Two things that don't make sense!

[Ben]

Too convoluted?

No, not at all, Mike. Quite reasonable.

With my apologies, I may have misunderstood the premise of your earlier post. Thanks for clearing it up.

All the best,
Ben

[perrymason]

No, not at all, Mike. Quite reasonable.

With my apologies, I may have misunderstood the premise of your earlier post. Thanks for clearing it up.

All the best,
Ben

None necessary mate, Im still not sure that anyone but you will understand what Im talking about.

I know Hutchinson sort of vanishes, or has an unclear future from that point, but it still bothers me that Fleming would have two identities to keep up, at least for some time. Maybe that just meant paying for a bed in Hutch's name along with his own....it just bugs me.

Cheers Ben

[Observer]

Hi Mike

I know Hutchinson sort of vanishes, or has an unclear future from that point, but it still bothers me that Fleming would have two identities to keep up, at least for some time. Maybe that just meant paying for a bed in Hutch's name along with his own....it just bugs me.

Cheers Ben

Precisely, and what are the odds that Flemimg was not investigated by the police? Pretty slim I'd say, bearing in mind that they did have information that Mary Kelly had co habited with men other than Barnett. I don't think it would be lost on them if they did interview Fleming that he bore a striking resemblance to one George Hutchinson.

All the best

Observer

[caz]

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.

Hi Ben,

So you don’t know if this man was the ripper, Hutchinson, Fleming, two or three of ’em in one, or someone else entirely. This is all about your own best guesses, plus an overwhelming confidence in your own guesswork.

The fact is that for whatever reason the police did write Hutch off as a witness and either wrote him off as a suspect too, or found no reason to consider him even a 'person of interest', despite his claimed activities that night, and despite his failure to keep two essential elements of his alleged sighting consistent - the complexion and moustache of a man he claimed to have had a damned good look at and whose only function in the whole affair was supposedly to take any suspicion away from Hutch. No wonder you keep trying to play this down as if it's a trifle. It's a mess.

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.

Thank you. I will continue to presume Hutch innocent then, because as you rightly say, you can’t realistically achieve any more than you have already - which is to repeat what you consider to be a reasonable case for him going to the cops to resolve the little problem of him being the ripper and being seen once too often at his crime scenes.

I wouldn’t be here if I were obstinately refusing to consider the possibility that he killed several women, only to let Lewis get the better of him by forcing him out of the woodwork and arguably putting a stop to his dirty work. I am very well aware that serial killers are pretty much capable of doing or saying anything, and for reasons that may not even be clear to themselves. But that argument would cover any and every man alive and kicking in 1888, and any and every behaviour. There is nothing ‘wrong’ with not sharing your opinion that Hutch’s behaviour, and all the circumstances, add up to a better case for him being a serial killer and bogus witness, than merely a time-wasting, possibly mercenary hindrance to police enquiries, while the real killer stayed in the shadows.

So what you see as my ‘obstinate refusal’ to acknowledge the possibility of Hutch’s guilt is really my inability to find your arguments as persuasive as you do, and my failure to share your own high opinion of them.

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?

No, I’m not saying you’ve ‘lost the argument’. I’m saying that you haven’t even made one yet that challenges Hutch’s status as a man who figured in the case and was/is presumed innocent. You respond to anyone who needs something a bit more tangible and persuasive by simply repeating all your own arguments and imagining it’s enough that you find them persuasive. Anyone who doesn’t must be slow on the uptake, woefully uninformed or plain obstinate, right? Well I think you’ll find that most people are persuaded by their own arguments. The trick is to win over the not so easily persuaded using your own skills. If you want a pointless task for life, carry on repeating yourself and claiming there is something ‘wrong’ with anyone who still doesn’t come round to your way of thinking after the umpteenth repetition.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

Precisely, and what are the odds that Flemimg was not investigated by the police? Pretty slim I'd say

I really don't think that's what Mike was saying. At least I hope not. The chances of Fleming having been tracked down by the police are incredibly slim, considering that he moved into the murder district in August of 1888, and was known to resort to an alias. If he'd been using that alias since that August, which wasn't a very long time, there's no reason to suppose that anyone at the Victoria Home knew him as Fleming.

Hi Caz,

So you don’t know if this man was the ripper, Hutchinson, Fleming, two or three of ’em in one, or someone else entirely. This is all about your own best guesses, plus an overwhelming confidence in your own guesswork

No, that isn't the case at all. I used the phrase "whoever he was" when discussing the identity of the Wideawake man because it isn't 100% proven that Hutchinson was the man in question. I believe he was, but that then I could reasonably expect criticisim had I stated it as fact.

The fact is that for whatever reason the police did write Hutch off as a witness and either wrote him off as a suspect too, or found no reason to consider him even a 'person of interest'

We don't know if they ever suspected him or not. Once again, I'm being oddly chastised for acknowledging all possibilities. If they didn't suspect him of any foul play, that's hardly surprising given the absence of any precedent for serial killers coming forward under false guises, and if Hutchinson was the killer, the ploy obviously worked. On the other hand, if they did suspect him, again, it would be pretty impossible to secure proof. If they wanted to check up on alibis for previous murders, all he had to say was I was asleep in the Victoria Home guv, secure in knowledge that he couldn't be contradicted. Gary Ridgway inserted himself into the investigation as a witness, and was suspected as a consequence. They couldn't find any evidence to convict him, but he still turned out to be the killer decades later.

You talk about the complexion and moustache changing as though their lack of consistency must have screamed "murderer!". Unless I've read you wrong, I'd have to disagree and consider it too great a leap in faith "He changed the complexion and moustache....so he could be the killer" - I'd be extremely surprised if an 1888 police force ever thought along those lines.

Lies change in the re-telling. That is inevitable. Your argument seems to be that because he didn't regurgitate it with superhuman exactitude, he can't have been a very good liar, and that because the real killer must have been a good liar to do what he did (Buck's Row???), he can't have been Hutchinson. I'm afraid I see far too many uncomfortable leaps of logic there. You've exercised your right to be unpersuaded by my argument, and I'm afraid I must do the same with yours here.

He didn't repeat the lie with complete exactitude because he was human.

I am very well aware that serial killers are pretty much capable of doing or saying anything, and for reasons that may not even be clear to themselves. But that argument would cover any and every man alive and kicking in 1888, and any and every behaviour.

Right, but some behavioural traits crop up with more frequency than others, which is why various investigating authorities have predicated them on occasions and laid traps accordingly, with successful results. The act of coming forward under a false guise to manipulate the investigation unquestionably falls into this catergory, which ought to make Hutchinson more a person of interest than other men in 1888 (especially those who had no involvement whatsoever in the investigation).

I’m saying that you haven’t even made one yet that challenges Hutch’s status as a man who figured in the case and was/is presumed innocent.

Fair enough, that's your opinion and I respect it. I'm strongly inclined to disagree, and that's the function of the message board well fulfilled I'd say. I don't think it's quite fair though to accuse me of repetition. If I'm repeating the same arguments, it's because I'm responding to the same objections. Repetition breeds repetition. If you disagree, that's fair ebough, and you're welcome to remain unpersuaded, but what happens occasionally is that people repeat their original objection as though it were never addressed and then wonder why they're getting the same answer.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Hi again,

I think Ben address the comments you were making Observer, and in this case theres really no real reason to state that they did interview Fleming at all. Its not reported, nor is Fleming mentioned in anything other than passing, as a plasterer named Joe from Bethnal Green who lived with Mary a few years back, and wanted to marry her. Maybe they did, and those are among the lost or destroyed records, but I never really considered what Ben suggested until he did so...that he might have registered as Hutchinson at The Victoria from the start.

Which raises the question of if we know that Fleming was registered there under his own name as well. Do "we"? Does anyone know when George Hutchinson started staying at The Working Mens home?

If he is George, then his delay in coming forward can only realistically be representative of his being loathe to come forward without being sure that he wont be exposed as being Joe Fleming.....who as a former lover, and current occassional one, would be among the short list of prime suspects. Which raises another question....if he did register as Hutchinson straight off..and is only known as Joe Fleming to people that have seen him and knew him, why does he need to wait 3 days? What else would he need to do in order for him to be believably GH over the weekend....hes already plowed that field if he has been living as GH.

I think he wanted to wait for the witnesses to be on record, and having had their depositions taken, they would be only useful for follow up questions....so he would never have to see or be seen by those people who were closest to Mary to make his statement. And its apparent they didnt put him in a lineup to see if Marys friends recognized him as an occasional friend of Mary's, GH, so that they could validate his claim in that respect. Im not even sure if Sarah was asked to look at him.

I dont think he could have created Hutchinson that weekend, and covered all his bases very well anyway....so Bens idea that he was already Hutchinson somewhere is very interesting.

Best regards all.

[Ben]

Very interesting points there, Mike.

With regard to:

Which raises the question of if we know that Fleming was registered there under his own name as well. Do "we"?

There's no evidence that he was ever registered there (i.e. at the Victoria Home) under the name of Joseph Fleming, although he did provide his real name and address to the Whitechapel Infirmery Registers in 1889 after he had injured his leg.

Hope that helps,

Ben

[perrymason]

...There's no evidence that he was ever registered there (i.e. at the Victoria Home) under the name of Joseph Fleming, although he did provide his real name and address to the Whitechapel Infirmery Registers in 1889 after he had injured his leg.

Hope that helps,

Ben

It does Ben, and thanks. Because it leaves your suggestion on the table,....that he was ONLY Hutchinson at the Victoria Home, and was using that name there before the killings...which then makes my suggesting of the reason for his delay plausible. He wouldnt have needed 3 days for the story, but he would need to wait until anyone who knew him as Joe Fleming wasnt directly involved anymore.

I wonder what a delay in the Inquest would have done to that "plan",...because his claim of wanting to assist in the investigation gets weaker each day he doesnt come in to provide the miracle on Dorset Street, a suspect id'd down to his spats...but what if the Inquest had been delayed to say Dec 1st?

My bet on that is thats why we see him appear at almost the same time as the Inquest ends...he wanted to maximize the impression he was only delaying out of fear, or a wish to not be involved, but he wanted the investigation to have the information as soon as possible.....not so that he wouldnt have to face the witnesses that knew Mary best.....and some, likely Joe Fleming also.

All the best Ben