George Hitchinson: a simple question

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

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.

Well, it certainly doesn't rule out that picture or render it implausible or unlikely. I'm not insisting that it happened the way I've described, but the overconfident dismissal of such a possibility is simply not warrented given known behaviour of other serial killers. I didn't say I could link Hutchinson directly to any other crime scenes. Which suspects meet that criteria?

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

Yes, but if that led to other witnesses from previous murders being reintroduced to look him over and a link being established as a consequence, he'd be in serious trouble. He wasn't to know at that stage that only one witness was being used, apparently, in identity efforts, but the fear would have existed all the same if he was involved in the murders.

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.

Whatever it was, it wasn't the "flash" you were suggesting earlier, and this is borne out by his attempt to drag her into a van. If it was a "flash", shw wouldn't have acquired the "detailed" description she did.

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

She probably did.

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.

How do you know he had no "pressing need". For all you know, he may have been agitated by the recent tactic of witness suppressions, and felt compelled to explain his presence as a witness before he got dragged in as a suspect. I've told you before that Hutchinson may well have feared something that we, with hinsight, know to be without foundation; hindsight that wasn't available to Hutchinson in the wake of the murder.

And again, it needn't have been all about self-presevation. It could have been bravado (the same bravado that prompts some of them to wrote letters), the spreading a false leads, a desire to keep abrest of police progress.

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

But what's wrong with Hutchinson taking steps to "insure himself against any unwanted attention"? There's no appreciable difference between your scenario and mine. I just cut out the middle man and have Hutchinson looking out for himself, not an imaginary second party.

Best regards,
Ben

[Leighton Young]

i think it all depended on the type of evidence you gave to the plice.. a little bit that lead to another thing and then another then to the killer would be rewarded but other pieces may not. it was al dependent i think.. in fact it sort of works like that now to.. its discressional (how shocking is my spelling please ha ha ha).
I was always intreagued by the whole concept of offering a queens pardon to any accomplice and what evidence did they have that warrented this.. mathews didn't seem to go into this.. you have to have substatntial evidence saying that their was more than one to be able to get a pardon.. i dont think the home secretery has a pile of blonk ones on his desk that he can run and photocopy when he needs one just in case.

[Leighton Young]

do we have any more evidence about Mr Hutch other than the rubbish in the ripper and the royals?

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

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.

Fascinating stuff.

Here we have a case in point. Colin Ireland feared that inciminating evidence would connect him with the crime or crime scene so he injected himself into the invetigation with a story designed to vindicate and legitimize that connection.

Just what I'm talking about.

Thanks, Caz.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

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?

Apparently one sixty-fourth of the reward money was set aside for information leading to the whereabouts of the Ripper's socks. The remaining sixty-three sixty-fourths would be yielded up on the proviso that the Ripper was still in them

[joelhall]

reward money? i didnt know there was any?

[joelhall]

anyone want to comment on my post on page 11 by the way, cos im having trouble finding logical flaws in it?

cheers

joel

[Sam Flynn]

anyone want to comment on my post on page 11 by the way, cos im having trouble finding logical flaws in it?

I am - according to my browser, you haven't got any posts on page 11, Joel.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

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

Yes, it is, Ben. Iīm glad you finally found that out. If you can now manage the short step to realizing that paintings actually do depict reality - sometimes very closely so - you will be home and dry on the issue I am after - that gas lighting could provide more light than something that would just suffice to light up a bypasser for a second. Youīre getting there, Ben, Iīm sure!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me for that it's worth, Joel.

If you can now manage the short step to realizing....that gas lighting could provide more light than something that would just suffice to light up a bypasser for a second.

I just can't make that leap, Fish. Not on the basis of a painting. Sorry.

[c.d.]

Thanks for that, Sam. I don't suppose that you would care to do the math and put the one sixty-fourth amount into some type of perspective as to its relative buying power?

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Claire writes:

"Oh my God"

Thanks, Claire, but you are overestimating me!

Really, Claire, I am getting tired of explaining this over and over again, but OK:

I am not suggesting that van Goghs lighting in that picture would have applied for Dorset Street. Got it? Iīll take it again, just so we are totally clear on it: I am not suggesting that van Goghs lighting in that picture would have applied for Dorset Street.

I AM however saying that since we have no photos of how much light the gas lamps on the streets provided, it makes sense to take a look at the paintings from the time, depicting scenes with gas lighting at night involved. One more time: Since we have no photos of how much light the gas lamps on the streets provided, it makes sense to take a look at the paintings from the time, depicting scenes with gas lighting at night involved.

Are we clear on it all now? I donīt want to do this again, Claire, so please...?

"Oh, and this: Fisherman wrote:
'By the way:
"He said himself he saw them only fleetingly."
Where did he say that, Claire? I canīt 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."

Thanks for clarifying that, Claire. And yes, you did say that Hutch had said that he had only seen the couple fleetingly. And yes, if that had been the case, it would have changed the picture of what happened in a very dramatic way. The "fleeting" observation is something I have been forcefed by Ben, and I think it may be a totally incorrect description. What seems very clear to me is that Hutch took great interest in the man and that he went to some lenghts to get a good look at him.

The best, Claire. And mind your head!

Fisherman

[claire]

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

Quite. Very good...(not convinced of your last scene, but hey!) and I second Ben's point about Hutch's story not having to be a complete fabrication (I think I said, or meant to say, at some point before I started debating something totally pointless, that I do think GH cultivated Astrakhan out of someone he'd seen earlier. And this scenario of yours, joel, would certainly give him a darned good reason for using this guy's description.)

[Ben]

Since we have no photos of how much light the gas lamps on the streets provided, it makes sense to take a look at the paintings from the time, depicting scenes with gas lighting at night involved

It makes no sense.

Let's say we have no photographs of the balconies in cafes in 1888.

Would we say "Aha! They defy gravity, are almost wafer-thin, and hang down at a jaunty angle becaue that's what the painting says". No, we'd say "It's a painting. He's changed things with his paintbrush to make the painting more interesting."

The "fleeting" observation is something I have been forcefed by Ben, and I think it may be a totally incorrect description.

How can it be? Walking under a gas lamp takes a fleeting moment, unless he was walking at glacier speed (with a nod to Claire's earlier coinage there!)

What seems very clear to me is that Hutch took great interest in the man and that he went to some lenghts to get a good look at him.

At his face under the gas lamp. If he was concentrating on his face, he couldn't also have concentrated on lots and lots and lots of other fiddly cack at the same time. It just doesn't work like that.

But you think he lied.

[Fisherman]

Joel writes:
"ok heres my 'pro-hutch' argument"

...and then he takes us for a fascinating ride!

I wonīt judge the scenario you put forward, Joel, any more than that - a good read at the very least.

In the picture you offer, the lamps are quite close to each other are they not? Under such an array of lamps, most things would have been visible I guess. Are they all pub lamps?

The best,
Fisherman