PDA

View Full Version : Hutchinson reading the Times?


Carrotty Nell
04-23-2010, 01:52 PM
I was just re-reading an early account of the Kelly murder in the Times (10th November) and found this account from an un-named witness:

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

I was struck by the similarity with Hutchinson's account, Kelly talking about her financial problems, a well-dressed stranger offering her money and then walking with her to her room.

Hutchinson gave his statement on the 12th. Although I cannot imagine an out of work Eastender reading the Times:rolleyes2: I guess if the story came from a local witness, it must have been in oral circulation.

IF Hutchinson made his story up... could this be his source?

Carrotty Nell
04-23-2010, 02:18 PM
Another intriguing possibility...

The story is actually, basically true. It just wasn't Hutchinson who was the witness. He cashed in on someone else's story and embellished it with his own colourful details. The real witness was an unknown female friend of Kelly's.

Adam Went
04-23-2010, 02:53 PM
It's an interesting point, although none of that answers why Hutchinson would effectively place the noose around his own neck by placing himself at the scene of the crime, as the last person besides the killer to see the victim alive, and as a personal acquaintance of the victim. It just does not make any sense....

Further to that, this report states that the witness saw her at about 10.30 PM, whereas Hutchinson gave his time as about 2 AM the next morning, which is much more in keeping with the estimated time of death. Anything could have happened in that 3 1/2 hours in between....

And, once again, it's a press report.....grains of salt, anyone?

Cheers,
Adam.

Mycroft
04-23-2010, 11:17 PM
For me an un-named witness isn't really good enough. Why couldn't the reporter name his source?

Pinkerton
04-24-2010, 12:47 AM
It seems to me that people often "insert" themselves into newsworthy crimes. You WOULD think they would be foolish to "place their head into the noose" as you say, but they seem to do it nonetheless. I think some people just want notoriety so much that they are willing to do just about anything to get it.

Albert Bachert is a perfect example. He seems to do everything he can to get his name in the newspaper! Most of his "claims" appear to be made up as far as I can tell. For one I seriously doubt he was even AT the Trafalgar Square riots. And of course his Ripper related claims are appear to be equally ridiculous. And then of course there is Tumblety who seems to be cut from the same mold. And you can include about 5-10 other characters related to the Ripper case.

Adam Went
04-24-2010, 05:07 AM
Pinkerton:

Some good points there. Although if Hutchinson was interested only in making a name for himself (a bit like Matthew Packer, eh?), he could just as easily have given a generic description and not admitted to being a personal acquaintance of the victim, or standing outside their lodgings for a period of time, and he still would have had quite a bit of attention lavished on him.

If you're going to be an attention seeker, best to do so in a reasonable way, not to the point where you could potentially be ridiculed as a liar and possibly even a killer. Anyway, if that was the case, Hutchinson got what he wanted.....we're still talking about him 122 years later!

Cheers,
Adam.

Observer
04-24-2010, 02:14 PM
I was just re-reading an early account of the Kelly murder in the Times (10th November) and found this account from an un-named witness:

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



Hi Carroty

Wouldn't Mary Kelly have been in the company of Blotchy at this time, i.e. 10:30 p.m.? She returned with him to her room at 11:45 p.m. Would there have been time for Kelly to have serviced the well dressed man, met Blotchy had a drink with him buy some ale and return to her lodgings by 11:45 p.m. ? In effect an hour and a quarter. I think the above report is a garbled description of George Hutchinson's account.

all the best

Observer

DVV
04-24-2010, 02:44 PM
IF Hutchinson made his story up... could this be his source?

Hi Carrotty,

sounds possible to me.
I would say one of the sources, though.

Hi Obs,

I don't think it's likely.
I don't think Hutch had already made up his story... and I don't believe anybody but him had ever seen Mr Astrakhan.

Amitiés,
David

Debra A
12-07-2012, 03:26 PM
I don't know if this has been posted before (apologies if so) but the mention of the Ripper (albeit in Southport!) as well dressed and also sporting a gold Albert chain with pendants in early Nov. 88 stuck out for me.

Saturday 10 November 1888 , Manchester Courier and Lancashire General

14930

Wickerman
12-07-2012, 06:32 PM
I was just re-reading an early account of the Kelly murder in the Times (10th November) and found this account from an un-named witness:

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

I was struck by the similarity with Hutchinson's account, Kelly talking about her financial problems, a well-dressed stranger offering her money and then walking with her to her room.

Hutchinson gave his statement on the 12th. Although I cannot imagine an out of work Eastender reading the Times:rolleyes2: I guess if the story came from a local witness, it must have been in oral circulation.

IF Hutchinson made his story up... could this be his source?

If you look you'll probably come up with this story across several (five?) newspapers not just the Times, and when you read the whole paragraph (below) you can see it contains so many factual errors that the whole story is basically useless.


"Kelly appears to have tenanted a top room in one of Mrs. M'Carthy's houses. She had a little boy, aged about six or seven years, living with her, and latterly she had been in great poverty, so much so that she is reported to have stated to a companion that she would make away with herself, as she could not bear to see her boy starving. There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is the statement of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who says that at about half-past ten o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, and that Kelly said to her that she had no money, and if she could not get any she would never go out any more, but would commit suicide. Soon after they parted, and a man, who is described as respectably dressed, came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly, and offered her some money. The man then accompanied the woman home to her lodgings, which are on the second floor, and the little boy was removed from the room, and taken to a neighbour's house."

What is there really that Hutchinson could use to any advantage, a well-dressed man was already seen that same Friday morning by both Sarah Lewis and Mrs Kennedy, so that was no great revelation.
The story could be an accumulation of unrelated facts associated with other people put together by an agency as one story or, it refers to another woman entirely.

Regards, Jon S.

Wickerman
12-07-2012, 11:26 PM
Hi Carroty

Wouldn't Mary Kelly have been in the company of Blotchy at this time, i.e. 10:30 p.m.? She returned with him to her room at 11:45 p.m. Would there have been time for Kelly to have serviced the well dressed man, met Blotchy had a drink with him buy some ale and return to her lodgings by 11:45 p.m. ? In effect an hour and a quarter. I think the above report is a garbled description of George Hutchinson's account.

all the best

Observer

The other 'well-dressed man' sighting, by McCarthy, has been mentioned over on JTRForums....

"At eleven o'clock on Thursday night she was seen in the Britannia public-house, which is situated at the corner of this thoroughfare, with a young man with a moustache. She was then intoxicated. The young man appeared to be very respectable and well dressed."
I.P.N. 17 Nov.
P.I.P. 17 Nov.
Daily News 10 Nov.
Morning Advertiser 10 Nov.
Man. Guardian 10 Nov.

The fly in the ointment seems to be that "unverified" sighting of Blotchy (and his unique appearance) by Cox.


Mrs Kennedy gives a very similar description of the man she saw Kelly(?) with about 3:00 am Friday morning.

"...There was a man - a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache, talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a female poorly clad and without any headgear."

How many well-dressed young men loitered around the Britannia that night?

Regards, Jon S.

Robert
12-08-2012, 12:51 PM
Hi Debs

It's a strange report - there's hardly any detail about the man's physical appearance, only his chain. That seems to have been the only thing the witness was interested in, though I guess if he was a would-be mugger, he wouldn't have gone to the police.

If GH had seen this item, wouldn't he at least have put in something about an American accent when the man spoke to Kelly? Sort of like, "Yo dude, you'll be swell for what I've told you.":lol:

lynn cates
12-08-2012, 05:20 PM
Hello Robert. How about, "Mary, I have some news that's totally awesome!"

Cheers.
LC

Robert
12-08-2012, 05:41 PM
Hey, that's massive, boss. That's just what he would say, innit.

lynn cates
12-08-2012, 07:51 PM
Hello Robert. Thanks.

"Hey, that's massive, boss. That's just what he would say, innit."

Quite.

Or else, "Hey Mary, I was like . . . and she was like . . . so I went . . . and she went . . . ."

Cheers.
LC

Robert
12-09-2012, 02:08 PM
And then I said, yeah, I'm gonna kill you, yeah, and she said yeah yeah yeah yeah and I said no I'm serious, yeah, I'm gonna killer you, yeah. And I did. End of.

And then as I was going out the door,yeah, I said get over it.

I mean I wasn't disrespecting her, yeah, but my social worker didn't turn up this week and I was feeling iffy, yeah. You can't get the staff these days.

ChainzCooper
12-12-2012, 03:05 AM
I love these theories about Hutchinson being the Ripper like a serial killer is really going to attempt to volunteer himself to authorities as a witness to a murder he committed. I just don't buy it
Jordan

lynn cates
12-12-2012, 11:33 AM
Hello Robert.

Yeah, bro. Straight.

Cheers.
LC

lynn cates
12-12-2012, 11:35 AM
Hello Jordan.

"like a serial killer is really going to attempt to volunteer himself to authorities as a witness to a murder he committed."

I have been given to understand precisely this about serial killers.

Of course, a cogent question may be, "What do serial killers have to do with Hutchinson--or the WCM, for that matter?"

Cheers.
LC

Hunter
12-12-2012, 01:10 PM
There is plenty of evidence of a serial killer having something to do with the WM... not conclusive, but the evidence is there. Any series of this unusual nature could be linked in that way, just as plausibly - or even more - than any other hypothetical scenarios.

If serial murderers never existed, then there might be some basis to consider otherwise and refute the idea of a linkage to a common murderer.

lynn cates
12-12-2012, 01:19 PM
Hello Cris. Thanks.

In which case the question would not be:

"What do serial killers have to do with Hutchinson--or the WCM, for that matter?"

but rather

"What could serial killers have to do with Hutchinson--or the WCM, for that matter?"

Cheers.
LC

ChainzCooper
12-14-2012, 04:33 AM
I don't think George Hutchinson has any thing to do with serial killers aside from seeing one with a friend and telling police about it
Jordan

Ben
01-06-2014, 09:36 AM
Hi Debs,

A bit late to the party here, but many thanks indeed for this! Here we have a potential additional source for the Astrakhan invention (if that is what it was, and the evidently overwhelmingly points that way). Hutchinson had free access to a variety of newspapers at the common room of the Victoria Home, and they doubtless included the Daily News, where this suspiciously similar account appeared on the 10th November:

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

Note that "murdered woman Kelly" is a verbatim quote from Hutchinson's statement.

a well-dressed man was already seen that same Friday morning by both Sarah Lewis and Mrs Kennedy, so that was no great revelation.

No, Jon.

Lewis never said anything about her man being "well-dressed", and Kennedy wasn't even a genuine witness. She simply parrotted Lewis' account as her own experience.

The other 'well-dressed man' sighting, by McCarthy

...is also nonsense.

McCarthy did not see Kelly in Ringers on Thursday night at 11.00pm or else he'd have said so at the inquest. More to the point, it was reported that after an extensive investigation, no landlord in the area remembered serving or seeing Kelly that night.

How many well-dressed young men loitered around the Britannia that night?

None.

Apart from the discredited press tattle, of course.

The fly in the ointment seems to be that "unverified" sighting of Blotchy (and his unique appearance) by Cox.

By "fly in the ointment", you presumably mean the only piece of reliable inquest evidence regarding a legitimate suspect seen with Kelly? Interesting that you describe it as "unverified", while accepting as apparent gospel the second-hand piece of bogus hearsay wrongly attributed to McCarthy in the odd press report. And "unique appearance"? A shabbily dressed man with ginger fuzz? Not really.

I love these theories about Hutchinson being the Ripper like a serial killer is really going to attempt to volunteer himself to authorities as a witness to a murder he committed.

You need to conduct some research, Chainz, lest you offer an ill-informed opinion such as this one. Serial killers have come forward voluntarily as "witnesses" or informants to their own murder investigations. It's a reality whether you "buy it" or not.

Wickerman
01-06-2014, 08:56 PM
You need to conduct some research, Chainz, lest you offer an ill-informed opinion such as this one. Serial killers have come forward voluntarily as "witnesses" or informants to their own murder investigations. It's a reality whether you "buy it" or not.

Like everything you write, your conclusion is the result of assumption.

Murder and the characteristics of the modern murderer have also evolved over time. You jump to the unproven conclusion that because a modern killer may conduct himself in this way that the first(?) serial killer MUST have done likewise.

When you try to sell these assumptions please support your thinking by providing 19th century crimes which demonstrate your case. Otherwise, resist the temptation to confuse the two.

Ben
01-07-2014, 04:57 AM
Still going, Jon?

Jolly good. I was getting bored...

Murder and the characteristics of the modern murderer have also evolved over time.

Not the characteristics that make them human.

For that to be true, you might as well argue for the abandonment of any future stage production of Shakespeare on the grounds that it was too long ago, and human behaviour has "evolved" since then. Or you can accept that you're just plain wrong, and that both our capacity for self-preservation and the creative steps we might take in that direction haven't changed a bit. The only difference is our modern ability to document this particular trait as having been exhibited by many serial killers over the decades since 1888. Obviously, this wouldn't have been available to Abberline that November.

I wonder how many experts in the field of psychology and criminology would agree with your assessment that we can't make inferences about an 1888 serial killer on the basis of known traits shared by modern offenders? About as many "well-dressed" men outside the Britannia, probably!

And no, Jack was not the first serial killer, no "(?)" about it.

GUT
01-07-2014, 03:27 PM
G'Day all

Does anybody seriously doubt that killers, serial or otherwise, or indeed criminals in general, have at times become involved in police investigations. Even "helped" search for the victim. If you do (doubt that is) please do some real research before commenting.

GUT :argue:

Ben
01-07-2014, 04:18 PM
Very well said, Gut!

Wickerman
01-08-2014, 12:03 PM
G'Day all

Does anybody seriously doubt that killers, serial or otherwise, or indeed criminals in general, have at times become involved in police investigations. Even "helped" search for the victim. If you do (doubt that is) please do some real research before commenting.

GUT :argue:

Show me

GUT
01-08-2014, 01:56 PM
G'Day Wickerman

I'll have to look up the case name, but just last year there was one that springs to mind in Australia where the killer joined the police to0 search for one of his victims bodies.

How do I know he was the killer?

He plead guilty.

GUT

GUT
01-08-2014, 02:04 PM
G'Day Wickerman

There was also the murder of Ebony Simpson in 1990's, where Andrew Garford, who latter confessed, took police to the body, plead guilty and was sentenced to life without parole by Peter Newman.

GUT

Wickerman
01-08-2014, 04:08 PM
GUT

The question concerns 19th century criminals.

I think we can all agree that today the criminal mind has evolved to include the rare instances when a criminal may choose to inject himself into an investigation. The question was posed in post 24:


Murder and the characteristics of the modern murderer have also evolved over time. You jump to the unproven conclusion that because a modern killer may conduct himself in this way that the first(?) serial killer MUST have done likewise.

Therefore my question is, on what basis are we expected to believe this was the case in the 19th century?

Where is the evidence - show me.

GUT
01-08-2014, 04:29 PM
G'Day Wickerman

He was still a human with human nature, I am not saying he did but I AM saying it is not impossible that he did.

GUT

Ben
01-08-2014, 05:34 PM
You raise some good points there, Gut.

Jon,

I think we can all agree that today the criminal mind has evolved

What are you on about?

Seriously...

If anyone is prepared to agree with you that the "criminal mind" is any more "evolved" now than it was in 1888, and is prepared to provide evidence for that erroneous, pretentious and wrong assertion, I will give them all my worldly possessions. It's no use you trying to "blag it”. It is clear that your knowledge and understanding of other serial cases is seriously lacking, which means you don't have the faintest idea how common or rare it is for a serial killer to "inject himself into an investigation".

GUT
01-08-2014, 05:53 PM
G'Day Ben

See we do agree on some things.

Also if we accept the argument that Jacky was the FIRST SK, which may be open to debate, we then following Wickerman's reasoning can't anticipate anything Jacky may have done or thought.

So let's all go home.

G.U.T.

Wickerman
01-08-2014, 07:18 PM
G'Day Wickerman

He was still a human with human nature, I am not saying he did but I AM saying it is not impossible that he did.

GUT

No it is not impossible that he did.
However, to claim that he did must be backed up with data, or else it is guesswork.
In which case the claim is void.


we then following Wickerman's reasoning can't anticipate anything Jacky may have done or thought.

Exactly, unless/until he is identified the reality is we cannot anticipate anything about him.
We don't know who he killed, we don't know how many he killed, we don't know who was his first victim, nor who was his last.

So on what basis should anyone claim to anticipate his thoughts?

GUT
01-08-2014, 08:08 PM
G'Day Jon

Why then are you bothering to try and understand what he did or who he was/ they were?


G.U.T.

Wickerman
01-08-2014, 08:21 PM
G'Day Jon

Why then are you bothering to try and understand what he did or who he was/ they were?


G.U.T.

The issue arose because I am being told what he was like, my response is, as always, "based on what?".

Ben
01-09-2014, 06:57 PM
However, to claim that he did must be backed up with data, or else it is guesswork.

But nobody has "claimed" he murdered anyone. We are simply exploring the irrefutably reasonable possibility that he might have done, based as it is on the known behaviour of other serial killers. Your objection to this, on the grounds that Jack was a 19th century serial killer operating at a time when the "criminal mind" had yet to "evolve", is completely nullified because of its obvious wrongness. Similarly, the assertion that we can't make inferences about the behaviour and habits of uncaptured Victorian serial killers on the basis of the known behaviour and habits of today's captured serial killers is wholly rejected by the actual experts on the subject.

Wickerman
01-09-2014, 07:48 PM
... Your objection to this, on the grounds that Jack was a 19th century serial killer operating at a time when the "criminal mind" had yet to "evolve", is completely nullified because of its obvious wrongness.

So here we have another example where you are at a loss to find a credible source in support of your argument.

"Obvious wrongness" :lol:

GUT
01-09-2014, 07:57 PM
G'Day Jon

Can you tell us what you'd accept as a "credible source" on this issue, I expect nothing. Personally I'd call John Douglas, founder of the FBI's profiling unit a credible source on the evolution or otherwise of the criminal mind, he seems to think that it is the same in 1888 as it is in 2000.

G.U.T.

Wickerman
01-09-2014, 08:02 PM
G'Day Jon

Can you tell us what you'd accept as a "credible source" on this issue, I expect nothing. Personally I'd call John Douglas, founder of the FBI's profiling unit a credible source on the evolution or otherwise of the criminal mind, he seems to think that it is the same in 1888 as it is in 2000.

G.U.T.

G'day sport.

Yes, what we lack are examples.
If John Douglas has nothing by way of data to support that opinion then what value does that opinion hold?

Professionals know the value of data, they also know the risks of expressing opinion that is not supported by data.
So tell me, what are his references?

GUT
01-09-2014, 08:13 PM
G'Day Jon

Any person who has ever studies logic knows that it is easier to show a positive than a negative.

So please give us an example of the "Criminal Mind Evolving"

Thanks mate

GUT

Wickerman
01-09-2014, 08:50 PM
G'Day Jon

Any person who has ever studies logic knows that it is easier to show a positive than a negative.

So please give us an example of the "Criminal Mind Evolving"

Thanks mate

GUT

The evolution of the criminal mind is demonstrated in the cases themselves.

The alternative is to argue that the characteristics of the criminal mind, the choices made, the influence of a changing society, the advances of technology, the progressions of forensic sciences, have had no impact whatsoever on the human brain and its decision making process.

You should see how preposterous such a position is.

The source you quote, John Douglas, does not actually say the human mind has remained the same. In fact, Douglas does not even deal with the subject.

The evidence that a 19th century killer had approached the police and posed as a witness to inject himself into the case working along with the police should be easy enough to locate given the extensive records of 19th century criminal cases in England.
Time consuming yes, but if examples exist then I am wrong.

Alternately, Hutchinson is being accused of being nothing more than a nuisance witness, who actually did nothing wrong except to invent a potential murderer that really did not exist.
Hutchinson then wasted police time by becoming their star witness for a day or so.

The potential for a witness to waste police time has always been problem for the police. Though the tendency in the 19th century was to seek out a reporter. Publicity was their aim, and the press were always an easy target.

So, if I am being told that Hutchinson conducted himself in the same way as a modern killer is known to have done, then such a claim needs to be supported by sources. It is not a frivolous claim.

The important point here is that the claim is being made by someone who has a demonstrated inability to provide sources. The claim is a personal opinion and it is being challenged.

GUT
01-09-2014, 08:55 PM
G'Day

Or Hutchinson was telling the truth!

G.U.T.

GUT
01-09-2014, 08:58 PM
G'Day Jon

What's your source for

Though the tendency in the 19th century was to seek out a reporter.

And if it was a tendency then it didn't apply to everybody in all cases.

GUT

Ben
01-10-2014, 05:59 AM
Jon's response (post #43) is so boringly typical of people who don't have the humility to acknowledge that they have just been educated on a subject they are grossly ignorant about. Despite pretty much everyone else having the nous to appreciate that the "criminal mind" has not "evolved" in 125 poxy years, and despite experts in psychology and criminology knowing this full well, Jon sticks his head in the sand and insists he must be right. Because we're all part of this huge conspiracy - Douglas et al included - to make Hutchinson the ripper.

The alternative is to argue that the characteristics of the criminal mind, the choices made, the influence of a changing society, the advances of technology, the progressions of forensic sciences, have had no impact whatsoever on the human brain and its decision making process.

None of that makes the slightest scrap of difference to the basic, fundamental propensity of human beings to come forward and tell lies voluntarily when they think it might advance their cause to do so. The Victorians weren't apes or cavemen, Jon. The human capacity for self-preservation hasn't changed one iota, and nor has the urge to act on it. If anything, modern advances in technology and forensics (and the fact that this trait is well-documented today) ought to act as a deterrent to modern offenders coming forward, and yet we know it doesn't.

The evidence that a 19th century killer had approached the police and posed as a witness to inject himself into the case working along with the police should be easy enough to locate given the extensive records of 19th century criminal cases in England.

Arguments such as these only play into the hands of those devilish "Hutchinsonians". Of course you're not likely to encounter evidence of 19th century killers injecting themselves into their own investigations. For that to happen, the police investigating those cases had to have recognised that one of the seemingly innocent witnesses (or one of the apparently bogus, publicity-seeking ones) was the real killer coming forward under a false guise, and out of self-preservation. But the whole point is that they would not have made this connection because there was no established precedent for such behaviour in an era when policing as an organized body was in its infancy. The reality, therefore, is that many unsolved murders from the 19th century may have been committed by men who came forward as witnesses.

The absence of records from the 19th century is more an indication that the "killer-witnesses" were getting away with it in an unenlightened era, than it is an indication that it didn't happen at all because the "human brain" was less "evolved" back then. If you found me a single instance of a 19th century killer behaving in the way I've described, and were able to demonstrate that Abberline would probably have known about it, I would no longer be justified in arguing that he was oblivious to the very possibility of Hutchinson being the culprit. At the moment, all you're doing is lending support to that argument.

The potential for a witness to waste police time has always been problem for the police. Though the tendency in the 19th century was to seek out a reporter. Publicity was their aim, and the press were always an easy target.

Yes!

Blimey, progress at last.

You are correct. Publicity-seekers have always been a problem for the police. It was well-known behaviour, unlike killers coming forward as witnesses, which according to you was unheard of in the 19th century. Can you now finally, finally, understand that if the police detected problems with Hutchinson's account, they were far more likely to dismiss him as a publicity-seeker (which had "always been a problem for the police") than accuse him of being the real killer? If, not, tough, because that's the corner you've just argued yourself into.

So, if I am being told that Hutchinson conducted himself in the same way as a modern killer is known to have done, then such a claim needs to be supported by sources.

I suggest you read my Casebook Examiner article, in which I expound several cases of serial killers approaching the police under the false guises of witness and informers. I'm not going to reproduce the entire article here at your behest. This thread is supposed to be discussing the contention that Hutchinson read the Times. Toddle off and find a Hutchinson-as-suspect argument if you want to lose another one of those.

Wickerman
01-10-2014, 02:39 PM
G'Day Jon

What's your source for

And if it was a tendency then it didn't apply to everybody in all cases.

GUT

The press were known to pay for stories.
The suggestion has been made that Hutchinson sought payment from the police, though why the police need to pay an out of work labourer is not addressed.
Hutchinson was not missing work by helping the police so does not qualify for restitution.

If Hutchinson was looking for a 'shilling'? or so, the press were his best bet.

caz
01-17-2014, 04:49 AM
If Hutch is put forward as a suspect, on the basis that a small number of caught offenders in more recent years injected themselves in the investigation, I think it ought to be decided whether the ripper would have done so 'just for jolly' or because he genuinely feared getting buckled if he simply kept his head down.

I'm not sure it can be both, and I'm not sure the latter argument works for the 19th century. If, in the unlucky event that Lewis had seen Hutch again and was certain he was the man she saw loitering, what then? With no cctv, no DNA, no fingerprint evidence, no blood typing, no nothing, apart from notoriously unreliable eye witness accounts, it would be Lewis's unsupported word against Hutch's that he had even been near Miller's Court that night. If he had claimed mistaken identity how the hell could the police have proved otherwise, or had a prayer of actually putting him at the crime scene? Even if they accepted the identification and Hutch admitted to being there, it wouldn't be enough to charge him with anything, since many men must have been near the various crime scenes and not come forward afterwards (eg Pipeman, BS man, Blotchy and scores of others we don't know about), without necessarily being guilty of anything.

There is a case for criminals to come forward in more recent times, because it became much harder to hind behind false identities, and advances in forensics could positively identify them at or near the scene, or with a victim, making it inevitable that they would be sought, found and expected to explain their movements. Not so the ripper back in 1888. What could they do without that little word evidence? No blood stains, no distinguishing features, no stashed innards, no confession, and in Hutch's case (in the gospel according to Ben) no alibis to worry about, because of his status as a lodging house dweller/nocturnal wanderer.

We are left with the 'just for jolly' argument, which would at least make sense of his attention-seeking behaviour in going straight from the cop shop to the papers with his 'likely story'. But that doesn't ring true in other ways, not least because it effectively put paid to his favourite hobby of slicing and dicing unwary unfortunates. We'd have to accept that he was ready to give up the game by that point to try his hand at something new - pulling the Astrakhan wool over the world's eyes, then disappearing from the limelight forever.

For me it's a stretch, but then I haven't invested an enormous amount of time and effort in arguing the (slim) case for the prosecution.

Love,

Caz
X

Abby Normal
01-17-2014, 09:34 AM
If Hutch is put forward as a suspect, on the basis that a small number of caught offenders in more recent years injected themselves in the investigation, I think it ought to be decided whether the ripper would have done so 'just for jolly' or because he genuinely feared getting buckled if he simply kept his head down.

I'm not sure it can be both, and I'm not sure the latter argument works for the 19th century. If, in the unlucky event that Lewis had seen Hutch again and was certain he was the man she saw loitering, what then? With no cctv, no DNA, no fingerprint evidence, no blood typing, no nothing, apart from notoriously unreliable eye witness accounts, it would be Lewis's unsupported word against Hutch's that he had even been near Miller's Court that night. If he had claimed mistaken identity how the hell could the police have proved otherwise, or had a prayer of actually putting him at the crime scene? Even if they accepted the identification and Hutch admitted to being there, it wouldn't be enough to charge him with anything, since many men must have been near the various crime scenes and not come forward afterwards (eg Pipeman, BS man, Blotchy and scores of others we don't know about), without necessarily being guilty of anything.

There is a case for criminals to come forward in more recent times, because it became much harder to hind behind false identities, and advances in forensics could positively identify them at or near the scene, or with a victim, making it inevitable that they would be sought, found and expected to explain their movements. Not so the ripper back in 1888. What could they do without that little word evidence? No blood stains, no distinguishing features, no stashed innards, no confession, and in Hutch's case (in the gospel according to Ben) no alibis to worry about, because of his status as a lodging house dweller/nocturnal wanderer.

We are left with the 'just for jolly' argument, which would at least make sense of his attention-seeking behaviour in going straight from the cop shop to the papers with his 'likely story'. But that doesn't ring true in other ways, not least because it effectively put paid to his favourite hobby of slicing and dicing unwary unfortunates. We'd have to accept that he was ready to give up the game by that point to try his hand at something new - pulling the Astrakhan wool over the world's eyes, then disappearing from the limelight forever.

For me it's a stretch, but then I haven't invested an enormous amount of time and effort in arguing the (slim) case for the prosecution.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Great post as usual.

Not sure if the two are mutually exclusive, however. In hutchs case (as the ripper), perhaps the communication started as self preservation (throwing the police off with the GsG because he feared being IDed after being seen by witnesses) and then he found he got a thrill from it.

The communications escalted as did the crimes as he found he received increasing thrill by doing "more" and also realizing communicating was working by throwing off the police (self preservation) as a measure againt witness sightings--schwartz, Levy etc. the night of the GsG and Lewis the night of Kelly's murder.

And what ties hutch to both these communications? Both implicate jews.
The only intances in the whole ripper case that evidence directly implicates a jew.

Wickerman
01-17-2014, 08:43 PM
The communications escalted as did the crimes as he found he received increasing thrill by doing "more" and also realizing communicating was working by throwing off the police (self preservation) as a measure againt witness sightings--schwartz, Levy etc. the night of the GsG and Lewis the night of Kelly's murder.

Hi Abby.
What makes you think the police were 'thrown off'?


And what ties hutch to both these communications? Both implicate jews.
The only intances in the whole ripper case that evidence directly implicates a jew.

But Hutchinson is not tied to the GSG, in any way.

Hutchinson never claimed to see the killer. In fact he claimed quite the opposite, that the man he saw didn't appear threatening at all.

The police will take a natural interest in locating & speaking with every person who associated with the victim right up to the last few minutes of her life. But it is the press who spun (implicated?), this witness sighting into a murder suspect, not Hutchinson, and not the police.

Ben
01-19-2014, 08:23 AM
Hi Caz,

I don’t understand how you can argue that Hutchinson was less likely to come forward when he was more likely to get away with it. The reverse makes considerably better sense. If anything, the presence of DNA, finger-printing, blood typing, CCTV etc in today’s criminal world ought to make it less likely for serial killers to come forward and attempt a ploy that law enforcement are all too familiar with. And yet we find that, surprisingly, none of these factors have proved a deterrent to the modern serial killer. In 1888, however, these obstacles didn’t exist. There was no known precedent for serial killers coming forward as witnesses, and the habits of serial killers in general was a complete unknown. Hence, an 1888 offender was in a far better position to come forward with a fictional, self-serving witness account if he feared being implicated, i.e. by Sarah Lewis who almost certainly saw him that night, and could potentially recognise him again.

“No blood stains, no distinguishing features, no stashed innards, no confession, and in Hutch's case (in the gospel according to Ben) no alibis to worry about, because of his status as a lodging house dweller/nocturnal wanderer.”

In the research and knowledge of the period conducted by Ben, actually, but don’t worry about it. I’m sure we’ve had this discussion a great many times. Yes, I've repeatedly acknowledged that Hutchinson was unlikely to have been sent to the noose in the epically unlikely event that he was suspected of being the ripper, for the reasons you list above (for the full unabridged Gospel, see other threads). But this is based on what we known today – our knowledge and understanding of how the police operated - a knowledge and understanding that Hutchinson couldn’t possibly have had in 1888. He was in no position to know, for instance, that a positive ID from Sarah Lewis would not result in various other witnesses (Lawende, Schwartz, maybe even Ada Wilson?) being called in to look him over. If they all said, yes, that’s the smug, broad-shouldered, not tall but stout, wideawake-wearing bastard alright, he’d be in a lot of trouble, and he had every reason to fear exactly that outcome.

WE, however, know full well that (for whatever reason) the police were not arranging any such line-ups with earlier witnesses whenever a new suspect turned up, at least not at that time. The fact that it never happened to Barnett, for example, is very telling.

So yes, Hutchinson had every reason to fear Lewis’ evidence if he was guilty, and no, it would not have made less sense for a serial killer to come forward in the 19th century. It would have made more.

I share Abby’s confusion as to why you think Hutchinson could only have come forward either out of self-preservation or “just for jolly”, but not both. I’m not sure quite how that one entered the rule book, but I certainly don’t agree, and nor do the experts in this particular field, such as John Douglas. An offender coming forward for the primary purpose of self-preservation may also recognise the added benefit that such a manoeuvre may have on his knowledge of the investigation’s progress, which is obviously handy if his intention is to derail it. The same offender may also derive pleasure and satisfaction from knowing that he is duping his pursuers right under their noses.

I don’t accept for a moment that Hutchinson came forward purely for thrill-seeking reasons, as this would leave the implausible “coincidence” of his coming forward almost immediately after the release of Sarah Lewis’ evidence hanging awkwardly, and without an adequate explanation (of the type that the “self-preservation” angle provides). Not that there is any reason to think that the act of coming forward compelled him to surrender the knife forever. Despite the conclusion of the 1980s “Ripper Project” that serials such as the one Jack was responsible for often terminate because the offender has come into contact with the police, I’m obliged to point out that it is by no means established that Kelly was the last murder. The McKenzie crime, for instance, was committed a stone’s throw away from the Victoria Home (with one of Castle Alley’s side passages leading into a likely rear entrance to that building).

Hi Abby,

I agree that the Jewish angle presents an interesting possibility where Hutchinson is concerned, and is certainly worth exploring. I think some people are very much in denial when they argue that Hutchinson wasn’t trying to infer (or encouraging his “audience” to infer) the murderous responsibility of Astrakhan man, who was surly, Jewish-looking, walked very softly (or sharp?), carried a knife-shaped parcel, and was basically a composite of various bogus (and some legitimate) witness sightings. The only reason Hutchinson claimed to have harboured no suspicions about him is that he needed to justify his loitering presence outside the court without inviting awkward questions as to why he failed to raise the alarm.

But who knows? Maybe the killer wasn’t a local nobody who behaved as known serial killers have behaved, and was instead a flashy, ostentatious, villainous Jewish dandy who swanned in and out of his murder zone (inexplicably unaccosted) with a twirl of his slight/heavy moustache? I know where my money’s not going, given those two options.

All the best,
Ben

caz
01-22-2014, 08:45 AM
Hi Caz,

I don’t understand how you can argue that Hutchinson was less likely to come forward when he was more likely to get away with it.

Er, because in 1888 a serial killer was more likely to get away with it regardless than in 1988, with all its advances in linking suspects to scenes of crime. So if the ripper was seen by Lewis (not even with the victim or at the actual crime scene) he was less likely to feel any need to come forward, compared with his modern day counterpart, who, facing inevitable identification and interrogation, might feel compelled to get his story in first and deflect suspicion towards anyone he could claim was also near the scene.


He was in no position to know, for instance, that a positive ID from Sarah Lewis would not result in various other witnesses (Lawende, Schwartz, maybe even Ada Wilson?) being called in to look him over. If they all said, yes, that’s the smug, broad-shouldered, not tall but stout, wideawake-wearing bastard alright, he’d be in a lot of trouble, and he had every reason to fear exactly that outcome.


Yeah, so you've been saying since the dawn of time, Ben. But never once do you acknowledge that he was also in no position to know that his statement would not go down like a cup of cold sick (not least because he would have been painfully aware that he was coming forward very late, considering his 'friend' had been ripped to shreds, and had just avoided the inquest by the skin of his teeth), and that those various other witnesses would not be called in to look him over as a result.

If you are changing your tune and now arguing that Hutch would have been in 'a lot of trouble' had this happened (only if guilty of course), and this was what he was trying to prevent, then he'd also have been acutely aware of the need to give no cause for suspicion. But you usually insist he was unbreakable anyway, in an era when they had to catch a murderer in the act, or with incriminating evidence, or by extracting a credible confession.

I think it's time to come clean and decide whether the ripper had anything to fear from previous witnesses or not. Being seen with previous victims doesn't seem to have put him off murdering them shortly afterwards, and that's assuming he was actually seen at all. Either way it appears out of character suddenly to be spooked into the open and forced to tell a tall tale by some woman who may or may not have seen him hanging around Miller's Court; may or may not see him again; may or may not recognise him as definitely the man she saw; and may or may not report back to the police, who may or may not be able to track him down again with her help. Passing him again in the street at some point and having that light bulb moment would not help, unless she could alert the nearest copper in time to stop and question him. Failing that, she'd have to follow him herself in order to tell the cops later where they could find him.

I share Abby’s confusion as to why you think Hutchinson could only have come forward either out of self-preservation or “just for jolly”, but not both. I’m not sure quite how that one entered the rule book, but I certainly don’t agree, and nor do the experts in this particular field, such as John Douglas.

Only because the self-preservation argument makes little sense to me, and seems out of character with our fearless fiend; our reckless ripper. That only leaves the "just for jolly" argument, which at least might make sense if the latest bloodbath had left him jaded and wanting to leave the stage after making a dramatic personal appearance. Harold Shipman didn't use his own typewriter to forge a victim's will in his favour out of self-preservation or because he needed the money. And he should have been intelligent enough to appreciate it would be his downfall, when the woman's daughter inevitably kicked up a fuss about it. It was more a gesture of defiance ("I can do anything now and nobody can catch me") or a subconscious need to call attention to his incredible killing career ("I'm bored now, nobody has noticed a thing - let's see if this will wake 'em up").

I still think if that was the case with Hutch, he'd have wanted to leave his audience with something more than the image of a discredited witness who had had bugger all to do with the case. But maybe he was content to retire and live out his life without further drama. McKenzie's murder hardly put him back in the spotlight, if that was the aim.


Maybe the killer wasn’t a local nobody who behaved as known serial killers have behaved, and was instead a flashy, ostentatious, villainous Jewish dandy who swanned in and out of his murder zone (inexplicably unaccosted) with a twirl of his slight/heavy moustache?


If you are reduced to entertaining only one or t'other possibility, Ben, and nothing in between, I can see your difficulty in attracting and retaining converts. ;)

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
02-11-2014, 01:16 AM
“Er, because in 1888 a serial killer was more likely to get away with it regardless than in 1988, with all its advances in linking suspects to scenes of crime. So if the ripper was seen by Lewis (not even with the victim or at the actual crime scene) he was less likely to feel any need to come forward”

I’m afraid that makes very little sense to me, Caz.

I don’t see how it can be argued that a significantly reduced chance of getting away with coming forward in the modern era (with all its advances in technology, and the fact that such behaviour is very well documented today), increases the likelihood of an offender trying it on. You may as well be arguing that an offender is more likely to come forward as a false witness today despite it being a near-inevitability that they will not pull off the stunt successfully. No, it makes considerably better sense, and on so many levels, for an offender to come forward and pretend to be a witness in an era where such pre-emptive manoeuvres were more likely to work.

It isn’t about a “need” to come forward. Nobody “needs” to come forward at all. The serial killers who have pretended to be witnesses introduced themselves to police despite the existence of other options, such as running away or sitting it out and hoping for the best. It’s not so much that they recognise an inevitability that they will be dragged in as a suspect if they don’t make the first move – they simply fear the possibility of it happening, so they adopt a proactive strategy accordingly. In Hutchinson’s case – assuming he was one such offender – he may have feared the possible implications of what would happen if HE was dragged in as a suspect, i.e. being compared to previous eyewitness sightings.

“But never once do you acknowledge that he was also in no position to know that his statement would not go down like a cup of cold sick”

But the same is true of every single serial killer who injected himself into their investigations. They came forward despite the possibility of their statements going down like a “cup of cold sick”, and indeed, that’s often precisely what happens – with the killer being snared as a consequence. With all due respect here, if you think that’s silly or imprudent or not what you’d do (or whatever), you’ll be better off taking that up with the serial killers themselves. Whether or not you think it’s a laudable strategy for trying to evade capture is irrelevant. All you need to take on board is the fact that it happens. Moreover, unlike his modern-day counterpart, Hutchinson would have known all too well that they police were very unlikely to entertain the idea of the real killer wandering into the police station, and that he had a vastly better than average chance of pulling it off for that reason, if no other. In the event, of course, his evidence DID go down like a cup of cold sick, but this merely led to him being discredited as a publicity-seeking or money-grabbing witness.

Serial killers will also come forward for the sheer thrill of duping law enforcement and being right under their noses. This is often a motivating factor, in addition to self-preservation. You often argue that is has to be one or the other, but you’re very wrong in that regard.

Yes, I have argued, and will continue argue, that Hutchinson would have been largely “unbreakable” in the event that he was suspected, but he certainly wasn’t to know that. He had no way of knowing that the police were not (at that stage at least) recalling witnesses from previous murders to look over brand new suspects. They didn’t with Barnett, at any rate. For all Hutchinson knew, he had every reason to fear that this type of treatment would be meted out to every new suspect, which could well have included him, if he hadn’t come forward voluntarily beforehand under the guise of an innocent and helpful witness.

“Being seen with previous victims doesn't seem to have put him off murdering them shortly afterwards”

And nor was it likely to have done, considering that the previous witness sightings occurred some distance outside his usual stomping ground; by Jewish witnesses from the City or in St. George-in-the-East, or by women who only saw his back. In addition, it was only after the Eddowes murder that it became known (to the paper-reading public, at least) that eyewitness sightings were being supressed. This would obviously have increased the killer’s fear-factor when it came to any subsequent sightings of him by witnesses, especially those that occurred close to home. We have no idea how intent he was on the task of grisly murder when the witnesses saw him, in any case. It was probably a case of: succumb to horrid and overwhelmingly strong temptation now, and deal with the problems later.

“Passing him again in the street at some point and having that light bulb moment would not help, unless she could alert the nearest copper in time to stop and question him.”

Or, if she were so inclined, point at him and shout “there’s the bastard”, alert an angry, twitchy mob and attract the attention of the police that way. Either way, the fact that Hutchinson came forward with his tale as soon as Lewis’ evidence was published tells us – short of the implausible “unrelated coincidence” argument – that he realised he’d been seen and wanted to “explain” his presence there.

“Only because the self-preservation argument makes little sense to me, and seems out of character with our fearless fiend; our reckless ripper.”

I don’t accept that the ripper was any more fearless and reckless than any of the serial killers we know about who have come forward out of self-preservation, and I see the “just for jolly” explanation as a likely additional motivating factor, rather than an alternative one. I quite agree that if he was there purely out of bravado, he wouldn’t have expected or wanted his legacy to be that of a mere discredited witness. It is more likely that he wanted to be remembered as the star witness who saw the real ripper close up, allowing him to get the last laugh for derailing the investigation from right under Abberline’s nose. That’s not how events panned out, of course, but he’d have settled for “discredited witness” over “hanged murderer” any day of the week. McKenzie’s murder may not have put him back on the Spotlight, but it would have given him personal kicks, assuming he was responsible.

“I can see your difficulty in attracting and retaining converts.”

I’m not trying to "convert" anyone to anything. If you’re suggesting that there is a lack of people interested in exploring Hutchinson’s potential guilt as a viable solution, or that there have been supporters of the Hutchinson theory who have since relinquished that support, you’d be wrong on both counts. Hutchinson does pretty well in terms of popular support, by which I don’t mean that supporters of his candidacy are in the majority. There is no such thing as a suspect whose likely guilt is accepted by the majority, and nor will there ever be. But he certainly fares better than most. The screenwriters of the Whitechapel series took to the internet – including, apparently, Casebook - when conducting research from their drama, and ultimately decided that Hutchinson was their suspect of preference. If anyone was in the business of “attracting and retaining converts”, they wouldn’t exactly have a hard time of it where Hutchinson is concerned.

…Which is really why people are better off having “problems” with other suspects, in my view.

All the best,
Ben

richardnunweek
02-11-2014, 02:18 AM
Hi,
Is it the reason many are suggesting George Hutchinson, as a suspicious character, or even a killer, simply that after all these years we, cannot discover who the culprit was..and we are clutching at straws..?.
He has to be one of the worst suspects ever, far worse then Barnett, and he more or less has been dropped off the list, and quite rightly.
George Hutchinson was a witness , who came forward of his own accord, and was ''Interrogated'' and taken seriously, it is not certain what his motives were..but good old fashion citizenship should not be discounted.
I am sure the majority of Casebook would agree with this, and not see GH, as the bogey man of Whitechapel.
Lets trace the real killer..even if we are asking the impossible.
Regards Richard.

Ben
02-11-2014, 08:23 AM
Is it the reason many are suggesting George Hutchinson, as a suspicious character, or even a killer, simply that after all these years we, cannot discover who the culprit was..and we are clutching at straws..?

No, Nunners, it is not.

It is generally accepted - at least by those with half a clue about serial crime, and this series of crimes in particular - that the perpetrator was, in all probability, an unknown local man. Hutchinson was one such "unknown local man", but what sets him apart from tens of thousands of others fitting that broad description is that he can be convincingly placed loitering outside a crime scene an hour or so before that crime was committed, and it can be further demonstrated that he then lied about his reasons for being there, as other serial killers are proven to have done.

That doesn't make him a dead-cert murderer, but it makes him a reasonable suspect in the minds of those well-versed in criminology, and who aren't irritating keyboard warriors who base their thinking on hours of hours of studied animosity towards other posters, and who don't vie for a ludicrous alternative suspect suspect or suspect type.

You expose an appalling degree of ignorance when you describe Hutchinson as "one of the worst suspects ever". Nobody who is honest with themselves and wishes to be taken seriously thinks any such thing. But then I have to consider the consider the source: you, with your fascinating theory that the number "39" was spookily significant. What was it again? Martha Tabram was 39 and she was stabbed 39 times (scary-darey!), and Annie Chapman was killed on the 8th of September, so..so..yeah, if you add that to Polly Nichols' murder date of 31st August, and sort of add those two dates (31 + 8) you get 39.

Gosh, well, that sort of deductive reasoning pisses all over my suggestion that a local man with connections to a crime scene and possible connections to a victim might have done it.

I'm converted!

Feck me, I now understand how Bob Hinton felt when he had to sort all this nonsense out 10 years ago...

You see, this is the sort of painful stuff that presents itself as an alternative to the tentative proposal that Hutchinson might have been responsible, and then I'm the one who gets accused of "clutching at straws".

You are out of luck with your attempts to undermine this particular person of interest, and I don't take seriously the fact that you prefer Barnett. The latter was, after all, your favourite suspect for a period, and given how unconvincingly you argued your case during that time, it's little wonder that you abandoned ship. Perhaps you noticed the contradiction between your pleading insistence that we take absolutely everything and everyone at face value all the time, and your short-lived theory that Barnett was the killer (and should not, therefore, be taken at face value). That's when you found time away from bringing "Toppy" into every Hutchinson discussion going, regardless of his suitability for the thread in question - which is none at all considering he wasn't the real witness (and I dare someone to pick that fight with me here, just because I mentioned it briefly).

I am sure the majority of Casebook would agree with this

Err..

Good luck with that forlorn hope.

I'm far more sure that the majority think no such thing.

Regardless of how many people accept Hutchinson as a likely murderer, the number of people who accept that he lied are greater than those who believe he told the squeaky-clean accurate truth.

And where's does this silliness that he's been "dropped off the list" originate? Do please show me this "list", and in paper form - my bottom could do with a jolly good wipe.

You're a nice guy, Richard, and I'll probably regret writing this long after the editing facility has expired, but that really was a terribly ill-thought out post you wrote, mate. No offense.

richardnunweek
02-11-2014, 08:38 AM
Hi Ben.
My post may well have seemed ''ill thought'' to many people, but as you know I have always stuck to my guns regarding our GH.
I started on Casebook about 16 years ago, and have been a regular over the years.however my posts are now few and far between, because I have become rather bored with the same repetitive posts, which we are all guilty of.
So I will not be posting very often again..but I shall remain a member of Casebook, just in case something more feasible crops up..
Till then ..happy hunting.
Regards Richard.

Scott Nelson
02-11-2014, 08:44 AM
...irritating keyboard warriors who base their thinking on hours of hours of studied animosity towards other posters...

Kick his ass Richard. He's just a sniveling little 5-ft 5-in nerd.

Ben
02-11-2014, 09:41 AM
Yeah, that's me, Scott - "Titch" they call me.

(Still not quite getting the height-centric theme to your posts).

Richard, I hope you'll continue to post, and by all means stick to your guns, but post #54 seemed badly out of character for you.

Scott Nelson
02-11-2014, 11:51 AM
Ben, of course, is really 6 feet, 7 inches tall. That means his head is closer to the clouds than for most of us.

Abby Normal
02-11-2014, 03:14 PM
Ben, of course, is really 6 feet, 7 inches tall. That means his head is closer to the clouds than for most of us.

Yeah about as close as Fleming. Not.

Sunbury
02-22-2014, 12:43 AM
There is at least one historical example in British Law where a killer presented as the key Crown Witness in the murder trial of an innocent man for his victim. It wasn’t in the “primitive” era of the19th Century but post WW2.

I refer of course to the trial of Timothy Evans for the murder of his wife and child. The actual killer, John Christie (the Evans’s landlord) was the key Crown Witness and Evans was found guilty and hung. I would strongly recommend the book “10 Rillington Place” by Ludovic Kennedy that examines the case and eventually resulted in Evans receiving a Posthumous Royal Pardon.
Christie, himself was later executed as a serial killer for killing women in exactly the same way as how Mrs Evans died.

Unbelievably even after Christie’s execution, the British Police and Courts resolutely maintained that there were two killers living in the same house, at the exact same time, killing in the exact identical manner but unknown to each other. It took 13 years of pressure before the British Police and Courts were forced to admit they had got it so dreadfully wrong over Evans.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/10-Rillington-Place-Ludovic-Kennedy/dp/0586034285

caz
03-07-2014, 07:17 AM
I don’t see how it can be argued that a significantly reduced chance of getting away with coming forward in the modern era (with all its advances in technology, and the fact that such behaviour is very well documented today), increases the likelihood of an offender trying it on.

Hi Ben,

It's not a case of 'trying it on' when a modern offender only shows his face because he knows he has been, or soon will be, positively identified (by cctv for example) as someone who was at or near his crime scene at the right time, or with his victim. It's a case of being unable to put off the inevitable - the knock on the door that will certainly lead to his arrest if he cannot explain a) why he was there innocently, and b) why he did not come forward as a result of heavy media coverage and police appeals to anyone nearby at the time.

In 1888 it was Sarah Lewis's word (at the very most, assuming it was Hutch she saw) against Hutch's*, in the unlucky event that she could have recognised him again if he stupidly gave her the chance. There is no suggestion whatsoever that she knew her loiterer by name or sight, or she would surely have said so. What was to stop him going back to Romford, or any of a hundred other towns (to look for work, if anyone was remotely interested) without anyone being the wiser? No bugger at the time or since seems to have been aware or given a flying toss who he was, who he associated with, what he did with himself, where he spent his days and nights, or where he went after his fifteen minutes of fame. So there is no reason to think he couldn't similarly have slipped off the radar by not coming forward at all. He could hardly have been on anyone's radar to begin with.

[*I am here assuming he was the ripper for the sake of my argument - and that doesn't mean I agree he was the ripper, in case it's not as clear as daylight ;).]

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
03-07-2014, 08:29 AM
Thank you, Sunbury, for providing that very useful example.

Hi Caz,

The essential point to remember here is that the serial offenders who have come forward as witnesses or informants (modern or otherwise) did so in spite of the availability of other options, such as sitting it out or running away. You're quite wrong about it always being an inevitability that today's serialists will be tracked down as suspects unless they get their version of events in first. That certainly wasn't true of Gary Ridgway, John Eric Armstrong, or the Milats. They might have perceived a likelihood of it happening, just as Hutchinson may have done, but that doesn't mean it was guaranteed. Because it wasn't.

Moreover, given how well established it is today that actual offenders will often come forward under false guises, it is considerably less likely that a modern day killer will come forward with such a pre-emptive strategy, knowing how slim the chances of it succeeding were. In 1888, by contrast, "killer witnesses" were an unknown entity, and the likelihood of such a maneuvre working for someone in Hutchinson's shoes (as per our "assumption") was accordingly very high.

...And all the more tempting for that reason.

He wouldn't have been remotely stupid, incidentally, if Lewis saw him again. She could have spotted him on the streets or in one of the lodging houses, and unless he became a hermit after the Kelly murder, this was not something he could exercise much control over, and nor was it unlikely to happen given the negligible distance between Great Pearl Street and Wentworth Street, and the fact that Lewis had connections to Dorset Street.

I perfectly accept that Lewis couldn't recognise him, and that "no bugger at the time or since seems to have been aware or given a flying toss who he was, who he associated with, what he did with himself, where he spent his days and nights, or where he went after his fifteen minutes of fame", but Hutchinson had no way of knowing this on the evening of 12th November. He didn't know that "slipping off the radar" could be achieved successfully, and without being recognised on the street and dragged in as a suspect minus a convenient bull$hit Astrakhan story.

I equally accept that he had other options, but then so did all the other offenders who came forward, despite the availability of the "slipping off the radar" option.

All the best,
Ben

Abby Normal
03-07-2014, 10:34 AM
Thank you, Sunbury, for providing that very useful example.

Hi Caz,

The essential point to remember here is that the serial offenders who have come forward as witnesses or informants (modern or otherwise) did so in spite of the availability of other options, such as sitting it out or running away. You're quite wrong about it always being an inevitability that today's serialists will be tracked down as suspects unless they get their version of events in first. That certainly wasn't true of Gary Ridgway, John Eric Armstrong, or the Milats. They might have perceived a likelihood of it happening, just as Hutchinson may have done, but that doesn't mean it was guaranteed. Because it wasn't.

Moreover, given how well established it is today that actual offenders will often come forward under false guises, it is considerably less likely that a modern day killer will come forward with such a pre-emptive strategy, knowing how slim the chances of it succeeding were. In 1888, by contrast, "killer witnesses" were an unknown entity, and the likelihood of such a maneuvre working for someone in Hutchinson's shoes (as per our "assumption") was accordingly very high.

...And all the more tempting for that reason.

He wouldn't have been remotely stupid, incidentally, if Lewis saw him again. She could have spotted him on the streets or in one of the lodging houses, and unless he became a hermit after the Kelly murder, this was not something he could exercise much control over, and nor was it unlikely to happen given the negligible distance between Great Pearl Street and Wentworth Street, and the fact that Lewis had connections to Dorset Street.

I perfectly accept that Lewis couldn't recognise him, and that "no bugger at the time or since seems to have been aware or given a flying toss who he was, who he associated with, what he did with himself, where he spent his days and nights, or where he went after his fifteen minutes of fame", but Hutchinson had no way of knowing this on the evening of 12th November. He didn't know that "slipping off the radar" could be achieved successfully, and without being recognised on the street and dragged in as a suspect minus a convenient bull$hit Astrakhan story.

I equally accept that he had other options, but then so did all the other offenders who came forward, despite the availability of the "slipping off the radar" option.

All the best,
Ben

totally agree ben
postmortem mutilator serial killers tend to be very organized, hyper sensitive people with an over active imagination (in line with their fantasy world) to the point of paranoia-especially when dealing with getting caught, whos on to them, witnesses etc.

in the rippers case as the series progressed it seems more and more witnesses were getting a look at him. if he thought that sarah lewis knew him and could id him, he may have thought in his own mind that now was the time he needed to come forward as a witness in order to throw off the police.

and they usually seem to have a weird sense of superiority and think they are so much smarter than everyone else, that it gives them the balls to do it because they think they will not get caught because the police are such idiots.

caz
03-11-2014, 05:13 AM
You're quite wrong about it always being an inevitability that today's serialists will be tracked down as suspects unless they get their version of events in first.

Hi Ben,

And you're quite wrong to think I said that or meant it. Read my post again. I was merely explaining that 'trying it on' does not apply in those cases where the offender has, for example, been caught on camera and will inevitably be identified and tracked down as a prime suspect. Obviously that is very far from 'always' being the case. But that's the point - it's very rarely the case (and even more rarely in 1888) that criminals willingly approach and engage with the police like this, whether they fear having been seen at the scene or not. It takes a certain character trait, sheer desperation (proving futile when in the face of overwhelming evidence), or an uneasy mix of the two.


He wouldn't have been remotely stupid, incidentally, if Lewis saw him again. She could have spotted him on the streets or in one of the lodging houses, and unless he became a hermit after the Kelly murder, this was not something he could exercise much control over, and nor was it unlikely to happen given the negligible distance between Great Pearl Street and Wentworth Street, and the fact that Lewis had connections to Dorset Street.


Again, read what I wrote. The ripper would have been stupid to hang around the area, waiting to be spotted by Lewis (or Long, or Schwartz, or Pipeman, or Lawende and co for that matter), if he feared this was a real possibility and in fact only came forward because of it. Of course he could have exercised control over this unless he had one foot nailed to the floor. He could have gone back to Romford or wherever on his own two feet, leaving Lewis no chance of ever spotting him again!

Love,

Caz
X

caz
03-11-2014, 06:34 AM
in the rippers case as the series progressed it seems more and more witnesses were getting a look at him. if he thought that sarah lewis knew him and could id him, he may have thought in his own mind that now was the time he needed to come forward as a witness in order to throw off the police.

But Abby, if he picked up the information that she had seen him from her inquest testimony, there is no suggestion there that she knew him - quite the opposite in fact.

Love,

Caz
X

Abby Normal
03-11-2014, 10:51 AM
But Abby, if he picked up the information that she had seen him from her inquest testimony, there is no suggestion there that she knew him - quite the opposite in fact.

Love,

Caz
X

maybe it was enough to know she was there. or if he got details from the inquest, that perhaps they withheld it as to not let on.

in his (paranoid) killers mind, who knows what he thought they knew.

caz
03-12-2014, 04:28 AM
Ah yes, you can make a suspect think whatever you like, because he is meant to be a deranged killer, with a deranged killer's mindset. But it's all so circular and one can apply it to anyone alive in 1888 with access to London and no alibi.

If they held back details, for all Hutch knew Lewis could have clocked him again furtively entering MJK's room after 3am, when he claimed to have left the court to walk about all night. That would have done him a power of good.

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
03-12-2014, 07:43 AM
Hi Abby,

“and they usually seem to have a weird sense of superiority and think they are so much smarter than everyone else, that it gives them the balls to do it because they think they will not get caught because the police are such idiots.”

Spot on and well put, and important reminder that self-preservation isn’t the only motivating factor in a serial killer coming forward.

Hi Caz,

Obviously that is very far from 'always' being the case. But that's the point - it's very rarely the case (and even more rarely in 1888) that criminals willingly approach and engage with the police like this, whether they fear having been seen at the scene or not.

It isn't rarely the case at all.

It may seem counter-intuitive to us non criminals, but rare it most certainly isn’t, especially amongst serial killers. There is just no way a trait could be so well-documented and widely researched (even by those who have little insight into criminology), less still predicted by law enforcement, unless the number of known offenders who have resorted to this behaviour have made up a significant percentage of the total number of serialists known about. Serial killers themselves are "very rare", remember, and it takes a "certain character trait" to be one of those too. Arguably therefore, there is a correlation between rare behaviour (i.e. serial murder) and behaviour that WE would consider unusually foolhardy or counterproductive.

I can think of only one case in which CCTV has been the principle factor in the killer coming forward and pretending to be a witness, and even then, CCTV is no guarantee of anything. We've all seen those Crimewatch programs where the police seek help in identifying criminals caught on camera. It doesn't always result in their being identified and captured.

The ripper would have been stupid to hang around the area, waiting to be spotted by Lewis (or Long, or Schwartz, or Pipeman, or Lawende and co for that matter), if he feared this was a real possibility and in fact only came forward because of it

Only Lewis would have been a problem out of that bunch. If the ripper was a Gentile, Long's guessing game that her man might have been foreign would have been most welcome. Schwartz, Pipeman and Lawende weren't "in the area", if we're taking "the area" to mean the heart of the murder district, encompassing the Victoria Home and Dorset Street, and were unlikely to send him running for the hills. So it was mainly Lewis he had to fear bumping into again, and his pre-emptive measure on the 12th arguably took care of that.

Again, it matters very little if WE think running away is preferable to remaining in the area and adopting a more proactive strategy of subterfuge. What matters is what documented offenders have done, and very often it’s the latter.

Regards,
Ben

caz
03-14-2014, 05:55 AM
It may seem counter-intuitive to us non criminals, but rare it most certainly isn’t, especially amongst serial killers. There is just no way a trait could be so well-documented and widely researched (even by those who have little insight into criminology), less still predicted by law enforcement, unless the number of known offenders who have resorted to this behaviour have made up a significant percentage of the total number of serialists known about. Serial killers themselves are "very rare", remember, and it takes a "certain character trait" to be one of those too. Arguably therefore, there is a correlation between rare behaviour (i.e. serial murder) and behaviour that WE would consider unusually foolhardy or counterproductive.

Hi Ben,

So still no idea of the actual percentage, but you guess it must be a 'significant' one? Given that only a handful of documented cases would have been needed to establish this as a known phenomenon, to be researched, looked out for and recognised, I'm not sure your reasoning is sound enough without any figures to back it up.

Only Lewis would have been a problem out of that bunch. If the ripper was a Gentile, Long's guessing game that her man might have been foreign would have been most welcome.

Yeah, and if the ripper was in his seventies, a female monarch or a yellow glove puppet, or managed not to be seen by anyone with a victim or near a crime scene, then every witness statement would have been equally welcome - including Lewis's - no doubt about it. Circular I'm afraid, Ben. It can be applied to virtually anyone we wish to suspect.

Love,

Caz
X

Wickerman
03-14-2014, 07:12 AM
maybe it was enough to know she was there. or if he got details from the inquest, that perhaps they withheld it as to not let on.

in his (paranoid) killers mind, who knows what he thought they knew.

Abby, why would you think a vague description like, "short, stout, and wearing a wideawake hat" would signify anybody?

Abby Normal
03-14-2014, 01:24 PM
Abby, why would you think a vague description like, "short, stout, and wearing a wideawake hat" would signify anybody?

If he didn't get that or other details specifically from the inquest, then he he didn't know what she said, but knew she was there and might have implicated him.
The other scenario is that he did know she said that but may have thought that they deliberately suppressed more specific specific info about him.

Wickerman
03-14-2014, 05:33 PM
If he didn't get that or other details specifically from the inquest, then he he didn't know what she said, but knew she was there and might have implicated him.
The other scenario is that he did know she said that but may have thought that they deliberately suppressed more specific specific info about him.

There was no indication at the inquest that suspicion was attached to this loiterer by the Coroner, so what purpose is to be served by suppressing details?

There was no suggestion that this loiterer must be found at all costs, he is a relatively unimportant figure. In fact the Coroner was more interested in the 'Britannia-man' and his suspicious activity rather than the loiterer.

Abby Normal
03-15-2014, 08:34 AM
There was no indication at the inquest that suspicion was attached to this loiterer by the Coroner, so what purpose is to be served by suppressing details?

There was no suggestion that this loiterer must be found at all costs, he is a relatively unimportant figure. In fact the Coroner was more interested in the 'Britannia-man' and his suspicious activity rather than the loiterer.

Wicky
Hutch may have thought they were suppressing details so as not to alert the killer that the police were on to him.

Wickerman
03-15-2014, 09:52 AM
Wicky
Hutch may have thought they were suppressing details so as not to alert the killer that the police were on to him.

Regardless, the whole scenario is mute due to the fact Hutchinson, if he was the killer, need only disappear back to Romford to evade detection.

Abby Normal
03-15-2014, 10:52 AM
Regardless, the whole scenario is mute due to the fact Hutchinson, if he was the killer, need only disappear back to Romford to evade detection.

Hi wick.
I see your point and somewhat agree. I actually see hutch coming forward as a negative against his suspect hood. I just point out some reasons why he might have come forward whereas you are pointing out reasons why he wouldn't.

Wickerman
03-15-2014, 01:15 PM
Hi wick.
I see your point and somewhat agree. I actually see hutch coming forward as a negative against his suspect hood. I just point out some reasons why he might have come forward whereas you are pointing out reasons why he wouldn't.

Hi Abby.

Ok, so you are less inclined to see Hutchinson as a suspect because he came forward. But, he came forward to tell the police who he saw. Yet, if I'm not mistaken, you think the man he saw was a fabrication?

So, why come forward?

Abby Normal
03-17-2014, 07:54 AM
Hi Abby.

Ok, so you are less inclined to see Hutchinson as a suspect because he came forward. But, he came forward to tell the police who he saw. Yet, if I'm not mistaken, you think the man he saw was a fabrication?

So, why come forward?

If he's the killer- to explain his presence there and deflect suspicion toward fictional Aman.

If he's not-to explain his presence there and gain a little fame and fortune.

And since we seem to be going in circles now, I'm out for now.

caz
03-18-2014, 10:13 AM
Hutch may have thought they were suppressing details so as not to alert the killer that the police were on to him.

Hi Abby,

But if Hutch entered MJK's room and killed her, one of those suppressed details - for all he knew - could have been Lewis watching him do just that.

I think you are wise to favour the ripper popping back to Romford or wherever in that scenario, and never having to bump into Lewis with all her suppressed details. :)

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
04-29-2014, 03:18 AM
But if Hutch entered MJK's room and killed her, one of those suppressed details - for all he knew - could have been Lewis watching him do just that.

Nah, Caz, I think it's only reasonable to distinguish between rational fear and totally irrational paranoia, and any concern that Lewis might have been staring out of her window at 3.00am most assuredly belongs in the latter category. Staring at what exactly? Wildebeests leaping majestically? ;) At least with the Lawende and Lewis sightings, he was under no illusion that he had been seen. The concern, in both cases, was how much did the witnesses record and were able to describe. In the former, he might have assumed very little, but that was until he heard that it was deliberately suppressed, only for the full (and really rather detailed) description to follow in the Police Gazette. What if something similar occurred with Lewis?

All the best,
Ben

Ben
04-29-2014, 03:26 AM
Hi Caz,

So still no idea of the actual percentage, but you guess it must be a 'significant' one?

I don't "guess". I know. I know it must be "significant" enough for experts in law enforcement to predict this precise behaviour - correctly - in uncaught offenders, laying successful traps accordingly. I will get round eventually to discussing individual examples, although I outlined the case of several in my Casebook Examiner article.

Yeah, and if the ripper was in his seventies, a female monarch or a yellow glove puppet, or managed not to be seen by anyone with a victim or near a crime scene, then every witness statement would have been equally welcome - including Lewis's - no doubt about it. Circular I'm afraid, Ben. It can be applied to virtually anyone we wish to suspect.

But we're discussing Hutchinson, and I'm not "wishing" to suspect him. I'm simply pointing out that if he was the killer, he was not a female monarch or a yellow glove puppet, but a local gentile nobody - the suspect type touted by the rank-and-file as the most likely, coincidentally enough. All I'm saying is that a gentile local ripper would not have been fussed by Liz Long's description of the supposedly foreign suspect's back.

All the best,
Ben