Hutchinson's sunday

[Observer]

Hi all

The man known as Jack the Ripper, a dastardly coward, a blot on humanity, but, someone who takes risks, calculated risks. Calmly mutilates Annie Chapman in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street as dawn aproaches, in all likelyhood aware of Albert Cadoche walking about in the next yard. Aware of the passing trio of Lawende, Harris and Levy, but still goes ahead and and coaxes Katherine Eddowes to her death. Kills and mutilates Mary Kelly in her own room, and must surely realise the risk he is taking as the minutes tick into hours. A risk taker, also I would suggest a survivor.

I can not understand why Jack the Ripper would come forward and confront the police on the strength of the fact that he was momentarily seen in a darkened Street at 2:30 on the morning of Mary Kellys murder.

all the best

Observer

[richardnunweek]

Observer.
I could not agree more.
Since when has the Whitechapel murderer shown paronoid behaviour?
Stabbing Tabram 39 times on a tenement landing feet from dwellers..... NO
slashing away at poor Polly right near cottages... NO.
Ripping open poor Annie underneath windows....NO.
Cutting LIzzies throat at the entrance to a populated club...No
Proceeding to slice open Eddowes even tho he had been sighted...NO
Staying for some time in Mjks room, ripping her to pieces, with no escape if cornered....NO
But we are led to believe that Gh was Jtr, and was so paronoid having been seen in Dorset street, that he decided that he would approach the police.
That folks is balderdash....
I am totally convinced that George Hutchinson was no more than a chap that offered his sighting to the police, not a pimp, stalker , mugger, liar, and certainly not our man.
Regards Richard.
[No mention of Gwt ' Im slipping..
Regards Richard

[Ben]

I'm a little confused here, Observer.

You begin your post by arguing that the killer was someone who took "calculated risks", and then end it by arguing that he would not have taken the "calculated risk" I've posited because it's somehow out of character. I'd respectfully submit that you've cornered yourself into a contradiction here. If we've seen evidence of prior risk taking, surely another potential risk-taking action would seem compatible with what had happened previously, not at odds with it? Especially if it's the sort of risk-taking action that we've seen from other serial killers; the ones who injected themselves into police investigations; the ones who were also risk-takers?

You highlight the sighting in Mitre Square, and cite it as an example of the killer somehow not caring if he was seen by potential witness, but there are several circumstances in place that changed after it became apparent that witnes descriptions were being suppressed. Before the double event, it was obvious that nobody had acquired a detailed description of the killer. Public sentiment was all still centred around the notion of a Jewish menace stalking the streets, potentially allowing the killer to let his guard down.

After the double event, not only had witnessses implicated an ostensibly Gentile local for the first time; detailed descriptions of Gentile locals were suddenly being suppressed. Enough to perturb the killer somewhat if he was a Gentile local, I think it can be reasonably surmised. Time and again, we find examples of killers changing and adapting their tactics as they follow investigative progress.

Remember that the timely eyewtiness sighting offered by Hutchinson fulfilled two purposes:

1) It legitimized the presence and activity of the loitering man, which would otherwise appear suspicious if "unexplained"

2) It deflected suspicion back in the direction of the original popular; the out-of-place sinister Jew.

Even if Hutchinson realized he'd been seen by Lewis, but regarded it as an unsettling inconvenience, rather than something to "fear" in the immediacy, there was still an incentive to direct police on a false scent. If a false account explained his own loitering antics in the process, double prizes. Two birds killed with one stone. If he derived some kind of "I outwitted the authorities" ego-boost in the process (another mentality that isn't remotely uncommon amongst serial offenders), that was a third bonus.

What I suggest here isn't remotely at odds with the image of the killer as a risk-taker, the reverse in fact.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

And then Richard chimes in with his usual embarrassing nonsense; decrying anything he disagrees with as "balderdash", despite being responsible for the infamous "Number 39" theory. Sorry mate, you're the very last person who ought to be making disparaging remarks about another person's theory.

Stabbing Tabram 39 times on a tenement landing feet from dwellers..... NO
slashing away at poor Polly right near cottages... NO.
Ripping open poor Annie underneath windows....NO.
Cutting LIzzies throat at the entrance to a populated club...No
Proceeding to slice open Eddowes even tho he had been sighted...NO

That's just glib.

If a serial killer is even remotely organized in his methods, the chances are strong that he will seek to avoid capture and sustain investigative focus in a false direction. That isn't being "paranoid", it's just being prudent and non-wreckless. The we discover that other serial killers have also come forward under false guises with a view to spreading spurious information for their own benefit, and they weren't "paranoid" either, just people who took calculated risks when they perceived an advantage in so doing.

[harry]

Perhaps a motive for stating he had told a fellow lodger of his night,s activities,was because he had been noted as having been absent from the home on that particular night,and had been asked about it.Better for him to say he had raised the matter,than have some fellow lodger come forward with a different tale.At least he could cause confusion about who had approached who.
Same thing with his association with Kelly.I'm sure that was true,and he realised the probability of that being established.I believe he hesitated to come forward,the time delay shows that,but circumstances forced him to.Keeping quiet was a bad option,if he felt he would ultimately be drawn in.
There is a huge difference Richard in the sightings at other murders.Long states he had his back to her and appeared foreign,Stride's murder,as Eddowes has contradictions in the case of witnesses.Tabram and Nicholls lacked witnesses.None appears a danger to the killer,were he Hutchinson.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
Embarrising Nonsense....
Disparaging Remarks....
I was simply making a valid point, ie, if Gh was a candidate for Jtr,in my opinion going to the police and trying to give a reason for being in the vacinity of Dorset street on the morning of the 9th, showns signs of paranoia.
question.
In all the other murders including Tabram, he killed close to houses which had residents, he also could have been seen in Hanbury street, Berner street, Mitre square, Dorset street by several people, but where was the paranoia then?
The only sign of being paranoid may be the case of the letter sent stating 'I know you have seen me , but I know who you are' which apparently stems from the Dutfields yard episode or Lawandes sighting at church passage.
This may show signs and may add fuel to your opinion.
Disparaging Renarks.
Ben Really, how can little old Nunners, belittle or Damage your reputation by his feeble opinion?
Embarassing Nonsense.
In all my years with Casebook I have endeavoured to come up with intresting topics, and my threads have encouraged much debate, I have received countless E-mails that show great respect, and if I have come across as full of nonsense to some people so be it.
But old Nunners I shall remain. complete with opinions.
Best Regards.
Richard.

[Fisherman]

I am one of those who ascribe to the Joe Fleming theory. I am however not any believer in Hutch as a Fleming imposter.
Much can be said about the possibility that the Ripper would inject himself into the investigation, and sound arguments can be put forrward in both directions.
I think RichardŽs point that we are dealing with a fearless person is something that cannot be easily overlooked. It has itŽs merits when he states that he sees it as improbable that such a man would be overcome with a sudden fear of getting caught.
And, of course, it can all be read the other way around: A fearless man would not have any trouble to erase the policeŽs rising suspicions by injecting himself into the investigation - if he had the guts (excuse the pun) to kill out in the open street, then why should he fear such a thing?

In conclusion, I think both wiews seem built on sound convictions.

So why do I not buy Hutch as the Ripper in disguise? Mainly because of two things, none of them being that a killer would do no such thing.

The first point on my agenda is that I believe that Fleming (if it was indeed him) was very fond of Kelly, perhaps bordering on an obsession - though she obviously had traded him for a safer source of money, he would not take that obvious "no thanks" for an answer. He kept visiting Mary, occasionally giving her money (which may well have been her incentive for not ditching him altogether).
If Fleming killed Kelly - and I believe he did - I think that he would have been devastated by his deed afterwards. I do not think he went to MillerŽs Court with the agenda to kill her. Something went terribly wrong, and when it was all over, my guess is that he was devastated by what he had done. In fact, I believe that it may have been this devastation and trauma that consequentially put an end to the killings. And as far as I am concerned, I do not see a man in the condition I think he was, as going to the police in a rather flamboyant style, following them over East end hunting for Astrakhan man with no worrries in the world. Just my five cents, of course.

That is my first point. My second point is that if Fleming was the Ripper,we are dealing with a man who was put away in the looney bin with a verdict of delusions of persecution. Admittely it happened later on, but my guess is that he was a sick man as he performed the killings, the delusions of persecution being in place in the autumn 1888.
And then I ask myself: Would a man, suffering from such delusions, throw himself into the arms of the police?
And I answer that question with an emphatic no - he would not.

HutchŽs appearance was timely to bolster those who see him as an imposter. But the psychological frame of it all is totally wrong if you ask me.

The best, all!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Disparaging Remarks....

Yes, Richard.

It's not very courteous to accuse me of "balderdash".

If you'd made the post without that remark, we'd have got along fine. But you made it, so you can't be too surprised if I'm a little annoyed.

That aside, I don't see Hutchinson's actions as indicative or "paranoia". He may have been concerned that he'd been seen, certainly. More so than before, since witness descriptions were being suppressed before, and he was more likely to encounter a resident of his own district again than a Jewish guy from Dalston who attended a Jewish club in the City.

But with concern came an opportunity; an opportunity to explain his presence at a crime scene, to create a false guise if ever he did find himself under suspicion, and divert police and public suspicion in a false direction.

I see that as opportunistic, rather than paranoid, if that's what he did.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Fish, this thread is about Hutchinson's activities on Sunday. If you want to start a battle on a completely different tangent, can I please ask you to take it to the appropriate thread?

It has itŽs merits when he states that he sees it as improbable that such a man would be overcome with a sudden fear of getting caught.

As I've already explained, his concern needn't have manifested itself as "fear". As I've said:

Remember that the timely eyewtiness sighting offered by Hutchinson fulfilled two purposes:

1) It legitimized the presence and activity of the loitering man, which would otherwise appear suspicious if "unexplained"

2) It deflected suspicion back in the direction of the original popular; the out-of-place sinister Jew.

Even if Hutchinson realized he'd been seen by Lewis, but regarded it as an unsettling inconvenience, rather than something to "fear" in the immediacy, there was still an incentive to direct police on a false scent. If a false account explained his own loitering antics in the process, double prizes. Two birds killed with one stone. If he derived some kind of "I outwitted the authorities" ego-boost in the process (another mentality that isn't remotely uncommon amongst serial offenders), that was a third bonus.

Anyone claiming that the killer would not have done that because he was fearless, and a fearless ripper wouldn't do that is simply being idiotic. Such brazen antics would be entirely consistent with a risk-taking personality.

Similarly, if anyone wishes to claim the opposite; that he was agitated and feared being incriminated, it's obviously nonsense to then claim that anyone with such a mindset would not have come forward through fear of being seen.

I'm afraid that's one of those "Heads I win. Tails you lose" scenarios.

Then you make several frightening leaps of logic that go something like this; Fleming was fond of her, so he can't possibly have killed her in an organized, clinical fashion, so he can't have been Hutchinson because Hutchinson would have been organized and clinical had he been the ripper. I'm afraid there are far too many assumptions here. Contrary to your suggestion, it's quite possible for someone with an obsession with someone to stalk them and dispatch them.

It's quite possible for Fleming to have intended to kill her from the outset, just as it is quite possible for Hutchinson not to have intended to kill her from the outset. Generally speaking, I'd avoid too much psychological insight along the lines that Fleming would have done it this way if he did it, and Hutchinson would have done it this way if he did it.

That is my first point. My second point is that if Fleming was the Ripper,we are dealing with a man who was put away in the looney bin with a verdict of delusions of persecution.

He was found wandering at a time when the outward and visible signs of mania were apparent. In 1888, it's perfectly reasonable to surmise that they were considerably less apparent. You then make another unaccaptable leap of logic; you assume that an individual suffering from psychosis and who obsessed over one of the victims would not have had the wherewithal to use devious tactics to evade capture, and that a person resorting to such tactics couldn't also have been "devastated".

Again, I'd suggest there are more appropriate threads for this discussion.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben.
I accept your point that that word may sound disrespectful, however it was not intended to be, I could have used many descriptions such as unlikely,far fetched,much more casebook friendly, it just was bad phrasing so i am sorry for that.
At least I do not include lanquage such as some have done recently on a certain other thread such as 'I could not give a ----, or some------s really p--s me off, now that is disrespectful with a capital D.
I do appreciate your points about Gh, and your opinions, its all down to what sort of animal we believe Jack to have been.
a] A brute, with no remorse, or fear.
b] A brute who was paronoid to the extreme [of being caught].
I would say that option A was more likely.
The reason why I am so adamant in my beliefs, all stems from that elusive broadcast 35years ago, and along with many factors since including the Wheelers item, cannot see beyond Gwt as GH, regardless of handwriting issues.
We all have our points to make , and I stand firm on mine.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

] A brute, with no remorse, or fear.
b] A brute who was paronoid to the extreme [of being caught].
I would say that option A was more likely.

Indeed, Richard, so do I.

My point was that a killer coming forward under a false guise with a false account could have been either of those things. The scenario works for A and B.

Best wishes,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"If you want to start a battle"

No. I want to give my wiew, since I feel it is relevant. It is an ongoing discussion on this specific thread, is it not?
And as I am of the opinion that people who suffer from delusions of persecution or are prone to do so are not people who approach the police, I think that wiew ought to be added to the discussion.

I have no trouble seeing the merits in your scenario, but I think you focus too much on the practical benefits to be won and to little on whether a man who is ends up with a judgement of persecution delusions is likely to to what you believe he did. You have given your wiew and bolstered it with your arguments, and now I am giving my wiew on why I think it is wrong.

"I'm afraid that's one of those "Heads I win. Tails you lose" scenarios."

IŽm afraid you may be wrong. Just as I can. But a discussion of whether he would go to the police or not is a very incomplete discussion without Flemings medical and psychological status added.

"Then you make several frightening leaps of logic that go something like this; Fleming was fond of her, so he can't possibly have killed her in an organized, clinical fashion, so he can't have been Hutchinson because Hutchinson would have been organized and clinical had he been the ripper. I'm afraid there are far too many assumptions here. Contrary to your suggestion, it's quite possible for someone with an obsession with someone to stalk them and dispatch them.
It's quite possible for Fleming to have intended to kill her from the outset, just as it is quite possible for Hutchinson not to have intended to kill her from the outset. Generally speaking, I'd avoid too much psychological insight along the lines that Fleming would have done it this way if he did it, and Hutchinson would have done it this way if he did it."

Did I, Ben, say that he could not have killed her clinically?
Did I, Ben, say that he cannot have been Hutch?
Did I, Ben, say that Hutch would have been organized if he did the killing?
Did I, Ben, say that it is impossible for people with an obsession to stalk and kill anybody?

As far as I can remember, I presented points that TO MY MIND seems to point away from Hutch being the Ripper. The rest, if youŽll excuse me, is your handiwork, not mine. So please donŽt hold me responsible for any "frightening leaps of logic" that you try to push with my signature on them, Ben.

"He was found wandering at a time when the outward and visible signs of mania were apparent. In 1888, it's perfectly reasonable to surmise that they were considerably less apparent."

We know which way he was heading, Ben, and that speaks volumes. Besides, I think we should refrain from seeing Flemings medical journal as an interesting pointer to his having been the Ripper, if we accompany that conviction by firmly stating that the traits he was showing when incarcerated should not be brought up to explain or dispell what he did in his role as a killer. To see him as a mentally fit man, bold enough to go to the police, only to some time later succumb to delusions of persecution is rather a frightening logical leap too, if I may borrow your vocabulary.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
I would say both of us will agree that in the case of Hutchinson, if he was the kellys killer he would have to at least been anxious to have involved himself with the police, and be prepeared to convince them of a situation which he hoped would exonerate him from suspision..
That would in my opinion owing to the risk of such a action be classed as paranoia.
I did highlight one other possibility of paranoia in a recent post, but apart from that, if the killer of Kelly was the same person who dispatched the others, then paranoia must have rapidly took over his mental state after Eddowes, for him to have suddenly had acute fear.
But of course if the man that killed kelly , was not the actual man that slew the others, and he had not killed before he could have well been extremely worried of being seen, and hense the difference in apparent personalities.
Now i am talking as a Hutchinson man, but the point had to be made.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

I'd say the debate over Hutchinson's identity and whether or not he was Fleming is a very different discussion to the one currently in session, but never mind. If you want to argue that someone who was diagnosed as having persecution delusions wouldn't have been the type of person to come forward with false evidence to save his own bacon, fair enough, but I don't think you can make assumptions like that.

If anything, delusions of persecution are allied to paranoia and irrational anxiety, which may well account for his decision to "legitimize" his presence after learning of Lewis' evidence. In fact, that might be a good one to wheel out whenever people try to claim that Hutchinson would have been bonkers to do that (etc etc)!

To see him as a mentally fit man, bold enough to go to the police, only to some time later succumb to delusions of persecution is rather a frightening logical leap to, if I may borrow your vocabulary.

No, Fisherman, it isn't. It's quite possible to be bold, evil, manipulate and all the other usually cited psychopathic traits AND suffer from some form of psychosis. Since we're on the subject of Hutchinson, Garry Wroe made an astutue observation along those lines: "Notwithstanding the Whitechapel Murderer’s entropic dynamics, therefore, careful study of his collective behavioural pattern reveals an organized factor of not less than seventy percent. This, of course, signifies that he almost certainly suffered some degree of psychosis".

Other experts in serial crime, such as John Douglas of the FBI, surmised that the serial could have ended because the killer was nearing the end of his "emotional rope", or because he had recently been in contact with police and feared identification. No messenger-shooting, please!

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

Paranoia may have been present, as I acknowledge above, but it needn't have been for Hutchinson to have come forward for the reasons I've suggested. I think he was merely being opportunistic. He may have perceived an advantage killing three birds with one stone - explain behaviour, deflect suspicion, fool police - and decided to go for it.

Regards,
Ben