A Different Take

[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

[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.

Letīs just hope itīs 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

[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.

[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! Letīs just hope itīs not today - I have planned for some seatrout fishing in the afternoon.

The best,
Fisherman

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[Jez]

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

[Ben]

But let's never lose sight of the possibility that every word Hutchinson said was the truth, as he saw it.

I totally dispute that it is possible, Jez. Tests for photographic memory look positively pedestrian alongside Hutchinson's claims. A finely tuned sense of observation doesn't bestow implausible superhuman powers onto people, not even Milat, whose "witness" sighting was initially attributed to photographic memory.

How curious that Hutchinson didn't provide the whole dialogue, rather than just snippets. Isn't Hutchinson supposed to be a man with a false story - each and every detail carefully scripted in advance?

Not really. It would simply mean the difference between an amazingly bogus claim and an astronomically bogus, don't-be-bloody-ridiculous claim.

Gosh, Hutchinson debates do seem to be the flavour of the month, don't they? I do hope this turns into one of those interminable marathons. It'll be like 2006!

All the best,
Ben

[Jez]

But let's never lose sight of the possibility that every word Hutchinson said was the truth, as he saw it. Yes, he had a finely tuned sense of observation - as only few people have. It's interesting that he didn't trust his ears in the same way he did his eyes. One would have expected him to provide a complete dialogue - but he didn't.
"A man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something and they both burst out laughing."
"He said something to her. She said alright my dear come along you will be comfortable."
How curious that Hutchinson didn't provide the whole dialogue, rather than just snippets. Isn't Hutchinson supposed to be a man with a false story - each and every detail carefully scripted in advance?

[Ben]

I'm afraid I'd be calling your bet there, CD, if not raising it.

If the truth was an innocent as all that, there was nothing preventing him from admitting as much to police.

Hi Caz,

Right, but there's not much to fall back on if the police refuse to simply take his word for it, is there?

No more than there would have been in the scenario that he did end up selling to the police. If the police didn't buy his "approaching Kelly's room" story, he was just as devoid of "outs" as he would have been in the Astrakhan version. In your scenario, wheren Hutchinson has no lodgings, tries Kelly but discovers her to be ensconced in her room with a companion, he could easily have stuck to the truth as closely as possible without the need for complicated shinanngans around Commerical Street. As it happens, the gist of your suggestion; that Hutchinson may have approached Kelly's room with the intention of gaining entry only to be thwarted by the presence of a man in the room, is an extremely viable one, but such a suggestion is far from at odds with his possible complicity in the crimes.

It was Garry Wroe who theorized in 2002 that Hutchinson approached Kelly's room, detected the sleeping presence of Kelly and Blotchy ensconced therein, and installed himself opposite the court from a convenient vantage point in anticipation of Blotchy leaving. Whether true or not, it neatly reinforces the fact that a hypothetical Hutchinson-as-late-night-visitor could have gone there with destructive, rather than contractual, intentions.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

The idea of a guy embellishing something a bit to make a few shillings makes the most sense to me. As Ben rightly says, the time of the sighting coincides with Sarah Lewis' testimony. Yet, the most likely reason for this is because he was there and saw someone. If, as Ben believes, Hutch came forward because he knew of Lewis' testimony, the most likely explanation (imo) is that he wanted to capitalize on her statement by bringing to life the culprit.
Money wins out here, I'm afraid. A young man of little means, but quick mind could very easily do something like this.

Mike

[caz]

Nothing disasterous wrong, except that if the truth entailed so innocent an explanation, why did he not avail himself of it? If he was so worried that the hangman would become suspicious that he was revealed to be the last man seen at the crime scene, all he needed to do was claim that he peered through the window and saw (heard?) a man inside. No need for Fashion Street encounters and red stone seals.

Hi Ben,

Right, but there's not much to fall back on if the police refuse to simply take his word for it, is there? Nothing to make them believe this man was really there, in the place where Hutch was soon hoping to be himself, for innocent reasons in his case. Nothing Hutch could have done after that to breathe life into this other character and make him take on the far greater role and significance, thus allowing his own to be minimised and treated like the passive one it actually would have been.

A brief glimpse or sound of a man he couldn't begin to describe could not be built up any further to sound more like an experience. He could have gone over the top to remedy that, thinking the more detail he could include, the more convincing it would be that he had a bit more than a brief encounter with Mary's last customer.

At the very least it would take a bit more looking into and buy him some time.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Hi Caz,

If I had to place a bet, I would say that your scenario or one close to it was probably the most likely. My take on it would be that Mary told him that she had a client but didn't know if he was going to be an all nighter and simply told Hutch to wait for a while. At some point, he concluded the gent was in for the night and moved on.

c.d.