A.P. Wolf

[Canucco dei Mergi]

Yeap, Simon, right that: not who, why or how but first of all what ?
I totally agree.

Canucco dei Mergi.

[Natalie Severn]

They were really thoughtful observations Canucco made.I remember Bob"s book as being very well researched and well written but I have a huge problem over Hutchinson being the ripper.Its not so much that he stayed around after the murder,when nothing held him to Whitechapel at the time,neither work nor a home,but rather that not only did he stick around but also inserted himself into this inquiry in such a ridiculous way.Why behave like that over this particular murder? Why not do exactly the same and seek out Inspector Abberline and pose as a witness when Polly or Annie or Kate were found dead?
Moreover,the ripper surely had somewhere he could clean himself after all this plunging of his hands into blood and gore? The Victoria Home,strictly run by the police and overseen by Supt. Charles Cutbush was surely a tad near the knuckle to be cleaning off bloodstains?No I reckon Hutchinson had already satisfied Abberline and the other police who signed his statement as to his whereabouts on the nights of the previous murders.He was probably known to the police anyway and was able to verify his alibis through one of them.

[Canucco dei Mergi]

Hi Ben, I am the one who thanks you for the patience you show at reading my horrible english written posts.
I could do better I tell you but it would cost me the double of the time and I am a bit lazy for that.

That Hutchinson testimony could be more likely than not a fabrication, Hinton has shown it in a well built argumentation supported by what I would call material technicalities that bodes well with human psychology and physicals elements.

That Abberline prompt acceptance of this testimony is somewhat suspicious (or could be considered as such), he favours the possibility with a clear reasoning.

Once he considers those two hypothesis, after having found the way to support them, he meets the following problem:

If Hutchinson has lied in such a way, why ?
If Abberline promptly accept such a lie without doubting too much, why ?

You understand now why I say he is brilliant then he commits suicide ?

After putting into existence such subtle questions which would have deserved him a premium the year he published his book, he botches them by the answer he gives.

If you stick to the serial killer theory (whatever the motive) you have no other choice that to do what he did to finish his book.

As Simon Wood tell us it doesn't hold water...and I would add... sinking deep and deeper into the mud.

The truth will stand straight up by herself without any need to defend it.
When it comes no one will have anything to say except may be wtf ?

[Cap'n Jack]

Simon is absolutely right in that it is far more vital to understand the 'why' rather than the 'who'; and it has always been my studied opinion that a true understanding of the 'why' will naturally lead to the 'who'.
Others busy themselves with the 'who'.
I say settle the 'why' first.

[Canucco dei Mergi]

A real bombshell

Why behave like that over this particular murder? Why not do exactly the same and seek out Inspector Abberline and pose as a witness when Polly or Annie or Kate were found dead?

These are the kind of question that spread around them a force equal to the one needed for the protons to stick together in the nucleus.
The answer would be nothing less than an atomic explosion in Ripperology.
The amount of energy rendered free would destroy anything known in 1888 in Whitechapel straight up to Whiteall.

Why behave like that over this particular murder ?

I only hope that it is not copyrighted.

[Ben]

Its not so much that he stayed around after the murder,when nothing held him to Whitechapel at the time,neither work nor a home

Which is precisely what other serial killers have done, especially those that commit their crimes within a concentrated locality. If that's a "problem" with his candidacy, I'm afraid it's not a very rational one.

neither work nor a home,but rather that not only did he stick around but also inserted himself into this inquiry in such a ridiculous way.

Which is precisely what other serial killers have done for a variety of reasons. The fact that various authorities have not only predicted this very behaviour on occasions, but laid successful traps accordingly serves as a testament to the well-documented nature of this tactic. If that's a "problem" with his candidacy, I'm afraid it's not a very rational one.

Why behave like that over this particular murder? Why not do exactly the same and seek out Inspector Abberline and pose as a witness when Polly or Annie or Kate were found dead?

So you're saying he could have waltzed forward and admitted to being Lawende's man, for example, despite the fact that he was seen ten minutes before the discovery of the body, effectively precluding the possibility of slipping in a "Mr. Astrakhan" somewhere between Lawende's sighting and the body discovery? Or what if he admitted he was Schwartz' man? "Yes, that was me hurling the victim the ground at around the same time she died, and yes, that was me hurling anti-semitic insults at a passer-by, but no, I didn't kill her!".

Then there's the fact that Lawende lived in Dalston, was visiting a Jewish club in the City, and was less likely to encounter Hutchinson again.

And finally, we know that witness descriptions weren't being withheld until after the double event, and anyone who has ever picked up a book on serial killers should know that they will often alter their tactics as they follow investigative progess. The circumstances changed so they adapted accordingly.

Moreover,the ripper surely had somewhere he could clean himself after all this plunging of his hands into blood and gore?

What gore?

There wouldn't have been any on his person and garments, as the preponderance of medical evidence can attest, besides which the larger lodging house catered to 400+ residents of an average night. There wasn't the slightest chance of singling out of them for random scrutiny, especially if he was one of the hoards coming and going at all hours of the night, often with dodgy meat victuals to cook and consume in the kitchen. As bolt-holes went, you couldn't have found more ideal a haven than a common lodging house, which we know was popular with the criminal fraternity in the district.

No I reckon Hutchinson had already satisfied Abberline and the other police who signed his statement as to his whereabouts on the nights of the previous murders.

That's pretty baseless. If Hutchinson wasn't out murdering people on the other nights in question, he would almost certainly have been in bed asleep at the Victoria Home, with absolutely no possibility of his whereabouts being either verified or contradicted. If he was out murdering people on the other nights in question, all he had to say was "I was in bed asleep as usual" if ever he was quizzed along those lines. The chances of any solitary common lodger having a six-week old alibi was slim to non-existent.

People start Hutchinson debates in the weirdest places!

Best regards,
Ben

[Limehouse]

I agree to a certain extent that the 'why' is more important and interesting than the 'who'. The trouble is, too many of these 'why' theories have lead to ridiculous consipracy theories involving royals, royal surgeons, royal tutors etc. When you take away the conspiracy 'why' answers, you are left with 'lust murderer' and not much else.

Unfortunately, I haven't read Bob Hinton or A P Wolf's books so perhaps someone could describe for me some other 'why' alternatives to serial sex murderer and conspiracy theory?

[Canucco dei Mergi]

Simon is absolutely right in that it is far more vital to understand the 'why' rather than the 'who'; and it has always been my studied opinion that a true understanding of the 'why' will naturally lead to the 'who'.
Others busy themselves with the 'who'.
I say settle the 'why' first.

I think, Cap'n Jack that your understanding of what Simon said is near to zero and more likely under it.
You are degraded from Cap'n to simple soldier.

[Ben]

I understand what you're getting at, Canucco, but your objection seems to have less to do with the identity of Bob's suspect, and more to do with the fact that he subscribes to a "serial killer theory".

Best regards,
Ben

[Canucco dei Mergi]

I agree to a certain extent that the 'why' is more important and interesting than the 'who'.

The 'why' is like the 'who' in this affair: nonsense if don't know the 'what'.

[Celesta]

Simon is absolutely right in that it is far more vital to understand the 'why' rather than the 'who'; and it has always been my studied opinion that a true understanding of the 'why' will naturally lead to the 'who'.
Others busy themselves with the 'who'.
I say settle the 'why' first.

Hi A.P.,

Yes, it would have to be a little of both. Know the who* and you'll learn the why; know the why and it may lead to the who. The why is vital. It seems that some form of depression ran in the Cutbush family and that could be a part of the why.

*Not referring to the rock band here, Cap'n.

[Sam Flynn]

I agree to a certain extent that the 'why' is more important and interesting than the 'who'. The trouble is, too many of these 'why' theories have lead to ridiculous consipracy theories involving royals, royal surgeons, royal tutors etc.

The worst thing about the "why" approach is that it is doomed to fail. Let's just say, for argument's sake, that we construct a plausible "why" along these lines:

"Jack was a man who, having been dominated and beaten by his 24 year-old mother, ran away at the age of 9 to live with his 50 year-old grandmother, who had always protected him. Unfortunately his grandmother informed his parents, and Jack was taken back home. From this incident, his hatred of his mother transferred onto his grandmother. This became generalised to a hatred of women of his grandmother's age, whom he set out to kill. After doing so four times, he heard that his own grandmother had died of a heart attack. Overcome with remorse, he realised that it was in fact his mother's ill-treatment of him that had caused all this evil to be visited on him in the first place. He therefore sought a victim who reminded him of his mother to exorcise his inner demons, which he succeeded in doing at Miller's Court..."

All very neat, with "whats" and "whys" aplenty. The problem is, how are we going to find any of those "whats and whys", without first finding a "who"? The Censuses deal with the "whos", and even those data are incomplete. Those who would aspire to use a "why-based" argument to track down the Ripper haven't got a hope, I'm afraid, because not only do we lack the biographical data, but there are many possible "whys" to begin with - and all of them, by definition, speculative.

[Natalie Severn]

These are the kind of question that spread around them a force equal to the one needed for the protons to stick together in the nucleus.
The answer would be nothing less than an atomic explosion in Ripperology.
The amount of energy rendered free would destroy anything known in 1888 in Whitechapel straight up to Whiteall.

Why behave like that over this particular murder ?


I only hope that it is not copyrighted.

-------------not really Canucco, if Hutchinson slaughtered Polly Nichols in Bucks Row and had a serial killers compulsion to "insert himself into the inquiry" then this, his first " success" in the series ,his pride and joy,ought by that same reasoning have prompted an urge to give a similar statement as he gave to Abberline about the man with an asrakhan coat approaching Mary Kelly,an hour or so before her murder?
You know----Yes Mr Abberline,I saw the victim being approached by a man in an astrakhan coat as she passed Osborne Street on the Whitechapel Road.They were laughing like old friends and I saw them entering Woods Buildings about 1.30 am.I knew her from when she lived in Thrawl Street.
Or maybe better still Hutch could have "witnessed" Mr Astrakhan approach Annie Chapman,as she walked away from him at Brushfield Street.He also "knew" Annie from their common drinking place,"the Britannia" on the corner of Dorset Street.As he returned late that night from Romford, he saw Annie at the corner of Brushfield Street.She asked him for sixpence so she could get herself a room at Crossinghams Lodging house, but he didnt have a cent being out of work himself etc.so she went on up Commercial Street towards Hanbury Street.That was when he saw Mr Astrakhan approach Annie as though he knew her.He offered her his handkerchief and the last he saw of them was as the laughing pair crossed Commercial Street and entered Hanbury Street.


What"s the problem if Hutchinson murdered these women? You can easily see this sexual serial killer "inserting himself" into the inquiry---for the hell of it so to speak----or out of intense curiosity to see how the case was going from the inside.Why not? Why only Mary Kelly?

[Cap'n Jack]

Why, Sam?
Because it changes the mind set we have of the killer.
Not bold but frightened.
Not sexual but special.
Not in the meat shop but in the sweet shop.
Happy with a bun.
Well read.
Not certain but certainly confused.
Not a predator, but the imagined prey.
As we watch some great stage play looking out for the central actor, this chap is swapping lightbulbs in the changing rooms.

[Ben]

Why not? Why only Mary Kelly?

I've just told you, Norma.

I can't understand this bizarre habit people have of repeating the original "objection" as though it were never addressed. Why did Hutchinson come forward after the Kelly murder, but not the others? Well, it's my contention that he discovered he'd been seen and came forward to vindicate his presence at the crime scene, so let's see how that might impact on the earlier murders.

1) Martha Tabram - If he was responsible for that murder, it is clear that no witness had described him, and if there were no witnesses, there was no need to legitimize his presence at (or interest in) the crime scene.

2) Polly Nichols - Similar story. No witnesses, no need to explain his presence.

3) Annie Chapman - Witness had described an older, foreign man, despite having only acquired a rear view.

4) Elizabeth Stride - How can he possibly have come forward as a witness if he was the man seen by Schwartz: "Yes, that was me hurling the victim the ground at around the same time she died, and yes, that was me hurling anti-semitic insults at a passer-by, but no, I didn't kill her!". It wasn't feasible.

5) Catherine Eddowes - Similar problem. If he was the man observed by Joseph Lawende at al, then he was seen ten minutes before the discovery of the body, effectively precluding the possibility of slipping in a "Mr. Astrakhan" somewhere between Lawende's sighting and the body discovery. So no possibility of pretending to be a witness there. Then there's the fact that Lawende lived in Dalston, was visiting a Jewish club in the City, and was less likely to encounter Hutchinson again. The same may be true of Israel Schwartz in St. George-in-the-East.

We know that witness descriptions weren't being withheld until after the double event, and anyone who has ever picked up a book on serial killers should know that they will often alter their tactics as they follow investigative progess. The circumstances change so they adapt accordingly. Other serialists have come forward in the wake of only one murder, not the others, so I'm not sure why any similar scenario involving Hutchinson should necessitate him coming forward for all of them or not at all.

Best regards,
Ben