George Hitchinson: a simple question

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

But there are crap reasons and crap reasons and you really need to find just one example of a killer who shares your reasoning on the specific issue of self-preservation

Well, if the killers in question all had a copy of "Caz's guide to prudent serial killer behaviour", then yes, maybe it might dawn upon them that their reasons might be considered crap to the odd non serial-killer, but crap or not they did it and that's what needs to be understood. Why do you need "specifics"? What's wrong with the basic premise that serial killers come forward for various reasons including a desire for self-preservation? Naturally, the acute specifics are going to be different from case to case as one would expect. Next you'll be asking me if I can cite a single example of a serial killer who wore a wideawake hat.

I'm not suggesting any one of them was the chief motivating factor for Hutchinson coming forward. It could have been one of those I've suggested, or more than one. Let's hear from someone who actually works in the field of crimonology. I've referenced this before:

------------------------

In San Diego, a young woman’s body was found in the hills, strangled and raped, with a dog collar and leash around her neck. Her car was found along one of the highways. Apparently, she had run out of gas and her killer had picked her up – either as a Good Samaritan or forcibly – and had driven her to where she was found.

I suggested to the police that they release information to the press in a particular order. First, they should describe the crime and our crime analysis. Second, they should emphasize the full thrust of FBI involvement with the state and local authorities and that “if it takes us twenty years, we’re going to get this guy!” And third, on a busy road like that where a young woman was broken down, someone had to have seen something. I wanted the third story to say that there had been reports of someone or something suspicious around the time of her abduction and that the police were asking the public to come forward with information.

My reasoning here was that if the killer thought someone might have seen him at some point (which they probably did), then he would think he had to neutralize that with the police, to explain and legitimize his presence on the scene. He would come forward and say something to the effect of, “I drove by and saw she was stuck. I pulled over and asked if I could help, but she said she was okay, so I drove off.”

Now, police do seek help from the public all the time through the media. But too often they don’t consider it a proactive technique. I wonder how many times offenders have come forward who slipped through their fingers because they didn’t know what to look for ... In the San Diego case, the technique worked just as I had outlined it. The UNSUB injected himself into the investigation and was caught.

-------------------------------------

From Mindunter by John E. Douglas, and reproduced by Garry Wore in "Person or Persons Unknown".

A concept that an internet-contributing hobbyist might consider too mentally taxing (and that's not an insult, we both fit that description), is rendered insiginficant when we listen to experts in the field telling us what really happens, and the above compares very strongly to the scenario I've suggested involving Hutchinson.

Or there's serial killer John Eric Armstrong. No doubt anxious that he may have been seen disposing of the body of his prostitute victim, he contacted the police with a claim to have discovered the body. What was his excuse when he is treated with suspicion?

"I called you guys, remember?"

That's a recent case.

I’m sorry, but if the ripper thought for one second that he could be placed beyond reasonable doubt at more than one crime scene, his best method of self-preservation was not to be seen for dust.

According to who - you? And you are? No offense, but nobody should be expected to care about your reasoned schematic of what a serial killer would or would not do in any given circumstances. If the reality paints a different picture, it's time to take one's head out of the sand and read up on the topic.

Equally, if he guessed that Lewis couldn’t reliably put him in the court

I don't think he would have guessed that at all. He was more likely to have guessed the precise opposite. If he kept appraised of investigative progress - again like known serial killers - he'd have known that the latest tactic to date had been the suppression of witness accounts. Uppermost in his mind would have been the possibility of that tactic being used again, next time round, with Lewis' evidence. What if they try it again, and she gave a better description than the one she imparted? .

Very useful insight into the behaviour of this unemployed commuting serial killer, particularly when he learned that he had been spotted with his final victim by a wholly reliable inanimate ‘witness’ and was forced into self-preservation mode

No. Did you hear about Ivan Milat, a serial killer who provided the police with a detail-rich "eyewitness" account that was initially chalked up to "photographic memory".

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

Hi again Ben,

Regarding your theory that Hutch the Ripper may have gone to the police to pose as a witness to “spike their guns in advance”, your reasoning is that he could claim:

"It obviously wasn't me. I contacted you. I was helpful", if and when ‘his name or description cropped up in a "suspect" capacity as somebody seen near the crime scene, or who knew one of the victims (or whatever).’

But you also reason that:

‘If Lewis were to recognise or identify him, only for a link with one or more other witnesses to have been established (Lawende? Schwartz? Possibly even Ada Wilson) then he'd be in trouble’.

This is where I always have trouble with your reasoning and where you usually resort to saying it doesn’t matter because serial killers call police attention to themselves for all sorts of crap reasons. But there are crap reasons and crap reasons and you really need to find just one example of a killer who shares your reasoning on the specific issue of self-preservation.

Do you know of any killer who has ever reasoned that if and when he cropped up in a suspect capacity and found himself running the gauntlet of a number of eye witnesses from different murder nights (or at the mercy of some other evidence he couldn’t have bargained for), he might be able to duck out of trouble and cancel it all out by simply reminding the police that he had contacted them, as a helpful witness? Where would the line of this reasoning be drawn, Ben? A photo of him standing over MJK, knife dripping blood? “I keep telling you, Abberline. It obviously isn’t me. I was trying to help you, remember?” “Oh yes, George. Silly me. The confounded camera must have been playing up”.

I’m sorry, but if the ripper thought for one second that he could be placed beyond reasonable doubt at more than one crime scene, his best method of self-preservation was not to be seen for dust. Equally, if he guessed that Lewis couldn’t reliably put him in the court, never mind in the room with Mary, he’d have been courting trouble he wasn’t even in to begin with. So you are back to him courting undesirable or unnecessary attention, neither of which would accord with your self-preservation reasoning.

By the way, did you catch the Colin Ireland documentary on ITV’s Real Crime last night? Very useful insight into the behaviour of this unemployed commuting serial killer, particularly when he learned that he had been spotted with his final victim by a wholly reliable inanimate ‘witness’ and was forced into self-preservation mode. To be continued…

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The girl in question had an opportunity to observe the truck approach and stop before the attack in daylight, so the very notion that that it took a second to notice the physical particulars of the van and the physical particulars of the offender at the same time is silly nonsense.

But Ben, why do you mention the truck in this context? We were discussing how long the girl could reasonably have had to take in the physical particulars of the offender himself. It was your silly nonsense about her being in the truck with him for some unspecified length of time before managing to escape that I was exposing.

Are you now seriously suggesting that she didn’t scream the instant he grabbed her, but waited a few more seconds to establish that his intention was to get her in that truck and not to give her a friendly hug and walk her to school? Or that he didn't stop the instant she screamed, but carried on pulling her towards the vehicle for a few more seconds before the sound finally penetrated his consciousness? Perhaps you were there with your stopwatch!

This is getting quite ridiculous. I only posted the details for Fisherman for Gawd's sake. I wasn't saying the cases were identical or proved anything about Hutch's reliability as a witness. Personally I think he was paid to pop a Jew in that room after Blotchy was seen with Mary; paid for his story in the papers; and at least hoped to make a bit out of helping the cops look for the Jew too. I'm open to other suggestions but the more they are shoved down our throats the less palatable they become and the weaknesses in the reasoning take on a more distinctive flavour.

Love,

Caz
X

[joelhall]

Joel writes:

"fair enough, but your arguments dont give the credibility you think they do."

If my arguments are badly put, Joel, so much the worse, since they represent a case that MUST be made. If I fail linguistically, I am sorry, since I really ought to present my case as well as I can. I welcome any knight in shining armour who can take over and push the point that the case Ben puts forward MUST be judged "not proven" - for sanity´s sake.

The best, Joel!
Fisherman

ok ill give it a try a bit later

[Ben]

Ben, you are hilarious. You are ready to take any route of discrediting those who oppose you, no matter how ridiculous it is.

Right, because it isn't ridiclous at all to use a painting to show much much light existed in reality. Oh no...

But I could equally have chosen hundreds of other pictures, painted in a more realistic fashion, showing the exact same thing - that gas lighting can produce a lot more light than the light you state was present in Dorset Street.

It's a painting.

Not real life.

So whatever it "shows", it's not real life.

The balcony can't possibly have appeared as it did in that painting, otherwise it would fall down on top of the patrons heads. The cobblestones in that painting had a think layer of "black" on top of them, unlike real cobblestones..

It doesn't matter what the painting "shows".

It cannot reflect reality.

Ever wondered why the portraits of Churchill resemble...you know, ehrm ... Churchill?

Because he was sitting there for the duration. Are you seriously suggesting the same thing for the individuals in that painting. "Sorry madam, I know you're in mid-stride but could you remain in that spot in that pose for the next few hours? Thanks!".

That painting is utterly useless - utterly useless - for the purposes of assessing Hutchinson's credibility.

Blimey, I see what Joel means.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn writes:

"the fact that it was in the Southern Hemisphere at the time wouldn't have helped matters much in Spitalfields"

Yes, Sam, but does that clinch things? I don´t think we can afford to say that. Too many uncertain factors about, I say!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Joel writes:

"fair enough, but your arguments dont give the credibility you think they do."

If my arguments are badly put, Joel, so much the worse, since they represent a case that MUST be made. If I fail linguistically, I am sorry, since I really ought to present my case as well as I can. I welcome any knight in shining armour who can take over and push the point that the case Ben puts forward MUST be judged "not proven" - for sanity´s sake.

The best, Joel!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"But they don't "show" us that, Fisherman, because it's a painting, not a photograph."

Ben, you are hilarious. You are ready to take any route of discrediting those who oppose you, no matter how ridiculous it is.

I used van Gogh because it was an 1888 painting, painted at the very spot it represents. But I could equally have chosen hundreds of other pictures, painted in a more realistic fashion, showing the exact same thing - that gas lighting can produce a lot more light than the light you state was present in Dorset Street.

Ever wondered why the portraits of Churchill resemble...you know, ehrm ... Churchill?
Ever wondered why paintings of London look like London? Why paintings of Buckingham palace display the exact same amount of windows as the rreal thing have? Quite a coincidence!
Ever asked yourself why?

Of course you havent!

The best,
Fisherman

[joelhall]

Joel writes:

"a load of b****cks to be frank. you should re-read some of your arguments."

I don´t mind your being frank, Joel - long as you are correct. In this case you are not. All of this posting on my behalf has come about for the simple reason that Ben is trying to close a case that cannot be closed. I am the one who tries - in spite of the fact that I believe that Hutch fabricated the story - to refrain from concluding from data that we do not have.

I am NOT saying Ben has to be wrong in essence. He may well be right. The one and only thing I am saying is that he has not got the stuff he needs to back up a verdict of a false description, and therefore he must wait with that verdict. As simple - and as bitterly hard - as that.

The best, Joel!

Fisherman

fair enough, but your arguments dont give the credibility you think they do.

[Sam Flynn]

The moon was a couple days past new, so would have afforded little light...

Indeed, Claire - and the fact that it was in the Southern Hemisphere at the time wouldn't have helped matters much in Spitalfields, even if the sky were clear

[Ben]

we DO have hundreds of paintings that show us that gas lighting could be very much more efficient

But they don't "show" us that, Fisherman, because it's a painting, not a photograph.

It also doesn't "show" us that cafe balconies can defy gravity, or that cobblestones all have a thick layer of black stuff on them, or that the stars appear that large. We all know that none of this can possibly mirror reality despite what it "shows".

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"I think you're forced to admit now that using Van Gogh as a barometer for assessing the light intensity that night was a bad idea."

Don´t be daft, Ben. I did not post the link to establish the light intensity that night. I posted it to remind us all that much as we don´t have any useful photos of the exact scenery we are interested in, we DO have hundreds of paintings that show us that gas lighting could be very much more efficient than what you are saying was to be found in Dorset Street in 1888. Now, please don´t jump into the wrong barrel, believing that I suggest that the light from the van Gogh painting was equal to that in Dorset Street. That is not something I am saying.

To put it otherwise, I was trying to introduce an external element into the discussion, taking it to a more theoretical level, holding at least some hope that it was not throwing pearls for pigs.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Agreed wholeheartedly, Claire.

Just to be clear to Fish and all; I'm not saying I can "prove" that Hutchinson lied. It is, however, self-evident that the statement cannot have been correct in the sense that he noticed and memorized everything that he claimed in that situation. That's just obvious.

[Fisherman]

Joel writes:

"a load of b****cks to be frank. you should re-read some of your arguments."

I don´t mind your being frank, Joel - long as you are correct. In this case you are not. All of this posting on my behalf has come about for the simple reason that Ben is trying to close a case that cannot be closed. I am the one who tries - in spite of the fact that I believe that Hutch fabricated the story - to refrain from concluding from data that we do not have.

I am NOT saying Ben has to be wrong in essence. He may well be right. The one and only thing I am saying is that he has not got the stuff he needs to back up a verdict of a false description, and therefore he must wait with that verdict. As simple - and as bitterly hard - as that.

The best, Joel!

Fisherman

[Ben]

I hoped that people woould be receptive enough to see that all of these paintings give us a pretty good indication that this would probably not be true

They don't.

Because it's a painting, and paintings aren't real life.

A painter can add more light if he wants to, and where the light is deficient, he is obviously inclined to add more, specially when light is the artist's interest. I think you're forced to admit now that using Van Gogh as a barometer for assessing the light intensity that night was a bad idea.