's account as evidence by which to capture the murderer, an opinion shared by the seniority of the Metropolitan Police Force. By the 15th November, the Star had already reported that the account had been discredited, and the attitude of the police bear this out in every respect. By 1903, Abberline stated in effect that the only witnesses who had seen foreign-looking men had acquired rear views only. Since Hutchinson alleged a front view of a foreigner, Abberline's failure to mention him is extremely conspicuous, especially given the superficial appearance-tallying between Astrakhan-man and photos of Klosowski.

Further, while there are indeed slight variations in the description given by GH of the man seen with Kelly when one compares the Home Office report and the report in the Star, the number of consistencies commands our attention- over forty.

That counts for nothing if human beings are incapable of noticing, let alone memorizing, all that Hutchinson alleged in the time and conditions available. I can invent something vividly without having seen it, and regurgitate it upon command any number of times. So can anyone else. That's not being observant - it's just remembering what you lied about. That's possible to achieve, and even be good at, whereas it isn't possible notice and memorize the tiniest details of a man's upper body and lower body at the same time within a fleeting second. That just doesn't happen.

One could argue that GH's statement is too detailed but this supposition rests on the belief that no one is observant.

It doesn't.

It rests upon the knowledge that no one is superhuman.

And finally, it may be a stretch to add this but Sarah Rooney (some sources say Roney) was recorded as being approached by a man of near identical dress on the following morning; three unnamed girls reported a similar incident on the night of the murder

Yes, and we know that Sarah Rooney was not called to appear at the inquest into Kelly's murder, nor were the three "unnamed" girls. We also know that from Leon Goldstein onwards, women were inventing respectable men with black bags if they thought they'd be paid gin-money for their efforts.

By ignoring GH they can better tend to their own pet theories- the Ripper was a fisherman, the Ripper was an uneductaed Eastender.

On the contrary. Adamant Hutch-saw-the-Ripper believers are the classic favourites to have a specifc wealthy/outsider/upperclass/famous suspect up their sleeve.

It's essential not for forsake your reason here just to keep the notion of Jack as the top-hatted toff alive. I've noticed that a number of your posts have been directed towards defending the validity of (albeit without necessarily endorsing) that type of killer, but I'm afraid it takes us right back to the 1970s when dashing docs and evil royals were permitted to obscure the facts. In some respects I sort of "wanted" the killer to have an "interesting" identity and social/financial background, but I've forced to grit my teeth and acknowledge that the reality was probably very different.

Boring, I know...

Best regards,
Ben