Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[Stephen Thomas]

Hatchett:

"It has to be generally believed that George Hutchinson's story is totally bogus. One wonders what led him to fabricate such a fantasy. That the Metropolitan Police at the time gave it some importance only points to their desperation in being so ready to clutch at such a manifestly implausible piece of fiction."

The post there was actually by Heinrich who seems unaware that the Hutchinson/ Astrakhan story in no way interferes with his Barnett Dunnit theory

[Phil H]

It has to be generally believed that George Hutchinson's story is totally bogus. One wonders what led him to fabricate such a fantasy.

I may be old fashioned - I still think that Hutchinson may have stood for a while opposite the entrance to Miller's Court, he may even have exchanged words with Mary. I see no reason why he should have invented that, it is reasonable and his going to the police might just reflect his awareness that he had been seen.

What I doubt are his descriptions - especially that of Astrakhan Man - which are (IMHO) simply too detailed to be believed.

I don't think we should throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater.

Phil

[Abby Normal]

I agree entirely, Heinrich.

The saving grace in this instance is that the police apparently came to ditch Hutchinson’s statement just a few days after giving it the initial thumbs up.

Hi Fisherman,



Can't say I blame the computer!



I’m afraid it isn’t open to question, as far as I’m concerned. A person who is able to memorize details that he can’t even have seen qualifies as very “special” indeed. What bothers me is your unwillingness even to concede that he embellished his description somewhat. Such a concession would certainly assist your overall view of the Hutchinson affair, and is preferable to insisting that he told the squeaky-clean truth all the way down to the eyelashes.



If the conditions are favourable and you’re trying to memorize as much as possible, yes, but Hutchinson met neither of these criteria. That’s why I question the wisdom of all this googling and “experiment”-conducting – it offers no valid comparison with the situation that Hutchinson allegedly found himself in. I don’t know why you would wish to “isolate” the issue of memorization from the circumstances of the sighting. Surely the overall purpose here is to assess the credibility of Hutchinson’s claims? Yes, as I’ve already mentioned, I find it incredibly doubtful that Hutchinson remembered all these details, especially not three days later (which, incidentally, is another factor that your googling experiments have overlooked), but to compound the problem, we also have the issue of a miserable night in a dark street in Victorian London and a very brief window of opportunity with which to notice (let alone memorize) the minutia of Astrakhan’s clothing and accessories.

As far as I’m concerned, the only realistic explanation for these combined implausibilities is fabrication on Hutchinson’s part.



We don’t need precise recordings in order to deduce that the sighting can only have occurred very briefly and in darkened conditions. It really is a fallacy to pretend that in the absence of exact measurements, we cannot make logical deductions. Would you stick your hand into a fierce fire on the basis that you hadn’t calculated the precise degree of heat beforehand? Of course not - you would make a reasonable deduction and abort the “hand-in-fire” idea accordingly. Just so with the premise that Hutchinson could have seen a memorized all that he alleged.



Exactly. But it’s another very good reason not to take Hutchinson and his claims as face value. We clearly do prefer different approaches here – yours asserts that, yes, it would have been an absurdly comical spectacle to have Hutchinson going right up to Astrakhan man in order to peer directly upwards under the latter’s hat, but if that’s how he said he saw the shade of the man's eyelashes, it all makes sense. I think this is an uncritical approach, and seeks to justify one implausible claim on the basis of another. I would argue that he made an implausible claim (registering the man’s eyelash shade) which he then attempted to validate with an equally implausible claim (peering underneath the brim of a hat which had already been pushed down OVER the eyes) and that the obvious conclusion is that he lied about it.



This is more of the same, defending the hopelessly implausible on the basis of the ludicrous. How does one go about registering eyelashes in the shadow of a dark hat pulled down over the eyes on a dark street, incidentally?



The detail in Smith’s description informs us that he must have paid some attention to the man; otherwise he could not have recorded the details. I don’t see how this is an outlandish or incorrect inference.



Absolutely, which is why I regard it as somewhat suspicious that Hutchinson’s description utterly pandered to that image in a very glaring and blatant manner. Is it really credible that any REAL person would be dim-witted and eccentric enough to dress in a manner that amalgamated all or most of the elements that comprised the “widespread picture of the killer”? You seem to like the idea that Hutchinson harboured suspicions that the man might be the killer, and as such, what do you think motivated him to loiter on Dorset Street – to wait and see if the man was the killer?



As opposed to the numerous other “kinds of paper” knocking around the East End, presumably? Newspaper was by far the most common type of paper for wrapping up items, especially food. My impression of Smith is that he probably “noticed” the man more than he gave himself credit for, perhaps because knowledge of the recent crimes was in his subconscious, as you’re contending with Hutchinson. This does not mean he was remotely “untruthful” at the inquest. When I speak of impressive detail, I mean after we’ve taken into consideration the circumstances of the sighting. Had it incorporated a Hutchinsonian wealth of detail, I would be considerably more sceptical.

All the best,
Ben

Uh-oh. Here we go again.

The infamous Ben vs Fish Hutchinson death spiral.

Hold on-let me go grab some popcorn.

(FYI-gentlemen I jest but in all honestly I enjoy your debates, not the least of all because i actually learn alot by following)

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Can't say I blame the computer! "

Good one, Ben, admittedly!

...but the rest will have to wait!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

That the Metropolitan Police at the time gave it some importance only points to their desperation in being so ready to clutch at such a manifestly implausible piece of fiction.

I agree entirely, Heinrich.

The saving grace in this instance is that the police apparently came to ditch Hutchinson’s statement just a few days after giving it the initial thumbs up.

Hi Fisherman,

“My former post (70) got cut off by my computer”

Can't say I blame the computer!

“I don´t for a moment think that Hutchinson was very special, Ben.”

I’m afraid it isn’t open to question, as far as I’m concerned. A person who is able to memorize details that he can’t even have seen qualifies as very “special” indeed. What bothers me is your unwillingness even to concede that he embellished his description somewhat. Such a concession would certainly assist your overall view of the Hutchinson affair, and is preferable to insisting that he told the squeaky-clean truth all the way down to the eyelashes.

“I am only after the fact that given sixty seconds, one can take in a whole lot of details.”

If the conditions are favourable and you’re trying to memorize as much as possible, yes, but Hutchinson met neither of these criteria. That’s why I question the wisdom of all this googling and “experiment”-conducting – it offers no valid comparison with the situation that Hutchinson allegedly found himself in. I don’t know why you would wish to “isolate” the issue of memorization from the circumstances of the sighting. Surely the overall purpose here is to assess the credibility of Hutchinson’s claims? Yes, as I’ve already mentioned, I find it incredibly doubtful that Hutchinson remembered all these details, especially not three days later (which, incidentally, is another factor that your googling experiments have overlooked), but to compound the problem, we also have the issue of a miserable night in a dark street in Victorian London and a very brief window of opportunity with which to notice (let alone memorize) the minutia of Astrakhan’s clothing and accessories.

As far as I’m concerned, the only realistic explanation for these combined implausibilities is fabrication on Hutchinson’s part.

“I, on the other hand, use the other approach, by saying that when we do not have light and time recorded”

We don’t need precise recordings in order to deduce that the sighting can only have occurred very briefly and in darkened conditions. It really is a fallacy to pretend that in the absence of exact measurements, we cannot make logical deductions. Would you stick your hand into a fierce fire on the basis that you hadn’t calculated the precise degree of heat beforehand? Of course not - you would make a reasonable deduction and abort the “hand-in-fire” idea accordingly. Just so with the premise that Hutchinson could have seen a memorized all that he alleged.

“If YOU think it would have made a spectacle, I have nothing much to object about that.”

Exactly. But it’s another very good reason not to take Hutchinson and his claims as face value. We clearly do prefer different approaches here – yours asserts that, yes, it would have been an absurdly comical spectacle to have Hutchinson going right up to Astrakhan man in order to peer directly upwards under the latter’s hat, but if that’s how he said he saw the shade of the man's eyelashes, it all makes sense. I think this is an uncritical approach, and seeks to justify one implausible claim on the basis of another. I would argue that he made an implausible claim (registering the man’s eyelash shade) which he then attempted to validate with an equally implausible claim (peering underneath the brim of a hat which had already been pushed down OVER the eyes) and that the obvious conclusion is that he lied about it.

“There is nothing "horribly implausible" in suggesting that a man who takes an intent look at another man´s face spends five seconds in doing so.”

This is more of the same, defending the hopelessly implausible on the basis of the ludicrous. How does one go about registering eyelashes in the shadow of a dark hat pulled down over the eyes on a dark street, incidentally?

“Ben, you are the guy claiming that PC Smith observed his man closely, in spite VERY CLEAR evidence to the contrary.”

The detail in Smith’s description informs us that he must have paid some attention to the man; otherwise he could not have recorded the details. I don’t see how this is an outlandish or incorrect inference.

“Then again, we KNOW that people were aware that there was a killer about that eviscerated prostitutes, reasonably Hutchinson was aware that this was how Kelly made her living, there was a widespread picture of the killer as a toff”

Absolutely, which is why I regard it as somewhat suspicious that Hutchinson’s description utterly pandered to that image in a very glaring and blatant manner. Is it really credible that any REAL person would be dim-witted and eccentric enough to dress in a manner that amalgamated all or most of the elements that comprised the “widespread picture of the killer”? You seem to like the idea that Hutchinson harboured suspicions that the man might be the killer, and as such, what do you think motivated him to loiter on Dorset Street – to wait and see if the man was the killer?

“Not make out as in being able to read it, but make out as in being sure it was no other kind of paper that covered the parcel.”

As opposed to the numerous other “kinds of paper” knocking around the East End, presumably? Newspaper was by far the most common type of paper for wrapping up items, especially food. My impression of Smith is that he probably “noticed” the man more than he gave himself credit for, perhaps because knowledge of the recent crimes was in his subconscious, as you’re contending with Hutchinson. This does not mean he was remotely “untruthful” at the inquest. When I speak of impressive detail, I mean after we’ve taken into consideration the circumstances of the sighting. Had it incorporated a Hutchinsonian wealth of detail, I would be considerably more sceptical.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Hatchett:

"It has to be generally believed that George Hutchinson's story is totally bogus. One wonders what led him to fabricate such a fantasy. That the Metropolitan Police at the time gave it some importance only points to their desperation in being so ready to clutch at such a manifestly implausible piece of fiction."

Ehrm - no. Not at all. But do not despair! Ben will very likely command you on your bright and insightful post.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"And that was my point, Fish. Extraordinary mnemonic performance isn't by definition commonplace and should never be viewed as such. But since at the moment I have neither the time nor the inclination to add anything meaningful to the present debate, I'll leave it there."

I don´t think we disagree in principle here, Garry. But I do not believe that we can compare eyewitnesses that get a shortish look at a fleeing killer, with somebody who purposefully and under no true emotional stress makes it his business to observe another person. The latter would be infinitely better equipped to come up with a better description, especially if he had a time advantage too.
I trust you don´t disagree with this?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

My former post (70) got cut off by my computer, and could not be altered. Here it is in full:

Ben:

"Such is the frequency of lying as an every day occurrence that rational people are bound to consider it more likely than your “Hey, maybe Hutchinson was one of those special people with special skills!”."

I don´t for a moment think that Hutchinson was very special, Ben. It is you that suggest that he would have been a miracle man if he did what he said he did.
But fair enough, let´s do it the other way around.

Question: If we put you in a room, and give you the task to observe a person in the same room as closely as you can for a couple of minutes - would you afterwards be able to describe that person very closely, remembering details like jewellery, clothing, facial features etcetera?

Don´t answer, Ben - we both know that you would be able to do this. So would anybody. I checked myself by googling the word "portrait", chose a picture ( a drawing) of a man, and actively tried to memorize all I could for one (1) minute. I missed out on one detail when scribbling it down afterwards, the rest of the more than twenty things I had originally noticed, I also managed to pinpoint.

That´s me, I know, and it´s not 1888, I am not on a gaslit street and my time may or may not have been relatable to the time Hutchinson had at hand. But these factors are not what I am after - I am only after the fact that given sixty seconds, one can take in a whole lot of details. And that is what I have been saying all along - the memorizing part, ISOLATED from the other factors (and YES, one CAN isolate it, for pedagogical purposes) is not something that should have us marvelling over Hutchinson. Not at all. That bit is something we all can do, more or less.

It is not until we add the surrounding elements of time and visibility that we MAY have a problem. And that is where we differ, since you - from no recorded light levels at all and no established time at all - are sure that the light AND time would have been insufficient. I, on the other hand, use the other approach, by saying that when we do not have light and time recorded, we cannot possibly come even close to relating them to Hutchinson´s description of the man, and what credibility it can be afforded.

It is one approach, thus, that draws conclusions with no certain parameters to draw them from, and one approach that warns against such a thing, pointing out that the key factor - the ability to memorize - does in no way urge us to disbelief Hutchinson. I fully recognize that the surrounding elements MAY have meant that he must have been wrong or lied, but I also recognize that as long as we cannot prove such a thing, and as long as the investigating policemen, who would have had much more information about this on their hands, saw no problems believing Hutchinson´s story (AND WE DON´T KNOW WHAT MADE THEM CHANGE THEIR MINDS!), the only reasonable conclusion must be that the description was a potentially correct one.

"I feel sure you know what I’m getting at here."

Indeed! And I still say that the spectre would potentially allow for much more than you apparently want to believe.

"No, you’re simply trying to make something “quite ordinary” out of the patently bogus. I think my observation was a fairly reasonable one. If you pull your hat down over your eyes, you’re bound to decrease the chances of another person registering that mean ol’ surly look in your eyes. The only way round the problem would be to press your head up close to the hat-wearer’s chest and gaze upwards. An absurd and comical spectacle would be the result, but that’s what you’re compelled to accept if you take Hutchinson and his discredited statement at face value."

I fail to see what you are speaking about here, Ben. Hutchinson is very clear on this:

"I stood against the lamp of the Queen’s Head Public House and watched him. They both then came past me and the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern."

He stooped down BECAUSE the man tried to hide his face. If YOU think it would have made a spectacle, I have nothing much to object about that. It would have, at least to us. I don´t know what the Eastender of 1888 would have thought about it, though. But the only think to keep in mind here is that Hutchinson claimed to have done this exact thing, and therefore he would have seen the man´s face. It is very simple, very basic and totally in line with what Hutchinson said and got believed about.

But now you claim that we must not believe this? You seemingly regard it as a done deal that it is false? Although you do not even know to what degree he stooped down! Tell me, Ben, if he wanted a good look at the man´s face, what else should he have done to avoid your "spectacle" stamp? This looks a bit like the PC Smith discussion, does it not, where Smith explicitly claim that he did not notice his man much, and you immediately correct him by claiming that he actually observed the man very intently.

How can i argue against such things, if not by pointing out that you discard important evidence and change it to fit your purposes?

"you implore me not only to accept this horribly implausible claim, but its horribly implausible implications, i.e. that because Hutchinson said he could detect the man’s eyelash shade, he must have been marvelling at his silly surly face for five seconds or more."

More exaggerations. There is nothing "horribly implausible" in suggesting that a man who takes an intent look at another man´s face spends five seconds in doing so. And it does not take five seconds to see how a pair of eyelashes look. It can be done in a split second.

"If you actually reconstructed the scene as you're currently envisaging it, you’d laugh."

Yes - but not for the reason YOU envisage.

"It doesn’t. It was merely a claim on Hutchinson’s part, most probably to legitimise the unusual degree of detail he purportedly remembered. "

Okay. Now you also claim that people who make it their business to observe somebody will take in more than ordinary eyewitnesses with no such intent. Good work!

"When do you contend he looked down and registered his oddly protruding watch chain and exciting-looking appendages? Clearly you think this must have happened before he gazed at the man upwards from under the latter’s hat-brim, but when? The more we discuss these matters, the more I’m convinced that you’d benefit from a short walkabout of the district, just to cement your familiarity with the distances involved."

Have you forgotten, Ben? I have been to the venues, multiple times. And distances are the same no matter where you are. 126 yards are exactly as long here as they are in your country. If you want to b childish enough to once again claim that my ignorance points to no experience at all of the places, feel free. You have done that before, and I don´t put it past you to do it again. It´s all a question of self-respect in the end.

"So in the total absence of evidence, you are guessing that Hutchinson believed that Astrakhan man might have been the ripper."

In the total absence of evidence...? Ben, you are the guy claiming that PC Smith observed his man closely, in spite VERY CLEAR evidence to the contrary. And if I have to choose between suggesting things with no evidence to back it up and suggesting things that swear against very clear evidence, I have no problems at all opting for the former category. Then again, we KNOW that people were aware that there was a killer about that eviscerated prostitutes, reasonably Hutchinson was aware that this was how Kelly made her living, there was a widespread picture of the killer as a toff, more or less and Hutchinson did say that his "suspicions" were roused by the man´s wealthy appearance, plus we know that people with friends very rarely enjoy the thought of them friends being killed. So just how implausible do you think this suggestion of mine is?

"nothing except loitering outside Miller’s Court on the off chance that the man did decide to kill Kelly, according to you."

You just said that it would be a spectacle and a very implausible thing to do to stoop down and look a man in the face. But you now think that Hutchinson ought to have rushed into room 13 and cried "murder!" ...? There are spectacles and there are spectacles, Ben.

"What are you talking about, Fisherman?
Whoever claimed that PC Smith could “make out” newspaper text?"

That would be two of us - PC Smith and I. Not make out as in being able to read it, but make out as in being sure it was no other kind of paper that covered the parcel. And that means that he must have been able to see newspaper text in the dark, dark, dark (that will do, methinks) Berner Street.

That´s what I´m talking about.

"The impressive degree of detail in Smith’s description informs us that he must have “noticed” him to some extent."

That´s a deduction worthy of Sherlock Holmes! And it is spot on - since PC Smith had recorded a fair number of details, he must have noticed the man. Heureka! But what Smith said, was clearly that he did not notice the man MUCH! That is very, very clear and unmistakable, and it leaves very little space for any "interpretation" business. Smith did not notice his man much. If he had decided to take a good look at the man, as you suggest, he would have noticed him much. That is what happens when you take a good look. He didn´t though, and it´s evidenced in black and white in the inquest papers.
Conclusion? Easy: PC Smith did not put any special effort into observing his man, but he STILL managed - just like you say - an impressive degree of detail in his description of the man. And that tells us that you can in a shortish time, in a comparatively badly lit street like Berner Street, pick up on many a detail and rememeber them well enough to reiterate them several days after the event. The evidence could not have been any clearer on this point, and we really have to do something very drastic - like claiming that PC Smith was not truthful as he claimed not to have noticed his man much - if we want to look away from the picture afforded to us by the inquest files.
But who would want to do such a thing?

The best,
Fisherman

[Heinrich]

It has to be generally believed that George Hutchinson's story is totally bogus. One wonders what led him to fabricate such a fantasy. That the Metropolitan Police at the time gave it some importance only points to their desperation in being so ready to clutch at such a manifestly implausible piece of fiction.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Such is the frequency of lying as an every day occurrence that rational people are bound to consider it more likely than your “Hey, maybe Hutchinson was one of those special people with special skills!”."

I don´t for a moment think that Hutchinson was very special, Ben. It is you that suggest that he would have been a miracle man if he did what he said he did.
But fair enough, let´s do it the other way around.

Question: If we put you in a room, and give you the task to observe a person in the same room as closely as you can for a couple of minutes - would you afterwards be able to describe that person very closely, remembering details like jewellery, clothing, facial features etcetera?

Don´t answer, Ben - we both know that you would be able to do this. So would anybody. I checked myself by googling the word "portrait", chose a picture ( a drawing) of a man, and actively tried to memorize all I could for one (1) minute. I missed out on one detail when scribbling it down afterwards, the rest of the more than twenty things I had originally noticed, I also managed to pinpoint.

That´s me, I know, and it´s not 1888, I am not on a gaslit street and my time may or may not have been relatable to the time Hutchinson had at hand. But these factors are not what I am after - I am only after the fact that given sixty seconds, one can take in a whole lot of details. And that is what I have been saying all along - the memorizing part, ISOLATED from the other factors (and YES, one CAN isolate it, for pedagogical purposes) is not something that should have us marvelling over Hutchinson. Not at all. That bit is something we all can do, more or less.

It is not until we add the surrounding elements of time and visibility that we MAY have a problem. And that is where we differ, since you - from no recorded light levels at all and no established time at all - are sure that the light AND time would have been insufficient. I, on the other hand, use the other approach, by saying that when we do not have light and time recorded, we cannot possibly come even close to relating them to Hutchinson´s description of the man, and what credibility it can be afforded.

It is one approach, thus, that draws conclusions with no certain parameters to draw them from, and one approach that warns against such a thing, pointing out that the key factor - the ability to memorize - does in no way urge us to disbelief Hutchinson. I fully recognize that the surrounding elements MAY have meant that he must have been wrong or lied, but I also recognize that as long as we cannot prove such a thing, and as long as the investigating policemen, who would have had much more information about this on their hands, saw no problems believing Hutchinson´s story (AND WE DON´T KNOW WHAT MADE THEM CHANGE THEIR MINDS!), the only reasonable conclusion must be that the description was a potentially correct one.

"I feel sure you know what I’m getting at here."

Indeed! And I still say that the spectre would potentially allow for much more than you apparently want to believe.

"No, you’re simply trying to make something “quite ordinary” out of the patently bogus. I think my observation was a fairly reasonable one. If you pull your hat down over your eyes, you’re bound to decrease the chances of another person registering that mean ol’ surly look in your eyes. The only way round the problem would be to press your head up close to the hat-wearer’s chest and gaze upwards. An absurd and comical spectacle would be the result, but that’s what you’re compelled to accept if you take Hutchinson and his discredited statement at face value."

I fail to see what you are speaking about here, Ben. Hutchinson is very clear on this:

"I stood against the lamp of the Queen’s Head Public House and watched him. They both then came past me and the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern."

He stooped down BECAUSE the man tried to hide his face. If YOU th

[Garry Wroe]

Yes, human memory is often frail when it comes to remembering. No doubt about that. It only takes a look at the wildly differing descriptions of the exact same individual adhering to many an investigation after crimes to realize that this is true.

And that was my point, Fish. Extraordinary mnemonic performance isn't by definition commonplace and should never be viewed as such. But since at the moment I have neither the time nor the inclination to add anything meaningful to the present debate, I'll leave it there.

[Ben]

“And yes, Hutchionson does look very, very normal in comparison with guys who memorize 70 000 objects.”

This is precisely the argumentation I was cautioning against, Fisherman – the fallacy that Hutchinson looks “normal” alongside a small handful of extreme and well-documented examples of people with eidetic memory. Think of it this way; would it make the slightest bit of sense for me to provide extreme examples of famous liars in order to demonstrate that people lie? Of course not. People lie every day. If I were to provide you with examples of everyday lies, you would be well within your rights to consider me very patronising. Such is the frequency of lying as an every day occurrence that rational people are bound to consider it more likely than your “Hey, maybe Hutchinson was one of those special people with special skills!”.

When I speak of Hutchinson having only a few seconds with which to observe the minutia of Astrakhan’s clothing and accessories, and the negligible visibility he would have had at his disposal to make his observations, I’m merely working from the basis of Hutchinson’s statement and a knowledge of the time and conditions at that location. We mustn’t pretend that just because we can’t pinpoint these things with exactitude, we are not in a position to make very reasonable calculations.

"Yes, we can make assumptions as to the degree of light in that part of Dorset Street"

We can! And they may be right or wrong! Assumptions, Ben, do not offer solutions.

Well, for example I might go out on a limb and “assume” it wasn’t bright and sunny at the time of the alleged sighting. I feel sure you know what I’m getting at here.

“Of course not, you are simply trying to make something suspicious out of something quite ordinary”

No, you’re simply trying to make something “quite ordinary” out of the patently bogus. I think my observation was a fairly reasonable one. If you pull your hat down over your eyes, you’re bound to decrease the chances of another person registering that mean ol’ surly look in your eyes. The only way round the problem would be to press your head up close to the hat-wearer’s chest and gaze upwards. An absurd and comical spectacle would be the result, but that’s what you’re compelled to accept if you take Hutchinson and his discredited statement at face value.

“Why not think: "Hmmmm, since he saw the dark eyelashes, the dark eyes, the hair, the moustache and the complexion, he must have had five or six seconds at his disposal"

Because I’m endowed with at least a few critical faculties and I’m not a complete idiot, to be frank. Who would think that? Surely not you? You’re not an idiot. Surely you’re not so utterly determined to forsake your reason and take the patently ludicrous at face value that you’re prepared to accept – just on Hutchinson’s say so – that he could detect the shade of a man’s pissing eyelashes on the streets of Victorian London at 2.00am? But you go further – you implore me not only to accept this horribly implausible claim, but its horribly implausible implications, i.e. that because Hutchinson said he could detect the man’s eyelash shade, he must have been marvelling at his silly surly face for five seconds or more.

If you actually reconstructed the scene as you're currently envisaging it, you’d laugh.

“Garry´s suggestion that we should compare with one-second laboratory experiments, though, is for some odd reason extremely relevant...?”

The difference here is that Garry is referring to tests conducted on normal individuals, whereas you have googled upon some particularly striking and extreme examples of individuals with photographic memory who are very much in the public eye.

“Yes! But Hutchinson HIMSELF was not discredited.”

As you’ll recall, I consider this a false distinction, akin to saying that Peter Sutcliffe HIMSELF was not to blame, and that it was his weapons that did the dirty work.

“But it DOES make him very much more likely to take in all he possibly could.”

It doesn’t. It was merely a claim on Hutchinson’s part, most probably to legitimise the unusual degree of detail he purportedly remembered. How better to justify this than by pretending it was because he was really, really interested in the bloke, honest guv!? What makes matters worse here is that Hutchinson’s professed reason for his interest was irrefutably crap, if not wholly absent.

“He (Hutchinson) had seen him minutes earlier at the street corner, and had a general idea of his appearance before that, but now he got a good look.”

Oh right, you prefer the press version of his testimony – interesting, but when you say “now he got a look”, when exactly are you talking about? When do you contend he looked down and registered his oddly protruding watch chain and exciting-looking appendages? Clearly you think this must have happened before he gazed at the man upwards from under the latter’s hat-brim, but when? The more we discuss these matters, the more I’m convinced that you’d benefit from a short walkabout of the district, just to cement your familiarity with the distances involved.

“No, according to me Hutchinson MAY have believed so, and my guess is that this was so.”

So in the total absence of evidence, you are guessing that Hutchinson believed that Astrakhan man might have been the ripper. Interesting. So what do you contend reassured Hutchinson to the contrary? The man's surly stare? His bogeyman appearance? His attempt to conceal his identity? You're saying that all these things lessened Hutchinson's suspicions that the Astrakhan man was the ripper?

“Maybe Hutch WAS suspicious of the man, did nothing about it”

Well, nothing except loitering outside Miller’s Court on the off chance that the man did decide to kill Kelly, according to you.

As I’ve demonstrated, PC Smith’s description is considerably less detailed than Hutchinson's. I shouldn’t really have to explain why a large newspaper parcel might be more conspicuous that a man’s eyelash shade or horseshoe tie pin or linen collar.

“so why would we accept that Smith could make out newspaper text”

What are you talking about, Fisherman?

Whoever claimed that PC Smith could “make out” newspaper text?

“If the good constable HAD noticed the man much, and if he HAD made a point of observing him very closely - which he did not, by his own admission, remember”

No.

The impressive degree of detail in Smith’s description informs us that he must have “noticed” him to some extent. Had the description incorporated appreciably more detail, I’d be considerably more inclined to distrust the veracity and motivations of PC Smith.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Only if you condense two observations into one, as you’ve just done, for example “black tie with horseshoe pin”. The horseshoe pin is a significant individual detail in its own right. You do the same with “gaiters and white buttons”, and yet when it comes to PC Smith, you split one observation into two, such as 1. Parcel, 2. wrapped in newspaper. In which case, why don’t you do the same for Hutchinson and note that his man had 1. a coat, 2. trimmed with Astrakhan?"

You may have noticed that I counted the parcel AND the strap as two things? And in the end, it matters not if we count 33 or 36 things. That´s quibbling over unimportant things.

"In deference to your support of the press versions of Hutchinson’s testimony and the claims made therein (such as Kelly speaking in a “loud voice”), I thought I might include the totality of Hutchinson’s description. Naturally it includes the contradictions and polar opposites."

Of course, we do not have Smith in any paper interview, elaborating on things, but I´m fine with all you can throw at me, Ben. It still will not be anything but a matter of decimals relating to a very unimpressing figure in Hutchinson´s case.

"In addition, I disagree with your assessment of PC Smith as simply a passer by who had no reason to scrutinise anyone’s appearance."

If he had any reason or not does not enter the equation. He stated firmly himself "I did not notice him much", and if that owes to him lying to conceal the fact that he observed the man as close as he possibly could in spite of what he said at the inquest, or if he simply was a very, very bad PC is of little interest. We do not have to speculate, since Smith puts us on firm ground by his own admission. Right?

"Even if he didn’t notice him “much”, he must have paid in some attention to recall what he did."

Only the kind of fleeting observation that you afford people that you don´t notice very much. And that was enough to take in a god deal of things, just the same.
If the good constable HAD noticed the man much, and if he HAD made a point of observing him very closely - which he did not, by his own admission, remember - then we would have known much, much more about this man. We would have had a description of his hair and his eyes, we would know what shoes he wore, we would know if he wore a shirt and a tie, we would know if he wore any jewellery in a visible way etcetera. That´s what comes from observing a man closely and making the effort to take in as much as possible - the exact way that Hutchinson did!

As it stands, though, Smith did not notice the man much - only enough to take in his height, his approximate age, his coat, his hat, the parcel and what it was made of, the measurements of the parcel and his whiskerless face.

I say that is impossible to do in a dark street, especially if you don´t notice a man much. I really believe that we may be onto the killer here. Smith obviously lied. Nobody takes in that much in a fleeting second - surely he must have spent considerably less than five seconds looking at the man, since he was on his beat and pacing along steadily.
Yes, I am pulling your leg here, Ben. But you will no doubt see why.

"Also, I don't know why you make reference to Dorset Street being "comparatively well-lit" when there was next to no chance of Hutchinson noticing any of Astrakhan man's accessories there."

I would have thought the reverse was true - that you see MORE with BETTER lighting.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"It was Wickerman, and I responded to Wickerman’s post"

Be that as it may - what I pointed to was that I certainly was not the one that brought it up!

"All you’ve done is defend the vastly improbable on the basis that some very well-documented, easily googlable and very extraordinary examples exist of those with eidetic memory, and claim that Hutchinson looks “normal” by comparison, which he doesn’t. Garry Wroe, whose background is in psychology, has already pointed out that 40 details (I’m taking your word for it, but I’ll check later) is way beyond the average number of details that an individual can recall in laboratory conditions, which are undoubtedly better than a darkened street at 2.00am in Victorian London on a rainy night."

What Garry is speaking of, Ben, is a situation where the persons tested may look at a sequence of numbers or a collection of items for the odd second. That is hardly reconcilable with a purposeful man who uses a good many minutes to observe a man he has taken the keenest of interest in, is it? This is something I believe Garry - psychology background and all - will agree with. Most people would, actually! And yes, Hutchionson does look very, very normal in comparison with guys who memorize 70 000 objects. There IS a difference, you know!

"It wasn’t a “reasonable period of observation”. It was a few seconds..."

Ah - good! I have been looking for the longest time for somebody who knew the exact time during which Hutchinson made his observations, and now it would seem you had the answer all along (joke!).

"...a gas lamp (which emitted a negligible amount of light anyway).

Ah - good! I have been looking for the longest time for somebody who knew the exact amount of light by which Hutchinson made his observations, and now it would seem you had the answer all along (joke!).

"You can dispense utterly with any consideration that dark eyelashes, horseshoe tie-pins and linen collars were visible at any other stage in the Astrakhan sighting than that brief moment of questionable opportunity."

Of course I can´t. Nor can you, or anybody else. You just do it anyway.

"Before that, and later as he passed down Dorset Street, he would only have seen a man in a dark overcoat and hat."

You sure he saw the hat?

"Yes, we can make assumptions as to the degree of light in that part of Dorset Street"

We can! And they may be right or wrong! Assumptions, Ben, do not offer solutions.

"Well, we just have to use our imagination here..."

Using "our" imagination, Ben, does not offer solutions either.

"The man walked passed Hutchinson, but despite having his hat over his eyes, he was able to look at him “stern”."

Absolutely not. If you can´t see the eyes, you cannot tell whether a look is stern or not. It is impossible. Therefore, the sound thing to do, is to accept that the man pulled his hat over his eyes, whereupon Hutchinson had to stoop down tio be able to see them eyes.
You surely don´t think that Abberline believed that Hutchinson could see through the hatbrim, do you? Of course not, you are simply trying to make something suspicious out of something quite ordinary. Why?

"It probably took considerable less than 5 seconds"

On what scientific grounds do we deduct this, Ben? On the grounds that we should try our very best to paint Hutchinson out like a liar?
Why not try the other way around, and accept that he must have gotten a god look to be able to take in what he claimed to take in? Why not think: "Hmmmm, since he saw the dark eyelashes, the dark eyes, the hair, the moustache and the complexion, he must have had five or six seconds at his disposal". Why instead claim - completely out of the blue - that he would have had "considerably less" time than that? Because that is the ordinary stoop-down and observe time?

"I’m sorry, but your “digits” have no relevance here. Deliberately trying to memorize digits on a screen have nothing whatsoever to do with a highly questioned witness sighting that took place in low visibility, and concerns items that he couldn’t even have seen, let alone memorized, in all likelihood."

Then again, no matter what comparisons I bring, you always come up with the clever conclusion that they have no relevance.
Garry´s suggestion that we should compare with one-second laboratory experiments, though, is for some odd reason extremely relevant...?

Of course ANY memorizing test applies here,no matter what the conditions. And they all show the same thing - our capacity is almost endless, so it´s kind of strange that recollecting 20-30 items should count as the eighth wonder of the world in you book.

"Well no, his account was ultimately discredited and adjudged to have been a worthless story that led the police on a false scent."

Yes! But Hutchinson HIMSELF was not discredited. Therein lies the rub.

"All you’re doing here is supporting what Hutchinson said with…what Hutchinson said, which is not a very laudable approach."

I prefer it to supporting what he said with all the things he NEVER said, mind you. Such things call for - as you put it - a little imagination. Well, perhaps not a little, but you get my drift!

"Unfortunately, claiming to have a particular interest in the man – which he provides no good reason for – does not bestow upon Hutchinson near superhuman powers of observation and recollection."

Absolutely not! But it DOES make him very much more likely to take in all he possibly could. And what he took in was never in any fashion superhuman. Have a look at PC Smith - was he superhuman as he observed that the parcel in his man´s hands was 18 by 6-8 inches, and wrapped in newspaper? How on earth could he see that, in the dark, dark Berner Street, a street that was evidenced to have rather a poor lighting? How could he see that there were printed syllables on that paper, syllables that would have been only a few millimeters high? Why was it not just a grey blur to his eyes? Hutchinson could only see that the man he followed and observed intently wore a dark overcoat and a hat - you claim this yourself - so why would we accept that Smith could make out newspaper text and magically measure a parcel in a situation where he was not even paying any closer attention to the man he spoke of?

Maybe, Ben, he was lying? Maybe he was the killer?

"The fact that he provided an unconvincing reason for taking such an interest is only evidence that he was aware of his fabrication’s high detail content"

It is nothing of the sort. That´s just speculation on your behalf.,

"He claimed to have stooped down and looked at the man’s face during that brief – and only – window of opportunity, and unfortunately, if he was concentrating on the face, he couldn’t ALSO have been concentrating on the whole load of other items he claimed to have recorded."

This is what I think happened, Ben. Hutchinson stooped down and looked the man in the face. He had seen him minutes earlier at the street corner, and had a general idea of his appearance before that, but now he got a good look. When he had taken that look, he lowered his gaze and noticed the clock chain and the tie and pin, and the clothing. As Hutch raised his head again, the man passing him at close range did not disappear with a "poof" - instead he was fully visible, boots, buttons and all. There would have been time then, and potentially at other occasions down the line, to make the observations he said he did. It is all quite trivial.

"Hutchinson thinks the man might be the ripper (according to you)"

No, according to me Hutchinson MAY have believed so, and my guess is that this was so. But I cannot decide what Hutchinson thought or did not think.

"...but then after registering his “wealthy doctor-like bogeyman” appearance, his stern glare and his attempt to conceal his face, Hutchinson decides he’s now LESS convinced that the man might be the killer?"

Yes. He said himself that his impression was that the man was not murderous.
Churchill could look stern at people. That did not make him a killer, did it? And pay attention to the fact that people with a sore conscience sometimes try to save ass afterwards, by convincing themselves that they ought not blame themselves. Maybe Hutch WAS suspicious of the man, did nothing about it - and came up with a slain friend. That would be enough to make many people go into defence mode. Surely you can recognize the mechanism? Thus your claim...
"Despite being obvious nonsense, this was nonetheless a shrewd and necessary move on Hutchinson’s part. For had he conceded that the harboured suspicions that the man might have been “the murderer”, the police would have asked him why he loitered on Dorset Street rather than alerting a PC, or Kelly herself, or rendering some sort of assistance."
...may have another explanation than your he-did-it-approach. And a much more mundane explanation at that!

"You decide for, for example, that Hutchinson's mind was on the ripper murders at the time, but not even Hutchinson claimed that this was the case."

Once again no - I suggest it as a very reasonable thing. And much as Hutch does not claim it, he does not disclaim it either, does he?

"Sorry if I come across as exasperated here, but if we were having this conversation for the first time, I wouldn't be nearly so exasperated!"

That´s fine by me, Ben. I don´t mind.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

So it´s 22-12 in Hutchinson´s favour.

No, Fisherman.

Only if you condense two observations into one, as you’ve just done, for example “black tie with horseshoe pin”. The horseshoe pin is a significant individual detail in its own right. You do the same with “gaiters and white buttons”, and yet when it comes to PC Smith, you split one observation into two, such as 1. Parcel, 2. wrapped in newspaper. In which case, why don’t you do the same for Hutchinson and note that his man had 1. a coat, 2. trimmed with Astrakhan?

In deference to your support of the press versions of Hutchinson’s testimony and the claims made therein (such as Kelly speaking in a “loud voice”), I thought I might include the totality of Hutchinson’s description. Naturally it includes the contradictions and polar opposites.

Age about 34 or 35.
Height 5ft6
Complexion pale
Dark complexion
Dark eyes
Dark eye lashes
Slight moustache, curled up each end
Dark Moustache
No side whiskers,
Cleanshaven chin
Hair dark
Very surley looking
Long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed astracan.
Dark jacket under.
Light waistcoat
Dark trousers
Dark felt hat turned down in the middle.
Button boots and gaiters with white buttons.
Very thick gold chain
Big seal, with a red stone hanging from it
White linen collar.
Black tie
Horse shoe pin.
Respectable appearance
Walked very sharp.
Walked very softly.
Jewish appearance
Looked at the witness "stern"
a pair of brown kid gloves
red handkerchief
Carried a small parcel in his hand about eight inches long, and it had a strap around it. He had it tightly grasped in his left hand. It looked as though it was covered with dark American cloth.

In addition, I disagree with your assessment of PC Smith as simply a passer by who had no reason to scrutinise anyone’s appearance. I would suggest the reverse is true; that after several murders of prostitutes were recently committed in the nearby district, a policeman on duty at the would make a point of observing any man seen with a woman in the small hours. Even if he didn’t notice him “much”, he must have paid in some attention to recall what he did.

He even nails the size of the newspaper parcel!

How do you know?

Also, I don't know why you make reference to Dorset Street being "comparatively well-lit" when there was next to no chance of Hutchinson noticing any of Astrakhan man's accessories there.

Cheers,
Ben