Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[Ben]

Ah well, another mammoth repetitive Hutchinson debate it is, then….

Avoidable, but never mind.

“Please don´t take this where it does not belong, Ben. It was you yourself that started to discuss the Hutchinson testimony”

Not it wasn’t, Fisherman. It was Wickerman, and I responded to Wickerman’s post, thereby evincing a crucial clue to the intended recipient of my post. I know full well what your thoughts are on this issue, which is why I clung to the hope that we had resigned ourselves to our differing stances back then, rather than expecting you to revive yet another long-winded discussion on the issue.

“What I want to do is to point out that when you point to the number of things Hutchinson recalled as a nigh on impossible thing, this is not correct.”

But no offence, you haven’t done that very successfully. 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.

“After that, we need to ask ourselves whether it is possible to remember forty details after a reasonable period of observation, relating to the time Hutchinson had at his disposal.”

It wasn’t a “reasonable period of observation”. It was a few seconds as the man allegedly passed in close proximity to a gas lamp (which emitted a negligible amount of light anyway). 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. Before that, and later as he passed down Dorset Street, he would only have seen a man in a dark overcoat and hat.

Yes, we can make assumptions as to the degree of light in that part of Dorset Street – very poor, along with general visibility. We can waste more time arguing that we don’t know the exact degree of visibility if you wish, or we can rationally concede that it was nowhere near sufficient for discerning dark eyelashes and other minute goodies. He would only be able to discern a horseshoe tie-pin (for instance) if he was scrutinizing it specifically, but it would have been at the expense of noticing other items, such as “light buttons over button boots”. He could not have focused on the smallest accessories from the man’s upper body AND the smallest accessories from the man’s lower body AT THE SAME TIME.

“The same goes for the time. The stooping down bit may have afforded Hutchinson just the one second. Likewise, it may have been five seconds, or more.”

Well, we just have to use our imagination here and come to a non-outlandish conclusion accordingly. The man walked passed Hutchinson, but despite having his hat over his eyes, he was able to look at him “stern”. Setting aside for a moment the thorny issue of how this is even possible, reflect that unless this was a staring competition, it probably took considerable less than 5 seconds, and it was unlikely to have involved Hutchinson looking anywhere but at the man’s face.

“Hutch also followed the couple intently, and took great interest in the man, by his own admission”

Which allowed him to see the back of the man’s overcoat and the back of his hat. That’s all.

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.

“Therefore, it can be reasoned that perhaps the contemporary police made the same observation”

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

“This, however, was exactly what Hutchinson did. Once he saw the man approaching Kelly, he took an active interest in him, and went through extensive trouble to get a good look at him.”

All you’re doing here is supporting what Hutchinson said with…what Hutchinson said, which is not a very laudable approach. 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. 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, and sought to vindicate his more outlandish observations by pretending he was in a prime position to notice them, which he wasn’t. 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.

“The man was not a bad bid for the stereotype, wealthy doctor-like bogeyman picture of the killer, was he? Of course, Hutchinson added that the man did not give that sort of an impression”

Which is really rather suspicious, or at least it ought to be considered so.

Hutchinson thinks the man might be the ripper (according to you), 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? 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.

“This, I think, is how we should approach Hutchinson´s description of his man”

And I would disagree very strongly, because it’s based on your pre-decided view of Hutchinson’s character and motivations at the time of the alleged sighting. 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. The correct “approach” would be to assess the evidence as it stands, and if you still end up with star witness with amazing memory, it’s up to you. I’d be astonished though, especially when the policemen Bob Hinton communicated with dismissed the statement as “pure fantasy”.

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!

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Let´s, to further enlighten this, take PC Smith as an example! He made his observation in the darkness of badly lit Berner Street (Dorset Street was said to be comparatively well lit, with the boarding house lamps and street lighting).

Here is the conversation between the coroner and Smith, from Stride´s inquest.

"The Coroner: Had you noticed any man or woman in Berner-street when you were there before? - Yes, talking together.
[Coroner] Was the woman anything like the deceased? - Yes. I saw her face, and I think the body at the mortuary is that of the same woman.
[Coroner] Are you certain? - I feel certain. She stood on the pavement a few yards from where the body was found, but on the opposite side of the street.
[Coroner] Did you look at the man at all? - Yes.
[Coroner] What did you notice about him? - He had a parcel wrapped in a newspaper in his hand. The parcel was about 18in. long and 6in. to 8in. broad.
[Coroner] Did you notice his height? - He was about 5ft. 7in.
[Coroner] His hat? - He wore a dark felt deerstalker's hat.
[Coroner] Clothes? - His clothes were dark. The coat was a cutaway coat.
[Coroner] Did you overhear any conversation? - No.
[Coroner] Did they seem to be sober? - Yes, both.
[Coroner] Did you see the man's face? - He had no whiskers, but I did not notice him much. I should say he was twenty-eight years of age. He was of respectable appearance, but I could not state what he was. The woman had a flower in her breast."

Okay! Let´s first of all notice that Smith did NOT intentionally do his best to pinpoint the man: "I did not notice him much", is what he tells us. Let´s also bear in mind that Smith was patrolling a beat, meaning that he was a passer-by, with not very much time at his hands for observing people along the way. He did not take an active interest in his man, thus, he did not stoop down to look him in the face, and he did not follow him around.

Still, he managed to pick up on:
1. The man had a parcel in his hand.
2. It was wrapped in a newspaper.
3. It was 18 inches by 6-8 inches in size.
4. He wore a dark felt deerstalker´s hat.
5. His attire was dark.
6. He wore a cutaway coat.
7. He seemed sober.
8. He had no whiskers.
9. He seemed to be 28 years of age.
10. He was of respectable appearance.
11. The woman he was with bore a flower.
12. He was 5 ft 7.

Not bad for a man who did not make any real effort to observe the man he described, is it? He even nails the size of the newspaper parcel!

...and this is Hutchinson, from the police report:

1. Age about 34 or 35.
2. Height 5ft6.
3. Complexion pale.
4. Dark eyes and eye lashes.
5. Slight moustache, curled up each end.
6. Hair dark.
7. Very surley looking
8. Long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed astracan.
9. Dark jacket under.
10. Light waistcoat.
11. Dark trousers.
12. Dark felt hat turned down in the middle.
13. Button boots.
14. Gaiters with white buttons.
15. Very thick gold chain.
16. White linen collar.
17. Black tie with horse shoe pin.
18. Respectable appearance.
19. Walked very sharp.
20. Jewish appearance.
21. Small parcel in hand.
22. Strap on parcel.

So it´s 22-12 in Hutchinson´s favour. And why would we not be able to write that difference down to a much longer time of observation on Hutchinson´s behalf, combined with a very keen interest in the man he observed, involving a very intent stooping down in order to take the man´s face in? Furthermore, some people are more observant than others, and why would we not appreciate that this could be one of Hutchinson´s traits?

In this context, we may get a better understanding of the whole business I feel.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"Please refer to my previous post, Fish.

Oh, and welcome back."

To begin with: Thanks!

On the subject: 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.

But I think we need to ponder two important factors in this context. One of them is that some people are very much more accurate than others in these affairs, pinpointing a god number of details and surrounding circumstances. Maybe Hutch belonged to this category, quite simply.

The other, potentially much more important thing, is that witness testimonies relating to different crimes are often given by people who have gotten a very short glimpse of the perpetrator, and, more importantly, who have not set out to specially study on singled-out person.
This, however, was exactly what Hutchinson did. Once he saw the man approaching Kelly, he took an active interest in him, and went through extensive trouble to get a good look at him. He followed the man, and he put himself in the man´s way, stooping down to get a really good look. He tried to listen to the conversation outside Miller´s Court, making out a bit of it. He did what he could to get a clear picture of the man and his intentions.

This means that Hutchinson does not make for a very apt comparison with crime scene witnesses, for example. Instead, we should compare with persons who do their absolute best to take a really good look at someone over a period of time that encompasses many a minute.

If we - for clarity´s sake - look away from the visibility factor and just interest ourselves for the detail memorizing part, I think an interesting experiment could be made by anybody of us:

Choose a person in any crowd, preferably somebody not very ordinary but instead someone who has dressed up very much. Then follow that person around for five or six minutes all the time looking at him/her and taking in his/her appearance. Take the time to cross his/her way at very close range, and take a close, up-front look at his/her face. Pay attention to how the person is dressed and try and understand what kind of person it really is, what he/she would be doing for a living, etcetera.

After this, I bet that very many of us would be able to tell very much about the person, dresswise and apparitionwise. If it was a woman, wearing some sort of, say, necklace, then we would probably be able to describe it, just as we could say a lot about her shoes, her hair, her colours - just about anything - IF OUR INTENT FROM THE OUTSET WAS TO TAKE A REAL GOOD LOOK!

And that was the exact intent Hutchinson had, was it not? By the looks of things, the underlying reason may well have been a desire to find out whether Kelly was in danger of having picked up the Ripper. The man was not a bad bid for the stereotype, wealthy doctor-like bogeyman picture of the killer, was he? Of course, Hutchinson added that the man did not give that sort of an impression - but that was not until after he had gone out of his way to observe him.

Try and put yourself in the same situation - you are following and observing a person who you think may be a prolific killer on the loose, accompanying a friend of yours. You do all you can to focus on the man and you observe him as closely as the circumstances allow for a period of five, six, ten minutes. After that, you would be a goldmine of information, methinks.

This, I think, is how we should approach Hutchinson´s description of his man - as the result of meticulous, focused and intentional work, all with the purpose to learns as much as possible about the guy. And if we think of it in that way, we must appreciate that it would have been much, much more strange if Hutchinson had told the police that he really could not describe the man very well.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

Take the test, Garry, and you will no doubt see why I question what you seemingly suggest.

Please refer to my previous post, Fish.

Oh, and welcome back.

[Garry Wroe]

The 7 plus or minus two rule applies to some quite specific situations.

True enough, Raoul, but a relevant observation given that extremes of mnemonic performance were increasingly being depicted as normal. Perhaps it might have been better had I cited Bartlett's folklore research or any number of similar such studies which have exposed the frailty of memory in normally functioning individuals.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"Under laboratory conditions, the average person is able to recall seven list items, plus or minus two."

If you care to take a look, Gary, at the link I provided for Ben in post 56, you will find that you can take a test in this discipline.
I tried it myself - good fun - and I managed 10 digits after having looked at them for just one second. Who´s "average"?

Please make an effort yourself, and then ask yourself - was this the amount of time Hutchinson would have been afforded in total, after having followed the couple around for perhaps ten or fifteen minutes, with an explicit intent to get as good a look as possible of the man in Kelly´s company? Was that all he would have had at hand, a sudden flash, BAM!, for just one second ...?

Take the test, Garry, and you will no doubt see why I question what you seemingly suggest.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Raoul´s Obsession:

"in this case, the items are all on one person, and there will be plenty of cues that enable someone to remember them better by."

Important factor! A gold chain, a seal stone, kid gloves and astrakhan trimmings all have something in common, and thus they would arguably be easy to group logically.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ausgirl:
"Was anything hung over the window? Basic questions, I know. But a dim candle behind a coat or cloth hung across a window would take care of the question of how the killer saw in the dark. And, possibly, how nobody observed any light from her room."

There was a pilot coat over one of the windows, Ausgirl. But if the killer was a nightly intruder, please keep in mind that Kelly would have put the candle out before she went to sleep, and thus he would have had to surmise that the candle was there, and bring matches and look in the dark for it before we could have it burning again ...

Also, we know that it was said at the inquest that at a later hour there was no light coming from Kelly´s windows. That, of course, means that there HAD been light coming from them before. Light always finds a way, just like water. It would have taken more than a loosely hung pilot coat to stop the light from travelling out into the court!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I’m talking about before that, Fisherman. You know as well as I do that we’ve been through the issue of Hutchinson’s description a great many times. You also knew that to engage me in debate on the issue again would certainly derail the thread and very probably result in another lengthy Hutchinson argument, and yet despite knowing this and despite my cautions, you decided to go for it anyway."

Please don´t take this where it does not belong, Ben. It was you yourself that started to discuss the Hutchinson testimony, and all I did was to join in that discussion and point to what I thought was a misconception on your behalf. That is what we do on these threads, is it not?

So when you say "you’re obviously quite anxious to have yet another repetitive Hutchinson debate for some reason", you are quite simply wrong. What I want to do is to point out that when you point to the number of things Hutchinson recalled as a nigh on impossible thing, this is not correct.

You see, to point Hutchinson´s testimony out as something that borders on the impossible, we must make assumptions in two fields where we do not have the facts. And none of those two fields are related to the sheer number of things recorded, but instead to other parameters.

When it comes to the numbers of things recorded, we are dealing with absolute, unshakable numbers. All we have to do to judge this parameter is to count how many objects Hutchinson claimed to have observed. We end up with a number of 40, justaboutish, I believe.

After that, we need to ask ourselves whether it is possible to remember forty details after a reasonable period of observation, relating to the time Hutchinson had at his disposal. Checking for comparisons on the net, we will find for example the site

http://www.recordholders.org/en/records/quick-memory/quick-memory.html

On this site, we can take part of the record number of decimal digits people have been able to recall after having seen them flash up on a screen for different periods of time. The record number after having seen the numbers for one (1) second only is 19. Ramon Campayo of Spain did this. The same man is able to recall 25 numbers after three (3) seconds.

Thus we know that yes, it is perfectly possible to remember very many things after just a quick glance. We also know that people can absorb number chains up to close to 70 000 numbers, so the capacity of the human mind in this respect is quite formidable.

Therefore, the argument that a person could not take in the amount of 40 details is not viable as such. It is not until we add the two other parameters I spoke about that we may get a situation where this may be true. These two parameters are, of course, visibility and time.

If the visibility was too low to see that Astrakhan man wore buttoned boots and a gold chain, then Hutchinson could not have seen these things. If the visibility was to poor to allow for recognizing the color red, then Hutchinson could not have seen that the seal stone was red. And if we work from the assumption that Hutchinson had never seen the man before or after the evening in question, then he would not be telling the truth, if it can be proven that the visibility did not allow for seeing what he claimed he saw.

The same thing goes for time. We know that the record amount of numbers recorded in one (1) second is 19. If Hutchinson only had one second´s time to observe Astrakhan man, then it can be argued that memorizing 40 things seems an impossible task.

But - and it is a very important but - we do not have any way to establish either of these two factors! When it comes to visibility, we do not know how much light was afforded. We do not know how close to a light source Hutchinson was as he stooped down to look at the man, and we do not know how much light that source emitted. We do not know how many other light sources came into play, at what distance they were from Astrakhan man and in what angles. We do not know how keen an eyesight Hutchinson had. These are all unknown factors to us.

The same goes for the time. The stooping down bit may have afforded Hutchinson just the one second. Likewise, it may have been five seconds, or more. Hutch also followed the couple intently, and took great interest in the man, by his own admission. Therefore, he may have spent many minutes taking in what could be taken in, under visibility circumstances that we cannot measure.

The only reasonable conclusion must be that what Hutchinson claimed to have done could have been true OR untrue, relating to the visibility and time factors. When it comes to the number of things he took in, however, there can be no doubt whatsoever that it was well and comfortably within the boundaries for what a person may do.

The credibility thus hinges on factors that we cannot estimate more than very roughly, giving us a spectre that allows for both interpretations. Therefore, it can be reasoned that perhaps the contemporary police made the same observation - George Hutchinson could certainly, given that the time and visibility was there, have done what he claimed to have done. And Abberline´s verdict, believing Hutchinson, seems to bear witness to this.

All the best,
Fisherman

PS. I realize that this would fit better under a Hutch suspect thread, but a technical error disallows me to open threads there, so if you want to move the discussion there, I must ask you to open a new thread yourself. The problem has been forwarded to the administrators, and I trust they will see to it soon, though!

[Raoul's Obsession]

The 7 plus or minus two rule applies to some quite specific situations.

As you mention, the average person can recall 7 plus or minus two items read out or briefly flashed up on a screen. Basically, this is the capacity of short-term and working memory. What needs to be noted is that Hutch probably had significantly more time than your average working memory experiment (not that I'm saying he had a lot of time) and some of this info would go to long term memory. Secondly, this rule applies to unrelated items - in this case, the items are all on one person, and there will be plenty of cues that enable someone to remember them better by. For starters, he'd be able to group pieces of information together (chunking: one of the many strategies used by people who remember pie to ridiculous decimal places). I reckon he'd do considerably better than 7 or 9 - but it still doesn't put me on the Hutch side of the fence.

raoul

[Garry Wroe]

I think the reason the internet is not crammed with people who have managed to remember forty things, is because it is no remarkable feat at all. Therefore nobody even ponders the idea of advertising such a thing there.

Not so, Fish. Under laboratory conditions, the average person is able to recall seven list items, plus or minus two. In other words between five and nine items.

[Ausgirl]

Ausgirl:

"Did Mary Kelly not have a kerosene or oil lamp in her room?"

She only had a candle, half-burnt as she was found, as far as I know.

The best,
Fisherman

A candle is more than enough light to see by. Was anything hung over the window? Basic questions, I know. But a dim candle behind a coat or cloth hung across a window would take care of the question of how the killer saw in the dark. And, possibly, how nobody observed any light from her room.

[Ben]

“Unnecessary? You claimed that I had made a mistake by using an example with an autist, so I provided people who are NOT autists”

I’m talking about before that, Fisherman. You know as well as I do that we’ve been through the issue of Hutchinson’s description a great many times. You also knew that to engage me in debate on the issue again would certainly derail the thread and very probably result in another lengthy Hutchinson argument, and yet despite knowing this and despite my cautions, you decided to go for it anyway. Fair enough. It’s not a criticism, but you’re obviously quite anxious to have yet another repetitive Hutchinson debate for some reason.

I’m afraid your extreme examples of individuals with extraordinary abilities demonstrate one thing – Hutchinson almost certainly wasn’t one of them, and that the simplest explanation by far is that he probably lied. We can look at your examples and decide: maybe he was one of those rare people with very unusual abilities, or we can decide: maybe he was like every single other member of the human race and told a lie. I go for the second option. It makes so much more sense than trying to defend this aspect of the statement on the basis that, yes it’s extraordinary, but not as extraordinary as the really extraordinary people.

Speaking of which, some of these hastily googled examples are wildly inapplicable, and usually involve individuals who spent a great deal of time – often years – for the express purpose of honing their memorization abilities, usually to get into some record book or other. The individual you’ve just referred to (again) spent a year attempting to memorize digits for his grand scene. It’s really no use citing a few well-documented freak examples and claiming that they a) make Hutchinson’s claims appear less extraordinary, and b) compare to Hutchinson, who couldn’t even have seen many of the details he mentioned (if he could, his abilities would dwarf any of the examples offered so far in terms of "wow" factor!).

“Split his testimony in two parts, for example, by taking away every second item”

Why?

Of course his statement becomes less outlandish if you take half of it away, but you can’t do that, I’m afraid. You have to assess the statement as it stands, and unfortunately, it contains a whole host of items, many of which couldn’t even have been seen, let alone memorized.

“I don´t think that this discussion should involve what Hutch could see and what he could not see.”

Yes, but we’ve had that discussion several times already.

I don’t believe we can disassociate the implausible extent of memorization from the implausible descriptions of items he almost certainly could not have seen. When combined they point to one unavoidable conclusion, and that is fabrication on Hutchinson’s part, in my opinion.

Please don’t think I’m attempting to stifle debate here, but I can already see this branching out into an all too familiar and generic “Did Hutchinson Lie?” thread, and there is only one end result - Uthållighet Krig!

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben!

I would just like to add one more thing to the ongoing discussion about Hutchinson´s testimony. And that is that we ought not forget that we are now comparing his efforts with a chinese fellow, who managed to reiterate nearly seventy THOUSAND (70 000!) figures of pi correctly.

Somehow it is completely ridiculous to even hint at the possibility that remembering forty-odd details would make old George play in the same league. That struck me as I had dinner tonight.

I think the reason the internet is not crammed with people who have managed to remember forty things, is because it is no remarkable feat at all. Therefore nobody even ponders the idea of advertising such a thing there. It´s the ones who remember nigh on 70 000 details or seven chapters of psychology who make these internet sites, not the likes of George Hutchinson. He is not exactly on par with that, is he?

Let´s not loose our sense of proportions here! (Yeah, and I do know that it was myself that posted about the true memory masters, but still ...!)

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ausgirl:

"Did Mary Kelly not have a kerosene or oil lamp in her room?"

She only had a candle, half-burnt as she was found, as far as I know.

The best,
Fisherman