Hutchinson's sunday

[Fisherman]

The organized/disorganized stuff, interesting though it may be, is something that is under much criticism as you will know, Ben. And I have to say that this is the first time that I´ve seen the Ripper measured to a seventy percent rate, with the following dead certain implications following.

I won´t sink the knife into you, since you beg me to refrain from it (and I am slightly curious of what makes you open up your answer to me with "If you want to battle..." and now ask me not to shoot the messenger. Have I been that hard on you, Ben?), but I will say that I am not all that impressed by it all.

I do know, however, that people with delusions of persecution have a long story of not wanting to come in contact with the ones they fear are following them.
Maybe it is not very academically well-phrased, but long as it holds water, I don´t care very much. We could of course enter into a discussion of paranoid schizophrenics and the fact that they have contributed one or two serial killers who have suffered from delusions of persecution combined with illusions of grandeur, but it really would end up in much conjecture and I fear such things may just take the focus away from what I have to say on the topic. I move with what we know of Fleming, and I settle for regarding the things we do not know as something of a dangerous marsh.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

The "organized versus disorganized" is as open to criticism as all criminological constructs, Fish, providing the criticism is valid, and not the usual "Oh no, that sounds a bit profiley! And profiling's bad because some hobbyist on the internet told me it was!"

I don't include you in that number, Fish, before you ask.

I do know, however, that people with delusions of persecution have a long story of not wanting to come in contact with the ones they fear are following them.

I'm not sure you do know that, Fish, or even if it has a demonstrable basis. I've never suggested that Hutchinson particularly wanted to come into contact with the police. I've suggested that he perceived an advantage in so doing, despite the immediate risk factor. I'd bet hetfy amounts that none of the other serialists who came forward particularly relished the prospect of doing so, but went ahead anyway out of a desire for self-preservation.

I move with what we know of Fleming, and I settle for regarding the things we do not know as somewhat of a dangerous marsh.

I agree, and would reiterate that none of what we do know would preclude him from resorting to devious tactics to save his bacon and confuse his pursers.

Cheers,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Well, Ben, just one clip from the net that goes to show what I am talking about:

"Delusions of persecution tend to make a person think that “everyone” is conspiring against him or her. The person may believe that his or her private conversations are being taped or that a secret government conspiracy exists to steal the thoughts of the world. Usually those with delusions of persecution live very guarded existences, and may perform strange acts to prevent what they consider persecution. If confronted, those with delusions of persecution may become suddenly violent, though this is relatively uncommon."

...meaning that the ones who suffer from delusions like this dislike the idea of being confronted with their fears. What was it Claire called my argumentation some weeks back?? Wikifuelled, was it? Well, this bit comes from a reliable source, as will probably most things do that you may consider posting as counterstrikes. Psychology is a labyrinth, and the safe guides are few and far between.

"I'd bet hefty amounts that none of the other serialists who came forward particularly relished the prospect of doing so, but went ahead anyway out of a desire for self-preservation."

Don´t, Ben! It will cost you dearly, I believe. There are examples around of people who enjoy contacting the police to much to be able to keep from it. This I would have thought you knew? Or am I misreading your point?

"I ... would reiterate that none of what we do know would preclude him from resorting to devious tactics to save his bacon and confuse his pursers"

Which is where we differ, and call a truce for the benefit of the rest of the posters, right?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Thanks for that useful extract, Fish.

I was particularly interested in the following: "Usually those with delusions of persecution live very guarded existences, and may perform strange acts to prevent what they consider persecution."

Strange acts that could very plausibly encompass the spreading of false leads to "prevent" his mean ol' tormenters from having any incentive to consider him something worthy of being "persecuted".

There are examples around of people who enjoy contacting the police to much to be able to keep from it. This I would have thought you knew? Or am I misreading your point?

Yes, and Hutchinson might have been one of them. I'm saying that not all serialists who gave bogus evidence to police did so primarily for the thrill of it, but rather for the purposes of self-preservation.

Which is where we differ, and call a truce for the benefit of the rest of the posters, right?

Truce.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I was particularly interested in the following: "Usually those with delusions of persecution live very guarded existences, and may perform strange acts to prevent what they consider persecution."
Strange acts that could very plausibly encompass the spreading of false leads to "prevent" his mean ol' tormenters from having any incentive to consider him something worthy of being "persecuted"."

I don´t think that the Hutch comparison fits in here, Ben - I think that what is being discussed is the lenghts the victims may go to in order to AVOID contact with the ones they believe are persecuting them. Spreading false leads, absolutely, but strapping on the boxing gloves and heading for the police station is too much of a stretch as far as I´m concerned.

"I'm saying that not all serialists who gave bogus evidence to police did so primarily for the thrill of it, but rather for the purposes of self-preservation."

Which was what I thought you meant from the outset. Either you or my ear channels were unclear about it. It matters little which.
Numerically, I would not venture any guess as to which species is the more common one, the taunter or the bacon-saver.

But truce it is!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Wait a minute, Fish, what are you doing?

You suggested a truce. I accepted a truce, and you're still arguing with me.

I don´t think that the Hutch comparison fits in here, Ben - I think that what is being discussed is the lenghts the victims may go to in order to AVOID contact with the ones they believe are persecuting them.

No, I don't think that's what it's saying, Fish.

I'm quoting it verbatim: "Usually those with delusions of persecution live very guarded existences, and may perform strange acts to prevent what they consider persecution."

Doing nothing isn't a "strange act". It isn't an act at all, whereas I've advocated an actual act that was intended specifically for the purposes of evading persecution - an act that actually ties in with the quote you've kindly directed my attention towards.

The Hutchinson comparison fits in very nicely indeed.

But truce it is!

You said it, Fish, and I'll cheerfully go along with it.

Truce!

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben!

You write:

"Wait a minute, Fish, what are you doing?
You suggested a truce. I accepted a truce, and you're still arguing with me."

Ehrm, yes, I suggested a truce. Which was when YOU argued on, was it not, using my quotation to make a point that was simply wrong the way I saw things.

If you wanted a truce, Ben, you could have opted for one WITHOUT arguing on, could you not? This IS getting slightly childish, you know.

Let me rephrase myself:
If you don´t prolong this by adding new arguments, I won´t do so either. I´ll even let you throw in a point or two and still refrain from going on, actually. I´m having a generous day.

The best!
Fisherman

[Observer]

Hi Ben

Sorry for delving off thread in my last post ,just like to say though that I can see the risk taker behaving ala Hutchinson but not the survivor. I believe Jack the Ripper to be. above all a survivor.

all the best

Observer

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

I accept your point, and would agree that the killer was a "survivor" in many respects. I'm just not sure how Hutchinson's actions, if motivated by the factors I've outlined, can be considered incongruous with the image of JTR as a "survivor". If anything, it was a good his survival instinct kicking in.

Best regards,
Ben

[harry]

Was not Hutchinson a long term aquaintance of Kelly.He admits to knowing her before their arrival in Whitechapel,so maybe there was an element of rejected lover in his case?
We do not know by what manner he thought he recognised the person on sunday.Was it the clothes he said had caught his attention the night of the murder,or the facial features.He seems not to have volunteered that information,and perhaps he wasn't asked.However on monday,over 24 hours later ,he claims definately the person could be identified,an amazing change of memory.
Now as to the clothing,Hutchinson appears to suggest it was out of place in that locality,and it drew his attention thats why he followed.Yet at the same time he is saying he believed the person lived in the district.Again there is no explanation given for this seemingly glaring contradiction.Well I suppose Aberline was tired,it must have been a stressful day.
Richard you ask why some of us appear to be hard on Hutchinson.Well we wouldn't be if you could answer the numerous inconsistences in his stories.

[DVV]

Just some observations about the killer's behaviour and the risks he was taking or not.
A bit surprizing is the fact that he wasn't seen with his victim in the two first cases (Tabram and Nichols), while he was witnessed in all subsequent murders, as if the more he got trained to kill, the less he cared until he had dispached the victim. Indeed, he was seen by Long, heard by Cadosh, seen by Schwartz or someone else, by Lawende, by Lewis (or Cox or Hutch, according to other opinions than mine).
After he has killed his victim, that' was another matter. He acted far more cautiously.
He inflicts the mutilations in great haste, and he always managed to avoid suspicion when making his escape (was it a lesson he took from his failed attack on Ada Wilson?). In Stride's case, he seems to have been even more prudent (if we accept Stride, of course).
So not only was he certainly acting differently in daily life and "on duty", but also on murders'nights he proved himself able to be both prudent and careless/bold within half an hour.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

It is an interesting question, David, but one that ought not go without a few added facts.
First off, let´n not forget that people who kill out in the open streets have little chance to form the surroundings where they work. Maybe people will show up at the wrong time, maybe they won´t. It´s by and large out of the killers control whichever way we look upon it.

Therefore we are not at liberty to decide how bold he was or was not until we have a clear picture of his mindset as he killed. And that may of course have varied from a "I don´t give a **** if anybody sees me, I´ll wipe this old cow out anyway" stance, to hearing voices, compelling him to murder although the very prospect scares him very much.

No matter what and no matter how, when it comes to your initial words on being surprised by the fact that some sort of boldness seems to have grown on his behalf over time, you must keep in mind that this is often a very significant trait for serial killers; hesitating from the outset, increasingly confident as they move along and the victim tally rises, and sometimes ending up in their own minds as a godlike existence, dead certain that they are far too superior to ever get caught.

The best, David!
Fisherman

[DVV]

Therefore we are not at liberty to decide how bold he was or was not until we have a clear picture of his mindset as he killed. And that may of course have varied from a "I don´t give a **** if anybody sees me, I´ll wipe this old cow out anyway" stance, to hearing voices, compelling him to murder although the very prospect scares him very much.

Hi Fish,
and thanks for the comments. I agree that it's rather difficult to picture the killer's mind. Was he "careless" or "prudent"?
I believe he was both, at different moments, so the question would actually be:
"In which way and when was he careful, and in which way and when was he not?"
If they were no killings in October, it was probably due to the various patrols and widespread scare, whether the killer got no good opportunities, or was able to refrain his homicidal urge. That suggests a prudent and patient man. The fact that the only clue he ever left behind him was the GS piece of apron indicates a prudent and careful guy as well.
But on the other hand, his "boldness" is also quite obvious (there is even a faint smell of provocation in the murders), and he was so aware of risk he was taking that he managed to "work" more than speedily. He knew people had seen him near to the crime scene with the victims, but he butchered them the same.

Amitiés, and the best too,
David

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"The fact that the only clue he ever left behind him was the GS piece of apron indicates a prudent and careful guy as well."

Only in the context of us having little to go on, I should think. A really prudent and careful man would have burnt the wretched thing or wrapped it around a stone and thrown it in the Thames, would he not?

I always thought that throwing the rag in an open and public space points to a certain recklessness, making me wonder how much more was discarded - and never picked up on.

The best, David!
Fisherman

[Mutt]

I always thought that throwing the rag in an open and public space points to a certain recklessness, making me wonder how much more was discarded - and never picked up on.

I agree. However I do not know if it is carelessness, arrogance or if in the end it does not really matter. In 1888, the only conclusions CID might draw from the corner of the apron is to say that it did in fact come from the victim. The detectives could also use it to show a direction of flight from the murder scene.