George Hitchinson: a simple question

[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

[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

[claire]

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

tee hee, that'll teach me to marry a New Zealander and ask him to check something out for me, won't it?

[Ben]

But Ben, why do you mention the truck in this context?

Because Fisherman claimed that the truck details and the details pertaining to the man's appearance could have been noticed and recorded in the "flash" you advocated earlier, Caz. I said no, that's incorrect, since the truck was visible in daylight before the man emerged from it and the attack commenced. She had time to observe it as it approached.

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?

He tried to drag her into the truck. The report says as much. From this, it is stinkingly apparent that it wasn't a case of grab, scream, seeya. He attempting to push her into the truck, and if she was aware of his intention in that regard, it naturally follows that the attack took more than a few moments. It was a scuffle. Perhaps she tried to fend off her attacker before screaming as blind instinct would suggest.

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

So you're not opposed to self-preservation on the part of the killer at all? In other words, pre-emptive, self-preserving moves are all very well providing they don't involve Hutchinson. I'm afraid I consider that bogus. If you can entertain the concept of Hutchinson coming forward to deflect suspicion away from someone else (inventing Jewish scapegoats for the purpose), it should be no trouble at all to consider that he might have come forward to deflect suspicion away from himself.

Best regards,
Ben

[Observer]

Hi Ben

I'm not saying that I'm 100 per cent certain of the truthfullness of George Hutchinson, his story is suspect to say the least. But there is a difference between Hutchinson and the San Diego slayings. Hutchinson needed no prompting by the press or any other medium to come forward, the San Diego killer did it seems.

I believe the Ripper to have been a survivor, I can not see him coming forward to give evidence for any reason, least so on the strength of Sarah Lewis getting a fleeting inconsequential glimpse at him.

I could be wrong though

All the best

Observer

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

The "prompting" would have been the same, in essence, if my scenario is correct. They both would have feared that potentially incriminating evidence would lead to their being tracked down and arrested as suspects, and considered it preferable to get their oars in as witnesses first; to come up with an "I was there because..." before they they were dragged in as suspects.

In Hutchinson's case, the catalyst for coming forward may well have been Lewis' evidence, and in San Diego, false evidence was used to flush out the offender. In Armstrong's case, it was almost certainly other witnesses noticting him at the crime scene.

I too believe the killer to have been surviver, and the same was true of the other serial killers who resorted to this and similar ploys. It's a proactive strategy, and certainly wouldn't have been resorted to as an act of "giving up". But I can't argue too much against what you can and can't "see". You can't see it. Fair enough. Based on what I've learned from other cases, I can see it.

Hutchinson wasn't to know that Lewis' sighting was fleeting and inconsequential. Lawende's original inquest description might well have been thus described, but then weeks later, when his full description was published in the Police Gazzette, it didn't seem to be either of those things. Quite the reverse.

Cheers,
Ben

[claire]

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?

Oh my God.

Ever wondered why Dali's watch had melted? Ever wondered why there were some odd red swirls behind Munch's screamers? Portraits are portraits--even then, we're finding that they are becoming less and less physically similar to their subjects (ever wondered why Tracey Emin's bed looks very little like her?). What the bloody hell do you mean, 'ever wondered why paintings of London look like London?' What utter tosh. What utter, utter, utter tosh. How about realising that the sort of painting you're referring to (and to lump it in with van Gogh is pretty blasphemous, in my book) is interested only in facsimile. Van Gogh was not. He was not. He-was-not. His paintings are not historical sources in the way you want to use them. Those who disagree with you aren't idiots, Fisherman. I'm not an idiot. I don't think that I've any way of knowing what was really the case with Hutch. But I do know, really, I do, that using van Gogh's painting of a cafe at night to 'demonstrate' that the streets of the East End (even in 1888) were luminescent with gas light is inadmissible in any serious debate.

Oh, and this: Fisherman wrote:
'By the way:
"He said himself he saw them only fleetingly."

Where did he say that, Claire? I can´t find that wording in the statement he gave to the police nor in the papers.'
What wording? Was I reporting direct speech? Huh?
'Dude, I'm totally whacked out.' = He said he was tired.
Should I have specified that I'm quite particular about correct punctuation and so on?

Please try not to make up your own bizarre interpretations and assigning them elsewhere. It's really exhausting debating points you never even made.

[joelhall]

ok heres my 'pro-hutch' argument:

hutchinson was on commercial street, and his first observation of the suspect is just after he had spoken to kelly...

'i stood against the lamp of the queens head public house & watched them.'

note that he says 'the lamp of the public house' rather than the lamp outside the pub. this implies it is the pubs lamp, so could it in fact be that it was not a standing lamp, but a wall mounted one? the first photo shows the standing lamp in red, and what appears to be the wall mounted in blue. note how the latter has the light directed down (the glass is to the sides & bottom).

the second point is windows. outside the pub one would expect light to be coming from windows, particularly on this main street. note: the description comes at the end of his statement, & it is not clear where he took note, but being so close, and seeing the couple on commercial road, where there would be light spill, one can assume that he would have observed them for some minutes.

now, why would he follow? this is the part where we must guess. assuming his story holds truth, i think there are things he omitted, so as to throw some guilt off himself. what i believe he held back was his argument with kelly.

'...i met the murdered woman kelly, and she said to me hutchinson will you lend me sixpence. i said i cant i have spent all my money going to romford...'

rather than say he merely didnt have it, he felt the need to explain himself. kelly we are led to believe could have a firey temper, she had a few lovers we learn of... could it be she was the 19th century ****-tease? (if youll excuse the expression). perhaps she used her looks and youth and 'special talent' (she had apparently worked entertaining men) to get what she wanted? its curious she owed so much rent for one. perhaps she had a 'way' with men.

i can see she might have had a firey temper when she didnt get her own way...

'she said good morning i must go and get some money' - very abrupt, could the tone have been in anger. no wonder he stared after her, he was probably fond of her, though this was one-sided. i can see him calling her back, saying sorry (not something hed probably admit to later on) and feeling rejected when she approached the other man.

he even stooped down to see the mans face, who glared back ('he looked at me stern'). the man who laughed with kelly, who told her she would be alright. in fact they spoke and laughed loud enough for hutch to hear... poking fun at him maybe?

this would have made hutch quite jealous, and he probably wanted to remember this man, in case he saw him later on.

entering the court they '...stood on the corner of the court for about 3 minutes.' could this be because hutch was following & they wanted to wind him up further? the first thing this stranger does is put his arm round her shoulder.

and if were honest, this bloke would have stood out like a sore thumb.

ok, so hutch was pissed off, made sure he took note of the bloke, followed them....

so he watches the room, astracan leaves, and a very angry hutch knocks on the door. 'oh murder!', cries kelly realising who it is. no wonder he left bits out.

thats how you do it fisherman

[Ben]

You raise an important point though, Joel.

It isn't necessary for the Astrakhan character to be complete invention in order for Hutchinson to be considered suspicious.

Best regards,
Ben

[joelhall]

just so you know, and theres no more arguing over his statement, this is the link to it:

http://www.casebook.org/images/hutchinson.pdf

yes ben, if we assume theres a good basis, i see this as the only plausible explanation that he wasnt lying. it would also help him set up the man who angered him (could explain why he took a few days too - thinking over what hed done, then deciding to go for it.

this scenario is the jealous stalker (lends more support to the idea of an alias of fleming), which accounts for the evidence (he really was seen hanging about, even by cox, as he was stalking kelly, astracan exists, she shouted in anger realising it was him, etc.)

whether of course he was fleming or not, it could be suggested byhis address that fleming is the link between them.

just a thought of course. all i will say is i find it more likely than kelly being the victim of the ripper.

joel

[joelhall]

actually it dont seem that bad

i might use this...

ok folks, changed my mind again. i now think the above is what happened at dorset street.

christ, i really need to make my mind up

[caz]

Hi Ben,

Quote [by caz]:
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.

Hang on Ben. However fond you are of the image that is taking up so much space in your brain, the ‘reality’ does not paint a picture of Hutch going to the police to save his neck if he believes they may have the means of placing him at more than one crime scene. It just doesn’t. To meet the criteria you would need to place him at more than one crime scene yourself, and then produce a real serial murderer who has come forward voluntarily on a broadly similar basis. A tangible link to one crime scene would be risky but manageable; potential links to more than one and we’re talking Suicidal Sid territory.

The very best description in the world from Lewis could only have put Hutch where she claimed he was and at the time she claimed she saw him. I take it you are not suggesting he would still have come forward if there was any chance she could be holding back the information that she had also seen him enter Mary’s room and heard a cry of murder coming from within.

He tried to drag her into the truck. The report says as much. From this, it is stinkingly apparent that it wasn't a case of grab, scream, seeya. He attempting to push her into the truck, and if she was aware of his intention in that regard, it naturally follows that the attack took more than a few moments. It was a scuffle. Perhaps she tried to fend off her attacker before screaming as blind instinct would suggest.

Blimey, I never knew you could read so much into it without actually being there. Now it has become a 'scuffle', during which the 13 year-old girl only thought to scream when she had already tried and failed to fend off this 5ft 10-11 man more than twice her age. If she remembered all those other details of the incident, you'd think she would have remembered more about her own reactions in her bid for self-preservation.

No, I'm certainly not opposed to self-preservation on the part of the ripper. I believe it was essential and he must have managed it rather well in the end, since years later they were all favouring different suspects or didn't have a clue. I just don't believe the most obvious method would have been to put himself at the mercy of a frustrated police force after the most horrific murder to date and admit that he had lurked in the court for that long, especially if he had no pressing need to do so. Money talks and always has. So if the killer had some and a man in Hutch's position needed some, and the former wanted to insure himself against any unwanted attention, I suspect he would have paid his way out of trouble rather than risk wading into it himself.

Love,

Caz
X

[joelhall]

i see there being a few reasons for giving a misleading statement:

- glory seeking/causing disruption
- to look important
- to throw the heat off
- set someone up
- for fun

these seem to be the main reasons is just about all murder investigations from these to the yorkshire ripper to ian huntley.

until now ive not heard a particularly plausile explanation based on our knowledge for hutch to give a false statement. i believe my theory is the most logical & plausible.

call me vain...

[caz]

Colin Ireland - how does he compare to Hutch?

Hi All,

Colin Ireland stole the money he needed to finance his train trips from his home in Southend, Essex, to a pub in Fulham, West London, where he picked up each and every one of the five gay victims he was convicted of torturing and strangling over a three month period from March to June 1993. There was no trial because he eventually gave a detailed confession and pleaded guilty to five murders. Police believe he probably committed at least one more, in January 1993.

In the documentary, a psychologist observed that while it seems incomprehensible that anyone would keep going back to exactly the same place, even when links began to be made between two or more of the deaths, the probable explanation was that Ireland got a buzz out of picking up his victims right under the noses of the police and the gay community. There must have been any number of places where he could have picked up gay men between Southend and Fulham.

In fact, it was Ireland himself who called the police with the information they needed to link the murders, because his plan from the beginning of 1993 - more of a New Year’s resolution - was to become famous as a serial killer and he was frustrated when nobody seemed to appreciate that one was at work. He kept tabs on any publicity his crimes received and even drew a friend’s attention at one stage to a newspaper report of the latest gay murder. The earlier deaths were assumed to be sex games taken too far, and one wasn’t connected because the victim was initially believed to be straight. Another problem was that the victims all came from different areas to frequent that same pub and Ireland simply went back home with them and killed them there, waiting for morning to catch his train back to Southend.

For his final murder Ireland upped the stakes and set a fire in his victim’s home, which burned itself out (shades of MJK) but alerted the landlady, leading to the body being discovered. Ireland then appeared on cctv footage, accompanying this victim on part of the train journey back to his place. He recognised himself and knew that others would too, so he went to a solicitor and made a statement to the effect that when they reached the victim’s home there was another man already there so he left them to it.

Meanwhile the police identified Ireland from the cctv picture and confronted him when he paid another visit to his solicitor. He was silent then and remained silent for weeks afterwards, still not anticipating disaster until the police revealed that, despite his meticulous efforts to remove every last trace of himself from the murder scenes, they had found a single fingerprint of his at one scene - the only forensic evidence they had against him. When he knew the game was well and truly up he admitted it was a fair cop.

Now I’m not saying this was a bog-standard case or anything, but it does have some interesting parallels with the ripper case as well as some potential parallels. It also shows what one serial killer did when there was no way the ‘witness’ (a camera in this case) could be accused of lying, or mistaking him for someone else, or getting their dates mixed up.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

This makes me think about the reward money being offered. Was it an all or nothing deal meaning that the iformation provided had to lead to the capture and conviction of the Ripper or could you get some money by providing leads to the police?

c.d.