Hutchinson's sunday

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I appreciate that yours was just a guess, but I don't think you can assume that anyone suffering from delusions would not introduce themselves to police"

The guesswork, Ben, was about Hutch/Fleming (the man who was not there, if you ask me) not wanting to go to the police. And that has to be just a guess, since we have no way to assess him mentally.
The rest, though, was no guess at all; there are plenty of cases pointing to schizophrenic killers suffering from delusions of some sort going to the police to justify and explain what they have done. So far, though, I have never seen any case where a person suffering from delusions of persecution telling him/her that the police are after him, have been acting along the same line.

And yes, we have been here before. Just as we will probably end up here again.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Just as we will probably end up here again.

Well, we are here again, Fish, aren't we?

Without wishing to be at all antagonistic, I find that very bemusing.

We had a debate along these precise lines only last week, and we agreed a truce for the benefit of other posters. We now seem to be repeating that argument. Why? For what possible reason?

You recently provided a very useful quote that asserted that sufferers of persecution delusions will often resort to strange acts in order to evade their perceived tormenters. I contend that Hutchinson's actions are potentially very compatible with that type of "strange act" designed to prevent or delay "persecution". We know that Fleming didn't go to the police to "explain what he had done", but we know he did purvey false information as to his identity.

In general, I'd stay away from "If X was the ripper, he'd do it like this, but if Y was the ripper he'd do it like that" arguments.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben, though I realize that you may be happier on the boards without me, with all respect I was replying to JMenges on this issue. When somebody pops up with a topic I find interesting, I sometimes answer their posts. You do exactly the same, and I don´t pop up to tell you that you should refrain from discussing things with them because you and me have had an exchange on the same matter.
Rest assured, I will not do so in the future either. But I WILL safeguard my right to discuss whatever topic I want to with whomever I want.
Just like you, I do not wish to be antagonistic, but you can´t place some sort of embargo on posters and their wiews, Ben. We would end up with very boring and improductive boards that way.

"You recently provided a very useful quote that asserted that suffers of persecutions of delusion will often resort to strange acts in order to evade their perceived tormenters. I contend that Hutchinson's actions are potentially very compatible with that type of "strange act" designed to prevent or delay "persecution"."

..and I think that is the wrong deduction altogether, I´m afraid. People who suffer from delusions of persecution avoid contact with the ones they think are stalking them, not the other way around. And although my quote said that they may go to strange lengths to avoid their believed persecutors, I really don´t believe we are at liberty to draw the conclusion that they would act strange enough to go against their own convictions and fears.

What the text refers to, is that these people may take other strange precautions, and that involves innumerable things like telling strangers in the street to urge the stalkers in spe to stay away from them, to building more or less ingenious constructions in their hallways, should the stalkers seek them out. It is all about AVOIDING the persecutors, Ben! And when/if the sick ones are brought in contact with their thought-up tormentors, they will in all probability NOT act in a cool and composed fashion.

If Fleming was being chewed upon by such delusions at the time - and there is a good chance he was - I think that points very much away from a man who, cool as a cucumber, leads the police astray, and who takes to the streets with them in search of Astrakhan man without breaking a sweat.

You think it possible, and that is fine by me and certainly a wiew that belongs to the discussion.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Ben, though I realize that you may be happier on the boards without me, with all respect I was replying to JMenges on this issue

Replying to what specific point? JMenges never so much as mentioned schizophrenia, delusions or Joseph Fleming. You introduced that unrelated tangent because you weren't satisfied - I could easily tell - with the outcome of the previous debate on the topic, so you used JM's post as an excuse to start it all up again.

People who suffer from delusions of persecution avoid contact with the ones they think are stalking them, not the other way around.

Sorry, but that's completely baseless. People who suffer from delusions of persecution will seek perform "acts" to avoid capture and "torment" by their real or imagined persuers, as the article you provided bears out. Honestly, it's no use trying to Google away a problem by producing a quote that doesn't bear out your point and then coming up with bad excuses to pretend that it does. "Strange acts" are specified, Fish. Doing nothing isn't a "strange act". It isn't an act at all, and quite frankly, I don't think you're qualified to make any ex cathedra pronouncements as to what delusion sufferers would or wouldn't do in certain circumstances.

You're assuming, of course, that Fleming - in your scenario - envisaged the police as his chief persecutors. That may not have been the case. His fear may well have resided primarily with the targets of his violence; the prostitues, while regarding the police as more of a nuisance of anything. Delusion persecutions are, after all, irrational, and there's nothing remotely irrational about a serial killer being concerned about being caught!

Of course he'd take steps to avoid that outcome, paranoid, delusional or not, and as we learn from Lous. B. Schleisinger's book "Sexual Murder", there's nothing remotely problematic about a sufferer of delusions resorting to lies when it benefits them.

And when/if the sick ones are brought in contact with their thought-up tormentors, they will in all probability NOT act in a cool and composed fashion

They're not thought-up tormentors. They were real tormentors, so we cannot possibly comment on how cool and composed he would react in those situations, just as we cannot possibly presume insight into the extent of Fleming's delusions (if that's what they were) in 1888, especially if he was "found wandering" four years later.

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Ben and thank you for your reply.

Yes, assuredly all bets are off in comparing Hutch coming forward to Gary Ridgeway coming forward in 1984.

You are right, there were sweeps in Whitechapel, and perhaps Hutch would have been questioned in the same routine fashion as anyone else. Even that would not be similar to Ridgeway being stopped in his truck in 1982 with a prostitute who was later was found dead.

And in 1983, another victim got in his truck. Her boyfriend saw that. Later, after she has vanished, he sees the truck again. He follows it. He tells the police about it and where the truck went, and the police specifically drove to Ridgeway's home, knocked on his door and talked to him. It was not a sweep.

Then Ridgeway interjected himself. A year later.

It is hard to compare the two because of the use of the vehicle, but to make your example work, Hutch would have had to somehow been seen with a victim, or somehow connected to one, police would have gotten that info, gone to his lodging and specifically approached him. Before he came forward.

Roy

[Ben]

Yes, assuredly all bets are off in comparing Hutch coming forward to Gary Ridgeway coming forward in 1984.

Uh, nope.

No, they're definitely not, Roy.

Absolutely emphatically no way.

Quite the reverse.

Why? Because irrespective of what had occured previously, Ridgway contacted the police of his own volition in 1984 under the guise as a helpful informer. He came forward, as Douglas described and even anticipated, because he was worried that a connection to the victim may have led to him being suspected. Hutchinson also came forward under the guise of a helpful informer, also with a claim to have known one of the victims.

That comparison is the germane one, rendering past activity and contact with the police irrelevent. He didn't come forward because of events that took place in 1983 - that wouldn't make any sense, and had ostensibly nothing to do with it. Without knowing Hutchinson's police exposure record prior to 12th November, it's impossible to know if he had any, but whether he did or not, the salient comparison would not be invalidated.

Best regards,
Ben

[Roy Corduroy]

Ben,

I could not disagree more. Don't get me wrong, I am not knocking the whole theory. I am saying if you want to compare Hutch coming forward to to known serial killers who have come forward, Ridgeway is, without a doubt, your worst choice. Because of the prior, known, police-initiated contact specifically directed at him. Once that happens, all bets are off.

Roy

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

" you used JM's post as an excuse to start it all up again"

That, Ben, is rude, malicious and completely uncalled for. You do not get to decide what I want to discuss and with whom!
Jmenges brought up the question of how and in what fashion a killer would go to the police, and I pointed out where I thought he went wrong, and added that my wiew of it was that the killer actually never DID go to the police. That emphatically belongs to the discussion! And now you are saying I did that because I was discontended by our last exchange??

That is bewildering, Ben! Have I stepped in an told you not to push YOUR wiew on Fleming? Have I? No, I have not. And why? Because I would consider such a thing downright stupid to do!
The only thing I will say in your defense it that you are firmly on topic here, as we are discussing delusions. Now BACK OFF!!

Now that we´we sorted that issue out - never to be brought up again, I should hope - I will do what the boards are meant for: Give my wiew on the issue at hand. I suggest you do the same.

"Doing nothing isn't a "strange act". It isn't an act at all."

We A/ don´t know that Fleming was Hutch, and B/even if we did, we have no idea whatsoever about what strange precautions he may have taken to avoid his persecutors. There is - of course - no need to believe that he did nothing along them lines. It is just your suggestion/guesswork, is it not?

"You're assuming, of course, that Fleming - in your scenario - envisaged the police as his chief persecutors. That may not have been the case"

Since I am building my whole argument on that premise, I refrain from the nifty suggestion that it may be wrong. Anybody understands that, I should think, and the suggestion does not exactly contribute to the discussion.

"Of course he'd take steps to avoid that outcome, paranoid, delusional or not"

There is no "of course" about it. Why do you think Heirens used that lipstick, Ben? Some killers meekly accept getting caught, some try to stay away. And of course resorting to lies may be withing the spectre of what a delusional killer may employ - but that does not mean that a killer suffering from delusions of persecution would freely and readily seek out their thought tormentors to do so. These people suffer from something that can in a fashioin be compared to phobic diseases - they harbour a dislogical fear for something/someone, and that manifests itself in their keeping away from that something/someone.

"They were real tormentors, so we cannot possibly comment on how cool and composed he would react in those situations, just as we cannot possibly presume insight into the extent of Fleming's delusions (if that's what they were) in 1888, especially if he was "found wandering" four years later."

He became insane, Ben. And I think that the killings, if he committed them, is a pretty clear indicator that he was not all that well back in -88. If you give it some thought, I´m sure you will agree.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Roy,

I understand your point, but why would prior police contact make a difference? Obviously there will be slight differences between any two serials. It would be very unusual if they mirrored eachother precisely. The best we can do is pinpoint strong similarities where they exist. Ridgway came forward as a helpful informer with a claim to have known one of the victims, so did Hutchinson. Ridgway turned out to be the killer.

If anything, Ridgway is rare amongst "interjecting" serial killers because of his prior record.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I apologise if I've offended you. It wasn't my intention. I appreciate others taking the time to discuss these issues with me. I just don't understand why identical debates are repeated at such an alarming rate. That's all.

but that does not mean that a killer suffering from delusions of persecution would freely and readily seek out their thought tormentors to do so.

It doesn't mean they wouldn't, either. In fact, the safest conclusion we can possibly arrive at is that the behaviour of such people will often be very unpredictable. If Kosminski was the ripper, he was clearly more bothered about his "imagined" tormentors - the people trying to poison his food - that he was about those who posed an immediate REAL threat. If the killer feared the police, it wouldn't have been an illogical paranoid delusional fantasy, but a prudent recognition of a very real threat.

He became insane, Ben. And I think that the killings, if he committed them, is a pretty clear indicator that he was not all that well back in -88

Certainly, although I strongly believe that there weren't the outward and visible signs of "mania" that existed in 1892.

Reciprocal best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

" the safest conclusion we can possibly arrive at is that the behaviour of such people will often be very unpredictable"

If, Ben, you take my comparison with phobic people, I would say that much as such a persons reaction to the object he/she is phobic towards when subjected to it´s presence may be hard to predict, we can very safely predict that it will take him/her AWAY from the object. They may scream, they may cry, they may go numb and stiff - but they will NOT approach the object that scares them.

"If the killer feared the police, it wouldn't have been an illogical paranoid delusional fantasy, but a prudent recognition of a very real threat."

In the real world, yes. But we had better not look for too much of a rational behaviour and thinking on behalf of our killer. It is not a safe thing to assume that he was only afraid to be jailed - for all we know, a delusional and sick person may have feared that the police would have cut HIS intestines out when they caught up with him.

"Certainly, although I strongly believe that there weren't the outward and visible signs of "mania" that existed in 1892."

A reasonable guess - but I think it is very hard to assess what moved within him, even if he outwardly was able to sustain the image of a functioning member of society. He may have appeared that way, he may have been regarded a loonie by his neighbours, we can´t tell. We know that his downward societal spiral commenced early, and if he was the killer, we know that something was very, very wrong with him.

Apology accepted, by the way.

The best!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

They may scream, they may cry, they may go numb and stiff - but they will NOT approach the object that scares them.

I'd respectfully beg to differ here. I believe the evasion of real or imagined pursuers or tormentors has less to do with physically distancing onesself from the source of the "problem", but rather creating a situation wherein the prey is rendered less vulnerable to attack or capture. Some approaches may be reactive, others are proactive, and this will no doubt vary from person to person regardless of whether or not they suffer from any delusions.

It is not a safe thing to assume that he was only afraid to be jailed - for all we know, a delusional and sick person may have feared that the police would have cut HIS intestines out when they caught up with him.

Well, potentially, yes, but without knowing the extent of Fleming's condition in 1888, or even the chief source of his anxiety, it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions in that regard.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

From the A.P. Wolf thread:

Ben ----to "CONTACT the police" is a WORLD AWAY from ENTERING YOUR LOCAL POLICE STATION and give a WRITTEN STATEMENT about your "suspect sighting"--------especially after you have killed five women in less than three months,taken care not to be caught and the world and his wife are after your blood! And dont be so damn rude !

I can't think of anything more rude that continually ignoring the responses I've been giving you in favour of repeating your original point as though it were never addressed, Norma.

If you "enter your local police station" with the intention of giving false information, as other killers have done, you are also "contacting" them. By your logic, a Bordeaux is "worlds away" from a Claret. Sorry if you feel that my exasperation at having to reinforce this point makes me a "rude bastard", but there ya go.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I believe the evasion of real or imagined pursuers or tormentors has less to do with physically distancing onesself from the source of the "problem", but rather creating a situation wherein the prey is rendered less vulnerable to attack or capture."

Ben, the extent to which somebody suffering from delusions of persecution tries to physically evade his persecutor/s will vary with the progression of the disease, I think. There will be severe cases where the diseased will go to any lenghts to avoid his persecutor/s, meaning that the sick person will try to claw his way through concrete walls in an effort to get away, not caring if he turns his own hands into bloody lumps of flesh in the process. And on the other end of the scale, there will be those who are mildly affected, and who may perhaps only feel a distinct unease while in the company of those they believe persecute them. I think it is only fair to say that there will be cases where the sick individual actually attacks his tormentor/s, just to get rid of them.

Generally speaking, though, believing that people suffering from this kind of disease would actually prefer interacting with their fears instead of avoiding them, is simply wrong. They detest the imagined sources of their troubles, and what you detest, you normally avoid.

Regardless of that, to try and put Fleming somewhere on the "fear scale" is useless, given the small material we have on him. You put your answer to my suggestion that he may have been irrationally deathly frightened by the police in much the same way: "... without knowing the extent of Fleming's condition in 1888, or even the chief source of his anxiety, it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions in that regard".

We may both be right - and we may, sadly, both be wrong too. Using my way of looking on it, I find that I am able to come up with a functioning timeline, explaining why and how Fleming became the Ripper (due for Ripperologist in the next issue). That, of course, is why I stick to it. It works, it makes the whole thing understandable, it explains why he killed not only four worn-down, aging women, but also his own former fiancée, who was still dear to him und so weiter.
Much the same would apply to your thinking, if I´m not mistaken.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

Generally speaking, though, believing that people suffering from this kind of disease would actually prefer interacting with their fears instead of avoiding them, is simply wrong.

It depends what the object of that fear was. Since we're speaking of people with irrational delusions, it may be significant that a fear of law enforcement would not qualify on that score. There wouldn't be anything irrational or delusional about a serial killer fearing the possibility of capture at the hands of the police.

Otherwise, I'm largely in agreement with your post, and look forward to your contribution to "Ripperologist". I have one in the pipeline myself, but anxiously await the filling in of a few crucial "blanks" before I go ahead. As you know, I believe you back the strongest horse around as far as identified suspects go.

Best regards,
Ben