Two things that don't make sense!

...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

[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

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]

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

[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

[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

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

[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

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.

[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

[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

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.

[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

[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]

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