Mr Astrachan = The Bethnal Green man

[Sally]

Hutchinson’s “great gift for taking in many details” fails to take into consideration the obvious truth that Hutchinson almost could not even have seen many of the details that he later claimed to have memorized. "Dark eyelashes", anyone? At 2:30am in Victorian London in poor weather conditions?

I think that's an issue a lot of commentators have had with Hutchinson's account, isn't it? I have to say it's not so much that which concerns me though - because although we might find it implausible now, nobody appeared to at the time.

I could even (trying hard) accept that Citizen Hutch had an eye for detail - trouble is, those details changed when he spoke to the press, didn't they?

Personally, I find an account (like that of Lewis, perhaps - although not just hers) whuch progressed from being initially vague to containing further detail in some respects more plausible than an account that was near-perfect in its detail to begin with - but subsequently altered in that detail.

At very best, I think it lends weight to initial over-elaboration, shall we say.

But anyway, slightly off topic.

[Garry Wroe]

I think that's an issue a lot of commentators have had with Hutchinson's account, isn't it? I have to say it's not so much that which concerns me though - because although we might find it implausible now, nobody appeared to at the time.

Several newspapers expressed considerable scepticism with regard to this very issue, Sally.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"With excellent memory for detail, but who's other sort of memory is poor (the type that gets days mixed up)?"

Senile people, for example, do this, Lechmere: They often remember in exact detail what clothes they were wearing when they applied for a job sixtyfive years earlier - but think that they are living in that self same, long gone age. They confuse dates totally and habitually - but remember details.
This is because our memory is split in two independant parts: The detail memory and the sequential memory. And having an excellent detail OR sequential memory, does not in any way mean that you have the other part too.
I, for one, worked for a very long time with press research, and I often did so together with a colleague of mine. We made an excellent couple - he always forgot names and such, but was very good at nailing WHEN things had happened, whereas I was the other way around - I am having trouble many times to pinpoint at what stage something in history happened, but I very rarely forget names and such. I can remember lyrics to songs I heard thirty years ago, word by word, I can tell which actors were in a movie that I did not see fifteen years ago, and I can tell which telephone number my grandmother had - and she died in the eighties. I can tell what telephone number she had before that too - it was changed, see.
But working from memory, I cannot tell what year she died. Somewhere around 1980 - 1985 is the best I can do.

This is what I am talking about in Hutchinson´s case.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Hutchinson did not have to remember a day 21 years before. Since he must have heard about MJK's murder not even 24 hrs afterwards, and he had some other unusual events to help him pinpoint it, and given that there is no suggestion by the police or press that he was mentally impaired -we cannot accept that he woud 'forget' the sequence of events unwillingly.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

" Since he must have heard about MJK's murder"

He "must" not. How anyone could claim something like this is beyond me. Would have, fair enough, should have, the same, probably would have, yes - but must have is and remains wrong.

"we cannot accept that he woud 'forget' the sequence of events unwillingly."

We?

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

....
With his behaviour, the first policeman he met, would probably want to look in his bag !

He was reported, the police stopped him, they did check his bag, and they let him go!

BGM sounds like a harmless loony to me, who enjoyed giving the girls a fright
at the height of the Ripper 'spree'....

Oh, you mean like John Wayne Gacy, who changed his clown makeup to add a little menace to his character, for the kiddies, - just for Jolly!


Is that a face you could love?

Sometimes, we only think we know...

[Ben]

but must have is and remains wrong

"Almost certainly did" seems a good compromise.

Hi Jon,

Gacy did not dress up as a clown when on the hunt for victims.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Gacy did not dress up as a clown when on the hunt for victims.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben.
It was more the frame of mind I was getting at. That frivolous insignificant scary anticts might personify themselves as a passtime in the mind of even the most vicious serial killers.
To them, it's Play-time?

Best wishes, Jon