A Different Take

[Jez]

An interminable Hutchinson debate?
Hoozah! Let's hope so, Ben.
The Hutchinson believers are back in fashion!

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

I do agree that Hutch very probably couldn't have seen all the details he said, especially in the evening, yet I wonder if we could test just what one is able to recognize under the conditions at Miller's Court. When I think on it, I'm not so sure if a man (or woman) in a state of observation for a few minutes, and given a space of two days or so elapsed before being questioned about his/her observations, wouldn't be able to come up with a detailed, and erroneous description. We know when we play the game of 'Telephone' when a short message is passed from one person to the next, that things get distorted very quickly, even when one is sure. Perhaps time distorts things just as well, and a few days may be enough time.

I didn't want to get all philosophical here, but nearly everyone remembers things differently, and we are all sure we're correct in our remembrance.
Yet, that isn't possible, is it? It is? If you are sure of what you saw, then that's what you saw, and that is the reality. After a day or so, an unknown bit of wool could become astrakhan, and a small pocket watch chain could become something far more ornate. Sometimes a man talks about how much he and his mates have drunk when the reality may have been a much lower quantity. In the retelling and the re-remembering, things have grown substantially (or diminished if one is speaking with the vicar), and the change becomes the truth. I suggest that this is possible in as little as several hours times if being retold. Think about Hutch at the Victorian Home telling a different mate at a different time for 3 days. My how things have changed and the new truth is nothing like the old truth, yet it is still the truth.

Back to the beginning: Yes, I believe Hutch pulled some things out of his posterior, but that isn't the only possibility.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

I think if Hutchinson was accidentally embellishing, or "confabulating", we wouldn't expect the acutely specific myriad of accessorial and clothing detail that he spewed out with near exactitude when subsequently communicating with the press. I find that too indicative of meticulous preparation for the confabulation explanation to make any real sense. In Hutchinson's case, it is not so much the alleged memorization that many people struggle with, but rather the alleged ability to even notice the stuff he claimed to be able to memorize in the first place. The conditions and reported timing of events simply didn't facillitate it.

In addition, Hutchinson appears not to have demonstrated the type of uncertainty characteristic of someone who had garnered only vague details but was simply filling in the blanks. In that case, we'd expect different blank-fillers on each re-telling. White buttons over button boots, dark eyelashes and horseshoe tie-pins are acutely specific, and almost certainly not a by-product of uncertainty or someone with bravado over-egging the pudding to his mates.

The type of over-furnishing we see in Hutchinson's statement, coupled with the fact that he only admitted to hovering near the scene of a crime after it became known that somebody really was seen near the scene of the crime (and at the same time) has more hallmarks of self-preservation that it does casual embellishment and publicity-seeking. Whoever that wideawake man was, his actions assume a suspicious resonance in light of what happened to Mary Kelly. They don't become any less suspicious simply because we have a reasonable idea of the man's identity.

Hi Jez - really not sure what you got that idea from!

All the best!
Ben

[The Good Michael]

we wouldn't expect the acutely specific myriad of accessorial and clothing detail that he spewed out with near exactitude when subsequently communicating with the press. I find that too indicative of meticulous preparation for the confabulation explanation to make any real sense. In Hutchinson's case, it is not so much the alleged memorization that many people struggle with, but rather the alleged ability to even notice the stuff he claimed to be able to memorize in the first place. The conditions and reported timing of events simply didn't facillitate it.

But if it was a set concept of Astrakhan Man that was created step by step during the telling and retelling sessions, by the time he told it to the coppers, the story could have been complete in his mind.

In addition, Hutchinson appears not to have demonstrated the type of uncertainty characteristic of someone who had garnered only vague details but was simply filling in the blanks.

Because it was now certain in his mind. This myth is now reality and is what is going to earn him his reward (assumption) for coming forward.

In any case, an attempt to make a profit is much more common than the alternative.

Cheers,

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Much has been made about the vivid description hutchinson was able to give the police some three days later,suggesting that it was impossible, therefore completely untrue.
I am astonished that some members of Casebook, simply refuse to accept actual statements , made at the time by witnesses, who voluntered imformation to the police.
In the case of George Hutchinson we have a young man calling at Commercial street police station, and informing the desk sergeant that he had a description of a man, that may be the person, they are looking for in connection to the murders.
He did so knowing full well that by placing himself at the murder scene, and having no alibi for that time, he would find himself in the position of being a suspect, yet dispite this he [ according to members] not only did this, but actually invented a person complete with a red hankerchief, as the person he saw with Mary Kelly, who he admits to the police he knew well , and had giving her money on occassions, and then actually goes on patrols with the police in a attempt to identify this [ according to members] bogus character.
My point is... What is wrong with Hutchinsons statement?
Why cant Hutchinson simply have relayed the truth as he saw. including an opinion, that it was a red hankerchief?
What would be wrong with the sons of Topping Reg/Arthur, hearing from their father that he saw a man with a ripper victim , who looked someone high up.
I have reason to believe that Reg Hutchinson knew very little about the Ripper case, because of that. he would not have seen his fathers statement till Fairclough showed him, and he could after seeing it understand why his father refered to someone 'higher up'.
He gave a character accessment of his father in that book, and if Reg, not Arthur, was the voice in the radio broadcast of the 70s. he did then also.
That accessment includes Gwths observation skills, which would give more credence to the statement on november 12th.
I will defend my stance on this argument till domesday, and i have no doubt in my mind, especially since signature comparisons are now avaliable, that Topping was the witness, and we should simply believe what history tells us,
at least in this instance.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Richard asks:

"What is wrong with Hutchinsons statement?"

That, Richard - as you well know - depends on who you ask. Since it is very often said on the boards that the statement could not possibly be true, it may be useful to notice that acclaimed experts in the field like Stewart Evans and Don Rumbelow, both of whom have a past as policemen, firmly state in their book "Scotland Yard investigates" that there is no reason to rule out the possibility that Hutch came clean. What these two prominent gentlemen say is that it would be more or less odd if an Eastender did NOT catch up on what would have been a very uncommon outfit in that area.
They also add that if the witness Lawende could make out the colour red on the neckerchief of the man in the dimly lit Church passage, there is no reason to suppose that Hutch would be unable to do so in Dorset Street, a street that has been witnessed about as being comparatively well lit.

It is interesting that this thread has been named "A different take", since if we were to work from the completely legal assumption that Hutch saw what he said he saw, and that he was an honest witness - as is the majority of witnesses - then maybe the picture of him being a very sinister figure and a probable Ripper is what ought to be dubbed the "different take".

My own stance remains that we may be dealing with something inbetween these extremes, so to speak; that Hutch was an attention-seeker, who may never even have known Kelly. And IF he did, the chances are that he did not meet her on the night in question.

"I will defend my stance on this argument till domesday, and i have no doubt in my mind, especially since signature comparisons are now avaliable, that Topping was the witness"

As you know, regarding the handwriting I subscribe to this stance too, and since I strongly suspect that it will be hard to come up with a good reason for me to leave it, we may be seeing each other on Doomsday, Richard! Let´s just hope it´s not today - I have planned for some seatrout fishing in the afternoon.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi Fisherman,
Biased reply. Good post.
I agree with the Lawande argument ie , his colour of red has never been disputed, i do not agree that Hutch was a possible glory seeker, for the simple reason being a suspect in a hectic murder investigation, would be most dangerous to your health, not only from the authorities, but from the community at large.
If and only if , the hutchinson we all discuss, turns out positively not being Topping , would i alter my opinion, as i would suggest what we know of that man does not depict a person of the type that would risk all for a giggle.
Until Doomsday, my friend, although not just yet i agree.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

it may be useful to notice that acclaimed experts in the field like Stewart Evans and Don Rumbelow, both of whom have a past as policemen, firmly state in their book "Scotland Yard investigates" that there is no reason to rule out the possibility that Hutch came clean.

Well, you can't completely eradicate the possibility that the barebones of his statement - the essential elements - reflected the truth (despite how obviously unlikely that is), but there's no possibilty that every single thing he told was utterly unembellished. People can write as many long, aggressive wear-em-out posts as they like (I'm not saying you're doing that, but you get the idea), but not even the tests for photographic memory require that degree of observation and recall to be present.

What these two prominent gentlemen say is that it would be more or less odd if an Eastender did NOT catch up on what would have been a very uncommon outfit in that area.

Absolutely, but the very idea that someone so attired would venture into that locality and at that time "engenders a feeling of scepticism", to borrow a wonderful piece of journalistic understatement from the time.

They also add that if the witness Lawende could make out the colour red on the neckerchief of the man in the dimly lit Church passage, there is no reason to suppose that Hutch would be unable to do so in Dorset Street

The couple were at the entrance to Miller's Court at the time, and the only placement we have for Hutchinson at that time is the corner of Dorset Street. That's a greater distance than the width of Duke Street, besides which I believe there was a lamp over the spot at which Eddowes and her companion were observed. Rob or Monty or someone can correct me if I'm wrong on that, but it wouldn't invalidate the crucial first observation.

Let´s just hope it´s not today - I have planned for some seatrout fishing in the afternoon.

It's today, I'm afraid. I think we can expect lots of lovely long-winded debates on Hutchinson today, which are essential because only the Druitt thread has more posts in the suspects forum. I'm afraid you'll have to forgo the fishing this afternoon, and all thanks to me.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

But if it was a set concept of Astrakhan Man that was created step by step during the telling and retelling sessions, by the time he told it to the coppers, the story could have been complete in his mind.

Quite possible, but the idea of Astrakhan Man as a "set concept" is more closely allied to meticulous preparation than simply fill-in-the-blanks, which is why I'm not as keen on the confabulation theory. Many of the components mentioned are just too specific and "fiddly" to be the result of accidental, subconcious invention.

Hi Richard,

I am astonished that some members of Casebook, simply refuse to accept actual statements , made at the time by witnesses, who voluntered imformation to the police.

So, in other words, you're astonished that people don't simply accept things at face vaule?

In the case of George Hutchinson we have a young man calling at Commercial street police station

We don't know how old or young he was, actually.

My point is... What is wrong with Hutchinsons statement?

It contains numerous bogus elements, and there are strong indications that he only came forward after learning that he'd been observed loitering near the crime scene. He wouldn't have been coming forward despite the risk of being suspected, but because of it.

Why cant Hutchinson simply have relayed the truth as he saw. including an opinion, that it was a red hankerchief?

Because there are strong indications against it, as many of discover from consulting the statement itself.

What would be wrong with the sons of Topping Reg/Arthur, hearing from their father that he saw a man with a ripper victim , who looked someone high up.

Nothing beyond the possibility that they lied, or were told a lie. I'm not opining on the subject either way, but in that scenario, those are two examples of elements which could be "wrong" with the above assumption of truth.

I have reason to believe that Reg Hutchinson knew very little about the Ripper case, because of that. he would not have seen his fathers statement till Fairclough showed him

That's one interpretation. Another is that he hadn't seen his father's witness statement because his father never made one.

That accessment includes Gwths observation skills, which would give more credence to the statement on november 12th

Until we learn that Toppy had supposedly learned those skills in the plumbing trade, which the witness clearly wasn't in 1888 if he was labouring former groom.

I will defend my stance on this argument till domesday

Wonderful. So will I.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"there's no possibilty that every single thing he told was utterly unembellished."

That, though, is what Messr´s Evans and Rumbelow write.... Not that we are going to be able to prove or disprove them on the point, but there you are.

"the very idea that someone so attired would venture into that locality and at that time so attired "engenders a feeling of scepticism", to borrow a wonderful piece of journalistic understatement"

Agreed. But that is not to say that it could not have happened - it´s just to be realistic and admit that it would probably not have been an everyday occurence.

"The couple were at the entrance to Miller's Court at the time, and the only placement we have for Hutchinson at that time is the corner of Dorset Street. That's a greater distance than the width of Duke Street, besides which I believe there was a lamp over the spot at which Eddowes and her companion were observed. Rob or Monty or someone can correct me if I'm wrong on that, but it wouldn't invalidate the crucial first observation."

Mmmm - but I have offered another possibility at times; that Hutch spotted the hanky sported from one of Astrakhan mans pockets as he took a look at him stooping down, and from a very short distance. The problem can be overcome.

"I'm afraid you'll have to forgo the fishing this afternoon, and all thanks to me."

You have been calling me all sorts of things over the years, Ben. You have tried to ridicule me, and you have scorned me and bespattered me.
I can live with that.
But if this prophecy of yours comes true, I will NOT forgive you. Outside, there is a bright sun shining, the wind has just fallen over in the west after three days of northern/northeastern winds, the temperature is rising in the water and the wawes are only barely crested with the slightest of foam. Such a day provides optimal chances of catching fat, silvery seatrouts of up to twenty pounds along our shores. But this type of day does not come along very often, especially not when you have the opportunity to make use of them.
Please tell me you are pulling my leg...?!!

A worried
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

Mmmm - but I have offered another possibility at times; that Hutch spotted the hanky sported from one of Astrakhan mans pockets as he took a look at him stooping down, and from a very short distance.

An interesting one to sure, but just a quick reiteration of why it doesn't strike on my particular box before moving swiftly on:

1) It's yet another component to add to all the other weird and wonderful clothing and accessories he claimed to have crammed into his cranium within a fleeting moment in near-darkness.

2) I doubt very much that a pocket handkerchief would be visible beneath two coats.

Please tell me you are pulling my leg...?!!

'Course I'm pulling your leg, Fish.

I jokingly wondered allowed which passtime you might prioritize.

Hook a biggun for me!

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I doubt very much that a pocket handkerchief would be visible beneath two coats."

It wouldn´t be, I assure you.

If, however, it was in the waistcoat pocket, and Astrakhan man had not buttoned up his coats, it´s another thing altogether. Not to mention if he wore it in a pocket of his Astrakhan coat!

Once again: It CAN be overcome!

"I jokingly wondered allowed which passtime you might prioritize."

That´s one of the great things with fishing - it gives you time to let your thoughts wander. Unless, of course, the random fish should favour your bait...!

"Hook a biggun for me!"

I´ll give it my best shot!

The best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

Hi all,

It strikes me that discussions regarding Hutchinson are usually centred around the description of Mr A. It’s not that people don’t come up with good reasons why his description could have been so detailed, but they seem to forget the rest of his account.

It wasn’t just the description that raises questions and would have needed addressing.

• Why was Hutchinson there in the first place?
• Why was he so interested in Kelly when she walked away from him towards Thrawl Street?
• Why was he so interested in Mr A, even though he probably couldn’t have had a good look at him until he approached him while GH was standing at the Queen’s Head?
• Why, if Mr A didn’t want GH to get a good look at him, did he pass GH so closely anyway, while he could easily have crossed the street before reaching him?
• Why did GH follow the couple?
• Why did he wait for so long after such a long footslog in such weather conditions?

Hutchinson’s story provides a very thin reason, if any, for his presence and actions, but does present a ‘larger-than-life’ suspect. As far as I’m concerned, the whole of his story seems to be a little too convenient and therefore fabricated, at least partly. Certainly when one considers that he only came forward after Lewis gave her testimony of the loiterer looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out.

So, I'm heavily leaning towards thinking that Hutchinson wasn't a reward or publicity seeker.

All the best,
Frank

[The Good Michael]

So, I'm heavily leaning towards thinking that Hutchinson wasn't a reward or publicity seeker.

So, you're leaning away from the most common reasons? And you are leaning in the direction of something more nefarious, but less likely?
Fair enough.

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Frank,

Good to see you here. Some important and sound observations there. I too feel the evidence militates against the notion of Hutchinson as a pure attention-seeker, particularly his coming forward so hot on the heels of Lewis' evidence becoming public knowledge.

If, however, it was in the waistcoat pocket, and Astrakhan man had not buttoned up his coats, it´s another thing altogether.

Only if he had a severe case of prodruding chest or Pectus Carinatum, Fish! Sticking a hanky where it would poke out from an overcoat would have looked very eccentric in the LVP.

All the best,
Ben