Hutchinson's sunday

[DVV]

Perfectly true Sam, and I've taken extensive notes of this thread.
Your suggestion was brilliant, and added to the fact that nobody like our Hutch could be found in the census, I find it the most fascinating so far.
That's what makes me a bit reticent about Lewis statement being the reason, or the only reason, why Hutch did go to the cops.

Amitiés,
David

[harry]

Having had three days to consider his situation,I believe Lewis's testimony was the deciding factor.Surely there would have been rumours by the score,not all of them directed at 'foreigners',and some no doubt naming known aquaintances,of which he claimed to be one.
His statement,as I see it,is one of denial,a means of forestalling questions that he perhaps imagined he would sometime have to answer.
So he portrays Kelly as just a friend,and himself as a benefactor,a platonic relationship as opposed to a sexual one.He invents an imaginary character so his presence at the court gives an appearance of protective consideration,and not a person contemplating harm.Kelly on the street at 2am,both to introduce a suspect and cover the fact she never left her room after returning at midnight.A stranger who must be led to her room instead of an aquantance who knew a means of entry.A sunday sighting to add emphasis to the murder night sighting.Murder history is full of guilty persons who attempt to throw suspicion elsewhere,why not Hutchinson?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
For years now Hutchinson has been discussed on Casebook, and for years we have taked about who?
Can anyone name exactly who this much debated character was, has anyone actually given him a identity?
The fact is only one person has been fingered as the man in question, and that man was identified as George William Topping Hutchinson D.O.B 1/11/1866, by no other then his proven son the late Reg Hutchinson.
So the fact remains, that identification is the only one that has come forward since the murders, so how realistic is it to dismiss father/son as fraudsters especially with all the points in favour, the rare Wheeling report for starters.
I know Ben will address this post as the same old ' Nunners Nonsense', but I put it, that those amongst you who doubt that identification, are doing so to paint a suspicious character, which I would suggest the real GH [G.W.T] would not be.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

This was discussed at length here: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...ghlight=thomas

I'm afraid it simply isn't the case that "only one person has been fingered as the man in question". Plenty of others have been fingered besdies Toppy; all of them better candidates for the man who signed the 12th November statement.

Even if you disregard the Fleming-Hutch premise, there are at least three "George Hutchinsons" who can be placed in the East End at more or less the relevent time; one a butcher living in Shadwell, another a glass-cutter living in the same area (as I recall) and another by the name of George Thomas Hutchison who lived in Mile End, was arrested for theft in 1887, and whose signature was believed by a document examiner to match the "witness" signature from 1888. Then there's Bob Hinton's early candidate, born in Shadwell. His signature didn't match either, but he's still a better bet than Toppy, who can't be pinned to the East End until he met his future wife in 1895.

You've decided from the outset that Toppy must be the individual in question, despite overwhelming indications to the contrary, and then used that assumption as a basis for your entire assessment of his credibility. I'm afraid "Hutchinson told the truth because Hutchinson was Toppy, and Toppy wouldn't lie!" amounts to very flawed reasoning.

I don't believe I've ever addressed you as "Nunners". Are you confusing me with someone else?

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
My point is although I accept other Hutchinsons have been put forward as possibles, they have been highlighted via Casebook members, where as G.W.T has been thrown in to the mix by his own flesh and blood..
What I am attempting to get across is if Reg addressed the truth, and gave a honest character reference about his father, then GWT, does seem the kind of witness that would have given a honest recollection to the police, and not the type that the vast majority of members has visions of , ie Stalker, pimp, mugger, liar, and even Killer....
The very fact is Ben, Reg way back in the early-mid seventies was recalling his father informed him of a sum of money paid to him by the police ,for efforts made on his part in assisting them, that sum was Five pounds.
The only account that ever went to press came from the Wheeling directory, [A rare item] that refers to a amount of money paid to the witness that was equvilent to that actual sum..
Pray tell me how Gwt, or Reg knew of this payment, if the only mention of it came from a rather obscure press report dated way back .
It all points to the George Hutchinsonin question being the very man I have always suggested.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

where as G.W.T has been thrown in to the mix by his own flesh and blood..

Yep, by a guy who thinks his father saw Lord Randolph Churchill.

...As related in The Ripper and the Royals.

...Which was later disavowed as nonsense by its own author!

The only account that ever went to press came from the Wheeling directory, [A rare item] that refers to a amount of money paid to the witness that was equvilent to that actual sum..

Yes, but it's almost certainly nonsense. Of course the police wouldn't have paid witnesses for assistance. If they did that, they'd be bombarded with hoards of "witnesses" all coming forward en masse with dubious accounts and all hoping to be paid off in the same manner. If the police wanted their witness to accompany them round the district, the witness would be compelled to jump to it. It wasn't as though they had a choice in the matter.

You refer to the Wheeling Register, which also stated in no uncertain terms that the witness account had "invented" Why don't you take this claim as gospel, as you do with the "five times the normal salary assertion"? The lesson here, surely, is that two zero-provenance sources do not equal good provenance.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
All good points raised by ypu, I can see your line of reasoning, however you make the point that if witnesses were paid by police, especially a sum that has been mentioned, they would be swamped by half the whitechapel population each with a exciting sighting etc...
Are you saying that payment to important informers did not then take place back in 1888?, they certainly do today, Why cant Gh be classed as just that, we know that Abberline believed him.
We should remember that after the Kelly murder, the police were under great pressure to catch this killer, more so then ever, and if they considered a sighting such as Hutchinson recalled, was vital in catching the culprit then police funds i feel would have been released.
With reference to the article mentioning the money paid , it is irrelevant that Wheelings considered the sighting was 'invented', my point was, as it was the only press release i have ever seen that mentions 'money', how come Gwt, or Reg, mentioned a sum of money, was it just pure luck that it was confirmed by a obscure article?
I still consider Gwt was the real deal.
As for 'The Ripper and the Royals' I agree the book has not been accepted, but all Reg was saying [ really to endorse Faircloughs book] was his father said the man he saw resembled 'Churchill' which if the sighting is a accurate one,most proberly did.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

Are you saying that payment to important informers did not then take place back in 1888?, they certainly do today, Why cant Gh be classed as just that

No, I'm saying it's situation specific. It's almost impossible to accept that any police force would enforce a policy that enables all witnesses to get paid off, regardless of whether or not their evidence yielded any positive results. That would have been a shimmering advertisement for publicity-seekers if ever there was one, and would result in all manner of dodgy "witnesses" coming forward all expecting to be paid off. Totally impractical.

If Hutchinson was in their hands, he'd be obliged to accompany them round the district. It wasn't as though the police operated on a "Oh go on, please!" basis. If Hutchinson refused, he'd be obstucting police inquiries, with all the attendant negative consequencies that would have had for him.

With reference to the article mentioning the money paid , it is irrelevant that Wheelings considered the sighting was 'invented'.

No, it isn't. How can you say that?

If you're prepared to take as gospel the newspaper assertion that the witness was paid as gospel, why aren't you prepared to take the newspaper assertion that the account had been invented as gospel? If you believe the obscure newspaper was wrong about the "invented" detail, surely it's only reasonable to surmise that the payment detail was equally wrong?

Doesn't it bother you just slightly that this claim only appeared in one American-based newspaper, and nowhere else? Doesn't it bother you that many of the claims in that newspaper were flatly contradicted by other sources? I guess it shouldn't, considering that the article was headed "Gossip".

As for 'The Ripper and the Royals' I agree the book has not been accepted, but all Reg was saying [ really to endorse Faircloughs book] was his father said the man he saw resembled 'Churchill' which if the sighting is a accurate one,most proberly did.

No, here is what Reg said:

"Now I can see that (Hutchinson) knew all along that the man he saw actually was Churchill, but he didn't want to come out straight with it."

He then speculates that the pay-off was to keep quiet about spotting Churchill the Ripper.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

G'day all,
Actually, only Reg's plot construction seems to argue in favour of his father's identification with the Hutch. Like father like son.

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Ben, over on the AP Wolf thread I asked you a question about Gary Ridgeway and you were kind enough to answer, in post #91 that he came forward in May 1984 and gave information about a victim, Kim Nelson.

However:

"...the police had at one time stopped and questioned the man (Ridgeway) back in 1982 while he was in his truck with a prostitute. The investigator learned that the prostitute he was with was one of the women on the Green River murder list, Keli McGinness.

Moreover, the police approached the man (Ridgeway) again in 1983 in connection with the kidnapping of murder victim Marie Malvar. A witness, Malvar's boyfriend followed the truck to the suspect's house after recognizing it as the one that he last saw his girlfriend in." From Tru Crime Library.

Police initiated contact with Ridgeway. Once that happens, all bets are off comparing him to Hutch.

Roy

[Ben]

Hi Roy,

Just a reminder for the benefit of the "new" thread.

He contacted the Green River Task Force in May 1984, Roy, with information about one of the prostitues, Kim Nelson, who he claimed to have known. As John Douglas details:

"As mentioned above, we indicated the UNSUB would inject himself into the investigation. Ridgway did so by providing information about one of the victims, whom he knew. That victim was killed differently than the others. A bag was placed over her head, an empty wine bottle and a pair of dead fish placed on her body. My analysis to police was that the killer knew this victim due to how the killer posed her after death. Ridgway came forward to “volunteer” information on this one because I'm sure he was afraid police would come across his name during the investigation.

It was his own proactive technique."

Police did not initiate contact on that occasion. Ridgway did. A great many serial killers crop up in their own investigations from time to time. House-to-house inquiries commenced in the Whitechapel district well in advance of 12th November, and lodging houses in particular were targetted. You can be rest assured that thousands of lodgers would have been questioned as to their whereabouts on the night in question, and I'd be amazed if Hutchinson slipped through the net during that phase.

So the "bets" are most assuredly, irrefutably not "off".

Best regards,
Ben

[jmenges]

A quickie that's probably been asked and answered a hundred times:

Ben wrote

Internet hobbyists may express irrational incongruity as such behaviour, but it's clear that the experts on the topic don't find it surprising at all.

And elsewhere, and above, site Douglas as saying he expected the Green River Killer to come forward.

What do you make of the FBI Ripper profile that states:

It is quite rare when a serial murderer of this type communicates with police, media, family, etc. When they do communicate, they generally provide specifics relative to the crime that only are known by the subject. (NCVAC report p.5)

Granted, this is in the context of dismissing the letters, but interesting none the less. Ben, if you have the info handy, did Ridgway or any of the others you mentioned impart information to the police known only to the killer, or unknown details about a murder that later were proven correct? No doubt a handful of serial killers do inject themselves into the investigation, but is there a pattern to what type of information they present? And does Hutch follow or detract from this pattern?

and

We would not expect him to inject himself into the police investigation or provide bogus information (ditto, p.7)

I wonder how the testimonies from innocent publicity seekers differs from that of the murderer who approaches the police to volunteer information.

Thanks.

JM

[Fisherman]

I´d like to step in here, JM, and push the point that the type of killer who shares knowledge only accessible to himself and the investigators of the case, are not the kind of killers who do it at a police station - that would get them caught.
A man like the Zodiac would correspond well with the type you are writing of - he sent a piece of a victim´s shirt to the police. But his aim was to taunt the police and to relish the moment of feeling superior to them. That would have been a lost cause if he had brought the piece of cloth into the station himself.

Hutch would have been a mere bacon-saver, if Ben´s guess is right; he felt that he diminished the risk of getting caught by going to the police and decreasing his own role by throwing forward a suitable subject in the shape of Astrakhan man. It is another thing altogether that he may have found himself enjoying the thrill of it all.

My own stance is that if Fleming did kill Mary, I think it would be a strange thing to do for a man who was prone to delusions of persecution to go to the police. My guess is that he would have stayed as far away as possible from the cops. When people suffering from such delusions (in murder cases often tightly knit to schizophrenia) go to the police, it is more credible that they do so to justify their killings by telling the police that their victims were stalking themselves.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi JM,

If I understand correctly, the FBI Ripper profile was compiled with five specific indivivuals in mind; Kosminski, Druitt, PAV, Gull and Stephenson, and consequently resulted in subliminal references to those five throughout the profile. For example, Douglas' claim that the offender wouldn't have committed suicide is a clear reference to Druitt, while the "would not have provided bogus information" naturally relates to Donston Stephenson - ajudged a poor suspect by the compilers of the profile.

As you correctly observe, Douglas' comments were specifically in reference to the writing of letters. It is the letters that usually contain references to crime details known only by the killer. Although these are a form of "injecting oneself into the investigation", the crucial difference is the absence of a false guise - they're generally advertising the fact that they killed people, rather than concealing it. Ridgway did both - he wrote a letter which contained details only known by the killer, and came forward as an informer.

Both involved contact with police, but the nature of the "guise" was very different in both cases.

Integral to the FBI profile was the assumption that the killer was a "disorganized" offender which is open to serious dispute. Popular perception dictates that disorganized offender are unlikely to communicate with the police in any capacity, and I accept that this is probably the case. If the ripper was truly disorganized, Hutchinson's candidacy is weakened, but I don't believe he was.

All the best!

Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I agree with most of your post, with the exception of your last paragraph. 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. On the contrary, Hutchinson's actions are potentially very compatible with a somewhat paranoid personality.

But we're been here before!

Best wishes,
Ben