PDA

View Full Version : Hutchinson's sunday


DVV
07-25-2008, 12:18 AM
Much has been said about Hutchinson's statement and the Jewish-looking man he supposedly saw with Kelly on 9 November - no need to open a new thread about this.

I'd like here to focus on what Hutch supposedly saw on Sunday 11 November:

"I believe that he [LA DI DA] lives in the neighbouhood", Hutch says, "and I fancied if I saw him in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain."

Just some comments about this statement (waiting for yours):

1: there was a market in Petticoat Lane on Sunday mornings - which means there were constables available as well.

2: Hutchinson apparently not only did not call for any policeman, but let the man go: strange, for somebody who had waited 45 minutes in front of Miller's Court, before he knew about any murder commited there...

3: note the expression "I fancied" and "I was not certain", while there is nobody recognizable like LA DI DA...Seems like Hutch did not believe in the statement he was to make to Abberline more than 24 hours afterwards!

4: what a coincidental meeting !

5: why didn't he tell Abberline about this "Sunday" extraordinary meeting, and only told the press on Tuesday 13 ? (see The Times and The Star, 14 Nov)

And that would be my main point: those who would like Hutch to be a mere witness - more or less reliable, as witnesses are, it doesn't matter here - systematically use as an argument the fact that Abberline believed his statement as "important" and "true" (in Abberline's own words from his 12 Nov report).

But would Abberline have believed Hutch if he had told him about Petticoat Lane's Sunday market?

It seems to me that Hutch purposely started to throw doubts on his reliability (slightly, skilfully) when he told some journalists about his incredible Sunday morning...

Amitiés à tous,
David

Ben
07-25-2008, 02:55 AM
Hi David,

Good observations. I'm strongly inclined to agree with your ultimate conclusion. Since Petticoat Lane (Middlesex Street) had very strong Jewish connotations, it's likely that Hutchinson threw in the "I fancied I saw him..." detail to reinforce Mr. Astrakhan's "Jewishness". It didn't stop our Maybrick diary hoaxer from taking clumsy advantage of it, though: "I have taken a small room in Middlesex Street" was almost certainly plucked from Hutchinson's press statement, which, alongside "A handkerchief red led to the bed" detracts from the already tenuous credibility of that silly document.

Best regards,
Ben

DVV
07-25-2008, 01:52 PM
Hi Ben,
all these details make sense to me. It seems that Hutch purposely changed the complexion of his suspect, the shape of the moustache, when talking to the press.
Furthermore, why did he talk to the press, since he was supposed to hunt LA DI DA with the police? Absolute discretion was a must in such a situation!

Amitiés,
David

caz
08-20-2008, 04:35 PM
Hi All,

The various reasons given for Hutch the Ripper going to the police go back and forth from self-preservation and suspicion deflecting to sheer stupidity, bravado or insanity, and the handy fall-back position: "killers do it all the time".

But can we not narrow these reasons down a wee bit in Hutch's case, if he went hot foot to the press with knowingly altered and enhanced versions of what he told the police? If the whole aim was to pull the wool over the cops' eyes and make them believe he was an honest and innocent witness and not a lying scumbag and vicious murderer, he'd surely have been barking mad to piss all over his own bogus witness shoes by announcing to the same cops, via dirty great headlines in the newspapers, that he could change his story or add new bits and therefore lie for England when it suited him.

Anyone else see the fly in the ointment here?

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
08-20-2008, 04:53 PM
Hi Caz,

Surely you're not seriously arguing that the clear discrepencies between the press versions of his account and the original police statement somehow increase the likelihood of him having told the truth, or of him being an innocent witness (etc)? If Hutchinson was responsible for those discrepencies, that's only evidence that he couldn't keep his story together. If anything, it's more of an indication that he lied, not less. Barking mad? More of a lousy liar, if you ask me.

I recall a similar argument was made in one of the books proposing Maybrick as the killer. The argument went something like this: "Why would a hoaxer not even bother to emulate the real Maybrick's handwriting? Ah! Because he wasn't a hoaxer at all, but Maybrick himself, so the fact that the handwriting doesn't remotely match Maybrick's penmanship really means that Maybrick wrote it." No. The handwriting didn't remotely match because the hoaxer was particularly bad.

Best regards,
Ben

The Good Michael
08-20-2008, 05:32 PM
Ben,

The discrepancies do point in the direction of someone not very concerned with his own skin. This leads to the possibility of his telling his story in order to earn some money. I realize there is no evidence that that is why he came forward, yet there's no evidence for his being guilty of killing Kelly to be sure. If he felt some fear of implication, wouldn't it have been more sensible to spend those few days that you have spoken about often, for creating a believable alibi and story? His tale smacks of something that grows in the telling and not for any reason of fear of implication.

Just my opinion, of course.

Cheers,

Mike

Ben
08-20-2008, 05:55 PM
Hi Mike,

If he felt some fear of implication, wouldn't it have been more sensible to spend those few days that you have spoken about often, for creating a believable alibi and story?

I believe that's precisely what he did, though. In fact, if he had any involvement in the murder, he couldn't have picked a more perfect "alibi" than the one he ultimately decided upon; "walking about all night". Any claim to have been "walking about" alone at the accepted time frame for the murder had the ideal alibi-eradictor because short of lots of nocturnal loiterers being conveniently stationed about Spitalfields to moniter him, that activity could be neither verified nor contradicted. It was particularly useful for someone who had, by his own admission, just been opposite the crime scene.

Additionally, if you explore the specific embellishments or "additions" that crept into the press recountings, they tended to be those that "tidied up" aspects of his initial account that could have given rise to suspicion if left unexplained. For example, by the 12th November, he hadn't offered any reason for his failure to come forward, hence the press claim to have encountered a told a policeman about it who did nothing (which is obviously nonsense). I'm very much with Garry Wroe when he opines that:

"...within hours of interrogation, (Hutchinson) recognized that his version of events, courtesy of its hasty conception, contained flaws in several key areas. Since any...revelation would have compromised both his story and his credibility, thereby inviting suspicion, he introduced a number of variants when subsequently speaking to the press"

Quite different, I'd suggest, to Matthew Packer who was continually adding stuff and radically altering times and descriptions.

All the best,
Ben

caz
08-20-2008, 07:39 PM
Hi Caz,

Surely you're not seriously arguing that the clear discrepencies between the press versions of his account and the original police statement somehow increase the likelihood of him having told the truth, or of him being an innocent witness (etc)? If Hutchinson was responsible for those discrepencies, that's only evidence that he couldn't keep his story together. If anything, it's more of an indication that he lied, not less. Barking mad? More of a lousy liar, if you ask me.

I recall a similar argument was made in one of the books proposing Maybrick as the killer. The argument went something like this: "Why would a hoaxer not even bother to emulate the real Maybrick's handwriting? Ah! Because he wasn't a hoaxer at all, but Maybrick himself, so the fact that the handwriting doesn't remotely match Maybrick's penmanship really means that Maybrick wrote it." No. The handwriting didn't remotely match because the hoaxer was particularly bad.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

You’re right - of course I’m not arguing that the discrepancies make it more likely that Hutch was telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Why not read what I wrote instead of asking idiotic questions that are already answered within my post? What is there not to understand about my words: '...if he went hot foot to the press with knowingly altered and enhanced versions of what he told the police'? That clearly implies that he’d have been lying, either to the police or the press or both!

I really thought my point was only too obvious, but it seems I have to rephrase it to get it across. If you have just recovered from slaughtering your latest victim and decide to go to the cops with one cocknbull story, because you are wetting your pants about being hauled in as a suspect if you don’t, or because you just feel like having a game with the boys in blue, that is one thing; if you then volunteer a different cocknbull story to the papers, when you don’t have to tell them a damned thing, and prove yourself in the process to be incapable of telling a straight story even though your life may depend on it, that is quite another.

If you can’t see why the ripper would have been barking mad to reduce to ashes the advantage you believe he got from persuading the cops to swallow his original witness account whole (which Abberline apparently did, initially), then I can’t help you. Inventing new detail for the papers to paper over cracks in the story he told the police doesn't make your ripper sound bright enough to have pulled off the Buck's Row job, never mind anything else. More and more I'm coming round to thinking this was a money issue for Hutch. He was broke and not above trying to make a few bob out of anyone willing to pay for his pretty stories. Thanks for helping me see the light by repeating once too often the same old arguments that never quite hit the spot. A miss is as good as a mile.

real arguments made by these two Maybrick theorists that could be faithfully quoted and then demolished. :rolleyes2: If our hoaxer had access to any of the known examples of the real Jim’s handwriting, it would have been apparent that they all looked different from one another, and the next question would have been: “Do I give up now, try copying just one of them, or make the writing different again?” Presumably the advantages of going ahead regardless outweighed the disadvantages in the hoaxer’s mind, giving him something in common with your Hutch the Ripper and Very Public Liar - both mad as hatters. :laugh4:]

Love,

Caz
X

DVV
08-20-2008, 07:49 PM
Does anybody here believe Hutch's "Sunday story"?
That's the very simple question of this thread.

Amitiés,
David

caz
08-20-2008, 08:05 PM
Hi David,

If Hutch knowingly changed elements of his account between allowing the police to interrogate him and talking to the press, without going back to the police with a credible explanation, then I would consider his whole testimony unreliable.

I just don't believe Jack would have risked throwing it all away like that, if he had succeeded in gaining the trust of Abberline.

But we all know what penniless born liars are capable of if the price is right.

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
08-20-2008, 08:13 PM
Hi Caz,

"If you have just recovered from slaughtering your latest victim and decide to go to the cops with one cocknbull story, because you are wetting your pants about being hauled in as a suspect if you don’t, or because you just feel like having a game with the boys in blue, that is one thing; if you then volunteer a different cocknbull story to the papers, when you don’t have to tell them a damned thing"

Thankyou for clarifying, but I hoped that my latest reponse to Mike addressed that question. If Sarah Lewis' evidence provided the catalyst for his coming forward, he'd have a few hours at most to cook up a self-legitimizing "I was there because..." story. The chances are strong that while the story was initially convincing enough for Abberline at that early stage, there were still a few unanswered questions that may create problems in the future. In other words, the press interviews provided an opportunity to fill in a few crucial blanks that would have invited eventual suspicion if left blank.

For instance, he didn't explain his three-day inertia after Kelly's murder, so he covered his tracks later with an "I contacted a policeman who didn't seem to care" excuse. He didn't explain what he was doing at the actual time of the murder, so he sorts that one out too - he was "walking about all night". What if he was seen entering Miller's Court? He deals with that too etc etc.

If you think that sort of "track-covering" is barking mad, we'll have to agree to differ. On the contrary, it would have been barking mad to keep those grey areas "grey" and risk the possibility of nobody asking questions. It's also barking bad to assume that Hutchinson was capable of delivering the exact same account for several days with utter exactitude. Here I'm tempted to churn out your rather lame "People think in different ways, Ben", or whatever it was you came out with when I expressed some incredulity at some behaviour you wanted to attribute to Mrs. Cox, or I could just claim (as you do, regularly) that if you can't embrace the possibility of a certain person behaving in a certain way, you have a "black and white view of human nature"...but I've always regarded both as a bit of a cop out.

"Bright" enough to pull off the Buck's Row job? Right, because whoever did that must have been endowed of brilliantly evil genuis. Ayup.

More and more I'm coming round to thinking this was a money issue for Hutch. He was broke and not above trying to make a few bob out of anyone willing to pay for his pretty stories.

And so invents a "witness" account to make a few bob by lying about loitering outside - and being preoccupied with - the crime scene at 2:30am on the morning of Kelly's death, little knowing that a real person was really loitering outside - and apparently preoccupied with - the crime scene at 2:30am on the morning of Kelly's death?

He really picked his moment, didn't he?

If our hoaxer had access to any of the known examples of the real Jim’s handwriting, it would have been apparent that they all looked different from one another, and the next question would have been: “Do I give up now, try copying just one of them, or make the writing different again?”

They don't look that different, and a prudent hoaxer would have sought to immitate one of them rather adopting a style that looks radically and eccentrically different to any of the known samples of Maybrick's handwriting.

Best regards,
Ben

DVV
08-20-2008, 08:18 PM
Hi Caz,
let's be more simple:
what about the fact that he "forgot" to tell Abberline that he saw the suspect on Sunday morning?
what about his supposed sight of the suspect on Sunday morning? what about Hutch's complete passivity then?

These questions are not to be forcibly connected to the complexion, or the shape of the moustache.

Amitiés,
David

caz
10-13-2008, 09:01 PM
"Bright" enough to pull off the Buck's Row job? Right, because whoever did that must have been endowed of brilliantly evil genuis. Ayup.

Hi Ben,

You missed my point and we seemed to be talking at cross purposes anyway. I thought that what Hutch was meant to have fed the press not only added to the tales he had previously told the police, but was actually at odds with some of them. If that is true, he wilfully blew the trust Abberline initially put in his reliability as a very observant witness.

Putting to one side what the police would have thought of his ability to recall, under interrogation, all those details about the man with Mary, while completely forgetting about other incidents, such as his earlier attempt to interest a copper in what he had to say, only to recall them later for the press, one wonders what would have possessed him to do that rather than to go back to the police and fill them in first.

My point was that anyone telling the police a pack of lies in a bid to save their neck would surely not have had the brains to get away with their first murder had they changed any of the cards in that pack when talking to the press. What would a murderer with the sense he was born with be doing talking to the press at all if he wasn't sure he had a good memory for the lies he had already told the police? I wasn't suggesting the ripper had to have much of a brain to kill Polly and get away with it. That was my point - he would not even have had that much brain if he thought changing details subsequently, for the newspapers, was a good way of maintaining vital credibility with the boys in blue.

Obviously a real man must have been preoccupied with the crime scene at some point that night, otherwise it would not have become one. So it's a fairly safe bet that Hutch went forward in the full knowledge that the killer - whoever he was - was there for anyone nearby to have seen, either alone or with Mary, before entering her room. He really did pick his moment, but it was his choice and it was not rocket science that he was placing himself very close, in time and place, to the footsteps of Mary's killer, while supposedly desperate not to put himself right in his shoes.

[You are absolutely right about a modern hoaxer not being prudent to go ahead regardless and to adopt 'a style that looks radically and eccentrically different' from (not 'to' - you are in England! ;)) any of Maybrick's handwriting. I suppose as long as it doesn't also look eccentrically just like the hoaxer's own handwriting, all they have to do is keep Mike Barrett quiet somehow - or keep their identity secret from him. :)]

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
10-14-2008, 03:58 AM
Hi Caz,

one wonders what would have possessed him to do that rather than to go back to the police and fill them in first.

Because the account he submitted to the police would have been very hastily contrived, and lacked credibility in several key areas on account of it being conjured up in the few hours (if that) between learning of Sarah Lewis' evidence and going to the police station with a tall tale designed to "explain away" his loitering antics. Rather than revisiting the police station days after his intial appearance with an "Oh, some more stuff I forgot to tell you, just in case you were wondering about it", he used the press as a vehicle to "fill in the blanks" should the police have grown suspicious of the initial account, hence the disappearing policeman, the venturing into the court etc.

By commuticating with the press, he was fine-tuning his account and thus cementing his status as an "honest, helpful witness". With press and public still clamouring for the capture of a Jewish madman with possible medical knowledge (well dressed, surly, blah blah blah), a widely circulated press account was well poised to keep that myth in motion. He wasn't creating a scapegoat. He was taking advantage of the existing one.

My point was that anyone telling the police a pack of lies in a bid to save their neck would surely not have had the brains to get away with their first murder had they changed any of the cards in that pack when talking to the press

It depends how much "brains" you're giving the ripper, and I'm sorry, but I really don't understand the comparison here. What's so brainy about the Tabram or Nichols murders? Surely he could have been intruded upon at any moment by a stranger? It wasn't brainy - it was risky; a risk comparable to that taken by our hypothetical killer delivering false and contradictory accounts to police and press. You're arguing that whoever killed Tabram and/or Nichols must have been the type of individual who also liked to avoid giving contradictory reports to police and press, and I find that a bizarre inference.

All I'm suggesting is that he "tidied up" his initial account when speaking to the press, possibly through fear that he'd left a few grey areas outstanding in the wake of his first appearance at Commercial Street police station.

not 'to' - you are in England!

No, "different to" is perfectly "English" and not in the slightest bit wrong, thank you so much. :)

Best regards,
Ben

perrymason
10-14-2008, 04:57 AM
Hi all,

Hutch did know something important on Saturday that may have impacted his thinking as well. The pardon was issued Saturday afternoon, the 10th, and by its issuance, presented a possible killer and accomplice into the mix, and that makes Sarah Lewis's man now possibly either one.

So his explanation really should address both concerns, as his presence there could be pre or post kill....we dont know exactly when Mary died, or if its her that yells "oh-murder" around 3:45am.

Just there in Marys best interests, as a friend, kinda does that. Who can contradict him? The Inquest was closed, and not one of Marys close friends could be questioned on her knowledge of Hutch. Monday night worked well for no cross examination.

Best regards all.

harry
10-14-2008, 11:37 AM
Caz,
Would Hutchinson know,when he left on that monday evening,that Aberline trusted and believed in his story?

We know of the belief of Aberline through the report he submitted to his superiors.Would Aberline have expressed that same belief to Hutchinson?I doubt it,so Hutchinson may have felt he needed extra material to further bolster his story.

Did he seek out the reporters,or did they seek him?In any case it may have been due to prompting on the reporters part,that caused Hutchinson to elaborate.He could hardly expect payment if he divulged nothing.

DVV
10-16-2008, 02:08 PM
Would Hutchinson know,when he left on that monday evening,that Aberline trusted and believed in his story?

We know of the belief of Aberline through the report he submitted to his superiors.Would Aberline have expressed that same belief to Hutchinson?I doubt it,so Hutchinson may have felt he needed extra material to further bolster his story.


H Harry,
Just remember this, from Abberline's report: "He can identify the man, and arrangement was at once made for two officers to accompany him round the district for a few hours tonight..."
So, as soon as Monday evening, Hutchinson knew that Abberline "trusted and believed" him (at least to a sufficient extent).
Amitiés,
David

harry
10-17-2008, 01:27 PM
David,
It is not unusual for witnesses to volunteer further help,so the idea of accompanying the police may have been a suggestion of Hutchinson.It would not neccessarily be a sign that his story was believed because Aberline consented to such an arrangement either.Police as a rule ,do not give indications of belief or disbelief at first approach,not to the witness that is,and Aberline,an experienced officer would surely not have done either.
So I do not think that Hutchinson would have been convinced his story had been totally accepted,hence the need to elaborate later.Something many guilty people do.

DVV
10-21-2008, 06:07 PM
Hi Harry,
the matter seems to me a bit more complicated.

The fact that Astrakhan Man became dark-complexioned, that the moustache grew thicker, etc, doesn't make Hutch's story more believable than his police station statement.

In press reports, Hutch tries to answer a crucial question: why he only came forward on Monday.
"I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I have seen, but did not go to the police station. I told one of the lodgers here about it yesterday, and he advised me to go to the police station, which I did last night."
Daily News, 14 Nov
There is much to say about these two sentences, but for the time being, let's notice that Hutch, while pretending to answer the question of him delaying 3 days, actually avoids it ("I told one policeman...but did not go...": Hutch doesn't explain why), and that it's a pity that neither Hutch's first statement, nor Abberline's report, made any attempt to clarify this point. It almost seems that Abberline did not even asked the question to Hutch...

But discrepancies are not to be found exclusively between official documents and press reports. The Morning Advertiser (14 Nov) tells us that Hutch, "for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state, did not immediately put himself in communication with the police." In the same article, Hutch explains that he followed Mary and the man because his suspicions were aroused in consequence of the recent crimes"[I], while he told other journalists and Abberline that his suspicions have been aroused by the man being "so well dressed", but that he had "no suspicion that he was the murderer".

The Morning Adv also states that Hutch [I]took elaborate notes of the man's appearance."
Interestingly, although this article was published on 14 Nov, "the name of the man who has given the information referred to the police is purposely witheld for reasons which are necessary for his own safety." This incognito, and the fact that in the article Astrakhan man still have a pale complexion, probably means that its sources are informations given before Hutch "classic press report", maybe as early as Monday evening.

Amitiés,
David

harry
10-23-2008, 11:13 AM
David,
Whatever Hutchinson said,and to whom he said it,seem just more elaboration.I am sure that if he had confided to an inmate of the Victoria Home that monday morning,that information would have been widespread in Whitechapel long before he approached the police at six pm.ditto the policeman.In which case Hutchinson would not have needed to come forward,everyone would have been seeking him.Police,Press and all other interested parties.

DVV
10-23-2008, 04:00 PM
Harry,
don't get me wrong (sorry my English is broken): I don't believe Hutchinson's various accounts, and as I have expressed several times, he is my favorite suspect (as a Fleming's alias).
I just try to dig the matter of Hutch's supposed "elaboration", asking "in which way did he elaborate", and for what purpose.
As suggested by the sources, Hutch did not worry too much about his accounts of the Friday night events. Changing the complexion of the suspect doesn't make him more or less credible.
The main problem Hutch had was to explain why he only came forward after 3 days, and that's exactly what he tried to do on Tuesday.
On the contrary, informations received on Monday night indicate that the police was anxious to preserve the witness incognito. Not a bad decision, and I guess Abberline and his colleagues must have been quite surprised and desapointed when they found that Hutch had talked to the press.
As a fact, we have an essential witness who is able to keep silent 3 days long, but who, as soon as he starts to help the police, betrays her,reveals everything, and starts talking too much, warning La Di Da how actively he was searched.
If Hutch's suspect did ever existed, lived in Whitechapel (as Hutch thought) and was the murderer, he just had to shave his moustache, hide his goldchain for a while and put ordinary clothes on. On 14 Nov, police knew that it was no more use to hunt the murderer with Hutchinson.
They could have thought: "What kind of person is that, at last?"
But unfortunately it seems that they took him for another "bad" witness, but nothing more dangerous. In this very week, Packer made an attempt to come back on the stage, and this would have reminded the police how strange coud a witness be, yet without suspecting him to be the ripper.

Amitiés,
David

harry
10-24-2008, 12:14 PM
David,
There will always be conjecture as to why Hutchinson was at first believed,and then rejected as a good witness,or if in fact he was believed at any time.Aberline,if his report is studied,leaves it open,going only so far as to state an opinion.
The extra details about his sighting,given to the press,plus his report of telling a policeman and an inmate of victoria home,appears to me to be extra unsupported information to bolster what must have been,to him,and some posters here,a very weak explanation for his own activities as contained in his initial report.
It is common for witnesses to expand on an initial statement,be they innocent or guilty,and in Hutchinson's case,some extra details were of a nature that had they been true,could easily have been proven.It is not easy to explain the policeman or the Victoria home inmate not making themselves known,or not being tracked down,except in a belief that they did not exist.That being so,one can easily believe that those statements were lies,and Hutchinson was lying to cover up earlier lies.

DVV
10-24-2008, 11:25 PM
It is not easy to explain the policeman or the Victoria home inmate not making themselves known,or not being tracked down,except in a belief that they did not exist.


Hi Harry,
the Sunday's policeman and the VH friends are not of the same stuff.
The police could easily go to the Victoria Home (and probably she did). So there is a chance that Hutch did tell some people, on Monday morning, about what he would hours later tell the police. He was then starting to play the role of "Hutch the witness".
The Sunday policeman, in my opinion, never existed. I'd say he is too useful to have ever existed:
1: he makes Hutch's delay not a real one.
2: he contributes to explain why Hutch did not go to a policeman after the Petticoat Lane's sighting.
In fact, Hutch created this policeman to explain why he kept away from police 3 days long...

harry
10-25-2008, 12:19 PM
David,
I believe the policeman and anyone in the Victoria home to whom Hutchinson confided,would have responded by passing the information along.The policeman from a sense of duty,the Home companion to all and sundry from a position of being in the know,and the news would have travelled swiftly.
As there appears to have been no knowledge of Hutchinson's alledged sighting untill his appearance at the police station that evening,I am of the opinion that both claims are false,that he confided to no one,but hoped additional claims might somehow add conviction to his story.Guilty persons are prone to do this.
Regards.

DVV
10-25-2008, 02:25 PM
Hi Harry,
I'm almost with you here, except that I believe Hutch would have been clever enough to talk to some friends on Monday (morning, or noon), saying: "Look, I've seen this and that, what am I to do?" He could also argue that he was hesitating to go to the police being afraid that they would suspect him to be the murderer, since his testimony forced him to appear on the spot at a time close to the murder, his aliby, ie wandering the streets, being...almost not an aliby.
As for the Sunday's policeman, he certainly never existed, and a very important detail is that Hutch says nothing about his reaction (unless I missed some press reports, which is highly possible): I told a policeman, but did not go to the police station, Hutch reportedly said.

Amitiés,
David

harry
10-26-2008, 12:32 PM
David,
As Ben has so amply stated,it was not untill the inquest that a male presence had been placed at Crossingham's on the night of the murder.That it was this knowledge which prompted Hutchinson to come forward,probably fearing he could be traced which would leave him in a more suspicious position,should he remain quiet.and be found.Perhaps too,he reasoned that Lewis had, previous to the inquest,already communicated with the police(a possibility,hence her appearance at the inquest),that it had been kept quiet,and a search was already under way.A person in Hutchinson's position might very well act in a manner that to some,appears unwarranted.
Regards.

DVV
10-26-2008, 07:46 PM
Hi Harry,
that's a possible scenario, but not the only one possible. I'm not sure that Lewis testimony was dangerous enough for Hutch to take the risk of coming forward. Even if Lewis could recognize him, where was she to do so? Hutch, if the murderer, had plenty options, less risky than going to the police. So one can conjecture that Hutch injected himself to get more "adrenaline", to satisfy an insane desire to play with those who were hunting him.
In another possible scenario, Hutch being a Fleming's alias, our man would have been more worried about Barnett and Venturney's statements.
Speculations, of course, but although I like Hutch as a suspect, I have to admit that the reasons why he decided to come forward aren't firmly established.

Amitiés,
David

Ben
10-26-2008, 08:08 PM
Hi David,

Both you and Harry have made excellent points, but I'd have to agree with Harry that the timing of Hutchinson's appearance at the police station so soon after Lewis' testimony was publicly divulged is just too coincidental for her evidence not to have been the motivation for Hutchinson coming forward, especially when we consider the congruity between his actions and those of Lewis' loiterer. The point is that he didn't know how potentially dangerous Lewis' testimony was, and with detailed witness sightings being suppressed, there was more than enough "ammunition" there to give Hutchinson the jitters, especially if the worst case scenario involved Hutchinson being identified by more than one witness and a link between crime scenes being established.

You're quite right, of course, that other motivations may have played a part.

Best regards,
Ben

DVV
10-26-2008, 08:48 PM
Hello Ben,
one of my problem with Lewis, is that if Hutch was afraid that she had told more to the police than to the coroner, he would have logically supposed that she was still in touch with the police, and who knows? What if he was to meet her at the police station? As I already said, there was safer solutions.
But as you pointed out, the timing indicates that the inquest "did" something for Hutch's decision. I fully agree, however, that doesn't necessarily means: "because he had something to fear from Lewis or Barnett or Venturney".
On the contrary (and for the sake of speculation), he could have thought after the inquest: "I have little to worry if I go to the police, and make fun of them."
So I feel rather likely that Hutch was (at least partly) guided by something else than scare. I fit was just about Lewis, the anonymous Hutchinson had better keep hidden.
The less I can say is that Hutch, if the murderer, was doing nothing but playing with fire. Why? Because he liked that.

Amitiés,
David

Fisherman
10-26-2008, 10:04 PM
Just a thought. David writes:
"The less I can say is that Hutch, if the murderer, was doing nothing but playing with fire. Why? Because he liked that."

...and that made me think that if he was of such a disposition, then why did he not taunt the police before? Why did he not stick his fingers in the fire after Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes?

And when I had asked myself that, it suddenly struck me that he perhaps did do just that. Ironically, that may of course have been such a thing that made the police discard Hutch. Maybe someone attached to the investigation recognized Hutch as a helpful man who came forward and stated he had information in one or more of the earlier cases? Such a thing may have earned him a title of publicity-seeker among the police.

What a mess this case is...!

The best,
Fisherman

Observer
10-26-2008, 11:23 PM
Hi all

The man known as Jack the Ripper, a dastardly coward, a blot on humanity, but, someone who takes risks, calculated risks. Calmly mutilates Annie Chapman in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street as dawn aproaches, in all likelyhood aware of Albert Cadoche walking about in the next yard. Aware of the passing trio of Lawende, Harris and Levy, but still goes ahead and and coaxes Katherine Eddowes to her death. Kills and mutilates Mary Kelly in her own room, and must surely realise the risk he is taking as the minutes tick into hours. A risk taker, also I would suggest a survivor.

I can not understand why Jack the Ripper would come forward and confront the police on the strength of the fact that he was momentarily seen in a darkened Street at 2:30 on the morning of Mary Kellys murder.

all the best

Observer

richardnunweek
10-27-2008, 12:22 AM
Observer.
I could not agree more.
Since when has the Whitechapel murderer shown paronoid behaviour?
Stabbing Tabram 39 times on a tenement landing feet from dwellers..... NO
slashing away at poor Polly right near cottages... NO.
Ripping open poor Annie underneath windows....NO.
Cutting LIzzies throat at the entrance to a populated club...No
Proceeding to slice open Eddowes even tho he had been sighted...NO
Staying for some time in Mjks room, ripping her to pieces, with no escape if cornered....NO
But we are led to believe that Gh was Jtr, and was so paronoid having been seen in Dorset street, that he decided that he would approach the police.
That folks is balderdash....
I am totally convinced that George Hutchinson was no more than a chap that offered his sighting to the police, not a pimp, stalker , mugger, liar, and certainly not our man.
Regards Richard.
[No mention of Gwt ' Im slipping..
Regards Richard

Ben
10-27-2008, 02:07 AM
I'm a little confused here, Observer.

You begin your post by arguing that the killer was someone who took "calculated risks", and then end it by arguing that he would not have taken the "calculated risk" I've posited because it's somehow out of character. I'd respectfully submit that you've cornered yourself into a contradiction here. If we've seen evidence of prior risk taking, surely another potential risk-taking action would seem compatible with what had happened previously, not at odds with it? Especially if it's the sort of risk-taking action that we've seen from other serial killers; the ones who injected themselves into police investigations; the ones who were also risk-takers?

You highlight the sighting in Mitre Square, and cite it as an example of the killer somehow not caring if he was seen by potential witness, but there are several circumstances in place that changed after it became apparent that witnes descriptions were being suppressed. Before the double event, it was obvious that nobody had acquired a detailed description of the killer. Public sentiment was all still centred around the notion of a Jewish menace stalking the streets, potentially allowing the killer to let his guard down.

After the double event, not only had witnessses implicated an ostensibly Gentile local for the first time; detailed descriptions of Gentile locals were suddenly being suppressed. Enough to perturb the killer somewhat if he was a Gentile local, I think it can be reasonably surmised. Time and again, we find examples of killers changing and adapting their tactics as they follow investigative progress.

Remember that the timely eyewtiness sighting offered by Hutchinson fulfilled two purposes:

1) It legitimized the presence and activity of the loitering man, which would otherwise appear suspicious if "unexplained"

2) It deflected suspicion back in the direction of the original popular; the out-of-place sinister Jew.

Even if Hutchinson realized he'd been seen by Lewis, but regarded it as an unsettling inconvenience, rather than something to "fear" in the immediacy, there was still an incentive to direct police on a false scent. If a false account explained his own loitering antics in the process, double prizes. Two birds killed with one stone. If he derived some kind of "I outwitted the authorities" ego-boost in the process (another mentality that isn't remotely uncommon amongst serial offenders), that was a third bonus.

What I suggest here isn't remotely at odds with the image of the killer as a risk-taker, the reverse in fact.

Best regards,
Ben

Ben
10-27-2008, 02:17 AM
And then Richard chimes in with his usual embarrassing nonsense; decrying anything he disagrees with as "balderdash", despite being responsible for the infamous "Number 39" theory. Sorry mate, you're the very last person who ought to be making disparaging remarks about another person's theory.

Stabbing Tabram 39 times on a tenement landing feet from dwellers..... NO
slashing away at poor Polly right near cottages... NO.
Ripping open poor Annie underneath windows....NO.
Cutting LIzzies throat at the entrance to a populated club...No
Proceeding to slice open Eddowes even tho he had been sighted...NO

That's just glib.

If a serial killer is even remotely organized in his methods, the chances are strong that he will seek to avoid capture and sustain investigative focus in a false direction. That isn't being "paranoid", it's just being prudent and non-wreckless. The we discover that other serial killers have also come forward under false guises with a view to spreading spurious information for their own benefit, and they weren't "paranoid" either, just people who took calculated risks when they perceived an advantage in so doing.

harry
10-27-2008, 12:18 PM
Perhaps a motive for stating he had told a fellow lodger of his night,s activities,was because he had been noted as having been absent from the home on that particular night,and had been asked about it.Better for him to say he had raised the matter,than have some fellow lodger come forward with a different tale.At least he could cause confusion about who had approached who.
Same thing with his association with Kelly.I'm sure that was true,and he realised the probability of that being established.I believe he hesitated to come forward,the time delay shows that,but circumstances forced him to.Keeping quiet was a bad option,if he felt he would ultimately be drawn in.
There is a huge difference Richard in the sightings at other murders.Long states he had his back to her and appeared foreign,Stride's murder,as Eddowes has contradictions in the case of witnesses.Tabram and Nicholls lacked witnesses.None appears a danger to the killer,were he Hutchinson.

richardnunweek
10-27-2008, 01:32 PM
Hi Ben,
Embarrising Nonsense....
Disparaging Remarks....
I was simply making a valid point, ie, if Gh was a candidate for Jtr,in my opinion going to the police and trying to give a reason for being in the vacinity of Dorset street on the morning of the 9th, showns signs of paranoia.
question.
In all the other murders including Tabram, he killed close to houses which had residents, he also could have been seen in Hanbury street, Berner street, Mitre square, Dorset street by several people, but where was the paranoia then?
The only sign of being paranoid may be the case of the letter sent stating 'I know you have seen me , but I know who you are' which apparently stems from the Dutfields yard episode or Lawandes sighting at church passage.
This may show signs and may add fuel to your opinion.
Disparaging Renarks.
Ben Really, how can little old Nunners, belittle or Damage your reputation by his feeble opinion?
Embarassing Nonsense.
In all my years with Casebook I have endeavoured to come up with intresting topics, and my threads have encouraged much debate, I have received countless E-mails that show great respect, and if I have come across as full of nonsense to some people so be it.
But old Nunners I shall remain. complete with opinions.
Best Regards.
Richard.

Fisherman
10-27-2008, 02:27 PM
I am one of those who ascribe to the Joe Fleming theory. I am however not any believer in Hutch as a Fleming imposter.
Much can be said about the possibility that the Ripper would inject himself into the investigation, and sound arguments can be put forrward in both directions.
I think Richard´s point that we are dealing with a fearless person is something that cannot be easily overlooked. It has it´s merits when he states that he sees it as improbable that such a man would be overcome with a sudden fear of getting caught.
And, of course, it can all be read the other way around: A fearless man would not have any trouble to erase the police´s rising suspicions by injecting himself into the investigation - if he had the guts (excuse the pun) to kill out in the open street, then why should he fear such a thing?

In conclusion, I think both wiews seem built on sound convictions.

So why do I not buy Hutch as the Ripper in disguise? Mainly because of two things, none of them being that a killer would do no such thing.

The first point on my agenda is that I believe that Fleming (if it was indeed him) was very fond of Kelly, perhaps bordering on an obsession - though she obviously had traded him for a safer source of money, he would not take that obvious "no thanks" for an answer. He kept visiting Mary, occasionally giving her money (which may well have been her incentive for not ditching him altogether).
If Fleming killed Kelly - and I believe he did - I think that he would have been devastated by his deed afterwards. I do not think he went to Miller´s Court with the agenda to kill her. Something went terribly wrong, and when it was all over, my guess is that he was devastated by what he had done. In fact, I believe that it may have been this devastation and trauma that consequentially put an end to the killings. And as far as I am concerned, I do not see a man in the condition I think he was, as going to the police in a rather flamboyant style, following them over East end hunting for Astrakhan man with no worrries in the world. Just my five cents, of course.

That is my first point. My second point is that if Fleming was the Ripper,we are dealing with a man who was put away in the looney bin with a verdict of delusions of persecution. Admittely it happened later on, but my guess is that he was a sick man as he performed the killings, the delusions of persecution being in place in the autumn 1888.
And then I ask myself: Would a man, suffering from such delusions, throw himself into the arms of the police?
And I answer that question with an emphatic no - he would not.

Hutch´s appearance was timely to bolster those who see him as an imposter. But the psychological frame of it all is totally wrong if you ask me.

The best, all!
Fisherman

Ben
10-27-2008, 02:36 PM
Disparaging Remarks....

Yes, Richard.

It's not very courteous to accuse me of "balderdash".

If you'd made the post without that remark, we'd have got along fine. But you made it, so you can't be too surprised if I'm a little annoyed.

That aside, I don't see Hutchinson's actions as indicative or "paranoia". He may have been concerned that he'd been seen, certainly. More so than before, since witness descriptions were being suppressed before, and he was more likely to encounter a resident of his own district again than a Jewish guy from Dalston who attended a Jewish club in the City.

But with concern came an opportunity; an opportunity to explain his presence at a crime scene, to create a false guise if ever he did find himself under suspicion, and divert police and public suspicion in a false direction.

I see that as opportunistic, rather than paranoid, if that's what he did.

Best regards,
Ben

Ben
10-27-2008, 03:05 PM
Fish, this thread is about Hutchinson's activities on Sunday. If you want to start a battle on a completely different tangent, can I please ask you to take it to the appropriate thread?

It has it´s merits when he states that he sees it as improbable that such a man would be overcome with a sudden fear of getting caught.

As I've already explained, his concern needn't have manifested itself as "fear". As I've said:

Remember that the timely eyewtiness sighting offered by Hutchinson fulfilled two purposes:

1) It legitimized the presence and activity of the loitering man, which would otherwise appear suspicious if "unexplained"

2) It deflected suspicion back in the direction of the original popular; the out-of-place sinister Jew.

Even if Hutchinson realized he'd been seen by Lewis, but regarded it as an unsettling inconvenience, rather than something to "fear" in the immediacy, there was still an incentive to direct police on a false scent. If a false account explained his own loitering antics in the process, double prizes. Two birds killed with one stone. If he derived some kind of "I outwitted the authorities" ego-boost in the process (another mentality that isn't remotely uncommon amongst serial offenders), that was a third bonus.

Anyone claiming that the killer would not have done that because he was fearless, and a fearless ripper wouldn't do that is simply being idiotic. Such brazen antics would be entirely consistent with a risk-taking personality.

Similarly, if anyone wishes to claim the opposite; that he was agitated and feared being incriminated, it's obviously nonsense to then claim that anyone with such a mindset would not have come forward through fear of being seen.

I'm afraid that's one of those "Heads I win. Tails you lose" scenarios.

Then you make several frightening leaps of logic that go something like this; Fleming was fond of her, so he can't possibly have killed her in an organized, clinical fashion, so he can't have been Hutchinson because Hutchinson would have been organized and clinical had he been the ripper. I'm afraid there are far too many assumptions here. Contrary to your suggestion, it's quite possible for someone with an obsession with someone to stalk them and dispatch them.

It's quite possible for Fleming to have intended to kill her from the outset, just as it is quite possible for Hutchinson not to have intended to kill her from the outset. Generally speaking, I'd avoid too much psychological insight along the lines that Fleming would have done it this way if he did it, and Hutchinson would have done it this way if he did it.

That is my first point. My second point is that if Fleming was the Ripper,we are dealing with a man who was put away in the looney bin with a verdict of delusions of persecution.

He was found wandering at a time when the outward and visible signs of mania were apparent. In 1888, it's perfectly reasonable to surmise that they were considerably less apparent. You then make another unaccaptable leap of logic; you assume that an individual suffering from psychosis and who obsessed over one of the victims would not have had the wherewithal to use devious tactics to evade capture, and that a person resorting to such tactics couldn't also have been "devastated".

Again, I'd suggest there are more appropriate threads for this discussion.

Best regards,
Ben

richardnunweek
10-27-2008, 03:26 PM
Hi Ben.
I accept your point that that word may sound disrespectful, however it was not intended to be, I could have used many descriptions such as unlikely,far fetched,much more casebook friendly, it just was bad phrasing so i am sorry for that.
At least I do not include lanquage such as some have done recently on a certain other thread such as 'I could not give a ----, or some------s really p--s me off, now that is disrespectful with a capital D.
I do appreciate your points about Gh, and your opinions, its all down to what sort of animal we believe Jack to have been.
a] A brute, with no remorse, or fear.
b] A brute who was paronoid to the extreme [of being caught].
I would say that option A was more likely.
The reason why I am so adamant in my beliefs, all stems from that elusive broadcast 35years ago, and along with many factors since including the Wheelers item, cannot see beyond Gwt as GH, regardless of handwriting issues.
We all have our points to make , and I stand firm on mine.
Regards Richard.

Ben
10-27-2008, 03:30 PM
] A brute, with no remorse, or fear.
b] A brute who was paronoid to the extreme [of being caught].
I would say that option A was more likely.

Indeed, Richard, so do I.

My point was that a killer coming forward under a false guise with a false account could have been either of those things. The scenario works for A and B.

Best wishes,
Ben

Fisherman
10-27-2008, 03:37 PM
Ben writes:
"If you want to start a battle"

No. I want to give my wiew, since I feel it is relevant. It is an ongoing discussion on this specific thread, is it not?
And as I am of the opinion that people who suffer from delusions of persecution or are prone to do so are not people who approach the police, I think that wiew ought to be added to the discussion.

I have no trouble seeing the merits in your scenario, but I think you focus too much on the practical benefits to be won and to little on whether a man who is ends up with a judgement of persecution delusions is likely to to what you believe he did. You have given your wiew and bolstered it with your arguments, and now I am giving my wiew on why I think it is wrong.

"I'm afraid that's one of those "Heads I win. Tails you lose" scenarios."

I´m afraid you may be wrong. Just as I can. But a discussion of whether he would go to the police or not is a very incomplete discussion without Flemings medical and psychological status added.

"Then you make several frightening leaps of logic that go something like this; Fleming was fond of her, so he can't possibly have killed her in an organized, clinical fashion, so he can't have been Hutchinson because Hutchinson would have been organized and clinical had he been the ripper. I'm afraid there are far too many assumptions here. Contrary to your suggestion, it's quite possible for someone with an obsession with someone to stalk them and dispatch them.
It's quite possible for Fleming to have intended to kill her from the outset, just as it is quite possible for Hutchinson not to have intended to kill her from the outset. Generally speaking, I'd avoid too much psychological insight along the lines that Fleming would have done it this way if he did it, and Hutchinson would have done it this way if he did it."

Did I, Ben, say that he could not have killed her clinically?
Did I, Ben, say that he cannot have been Hutch?
Did I, Ben, say that Hutch would have been organized if he did the killing?
Did I, Ben, say that it is impossible for people with an obsession to stalk and kill anybody?

As far as I can remember, I presented points that TO MY MIND seems to point away from Hutch being the Ripper. The rest, if you´ll excuse me, is your handiwork, not mine. So please don´t hold me responsible for any "frightening leaps of logic" that you try to push with my signature on them, Ben.

"He was found wandering at a time when the outward and visible signs of mania were apparent. In 1888, it's perfectly reasonable to surmise that they were considerably less apparent."

We know which way he was heading, Ben, and that speaks volumes. Besides, I think we should refrain from seeing Flemings medical journal as an interesting pointer to his having been the Ripper, if we accompany that conviction by firmly stating that the traits he was showing when incarcerated should not be brought up to explain or dispell what he did in his role as a killer. To see him as a mentally fit man, bold enough to go to the police, only to some time later succumb to delusions of persecution is rather a frightening logical leap too, if I may borrow your vocabulary.

The best,
Fisherman

richardnunweek
10-27-2008, 03:50 PM
Hi Ben,
I would say both of us will agree that in the case of Hutchinson, if he was the kellys killer he would have to at least been anxious to have involved himself with the police, and be prepeared to convince them of a situation which he hoped would exonerate him from suspision..
That would in my opinion owing to the risk of such a action be classed as paranoia.
I did highlight one other possibility of paranoia in a recent post, but apart from that, if the killer of Kelly was the same person who dispatched the others, then paranoia must have rapidly took over his mental state after Eddowes, for him to have suddenly had acute fear.
But of course if the man that killed kelly , was not the actual man that slew the others, and he had not killed before he could have well been extremely worried of being seen, and hense the difference in apparent personalities.
Now i am talking as a Hutchinson man, but the point had to be made.
Regards Richard.

Ben
10-27-2008, 03:58 PM
Hi Fish,

I'd say the debate over Hutchinson's identity and whether or not he was Fleming is a very different discussion to the one currently in session, but never mind. If you want to argue that someone who was diagnosed as having persecution delusions wouldn't have been the type of person to come forward with false evidence to save his own bacon, fair enough, but I don't think you can make assumptions like that.

If anything, delusions of persecution are allied to paranoia and irrational anxiety, which may well account for his decision to "legitimize" his presence after learning of Lewis' evidence. In fact, that might be a good one to wheel out whenever people try to claim that Hutchinson would have been bonkers to do that (etc etc)!

To see him as a mentally fit man, bold enough to go to the police, only to some time later succumb to delusions of persecution is rather a frightening logical leap to, if I may borrow your vocabulary.

No, Fisherman, it isn't. It's quite possible to be bold, evil, manipulate and all the other usually cited psychopathic traits AND suffer from some form of psychosis. Since we're on the subject of Hutchinson, Garry Wroe made an astutue observation along those lines: "Notwithstanding the Whitechapel Murderer’s entropic dynamics, therefore, careful study of his collective behavioural pattern reveals an organized factor of not less than seventy percent. This, of course, signifies that he almost certainly suffered some degree of psychosis".

Other experts in serial crime, such as John Douglas of the FBI, surmised that the serial could have ended because the killer was nearing the end of his "emotional rope", or because he had recently been in contact with police and feared identification. No messenger-shooting, please!

Best regards,
Ben

Ben
10-27-2008, 04:01 PM
Hi Richard,

Paranoia may have been present, as I acknowledge above, but it needn't have been for Hutchinson to have come forward for the reasons I've suggested. I think he was merely being opportunistic. He may have perceived an advantage killing three birds with one stone - explain behaviour, deflect suspicion, fool police - and decided to go for it.

Regards,
Ben

Fisherman
10-27-2008, 04:11 PM
The organized/disorganized stuff, interesting though it may be, is something that is under much criticism as you will know, Ben. And I have to say that this is the first time that I´ve seen the Ripper measured to a seventy percent rate, with the following dead certain implications following.

I won´t sink the knife into you, since you beg me to refrain from it (and I am slightly curious of what makes you open up your answer to me with "If you want to battle..." and now ask me not to shoot the messenger. Have I been that hard on you, Ben?), but I will say that I am not all that impressed by it all.

I do know, however, that people with delusions of persecution have a long story of not wanting to come in contact with the ones they fear are following them.
Maybe it is not very academically well-phrased, but long as it holds water, I don´t care very much. We could of course enter into a discussion of paranoid schizophrenics and the fact that they have contributed one or two serial killers who have suffered from delusions of persecution combined with illusions of grandeur, but it really would end up in much conjecture and I fear such things may just take the focus away from what I have to say on the topic. I move with what we know of Fleming, and I settle for regarding the things we do not know as something of a dangerous marsh.

The best,
Fisherman

Ben
10-27-2008, 04:23 PM
The "organized versus disorganized" is as open to criticism as all criminological constructs, Fish, providing the criticism is valid, and not the usual "Oh no, that sounds a bit profiley! And profiling's bad because some hobbyist on the internet told me it was!"

I don't include you in that number, Fish, before you ask.

I do know, however, that people with delusions of persecution have a long story of not wanting to come in contact with the ones they fear are following them.

I'm not sure you do know that, Fish, or even if it has a demonstrable basis. I've never suggested that Hutchinson particularly wanted to come into contact with the police. I've suggested that he perceived an advantage in so doing, despite the immediate risk factor. I'd bet hetfy amounts that none of the other serialists who came forward particularly relished the prospect of doing so, but went ahead anyway out of a desire for self-preservation.

I move with what we know of Fleming, and I settle for regarding the things we do not know as somewhat of a dangerous marsh.

I agree, and would reiterate that none of what we do know would preclude him from resorting to devious tactics to save his bacon and confuse his pursers.

Cheers,
Ben

Fisherman
10-27-2008, 04:51 PM
Well, Ben, just one clip from the net that goes to show what I am talking about:

"Delusions of persecution tend to make a person think that “everyone” is conspiring against him or her. The person may believe that his or her private conversations are being taped or that a secret government conspiracy exists to steal the thoughts of the world. Usually those with delusions of persecution live very guarded existences, and may perform strange acts to prevent what they consider persecution. If confronted, those with delusions of persecution may become suddenly violent, though this is relatively uncommon."

...meaning that the ones who suffer from delusions like this dislike the idea of being confronted with their fears. What was it Claire called my argumentation some weeks back?? Wikifuelled, was it? Well, this bit comes from a reliable source, as will probably most things do that you may consider posting as counterstrikes. Psychology is a labyrinth, and the safe guides are few and far between.

"I'd bet hefty amounts that none of the other serialists who came forward particularly relished the prospect of doing so, but went ahead anyway out of a desire for self-preservation."

Don´t, Ben! It will cost you dearly, I believe. There are examples around of people who enjoy contacting the police to much to be able to keep from it. This I would have thought you knew? Or am I misreading your point?

"I ... would reiterate that none of what we do know would preclude him from resorting to devious tactics to save his bacon and confuse his pursers"

Which is where we differ, and call a truce for the benefit of the rest of the posters, right?

The best,
Fisherman

Ben
10-27-2008, 05:00 PM
Thanks for that useful extract, Fish.

I was particularly interested in the following: "Usually those with delusions of persecution live very guarded existences, and may perform strange acts to prevent what they consider persecution."

Strange acts that could very plausibly encompass the spreading of false leads to "prevent" his mean ol' tormenters from having any incentive to consider him something worthy of being "persecuted".

There are examples around of people who enjoy contacting the police to much to be able to keep from it. This I would have thought you knew? Or am I misreading your point?

Yes, and Hutchinson might have been one of them. I'm saying that not all serialists who gave bogus evidence to police did so primarily for the thrill of it, but rather for the purposes of self-preservation.

Which is where we differ, and call a truce for the benefit of the rest of the posters, right?

Truce. :)

Best regards,
Ben

Fisherman
10-27-2008, 05:14 PM
Ben writes:

"I was particularly interested in the following: "Usually those with delusions of persecution live very guarded existences, and may perform strange acts to prevent what they consider persecution."
Strange acts that could very plausibly encompass the spreading of false leads to "prevent" his mean ol' tormenters from having any incentive to consider him something worthy of being "persecuted"."

I don´t think that the Hutch comparison fits in here, Ben - I think that what is being discussed is the lenghts the victims may go to in order to AVOID contact with the ones they believe are persecuting them. Spreading false leads, absolutely, but strapping on the boxing gloves and heading for the police station is too much of a stretch as far as I´m concerned.

"I'm saying that not all serialists who gave bogus evidence to police did so primarily for the thrill of it, but rather for the purposes of self-preservation."

Which was what I thought you meant from the outset. Either you or my ear channels were unclear about it. It matters little which.
Numerically, I would not venture any guess as to which species is the more common one, the taunter or the bacon-saver.

But truce it is!

The best,
Fisherman

Ben
10-27-2008, 05:22 PM
Wait a minute, Fish, what are you doing?

You suggested a truce. I accepted a truce, and you're still arguing with me.

I don´t think that the Hutch comparison fits in here, Ben - I think that what is being discussed is the lenghts the victims may go to in order to AVOID contact with the ones they believe are persecuting them.

No, I don't think that's what it's saying, Fish.

I'm quoting it verbatim: "Usually those with delusions of persecution live very guarded existences, and may perform strange acts to prevent what they consider persecution."

Doing nothing isn't a "strange act". It isn't an act at all, whereas I've advocated an actual act that was intended specifically for the purposes of evading persecution - an act that actually ties in with the quote you've kindly directed my attention towards.

The Hutchinson comparison fits in very nicely indeed.

But truce it is!

You said it, Fish, and I'll cheerfully go along with it.

Truce! :)

Best regards,
Ben

Fisherman
10-27-2008, 05:30 PM
Ben!

You write:

"Wait a minute, Fish, what are you doing?
You suggested a truce. I accepted a truce, and you're still arguing with me."

Ehrm, yes, I suggested a truce. Which was when YOU argued on, was it not, using my quotation to make a point that was simply wrong the way I saw things.

If you wanted a truce, Ben, you could have opted for one WITHOUT arguing on, could you not? This IS getting slightly childish, you know.

Let me rephrase myself:
If you don´t prolong this by adding new arguments, I won´t do so either. I´ll even let you throw in a point or two and still refrain from going on, actually. I´m having a generous day.

The best!
Fisherman

Observer
10-27-2008, 11:10 PM
Hi Ben

Sorry for delving off thread in my last post ,just like to say though that I can see the risk taker behaving ala Hutchinson but not the survivor. I believe Jack the Ripper to be. above all a survivor.

all the best

Observer

Ben
10-28-2008, 03:04 AM
Hi Observer,

I accept your point, and would agree that the killer was a "survivor" in many respects. I'm just not sure how Hutchinson's actions, if motivated by the factors I've outlined, can be considered incongruous with the image of JTR as a "survivor". If anything, it was a good his survival instinct kicking in.

Best regards,
Ben

harry
10-28-2008, 12:12 PM
Was not Hutchinson a long term aquaintance of Kelly.He admits to knowing her before their arrival in Whitechapel,so maybe there was an element of rejected lover in his case?
We do not know by what manner he thought he recognised the person on sunday.Was it the clothes he said had caught his attention the night of the murder,or the facial features.He seems not to have volunteered that information,and perhaps he wasn't asked.However on monday,over 24 hours later ,he claims definately the person could be identified,an amazing change of memory.
Now as to the clothing,Hutchinson appears to suggest it was out of place in that locality,and it drew his attention thats why he followed.Yet at the same time he is saying he believed the person lived in the district.Again there is no explanation given for this seemingly glaring contradiction.Well I suppose Aberline was tired,it must have been a stressful day.
Richard you ask why some of us appear to be hard on Hutchinson.Well we wouldn't be if you could answer the numerous inconsistences in his stories.

DVV
10-28-2008, 02:22 PM
Just some observations about the killer's behaviour and the risks he was taking or not.
A bit surprizing is the fact that he wasn't seen with his victim in the two first cases (Tabram and Nichols), while he was witnessed in all subsequent murders, as if the more he got trained to kill, the less he cared until he had dispached the victim. Indeed, he was seen by Long, heard by Cadosh, seen by Schwartz or someone else, by Lawende, by Lewis (or Cox or Hutch, according to other opinions than mine).
After he has killed his victim, that' was another matter. He acted far more cautiously.
He inflicts the mutilations in great haste, and he always managed to avoid suspicion when making his escape (was it a lesson he took from his failed attack on Ada Wilson?). In Stride's case, he seems to have been even more prudent (if we accept Stride, of course).
So not only was he certainly acting differently in daily life and "on duty", but also on murders'nights he proved himself able to be both prudent and careless/bold within half an hour.

Amitiés,
David

Fisherman
10-28-2008, 02:43 PM
It is an interesting question, David, but one that ought not go without a few added facts.
First off, let´n not forget that people who kill out in the open streets have little chance to form the surroundings where they work. Maybe people will show up at the wrong time, maybe they won´t. It´s by and large out of the killers control whichever way we look upon it.

Therefore we are not at liberty to decide how bold he was or was not until we have a clear picture of his mindset as he killed. And that may of course have varied from a "I don´t give a **** if anybody sees me, I´ll wipe this old cow out anyway" stance, to hearing voices, compelling him to murder although the very prospect scares him very much.

No matter what and no matter how, when it comes to your initial words on being surprised by the fact that some sort of boldness seems to have grown on his behalf over time, you must keep in mind that this is often a very significant trait for serial killers; hesitating from the outset, increasingly confident as they move along and the victim tally rises, and sometimes ending up in their own minds as a godlike existence, dead certain that they are far too superior to ever get caught.

The best, David!
Fisherman

DVV
10-28-2008, 04:17 PM
Therefore we are not at liberty to decide how bold he was or was not until we have a clear picture of his mindset as he killed. And that may of course have varied from a "I don´t give a **** if anybody sees me, I´ll wipe this old cow out anyway" stance, to hearing voices, compelling him to murder although the very prospect scares him very much.


Hi Fish,
and thanks for the comments. I agree that it's rather difficult to picture the killer's mind. Was he "careless" or "prudent"?
I believe he was both, at different moments, so the question would actually be:
"In which way and when was he careful, and in which way and when was he not?"
If they were no killings in October, it was probably due to the various patrols and widespread scare, whether the killer got no good opportunities, or was able to refrain his homicidal urge. That suggests a prudent and patient man. The fact that the only clue he ever left behind him was the GS piece of apron indicates a prudent and careful guy as well.
But on the other hand, his "boldness" is also quite obvious (there is even a faint smell of provocation in the murders), and he was so aware of risk he was taking that he managed to "work" more than speedily. He knew people had seen him near to the crime scene with the victims, but he butchered them the same.

Amitiés, and the best too,
David

Fisherman
10-28-2008, 04:48 PM
David writes:

"The fact that the only clue he ever left behind him was the GS piece of apron indicates a prudent and careful guy as well."

Only in the context of us having little to go on, I should think. A really prudent and careful man would have burnt the wretched thing or wrapped it around a stone and thrown it in the Thames, would he not?

I always thought that throwing the rag in an open and public space points to a certain recklessness, making me wonder how much more was discarded - and never picked up on.

The best, David!
Fisherman

Mutt
10-28-2008, 06:21 PM
I always thought that throwing the rag in an open and public space points to a certain recklessness, making me wonder how much more was discarded - and never picked up on.


I agree. However I do not know if it is carelessness, arrogance or if in the end it does not really matter. In 1888, the only conclusions CID might draw from the corner of the apron is to say that it did in fact come from the victim. The detectives could also use it to show a direction of flight from the murder scene.

Sam Flynn
10-28-2008, 10:36 PM
Was not Hutchinson a long term aquaintance of Kelly. He admits to knowing her before their arrival in WhitechapelIf her biography (as recalled by Joe Barnett) is to be believed, Hutchinson knew Kelly before she even arrived in London!

harry
10-29-2008, 11:55 AM
Sam,
So their being in Whitechapell at the same time,may not have been coincidence.
Regards.

Varqm
10-29-2008, 01:09 PM
I agree with you Observer and Richard. Ben's argument on why the Ripper came forward only on MJK's murder is long winded. He offers very
weak reasons on why the ripper did not on previous murders and even knows how the ripper reacted to those supposed reasons
(which requires a whole new set of info ). Speculative reasons and speculative reactions to those speculative reasons. It's too much.

As far as we know of the case the ripper killed and disappeared.

Ben
10-29-2008, 03:35 PM
Ah, good, another one of my perpetual irritating shadows; Viagara or Vaseline or whatever his silly name is.

He offers very weak reasons on why the ripper did not on previous murders and even knows how the ripper reacted to those supposed reasons

So you're saying he could have waltzed forward and admitted to being Lawende's man, for example, despite the fact that he was seen ten minutes before the discovery of the body, effectively precluding the possibility of slipping in a "Mr. Astrakhan" somewhere between Lawende's sighting and the body discovery? Or what if he admitted he was Schwartz' man? "Yes, that was me hurling the victim the ground at around the same time she died, and yes, that was me hurling anti-semitic insults at a passer-by, but no, I didn't kill her!".

Then there's the fact that Lawende lived in Dalston, was visiting a Jewish club in the City, and was less likely to encounter Hutchinson again.

And finally, we know that witness descriptions weren't being withheld until after the double event, and anyone who has ever picked up a book on serial killers shouls know that killers will often alter their tactics as they learn of investigative progess.

You've asked me the question before, and I've answered. Not once have you taken the trouble to actually engage with the specific answers you were given, electing instead to opt for one-line put-downs.

richardnunweek
10-29-2008, 04:02 PM
Hi,
Why oh why, do some people dish out insults when opinions differ?
Ben,the whole crux of the matter is you form the belief that Gh was physically involved in the MJK murder, and I among others do not.
If I promise not to throw rude words like balderdash about, could you refrain from using sarcastic tones.
From another irritatating shadow...
Regards Richard.

Ben
10-29-2008, 04:16 PM
Ben,the whole crux of the matter is you form the belief that Gh was physically involved in the MJK murder, and I among others do not.

Wonderful, Richard, we're all different and long make it continue.

Anyone is free to disagree, and when it's done respectfully, the chances of any sparks being emitted is very slim. Varqm has asked me the question several times; "Why did Hutchinson come forward when he was seen this time, and not on previous occasions?" and each time I took the trouble to answer in detail. Not once did he bother to address the responses I provided; he just repeated the original objection as though it were never addressed, and it's incredibly insulting be be described as weak and "long-winded" just because I respected a poster enough to be thorough in my response.

harry
10-30-2008, 01:19 PM
There is nothing really that can point to Hutchinson as telling the truth.The fact that he came forward,and placed himself at(or very near) the murder scene,is of little consequence,when balanced against the improbabilities and abnormal activities,he relates.For instance was it normal,even during that Autumn,to follow and wait 45 minutes,simply because of the clothes that were being worn,andIf he believed the man lived in the neighbourhood on what evidence does he base that belief.
Ben gives adequate reasons for his claims,it's about time the truth believers gave reasons for theirs,insted of the continued flimsy excuse that a guilty person would not come forward and expose(as in revealing his identity)himself.

DVV
10-30-2008, 06:19 PM
As far as we know of the case the ripper killed and disappeared.

Who would deny?


Hi Harry,
"there is nothing really that can point out to Hutch as telling the truth."
True, and his behaviour is equally inconsistent.
For example (among several), his tale about the Sunday's policeman, his own irresoluteness (a hamletian : "To go or not to go to the police station..."), though he knew Kelly, the curious need to be convinced by friends (as he was stupid enough not to understand the importance of his statement) before going to the police, all this remarkable pusillanimity is simply the opposite of Hutch "Friday's personnality": a man who seems very self-assured, able to bear a stern look and to wander the streets alone, to follow and observe people, to wait, etc, that means someone able to think and act by himself.
A military appearance and a deserter behaviour!

Amitiés,
David

DVV
10-30-2008, 07:08 PM
did you guys ever seen this clip
its from Holland i heart that there is a ripper copy cat on he loose there already killed 3 prostitutes in a ripper outfit.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NgGB2fEI50

I'll almost look at you suspiciously, if you come forward on a Hutchinson's thread.
How the weather in Holland?
Quite cold today here.

Amitiés,
David

DVV
10-30-2008, 07:39 PM
If her biography (as recalled by Joe Barnett) is to be believed, Hutchinson knew Kelly before she even arrived in London!

Hi Sam,
that depends if you prefer Barnett 9 Nov statement, or the inquest, doesn't it?
If Mary, as Barnett said, was in London for 4 years, and had first worked some time in the West End before moving to Ratcliffe Highway etc, she may well have met Hutchinson and Fleming at about the same time......

Amitiés,
David

Sam Flynn
10-31-2008, 12:24 AM
that depends if you prefer Barnett 9 Nov statement, or the inquest, doesn't it? If Mary, as Barnett said, was in London for 4 years, and had first worked some time in the West End before moving to Ratcliffe Highway etc, she may well have met Hutchinson and Fleming at about the same time......Hutchinson claimed he'd known her for 5 years, though, Dave.

Ben
10-31-2008, 12:36 AM
Hi Gareth,

According to Abberline's report it was three years:

"He informed me that he had occasionally given the deceased a few shillings, and that he had known her about 3 years".

I'd be very interested to know of any source that says five.

Best wishes,
Ben

Sam Flynn
10-31-2008, 01:29 AM
I'd be very interested to know of any source that says five.In hindsight, I might have got my wires crossed with Maurice Lewis, Ben. If so - apologies.

DVV
10-31-2008, 01:50 AM
Hi Sam,
so it seems that there were two men living in the Victoria Home, at the time of the murders, who both knew Kelly for about 3 years, intimately enough to give her some shillings or ill-use her out of jalousy.
Could be a coincidence, but a very extraordinary one, given the role of Hutch and the fate of Fleming.

Amitiés,
David

Sam Flynn
10-31-2008, 02:17 AM
Hi Sam,
so it seems that there were two men living in the Victoria Home, at the time of the murders, who both knew Kelly for about 3 years, intimately enough to give her some shillings or ill-use her out of jalousy.Indeed, David. That's what prompted me - in a moment of weakness a year or so ago - to start the Alias Fleming & Hutch thread :)

DVV
10-31-2008, 02:56 AM
Perfectly true Sam, and I've taken extensive notes of this thread.
Your suggestion was brilliant, and added to the fact that nobody like our Hutch could be found in the census, I find it the most fascinating so far.
That's what makes me a bit reticent about Lewis statement being the reason, or the only reason, why Hutch did go to the cops.

Amitiés,
David

harry
10-31-2008, 01:19 PM
Having had three days to consider his situation,I believe Lewis's testimony was the deciding factor.Surely there would have been rumours by the score,not all of them directed at 'foreigners',and some no doubt naming known aquaintances,of which he claimed to be one.
His statement,as I see it,is one of denial,a means of forestalling questions that he perhaps imagined he would sometime have to answer.
So he portrays Kelly as just a friend,and himself as a benefactor,a platonic relationship as opposed to a sexual one.He invents an imaginary character so his presence at the court gives an appearance of protective consideration,and not a person contemplating harm.Kelly on the street at 2am,both to introduce a suspect and cover the fact she never left her room after returning at midnight.A stranger who must be led to her room instead of an aquantance who knew a means of entry.A sunday sighting to add emphasis to the murder night sighting.Murder history is full of guilty persons who attempt to throw suspicion elsewhere,why not Hutchinson?

richardnunweek
10-31-2008, 09:11 PM
Hi,
For years now Hutchinson has been discussed on Casebook, and for years we have taked about who?
Can anyone name exactly who this much debated character was, has anyone actually given him a identity?
The fact is only one person has been fingered as the man in question, and that man was identified as George William Topping Hutchinson D.O.B 1/11/1866, by no other then his proven son the late Reg Hutchinson.
So the fact remains, that identification is the only one that has come forward since the murders, so how realistic is it to dismiss father/son as fraudsters especially with all the points in favour, the rare Wheeling report for starters.
I know Ben will address this post as the same old ' Nunners Nonsense', but I put it, that those amongst you who doubt that identification, are doing so to paint a suspicious character, which I would suggest the real GH [G.W.T] would not be.
Regards Richard.

Ben
10-31-2008, 09:34 PM
Hi Richard,

This was discussed at length here: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=395&highlight=thomas

I'm afraid it simply isn't the case that "only one person has been fingered as the man in question". Plenty of others have been fingered besdies Toppy; all of them better candidates for the man who signed the 12th November statement.

Even if you disregard the Fleming-Hutch premise, there are at least three "George Hutchinsons" who can be placed in the East End at more or less the relevent time; one a butcher living in Shadwell, another a glass-cutter living in the same area (as I recall) and another by the name of George Thomas Hutchison who lived in Mile End, was arrested for theft in 1887, and whose signature was believed by a document examiner to match the "witness" signature from 1888. Then there's Bob Hinton's early candidate, born in Shadwell. His signature didn't match either, but he's still a better bet than Toppy, who can't be pinned to the East End until he met his future wife in 1895.

You've decided from the outset that Toppy must be the individual in question, despite overwhelming indications to the contrary, and then used that assumption as a basis for your entire assessment of his credibility. I'm afraid "Hutchinson told the truth because Hutchinson was Toppy, and Toppy wouldn't lie!" amounts to very flawed reasoning.

I don't believe I've ever addressed you as "Nunners". Are you confusing me with someone else?

Best regards,
Ben

richardnunweek
10-31-2008, 10:06 PM
Hi Ben,
My point is although I accept other Hutchinsons have been put forward as possibles, they have been highlighted via Casebook members, where as G.W.T has been thrown in to the mix by his own flesh and blood..
What I am attempting to get across is if Reg addressed the truth, and gave a honest character reference about his father, then GWT, does seem the kind of witness that would have given a honest recollection to the police, and not the type that the vast majority of members has visions of , ie Stalker, pimp, mugger, liar, and even Killer....
The very fact is Ben, Reg way back in the early-mid seventies was recalling his father informed him of a sum of money paid to him by the police ,for efforts made on his part in assisting them, that sum was Five pounds.
The only account that ever went to press came from the Wheeling directory, [A rare item] that refers to a amount of money paid to the witness that was equvilent to that actual sum..
Pray tell me how Gwt, or Reg knew of this payment, if the only mention of it came from a rather obscure press report dated way back .
It all points to the George Hutchinsonin question being the very man I have always suggested.
Regards Richard.

Ben
11-01-2008, 02:40 AM
Hi Richard,

where as G.W.T has been thrown in to the mix by his own flesh and blood..

Yep, by a guy who thinks his father saw Lord Randolph Churchill.

...As related in The Ripper and the Royals.

...Which was later disavowed as nonsense by its own author!

The only account that ever went to press came from the Wheeling directory, [A rare item] that refers to a amount of money paid to the witness that was equvilent to that actual sum..

Yes, but it's almost certainly nonsense. Of course the police wouldn't have paid witnesses for assistance. If they did that, they'd be bombarded with hoards of "witnesses" all coming forward en masse with dubious accounts and all hoping to be paid off in the same manner. If the police wanted their witness to accompany them round the district, the witness would be compelled to jump to it. It wasn't as though they had a choice in the matter.

You refer to the Wheeling Register, which also stated in no uncertain terms that the witness account had "invented" Why don't you take this claim as gospel, as you do with the "five times the normal salary assertion"? The lesson here, surely, is that two zero-provenance sources do not equal good provenance.

Best regards,
Ben

richardnunweek
11-01-2008, 12:54 PM
Hi Ben,
All good points raised by ypu, I can see your line of reasoning, however you make the point that if witnesses were paid by police, especially a sum that has been mentioned, they would be swamped by half the whitechapel population each with a exciting sighting etc...
Are you saying that payment to important informers did not then take place back in 1888?, they certainly do today, Why cant Gh be classed as just that, we know that Abberline believed him.
We should remember that after the Kelly murder, the police were under great pressure to catch this killer, more so then ever, and if they considered a sighting such as Hutchinson recalled, was vital in catching the culprit then police funds i feel would have been released.
With reference to the article mentioning the money paid , it is irrelevant that Wheelings considered the sighting was 'invented', my point was, as it was the only press release i have ever seen that mentions 'money', how come Gwt, or Reg, mentioned a sum of money, was it just pure luck that it was confirmed by a obscure article?
I still consider Gwt was the real deal.
As for 'The Ripper and the Royals' I agree the book has not been accepted, but all Reg was saying [ really to endorse Faircloughs book] was his father said the man he saw resembled 'Churchill' which if the sighting is a accurate one,most proberly did.
Regards Richard.

Ben
11-01-2008, 03:10 PM
Hi Richard,

Are you saying that payment to important informers did not then take place back in 1888?, they certainly do today, Why cant Gh be classed as just that

No, I'm saying it's situation specific. It's almost impossible to accept that any police force would enforce a policy that enables all witnesses to get paid off, regardless of whether or not their evidence yielded any positive results. That would have been a shimmering advertisement for publicity-seekers if ever there was one, and would result in all manner of dodgy "witnesses" coming forward all expecting to be paid off. Totally impractical.

If Hutchinson was in their hands, he'd be obliged to accompany them round the district. It wasn't as though the police operated on a "Oh go on, please!" basis. If Hutchinson refused, he'd be obstucting police inquiries, with all the attendant negative consequencies that would have had for him.

With reference to the article mentioning the money paid , it is irrelevant that Wheelings considered the sighting was 'invented'.

No, it isn't. How can you say that?

If you're prepared to take as gospel the newspaper assertion that the witness was paid as gospel, why aren't you prepared to take the newspaper assertion that the account had been invented as gospel? If you believe the obscure newspaper was wrong about the "invented" detail, surely it's only reasonable to surmise that the payment detail was equally wrong?

Doesn't it bother you just slightly that this claim only appeared in one American-based newspaper, and nowhere else? Doesn't it bother you that many of the claims in that newspaper were flatly contradicted by other sources? I guess it shouldn't, considering that the article was headed "Gossip".

As for 'The Ripper and the Royals' I agree the book has not been accepted, but all Reg was saying [ really to endorse Faircloughs book] was his father said the man he saw resembled 'Churchill' which if the sighting is a accurate one,most proberly did.

No, here is what Reg said:

"Now I can see that (Hutchinson) knew all along that the man he saw actually was Churchill, but he didn't want to come out straight with it."

He then speculates that the pay-off was to keep quiet about spotting Churchill the Ripper.

Best regards,
Ben

DVV
11-01-2008, 07:45 PM
G'day all,
Actually, only Reg's plot construction seems to argue in favour of his father's identification with the Hutch. Like father like son.

Roy Corduroy
11-03-2008, 07:16 AM
Hi Ben, over on the AP Wolf thread I asked you a question about Gary Ridgeway and you were kind enough to answer, in post #91 that he came forward in May 1984 and gave information about a victim, Kim Nelson.

However:

"...the police had at one time stopped and questioned the man (Ridgeway) back in 1982 while he was in his truck with a prostitute. The investigator learned that the prostitute he was with was one of the women on the Green River murder list, Keli McGinness.

Moreover, the police approached the man (Ridgeway) again in 1983 in connection with the kidnapping of murder victim Marie Malvar. A witness, Malvar's boyfriend followed the truck to the suspect's house after recognizing it as the one that he last saw his girlfriend in." From Tru Crime Library.

Police initiated contact with Ridgeway. Once that happens, all bets are off comparing him to Hutch.

Roy

Ben
11-03-2008, 04:03 PM
Hi Roy,

Just a reminder for the benefit of the "new" thread.

He contacted the Green River Task Force in May 1984, Roy, with information about one of the prostitues, Kim Nelson, who he claimed to have known. As John Douglas details:

"As mentioned above, we indicated the UNSUB would inject himself into the investigation. Ridgway did so by providing information about one of the victims, whom he knew. That victim was killed differently than the others. A bag was placed over her head, an empty wine bottle and a pair of dead fish placed on her body. My analysis to police was that the killer knew this victim due to how the killer posed her after death. Ridgway came forward to “volunteer” information on this one because I'm sure he was afraid police would come across his name during the investigation.

It was his own proactive technique."

Police did not initiate contact on that occasion. Ridgway did. A great many serial killers crop up in their own investigations from time to time. House-to-house inquiries commenced in the Whitechapel district well in advance of 12th November, and lodging houses in particular were targetted. You can be rest assured that thousands of lodgers would have been questioned as to their whereabouts on the night in question, and I'd be amazed if Hutchinson slipped through the net during that phase.

So the "bets" are most assuredly, irrefutably not "off".

Best regards,
Ben

jmenges
11-03-2008, 04:40 PM
A quickie that's probably been asked and answered a hundred times:

Ben wrote
Internet hobbyists may express irrational incongruity as such behaviour, but it's clear that the experts on the topic don't find it surprising at all.

And elsewhere, and above, site Douglas as saying he expected the Green River Killer to come forward.

What do you make of the FBI Ripper profile that states:

It is quite rare when a serial murderer of this type communicates with police, media, family, etc. When they do communicate, they generally provide specifics relative to the crime that only are known by the subject. (NCVAC report p.5)

Granted, this is in the context of dismissing the letters, but interesting none the less. Ben, if you have the info handy, did Ridgway or any of the others you mentioned impart information to the police known only to the killer, or unknown details about a murder that later were proven correct? No doubt a handful of serial killers do inject themselves into the investigation, but is there a pattern to what type of information they present? And does Hutch follow or detract from this pattern?

and

We would not expect him to inject himself into the police investigation or provide bogus information (ditto, p.7)

I wonder how the testimonies from innocent publicity seekers differs from that of the murderer who approaches the police to volunteer information.

Thanks.

JM

Fisherman
11-03-2008, 04:59 PM
I´d like to step in here, JM, and push the point that the type of killer who shares knowledge only accessible to himself and the investigators of the case, are not the kind of killers who do it at a police station - that would get them caught.
A man like the Zodiac would correspond well with the type you are writing of - he sent a piece of a victim´s shirt to the police. But his aim was to taunt the police and to relish the moment of feeling superior to them. That would have been a lost cause if he had brought the piece of cloth into the station himself.

Hutch would have been a mere bacon-saver, if Ben´s guess is right; he felt that he diminished the risk of getting caught by going to the police and decreasing his own role by throwing forward a suitable subject in the shape of Astrakhan man. It is another thing altogether that he may have found himself enjoying the thrill of it all.

My own stance is that if Fleming did kill Mary, I think it would be a strange thing to do for a man who was prone to delusions of persecution to go to the police. My guess is that he would have stayed as far away as possible from the cops. When people suffering from such delusions (in murder cases often tightly knit to schizophrenia) go to the police, it is more credible that they do so to justify their killings by telling the police that their victims were stalking themselves.

The best,
Fisherman

Ben
11-03-2008, 05:02 PM
Hi JM,

If I understand correctly, the FBI Ripper profile was compiled with five specific indivivuals in mind; Kosminski, Druitt, PAV, Gull and Stephenson, and consequently resulted in subliminal references to those five throughout the profile. For example, Douglas' claim that the offender wouldn't have committed suicide is a clear reference to Druitt, while the "would not have provided bogus information" naturally relates to Donston Stephenson - ajudged a poor suspect by the compilers of the profile.

As you correctly observe, Douglas' comments were specifically in reference to the writing of letters. It is the letters that usually contain references to crime details known only by the killer. Although these are a form of "injecting oneself into the investigation", the crucial difference is the absence of a false guise - they're generally advertising the fact that they killed people, rather than concealing it. Ridgway did both - he wrote a letter which contained details only known by the killer, and came forward as an informer.

Both involved contact with police, but the nature of the "guise" was very different in both cases.

Integral to the FBI profile was the assumption that the killer was a "disorganized" offender which is open to serious dispute. Popular perception dictates that disorganized offender are unlikely to communicate with the police in any capacity, and I accept that this is probably the case. If the ripper was truly disorganized, Hutchinson's candidacy is weakened, but I don't believe he was.

All the best!

Ben

Ben
11-03-2008, 05:06 PM
Hi Fisherman,

I agree with most of your post, with the exception of your last paragraph. I appreciate that yours was just a guess, but I don't think you can assume that anyone suffering from delusions would not introduce themselves to police. On the contrary, Hutchinson's actions are potentially very compatible with a somewhat paranoid personality.

But we're been here before!

Best wishes,
Ben

Fisherman
11-03-2008, 05:18 PM
Ben writes:

"I appreciate that yours was just a guess, but I don't think you can assume that anyone suffering from delusions would not introduce themselves to police"

The guesswork, Ben, was about Hutch/Fleming (the man who was not there, if you ask me) not wanting to go to the police. And that has to be just a guess, since we have no way to assess him mentally.
The rest, though, was no guess at all; there are plenty of cases pointing to schizophrenic killers suffering from delusions of some sort going to the police to justify and explain what they have done. So far, though, I have never seen any case where a person suffering from delusions of persecution telling him/her that the police are after him, have been acting along the same line.

And yes, we have been here before. Just as we will probably end up here again.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

Ben
11-03-2008, 05:31 PM
Just as we will probably end up here again.

Well, we are here again, Fish, aren't we?

Without wishing to be at all antagonistic, I find that very bemusing.

We had a debate along these precise lines only last week, and we agreed a truce for the benefit of other posters. We now seem to be repeating that argument. Why? For what possible reason?

You recently provided a very useful quote that asserted that sufferers of persecution delusions will often resort to strange acts in order to evade their perceived tormenters. I contend that Hutchinson's actions are potentially very compatible with that type of "strange act" designed to prevent or delay "persecution". We know that Fleming didn't go to the police to "explain what he had done", but we know he did purvey false information as to his identity.

In general, I'd stay away from "If X was the ripper, he'd do it like this, but if Y was the ripper he'd do it like that" arguments.

Best regards,
Ben

Fisherman
11-03-2008, 05:52 PM
Ben, though I realize that you may be happier on the boards without me, with all respect I was replying to JMenges on this issue. When somebody pops up with a topic I find interesting, I sometimes answer their posts. You do exactly the same, and I don´t pop up to tell you that you should refrain from discussing things with them because you and me have had an exchange on the same matter.
Rest assured, I will not do so in the future either. But I WILL safeguard my right to discuss whatever topic I want to with whomever I want.
Just like you, I do not wish to be antagonistic, but you can´t place some sort of embargo on posters and their wiews, Ben. We would end up with very boring and improductive boards that way.

"You recently provided a very useful quote that asserted that suffers of persecutions of delusion will often resort to strange acts in order to evade their perceived tormenters. I contend that Hutchinson's actions are potentially very compatible with that type of "strange act" designed to prevent or delay "persecution"."

..and I think that is the wrong deduction altogether, I´m afraid. People who suffer from delusions of persecution avoid contact with the ones they think are stalking them, not the other way around. And although my quote said that they may go to strange lengths to avoid their believed persecutors, I really don´t believe we are at liberty to draw the conclusion that they would act strange enough to go against their own convictions and fears.

What the text refers to, is that these people may take other strange precautions, and that involves innumerable things like telling strangers in the street to urge the stalkers in spe to stay away from them, to building more or less ingenious constructions in their hallways, should the stalkers seek them out. It is all about AVOIDING the persecutors, Ben! And when/if the sick ones are brought in contact with their thought-up tormentors, they will in all probability NOT act in a cool and composed fashion.

If Fleming was being chewed upon by such delusions at the time - and there is a good chance he was - I think that points very much away from a man who, cool as a cucumber, leads the police astray, and who takes to the streets with them in search of Astrakhan man without breaking a sweat.

You think it possible, and that is fine by me and certainly a wiew that belongs to the discussion.

The best,
Fisherman

Ben
11-03-2008, 06:09 PM
Hi Fisherman,

Ben, though I realize that you may be happier on the boards without me, with all respect I was replying to JMenges on this issue

Replying to what specific point? JMenges never so much as mentioned schizophrenia, delusions or Joseph Fleming. You introduced that unrelated tangent because you weren't satisfied - I could easily tell - with the outcome of the previous debate on the topic, so you used JM's post as an excuse to start it all up again.

People who suffer from delusions of persecution avoid contact with the ones they think are stalking them, not the other way around.

Sorry, but that's completely baseless. People who suffer from delusions of persecution will seek perform "acts" to avoid capture and "torment" by their real or imagined persuers, as the article you provided bears out. Honestly, it's no use trying to Google away a problem by producing a quote that doesn't bear out your point and then coming up with bad excuses to pretend that it does. "Strange acts" are specified, Fish. Doing nothing isn't a "strange act". It isn't an act at all, and quite frankly, I don't think you're qualified to make any ex cathedra pronouncements as to what delusion sufferers would or wouldn't do in certain circumstances.

You're assuming, of course, that Fleming - in your scenario - envisaged the police as his chief persecutors. That may not have been the case. His fear may well have resided primarily with the targets of his violence; the prostitues, while regarding the police as more of a nuisance of anything. Delusion persecutions are, after all, irrational, and there's nothing remotely irrational about a serial killer being concerned about being caught!

Of course he'd take steps to avoid that outcome, paranoid, delusional or not, and as we learn from Lous. B. Schleisinger's book "Sexual Murder", there's nothing remotely problematic about a sufferer of delusions resorting to lies when it benefits them.

And when/if the sick ones are brought in contact with their thought-up tormentors, they will in all probability NOT act in a cool and composed fashion

They're not thought-up tormentors. They were real tormentors, so we cannot possibly comment on how cool and composed he would react in those situations, just as we cannot possibly presume insight into the extent of Fleming's delusions (if that's what they were) in 1888, especially if he was "found wandering" four years later.

Roy Corduroy
11-03-2008, 06:14 PM
Hi Ben and thank you for your reply.

Yes, assuredly all bets are off in comparing Hutch coming forward to Gary Ridgeway coming forward in 1984.

You are right, there were sweeps in Whitechapel, and perhaps Hutch would have been questioned in the same routine fashion as anyone else. Even that would not be similar to Ridgeway being stopped in his truck in 1982 with a prostitute who was later was found dead.

And in 1983, another victim got in his truck. Her boyfriend saw that. Later, after she has vanished, he sees the truck again. He follows it. He tells the police about it and where the truck went, and the police specifically drove to Ridgeway's home, knocked on his door and talked to him. It was not a sweep.

Then Ridgeway interjected himself. A year later.

It is hard to compare the two because of the use of the vehicle, but to make your example work, Hutch would have had to somehow been seen with a victim, or somehow connected to one, police would have gotten that info, gone to his lodging and specifically approached him. Before he came forward.

Roy

Ben
11-03-2008, 06:22 PM
Yes, assuredly all bets are off in comparing Hutch coming forward to Gary Ridgeway coming forward in 1984.

Uh, nope.

No, they're definitely not, Roy.

Absolutely emphatically no way.

Quite the reverse.

Why? Because irrespective of what had occured previously, Ridgway contacted the police of his own volition in 1984 under the guise as a helpful informer. He came forward, as Douglas described and even anticipated, because he was worried that a connection to the victim may have led to him being suspected. Hutchinson also came forward under the guise of a helpful informer, also with a claim to have known one of the victims.

That comparison is the germane one, rendering past activity and contact with the police irrelevent. He didn't come forward because of events that took place in 1983 - that wouldn't make any sense, and had ostensibly nothing to do with it. Without knowing Hutchinson's police exposure record prior to 12th November, it's impossible to know if he had any, but whether he did or not, the salient comparison would not be invalidated.

Best regards,
Ben

Roy Corduroy
11-03-2008, 06:31 PM
Ben,

I could not disagree more. Don't get me wrong, I am not knocking the whole theory. I am saying if you want to compare Hutch coming forward to to known serial killers who have come forward, Ridgeway is, without a doubt, your worst choice. Because of the prior, known, police-initiated contact specifically directed at him. Once that happens, all bets are off.

Roy

Fisherman
11-03-2008, 06:36 PM
Ben writes:

" you used JM's post as an excuse to start it all up again"

That, Ben, is rude, malicious and completely uncalled for. You do not get to decide what I want to discuss and with whom!
Jmenges brought up the question of how and in what fashion a killer would go to the police, and I pointed out where I thought he went wrong, and added that my wiew of it was that the killer actually never DID go to the police. That emphatically belongs to the discussion! And now you are saying I did that because I was discontended by our last exchange??

That is bewildering, Ben! Have I stepped in an told you not to push YOUR wiew on Fleming? Have I? No, I have not. And why? Because I would consider such a thing downright stupid to do!
The only thing I will say in your defense it that you are firmly on topic here, as we are discussing delusions. Now BACK OFF!!

Now that we´we sorted that issue out - never to be brought up again, I should hope - I will do what the boards are meant for: Give my wiew on the issue at hand. I suggest you do the same.

"Doing nothing isn't a "strange act". It isn't an act at all."

We A/ don´t know that Fleming was Hutch, and B/even if we did, we have no idea whatsoever about what strange precautions he may have taken to avoid his persecutors. There is - of course - no need to believe that he did nothing along them lines. It is just your suggestion/guesswork, is it not?

"You're assuming, of course, that Fleming - in your scenario - envisaged the police as his chief persecutors. That may not have been the case"

Since I am building my whole argument on that premise, I refrain from the nifty suggestion that it may be wrong. Anybody understands that, I should think, and the suggestion does not exactly contribute to the discussion.

"Of course he'd take steps to avoid that outcome, paranoid, delusional or not"

There is no "of course" about it. Why do you think Heirens used that lipstick, Ben? Some killers meekly accept getting caught, some try to stay away. And of course resorting to lies may be withing the spectre of what a delusional killer may employ - but that does not mean that a killer suffering from delusions of persecution would freely and readily seek out their thought tormentors to do so. These people suffer from something that can in a fashioin be compared to phobic diseases - they harbour a dislogical fear for something/someone, and that manifests itself in their keeping away from that something/someone.

"They were real tormentors, so we cannot possibly comment on how cool and composed he would react in those situations, just as we cannot possibly presume insight into the extent of Fleming's delusions (if that's what they were) in 1888, especially if he was "found wandering" four years later."

He became insane, Ben. And I think that the killings, if he committed them, is a pretty clear indicator that he was not all that well back in -88. If you give it some thought, I´m sure you will agree.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

Ben
11-03-2008, 06:40 PM
Hi Roy,

I understand your point, but why would prior police contact make a difference? Obviously there will be slight differences between any two serials. It would be very unusual if they mirrored eachother precisely. The best we can do is pinpoint strong similarities where they exist. Ridgway came forward as a helpful informer with a claim to have known one of the victims, so did Hutchinson. Ridgway turned out to be the killer.

If anything, Ridgway is rare amongst "interjecting" serial killers because of his prior record.

Best regards,
Ben

Ben
11-03-2008, 06:50 PM
Hi Fisherman,

I apologise if I've offended you. It wasn't my intention. I appreciate others taking the time to discuss these issues with me. I just don't understand why identical debates are repeated at such an alarming rate. That's all.

but that does not mean that a killer suffering from delusions of persecution would freely and readily seek out their thought tormentors to do so.

It doesn't mean they wouldn't, either. In fact, the safest conclusion we can possibly arrive at is that the behaviour of such people will often be very unpredictable. If Kosminski was the ripper, he was clearly more bothered about his "imagined" tormentors - the people trying to poison his food - that he was about those who posed an immediate REAL threat. If the killer feared the police, it wouldn't have been an illogical paranoid delusional fantasy, but a prudent recognition of a very real threat.

He became insane, Ben. And I think that the killings, if he committed them, is a pretty clear indicator that he was not all that well back in -88

Certainly, although I strongly believe that there weren't the outward and visible signs of "mania" that existed in 1892.

Reciprocal best regards,
Ben

Fisherman
11-03-2008, 07:02 PM
Ben writes:

" the safest conclusion we can possibly arrive at is that the behaviour of such people will often be very unpredictable"

If, Ben, you take my comparison with phobic people, I would say that much as such a persons reaction to the object he/she is phobic towards when subjected to it´s presence may be hard to predict, we can very safely predict that it will take him/her AWAY from the object. They may scream, they may cry, they may go numb and stiff - but they will NOT approach the object that scares them.

"If the killer feared the police, it wouldn't have been an illogical paranoid delusional fantasy, but a prudent recognition of a very real threat."

In the real world, yes. But we had better not look for too much of a rational behaviour and thinking on behalf of our killer. It is not a safe thing to assume that he was only afraid to be jailed - for all we know, a delusional and sick person may have feared that the police would have cut HIS intestines out when they caught up with him.

"Certainly, although I strongly believe that there weren't the outward and visible signs of "mania" that existed in 1892."

A reasonable guess - but I think it is very hard to assess what moved within him, even if he outwardly was able to sustain the image of a functioning member of society. He may have appeared that way, he may have been regarded a loonie by his neighbours, we can´t tell. We know that his downward societal spiral commenced early, and if he was the killer, we know that something was very, very wrong with him.

Apology accepted, by the way.

The best!
Fisherman

Ben
11-03-2008, 07:09 PM
Hi Fisherman,

They may scream, they may cry, they may go numb and stiff - but they will NOT approach the object that scares them.

I'd respectfully beg to differ here. I believe the evasion of real or imagined pursuers or tormentors has less to do with physically distancing onesself from the source of the "problem", but rather creating a situation wherein the prey is rendered less vulnerable to attack or capture. Some approaches may be reactive, others are proactive, and this will no doubt vary from person to person regardless of whether or not they suffer from any delusions.

It is not a safe thing to assume that he was only afraid to be jailed - for all we know, a delusional and sick person may have feared that the police would have cut HIS intestines out when they caught up with him.

Well, potentially, yes, but without knowing the extent of Fleming's condition in 1888, or even the chief source of his anxiety, it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions in that regard.

Best regards,
Ben

Ben
11-03-2008, 08:32 PM
From the A.P. Wolf thread:

Ben ----to "CONTACT the police" is a WORLD AWAY from ENTERING YOUR LOCAL POLICE STATION and give a WRITTEN STATEMENT about your "suspect sighting"--------especially after you have killed five women in less than three months,taken care not to be caught and the world and his wife are after your blood! And dont be so damn rude !

I can't think of anything more rude that continually ignoring the responses I've been giving you in favour of repeating your original point as though it were never addressed, Norma.

If you "enter your local police station" with the intention of giving false information, as other killers have done, you are also "contacting" them. By your logic, a Bordeaux is "worlds away" from a Claret. Sorry if you feel that my exasperation at having to reinforce this point makes me a "rude bastard", but there ya go.

Best regards,
Ben

Fisherman
11-03-2008, 09:18 PM
Ben writes:

"I believe the evasion of real or imagined pursuers or tormentors has less to do with physically distancing onesself from the source of the "problem", but rather creating a situation wherein the prey is rendered less vulnerable to attack or capture."

Ben, the extent to which somebody suffering from delusions of persecution tries to physically evade his persecutor/s will vary with the progression of the disease, I think. There will be severe cases where the diseased will go to any lenghts to avoid his persecutor/s, meaning that the sick person will try to claw his way through concrete walls in an effort to get away, not caring if he turns his own hands into bloody lumps of flesh in the process. And on the other end of the scale, there will be those who are mildly affected, and who may perhaps only feel a distinct unease while in the company of those they believe persecute them. I think it is only fair to say that there will be cases where the sick individual actually attacks his tormentor/s, just to get rid of them.

Generally speaking, though, believing that people suffering from this kind of disease would actually prefer interacting with their fears instead of avoiding them, is simply wrong. They detest the imagined sources of their troubles, and what you detest, you normally avoid.

Regardless of that, to try and put Fleming somewhere on the "fear scale" is useless, given the small material we have on him. You put your answer to my suggestion that he may have been irrationally deathly frightened by the police in much the same way: "... without knowing the extent of Fleming's condition in 1888, or even the chief source of his anxiety, it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions in that regard".

We may both be right - and we may, sadly, both be wrong too. Using my way of looking on it, I find that I am able to come up with a functioning timeline, explaining why and how Fleming became the Ripper (due for Ripperologist in the next issue). That, of course, is why I stick to it. It works, it makes the whole thing understandable, it explains why he killed not only four worn-down, aging women, but also his own former fiancée, who was still dear to him und so weiter.
Much the same would apply to your thinking, if I´m not mistaken.

The best,
Fisherman

Ben
11-04-2008, 03:52 AM
Hi Fish,

Generally speaking, though, believing that people suffering from this kind of disease would actually prefer interacting with their fears instead of avoiding them, is simply wrong.

It depends what the object of that fear was. Since we're speaking of people with irrational delusions, it may be significant that a fear of law enforcement would not qualify on that score. There wouldn't be anything irrational or delusional about a serial killer fearing the possibility of capture at the hands of the police.

Otherwise, I'm largely in agreement with your post, and look forward to your contribution to "Ripperologist". I have one in the pipeline myself, but anxiously await the filling in of a few crucial "blanks" before I go ahead. As you know, I believe you back the strongest horse around as far as identified suspects go.

Best regards,
Ben

Fisherman
11-04-2008, 09:58 AM
Ben writes:

"It depends what the object of that fear was. Since we're speaking of people with irrational delusions, it may be significant that a fear of law enforcement would not qualify on that score. There wouldn't be anything irrational or delusional about a serial killer fearing the possibility of capture at the hands of the police."

Correct, Ben. And all very logical.

Problem is, we do not know to what extent applying logic will help us in the matter!

Your point is that people with irrational minds and delusions are often overcome with irrational fears, and a fear of the police would be a rational one. And that is a very rational conclusion.
But like you say yourself, we may not be looking for rational conclusions here.

To begin with, maybe he killed his victims because he harboured an irrational fear that THEY were after him. Maybe they died simply because they approached him, and maybe he thought that their decision to persecute him was coupled to their abdominal organs - cut them out and the trouble is gone.

Case solved? Maybe, actually - but probably not. Killers of that sort of disposition are generally not as skilful as the Ripper seems to have been when it comes to leaving no traces and disappearing quickly. But it would tally with your desire for irrationally pointed out persecutors!

I am thinking along the lines that the Ripper was not that raving mad in 1888. My contention is that he was driven by an urge to procure inner organs (and yes, that IS raving mad in a sense, but another sense than the one we are discussing here), and that he tried hard not to get caught while doing so, coping with that task in a, generally spoken, rational fashion.
And if he did just that (tried to stay uncaught), then he knew that he was committing criminal actions, and that the society would punish him if they caught him. So in that respect, he was a rationally thinking man.

But if he was Fleming, we know that he was prone to suffer from delusions of persecution. And that is a disease that is irrational in itself, but it does in no way have to be focused on irrationally chosen subjects. The diseased may of course be convinced that his neighbours cat is persecuting him. That would be irrational from the outset, and then the diseased would add things to the picture as the disease grows in him. He would interpret the cat´s moves and doings as malicious and part of a plan to harm himself.

But delusions like these may of course also have a perfectly "rational" origin. If a policeman tells somebody with such delusions "Now, you behave, or I will come and get you!", then that very clear and rational wording may turn into something very different as the diseased starts chewing on it.

Point is, if you have the disease, it is all just a question of time before you are obliged to make your choice of who or what is persecuting you. And the irrationality of it all cannot necessarily be read in that choice of persecutor, whereas it can ALWAYS be read in the delusional distortions of how the diseased interpret their "counterparts" moves. In other words, he may have felt that the police were persecuting him (and he would have had extremely good reasons to do so), but he may not have felt that they did so for rational, logical and legal reasons only.

There is of course also the possibility that his built-in knowledge of what he had done to Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly was what ultimately set of the disease - the inner pressure was built up, and when he blew his top he did not do so by spilling the beans but by making the decision that someone, something, in whatever shape or form, would come after him and crave vengeance on behalf of his victims. If so, it is tempting to think that he may have been able to cope with his conscience as long as he had no personal connections to the ones he killed.

All guesswork and conjecture, of course. But fitting such guesses and conjecture into the minimalistic framework of facts that we have to go on is what we are left with, I feel.

On a sidenote, there will be more conjecture in that article of mine, whereas it seems you will be relying more on hard facts in yours. Looking forward to that one too, Ben!

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

Ben
11-04-2008, 02:15 PM
Interesting thoughts, Fisherman.

I hope that additional information will be forthcoming. I was frustrated to learn that the Claybury records had been destroyed as they would have been most illuminating, I'm sure. I did manage to track down a relative, but have had no response as yet.

Hope you have better luck!

All the best,
Ben

Roy Corduroy
11-04-2008, 10:36 PM
I did manage to track down a relative,

You found a relative of Hutch?

Ben
11-04-2008, 10:43 PM
A relative of Joseph Fleming, Roy.

DVV
11-07-2008, 01:41 PM
The Morning Advertiser (14 Nov) contains an interesting statement about Hutch, saying that "he took elaborate notes of the man's appearance".
But when would have Hutch written down these "elaborate notes"? It has to be after he heard of the murder, and since Hutch said he went to his lodgings as soon as possible on Friday morning, this can't be before he woke up, ie Friday afternoon.
Has Hutch really written theses notes? Or did he only say that he did?
Whatever, that could be a reply to the question (that Abberline or a journo could have asked): "Why is your suspect's description so detailed?"
But then, how could a so careful and important witness delay 3 days before going to the police?
A honest witness wouldn't have waited, especially after two sightings, and especially because he knew Mary personally.
A liar seeking publicity and / or money wouldn't have waited neither (Hutch himself said he was already broke on Friday, and apparently did not work in the following days).
So our man clearly behaves as someone waiting for something before taking his decision, and this "something" has to be the inquest and the Monday's newspapers. What else?

Amitiés,
David

Fisherman
11-07-2008, 01:56 PM
Hi David!

Could you post the full article or a link to it? It sounds like mindboggling stuff.

The best!
Fisherman

DVV
11-07-2008, 02:07 PM
Hi Fish:

" In consequence of the recent crimes his suspicions were aroused by the man's appearance, and he did not leave the vicinity (...) and after waiting sufficient time he concluded that all was right and retired from the scene. He afterwards heard of the murder, but for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediatly put himself in communication with the police. He took elaborate notes of the man's appearance, from which it appears that the supposed assassin's age is about 35 years, height 5'6, pale complexion, dark hair, curly dark moustache."

In fact, every single word deserves to be underlined. Note the euphemism "immediatly" about Hutch's delay!

Amitiés,
David

Fisherman
11-07-2008, 03:14 PM
Hi David, and many thanks!

This is a strange article indeed! On the issue of taking notes, I think that it would be odd in the extreme if he really did so. It´s hard to imagine him on that cold, damp November night with a notepad in his hand, scribbling away in the night.

...and maybe it is not even necessary to imagine it. Maybe this is all due to a mishearing? What if it is all meant to say that he took elaborate NOTICE of the mans appearance? To me, that would make a lot more sense, especially since we have not heard about his writing it all down before.

The part I find captivating here, however, is where it says that it would be imprudent to state why he did not get in immediate touch with the police. What on Gods´ green earth was going on? For "certain reasons" it would be "imprudent" to tell us why he did not turn up on day one???

This is going to keep me awake all night. Anybody got any idea about what reckless behaviour Hutch had been up to them three days? And in Romford, of all places?

The best,
Fisherman

Ben
11-07-2008, 03:22 PM
Hi Fish,

I also have to wonder how the Morning Advertiser claimed to have more juicy gossip on Hutchinson's motivations for coming forward at so late an hour than the ostensibly more reputable Daily Telegraph, which stated on 13th November:

"It has not been ascertained why the witness did not make this statement – much fuller and so different from the others that have been given – immediately after the murder was discovered."

Best regards,
Ben

Fisherman
11-07-2008, 03:54 PM
Right, Ben - there´s a difference and a half! And it does make one wonder about how eager they were to sell the Morning Advertiser...

The best!
Fisherman

Ben
11-07-2008, 05:10 PM
Indeed, Fish. 'Tis a strange one, and I'm grateful to David for bringing it to our attention. Here's another eye-catching claim:

It is now conclusively proved that Mary Jane Kelly, having spent the latter part of Friday evening in the "Ringers," otherwise the "Britannia" public-house, at the corner of Dorset-street, returned to her home about midnight with a strange man, whose company she had previously been keeping.

Best regards,
Ben

Sam Flynn
11-07-2008, 05:59 PM
The Morning Advertiser (14 Nov) contains an interesting statement about Hutch, saying that "he took elaborate notes of the man's appearance"....you can take a "mental note", Dave - one doesn't need to write them down.

DVV
11-07-2008, 08:42 PM
Hi Sam,
the expression: "taking elaborate notes" hardly indicates mental notes, in my opinion.
Anyway, I believe Hutch was lying - if he ever said he took notes.
I wouldn't dismiss too quickly the Morning Advertiser:
First, the journalist was right to raise the question of Hutch's delay.
Second, the reasons why Hutch followed AM and Mary are plausible: it was Friday night in Spitalfields, Mary was a prostitute, and the man, according to Hutch, looked like a foreigner... Since suspicion was thrown on foreigners/jews at the time, no wonder if Hutch had thought of the murders, no?
So, some newspapers said Hutch had followed MK and AM because of the latter's appearance; some others, at least the Morning Adv, said it was due to the murders; and some others said that "the circumstance of his acquaintance with her induced him to follow the pair as they walked together."
The newspapers are certainly dubious to some extent, but Hutch is also likely to have told various and conflicting stories.
That's Hutch.

Amitiés,
David

Amitiés,
David

caz
12-09-2008, 02:26 PM
Hi Sam,
the expression: "taking elaborate notes" hardly indicates mental notes, in my opinion…

…The newspapers are certainly dubious to some extent, but Hutch is also likely to have told various and conflicting stories.
That's Hutch.



Hi David, All,

I’m with Sam on this one. The expression, in its late Victorian context, would seem to be consistent with making a mental note. Today we might say: “He took careful note of the man’s appearance”, or “he noted many details of the man’s appearance”.

If the papers were dubious about Hutch’s various and conflicting stories (and we know he was soon demoted from star witness to no witness at all), it strikes me as a tad unlikely that a killer in the process of trying to avoid suspicion would indulge in such antics, going to the cops first to deceive them with elaborately false claims, and then courting the press with more tall tales and totally altering two of the basics - complexion and moustache - of the man he claimed to have observed so closely and carefully.

A man who imagines he will be straight on the ‘wanted’ list if he fails to volunteer a convincing account to the cops for being near the scene of crime, would have no right to expect that if he tells conflicting tall tales to the newspapers, the worst that can happen is that they will be dubious about them, while the police will simply dismiss them with a cheery: “Oh well, that’s Hutch for you”.

It might make slightly more sense if a jaded ripper decided after Mary Kelly’s murder that the only thrill he hadn’t already taken to the max was playing a cat and mouse game with the police, the press and the public: in short, an attention-seeking Jack, who was more concerned with staying centre stage and right under the cops’ noses than with giving a solid and credible account of himself and what he saw that night.



…A liar seeking publicity and / or money wouldn't have waited neither (Hutch himself said he was already broke on Friday, and apparently did not work in the following days)…


Well David, that might depend on when the idea first suggested itself to him, and how long it would have taken him to think through what he was going to say, what questions he might be asked as a result, and how he was going to answer them.

Considering how much effort and detail Hutch willingly put into it when he finally did the ‘right’ thing, he seems to have been enjoying himself a bit too much to have been acting either belatedly from a reluctant sense of duty, or a sudden need following the inquest to present himself as a serious and wholly trustworthy witness.

If the press thought Hutch was full of it, I suppose it would have been imprudent to state their belief that he had only come forward when the idea to make a bob or two out of the tragedy occurred to him.

Love,

Caz
X

caz
12-09-2008, 02:41 PM
Caz,
Would Hutchinson know,when he left on that monday evening,that Aberline trusted and believed in his story?

We know of the belief of Aberline through the report he submitted to his superiors.Would Aberline have expressed that same belief to Hutchinson?I doubt it,so Hutchinson may have felt he needed extra material to further bolster his story.

Hi Harry,

Extra material is one thing, but if Hutch was desperate for the police to keep all their attention on his bogus suspect, would he really think that giving him a complete change of complexion and moustache would help in this regard and ‘further bolster his story’?



Did he seek out the reporters,or did they seek him?In any case it may have been due to prompting on the reporters part,that caused Hutchinson to elaborate.He could hardly expect payment if he divulged nothing.

And there you have it - if Hutch was persuaded to talk to reporters, and even to change and elaborate on his police statement, because he was expecting to be paid for the information, his priorities were more mercenary than neck-saving.



It is common for witnesses to expand on an initial statement,be they innocent or guilty,and in Hutchinson's case,some extra details were of a nature that had they been true,could easily have been proven.It is not easy to explain the policeman or the Victoria home inmate not making themselves known,or not being tracked down,except in a belief that they did not exist.That being so,one can easily believe that those statements were lies,and Hutchinson was lying to cover up earlier lies.

But then the police either didn’t bother checking out any details that should have been easy to prove if true, or nothing checked out, and even his conflicting claims in the papers didn’t ring the right kind of alarm bells to turn him from discredited witness to formal suspect.



...his association with Kelly.I'm sure that was true,and he realised the probability of that being established.I believe he hesitated to come forward,the time delay shows that,but circumstances forced him to.Keeping quiet was a bad option,if he felt he would ultimately be drawn in.


But the ‘circumstances’ would have been entirely of his own making if he not only chose to target a woman he knew on this occasion, but waited until she was in her own room to do his party piece on her, taking the calculated risk of being watched while he waited by one or more of the hundreds of potential witnesses in the near vicinity. If he wanted to avoid being ultimately ‘drawn in’, he sure picked a funny place to hide.

Love,

Caz
X

IchabodCrane
12-09-2008, 02:51 PM
Whatever the reasons he came late with his story, I think the main reason he was dismissed by police was not because they were convinced he told a lie for money, but that the police were looking for a sexual pervert. It is interesting that all the suspects mentioned in official police statements are either known violent criminals, lunatics, or homosexuals (which I guess in the Victorian frame of mind didn't make much of a difference).
After the police had checked on GH's past without finding any of the above mentioned behaviour, he was no longer a suspect. It was unthinkable that a seemingly sane man would have committed such atrocities.
With hindsight and over a century of other serial killer cases to compare, George Hutchinson should top the list of suspects on these boards, whether he needed money or not.

IchabodCrane
12-09-2008, 03:09 PM
If he wanted to avoid being ultimately ‘drawn in’, he sure picked a funny place to hide.
I believe that since there was another man in Mary Kelly's room, there was no other choice but to wait in front of the entrance to Miller's court for first the man and then possibly Mary Kelly to come out. After all the ripper was a stalker, a predator. Mary Kelly was his most beautiful victim. I think in her case he wanted her, nobody else on that particular night, and singled her out because he knew they were going to be alone in number 13, Miller's Court.

caz
12-09-2008, 03:12 PM
[Original quote by Caz]
‘My point was that anyone telling the police a pack of lies in a bid to save their neck would surely not have had the brains to get away with their first murder had they changed any of the cards in that pack when talking to the press’

It depends how much "brains" you're giving the ripper, and I'm sorry, but I really don't understand the comparison here. What's so brainy about the Tabram or Nichols murders?

Hi Ben,

I realise you didn’t understand my comparison because you still talk as if I think the ripper must have been particularly ‘brainy’ to get away with his first murder. The exact opposite is true. My point was that if he had really thought the safest course of action after murdering and mutilating several women was to volunteer one pack of lies to the police and another to the papers, it would have made Jack a very dull ripper indeed - so dull that one would think he lacked even the limited wit required to commit the least ‘brainy’ murder without mishap.



You're arguing that whoever killed Tabram and/or Nichols must have been the type of individual who also liked to avoid giving contradictory reports to police and press, and I find that a bizarre inference.

I wasn’t arguing that, so the ‘bizarre inference’ is all yours. What I’m struggling with is the bizarre notion that this killer, who managed to evade capture time and time again, could have been soft enough in the head to change essential details of his eye witness account (such as the man’s complexion and moustache) if he was depending on it to save his own neck, and particularly if he was under no obligation to talk to the press at all, or did so against the wishes or advice of the police.

You have to address why he would have done that if self-preservation was even partly behind his original decision to come forward. What drove him beyond the need to keep his neck-saving story straight, simple and believable? The thought of fifteen minutes of fame? The hope that he might earn himself a few bob along the way? Pure mischief or bravado? Have you any evidence that character traits as diverse as prudent self-preservation and risk-taking, or fear of persecution and attention-seeking, can combine in a killer's brain to motivate the one act of volunteering bogus information? If not, you would be better off choosing the one motive behind Hutch’s various statements that most appeals to you and stick with it, rather than trying to mix and match opposite motives like a yellow streak with a reckless one, and imagining you can dodge every objection to one by temporarily appealing to another.



All I'm suggesting is that he "tidied up" his initial account when speaking to the press, possibly through fear that he'd left a few grey areas outstanding in the wake of his first appearance at Commercial Street police station.

A few ‘grey areas’ that Hutch feared he had left outstanding and which needed to be “tidied up”? Is this a reference to the mystery of the radically altered complexion and moustache? ;) Surely this is more jestin’ than suggestin’.



I'd bet hetfy amounts that none of the other serialists who came forward particularly relished the prospect of doing so, but went ahead anyway out of a desire for self-preservation.





I'm saying that not all serialists who gave bogus evidence to police did so primarily for the thrill of it, but rather for the purposes of self-preservation.



Hi Ben,

I bet you’re glad you didn’t go ahead and place that hefty bet, considering how quickly you went from betting that no serial killer comes forward for the hell of it to saying virtually the opposite: that not all of them do it primarily for kicks - some feel they have no choice.

Also, you need to be careful about referring to ‘other serialists’ who have come forward. You may have convinced yourself that Hutch belongs in this category, but you have yet to show that he was a ‘serialist’, or that the ripper had either the need or the desire for the kind of attention Hutch attracted to himself.



They're not thought-up tormentors. They were real tormentors, so we cannot possibly comment on how cool and composed he would react in those situations...

But with hindsight we know that Hutch wasn’t really being ‘tormented’ by the police before he came forward. You are putting all this into his head with no evidence that the police would have gone on to torment him had he not come forward; no evidence that they had any reason to torment him; and no evidence that he even imagined they might have a reason. And you can’t use the fact that he wasn’t ultimately tormented to claim that his cunning ‘ploy’ to stop the torment must have worked. :rolleyes:



If the killer feared the police, it wouldn't have been an illogical paranoid delusional fantasy, but a prudent recognition of a very real threat.



Yes, but you have absolutely no evidence that killers who recognise the very real threat posed by the police, but still think the most prudent course of action is to volunteer false information to the source of their fear, followed by conflicting false information to the papers, ever succeed in remaining uncaught or unidentified, as the ripper undoubtedly did. He could have had the same rational fear of the police and kept well out of it, in prudent recognition of the very real threat to his neck of gadding about his own killing fields, posing as a celebrity witness, and giving the likes of Long, Schwartz, Pipe Man, Lawende, Levi, Harris, Lewis, or Uncle Tom Cobley and all, a very real chance of recognising him, whether they lived and worked there day in, day out, or just frequented the clubs and markets.



Generally speaking, though, believing that people suffering from this kind of disease would actually prefer interacting with their fears instead of avoiding them, is simply wrong. They detest the imagined sources of their troubles, and what you detest, you normally avoid.


Quite right, Fisherman. I don’t see what difference it makes whether the ripper’s natural fear of having his neck stretched was tinged with an irrational fear of persecution or not. What you don’t generally do, if you have a healthy or unhealthy fear of what someone can threaten you with, is to invite yourself into their lair, tell them a pack of lies, and then swan straight off to the papers to tempt them with a different pack of lies - sticking two fingers up to the very source of your fear.

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
12-10-2008, 06:56 PM
Hi Caz,

My point was that if he had really thought the safest course of action after murdering and mutilating several women was to volunteer one pack of lies to the police and another to the papers, it would have made Jack a very dull ripper indeed

It wouldn't have done. It would have made him human, and not endowed of astonishing photographic memory. Think about it; if you've conconcted a pack of lies primarily from the ether on one day, what are the realistic chances of him being capable of regurgitating the entire thing with utter exactitude upon the next re-telling? That makes no sense at all.

It would also make him prudent. If his first lie was hastily concocted, it's perfectly natural that he may have experienced some anxiety over the passing hours and days that certain grey areas could precipitate some awkward questioning if left grey, thus compelling him to tidy up the account a bit...to pre-empt those potentially unsettling "unsatisfactorily explained" bits.

That's the exact opposite of being "dim-witted".

But even if he was just a lousy liar, which I doubt, then it requires a preposterous leap of faith to argue that a killer who tells unconvincing lies couldn't have got away with what the ripper got away with, or that Jack the Ripper, whoever he was, must have been a brilliant liar. Too many of your objections are predicated on an overconfident faith in your own preferred image of "Jack the Ripper", in my humble opinion.

You have to address why he would have done that if self-preservation was even partly behind his original decision to come forward. What drove him beyond the need to keep his neck-saving story straight, simple and believable?

I've told you - to tidy up the grey areas that would have attracted potential suspicion if they were left grey. That's quite a reasonable concept, when you give it some proper thought. If "Mr. Astrakhan represented the generic popular scapegoat at the time - Jewish, well-dressed, outsider etc - don't you think it would have been in the real killer's interest to have as many susceptible members of the public buy into that false dogma by milking it as much as possible? Especially if they were buying into it already.

Could he have contradicted himself in the process. Of course. Big whoop. People do contradict themselves, and it doesn't make them crap eviserators or unable to pull off the "Buck's Row job".

Have you any evidence that character traits as diverse as prudent self-preservation and risk-taking, or fear of persecution and attention-seeking, can combine in a killer's brain to motivate the one act of volunteering bogus information?

Yes, although I've never argued that all of those motivations must have played a part in order for Hutchinson to have come forward. The bullet-point of that particular seminar has always been that serialists come forward for a variety of reasons. That's all that needs to be understood, so asking me to pick one and stick to it doesn't make a fabulous amount of sense. Still not sure where you get the idea that any of the motives I've enumerated somehow "oppose" eachother. They don't. Not remotely. You can be full and bravado, and still go to manipulative efforts to evade capture - easily.

Also, you need to be careful about referring to ‘other serialists’ who have come forward. You may have convinced yourself that Hutch belongs in this category, but you have yet to show that he was a ‘serialist’, or that the ripper had either the need or the desire for the kind of attention Hutch attracted to himself.

Of course I have yet to show it, and short of a miracle, I never will, but the purpose these "other serialists" currently serve is to whallop the insinuation that Hutchinson would not have come forward in that manner if he was a serial killer. There's a difference between making a case for a suspect, and defending a suspect's candidacy against objections that aren't remotely reasonable.

You are putting all this into his head with no evidence that the police would have gone on to torment him had he not come forward; no evidence that they had any reason to torment him; and no evidence that he even imagined they might have a reason.

I'm putting nothing whatsoever into his head, other than uncertainty. The fact that he came forward as soon as Lewis' evidence was made public knowledge constitutes more than reasonable circumstantial evidence that he came forward out of concern that he'd been seen. Reasonable indications as to his mindset can be logically inferred from that.

Yes, but you have absolutely no evidence that killers who recognise the very real threat posed by the police, but still think the most prudent course of action is to volunteer false information to the source of their fear, followed by conflicting false information to the papers, ever succeed in remaining uncaught or unidentified, as the ripper undoubtedly did.

This is fallacious reasoning on two counts. Firstly, you can't bombard a hypothesis with as much criteria as possible, and then claim that a failure to locate an impossible mirror image is tantamount to evidence of the hypothesis being flawed. That's like saying; "unless you can find an example of another serial killer from Rochester, NY, who worked as a quack doctor, wore a huge moustahce, medals, and had a white horse, then all Tumblety theories are null and void. Of course you're not going to encounter mirror-like similarity, and it's silly to expect otherwise.

It's also grossly incorrect to assume that the proactive approaches of the other serial killers I mentioned always resulted in their being captured. Many of them, including Gary Ridgway, were identified as the killer for reasons that had nothing to do with their coming forward.

He could have had the same rational fear of the police and kept well out of it, in prudent recognition of the very real threat to his neck of gadding about his own killing fields, posing as a celebrity witness

Could have done, but given the number of killers who do become witnesses and gad about their own killing fields and appear under false guises, despite the possibility of being recognised from earlier witnesses at earlier crime scenes, this is a good moment to remind ourselves that established precedent scores over personal theorizing as to what would or wouldn't be prudent in a given situation.

What you don’t generally do, if you have a healthy or unhealthy fear of what someone can threaten you with, is to invite yourself into their lair, tell them a pack of lies, and then swan straight off to the papers to tempt them with a different pack of lies - sticking two fingers up to the very source of your fear.

He didn't tell them a different pack of lies. He just tidied up the existing lie to pre-empt awkward questions about the grey areas in his hastily concocted first statement, getting a few things muddled in the meantime as human beings generally do when they're attempting to sustain a lie.

Best regards,
Ben

Ben
12-10-2008, 07:15 PM
Agreed 100%, Ichabodcrane, and a very good summation.

Hi again, Caz,

would he really think that giving him a complete change of complexion and moustache would help in this regard and ‘further bolster his story’?

No, Caz, but that presupposes that he changed the complexion and moustache deliberately, as opposed to it being a by-product of both his attempt to sell "Astrakhan man" to all and sundry, and his all-too-human inability to regurgitate a lie with utter, faultless exactitude.

and even his conflicting claims in the papers didn’t ring the right kind of alarm bells to turn him from discredited witness to formal suspect.

We don't know whether they did or not, but I absolutely agree with Ichabodcrane that one needn't automatically follow on from the other.

If he wanted to avoid being ultimately ‘drawn in’, he sure picked a funny place to hide.

Best he could have acheived, though, if he wasn't invisible, but still wanted to moniter the comings and goings of the court. He just had to make do, as he'd done previously at other crime scenes. Finding a location where he couldn't be seen at any point, either before, during or after the commission of the murder, was nigh on impossible.

Best regards again,

Ben

DVV
12-20-2008, 01:50 PM
After the police had checked on GH's past without finding any of the above mentioned behaviour, he was no longer a suspect. It was unthinkable that a seemingly sane man would have committed such atrocities.


Hi IchabodCrane,
I will agree with the second sentence, but certainly not with the first.
Nothing indicates that the police checked GH's past.
And had he a past?
Personally I doubt it very much. GH, in my view, was an alias.

Amitiés,
David

Tresschen
03-15-2009, 03:52 AM
At first I was compelled too to believe Hutchinson to be the murderer, but the more I read about the whole thing, the more I think it unlikely. I think, that if Hutch was the ripper, he wouldn´t have gone to the press. He wouldn´t have put so much contradicting information in his statements, because if he had invented it, he would have known what he had invented, especially if this was necessary to safe his neck.
I write stories and I have to invent characters for that and I know what they look like. Okay, not always up to the eye-colour, but if I had thought up a story over the weekend I would remember it quite explicitly. I would write it down for me to always remember what it was like, because I would know that this could save my life. I would probably be more vague, if I wasn't so sure anymore what I had told before ala "I thought his Moustache was rather slim, but then again the lightning was so bad and afterwards I thought it too be a be more bushy..."
But Hutch gives clear statements as it seems who seem to contradict each other. I think, if he was the murderer, he wouldn´t have contacted the press at all and he wouldn´t have told such obvious lies.

So if he wasn't the murderer who was he?
Just an attention seeker, putting himself at the crime scene at the possible time of the murder. I can´t believe it. Attention seeker tell lies, but they tell safe lies, lies which couldn´t get themselves hanged.
So there is just the possibility that he was a true witness, but alas, he didn´t tell the truth, this is bloody obvious. So what did he tell?
I have more than one theory about it. He could have been
... one of Mary's admirers, who realized, when Lewis made her statement that he had been seen and ran to the police to tell a good lie why he was there. He could have seen Mr. Astrahkan, but he embellished the story and probably didn't saw much after all. The police found out about this a few days later and his story was discarded. Probably he was even seen by somebody else later that night which convinced the police that it wasn´t him, but because of all the lies, his story was worth nothing.
... afraid of the murderer and then told the police that he saw somebody completely different. Probably he saw a good mate with Kelly that evening and didn`t thought much of it and even waited for his friend, so they could go home or drink a beer together. But when he learned of the murder, he knew what it must have meant. But he couldn´t tell that to the police. So he told nothing. Then he heard about wideawake-man and became paranoid that Lewis probably would recognise him. So he went to the police telling them lies, because he didn`t want to get killed by the ripper or didn´t want his mate to hang or a little bit of both.
... he told the truth, probably not the whole truth, but something close to it, but was wrong about the date. He probably was in love with Kelly and watched her a little. And when Lewis made her statement, he thought: Oh Gosh, wasn't it that other night I was meeting Kelly in the street? ****, I have met her murderer and done nothing. I even forgot I was there that night. He so goes to the police, they hunt astrakhan, but then it is cleared up that he didn´t saw Kelly that night or earlier that night before Blotchy man arrived at the scene. Probably his trip to Romford was a day before he said it was and the police found out and okay, his minute of fame was over, but he wasn't regarded as a suspect, because he hadn`t been there.

Another possibility is that he was an alias, someone who gave a important hint to the police, but after following the hint, there was not much to it anymore. At least it could be possible that they actually found Astrakhan, but he couldn't have committed the other murders and was put aside again. Or the mistaken dates. This could be one thing. How often do I think I did something on monday when it was actually tuesday? And if you don't have work every day is the same, so it is much harder to remember correctly.
And then again there is always the idea of him being an invention of the police. But then again we have to look for a reason for that...

Probably my post would be more fitting in the thread about Hutch's identity, but after reading nearly every thread of Hutchinso here, I haven't yet come to this thread as it is so long and will want to read it in full and with consideration.

And, I am a newbie, so if my theories are total bullshit and all the facts speak against it, I am sorry, but I wasn't yet able to get every little information about everything. These are just my thoughts and my thoughts about how the puzzle Hutchinson could clear up a little as this man is a real puzzle to me.
I can just cite an important philosophist on this matter: I know that I don't know anything.

Ben
03-15-2009, 04:28 AM
Hello Tresschen, and welcome!

I think, that if Hutch was the ripper, he wouldn´t have gone to the press. He wouldn´t have put so much contradicting information in his statements

Why not?

If he believed that his initial statement contained several grey areas which, if left unexplained, could precipitate some extremely awkward questions, his press contributions could very well have taken the form of "tidying up" those grey areas before those questions were asked. By approaching the press, he also ensured that press and public would once again be clamouring after the original generic scapegoat; the conspicuous Jewish outsider with a suspicious looking black package. The wider the audience for that myth, the more the objective of deflecting suspicion in a false direction is fulfilled.

Could be have made a few careless contradictions over the man's appearance in the process? Yes, easily, but they were very unlikely to have been deliberate, and would instead have been a natural by-product of a lie being over-burdeneded by too much detail. In that respect, it doesn't quite follow that "if he had invented it, he would have known what he had invented" He'd recall as much as he could, yes, but if you overcomplicate and overfurnish a lie, it is bound to slip up in the re-telling, courtesy of its excess baggage.

If we reject the above reasoning, we get into this rather awkward position of arguing that the more his statements contradicted eachother, the less suspicious he becomes, whereas logically the reverse should follow. For what it's worth, I'd be surprised if you were able to repeat an incredibly detail-rich lie with exactitude from one day to the next. You say you would have written it down for extra security, but stationary may well have been a luxury unavailable to a lodger such as Hutchinson.

On a more basic level, though; I'm not sure where it was ever suggested that Hutchinson must have been an incredibly skilled liar. The fact that a person may have had an especially pressing reason to lie - such as self-preservation - doesn't actually bestow upon that person any extra lying prowess.

... one of Mary's admirers, who realized, when Lewis made her statement that he had been seen and ran to the police to tell a good lie why he was there. He could have seen Mr. Astrahkan, but he embellished the story and probably didn't saw much after all.

Okay, but in this scenario, what would be the real reason for him being there? You say he told a "good lie why he was there", and I'm inclined to agree, but if he told the lie, what really prompted him to loiter fixatedly outside her room in the small hours of a dismal November morning? You can easily "admire" someone without enduring such obviously extreme discomfort, so it may be inferred that this admiration must have been a little beyond the norm.

Probably he was even seen by somebody else later that night which convinced the police that it wasn´t him

I'd have to observe that this is extremely unlikely. If he really did loiter outside Kelly's room when Lewis noticed him at 2:30am, and really did have a concrete alibi for the time of her murder (which was open to serious dispute anyway) why on earth did he bother with the excuse that he was "walking around all night" (the only activity that couldn't be verified or contradicted), rather than avoiding any question of potential suspicion by telling police where he really was around the "Oh murder" time frame?

If you think about it, the possibility of being recongised by Lewis becomes completely irrelevent if he had an alibi. The type of person who had a legimate reason to fear being recognised by Sarah Lewis is logically more likely to be someone who didn't have an alibi for their whereabouts around the (assumed) time of death for Mary Kelly.

The confused date hypothesis does not satisfactorily explain - for me at least - the fact that Hutchinson came forward and admitted to standing and waiting for someone to come out of Miller's Court at 2:30am on the night of the murder, as soon as it became public knowledge that Sarah Lewis had reported someone doing precisely that.

Another possibility is that he was an alias, someone who gave a important hint to the police, but after following the hint, there was not much to it anymore.

You don't "discredit" a witness and then use weaker witness for identity efforts (as they appear to have done with Hutchinson) purely on the grounds that the evidence of your star witness isn't delivering the goods. If nothing was coming of the evidence in the immediate aftermath of the Miller's Court murder, it was essential to persevere with that witness evidence. The indications that the police didn't do any such thing is a strong indication that the "discrediting" process had more to do with a lack of a viable "Mr. Astrakhan" suspect.

And, I am a newbie, so if my theories are total bullshit and all the facts speak against it

No, they weren't bullshit at all, and I hope you don't object too stenuously to my feedback! :)

All the best,
Ben

Tresschen
03-15-2009, 03:30 PM
I understand your idea of the grey areas he didn`t want to leave out, but why not go with it to the police and tell them? The public would be informed sooner or later by them. But to go to the press which can be more interrogative than the police and to show one's face in public, I think this is something I for once would try to avoid in this situation, especially when with doing that I betray the faith the police put in me. After all I would know that the most important thing is that the police believed me.
And the other thing is: If Hutch knew he was a bad liar, he would have tried to keep his lie as easy as possible. If I were to get myself out of jail, I would invent a lie, which would be more believable than Hutchinsons. I would not invent things I most surely couldn´t see at night and I would stick with some little important characteristics and not invent more and more and more...
And although Hutch may not be the best liar, he would have know some of these little things he should think about, but especially these things he got wrong.
So I think he lied without having it all thought through in his mind and this would be something an attention seeker or a real witness who just wants a little extra attention probably would do, but no murderer or at least no murderer who has behaved rather clever before.


I think it not so unlikely to wait outside for somebody, if you have no place to go anyway for the night. Probably MJK even said something like: "If I am done, you can probably sleep in my flat, Hutch!"
If they were as close as Hutch states this could be possible.

And I don´t meant a real alibi. I just think while wandering through the streets later on, he probably greeted a policeman. It was forgotten by him and the policeman didn´t think much of it, but then he probably saw Hutchinson again and Hutch had an alibi. The rest of the night he could have been nowhere in particular, but when he just was seen by someone around the time of the scream "Murder", they would have thought him unlikely to be their man.

Ben
03-15-2009, 03:51 PM
I understand your idea of the grey areas he didn`t want to leave out, but why not go with it to the police and tell them?

Probably because it would naturally appear suspicious if he returned to the police station with a few details he oddly neglected to mention in his police statement, especially if they took the form of "You're probably wondering why I didn't contact you earlier. Well...." They'd naturally assume he had simply returned once he'd had time to think up an excuse.

By approaching - or being approached by - the press itself, not only did he create the widest audience possible for his false suspect, he could also blame any embellishments on journalistic invention if ever the police quizzed him over the additions. Bear in mind that Hutchinson had no real way of knowing that the police believed him at that stage. It would have been quite improper for the police to inform the witnesses themselves whether they were believed of not, and of course Hutchinson could not have been privvy to Abberline's police report.

If Hutch knew he was a bad liar, he would have tried to keep his lie as easy as possible. If I were to get myself out of jail, I would invent a lie, which would be more believable than Hutchinsons.

But what if he didn't know he was a bad liar? If he had the arrogance and bravado to believe he was an excellent liar capable of duping the police, it could well have blinded him to the more "prudent" type of fictional account. People don't always have a well-rounded understanding of their own abilities to lie. If Hutchinson had given a more basic description of a less noteworthy individual to the police, he would effectively have eradicated his alleged reason for loitering where he did. As far as the police were concerned, it was Astrakhan's incongruous appearance that piqued Hutchinson's curiosity enough to prompt his 45-minute vigil. Remove that "interest" factor and you remove Hutchinson's police accepted reason for remaining there.

So I think he lied without having it all thought through in his mind and this would be something

He regurgitated the entire description with near exactitude days after his initial statement, with the odd contradiction and embellishment thrown in. It may not be perfect, and he may well have slipped up as a consequence of being overly confident, arrogant, or a bad liar, but he certainly thought it through.

but no murderer or at least no murderer who has behaved rather clever before.

Not really. At least there's nothing about any of the previous murders that tells us that Jack was likely to be an incredibly skilled liar.

I think it not so unlikely to wait outside for somebody, if you have no place to go anyway for the night. Probably MJK even said something like: "If I am done, you can probably sleep in my flat, Hutch!"

If the truth entailed so innocent an explanation, he could easily have said so to the police.

I just think while wandering through the streets later on, he probably greeted a policeman.

I'm afraid that isn't probable at all. If he met a policeman around a disputed time of death, it would have been imperative to mention it. We have to be incredibly careful about positing the existence of convenient people stationed around the district all ready to give him an alibi. This was next to impossible. There's no evidence that he bumped into a policeman, besides which there was uncertainty over the exact time of death. Greeting a policeman - which he almost certainly never did - would not have been an alibi.

All the best,
Ben

Tresschen
03-15-2009, 07:20 PM
I think the fact that Cox and Lewis were up at the same hour, too, and just returned home, makes it not so unlikely, that someone saw him on the street. And I think the police was very convinced at the time that the murder happened, when the scream was heard. So for them the knowlegde that he had been at that moment somewhere else, would have been enough.
But I don´t believe this the likeliest possibility. In fact I am very compelled to think Hutchinson the murderer except for two things:
1. The police may have been not as good as today´s police, but wasn´t dumbfolded either. So if they didn´t believe Hutch's story anymore, why didn't they regard him as a suspect. One can say what he wants, but I still believe that the police checked him and they disregarded him and Mr. Astrakhan as murderers. There must be a reason for it, I think.
2. The way he is lying as I have pointed out before. You can say what you want, but it may be the behaviour of a murderer, but it isn´t the behaviour one would expect from the ripper after all I have heard and read about him before.
3. Hutchinson (whoever of the many Hutchinson he was) lived for many years, but the ripper stopped entirely. I could believe the character we know as Jack the Ripper to stop murdering for a time, but not once and for all.
And all this convinces me that Hutchinson isn´t the ripper, even if it would be nice, if he was.

Ben
03-15-2009, 07:40 PM
So for them the knowlegde that he had been at that moment somewhere else, would have been enough.

Ah, but there's no evidence that the police had any such knowledge, and we really can't just conjur up an alibi with no evidence. In all circimspection, he was very unlikely to have had one, or else he would have provided it when commuincating with police, as opposed to coming up with the only activity that couldn't be checked into a a substitute for an alibi - "walking about all night".

So if they didn´t believe Hutch's story anymore, why didn't they regard him as a suspect.

They may have done. We don't know. However, even if they did suspect him, there's no reason to assume that they ruled him out as a result of suspecting him. This is a crucial distinction that I've sought to reinforce ad nauseum. It is quite possibile to suspect someone but lack the evidence to rule them either in or out. It happens all the time, even today when policing in general has advanced over the course of a century. Gary Ridgeway was interviewed as a suspect after coming forward as a witness, but they released him through lack of evidence, not because they ruled him out.

Yes, we can observe that he was discredited as a witness - that much is borne out by the evidence, but no, that doesn't permit us to conclude for one moment that he was also dismissed as a suspect.

but it isn´t the behaviour one would expect from the ripper after all I have heard and read about him before.

You refer to the "way he was lying", but there's really nothing in his previous crimes that would permit us to conclude that he would have lied "differently" if faced with the sort of predicament that Hutchinson may have found himself in.

Hutchinson (whoever of the many Hutchinson he was) lived for many years, but the ripper stopped entirely.

I'm afraid we have no evidence for either assertion. If we don't know his identity, we can't possibly know whether or not he lived for "many years", and I'm strongly obligated to point out that it has never been proven that he stopped entirely after the Kelly murder. The incarceration, incapacitation or death scenario is one of the least problematic objections to Hutchinson's candidacy.

Best regards,
Ben

Vingle
03-16-2009, 12:13 AM
Assuming for a moment the GH killed Kelly, his behaviour seems entirely reasonable for attempting to move suspicion from him to someone else, once he'd established he'd been seen, at 2.30am outside Miller's Court.

He doesn't come forward as a witness initially. When he does, he says he knew Kelly, was concerned about her with this chap, whom he goes on to describe in oddly minute detail. It sounds too good to be true.

I do not think it precludes GH from being Fleming based upon why Fleming was put into the institution. If Fleming was paranoid about being stopped rather than caught and that people/things were conspiring to stop him - it might not prevent him from going to the police.

If he weighs up the risks in being stopped and concludes there is a greater chance that he will be stopped if the populace look out for a poor gentile, rather than a rich, jew (particularly if it was the very poorness and gentileness that allowed him to bring the women into his confidence) - then approaching the police would have been the correct option in terms of probability. He more likely thinks his capture almost impossible at this point, he'd escaped at least CE and had ripped a woman to pieces in her own home.

He might look at the removal of opportunity as meaning he would have to take more risks and more likely to be caugfht in the act, more dangerous than going to the police with yet another dodgy story he knows the can't prove but casts doubt on the perpertrator. I believe he willhave heard of the main witness statements from the inquest by the time he goes to the police.

caz
03-19-2009, 10:17 PM
Hi Vingle,

A slight problem here is that if the ripper did go to the police to try and put someone else in the frame, because he had now been seen once too often near his crime scenes, then the very act of coming forward must have played a pretty significant part in stopping his ripping habits, at least for the time being, if not forever.

Hi Ben,

If Hutch was ever suspected but couldn't be ruled out, was that not how a man would attain suspect status in this case, with his name retained on file in the hope that some fresh information might turn up to clear him or make him worth another look?

Or was it a case of "Well that's that then, nothing we can do about this one, so we'll have to forget him and move on"?

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
03-20-2009, 03:16 AM
Hi Caz,

Good question. My guess is the former, although I'd hazard a tentative guess that a police force who had exhibited an undeniable preference for foreigners and/or lunatics and/or those with possible medical knowledge might not have been all that fussed about a local non-entity type of suspect anyway, after they realised that their suspicions against Hutchinson couldn't be translated into ruling him definitively in or out. This would account for his absence on docuements such as those penned by Macnaghten, for example

But all this based on the strictly hypothetical premise that Hutchinson was ever suspected, which is a whopping big "if".

All the best,
Ben

Vingle
03-20-2009, 03:57 AM
My feelings of the ripper is of someone who was able to commit murder in a pretty horrible way but in a very controlled manner. It doesn't appear to be totally frenzied and is in parts quite deliberate and organised. He exercises absolute control over the women he kills from the time they feel safe with him through the killing to the removal of body parts.

I think that as long as the ripper feels in control that he would be patient. I think he knows that even after Kelly, prostitutes will still be available to him. The choice of where and when might allow this man to be patient, particularly if by conversing with the police he feels as though he is controlling them too. The times between killings increases with the violence, so i think that the ripper is capable of patience in order to satisfy his need for a more viscious kill in the future.

I would have to confess that i cannot think of what constitutes a more vicious kill than Kelly He seems to have mastered control - he does not appear to torture whilst they are alive, prefers killing and getting to the insides, even kelly where he has more options. Unless 'you'd say anything but your prayers' extends to making the woman sing to save her life which i guess could be torture.