Did Hutchinson Really Behave Like A Serial Killer?

[Bob Hinton]

Not again!

Hi,


Why cant the truth be exactly as was recorded? why cant Hutchinson have described the man as he appeared before him?
Regards Richard.

Because for the umpteenth time Richard it is not physically possible! How many time do you have to be told this simple fact? It was not physically possible for Hutchinson to have seen what he claimed to have seen. Not 'he may not have seen it' or 'he probably didn't see it' but NOT POSSIBLE!!!!

In just the same way if Hutchinson claimed to have arrived in Whitechapel from Romford driving an Aston Martin Vantage - it is not possible.

[Bob Hinton]

Behaving like a serial killer

The title of this thread predisposes that we know what a serial killer is like. The fact is we don't. All the profiling work that has been done has been done on the back of information gleaned from serial killers who were failures - they had all been caught.

We have no idea what a successful serial killer acts like. Shipton showed us that. What profile did he fit?

[richardnunweek]

Good morning Bob,
It is not possible.
I cannot accept that, we have a statement made to H division on the evening of the 12th November, which clearly states a description, something which you say is impossible.
You conclude that such a description, is impossible to store in ones memory for a period of four days.
You conclude that such detail is impossible, hankerchief colouring for instance.
Your mind is set on the truth being , no such meeting took place, and that either the witness Hutchinson was a attention seeker, or he was in some way after financial gain.
Lets stick to the known facts.
Such a statement involving a description, was taken down on the 12th,
The person that gave that statement was George Hutchinson.
The statement. described a man that you say is impossible to have existed.
Bob, the question remains., if the whole scenerio is simply impossible, then why did the police originally believe him? why did they ask him to patrol the streets with police officers, are you suggesting that Whitechapel CID, were completely stupid.?
Every time i defend Hutchinson,and i have a right to an opinion, i get the response ' Not again' but the only suggestion you can come up with is 'Its impossible'.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

We have a man whose signatures are almost identical over a period of 23 years, yet dispite all of this, people on casebook still see him at the very least as a liar.

His own signatures are pretty identical to eachother, yes, and that was a gap of 13 years, not 23. Both signatures are not identical with the witness three, not remotely so.

We have George ,William, Topping Hutchinson do we not?, a man that we know existed[ photo included] a man whose two sons have always believed their father

No, we don't know the latter part of that to be true at all. One of them said he believed that his father saw Lord Randolph Churchill in a discredited Royal conspiracy book, and the other we have no provenance for at all.

a man whose character does not measure up to that of what Casebook depicts him as, a man who worked hard, took a pride in his work, a man that loved the music hall, and playing the violin, a man that love to ice skate, a family man.

But we don't know anything about his character. Family members are hardly going to be the least biased assessors of someone's character. What are we saying here; that he must have been a wonderful person because he enjoyed ice-skating? C'mon. Reinhard Heydrich loved playing the violin, and Dennis Rader was a "family man".

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I am of the belief that although Reg went along with Faircloughs story line, he was only recalling his fathers interpretation of that nights events.
I am also of the belief ,that Reg was never intrested in JTR, he knew absolutely nothing about the case, and when he said he had never seen his fathers statement he was being truthful.
Reg was simply a regular guy, who got [ at least for a time] the fame of being a son of a man that knew a ripper victim, which i suggest he enjoyed, however the subject never intrested him.
The signature comparisons are a match in my opinion.
We i feel are making too much out of a mans statement, that was right there at the time, [ we were not] a man whose recollections have been discredited over the years, for no other reason then increasing the mystery.
I am somewhat surprised, Richardson[ hanbury street] is not a prime suspect, he was only a foot away from a body was he not?
or how about Cadouche, right in the vacinity of the murder at the relevant time?
But no, poor old George, just because he called a hanky 'Red', now that is impossible [ according to Bob] isnt it?
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

I am of the belief that although Reg went along with Faircloughs story line, he was only recalling his fathers interpretation of that nights events.

There's being submissive to a particular author or theorist's agenda, and then there's actively fuelling that particular fire, and it appears that Reg was more than willing to incorporate a few implausibilites of his own, such as the assertion that the ripper murders were more to do with the Royal family than other people, and that it "Now" appears that his father really did see Lord Randolp Churchill.

I have to urge caution with some of the character assessments you're making with very little evidence. You say, for example that Reg was a "regular guy". In fact, we know next to nothing about him, and the same is true of Toppy.

If you believe that Hutchinson's statement is only questioned because he claimed to have seen a red hanky, or because people are interested in "increasing the mystery", then I'm afraid you are either unfamiliar with most of the discussions centuring around Hutchinson, or you've seriously misintepreted people's reasons for asking important questions.

Best regards,
Ben

[Tresschen]

But we don't know anything about his character. Family members are hardly going to be the least biased assessors of someone's character. What are we saying here; that he must have been a wonderful person because he enjoyed ice-skating? C'mon. Reinhard Heydrich loved playing the violin, and Dennis Rader was a "family man".

Best regards,
Ben

I think you can´t compare Heydrich to a normal serial killer. As far as I think it not unlikely for someone to be on the one side caring and loving and on the other sidea brutal killer, the differences between the murderers of the the NS-regime and normal serial killers cannot be overlooked. The NS-regime gave people a power over other people many of them have never had. You could do anything with someone who was a jew and the society was telling you to kill them, to see them as animals even. So the urge to live your killing phantasies was much easier and socially accepted, whereas a serial killer is confronted with the fear of detection and the wrath of society, so the possiility of someone starting to kill is not as high as doing that when society tells you it is good. Everyone knows that even normal people can become very cruel in war or when they get power over the lives of others.

[Ben]

I think you can´t compare Heydrich to a normal serial killer.

I'm not doing.

I'm simply pointing out that evil people can have mundane interests, such as violin-playing, and that Toppy can't be given a clean bill of health for that reason. Not that I believe Toppy was remotely "evil", but using his hobbies as evidence of good character makes no sense whatsoever. I could have used any other murderer with equally mundane hobbies as an example.

[Chava]

Nobody other than Mary Ann Cox saw a blotchy-faced, carroty-moustachioed man near Miller's Court that night, and her evidence wasn't discredited.

Probably because a similar-looking man had been seen with other victims before they died. There was disagreement between the City Police and the Met on this. This is from The Daily Telegraph of 13th November:

It is noteworthy, however, that there were two descriptions given of the suspected Mitre-square and Hanbury-street murderers, which agree in some respects with that furnished by the witness Cox of the man seen in Kelly's company on Thursday night. About ten minutes before the body of Catherine Eddowes was found in Mitre-square, a man about thirty years of age, of fair complexion, and with a fair moustache, was said to have been seen talking to her in the covered passage leading to the square. On the morning of the Hanbury-street murder, a suspicious looking man entered a public-house in the neighbourhood. He was of shabby-genteel appearance and had a sandy moustache. The first of these descriptions was given by two persons who were in the Orange Market and closely observed the man. The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox. On the other hand the Metropolitan authorities are inclined to attach significance to it. Cox stated that the man who accompanied Kelly to her home carried a can or pot of beer. No trace of this beer has been found in the room, nor of the pewter in the ashes of the grate. Inquiry has equally failed to obtain evidence of Kelly or any person similar to the man described having bought beer at any of the neighbouring public-houses. Considering the amount of drinking on and off the premises of these establishments near midnight the mere absence of evidence on this point would not be surprising in any case.

Above what I have just quoted, there is a comment that the Blotchy description did not match men seen with the Berners St victim (although I thought I did see a matching description there). It seems to me that the Met thought they had their man until Hutchinson turned up and they had to re-think. Which is why I believe they subjected Hutchinson's evidence to extreme scrutiny, and something turned up which twigged them that it wasn't trustable. And it must have been convincing. Because it also turned away the City Police, who clearly up until then were convinced that the Blotchy sighting was a red(faced) herring and would have been thrilled to get Hutchinson's description to prove the Met wrong.

[perrymason]

This issue is really black and white....there are no semi-tones available.....if you believe as the Police did as of the 15th or 16th that Hutchinson's witness sighting is not credible....then you have to discount anything he says as having "investigatorial" value. So why would he come forward after 3 days offering a story that is thought to be false?

Because he had something to hide and felt some evidence might incriminate him?....like the Wideawake sighting maybe,...because he was mentally unbalanced?....Abberline didnt think so...because he would gain something by doing so.....like what?

I think an alibi is one possibility. If he thought he was seen there watching the court, then his suggestion he was Marys friend changes that suspicious sighting to one of a friends looking out for her.

Its important that we remember that there is no witness that corroborates that Hutch knew Mary at all..his statement is given after witnesses have been dismissed after the Inquest.

That may be the reason he waited until Monday night....fear someone related to that investigation might recognize him...or discredit his story that he even knew Mary.

Best regards all.

[Vingle]

Hello

I believe that the police may have had no option to but to view Hutchinson as discredited.

Effectively, his description of the man he saw given to them and to the newspaper were of different people facially. Their star and only witness to this person had effectively given a defence lawyer probable doubt.

If we even take the most innocent of explanations - he might have been plied with gin by the newspaper reporter and his story got taller and taller to the extent it was worthless in court.

One thing that a pressurised police force, with a new boss, did not need was their only witness wrecking their case, which is sketchy at best anyway.

[Crystal]

To backtrack a bit -

Ben writes:Unfortunately, that is one of many aspects if his account that has yet to be verified. He could really have footslogged the 10-16 miles back from Romford in the small hours, in miserable conditions, and in the certainty that his lodgings would not be open by the time he arrived back in Whitechapel, or it could have been an excuse he invented to explain why he was out on the streets in the small hours rather than tucked up in the Victoria Home.

I just wondered if it was possible that Hutch got the train? Maybe that's where the money went? What do you think?

[Ben]

Quite possible, Crystal, although if he spent all his money getting to Romford, he'd have no money to spend in Romford. One remote possibility is that he was earning money - in his "temporarily out of work" phase - as a costermonger, and visited Romford on a "country round", returning only after he'd hawked his wares.

All the best,
Ben

[Crystal]

What do we actually know about Hutchinson - I mean, where was he born, etc? Can you point me in the right direction?

[Ben]

Hi Crystal,

Unfortunately, Hutchinson remains an extremely nebulous character, and the tiny amount of biographical information on him is thus far restricted to the contents of his statement, from which we "learn" that he was formerly a groom who was temporarily out of work and living in the Victoria Home on the Commercial Street, and that he had known Kelly for three years. None of this has ever been verified.

All the best,
Ben