A theory on GH for JtR

[Ben]

Hi FM,

“The argument goes that the level of detail and the man's supposed wealth casts serious doubt on his statement. Those who discredit Hutchinson use this as a cornerstone of the argument - I think you'll agree.”

But “those who discredit Hutchinson” just happen to include the contemporary police, and as such, I consider myself in good company. If there is any real “cornerstone” to the argument that Hutchinson was discredited, the nature of the description is really rather superfluous – the icing on the mucky iceberg, if you will. “Those who discredit Hutchinson” need only reference the overwhelming evidence that the police supported this view, and any opposition to that view is effectively nullified.

“Now if it is 'very unlikely' then reason dictates that it is very unlikely Hutchinson would have described such a man where telling a lie.”

Ah no, Fleets, this is precisely the sort of argumentation I alluded to in yesterday’s post, and it should be avoided at all costs. You’re arguing that if Hutchinson was lying, he would have told a less obvious lie. That really doesn’t make any sense, and contrary to your assertion, is certainly isn’t “logical”. If the lie seems particularly implausible, the logical deduction is that the liar was particularly clumsy and unsubtle. The “unlikely” nature of the Astrakhan description is only an indication that it was “unlikely” to have been true.

The argument that X or Y must be true because no self-respecting liar could ever come up with something so implausible is a very bad attempt at reductio ad absurdum.

If we assume, strictly for the sake of argument, that Hutchinson was the killer and came forward seeking to deflect suspicion away from Lewis’ wideawake man, and in a false and convenient direction, it was necessary to describe someone of a very different appearance to himself. Substituting Astrakhan with “broad shoulders” wouldn’t have made the remotest bit of sense. If Hutchinson killed Stride, if follows that he WAS “broad shoulders”, and the act of describing himself would utterly defeat the purpose of diverting suspicion in a different direction. Astrakhan Man was, in many respects, an ideal choice – besides pandering to a great deal of the sensationalist press articles that had been championing the notion that the killer was a conspicuous outsider, conveying an external menace, Jewish, foreign, and possibly with medical credentials, he was also the polar opposite of a local nondescript labourer, which Hutchinson ostensibly was.

Please bear in mind that, despite possible appearances to the contrary, this really isn’t an argument in favour of Hutchinson’s guilt. I’ll save those for a rainy day. What I’m arguing against here is the premise that “IF Hutchinson was the killer, he wouldn’t have used Astrakhan man as a fictional suspect”.

“And then there's a flaw with your logic Ben.....in that you ask the board to believe that because the Maybrick forger was dim then it follows so was Hutchinson....when in fact it doesn't follow at all.”

I never said it did.

I said that the champions of both Hutchinson’s truthfulness and the diary’s genuineness have, at times, resorted to the same fallacy – that the bogus nature of the content increases the likelihood of the content being true because - so the argument goes - nobody could have come up with something so bogus.

“In all honestly....I was sitting next to a girl on the train back from work today and I reckon I could give you a very accurate and detailed description of her.....clothes......looks......bag she was carrying....admittedly it was light”

Is this a really comparable situation?

A lighted train carriage at close quarters with what was clearly ample time at your disposal, as against a fleeting moment in dark Victorian London, on a miserable November night? If people really wish to discuss the finer points of the description in detail again there are more appropriate threads for it, but what strikes me as extraordinary is the (admittedly dwindling) number of people who accept that Hutchinson was able to memorise minute, fiddly items that he almost certainly couldn’t have noticed.

The only opportunity he had to notice anything so tiny as a horseshoe tiepin and “white buttons over button boots” was when Astrakhan man passed fleetingly under a gas lamp, and yet at this precise moment, Hutchinson claims to have been scrutinising the details of the man’s face. If anyone really wants to expend energy arguing that he could have noticed all these things simultaneously at that moment, they’re welcome to do so, but I’d encourage them to have a long hard think about it first.

And the account was still discredited.

Best regards,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

Mac, whilst I totally agree with Ben on the reasons why Hutch would describe a suspect as far from himself as possible, I would point out that
very good liars often use implausible lies. This is because they know that
lots of people think like you !

For example, if someone were to ring into work and say "I'm not coming in to work today because.." I feel sick/my child is sick/my car broke down or
something which could very well be true, but is mundane, they might be
suspected of telling porkies to get the day off.

I think that if they said something like -"I took my son to the Circus last night and there was an incident with one of the elephants that they were leading out -apparently it was frightened by some nuns in the carpark !- and it sat
on my car infact...it's not too damaged, but I need to sort it out, and all the insurance details with the Circus" -it would be more likely to be believed.

[Fisherman]

That´s a thought, of course, Ruby. But the guy who spoke of the car park elephant would not have to be subjected to Frederick Abberline, asking all sorts of relevant questions connected to it all; the name of the circus, the time of the show, the name of the insurance guy who investigated the damages, the sequence of events ... you name it.
His role must be looked upon as being very crucial - and he did ask all them questions, and afterwards he was still of the opinion that Huchinson was truthful. That needs to be weighed in before we start laughing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

The Circus story was only an illustration that a liar would not have to be dim at all to tell an implausible story -and if Abberline thought like Fleetwood Mac, then it's very implausibility might have been why he initially took it seriously.

However, A Man was impossible to check out...although I've said before that, if such a person existed, then his description would surely have been recognised by people who knew him, and someone would have come forward to 'shop him' -especially with a huge reward going.

I do think that Hutch got the description from SOMEWHERE though ; If he had just been led by Police questions (unlikely, for the reasons Garry outlined), then I don't see how he would have remembered all the details afterwards to embellish for the Press.

I used to think that A Man must have been someone (or an amalgamation) of someone (or people) that Hutch knew from his past. I think that Bob's scenario is quite good though (in his book), of the shop window dummy and getting the spats wrong (not worn with evening dress) -given that Hutch clearly couldn't remember all the details of the man's face between his statement and Press description, but had the clothing off pat.

It is funny how, when imagining my false 'Circus' lie 'phone-call, I naturally put in too many details (my son, the nuns etc), instead of 'an elephant sat on my car'. I didn't do this on purpose...I noticed it reading back. It's human nature for liars to put in too many details to persuade people of the 'truth' of their story, and to use past experiences not to forget the details.

[Fisherman]

My hunch, Ruby, is that we need not see the lack of someone coming forward to confirm Astrakhan mans existence as some sort of confirmation that he never was there - the hunt was called off at a very early stage, and anybody coming forward after that would have been sent the same way as George Hutchinson himself.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

My hunch, Ruby, is that we need not see the lack of someone coming forward to confirm Astrakhan mans existence as some sort of confirmation that he never was there - the hunt was called off at a very early stage, and anybody coming forward after that would have been sent the same way as George Hutchinson himself.

The best,
Fisherman

That no-one came frward to confirm A Man's existance is only one reason that lends to the idea that he didn't exist -the others having been well detailed in the past.

it is inconceivable that the Police wouldn't have been interested in A Man, if he had become known to them, since they had never caught MJK's murderer.
Even if they had discounted Hutch by then, had A Man proved to be a real person, then they would have had to re-take Hutch seriously -because how could he have known of A's existence otherwise ?

[claire]

You are absolutely correct, Claire, that witness statements are vulnerable to influences such as leading questions or the dreaded interviewer effect – the phenomenon by which subconscious cognitive processes lead an interviewee to inadvertently provide answers that will please the interviewer. In order for such processes to have affected Hutchinson’s police interview, however, there must by necessity have been a pre-existing suspicion on the part of Abberline or/and Badham that the Whitechapel Murderer was an affluent Jew given to displays of ostentation. Yet the evidence indicates that senior investigators sought the killer amongst the mean streets that surrounded the slums of Flower and Dean Street – hardly the vicinity in which an individual such as Astrakhan Man was liable to be found. On this basis, therefore, I think it highly unlikely that Hutchinson’s official statement was unduly influenced by his police inquisitors. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how Astrakhan Man could have deviated more from official police thinking regarding the killer’s likely appearance and social status.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Sorry, Garry, you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that the police fed him the information--as in, 'was he Jewish looking?' or whatever. I think I made explicit mention of people's own prejudices coming to bear on this. People often want to be helpful, even when they cannot, and when they cannot, they frequently improvise. GH's own prejudices may have included a degree of anti-semitism, or just a general wariness of Jews (contextualised by the time, place and social milieu); he may correspondingly have emphasised this or, the chap he saw may well have been of Jewish appearance, with the precise detail embellished by GH because he didn't want to 'disappoint' the police with a vague, pale recollection.

I am not saying anything contentious here. I am simply noting psychological possibilities and I am in no way suggesting what you seem to interpret me as saying--that the police put the Jewish subject in GH's mind and mouth. My point was just about people's desire to be helpful, even when this can be counterproductive.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"it is inconceivable that the Police wouldn't have been interested in A Man, if he had become known to them, since they had never caught MJK's murderer.
Even if they had discounted Hutch by then, had A Man proved to be a real person, then they would have had to re-take Hutch seriously -because how could he have known of A's existence otherwise ?"

That is a very good question, Ruby. Now all you need is a very good answer!

The best,
Fisherman

[claire]

I do think that Hutch got the description from SOMEWHERE though ; If he had just been led by Police questions (unlikely, for the reasons Garry outlined), then I don't see how he would have remembered all the details afterwards to embellish for the Press.

As I said (and Garry's refutation was of something I did not say, so really, it doesn't stand), GH could quite conceivably have seen someone who looked a bit like the detailed picture he ended up presenting. I never, ever said that he was 'just led by police questions.' You make it sound as though I was suggesting that GH walked in off the street and said he might have seen something, and the interviewing officer fed him a whole lot of detailed misconception that he then carried around with him, adopting it as his own. This is not what I said, and I really wish that people could stop skimming posts by people they aren't cliquey with, assuming they know what it says and dismissing that poster as automatically and a priori stupid.

The police, and the press, were hungry for detail. GH could have been the sort of person carried away by the attention, and didn't want to disappoint. The bare description of Mr A could be accurate, the details embellished by GH because he sensed people were after more. The more he could provide, the brighter the eyes of the listeners, and the longer the attention he got would last. It's simple human nature.

And as I said, it remains a possibility, not a stupid thoughtless suggestion from someone outside the clique.

[Rubyretro]

I don't think it's a stupid suggestion at all Claire -nor do I ever 'skim' your Posts. I simply didn't agree with it. That's because, on balance, I don't think that Hutch even spoke to Mary in the street that night, and nor do I think that his embellishments were 'innocent' -but rather very designed.

That is just a personal opinion.

I think that if I'm in a 'clique', then it's a clique of 'one' !!

Can't we be friends, even if we don't agree ?

[claire]

Actually, Rubyretro, I happen to agree that there was something fishy about Hutch, but I admit that a lot of that has to do with a gut feeling rather than perfect logic (I'm spooked by anyone who'd say they'd followed people [particularly in the course of conducting a private contract] and hung around in the cold and wet waiting for them before, for no real reason, just clearing off)...in the interests of at least appearing scholarly (!) I just wanted to examine the possibilities of GH's (and other witnesses') statements as being driven by generally benign motive, dressed up with detail.

[Ben]

The description contained both elements from "Leather Apron" and snippets from previous eyewitness descriptions, as well as incorporating the "gentleman with the black bag/package" myth that had been popular since Dr. Phillips' evidence from the Hanbury Street inquest seemed to pinpoint a medical hand in the murders. So I think the description was an "amalgamation" of sorts.

Other elements to the account appeared to have been borrowed from newspaper articles, such as this one from The Times of 10th November:

"There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that at about half-past 10 o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out any more but would do away with herself. Soon afterwards they parted, and a man, who is described as respectably dressed, came up, and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man then accompanied the woman to her lodgings"

That same edition also included no less than three accounts of men with black bags.

Best wishes,
Ben

[lynn cates]

planted

Hello Ruby. I agree about the notion of testimony being "designed."

Hutchinson's testimony has the feel of being"designed" and then "planted"--much as John Kelly's testimony about Kate and Schwartz's about Liz and BS.

Cheers.
LC

[jason_c]

Sorry for going off topic. But do we know what Packer told the police in his second statement?

[Rubyretro]

Actually, Rubyretro, I happen to agree that there was something fishy about Hutch, but I admit that a lot of that has to do with a gut feeling rather than perfect logic (I'm spooked by anyone who'd say they'd followed people [particularly in the course of conducting a private contract] and hung around in the cold and wet waiting for them before, for no real reason, just clearing off)...in the interests of at least appearing scholarly (!) I just wanted to examine the possibilities of GH's (and other witnesses') statements as being driven by generally benign motive, dressed up with detail.

I certainly agree that it's worth considering whether Hutch had a benign motive for dressing up his description of A Man or not. It's just that I see the
very strong Jewish angle to his description -because I think that he stressed the point almost too much (adding that detail in about Petticoat Lane). It COULD be 'innocent' in that the public and Police were biased towards a Jewish culprit for JtR, granted.

Still, if you then look at the larger picture of the murder sites at Berner street and Mitre square and the apron piece in the building in Goulston Street, then
Hutch's description doesn't seem so innocent. That's not even taking into account Buck's Row and Hanbury street, and the anti-jewish fever suceeding
those events( We're going back to abby's original Post now).

Then if you look at the sites of the murders in relation to where Hutch lived,
modern 'profiles' of serial killers, and witnesses -he fits the bill.

Of course that could still all be innocent coincidences -which abound and confuse this case; Maybe the murderer was a complete unkown afterall. But how to explain why the murders suddenly stopped ?

As soon as you think that Hutch was the murderer then there is a logical explanation as to why the murders stopped (detailed earlier on in the Thread).

When you start thinking that Hutch may have been JtR, and then looking at his placing himself at the last murder site, in the right time frame, and Mrs Lewis's Statement appearing to corroborate it...it adds up.

I admit that it might be false deduction (2 +2 =5), but none of the other candidates such as Druitt or Tumblety or Chapman add up in this way for Me.
It just brings me back to Hutch or 'unknown'.

These were my first thoughts on reading the facts on Casebook, before I even knew that Garry, Bob, Ben etc existed.

I agree wholeheartedly with Joel Hall that it is great fun debating with people who disagree with your arguments, since it will either harden them or force you to reconsider them; I've had to change my mind or drop (for the moment !) alot of details -but no one has (yet !) convinced me of the fallacy of the basic premise.