Two things that don't make sense!

[caz]

Sorry, I can't get behind this one. Maybe if it Blotchy and Hutchinson were running some sort of scam or white collar crime. But here, it's your neck in a rope if you are convicted. Blotchy would have to have a hell of lot of money for that. This is something that you don't want to be mixed up in in any way, shape or form.

c.d.

Hi c.d,

I do see your point. But for whatever reason, Hutch did mix himself up in this by venturing forward and claiming that he had been loitering for nearly an hour, with Mary (+ alleged customer) in mind, near what was shortly to become the most horrible Whitechapel murder scene to date.

He would automatically have been risking his own neck if he: couldn't produce said customer; changed anything he had initially told the police when talking to the press (risking a charge of perjury, if nothing else); didn't have a verifiable alibi; could have been seen - and recognised again later - by one or more of the witnesses who had already given evidence; was counting on the feeble excuse that it was only idle curiosity that kept him lurking for that long.

I'd still like to know why he thought it was a cool idea, under any circumstances, to say he had lurked for quite so long. If he was worried that a witness could have put him there at any time between 2.15 and 3, and reasoned that he had better put himself there between those times and have an explanation ready, he really was dicing with the hangman if he didn't leave the court at 3pm as he claimed, and a witness could have known that too.

One explanation that could make some sense is that the long wait was integral to his story - ie he had to "be there" in order to confirm that his suspect had been in that room too long for a quickie.

If Hutch was indeed out of work at the time, I think he would have taken a chance and taken the money from a twitchy client, and later from the papers, as long as the police had no evidence to pin the murders on him. Maybe he could prove he was somewhere outside the area for one or more of the previous crimes - even prove he was not in Whitechapel on November 9th if push came to shove and he had made the whole thing up.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

One explanation that could make some sense is that the long wait was integral to his story - ie he had to "be there" in order to confirm that his suspect had been in that room too long for a quickie.

Well, there you go.

You answer your own question in a way that should ennervate your original "Why would he do that if...?" doubts. If he wanted to implicate Astrakhan man in the murder for whatever reason, it was obviously in his interests to convey the impression that the suspect was in the room for a long time, thus leaving less room for the possibility of Astrakhan leaving and someone else - Kelly's real killer - arriving on the scene

It also provided Hutchinson with some degree of insurance in the event that he was seen by other witnesses besides Lewis. Admitting to have loitered outside the crime scene only for the 2:30am period would perhaps have given the game away that he was only coming forward to validate her sighting.

Maybe he could prove he was somewhere outside the area for one or more of the previous crimes - even prove he was not in Whitechapel on November 9th if push came to shove and he had made the whole thing up

Doubtful in the extreme, I'd say, Caz.

As I've explained before, the chances of an ostensibly solitary labourer living in a doss house with no transport options to speak of having anything like a verifiable alibi was incredibly remote. In fact, parsimony would somewhat dicate that if he was likely to have been anywhere for the whopping majority of the Autumn of Terror, it would have been asleep in bed at the busy Victoria Home, with essentially no possibility of anyone being able to vouch for his whereabouts for a murder that had occured some weeks previously.

A claim to have been "watching and waiting" outside a crime scene at 2:30am as soon as it became public knowledge that an established witness had seen someone "watching and waiting" outside a crime scene at 2:30am also militates rather heavily against the money/publicity seeker premise.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

Another thing that doesn't make sense

Hi Ben,

This still leaves Hutch the Ripper at risk of being seen loitering in or around the court at any time after 3am, when he claimed that he left, or worse, being seen entering or leaving Mary's room. Clearly, if he invented her last client, no witness including Lewis could have seen said client, either being watched by Hutch or entering or leaving. But anyone could have seen Hutch after 3am if they saw him before. Moreover you are proposing that Hutch had to tell the truth about being there - until 3am at least - when he learned that he had indeed been seen before that time. So how could he have been confident that he hadn't been seen after that time as well, if he was still in the court until considerably later, because he committed the murder there?

You know I always struggle with your argument that Hutch came forward on the basis of learning that certain details of Lawende's testimony had been kept back initially and fearing that the same could apply to Lewis or other potential witnesses. I struggle even further if he is supposed to have learned this about Lawende's testimony before going to Miller's Court that night, armed with his sharp knife and a fresh urge to kill, and lurking there for a good hour before indulging this urge, giving more Lawendes the opportunity to have seen him and have details of their subsequent testimony kept back.

If Hutch was forced to go to the cops on the basis of being seen by Lewis, it was because he had hung around Miller's Court like a complete idiot, allowing himself to be seen and going ahead with his murderous plans regardless of the possibility. That in itself is not too hard to buy, but if so, he was clearly oblivious that night to any lessons to be learned from Lawende. So when exactly is he meant to have become aware of the fact that the police had initially held back details of Lawende's sighting, since it could hardly have been before November 9th?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

This still leaves Hutch the Ripper at risk of being seen loitering in or around the court at any time after 3am, when he claimed that he left, or worse, being seen entering or leaving Mary's room.

That would have been a concern for the killer whoever he was, but we know that the killer continued regardless. Given Hutchinson's later admission that he entered the court itself - a detail conspicuously absent from his police statement - it is likely that he was concerned about the possibility of being seen after 3.00am, thus giving him an incentive to embellish and "improve" on his original account. Once inside the court, however, the killer had a reasonable degree of assurance that he would not have been seen by any witnesses actually opening the door, even if it meant peering in an nearby windows to check for any signs of awake neighbours.

Moreover you are proposing that Hutch had to tell the truth about being there - until 3am at least - when he learned that he had indeed been seen before that time.

No, I'm proposing that he only had to tell the truth about being there at 2:30am, when he realized he'd been seen, and that he introduced subsequent embellishments to the press "Did I mention I actually went inside Miller's Court?" to give himself an "out" in the unlikely event that another witness had seen him doing precisely that.

I say "unlikely" because the man had eyes. If he couldn't see or hear any other witnesses in the locality after Lewis and Cox had returned home for the last time, then short of fearing some sort of Hollywood-style stakeout from a nearby window, he would have been more than justified in feeling "confident that he hadn't been seen after (3.00am) as well"

You know I always struggle with your argument that Hutch came forward on the basis of learning that certain details of Lawende's testimony had been kept back initially and fearing that the same could apply to Lewis or other potential witnesses

I'm afraid I'm at a loss as to understand why, Caz. Before a certain time, he was assured that none of the witnesses had acquired anything like a decent sighting or description. After that time, it became alarmingly apparent that he had no such assurance, and so altered plans accordingly.

I struggle even further if he is supposed to have learned this about Lawende's testimony before going to Miller's Court that night, armed with his sharp knife and a fresh urge to kill, and lurking there for a good hour before indulging this urge

Where does "a good hour" come from? Only Hutchinson himself. We only have "corroboration" - if you can call it that - for his whereabouts for a fleeting moment at 2:30am. If there was any incentive for claiming to have loitered there for longer than he actually did, it was probably to implicate the Astrakhan suspect further. "It wasn't just a quick shag 'e was after. Oh no, 'e was there for a long time, and when I left, 'e was still bloomin' in there...with 'is tightly grapsed parcel. Y'know, that surly sinister wealthy Jew I was talking about?"

So when exactly is he meant to have become aware of the police holding back details, if not until after November 9th?

October 19th at the earliest, when Lawende's full description was published in the Police Gazzette, after being withheld from the inquest.

Best regards,
Ben

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ben,

Lawende's description being withheld at Eddowes' inquest is intriguing.

THE TIMES, 2nd October 1888

"The following is a description of a man seen in company with a woman who is supposed to be the victim of the murderer in the City. The man was observed in a court in Duke-street, leading to Mitre-square, about 1:40 a.m. on Sunday. He is described as of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak."

That's nine days prior to Lawende's appearance at the inquest, and almost identical to the description in the 19th October Swanson report and Police Gazette.

Regards,

Simon

[Ben]

Thanks for that, Simon.

It seems likely that The Times obtained the description directly from the witness, hence the few discrepencies with the more detailed police-endorsed one that appeared in the Police Gazzette on 19th October:

At 1.35 a.m., 30th September, with Catherine Eddows, in Church-passage, leading to Mitre-square, where she was found murdered at 1.45 a.m., same date - A MAN, age 30, height 5 ft. 7 or 8 in., complexion fair, moustache fair, medium build; dress, pepper-and-salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same material, reddish neckerchief tied in knot; appearance of a sailor.

Correction to my post above: the earliest anyone would have heard of suppressed witness descriptions was directly after the publication of the Eddowes inquest transcripts.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Ben,

That would have been a concern for the killer whoever he was, but we know that the killer continued regardless.

That's a terrible piece of reasoning! Of course it would have been a concern for the killer, whoever he was, not to be seen loitering in the vicinity of his own crime scene, or entering or leaving it. But all you know is that Mary ended up dead. You don't know that her killer did any loitering at all, or gave anyone the opportunity to clock him in or near the court that night. Crucially, you don't know that he 'continued regardless' of having done any such things, but you do know that if the killer wasn't Hutch he obviously had no intention to come forward and admit to being there.

Once inside the court, however, the killer had a reasonable degree of assurance that he would not have been seen by any witnesses actually opening the door, even if it meant peering in an nearby windows to check for any signs of awake neighbours.

We know Blotchy was seen entering the room earlier with Mary but not seen leaving again. So he would have had plenty to be concerned about, if the cops believed he was the last man to do so, whether he was the killer or just a 'guest' with unfortunate timing. But he obviously didn't have any wild desire to come forward and explain himself. In fact it must have been a considerable relief to him when he learned that Hutch had introduced this flashy Jew to the cops, who really did appear to have overstayed his welcome chez Mary. Took any heat right off Blotchy for long enough to make himself scarce.

Before a certain time, he was assured that none of the witnesses had acquired anything like a decent sighting or description. After that time, it became alarmingly apparent that he had no such assurance, and so altered plans accordingly.

But did he go out on November 9th, still assured that no previous witnesses could be a problem for him? Or did he know by then that he had no such assurance, and therefore should be taking extra steps not to allow anyone a decent sighting or description this time?

Where does "a good hour" come from? Only Hutchinson himself. We only have "corroboration" - if you can call it that - for his whereabouts for a fleeting moment at 2:30am. If there was any incentive for claiming to have loitered there for longer than he actually did, it was probably to implicate the Astrakhan suspect further.

Hmmm. So how long are you putting Hutch there if he went on to kill Mary? I understand the incentive to claim he was there long enough to be able to put someone else in her room for more than a quick one. But if he wasn't there for much more than this 'fleeting moment' at 2.30, and lied about having followed Mary and her client back initially and also lied about hanging around until 3, he couldn't possibly know that half a dozen residents hadn't been enjoying a late chinwag in the court and could testify to his absence during the period he claimed to be there.

You will recognise your own words from (yet) another Hutch discussion:

Here's an interesting exchange from the Eddowes inquest:

[Coroner] What sort of man was this? - He had on a cloth cap with a peak of the same.
Mr. Crawford: Unless the jury wish it, I do not think further particulars should be given as to the appearance of this man.
The Foreman: The jury do not desire it.
Mr. Crawford (to witness): You have given a description of the man to the police? - Yes.

If the killer was keeping abrest of police "progress" and had read this extract from the Daily Telegraph, he would undoubtedly have been alarmed. "Special reason"? Withheld descriptions? Unsettling at best, especially when the full description was published much further down the line on 19th October.

If I had read that article at the time, I'd be thinking: what if they tried that naughty trick again with another witness at the next murder?

Best regards,
Ben

Yes, Ben. And then I suppose you’d have gone out on November 9th and allowed at least one new witness to see you lurking near the scene of the next murder, thus providing the police with even stronger naughty trick fuel, and giving yourself the huge headache of having to go to the cops yourself to try and render all their fuel harmless?

Sorry, Ben, but you are busy talking yourself out of your own scenario here. Every attempt to bolster it makes it sound even less credible than it did before, either from a self-preservation or bravado angle. I challenge you to cite just one example of a serial killer who came forward because of potentially incriminating witness accounts connecting him with more than one of his offences, which he hoped to talk his way out of. If you can’t do that, I’m afraid you are stuck with pure bravado propelling Hutch forward despite the danger of suppressed Lawende/Lewis/A N Other Witness testimony piling up and pinning him down.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

That's a terrible piece of reasoning!

Uhh...no.

It's actually pretty logical if you give it some thought: Killer may fear the possibility of being seen entering Kelly's room but went ahead and did it anyway. There's no "reasoning" about it - it's a fact. Of course I don't know for certain if the killer did any loitering, but with reliable eyewitness evidence of a man loitering outside, and preoccupied with, the crime scene an hour before the murder was committed AND examples aplenty of serial killers casing their indoor venues first through prior surveillance, I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to surmise that the killer may have dine precisel that in this case.

We know Blotchy was seen entering the room earlier with Mary but not seen leaving again. So he would have had plenty to be concerned about, if the cops believed he was the last man to do so, whether he was the killer or just a 'guest' with unfortunate timing.

Well, yes, in Blotchy's case, it's obvious that he'd been seen entering the room. There was a witness in the form of Mary Ann Cox who he can't possibly have missed. If there wasn't a witness visible in the locality, I'd stress again that the killer was pretty damned justified in satisfying himself that nobody had seen him enter a building. Unless, of course, we're prepared to accept that the killer realistically feared some sort of stake-out at a nearby window with some Victorian equivalent of a zoom-lense.

In the absence of any great insight into Blotchy's identity, it's also a bit premature to assert that he "didn't have a wild desire to explain himself".

But did he go out on November 9th, still assured that no previous witnesses could be a problem for him? Or did he know by then that he had no such assurance, and therefore should be taking extra steps not to allow anyone a decent sighting or description this time?

The latter, naturally.

So how long are you putting Hutch there if he went on to kill Mary?

Not being endowed of psychic powers, I've tended to avoid any confident assertions as to the exact length of time he remained in the spot where he was apparently seen by Lewis. I've only offered a reminder that we only have it on the deeply dubious authority of Hutchinson himself that he remained there for as long as he did. If Lewis saw Hutchinson, the only "corroborated" time period is 2:30. It just establishes his whereabouts for that interval of time, and no other. It doesn't corroborate his claim as to why he was there, nor how long he remained there.

he couldn't possibly know that half a dozen residents hadn't been enjoying a late chinwag in the court and could testify to his absence during the period he claimed to be there.

Oh, but he could. It wouldn't have required a deductive genius for realise that, in the wake of the assumed near-miss with Lewis at 2:30, it might have been prudent to moniter the court from a rather more discreet location from the one he was currently installed in, one that still afforded him the opportunity to moniter the comings and goings of Miller's Court residents and visitors.

Yes, Ben. And then I suppose you’d have gone out on November 9th and allowed at least one new witness to see you lurking near the scene of the next murder

Where are you getting "allowed" from? This was one of the most overcrowded districts of the East End, boasting a very high homeless and nocturnal population. Unless he was some invisible phantom of the night, he had little to no control over the very high chances of him being seen at a point crucial to the commission of the murder - pre-crime, post-crime, and during. Whoever he was, the killer was seen, he couldn't help it. It was a factor over which he had no control.

His best bet lay in an admittedly forlorm hope that he wouldn't have been noticed, and with men and women loitering on their streets for no good reason (Marshall, Mortimer etc), it wasn't as though the widawake man could have reasonably expected his presence to be noticed, any more than he could have expected Lewis - a stranger to the court - to veer into the passage he was monitering.

Every attempt to bolster it makes it sound even less credible than it did before

Good grief. Please avoid trying to flatter or delude yourself - it's quite embarrassing to behold. The reverse is becoming increasingly apparent; every crass attempt you make to negate it seems to increase its immunity to numpty criticism.

I challenge you to cite just one example of a serial killer who came forward because of potentially incriminating witness accounts connecting him with more than one of his offences, which he hoped to talk his way out of.

I didn't say Hutchinson came frward because of incriminating witness accounts connecting him with more than one of his offences.

What JTR suspect can be linked to more than one of the crimes?

I didn't claim that any other serial killer came frward because of incriminating witness accounts connecting them with more than one of their offences.

I have claimed that serial killers have come forward because of incriminating witness accounts connecting them with one of their offences, because it's true, and it serves to urinate with abandon over claims that "Hutchinson wouldn't have done that...", but I guess that won't prevent the patently desperate from making dishonest attempts to change the goalposts.

Keep trying.

[caz]

Keep trying.

Hi Ben,

Thanks, I will.

I didn't say Hutchinson came frward because of incriminating witness accounts connecting him with more than one of his offences.

I sincerely hope you didn’t. You have no evidence that Hutch committed one offence, never mind more than one.

But seriously, you didn’t have to say it. If you are arguing that he came forward because he feared that Lewis could put him near the scene of the one murder, then you have to address the fact that if he knew he had also been seen by Lawende and co, and possibly by Long, Schwartz and Pipe Man as well, then he came forward despite their potential to put him near the scene of at least one more murder, if not two or three. He would be acutely aware that the slightest doubt about his own account could see him face to face with up to six witnesses who had seen him before with previous victims.

What JTR suspect can be linked to more than one of the crimes?

But what has that to do with Hutch’s motivation for coming forward if he knew he had been seen by witnesses near more than one crime scene? The fact that no suspect could ever be linked to more than one is a point against, not for, Hutch being the ripper. Had he been the ripper he would have been linked to more than one if Lewis and Lawende had been asked to look him over and they had recognised him. If he didn’t think they would both be able to do that, he had no need to come forward at all. If he thought for one second that they might, he was taking one hell of a risk, not having a crystal ball to tell him he would have nothing to worry about.

I didn't claim that any other serial killer came frward because of incriminating witness accounts connecting them with more than one of their offences.

I know. That’s because I don’t suppose you have found any. And that’s the problem, because your ultimate goal is to expose Hutch as a serial killer who came forward despite knowing he had been seen near more than one of his murders, in company with at least one of his victims, and who admitted to being in company with his latest.

I have claimed that serial killers have come forward because of incriminating witness accounts connecting them with one of their offences, because it's true, and it serves to urinate with abandon over claims that "Hutchinson wouldn't have done that...", but I guess that won't prevent the patently desperate from making dishonest attempts to change the goalposts.

The goalposts don’t need to be changed - certainly not by me. Your goals remain exactly the same as they have always been: to show that Lewis’s account was incriminating, because she saw (and could recognise again) the ripper gearing up to his first inside job on someone he knew personally this time, and the man she saw was Hutch.

But following him down to the cop shop (and following you around whether you like it or not) comes the baggage of more unwelcome sightings of himself that could have spilled out at the drop of a wide-awake hat - or a careless change of complexion and moustache.

Think of this baggage as jumpers for goalposts if you like. You can only score own goals without them.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

You have no evidence that Hutch committed one offence, never mind more than one.

That's your opinion. There is, as far as I'm concerned, reasonable circumstantial evidence that the individual known to the police as George Hutchinson may have been responsible for the murder of Mary Jane Kelly and, by extension, the others.

He would be acutely aware that the slightest doubt about his own account could see him face to face with up to six witnesses who had seen him before with previous victims.

Yup, and that was much more likely to have occured if he was dragged in as a suspect, rather than getting his story in first as a bogus witness, as other serial killers have done, despite the fact that they were also seen by earlier witnesses at earlier crime scenes. It enables them to nail their colours to a false "witness" mast and thus sow the seeds of an equally false preconception as to their role in the investigation. By urging upon me the need to "address the fact", you make it sound as though I have a great hurdle to surmount, whereas all I really need to do encourage you to read up on other serial killers...again. The rest is supererogatory.

If he thought for one second that they might, he was taking one hell of a risk, not having a crystal ball to tell him he would have nothing to worry about.

Nor did any other serial killer we know about (well, I use the term "we" very loosely for obvious reasons!), and yet they do it anyway because serial killers do take risks. Not just any old risks either, but precisely the sort of risk I'm envisaging here. In the case of Jack the Ripper in particular, it should be pretty startlingly apparent that he was accustomed to taking all manner of risks - risks that were no doubt allied to a sense of characteristic bravado and arrogance. That's why the act of coming forward under a false guise isn't restricted to those who desire self-preservation.

I know. That’s because I don’t suppose you have found any.

Of course I haven't.

Serial killers who come forward after more than one of their murders? Why is there an onus upon me to find one of those? The salient point is that serial killers have come forward in response to one of their murders despite having been seen at one or more of their other crime scenes. That's what happens in real life, and that's what I've suggested with regard to Hutchinson.

to show that Lewis’s account was incriminating, because she saw (and could recognise again) the ripper gearing up to his first inside job on someone he knew personally this time, and the man she saw was Hutch.

There's compelling circumstantial evidence for all of those, so I consider them goals decisively scored. No, I don't need to show that Lewis' evidence was incriminating. I need to demonstrate that Hutchinson may have had reason to consider it so, and that is easily acheived. At present the goalkeepers haven't been up to scratch, and in particular, "Caz' guide to prudent serial killer behaviour" is no obstacle to a football consisting of established historical precendent and common sense.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

Yup, and that was much more likely to have occured if he was dragged in as a suspect, rather than getting his story in first as a bogus witness, as other serial killers have done, despite the fact that they were also seen by earlier witnesses at earlier crime scenes. It enables them to nail their colours to a false "witness" mast and thus sow the seeds of an equally false preconception as to their role in the investigation. By urging upon me the need to "address the fact", you make it sound as though I have a great hurdle to surmount, whereas all I really need to do encourage you to read up on other serial killers...again. The rest is supererogatory.

Hi Ben,

You really must stop referring to 'other' serial killers, as though you had already established that Hutch was one and all that remains is for you to point to his behaviour being typical of what he was. You have to show that his behaviour could only have been, or was by far most likely to have been, that of a serial killer behaving typically by attempting (successfully in this case) to cover his tracks by posing as a bogus witness.

Where are all these 'other' serial killers, just like you want Hutch to be, who told the police one pack of lies and the press a different pack of lies, knowing that they had been seen by witnesses near more than one of their crime scenes and that the police were using the tactic of suppressing certain details? I’m only asking for one name, and yet anyone would think I was asking you for the moon and stars. These are the basic factors that you have applied to Hutch, and yet you remain adamant that they don't need to apply to 'other' serial killers before you can claim a fair comparison and label him 'one of them'.

In the case of Jack the Ripper in particular, it should be pretty startlingly apparent that he was accustomed to taking all manner of risks - risks that were no doubt allied to a sense of characteristic bravado and arrogance. That's why the act of coming forward under a false guise isn't restricted to those who desire self-preservation.

Well there’s the rub again, because the ripper was either so full of bravado and arrogance that he would have left that daft bat Lewis to do her worst, knowing that even if she did see him again and recognise him as the man she saw, she had no way of proving it, or he was terrified that if he didn’t volunteer his complicated cover story involving a close encounter with Mary, and get the police to swallow it whole, he would soon be having to excuse being seen having an even closer one with Kate.

You really do need to decide whether you want him coming forward purely for the rush of playing dangerous games with the police and the papers, not overly bovvered whether they believe him or not, or whether you want him to have at least the semblance of a desire to keep hold of his freedom, even if he has to sacrifice his desire for night work in the process.

There's compelling circumstantial evidence for all of those, so I consider them goals decisively scored. No, I don't need to show that Lewis' evidence was incriminating. I need to demonstrate that Hutchinson may have had reason to consider it so, and that is easily acheived. At present the goalkeepers haven't been up to scratch, and in particular, "Caz' guide to prudent serial killer behaviour" is no obstacle to a football consisting of established historical precendent and common sense.

What? How compelling can your evidence really be, and how decisively have your goals been scored, if you have to keep on debating and arguing endlessly for Hutch taking remedial action because he decided to butcher someone he knew in her own room after being seen lurking by one of the hundreds of potential witnesses in the vicinity?

Hutch would have no reason to consider Lewis’s evidence ‘incriminating’ (even assuming he must have been aware of it and truly believed she had described him) if he had never murdered anyone and was just one more unreliable and ultimately unhelpful witness in the vicinity. The only reason he would have had to consider this woman's evidence incriminating was if he knew it was incriminating, ie it could lead to him being exposed as a murderer and convicted. You need to demonstrate that Hutch had reason to believe this was the case and went forward anyway to try and resolve the problem. And that is patently not easily achieved because you are still trying hard to do so with everything you can throw at it. I’m afraid I can use ‘Caz’s guide to the law for dummies’ to presume him as innocent of any direct involvement in the ripper murders as Diddles.

When you can show that common sense, combined with a reasonably comparable historical precedent and your evidence, does not allow for a presumption of innocence in Hutch’s case, you will be a man my son - and your reward will be no longer having to come whenever other posters whistle to carry on pushing your pet theory.

Love,

Caz
X

[perrymason]

Hi all,

I can easily see why someone might feel that Hutchinsons statement Monday night after the Inquest....sorry, the briefing,....makes him a very suspicious character in the story of this murder, what I cannot see so easily is why the assumption he was in fact Wideawake Hat man is becoming accepted. He may have known of Sarah's statement....the fact is we dont know that he did, and he may well have decided that coming forward with an explanation for being seen there by someone who could identify more than his hat might pre-empt some fast talking later. Lets say he did know Mary to say hello....maybe even had a bit of a hankering for her....that might mean that he has spoken with her in front of her neighbours...on Dorset on maybe even in the court.

Its possible he came forward just in case...someone like Mary Ann, Elizabeth, Julia, the Keylers, McCarthy, ....and any one of a few people that knew Mary well saw him that night....he didnt even have to be seen loitering.

If he was actually Joe Fleming, then perhaps thats why he came in after the "briefing"....so he wouldnt have to face any of them. And if any of them heard later about some George Hutchinson's sighting, which they will, then Fleming could have used him to create a dual presence there, to perhaps make anyone of the known friends that might have seen him doubt whether it was actually JF they saw, or this Hutchinson fellow.

Best regards all.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

You have to show that his behaviour could only have been, or was by far most likely to have been, that of a serial killer behaving typically by attempting (successfully in this case) to cover his tracks by posing as a bogus witness

Well, no, actually.

I believe I've made a more than reasonale argument in that regard, but in the obvious absence of definite proof, that's the best I can acheive.

For the purpose of this discussion, I'm not actually making a case for Hutchinson as the ripper. What I'm doing very successfully is exposing the fallacies implicit in some of the more ridiculous criticisms of his candidacy, and any argument that even faintly whiffs of "He would not have come forward as a witness if he was a serial killer" unquestionably falls into the catergory of "ridiculous criticism", because experience tells us that serial killers have done precisely that.

I am by no means insisting that Hutchinson must have been a serial killer because X or Y also came forward under similar circumstances, but what I can do is put paid to gauche assumptions as to what a serial killer would or wouldn't do in a given predicament. I've named several examples that compare very favourably indeed to the scenario I've suggested with regard to Hutchinson. To ignore those examples, and claim they don't count because they don't fit the unrealistic amount of criteria you've burdened them with isn't tantamount to winning an argument. Next you'll be arging that unless it happened in Whitechapel and the offender wore a wideawake hat, any comparsion study is irrelevent.

For example, this request of yours is outlandish and unreasonable:

Where are all these 'other' serial killers, just like you want Hutch to be, who told the police one pack of lies and the press a different pack of lies

He didn't tell a "different pack of lies". He told the same lie, but got a few details wrong in the process, like all liars who aren't superhuman geniuses who somehow manage to retain a mirror image of what it is they're lying about. All I need to do is demonstrate that other serial killers have come forward under false guises for reasons that can include a desire for self-preservation. If I wanted to argue that Hutchinson may have come forward after learning he'd been seen for that reason, those examples would be both germane and applicable. That's the absolute beginning and end of my task, and no amount of "Oh, that's a bit different because", will ennervate the fundamental comparison.

Not that I need to, mind you. The fact that I can do this easily is largely besides the point. It is only a tiny of minority of suspect theories that use several other serial cases to bolster their case.

Well there’s the rub again, because the ripper was either so full of bravado and arrogance that he would have left that daft bat Lewis to do her worst, knowing that even if she did see him again and recognise him as the man she saw, she had no way of proving it, or he was terrified that if he didn’t volunteer his complicated cover story involving a close encounter with Mary

Absolulutely not.

This is nonsense.

There simply isn't this "either or" mentality you're currently envisaging.

A serial killer can be brimming with arrogance and bravado, and still fear the possibility of being incriminated and captured. Easily. No mutual exclusivity there at all. There's no onus upon me to pick which one I like best at all. Indeed, if the serial killer is arrogant and manipulative - like a lot of psychopaths - then it's only logical to surmise that such a person might incorporate those personality traits into his attempts to evade capture.

So we can forget the idea of being "terrifed" because it's not a word I ever used or considered applicable to Hutchinson.

How compelling can your evidence really be, and how decisively have your goals been scored, if you have to keep on debating and arguing endlessly

Right, so the fact that I'm "debating endlessly" is somehow evidence that my evidence is less than compelling? I'm not "debating endlessly" at all. In fact, I've never stated a Hutchinson debate in my life. I have responded to arguments against his candidacy that I feel to be lacking, and will continue to do so. What makes you think that you're being any less "endless" is your approach to Hutchinson debates?

Hutch would have no reason to consider Lewis’s evidence ‘incriminating’ (even assuming he must have been aware of it and truly believed she had described him) if he had never murdered anyone and was just one more unreliable and ultimately unhelpful witness in the vicinity.

Ah, but if he was loitering opposite a crime scene with absolutely no good reason for being there, he's a legitimately suspicious character in that crime, doubly so if we consider the various killers who have conducted some pre-crime surveillance outside their indoor murder locations. If you're contemplating the behaviour of the wideawake man from an investigative perspective, your gut reaction will hardly be "Hmmm....I'm guessing he was just loitering there in the capacity of a potentially unhelpful witness". Not a bit of it. He was acting suspiciously in relation to the crime scene, whoever he was. You don't just write him off because he gave a crap reason for being there as soon as it became public knowledge that he'd been seen.

You need to demonstrate that Hutch had reason to believe this was the case and went forward anyway to try and resolve the problem.

All I need to do is make a reasonable case in that ragard, which is all that can be realistically acheived 120 years after the event. There's nothing wrong with a presupposition of innocence. There is something wrong with an obstinate refusal to acknowledge the possibility of guilt, especially when it's depedent upon an erroneous "No serial killer would do that" mentality.

and your reward will be no longer having to come whenever other posters whistle to carry on pushing your pet theory

So..you're saying that my responding the points you've made constitutes evidence that I've lost the argument, and that if I stood on solid theoretical ground, I would be ignoring any post in criticism of the Hutchinson theory? How does that work?

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

what I cannot see so easily is why the assumption he was in fact Wideawake Hat man is becoming accepted. He may have known of Sarah's statement....the fact is we dont know that he did

As ever, it's a question of assessing probability. Since Hutchinson came forward with an "I was standing opposite the court, waiting for someone at 2:30am on the night of the murder" account as soon as Sarah Lewis' "I saw someone standing opposite the court, waiting for someone at 2:30am on the night of the murder" testimony had entered into public circulation, I'd say the chances of Hutchinson not being aware of Lewis' evidence are rendered very slim.

If Hutchinson was the wideawake man, that naturally arms him with a motive for coming forward and giving a bogus account; legitmise his presence and create a false suspect. If he wasn't, then assuming the identity of the wideawake man without even giving himself an alibi would seem rather more difficult to explain away, but again, I can't rule out that possibility entirely.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

What I was pondering aloud Ben is that if the man who says he's George Hutchinson on Monday night is actually someone known by Mary much closer than casual, say Joe Fleming, and he killed Mary, ..he might have thought over the weekend about the possibility that someone who has seen him there before may have seen him that night....and maybe not made the press. Maybe not even come forward yet.

So after all the people that may have recognized him have had their say in public, he comes in as George Hutchinson in private, and implants a man who matches his own description...because it is him, but this fella is named George Hutchinson...so any witness that may have seen him with Mary at any time, or in the area that night, might question how sure they were it was actually Joe Fleming they saw that night....or was it this other guy... who nobody notices or points out that looks startlingly like Joe because they dont see him testify, George Hutchinson. Who conveniently looks like the Wideawake Hat man, which another witness has already said she saw.

In this scenario, he doesnt have to be Wideawake at all...he just uses a known man seen and replaces him with Hutchinson...which covers his being in the area for more than just the loitering part, in case he was seen by someone who knows Fleming by sight.

Hutchinson is his scape goat, for any sighting that might implicate him that night, that he is unaware of. He is there to insert Hutchinson, a man who happens to look like himself, but maybe not Hutchinson as Wideawake Hat man....that sighting only confirms what Joe/Hutch says...he was there.

Too convoluted?

Cheers Ben.