PDA

View Full Version : Sympathy for Hutch


kensei
02-21-2008, 03:42 PM
I am no expert on the case, but just one of many amature followers, so everyone feel free to slam me for what I will say here as being just a piece of melodramatic tripe. But in reading all the accounts of George Hutchinson, a few things have seemed to suggest themselves to me. I know his report to the police of the man he saw with Mary Kelly is way too detailed to be believable, and I know some have gone as far as to suggest that he was actually the Ripper himself (!). But he's listed as someone who knew Mary personally, and in reading his account I've always wondered why he felt this need to study the man she was with so closely, and especially why he then followed them and then stood and watched and waited for them to come back out of her room for such a long time on a cold November night when he no doubt had a pretty good idea what they were doing. Honestly, he has always struck me as a friend of Mary's who secretly seriously fancied her, knowing what she was but wishing things were different and feeling the need to watch over her that night when he saw her with a man that made him uneasy (and who I feel was almost certainly Jack the Ripper, decked out as if for a night at the opera). Or maybe I've just seen way too many movies.

Ben
02-21-2008, 04:05 PM
Hi Kensei,

If he was "watching over her" out of concern, he'd be useless as a preventative measure in the event of her Astrakhan-bedecked companion getting slashy with the contents of his American-cloth wrapped parcel, and he certainly couldn't see what was going on inside. Better, surely, to alert the nearest constable at the earliest opportunity? Or failing that, at least come forward at the earliest opportunity rather than procrastinating for three days and allowing the trail of his friend's killer to grow cold.

Significantly, not even Hutchinson claimed to have loitered there out of "concern".

(and who I feel was almost certainly Jack the Ripper, decked out as if for a night at the opera).

Ah, yes.

Unfortunately, this is one of the reasons why faith in the veracity of his account survives, to a decreasing extent, even to this day. It allows for some perpetuation of the fallacy that the killer was a "toff", and that he'd approach his crime scenes "decked out as if for a night at the opera". Our challenge is to prevent a desire for a glamorous solution to murders to cloud our judgement.

"Let the time go by
With no alibi!
Loitering on the streets where you live"

Ally
02-21-2008, 04:45 PM
Speaking of wish-fulfillment fallacies the "toff" theory ranks right up there with Hutchinsonites who believe that GH, as the actual Ripper, would walk in to the police and place himself there at the scene of the crime.

Everybody hates all wish-fulfillment scenarios except their own.

Ben
02-21-2008, 04:58 PM
Well, not really, because I don't "wish" for it to be true.

I know only that a number of serial killers have approached police and placed themselves at or near the scene of the crime. None of us know for certain if that's what happened, but it wouldn't be at all unusual or unlikely.

Ally
02-21-2008, 05:11 PM
I love it when people make unsubstantiated claims such as "quite a number of serial killers approach the police and place themselves at the scene of a crime". Serial killers may call, they may write letters, from an anonymous distance, but I bet you'd be hard pressed to find a single case of a serial killer who walked into a police station and placed himself at the scene of a crime.

And even if you were able to find such a case, for every single instance you find, I could find 20-30 instances where people who were in no way related interjected themselves into the crime with useless "witness" testimony.

And for every instance of a serial killer you find walking into a police station directly and placing himself at the scene, I can find you an instance of an upper income gentleman who committed murder.

One scenario is just as based in personal wish-fulfillment as the other.

Suzi
02-21-2008, 06:48 PM
Hi Kensai-
'Decked out for a night at the Opera'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Definately a few too movies too many!!!
a) There wasn't anything quite of the scenario you imagine in the area....some wondrous Music Halls of varying dubiosity but certainly not an Opera House!!!
and b) Our man .....whoever he was most certainly didnt toddle around dressed as 'Champagne Charlie' (He wouldn't have made it from one end of Dorset St to the other!) IMHO- He was a grey/ be-capped/moustachioed(probably) well known local- known and trusted by the victims....there we are I've had my say on that ...........but to be honest you'll never dissuade me from that point of view......Now if that was GH so be it!

Suzi x

Suzi
02-21-2008, 07:01 PM
This is a piece I did of Harry Champion at some point in my chequered career!
259
NOT a Dorset Street Regular .....(or Irregular come to that!):rolleyes:

Ben
02-21-2008, 07:11 PM
I love it when people make unsubstantiated claims such as "quite a number of serial killers approach the police and place themselves at the scene of a crime".

'Course in this case it isn't "unsubstantiated" at all. It's true, and no, I don't mean writing lettes from an anonymous distance. I'm talking about actual killers, both serial and one-off, who approach the police in person with false information, from Ian Huntley to Nathanial Code. It doesn't matter if people on message boards think it's unusual or outlandish when the historical record clearly demonstrates otherwise.

And even if you were able to find such a case, for every single instance you find, I could find 20-30 instances where people who were in no way related interjected themselves into the crime with useless "witness" testimony.

No, I don't beleve you could. In this case, you'd have to dismiss as "coincidence" the strong correlation between between Sarah Lewis' sighting of a man loitering outside Miller's Court apprently "waiting for someone to come out" and Hutchinson's claim to have waited outside Miller's Court for someone to come out. Both at 2:30am on 9th November.

And for every instance of a serial killer you find walking into a police station directly and placing himself at the scene, I can find you an instance of an upper income gentleman who committed murder.

An upper income serial killer who advertises his wealth in the most conspicuous manner imaginable in the worst possible location? Nope. I don't reckon you could.

Suzi
02-21-2008, 07:19 PM
Exactly Ben-

Not about to start rattling on here but the number of letters written to and from diverse angles does NOT suggest ONE man/woman writer ...and to be honest there's no reasonable logic between them all!.......Guess the Dear Boss and the Saucy Jack have a certain frisson ......but........!

This aside but the lurkers/helpers are worrying...........as in Huntley ...didn't Kurten do something along those lines too?

Suzi x

Ally
02-21-2008, 07:43 PM
Yeah, I love it too, because it's true, and no, I don't mean writing lettes from an anonymous distance. I'm talking about actual killers, both serial and one-off, who approach the police in person with false information, from Ian Huntley to Nathanial Code. It doesn't matter if people on message boards think it's unusual or outlandish when the historical record clearly demonstrates otherwise.

I notice the only two examples you can come up with is people who did not interject themselves into the investigation by going to the police but interjected themselves by killing people in close proximity to themselves and drawing police suspicion that way. Code killed his grandfather and two nephews. Not anonymous hookers he had never been linked to in anyway. And he only interjected himself after the killings of the people he was directly linked to. A neighbor SAW Nathaniel Code and reported it to the police and said "I saw NATHANIAL CODE" not "I saw a guy with brown hair and brown eyes leaving the scene". Huntley was not a serial killer and killed two girls at a school he worked for, and he had a sexual past with young girls. So the question stands: a serial killer who interjected himself into the investigation entirely voluntarily without having any connection to a victim? Nope. Listing examples of suspects that kill people they have a direct connection to is not remotely similar, and you should well know, fallacy in the extreme. Keep trying though. Serial Killers not connected to victims in anyway interjecting themselves? People always say they do, so it should be easy to prove. Serial killers interjecting themselves directly when there is no known connection to the victim.

No, I don't beleve you could. In this case, you'd have to dismiss as "coincidence" the strong correlation between between Sarah Lewis' sighting of a man loitering outside Miller's Court apprently "waiting for someone to come out" and Hutchinson's claim to have waited outside Miller's Court for someone to come out. Both at 2:30am on 9th November.

Er, no that's pretty much the exact point. If Hutchinson wanted to interject himself into the investigation as a witness merely for the sake of glory or being involved, all he had to do was follow her account exactly as given. It's not much of a coincidence there's a strong correlation considering he didn't bother coming forward with his story until her story had been detailed at the inquest!


An upper income serial killer who advertises his wealth in the most conspicuous manner imaginable in the worst possible location? Nope. I don't reckon you could.

Yeah it's just about as credible as a serial killer walking into a police station, and placing himself at the scene of a crime when no one else had named him as being there.

Suzi
02-21-2008, 07:48 PM
Exactlly!! unlikely!....unless you want to want to be in the frame! and if so .....why???? (maybe he'd have got off on it?);)

Ben
02-21-2008, 08:09 PM
I notice the only two examples you can come up with is people who did not interject themselves into the investigation by going to the police but interjected themselves by killing people in close proximity to themselves and drawing police suspicion that way.

Hutchinson claimed to have known Kelly for three years, something which, unlike many aspects of his account, was capable of being investigated to a degree, if only along the lines of "Did Kelly ever mention knowing a man named George Hutchinson?", so the comparison with Nathanial Code and Ian Huntley is obviously applicable. Huntley didn't have any connection to the victims. The girls were last seen at the end of the long road he lived on. He wasn't observed loitering near a crime scene an hour before the murder as Hutchinson was, and yet he still came forward as a helpful witness, escorting coppers hither and thither and delivering accounts of "suspicious" men in the district.

Same with Nathanial Code and the comparisons with Hutchinson. The latter had no idea how much Lewis had seen or recalled, just as Nathaniel Code didn't, and even if she didn't know him personally, there was the obvious potential of a subsequent sighting and identification occuring in a close-knit district. Incidentally, Code came forward before learning of the neighbour's account. That's assuming that Hutchinson came forward out of self-preservation rather than bravado anyway, and the latter has certainly proved an incentive for some.

So the question stands: a serial killer who interjected himself into the investigation entirely voluntarily without having any connection to a victim?

We don't know if Hutchinson had any connection to the victim or not, but just to go with the flow, there's Gary Ridgeway who injected himself into the Green River case in 1984. In that case, it was even predicted. Then there's Ivan Milat, who came forward of his own volition and signed a "witness" statement that was initially considered so detailed that it was chalked up to "photographic memory". Sounds familiar.

If Hutchinson wanted to interject himself into the investigation as a witness merely for the sake of glory or being involved, all he had to do was follow her account exactly as given.

Well if that's your theory, perhaps you could prove an example of a false witness who used a real witness's account to lend support for his own tall tale?

Yeah it's just about as credible as a serial killer walking into a police station, and placing himself at the scene of a crime when no one else had named him as being there.

You're welcome to that opinion, but you'd simply be wrong, and most of us should really be concerned with what actually happens in real life, as opposed to what message board contributiors don't find credible.

Pilgrim
02-21-2008, 08:19 PM
An extreme example of "recklessness and immersion" would be the Viennese serial killer Jack Unterweger. He did not contact the police as a witness, but in the capacity of being a journalist, whilst alredy being known to have served a sentence for murdering a woman. When staying in Los Angeles he also exposed himself by picking up one of the prostitutes he murdered right across the street from the hotel he was staying at. At that time he was a fairly well known public figure in Vienna.

What makes the Whitechapel murders so different however, is the fact that there were no such thing as public transport back then, and still, people very rarely walked anywhere. And there's the very special circumstance, a scientifically proven fact more or less, that the whole district was hermetically sealed to any outsiders, except when accompanied by heavily armed guards, sort of like an early version of "Ripper guides". The main arterial roads even, could not be entered by anyone but the local population, or the local police. These special circumstances would of course have made it absolutely impossible for an "LVP Jack Unterweger" to have entered the area without such "Ripper guides". The fact that the Whitechapel/Spitalfields area was hermetically sealed to any outsiders could also, possibly, explain why these "local murders" eventually acquired a cultist following as hermetically sealed to outside influence as that area once was.

Ally
02-21-2008, 08:48 PM
[QUOTE]Hutchinson claimed to have known Kelly for three years, something which, unlike many aspects of his account, was capable of being investigated to a degree, if only along the lines of "Did Kelly ever mention knowing a man named George Hutchinson?", so the comparison with Nathanial Code and Ian Huntley is obviously applicable.

What he claims means diddly squat. Not one person said "I saw George Hutchinson outside Mary Kelly's apartment at 2:30. If he is going to be interjecting himself for WHATEVER reason, he has to have a reason for being there. A false claim to know the victim is not outside the bounds. There is no connection, to MJK whatsoever, that has ever been proven, and either way you look at it, everyone is in agreement that Hutchinson lies.

f Hutchinson had any connection to the victim or not, but just to go with the fow, there's Gary Ridgeway who injected himself into the Green River case in 1984.

Er yeah...being arrested for prostitution, giving up hair and saliva samples and taking a polygraph test AFTER you are a suspect is NOT interjecting yoruself. Ridgeway was arrested for prostitution. Not exactly independent interjection.

In that case, it was even predicated. Then there's Ivan Milat, who came forward of his own volition and signed a "witness" statement that was initially considered so detailed that it was chalked up to "photographic memory". Sounds familiar.

Sigh. Milat didn't come forwardof his own volition. Police contacted HIM after someone told them Milat had told them about suspicious goings on in the forest. Milat told stories. People told stories about Milat, and police contacted him.

Keep trying though.


Well if that's your theory, perhaps you could prove an example of a false witness who used a real witness's account to lend support for his own tall tale?

I'm still waiting for you to come up with one!


You're welcome to that opinion, but you'd simply be wrong, and most of us should really be concerned with what actually happens in real life, as opposed to what message board contributiors don't find credible.

Ditto.

Ben
02-21-2008, 08:59 PM
What he claims means diddly squat. Not one person said "I saw George Hutchinson outside Mary Kelly's apartment at 2:30. If he is going to be interjecting himself for WHATEVER reason, he has to have a reason for being there. A false claim to know the victim is not outside the bounds. There is no connection, to MJK whatsoever, that has ever been proven, and either way you look at it, everyone is in agreement that Hutchinson lies.

Yes. Agree.

Except in the sense that someone would need to name Hutchinson by name in order for him to come forward.

Er yeah...being arrested for prostitution, giving up hair and saliva samples and taking a polygraph test AFTER you are a suspect is NOT interjecting yoruself. Ridgeway was arrested for prostitution.

No. Disagree.

You're thinking of something that happened later. In 1984, Gary Ridegway came forward entirely of his own volition, in the capcity of a helpful informer with helpful information, and with a claim to have known one of the victims. He certainly wasn't under arrest at this point.

Sigh. Milat didn't come forwardof his own volition. Police contacted HIM after someone told them Milat had told them about suspicious goings on in the forest.

...And what did Milat do? Just claim ignorance to the stories being attributed to him and say "Sorry, can't help"? Not a bit of it. He admitted authorship of the "stories" and delivered a ludicrously detailed desscription that was initially chalked up to "photographic memory", just as Hutchinson's is today on occasions. In fact, the Milat's tale-telling to friends and acqauintances is rather reminiscent of Hutchinson's claim to have told some fellow lodgers about it.

Ally
02-21-2008, 09:08 PM
Yes. Agree.

[QUOTE]You're thinking of something that happened later. In 1984, Gary Ridegway came forward entirely of his own volition, in the capcity of a helpful informer with helpful information, and with a claim to have known one of the victims. He certainly wasn't under arrest at this point.

No I am thinking of how in 1984 after having already been arrested and considered a suspect in 83, TWO different prostitutes gave Ridgeway's name to the police prompting them to question him and prompting him to become a helpful witness contacting them about prostitutes he "knew".


And as for your Milat theory that he could have just said "Oh No, after all the stories I told everyone about what I saw, now I'm not going to help the police", it STILL is not a single serial killer with no known connection to a victim coming forward independently without being contacted first by the police.

I am sure you'll find one though, after all "everyone" knows it happens.

Suzi
02-21-2008, 09:17 PM
Right -lets get back to the bare bones here OK -Georgie says he's known the 'woman Kelly' for 3 or maybe a 'few' years- Now this may be in an 'Ello darling 'biblical' KNOW sense or maybe just as a friend and to be honest living in those streets and times a friend would be a good chap/chum to have!!!
This may explain the 6d line....I always think that that was a line from a friend to a (if not a friend) a.........someone she felt 'comfortable' with friend.
Now....... as to why George waited to come forward is of course a problem BUT I can't see George at the end of the day as The Ripper but of course........ he fits the profile of the grey/recognised/happy with frame!!!
Listening to the News here re the Steve Wright murder of 5 prostitutes in Ipswich is somewhat chilling though ....He's been convicted now as a serial killer and someone was saying this is ridiculous they all knew him and the man was 'unoticed'!.The police told the 'workers ' to be aware but of course nothing happened... apart from another murder..I rest my case! 5 kills (A Nichol...blesser) and well at least we have a conviction...There are loads of pieces of CCTV footage with this dark Ford Mondeo Mk 3 seen 4-5 times on Police CCTV Hmmmm belonged to a local man Steve Wright(No relation mercifully to the lovely Radio2 DJ) but not interviewed.........despite the fact that a black nylon fibre from this car was found in Tanya Nichols hair.......a perfect match! They're asking WHY Steve Wright did this (He's only 25 after all having travelled to Thailand and marrying a child bride) Then he seems to have not quite managed to hold down a job running a pub or two etc and he seems to have been a FRIEND of all the girls who called him ' A lonely Old Bloke' he complains that his childhood messed him up and Mother says that he never saw him get angry..........odd that....... The Law have said that he was driven by anger after a 'bad' childhood!' Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Ben
02-21-2008, 09:29 PM
I'm talking about Ridgway's 12th April 1984 "cooperative" interview with police, in whic his discussed his acquaintance with one of the victims, and which he certainly wasn't dragged in for against his will at the police's behest.

And as for your Milat theory that he could have just said "Oh No, after all the stories I told everyone about what I saw, now I'm not going to help the police",

It wasn't everyone. Just one person reported it, and yes, Milat could easily have feigned ignorance to the entire thing had he so desired. Of course, it he didn't want to be interviewed as a witness by the police, it would have been extremely prudent not to mention his "detailed description" to acquaintances at all.

it STILL is not a single serial killer with no known connection to a victim coming forward independently without being contacted first by the police

Ah, maybe that's why it was actually predicted in the Green River case, Nathanial Code case, and in San Diego. Maybe that's why the FBI and police authorities have laid traps in anticipation of that outcome. Trouble is, you're adding more to the "criteria" with each post, and suddenly it's "a single serial killer with no known connection to a victim coming forward independently without being contacted first by the police." You're making it more acutely specific each time, but no serial killer's behaviour mirrors that of another to the extent you're expecting.

Suzi
02-21-2008, 09:35 PM
Hi Ben
The fact is that our 'friend' could disappear.......whether into the local populace or into the 'investigators' of what ever sort .....I'm convinced that's where we should be looking... fruitlessly though I feel.

Ally
02-21-2008, 09:54 PM
I'm talking about Ridgway's 12th April 1984 "cooperative" interview with police, in whic his discussed his acquaintance with one of the victims, and which he certainly wasn't dragged in for against his will at the police's behest.

FEBRUARY 1984--Dawn White goes to police and gives testimony about her suspicions re: Gary Ridgway. This is of course not to mention he's ALREADY been interviewed in 83 about one of the other murders. ALREADY INTERVIEWED by the time he became a "helpful" witness.

Maybe it's predicted the same way that everything else is predicted. I mean everyone knows that serial killers are white men, not married ...etc. Oh whoops..lots of serial killers are married though aren't they.

Still not a single serial killer who interjected themselves independently.
It's all part of that great big "profiling" Bullsh@t that people just can't let go of.


Adding: My criteria hasn't changed: A serial killer, with no known connection to a victim coming forth INDEPENDENTLY.

Prior contact with police or being interviewed by them in relation to the homicides is the OPPOSITE of independently, don't ya know?

Varqm
02-21-2008, 10:59 PM
I agree with Ally.

Additionally with the citizen mobs and their hostility and the unusally high focus from the police and media, it is much harder to believe that the ripper would risk himself.

FrankO
02-22-2008, 12:35 AM
Hi Ally,
...STILL is not a single serial killer with no known connection to a victim coming forward independently without being contacted first by the police.
James Koedatich would be one.

"Born in 1948, Koedatich committed his first known murder in Dade County, Florida, on June 13, 1971. The victim was his roommate, 40-year-old Robert Anderson, and Koedatich served eleven years on conviction of murder and robbery, winning parole from Raiford prison in August 1982. He moved north with the state's permission, settling in Morristown, New Jersey, and he lasted all of two months before his bloodlust surfaced again. On November 23, 1982, Amy Hoffman, a high school cheerleader, was kidnapped from a Morristown shopping mall, fatally stabbed in the chest and back with a long-bladed knife, her body recovered from a rural water tank on Thanksgiving Day. Witnesses described her abductor, but police had no suspects in sight twelve days later, when 29-year-old Deirdre O'Brian was snatched from her car on a dark country road, raped and stabbed, then left for dead near Allamuchy, 20 miles from Morristown. She lived long enough to describe her attacker as "resembling a truck driver." On the night of January 16, James Koedatich phoned police in Morristown, complaining that he had been stopped by an unknown assailant and stabbed in the back while driving through Morris Township, a quarter-mile from the scene of Deirdre O'Brian's murder. Authorities routinely checked his car as part of their investigation, noting that his tires matched tracks discovered at the latest murder site. A further search turned up sufficient evidence to warrant his arrest, and Koedatich was held in lieu of $250,000 bail, formally charged with Deirdre O'Brian's murder on May 12. Seven months later, on December 15, he was also indicted for murdering Amy Hoffman. Tried on the latter charge first, in October 1984, Koedatich was convicted of murder, kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, and unlawful possession of a weapon with intent to kill. On October 29, he became the first man sentenced to die under New Jersey's revised capital punishment statute. (Serial slayer Richard Biegenwald was the second, in 1985.) Convicted of Deirdre O'Brian's murder in May 1985, Koedatich received a sentence of life imprisonment when three jurors balked at voting the death penalty."

All the best,
Frank

Ally
02-22-2008, 12:51 AM
We have ONE! Woo hoo! Only several dozen more and we'll have met Ben's statement that "I know only that a number of serial killers have approached police and placed themselves at or near the scene of the crime."

I won't even argue the semantical he made himself into a victim and didn't actually place himself at the scene of the crime, I'll go with my broader statement of he "interjected himself", even though he didn't actually interject himself into the investigation, he called and reported an attack against himself....

I'll accept it. We have one. Any more?

Ben
02-22-2008, 03:13 AM
I'll accept it. We have one. Any more

Yep, all the others I referenced earlier, all of whom met the criteria more than adequately without trying to come up with as many excuses as possible to rule them out. As for trying to rule Gary Ridgeway out on the grounds that he'd already been interviewed, that doesn't detract from the fact that he injected himself into the investigation at all (as was initially predicted). Many lodging houses and thousands of individual lodgers were questioned during the house-to-house searches that were in session during the Whitechapel murders. Unless Hutchinson mysteriously slipped the net, the probability is strong that he was one of these.

Ally
02-22-2008, 03:14 AM
Uh, no not a single person you listed met any of the criteria. And it's either out right delusion or pure-wishfull thinking on your part to say that it does. And attempting to say that the police interviewed tens of thousands of people in the east end so Hutchinson was probably interviewed is grasping at straws to thin to be believed.

There is absolutely NO basis to the idea that serial killers often interject themselves into the investigation. For every one that does, there are dozens more who don't. It's the same with serial killers are single, blah blah. Blatant invention and wishful thinking.

Ben
02-22-2008, 03:30 AM
Damn, I'm glad we're kicking the new discussion forums off with plenty of Hutchinson debate.

Uh, no not a single person you listed met any of the criteria

Yes, they did.

Yes, they definitely did.

All you're doing is changing the criteria every time in an effort to make it more and more specific and coming up with the most trivial details imaginable to try to make them look "different". Serial killers and one-off killers inject themselves into police invesigations in a vareity of different ways for a variety of different reasons, and professionals with actual experience in crimonology are fully aware of this, which is why they predict it on occasions and lay traps accordingly. Obviously, if it only happened rarely, they wouldn't place their investigative eggs in that particular basket.

It doesn't matter if there are "dozens more who don't". There is no single behaviour trait I know of amongst serial killers (apart from killing and mutilating) than crops up more often that not. We're not interested in what "most" killers do "most" of the time. We're interested - or should be interested - in the number of serial killers who take the sort of pre-emptive action I've outlined in relation to the number of serial killers we know about.

Just gasping for another marathon Hutch session,

Ben

Ally
02-22-2008, 03:39 AM
Yes, they did.

Yes, they definitely did.

No they didn't. Period. And you can say yes they did and I can say no they didn't ad nauseum, but bottom line, you are still wrong.

All you're doing is changing the criteria every time in an effort to make it more and more specific and coming up with the most trivial details imaginable in an effort to make them look "different".

Criteria has not changed since the beginning and you know it. Trying to say a serial killer who killed his grandfather and introduced himself to the police is in any way equivalent to a man killing anonymous prostitutes is laughable. But laughable is about par for the course for most suspect pushers. And absolutely no different than saying a rich man would have worn expensive clothes to commit murder in.

Serial killers and one-off killers inject themselves into police invesigations in a vareity of different ways for a variety of different reasons, and professionals with actual experience in crimonology are fully aware of this, which is why they predict it on occasions and lay traps accordingly.

And professionals say that serial killers are most likely to be single, impotent, never in a committed relationship, all sorts of things that on analysis prove not to be true. You read a book like Criminal Profilling or Mindhunters and with judicious editing of the timeline, of course "serial killers" interject themselves, omiting the several police contacts made prior to that. Omiting that it is only with victims close to them, omiting that it is only when witness testimony places them there. Shoddy cheap manipulation of "facts" to reach an already predetermined conclusion.

Obviously, if it only happened rarely, they wouldn't place their investigative eggs in that particular basket.

Yeah like every investigation into a serial killer doesn't still start off with single. That's proven REALLY effective and always correct.

It doesn't matter if there are "dozens more who don't". There is no single behaviour trait I know of amongst serial killers (apart from killing and mutilating) than crops up more often that not. We're not interested in what "most" killers do "most" of the time. We're interested - or should be interested - in the number of serial killers who take the sort of pre-emptive action I've outlined in relation to the number of serial killers we know about.

And the number of serial killers we know about indicate that the vast majority of them do not interject themselves into action. From Bundy, to Dahmer, to etc.

Just gasping for another marathon Hutch session,

Ben[/QUOTE]

More like gasping to shore up your flimsy position.

Ben
02-22-2008, 03:52 AM
No they didn't. Period. And you can say yes they did and I can say no they didn't ad nauseum, but bottom line, you are still wrong.

Yes they do. "Period". You can say no they didn't and I can say yes they ad nauseam, but bottom line, you are still wrong. This should be fun.

Trying to say a serial killer who killed his grandfather and introduced himself to the police is in any way equivalent to a man killing anonymous prostitutes is laughable

What's laughable is your attempts to come up with irrelevent "differnces" that don't detract in the slightest from the far more salient points. Nathaniel Code introduced himself to police because he was concerned that somebody had seen him at the scene, thus prompting him to come forward and legitimise his presence. The same motivation prompted Soham murderer Ian Huntley to do the very same thing. Hutchinson could very well have done similiarly. As for "anonymous" prostitutes, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, but since we don't know if any of the ripper's victims were acquainted, however mildly, with their killer, it's probably better to avoid assertions that lack evidence.

And professionals say that serial killers are most likely to be single, impotent, never in a committed relationship, all sorts of things that on analysis prove not to be true.

No, they don't. Which professionals say that?

Omiting that it is only with victims close to them

Nope. Koedatich wasn't "close" to his victims, Gary Ridgeway wasn't "close to his. Ditto Milat and Huntley. And again, we don't know how close Kelly's killer was to her. But if you want to convince yourself that all criminologists are horrible bastards, and that bulletin board contributors know more about their field of expertise than they do, fine by me. I'm loving how the anti (pro?) Hutchinson camp always have to rely on the bashing of experts in the field to advance their case. And it's already be demonstrated, more than adequately, than "prior police contact" isn't remotely a prerequesite for offenders coming forward.

And the number of serial killers we know about indicate that the vast majority of them do not interject themselves into action

And you can say that of pretty much every behavioural trait asociated with serial killers. What here is the observation?

Ally
02-22-2008, 04:09 AM
[QUOTE]Yes they do. "Period". You can say no they didn't and I can say yes they ad nauseam, but bottom line, you are still wrong. This should be fun.

No they didn't and you are right it's a delight. I've always found that peopel who have to do the "I know you are but what am I" without adding anything substantial to be the weakest form of debators, and likewise, the most amusing.


it's probably better to avoid assertions that lack evidence.

That was hysterically ironic. Did you mean to be that amusing.


No, they don't. Which professionals say that?

The exact same ones who say serial killers interject themselves into investigations.



Nope. Koedatich wasn't "close" to his victims, Gary Ridgeway wasn't "close to his. Ditto Milat.

And only one out of the three actually indepndently interjected himself into the investigation and it wasn't even one you thought up!

But if you want to convince yourself that all criminologists are horrible bastards, and that bulletin board contributors know more about their field of expertise than they do, fine by me.

I don't think they are horrible bastards I think they are fools who think they can make blanket statemetns like "serial killers interject themselves into investigations" when the facts are the vast majority of known serial killers did not interject themselves into the investigations.

'm loving how the anti (pro?) Hutchinson camp always have to rely on the bashing of experts in the field to advance their case.

And I love how the "hutch did it camp" rely on profiling woo-woo that's been proven wrong time and time again to advance their case. Isn't it nice there is so much love in the world?

And you can say that of pretty much every behavioural trait asociated with serial killers. What here is the observation?

That the vast number of serial killers don't interject themselves into the investiations. That was a fairly simple observation, I am surprised you need it spelled out. I can make it simpler. Saying that "a number of serial killers place themselves at the scene of the crime" is false. So far, you haven't even been able to come up with one much less "a number".

Ben
02-22-2008, 04:21 AM
No they didn't and you are right it's a delight.

Did. Did. Did.

It doesn't even get boring after a while, does it? I'm parroting you back becase you've been doing the same thing, hoping to "wear me" out or something. You've asked me to cite some examples of a pretty text-book and oftimes predicted trait amonst serial and one-off offenders, and I've done so. So has Frank. But because you're so annoyed at having cornered yourself into a view that you can't possibly justify, you've tried to come up with as many reasons as possible to invalidate those examples - unsuccessfully.

The propensity of serial killers to come forward is dependent upon existing factors that prompted them into taking such action in the first place. If those factors weren't there - in the shape of an inconvenient witness for example - of course there's no incentive to come forward. And yet some do it anyway, just for jolly.

It's still makes little sense to speak of the "vast majority" of serial killers doing or not doing this or that. Very few behavioural traits are shared by the vast majority.

No, they don't. Which professionals say that?

The exact same ones who say serial killers interject themselves into investigations.

The experts and professionals in the fiield. Thought so.

Ally
02-22-2008, 04:31 AM
Did. Did. Did.
[QUOTE]
It doesn't even get boring after a while, does it? I'm parroting you back becase you've been doing the same thing, hoping to "wear me" out or something.

No I've been arguing facts, you've been arguing fantasy. After the last 3 years of watching you stomp your feet and say "did did did" I am pretty sure you will not be worn out, but it's amusing to see how long the tantrum will last. And all your claims of "I can argue this forever" are an admission of the fact that you believe debate is no more than saying did, did, did, and you are proven right.

You've asked me to cite some examples of a pretty text-book and oftimes predicted trait amonst serial and one-off offenders, and I've done so. So has Frank. But because you're so annoyed at having cornered yourself into a view that you can't possibly justify, you've tried to come up with as many reasons as possible to invalidate those examples - unsuccessfully.

And the concept of the single, impotent no relation with women serial killer is also textbook and also wrong. And you haven't cited anything. Frank has. Kudos to Frank, he has facts on his side. I am not annoyed. Games don't annoy me, and the fact that I see your latest "play" is to parrot back the "cornered" comment that someone threw at you in another thread leaves me pretty convinced that this game is not your forte.

The propensity of serial killers to come forward is dependent upon existing factors that prompted them into taking such action in the first place. If those factors weren't there - in the shape of an inconvenient witness for example - of course there's no incentive to come forward. And yet some do it anyway, just for jolly.

More statements of psycobabble BS that makes a grand attempt at saying something, and falling far short. To some up: Serial killers come forward for reasons or for no reasons at all, but even still, I can't name one other than the one that Frank gave me. And here I thought you'd be burying me in a wash of names ...but nothing. Just babble about what serial killers are likely or not likely to do based on factors.

It's still makes little sense to speak of the "vast majority" of serial killers doing or not doing this or that. Very few behavioural traits are shared by the vast majority.

Yeah I'm still waiting for you to list "a number" much less a majority. One, while a number, isn't "a number".

Ally
02-22-2008, 04:39 AM
Let's make it simple and directly related to Hutchinson. Hutchinson had absolutely no reason to go to the police. No one had pointed a finger at him, his name had not been brought up, the police had not officially questioned him at all and there was nothing linking him to the crime.

He voluntarily went to the police and placed himself at the scene of the crime.

In response to my assertion: You claim "a number of serial killers have approached police and placed themselves at or near the scene of the crime"

Ten's a number. Name ten. Ten serial killers who with no reason to interject themselves whatsoever, interjected themselves. Not bumbling first time killers, not sons of the victims, ten serial killers who evaded capture for many crimes, then walk into the police station and place themselves at the scene.

For absolutely no reason whatsoever. You've said there is a number. So name them. I'll check back in the morning, I'm sure you will need a little time to compile.

Ben
02-22-2008, 04:44 AM
And all your claims of "I can argue this forever" are an admission of the fact that you believe debate is no more than saying did, did, did, and you are proven right

It's truly amazing, though, the extent to which people tend to become "debate committed" in Hutchinson threads alone. Nowhere else. You chimed in pages ago with a three-line broadside along the lines that I'm "wish-fulfilling" (I'm not sure why I'd wish Jack the Ripper to be a local nonentity, but whatever) and then when I tried to help out with a few examples you were after, I'm suddenly nasty suspect-touting Ben, and you come up with a load of trivilalities to try to negate those examples. Obviously it didn't work and you didn't negate them, and now we're backing and forthing; doing the copy and quote thing, fighting til page 10,000 etc. It's hypnotic, or seems to be.

And whoopy-doo, you're right - someone on another thread tried to claim I was "cornered". Wow, really really deflating to my self-image. Give him a greenie. Boy, do I feel "cornered".

Yes, I believe the single, impotent, no relatioship assumption is wrong. Not so the propensity of killers to come forward under false guises. That has historical precedent.

And here I thought you'd be burying me in a wash of names ...but nothing

Except the ones you ignored when I mentioned them or attempted, on rather spurious grounds, to dismiss as not fitting your far-too-specific set of criteria.

GRISTLE
02-22-2008, 04:48 AM
My initial impression of Hutch was much the same as Kensei's. I saw him as the infatuated "friend" on the outside looking in. Obviously its a somewhat dramatized and romanticized view of Hutch and his relationship with MJK, but again my first inclination was to have sympathy for the man. Since reading the vast array of opinions about Hutch on Casebook I've since hardened my view and become rather skeptical of his timing and his overly detailed description of MJK's last date. With that being said, I still would not be overly surprised if Kensei's impression somehow turned out to be accurate; though I'm sure we'll never really know.

Ben
02-22-2008, 04:57 AM
Hutchinson had absolutely no reason to go to the police. No one had pointed a finger at him, his name had not been brought up, the police had not officially questioned him at all and there was nothing linking him to the crime.

Unless Hutchinson was psychic, he could not have known any of this. He couldn't possibly have known what Sarah Lewis had seen, or if identification was imminent. If he was a member of the press-reading public, he would have known that Lawende's description had been suppressed from the official inquest record only to appear in full weeks later. Naturally, if the police had used that premeditated ploy with the last piece of witness evidence to date, what was preventing them from doing it again? There was nothing linking him to the crime (just the locality of the crime scene), but if previous witnesses were to provide a link to previous murders, he'd be in an awkward spot. And as should have been apparent to anyone with a passing knowledge of this topic, killers will come forward for reasons other than self-preservation; whether it be bravado, or a simply desire to keep appraised of police progress.

Ten serial killers who with no reason to interject themselves whatsoever, interjected themselves. Not bumbling first time killers, not sons of the victims, ten serial killers who evaded capture for many crimes, then walk into the police station and place themselves at the scene.

See, this is what I'm taking about.

You're expecting a ludicrous degree of specificity here. It isn't necessary. No serial killer mirrors another's actions to the degree you're honestly expecting. You may as well argue that if I can't name ten other gay quack herbalists with white dogs and a large moustache, Tumblety can't be the killer. And if I said "a number", there's obviously no reason to pluck the specific number "ten" from absolutely nowhee.

Brenda
02-22-2008, 05:05 AM
Hutchinson is not one of my very favorite suspects but I got interested in reading this debate. Here is a link to an article from Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture you guys may find interesting.

http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/vol9is2/guillen.html

Chava
02-22-2008, 05:09 AM
Let's make it simple and directly related to Hutchinson. Hutchinson had absolutely no reason to go to the police. No one had pointed a finger at him, his name had not been brought up, the police had not officially questioned him at all and there was nothing linking him to the crime.

Okay. He comes forward with an extremely detailed description of a man he has seen with Kelly on the night she died, very close to the time she died. That description is taken up by the police very quickly and as quickly it's dropped again. He is admitting that he is also onsite at the same time. So he must also be some kind of a suspect for at least a while. If what he says is true, then it is extremely public-spirited of him to come forward. I wonder why he waited until after the inquest and after Sarah Lewis described a man in the alleyway to do this.

So why does he come forward? Hutchinson's behaviour for me is one of the most puzzling parts of the whole case. The Ripper's behaviour is fairly straightforward. He likes ripping whores. He rips whores. He may or may not have murdered Kelly but if he did, he did it with the same cheerful elan that we see in the other murders. Sadly there have been many serial killers over the years. They all had the same objective and their motives aren't complicated at all.

However Hutchinson's motives completely escape me. If he comes forward, he risks putting himself in the frame as the man seen waiting 'for someone' in Millers Court. But selflessly he approaches the police with his information. But he's not all that selfless, because he waits a couple of days before he makes his statement. He's out on the street with no place to go. He doesn't have enough money to hire Kelly and her bed, but someone else does. He gets a (very) good look at that someone else and then hangs around waiting for him to leave because...? Kelly might let him stay the night? Kelly needs money and has told him so. There's no reason to believe she won't go out again after Mr A is finished and try and score another trick. Never mind, Hutchinson gamely grits his teeth and hangs around the alley. But he doesn't hang around long enough. If he had, he would have seen Mr A creeping back out again with his little parcel and a smirk.

One of the many things that prevent me from taking this gentleman at face value is this: Mr A, if he exists and if he is the Ripper, knows that Hutchinson has had a good look at him. Mr A, as I understand it, looks back as he goes into Kelly's and sees Hutchinson standing in the entry. As horribly brave as the Ripper is, he'd have to be mad to kill Kelly knowing that someone might be standing ten feet away waiting for him to come out. So OK, he waits for Hutchinson to leave. But how does he do this? The whole time Hutchinson is waiting in the alley, he doesn't hear a sound and he clearly doesn't see anyone peering out the window because I think he'd mention that. So it's a bit of a standoff. Hutchinson waiting out Mr A, Mr A waiting out Hutchinson. Lucky for Mr A, Hutchinson blinks first and leaves. Mr A has had the intestinal fortitude to avoid looking out of any window for 3/4 of an hour while waiting his opportunity to do what he came for. Maybe that's why Kelly was found in her nightgown. The Ripper was a one-trick pony. He wasn't used to having to entertain his prey for ages while waiting for her swain to piss off. He bored her to death.

All this to say, in my opinion, Hutchinson's account and his actions don't make any sense to me at all. He could be a liar, a murderer or a stand-up guy trying to help out in the murder of a woman he knew. He is a complete mystery to me.

Brenda
02-22-2008, 05:09 AM
Killers DO tend to inject themselves into investigations, but as far as walking into a police station....old Hutch might have been an original in that regard. So both of you are right in a way.

Ben
02-22-2008, 05:27 AM
Thanks for providing that link, Brenda. Very interesting reading.

And an admirably balenced summation of the problems with Hutchinson's testimony and possible motives, Chava.

Best wishes,
Ben

The Good Michael
02-22-2008, 07:55 AM
Let me sum up the arguments here:

1.Ben says there are several examples of criminals coming forward to be helpful to throw people off the track.

2. Ally says that there are not several examples in which a culprit, before being suspected (as in the case of Hutchinson), came forward to the authorities.

3. Frank found one example of Ben's argument being true in 1948.

4. The conjecture that has been reconstructed many times is that Hutchinson somehow thought that he has being fingered by a witness who saw him outside the Court at about 2:30, and it wasn't until then that he came forward.

5. The other side of the argument is that there is no evidence that Hutchinson was ever named by anyone, or that he even thought he was being named as a lurker at the Court.

Point number 4 requires a burden of proof to be able to be able to connect it with point 1., therefore, Ally's argument, as much as I hate her being right,;)
is the stronger argument.

Agreed?

Mr. Construction

Varqm
02-22-2008, 09:09 AM
The big point is the testimony of Sarah Lewis points to one man and one man only lurking/watching across a victim's residence an hour to two before her probable time of death. To admit to be that man or played the police that he was that man is hugely different from Frank's example . And add to that what was happening in the community of Whitechapel during his reign of terror was unique.
It's way a stretch.

Mr Poster
02-22-2008, 10:34 AM
This is crazy!

Somebody has apparently stolen my profile and is posting remarkably good Poster posts about profiling and GH The Unlikely Suspect!! But they are calling themselves Ally and not poster.

gadzooks! Luckily for me, one can tell that they are not real poster posts as there are no lists.

But otherwise......remarkably good renditions. And it saves me oodles of time.

p

Mr Poster
02-22-2008, 10:42 AM
hi ho Brenda

Killers DO tend to inject themselves into investigations, but as far as walking into a police station....old Hutch might have been an original in that regard. So both of you are right in a way.
Reply With Quote

They perhaps do (rarely) when they have been caught on camera, seen, have killed the neighbours, havent heard all the testimony at the inquest and DON'T live in a homogeneous seething mass of untraceable, unidentifiable, non-ID-toting GH flat cap clones.

What we know criminals actually do and in the overwhelmingly greater number of cases is to try and evade capture. Thats why police exist.

Now....on what basis do you think it is more likely that GH popped up at the cop shop after killing Kelly instead of doing what legions of felons try and do?

That being not being caught by doing nothing, or running away, or just vanishing off the radar?

Of course we also know that hoards of witnesses to crimes come forward late with their information for a plethora of good reasons.

Thats why programs like Crimewatch UK exist.

Is every person who rings that show with new evidence or information about 6 month old crimes guilty of the crime by virtue of their not having popped up whilst the corpse was still warm?

p

kensei
02-22-2008, 11:21 AM
Whoa, I come back 24 hours or so after my original post that started this thread and find that it has exploded all over the place! (I live in the States and usually visit this board in the wee hours.) My main point was about Hutchinson's relationship to Mary, and whether he harbored romantic affection for her which I kind of feel that he did. On the other hand, when Mary asked him if he had any money, she may have really been asking if he wanted to purchase her services for a while because he was a regular client as well as an acquaintence, so who knows.

Someone critiqued my description of Mary's last client as looking like he was dressed for a "night at the opera." It was just a figure of speech, meaning way too well dressed for the East End and especially for Dorset Street. The fact that if Hutchinson's description was even a little correct the man would have been begging to be mugged is indeed obvious. The thought has crossed my mind- a bit melodramatic once again- that perhaps Jack the Ripper had really fallen into his character by that point, letting it go to his head, and mentally thought he had nothing to fear on those streets from lesser criminals because he was the most dangerous of them all.

The Good Michael
02-22-2008, 11:30 AM
My main point was about Hutchinson's relationship to Mary, and whether he harbored romantic affection for her which I kind of feel that he did.


Of course he felt affection for her. She was young and beautiful, unspoilt by the ravages of time, excesses, and prostitution; an innocent having to make ends meet. Everyone loved the woman. Why, there were Davies (God rest his soul), Barnett, Morganstone, Fleming, and McCarthy. Probably Dew and Abberline as well, so why not Hutchinson? I mean there's certainly evidence that she was the lilac of Limerick, the dogwood of Wales, the fragrance of France, and the evergreen of England. All these reasons are why she probably wasn't a Ripper victim, but the result of infighting between one of thousands of beaus.

Mike

kensei
02-22-2008, 11:52 AM
[QUOTE=The Good Michael;1473]All these reasons are why she probably wasn't a Ripper victim, but the result of infighting between one of thousands of beaus.

Mike,

I've always been extremely skeptical of the idea that Mary wasn't a Ripper victim, for the simple reason that serial killers and all killers of a particularly brutal nature are, in spite of the large number of cases, still rare within the general population. It seems unlikely to an extreme degree that even in the violent East End there was more than one person that would have even been mentally capable of literally cutting a woman to pieces. Murder in general yes, but not to that degree.

Ben
02-22-2008, 03:23 PM
To admit to be that man or played the police that he was that man is hugely different from Frank's example

No it isn't. VarQ. Not at all. If witnesses from previous murders were reintroduced into the equation and all identified Hutchinson as the man they'd seem, he'd be in a spot on bother. It wouldn't have mattered if he'd only be seen an hour before the crime scene. Several witnesses attesting to having seen the same man would have been incriminating enough. And that's assuming he came forward purely for reasons of self preservation, and not out of purely bravado, or because he wanted to keep appraised of police progress.

Somebody has apparently stolen my profile and is posting remarkably good Poster posts about profiling and GH The Unlikely Suspect!!

Well, she's doing a better job than you, but then that's hardly an achievement given your posting history, as you demonstrate with unnecessarily goading comments and silly exclamation marks.

They perhaps do (rarely) when they have been caught on camera, seen, have killed the neighbours, havent heard all the testimony at the inquest and DON'T live in a homogeneous seething mass of untraceable, unidentifiable, non-ID-toting GH flat cap clones.

Why no, Lars. Wrong, Lars. They come forward for a variety of reasons in a variety of ways, not just for the ones you've outlined, and if 1888 Whitechapel is as seething and anoymous as you claim, it's pretty amazing how John Pizer suddenly became the most hated man in the district for a while, purely on account of a witness description.

What we know criminals actually do and in the overwhelmingly greater number of cases is to try and evade capture. Thats why police exist.

Yes, and it is to the end of evading capture than many pre-emptive moves are directed.

Now....on what basis do you think it is more likely that GH popped up at the cop shop after killing Kelly instead of doing what legions of felons try and do?

Absolutely irrevelent, because we know that GH did pop to the cop shop. We don't know why than happened, but if he did so because he was the killer attempting to "legitimize" his presence at a crime scene, it wouldn't be remotely unusual or unlikely.

Of course we also know that hoards of witnesses to crimes come forward late with their information for a plethora of good reasons.

Yes, but startlingly few of them come forward immediately after the opportunity to be scrutinised in public had disappeared, and immediately after discovering that an independent witness had observed them loitering near a crime scene at a time crucial to the murder. He could have come forward at any stage during the three days before the inquest, or any stage afterwards, but he chose just afterwards, but chalk it up to "freak coincidence" if you want.

Ben
02-22-2008, 03:29 PM
Point number 4 requires a burden of proof to be able to be able to connect it with point 1., therefore, Ally's argument, as much as I hate her being right, is the stronger argument.

Not really, Good Mike.

If it had only been observed that I lacked the burden of proof (and there's no disputing you're right about that), then yes, that would be a reasonable argument. If it went further, and people tried to claim that anything I've argued in relation to Hutchinson is somehow "unlikely", then no, that isn't a very strong argument at all because it hasn't been demonstrated.

Ally
02-22-2008, 03:33 PM
Chava,

As Ben himself points out in another thread, phony witness testimony from glory seeking hounds has been common since the first day of crime reporting.

Let's look at the likelies:

1. George Hutchinson is not the Ripper and was not the man seen by Sarah Lewis. He wants to be a part of the glory, and goes forward and says, hey I was outside, I saw this and that etc. Pure attention seeking glory for no apparent reason.

2. George Hutchinson is not the Ripper and was the man seen by Sarah Lewis. He was hanging out, for any manner of reason. He realizes he was spotted. He could have said, gee people will think I am the Ripper, gee, they might be looking for me, gee, I should go to the cops. He goes to the cops. Maybe he's nervous at being considered a suspect, maybe he still does want a bit of the glory, in any event he spins a witness tale to relieve suspicion.

3. George Hutchinso was the Ripper. He realizes he's been spotted and for some reason, known only to him, and discounting the fact that he's been spotted AT LEAST twice before this, this time, he decides that because he was spotted, THIS TIME he's going to go walk into the police station and deliver himself into the eye of the coppers to alleviate suspicion.


If he was worried about being spotted which is the claim by the Hutch-pushers, this argument is completely negated by the fact that he was spotted before and never seemed particularly bothered by it. A better reason for Hutch handing himself over to the coppers is needed.

Ben
02-22-2008, 03:42 PM
Hi Ally,

In scenario #2, the mindset isn't so different from mindset #3, the difference being that he wouldn't be the killer in the former. The only problem is that we'd need another reason for Hutchinson being there, and posit the existence of the "real" killer arriving on the scene at a later stage. Since the loitering man was monitering the court shortly before the murder (and killers have been known to use prior surveillance), he's a reaonsonable suspect in her murder anyway, irrespective of identity.

#1 is possible, but then I've never heard of any false witness using a real witnesses' evidence to lend credence to their own account.

If he was worried about being spotted which is the claim by the Hutch-pushers, this argument is completely negated by the fact that he was spotted before and never seemed particularly bothered by it.

Less bothered, yes, because before October 19th he had every reason to believe that the witnesses who had observed him had only provided inadequate descriptions. After that date, it had become public knowledge that the police were deliberately suppressing witness descriptions only to appear in full weeks later in the Police Gazette.

Now, if the police used that ploy with the Lawende's evidence, what was preventing them from repeating it at the next inquest?

In any case, he couldn't have come forward as Lawende's or Schwartz's man even if he desperately wanted to. The timing was too tight for anyone to arrive on the scene and dispatch Eddowes' after the Lawende's sighting, and as for Schwartz, well "Yes, I was the man hurling anti-semetic insults and attacking the victim at around the time the doctors believed she died, but no, I left just aftewards, just as Mr. Astrakhan emerged from the gloom"

Hardly plausible.

Ally
02-22-2008, 03:55 PM
Ben,

Any "false witness" who interjects themselves uses facts available to support their witness account, whether it be newspaper reports, gossip or whatever. If Hutch was spurred to come forward for glory, it is not completely unlikely as you attempt to make it seem, that he would have read of Lewis testimony and if he were tryiing to make his story seem plausible to say hey, I was there at 2:30. In fact, that would be relatively...uh plausible. Do you think all "fake witnesses" just completely decide to go up and give testimony in a total vacuum without acquainting themselves with the bare facts of the case?

As for the "killers have been known to use prior surveillance" yeah, and people have also been known to loiter in areas where prostitutes frequent or just loiter for a while, in a doorway or convenient stopping place. We don't need a reason for Hutch to be there. I am often found in places I have no reason for being, I just happen to be there at that particular time. Saying that Hutch requires a reason for being there, is ludicrous. But frankly, I don't think Hutch was the man that Sarah Lewis saw, so arguing scenario 2 is beyond a waste of time.

Hardly plausible he would suddenly become worried and trot off to the cops either. He'd had much closer calls with witnesses, killed anyway and escaped undetected. This doesn't speak of a man likely to give in to nerves over being identified when a vague tentative desciption by a witness of a man loitering in the area arises.

Still waiting for the list of ten.

Sam Flynn
02-22-2008, 03:55 PM
before October 19th he had every reason to believe that the witnesses who had observed him had only provided inadequate descriptions.A stronger reason would be that the killer may have struck on his own doorstep this time. It's scarcely credible that the recent immigrant Schwartz of Ellen Street, or Dalston-based Lawende, both Jews, would have known him by name, and the risk of being recognised by a local gentile would have been considerably greater. Provided, of course, the Ripper lived in the heart of Spitalfields - which, whether he was Hutchinson or not, I'm inclined to believe he did.

Ben
02-22-2008, 04:07 PM
Hi Ally,

Any "false witness" who interjects themselves uses facts available to support their witness account, whether it be newspaper reports, gossip or whatever

True, but unfortunately so do killers who come forward whatever reason. All I'm saying is that I've yet to encounter one example of a false witness who assumed the identity of someone seen by a real witness. Not that they definitely don't exist, just that nobody seems to have heard of any. And surely it wasn't worth the risk of whatever suspicion such a course of action would entail unless he was really there? Surely, for example, he'd give an account of where he really was at the time of the murder?

Certainly you get random loiterers in prostitute-populated areas, but here we're talking about a loiterer who was reported to have sustained a particular interest in the very court that the body was eventually found in. Given that his sentinel occured shortly before the murder, he certainly would need a reason to be there, if only to elimate him from further inquiries. Someone had to have killed Kelly that night, and although we could posit the existance of someone who arrived on the scene later, there's no reason why we shouldn't use the evidence available and entertain the possibility that the man who sustained an interest in the court an hour before the murder may have been the murderer.

As I mentioned in my last post, you're quite right, he did have closer calls with earlier witnesses, but it would have been that very "closeness" that prevented him from coming forward on those occasions even if he wanted to. Besides which, there was no evidence that the police were suppresing witness descriptions until after the Eddowes murder.

Best regards,
Ben

Edit: Just noticed Gareth's post. Another very good reason!

Chava
02-22-2008, 06:11 PM
1. George Hutchinson is not the Ripper and was not the man seen by Sarah Lewis. He wants to be a part of the glory, and goes forward and says, hey I was outside, I saw this and that etc. Pure attention seeking glory for no apparent reason.


Hi Ally :)

I know that. In fact I brought that up earlier on the board before it went down. It seemed to me, and still does, entirely possible that he came forward with that story to attention-seek, but also for possible financial and certain alcoholic gain. 'Cheque-book journalism' is alive and well in the UK, and probably was being practiced then as well. Even if he couldn't sell an exclusive I Was The Last To See Her Alive On The Fatal Night story to a newspaper, he might have been able to milk it for free drinks for months.

My problems with GH start with the fact that he doesn't turn up until after Sarah Lewis mentions a man in the alley. And end with that overly-accurate eye-witness description of Mr A. If in fact it was GH in the alley, he might have intended to keep quiet about it. However Lewis does give one concrete detail that could identify someone. She says the man wore a 'wideawake' hat. Here's a link to an image of such a hat:

http://v.pynchonwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Image:Wideawake-hat.gif

That would have been an extremely unusual hat for the East End in those days. Not many men would have been wearing such a hat. If GH did have a hat like that or was known for wearing one, then I could see that he might feel he should come forward and 'clear his name'. In those circumstances I can see him making up a story out of whole cloth of a mysterious and foreign-looking Jewish gentleman in an astrakhan coat. I must here note that there is no suggestion of a wideawake hat in any other possible sighting of the Ripper. So GH may or may not have anything to do with Kelly's death, but he doesn't seem to be implicated in the murder of Chapman, Stride or Eddowes, all of whom were seen with men in close proximity to their deaths.

Ben
02-22-2008, 06:21 PM
Hi Chava,

Interestingly, the wideawake hat crops up elsewhere too. Ada Wilson's attacker was reportedly 5"6' with a sunburnt complexion and a wideawake hat. In the Stride murder too, Schwartz's second man - the solitary fella with a pipe - wore a felt hat with a wide brim, as I recall.

paul emmett
02-22-2008, 07:45 PM
Hello, Folks.

I would like to suggest two interrelated points that somehow express sympathy for Hutch. First, Hutch did say that MJK's room was dark and "noiseless" at say 2:20 and possibly later, which coincides with Cox's statement for 3:00. Now, it might not be such a gamble for H. to say a room was dark at 2:30 a.m., but since his own story has MJK and friend just coming in, they might well have lit a candle--or a fire! So it's a bit of a gamble if he's making it up. Still, he might have studyed Cox's statement and used the assertion of dark and quiet to bolster his story.

That's where the second point comes in. It would seem that if he knew Cox's statements, he would certianly know Lewis's, but he doesn't know them very well. Lewis puts LM across the street by the Lodging House and/or in the street. GH claims he was at the court, about the entrance to Miller's Ct.

The difference here makes me think GH don't know much, but along with his "knowledge" that the room was dark and quiet, it makes me think he really was there.

Is that sympathetic?

FrankO
02-25-2008, 01:08 AM
Hi Ally,Let's make it simple and directly related to Hutchinson. Hutchinson had absolutely no reason to go to the police. No one had pointed a finger at him, his name had not been brought up, the police had not officially questioned him at all and there was nothing linking him to the crime.
Not that I think it's the most likely that GH was MJK's killer, but there would have been no sense in going to the police when he knew he had already been questioned/was already suspected/was looked for. Obviously, it would have been too late then. So, if he chose to come forward to try and deflect possible suspicion away from him, he had to do it before he was ever named or fingered.

All the best,
Frank

FrankO
02-25-2008, 01:56 AM
Hi Paul,
Now, it might not be such a gamble for H. to say a room was dark at 2:30 a.m., but since his own story has MJK and friend just coming in, they might well have lit a candle--or a fire! So it's a bit of a gamble if he's making it up.
It's not clear when exactly he's supposed to have gone up the court to see that MJK's room was dark and quiet. It may well have been just before he said he left his vigil, which would be close to 3 am. It would even make sense for him to leave at that point: the darkness and quietness suggested the client would stay the night and that the couple were asleep, so there was nothing left to do for him.
Lewis puts LM across the street by the Lodging House and/or in the street. GH claims he was at the court, about the entrance to Miller's Ct.
GH didn't clearly state where exactly he was standing or if he was standing in one spot the whole time. He just stated he "went to the court to see if I could see them" and that he "stood there" for about 45 minutes. That doesn't mean he necessarily stood at the very entrance to the court, nor that he necessarily stood at the exact same spot the whole time. It was a rather cold night, he may have moved from time to time.
The difference here makes me think GH don't know much, but along with his "knowledge" that the room was dark and quiet, it makes me think he really was there.
Having said the above, I also think he was there - getting the attention and perhaps even some money would all be fine and dandy, but running the risk of being suspected would be quite another thing, I'd imagine.

All the best,
Frank

paul emmett
02-25-2008, 05:41 PM
Hi Paul,

It's not clear when exactly he's supposed to have gone up the court to see that MJK's room was dark and quiet. It may well have been just before he said he left his vigil, which would be close to 3 am. It would even make sense for him to leave at that point: the darkness and quietness suggested the client would stay the night and that the couple were asleep, so there was nothing left to do for him.

GH didn't clearly state where exactly he was standing or if he was standing in one spot the whole time. He just stated he "went to the court to see if I could see them" and that he "stood there" for about 45 minutes. That doesn't mean he necessarily stood at the very entrance to the court, nor that he necessarily stood at the exact same spot the whole time. It was a rather cold night, he may have moved from time to time.

Having said the above, I also think he was there - getting the attention and perhaps even some money would all be fine and dandy, but running the risk of being suspected would be quite another thing, I'd imagine.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Id like to say something to each paragraph, but I'm not so good at the techy stuff.
One, I was saying that with respect to dark and quiet, Hut's story matched Cox's, so to me it doesn't matter if he's talking 2:15 or 3:00. Indeed, 3 is closer to Cox, and it is one small thing that makes me believe him.

Two, "to the court" doesn't sound like across the street to me, and in the papers Hut was more explicit: Sugden says, "he stood about the enterance of Miller's Court for about 45 minutes." So this is one discrepency that makes me lean toward George.

Three, we agree on the bottom line anyways, so I know all this is academic. Do you then think Hut saw MJK and guest? Clearly, he was running the risk of being suspected.

Paul

Ben
02-25-2008, 05:48 PM
Good points, Frank.

Hut's story matched Cox's, so to me it doesn't matter if he's talking 2:15 or 3:00. Indeed, 3 is closer to Cox, and it is one small thing that makes me believe him

But you've addressed this yourself, Paul. If he learned about Lewis' evidence concerning the 2:30am loiterer and became spooked into fabricating a story to vindicate his presence there, he probably learned about Cox's evidence at the same time, and "used" it to bolster his version of events. I'd agree with Frank's observation that there is no real discrepency with regard to Hutchinson's location. People who are "watching and waiting" for someone for any length of time don't usually cement themselves to one fixed spot, but tend instead to move around, especially if the weather is cold. Besides, Dorset Street was eight feet wide, so there wouldn't have been any appreciable movement.

Incidentally the "dark, noiselss" detail was only introduced in press accounts. Nothing of that nature was mentioned in the initial police statement.

Best regards,
Ben

Sam Flynn
02-25-2008, 08:12 PM
Besides, Dorset Street was eight feet wide...nearer twenty-eight, actually! Bit of a typo, there, Ben ;)

Ben
02-25-2008, 08:34 PM
Hi Gareth,

Sort of. ;) The width of the actual street, excluding the pavement, was shown to have been approximately eight feet in a previous geography-related thread (now in a cyber black-hole alas!) Naturally, the total width would need to include the pavement on both sides.

Sam Flynn
02-25-2008, 08:45 PM
Hi Ben,The width of the actual street, excluding the pavement, was shown to have been approximately eight feet I bring "Mrs Donnelly of Crossinghams (West)" back out of the black hole to help:

331

If she was of average height for a woman (about 5ft), I make the road - between the pavements - roughly 14 feet wide.

c.d.
02-25-2008, 09:16 PM
...nearer twenty-eight, actually! Bit of a typo, there, Ben ;)

Well 28 and 8 are 36 which is just 3 away from 39. Hmmmm. Seems mighty suspicious to me.

c.d.

paul emmett
02-25-2008, 11:27 PM
Good points, Ben.

Everything you said was right. Hutchinson could have used Cox's satements, people in waiting are not cemented to one spot, dark and noiseless came in the press accounts, and I did address this myself.

The reason I did so was to say that I felt anyone both careful enough to utilize Cox's statement and not exactly telling the whole truth so help him god, would have been careful enough to put himself on the same side of the street as Lewis did. That was all I wanted to say.

Sam Flynn
02-26-2008, 12:13 AM
In his press statement, Hutchinson's stated departure time was dangerously close to when Cox said she returned to the Court that night. If Hutchinson was clever enough to fabricate his story based on the evidence of Mrs Cox, would he not have tried to put a greater distance between her arriving at Miller's Court and his presence and departure therefrom?

paul emmett
02-26-2008, 01:47 AM
In his press statement, Hutchinson's stated departure time was dangerously close to when Cox said she returned to the Court that night. If Hutchinson was clever enough to fabricate his story based on the evidence of Mrs Cox, would he not have tried to put a greater distance between her arriving at Miller's Court and his presence and departure therefrom?

Yes, Sam, he would have put in more distance, espescially since, as you suggest, the 3:00 tolling of the bells as he leaves Miller's Court was only in his press statement. In the police report there is wiggle room, with him arriving at 2:00, seeing the couple, and staying "at the Court" 45 minutes.

If he was using Cox's statement to bolster his case, why would he ever add the precision of 3:00, the very time Cox said she came back?

But if he wasn't using Cox, he got the dark and quiet of Kelly's room right on his own--and, perhaps he wasn't using Lewis either, which for me entails the where ya at problem.

Sam Flynn
02-26-2008, 01:58 AM
Hi Paul,But if he wasn't using Cox, he got the dark and quiet of Kelly's room right on his own--and, perhaps he wasn't using Lewis either, which for me entails the where ya at problem.It may have been reasonable for Hutchinson - a "local" - to guess that Miller's Court would have been comparatively quiet towards 03:00. Whilst I don't accept every atom of his testimony, I don't find it difficult to believe that he was there at some point early that morning, and would therefore have known at first hand how quiet it was.

paul emmett
02-26-2008, 02:30 AM
Whilst I don't accept every atom of his testimony, I don't find it difficult to believe that he was there at some point early that morning, and would therefore have known at first hand how quiet it was.

Hello, Sam.

That's what I think, too. So I'm gonna quit while we're in agreement, and not ask what capacity you feel he might be there in.

Varqm
02-26-2008, 08:47 PM
To me the sighting in the Eddowes case in which 3 people saw him or were in a position to see him , with the victim herself not just lurking across the street,was a strong indication about the Ripper's attitude about witnesses and situations were witnesses were present before a murder. If he could withstand the sighting in the eddowes case he could have withstand the sighting in Lewis 's case.
In order to believe that Hutchinson has any kind of reason to go to the police it has to be shown that Lewis knew Hutchinson or if Hutchinson even knew Kelly or visited or talked to her in Miller's Court or Dorset St.or anywhere. I think the newspapers or police would have pursued these. So far no newspapers or police documents or memoirs ever stated this. Not one person ever alluded to that kelly or lewis knew hutchinson or at least seen them together,at the very least if Hutchinson was ever in Dorset st. as a lodger, visitor or acquaintance of one person.
So with what is available Hutchinson/ripper has no basis.

Ben
02-27-2008, 05:00 AM
You raised this spurious "objection" three times with the same identical wording on each occasion on the "old board", and three times I addressed it. You've now raised it twice more on the "new" boards, and not once have you had the courtesy to address the counterarguments. It doesn't matter in the slightest if Lewis and Hutchinson were not acquainted. This was a close-knit locality, and the possibilty of a subsequent identification within that tight-knit locality was very strong indeed. It's a bit ridiculous to claim that the ripper "didn't care" to be seen with earlier victims. How can we possibly know that? Of course he was concerned about being seen - it was an occupational hazard that came with Whitechapel and Spitalfields being both busy and densely populated. He could do nothing about it, but before October 19th he had every reason to believe that earlier witnesses had only provided inadequate descriptions based on inadequate sightings. After that date, it had become public knowledge that the police were deliberately suppressing witness descriptions only to appear in full weeks later in the Police Gazette.

Now, if the police used that ploy with the Lawende's evidence, what was preventing them from repeating it at the next inquest?

In any case, he couldn't have come forward as Lawende's or Schwartz's man even if he desperately wanted to. The timing was too tight for anyone to arrive on the scene and dispatch Eddowes' after the Lawende's sighting, and as for Schwartz, well "Yes, I was the man hurling anti-semetic insults and attacking the victim at around the time the doctors believed she died, but no, I left just aftewards, just as Mr. Astrakhan emerged from the gloom"

Hardly plausible, but any excuse to regurgitate all this again...

caz
02-27-2008, 07:35 PM
If witnesses from previous murders were reintroduced into the equation and all identified Hutchinson as the man they'd seem, he'd be in a spot on bother. It wouldn't have mattered if he'd only be seen an hour before the crime scene. Several witnesses attesting to having seen the same man would have been incriminating enough...

...we know that GH did pop to the cop shop. We don't know why than happened, but if he did so because he was the killer attempting to "legitimize" his presence at a crime scene, it wouldn't be remotely unusual or unlikely...



Hi Ben,

The problem with your reasoning is that if Hutch the Ripper knows perfectly well that he was the man seen on previous murder nights, he also knows he will be in far more than ‘a spot of bother’ if he pops to the cop shop to admit to having been at the latest crime scene (“I'll have to go because some woman saw me lurking there damn it!”) and the cops then fetch every other witness to date to give him the once-over precisely because some woman testified independently that she saw someone just like him sniffing around Mary’s place.



...before October 19th he had every reason to believe that the witnesses who had observed him had only provided inadequate descriptions. After that date, it had become public knowledge that the police were deliberately suppressing witness descriptions only to appear in full weeks later in the Police Gazette.

Now, if the police used that ploy with the Lawende's evidence, what was preventing them from repeating it at the next inquest?



If Hutch the Ripper learns that the cops have been deliberately suppressing witness descriptions, it makes his pop to the cop shop ten times more precarious because he knows that just one reliable witness description sitting suppressed under the desk is going to fit him like a glove, and even the thickest cop is not going to see a perfect match and say, “Well what a coincidence, my good man! You could be him! Except you can’t be him because you is a truthful witness, not a bloomin’ murderin’ forinner. Much obliged to you, Sir, for your valuable help and I’ll bid you good day. But may I suggest you remove that distinctive wideawake hat on your way out, as it is an extremely unusual accessory for the East End and it might give the ladies a fright and make ’em think Jack must be after ’em.”



Not that I think it's the most likely that GH was MJK's killer, but there would have been no sense in going to the police when he knew he had already been questioned/was already suspected/was looked for. Obviously, it would have been too late then. So, if he chose to come forward to try and deflect possible suspicion away from him, he had to do it before he was ever named or fingered.



Hi Frank,

But that, I think, touches on Ben’s point: when Hutch the Ripper pops to the cop shop he goes because he knows the cops could be deliberately suppressing all manner of descriptions of him.

So presumably he imagines that the cops might be persuaded to forget all about looking for any Hutch clones seen near previous crime scenes if they are suddenly offered a new, polar opposite description (Mr A) by - er - a Hutch clone. :confused:

I can see the logic of Hutch the Witness serving up Mr A, thinking he fits with previous published witness descriptions or killer profiles. But Hutch the Ripper knows that the only genuine and reliable witness description will be of him, and therefore quite unlike Mr A. It's a paradox: if the cops accept Mr A, then they obviously have no Hutch clone descriptions suppressed under the desk and he needn't have shown his guilty face at all; if the cops reject Mr A, because he doesn't sound remotely like the chap described to them in secret, because that chap is in fact Hutch, then Hutch is snookered.

I will see the logic in all this eventually, I’m sure. Just as long as Ally sees it first and can explain it to me.

Can’t say fairer than that. :rolleyes:

Love,

Caz
X

perrymason
02-27-2008, 08:01 PM
Hello all,

Ive read the thinking that for Hutch to come forward based on seeing or hearing or Sarah's Wideawake Hat Man, he puts himself in grave risk...but I believe its the exact opposite, his story not only exonerates him for being there somewhat...(still not clear how spying on someone claimed to be a friend, who is murdered that night...and then waiting 4 days to speak of it is "friendly"),...but Hutchinsons story effectively removes a stalker, or killer, or killers accomplice, in the guise of Wideawake Man.

The Pardon for Accomplices was issued 1 day after Marys murder...on a Saturday...from the desk of a man who had already submitted his resignation. Im sure the cumulative pressure added to the issuance, but I believe the haste shows they believed Wideawake played a role that night.

But maybe not, after Georgie Boy. If he was the killer.....and if so I tend to see the merits of Bens Flemming/Hutch identity realistic....then he gets himself OFF the hook with his statement, with the investigators. But not with me personally though.

My best regards.

Ben
02-27-2008, 09:38 PM
Hi Caz,

The problem with your reasoning is that if Hutch the Ripper knows perfectly well that he was the man seen on previous murder nights, he also knows he will be in far more than ‘a spot of bother’ if he pops to the cop shop to admit to having been at the latest crime scene (“I'll have to go because some woman saw me lurking there damn it!”) and the cops then fetch every other witness to date to give him the once-over precisely because some woman testified independently that she saw someone just like him sniffing around Mary’s place.

That's not really a "problem" with my reasoning, though. It would only be a problem if we didn't have evidence of other killers - both serial and one-off - coming forward under false pretences to legitimise potentially incrimating evidence linking them to a crime or crime scene. It's important to establish a distinction between what you personally consider to be an imprudent, shortsighted move on the part of a killer, and what killers actually do. The latter is obviously what we should be interested in, not the former, but even if it was necessary to rationalise behaviour that we know happens anyway, that's a doddle too.

Yes, there was always the potential for earlier witnesses to be re-introduced to look Hutchinson over, but in order for this to happen, they'd need to suspect him of the crimes in the first place, and this outcome was far more likely if he was dragged in as a suspect than if he introduced himself voluntarily as a witness. It wasn't as though such a course of action was going to conduce an immediate "You're Jack the Ripper!" exclamation from an 1888 detective with no experience of serial crime, so he was arguably better off getting his story in first than having to explain himself at a later point.

As for witness descriptions, it should be borne in mind that there's a crucial difference between a "description" and a "sighting". One can get a very good look at a suspect, recognise his face, but still fail to provide an adequate description. A person might be as unremarkable and generic as they come, but that shouldn't prevent a potential witness from being able to recognise that person on a subsequent occasion. Hutchinson, if the killer, had more reason to fear a good "sighting" than a good "description".

I can see the logic of Hutch the Witness serving up Mr A, thinking he fits with previous published witness descriptions or killer profiles.

Really? I can't.

But Hutch the Ripper knows that the only genuine and reliable witness description will be of him, and therefore quite unlike Mr A. It's a paradox: if the cops accept Mr A, then they obviously have no Hutch clone descriptions suppressed under the desk and he needn't have shown his guilty face at all

No, Caz.

If the cops accepted Mr. A, it would have been a case of "Whew, back to our original suspicions: that the killer was a Jew or foreigner, not such a far cry from that Pizer fella, except obviously well dressed by virtue of his medical profession. Funny, in the wake of the double event we all thought for a crazy moment that a few witnesses had seen a working class shabby gentile, but we can forget about that now. We have a new star witness, and he has vindicated everyone's initial suspicions; that JTR is an out-of-place conspicuous foreigner. Sorted."

Best regards,
Ben

perrymason
02-27-2008, 09:56 PM
Hello all,

Although Im posting to address current comments, Im not having my posts entered as new...so to re-iterate...

George Hutchinson statement is an explanation of a suspect witnessed by Sarah Lewis....it changes the "suspect" into a concerned friend, and removes Wideawake Hat as a possible accomplice or killer. Instead, Astrakan Man becomes that man...someone no-one else saw. When Hutchinson is disbelieved within 48 hours, the suspect description reverts not to Wideawake again....but to Blotchy Face....the last man actually seen with Mary.

George Hutchinson changes the suspicious nature of Wideawake...and if he was also the killer, it was brilliantly done.

Best regards.

Mr Poster
02-27-2008, 10:30 PM
Hi ho

The notion that GH was trying to wilfully paint a Jew or whaatever as guilty based on his perceptions o f what the police were looking for is made daft given that if he was jerked forward out of fear of Lewis and what she might have told the police, he must have been aware of what happened at inquest.

If he was there (not my speculation) then its alll getting bizarre because now not only did he leg it to the cops but he inconceivably went even farther and arrived at inquest to be in the same room as the women who's "might" recognise him could stick him in the gallows

He my have heard about the inquest from the street gossip but then he wouldnt have bothered his ass coming to the police at all to play his double bluffing game with the hangman as he would have been fully aware that th epolice and coroner were barely interested in Lewis and spent much more time thinking about Blotchy.

Assuming he STILL thought his trip to Abberline was the best plan to hide his guilt.....then he would have thought (given his razor sharp probability calculating mind) that Blotchy was the man to describe as that is what the inquest (the same inquest which let him think the girl who couldnt recognise him "might" have told the police something even though that something precipitated nota sign of the police looking for the GH lurker for over three days) virtually concluded based on the questions asked and time spent on Blotchy.

We all should have sympathy for GH but more so for logic and reason as it is those two that get tortured in GH threads.

p

Chava
02-27-2008, 11:34 PM
Sarah Lewis's testimony:

When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake. There was no one talking to him. He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall. The hat was black. I did not take any notice of his clothes. The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one.

"Opposite the lodging house" would not have meant across the street, but outside the lodging house. I remember that usage from when I was a child and I think that's what she must mean as the entryway to Millers Court was extremely narrow. If the man Lewis saw was standing in the street in front of the entry or any part of the alley, she would have had to push past him. But she doesn't say that happened. She simply says she saw someone who appeared to be looking up the court. Probably from right outside the doss-house. Could have been anyone. Could have been someone waiting for his mate to go in for the night. Outside the doss-house doesn't mean a lot.

Hutch says he stood in the court, which would mean either he was standing right outside Kelly's place, and blocking the entrance to where Lewis was headed, or he stood further up the court. Either way, he's not standing where Lewis puts her 'man in a wideawake'.

Another reason why I am not believing a word that comes out of Hutch's mouth!

Sam Flynn
02-28-2008, 12:15 AM
Hi Chava,Hutch says he stood in the court, which would mean either he was standing right outside Kelly's place, and blocking the entrance to where Lewis was headed, or he stood further up the court. Either way, he's not standing where Lewis puts her 'man in a wideawake'.To be fair, Hutchinson doesn't say that he stationed himself in Miller's Court for the duration. Indeed, the fact that he claims to have seen one policeman pass the junction with Commercial Street, and that he saw a man enter a lodging-house whilst he was waiting for Mary indicates strongly that a proportion of his time was spent in Dorset Street itself.Another reason why I am not believing a word that comes out of Hutch's mouth!If the lodging-house dweller Hutch refers to disappeared into Crossingham's (East) - the entrance of which was, I believe, practically opposite the Miller's Court archway - then it's quite conceivable that he was the man seen by Lewis as she arrived. He might have been "waiting for someone to come out", as Lewis reports, or he could have simply been staring into space, grabbing a breath of fresh air before turning in for the night.

Chava
02-28-2008, 12:38 AM
Hi Sam :)

In his original statement he says "I then went to the court to see if I could see them but could not. I stood there for almost 3/4 of an hour to see if they came out and they did not so I went away" It does imply that he was standing close to the court if not in the court itself. True, he could have retreated across the street. However all the really good embellishments about talking to a policeman etc don't come out in the statement but are reported afterwards. Probably while being interviewed by a reporter in a pub!

Sam Flynn
02-28-2008, 12:55 AM
Hi Chava,In his original statement he says "I then went to the court to see if I could see them but could not. I stood there for almost 3/4 of an hour to see if they came out and they did not so I went away" It does imply that he was standing close to the court if not in the court itself.I have little doubt that he meant that he entered the Court at some point, and that he spent some time there. However, if my suggestion that the man he saw enter the lodging-house was, in fact, the same as Lewis's "Mr Wideawake", then Hutch must have arrived at Miller's Court after Lewis had entered the Keylers' lodgings. That would explain why Lewis didn't report spotting anyone skulking in Miller's Court when she arrived.

Ben
02-28-2008, 03:04 AM
Hi Lars,

The notion that GH was trying to wilfully paint a Jew or whaatever as guilty based on his perceptions o f what the police were looking for is made daft given that if he was jerked forward out of fear of Lewis

Not really. He would have been taking advantage of a convenient generic scapegoat in an effort to deflect suspicion away from himself. That isn't daft at all. He needn't have attended the inqust, necessarily. He could have been among the masses that observed Lewis and the other witnesses enter Shoreditch Town Hall, or learned of her testimony via the same Bush Telegraph that allowed "Leather Apron" descriptions and rumours to spread through the district like wildfire.

You can't claim that a police interest in Blotchy somehow precludes an interest in the loitering wideawake man. That's akin to arguing than an interest in capturing Hitler automatically equates to a complete lack of interest in capturing Goring and Himmler.

something precipitated nota sign of the police looking for the GH lurker for over three days

How would he know that? From an article that announced "Police NOT Looking for Man in Wideawake"?

Still, delighted you've decided to re-establish communication with me and that, as I fully predicted, Hutchinson-related discussions are apparently set to dominate the "new" forums. It's as though we're all so irritated at the prospect of all those Hutchinson threads disappearing into a cyber black hole that we're frantically building them all up again.

This should keep us busy and internet-bound for the next year.

Best regards,
Ben

perrymason
02-28-2008, 03:34 AM
Hi all,

Ben, on your last post, you mentioned police suspicion of Blotchy Man, and to my knowledge, he doesnt capture attention until they are forced to start again, after realizing Hutch had screwed them with Astrakan Trimming.;)

I think then it was a case of the last man seen in her company, and that wasnt Wideawake Hat. It was Mr B. Wideawake I believe was always seen as a possible accomplice....hence the Pardon offer within 24 hours..on Saturday.

Making my point attempt that Hutchinsons story Monday night changes the course of the investigation, and when it is steered back, it has now become the last man seen with her...as Astrakan would have been. They used that same criteria, but not that suspect loitering

They didnt even look at the accomplice angle anymore. And so Hutch succeeded in placing himself at the scene in order to readjust the suspect focus back to about 11:45pm.

My best as always Ben.

Ben
02-28-2008, 03:41 AM
Indeed. Good points there, Mike!

Chava
02-28-2008, 04:17 AM
With respect, Sam, 2 men loitering outside Millers Court at the relevant time strikes me as 1 too many! I am so leery of GH's testimony because it seems to embellish every time it appears. The original statement, which thanks to some genius here is available in pdf onsite, doesn't refer to policemen, or men seen entering the doss house or Kelly being 'spreeish' or anything. All that comes later when he talks to journalists. We ascribe all kinds of cleverness to GH, but I think the likelihood is that he was a not-very-bright guy. Why his statement is discarded, we'll never know. But I suspect that the police read his ever-increasing description of events in The Star and other papers and started looking hard and checking stuff out. This may have been the first serial killer they'd investigated, but they weren't completely without experience. 'Eyewitnesses' coming forward with ****-and-bull stories would not be unknown to them.

Also, look at Kelly's actions. She goes out hooking. We don't know where and we don't know if she was successful, but we do know that she was going back to her room at close to midnight with Blotchy-Face who had a pot of ale with him. May have been his own pint pot. May have been a jug for the two of them. At that point she's fairly drunk and she keeps the neighbours up for a while bellowing some awful song about flowers and mother's graves. She's still singing at 1.15 or so. However she has sobered-up and gotten rid of BF by 2.00 and is out finding herself another trick. There is nothing in GH's original statement to suggest Kelly is drunk. However by the time he's talking to the press, she's 'spreeish'. It's quite possible that Kelly needs the money and hooks all night to get it. But if that's the case why is she spending valuable earning-time sitting in her room with Blotchy Face singing her head off? If she can do that, she can tuck herself up all nice and warm in her bed and sleep off the effects of the evening's alcohol.

Sam Flynn
02-28-2008, 04:20 AM
With respect, Sam, 2 men loitering outside Millers Court at the relevant time strikes me as 1 too many!Not quite, Chava. One man loitering (Hutchinson), the other taking a breather before retiring to bed at Crossingham's (possibly the man both Hutchinson and Lewis claimed they saw). Hardly unlikely - especially given Hutchinson's press statement that he saw a man disappear into a lodging house, which - if it were Crossingham's - was directly opposite Miller's Court.

Chava
02-28-2008, 04:38 AM
Yeah but it's his press statement! I'm not believing a word of it! By the time he gets to the reporters he's got an answer ready for everything and an embellishment to go along with it. If he saw a guy going into Crossingham's Rents, why didn't he say anything to the police?

Sam Flynn
02-28-2008, 10:28 PM
Hi ChavaYeah but it's his press statement! I'm not believing a word of it! By the time he gets to the reporters he's got an answer ready for everything and an embellishment to go along with it. If he saw a guy going into Crossingham's Rents, why didn't he say anything to the police?Perhaps he did and it didn't get recorded. That police statement, when read aloud, probably lasts no more than a minute. You can bet your house that Hutchinson spoke for longer than that with Sgt Badham, who took the statement in the first place, and later with Abberline during the famous "interrogation" scene. It's very unlikely that the police statement contained every single detail of what Hutchinson told the police.

Like I say, I might not accept every atom of Hutchinson's statements, but I am prepared to believe that some of it was true. Of his embellishments - if such they were - his saying that he saw a nondescript man enter a doss-house is hardly in the same league as seeing a well-dressed chap sporting a watch-chain/large seal/red stone, is it? I'm loth to throw the baby out with the bath-water apropos Hutchy-boy.

Chava
02-29-2008, 07:05 AM
Some of it might well be true, but the whole thing is so tainted for me that I can't believe him at all. His first statement might have taken ages to put together but it's a cogent description of events. However as he talks more, and as he learns more of what other people said, his statements change subtly to reflect what he's heard. For example if you read his statement's description of meeting Kelly, you'd think you were reading about a businesslike and focussed young whore who needs to turn a few more tricks because she's broke. But if you read the inquest testimony from Cox, you see a young woman who was very drunk and who acted as if she was very drunk and money be damned. She wasn't out earning her rent between midnight and roughly 1.10 am, she was home singing her head off and annoying the neighbours. When Hutchinson talks to the press afterwards, he says she was 'spreeish'. So that would mean a bit squiffy. However what he describes in the statement is not spreeish at all. The difference is that Hutchinson has found out a little more from press accounts and heresay and whatnot about what was said at the inquest. So he slightly tailors his story to reflect that. And it's the tailoring that concerns me! If he'd stuck to his guns and left it at that I would still have had a hard time believing his description of Mr A but I might have given him the benefit of the doubt.