Did Hutchinson Really Behave Like A Serial Killer?

[caz]

Hi Harry,

Ways too 'mysterious' for me to fathom, that's all. We can only go by the documented facts regarding known serial killers and all their known behaviours.

We rule out known serial killer behaviours at our peril, but we also misapply at our peril those known behaviours to different murder cases at different times, in different places and circumstances, featuring different evidence and different known individuals.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

He injected himself into the ongoing investigation because he realized he'd been seen by an indepedent witness...

Hi Ben,

Right, I'm back - finally.

In my post that began this thread, I was correcting your mistaken claim that Colin Ireland had delivered himself into the hands of the police - just like Hutch. If you can't even get your basic facts right, don't have a go at me. Just stick to whatever 'crucial point' you were trying to make by comparing Ireland the serial killer with Hutch the presumed innocent witness.

Ireland did not go to the police nor even contact them. He avoided the cops like the plague until they eventually found their way to him (which they would have done whether or not he had tried to spike their guns in advance) and even then he refused to say a word until they informed him that they had proof of his involvement in the murder of one victim, in addition to proof that he had been seen with another, on the journey home to where this one was murdered - at which point he confessed to five murders. Also, the 'independent witness' in this case, as you have chosen to put it, was not some fellow traveller who could not possibly have proved it was Ireland with the man, but a cctv camera.

So don't in the same breath accuse me of being the 'desperate, irritating and misleading' one here.

I have never, incidentally, claimed that it was most likely that he tried to avoid the cops like the plague.

Indeed not. If you read my original post again, you will see that was the very point I was making - ie that if you had been consistently choosing the 'most likely' type of suspect, he would not only have been 'most likely' to be familiar with the killing territory (which I agree with), but he would also 'most likely' have avoided the cops like the plague. This is 1888 we are talking about, remember.

The majority of serial killers operate within their own comfort zone, making Ireland a minority example in this case.

No - Ireland operated precisely within his chosen comfort zone. He wasn't obliged to go to one remote pub each time, to find gay strangers to kill. That was where he was most comfortable doing his thing.

Ireland was a hideous example for you to use, anyway.

Correction - he was your hideous example, not mine at all! I was just explaining to you why he does not even begin to compare with Hutch. I suppose he might begin to though, if Hutch walked from Romford each time to murder and then walked back again, using the Victoria Home as no more than the occasional bolt hole.

First, let us be clear that Papazian was not a serial killer. He murdered his gay lover with a claw hammer. He then wrote a diary expressing his "intention" to became a serial killer. I don't know where you could possibly be drifting with that comparison. If you're trying to pin the mantle of commuter killer on him, you'd obviously be wrong. Papazian lived in Hampstead, and he expressed his intention to kill gay men on Hampstead Heath.

No, Ben. Papazian did not make it to serial killer status. But it's a futile quibble and again you mess around with the facts, because he began outlining his plans to become a serial killer in his diary before going to the heath and picking up the man who became his 'gay lover' and first and only murder victim. I wasn't remotely implying that this one was a 'commuter killer', although he certainly didn't live in the middle of the heath itself.

Love,

Caz
X

[harry]

No Caz I didn't miss it.The question posed by you was'Did Hutchinson really behave like a serial killer',and my question was,perhaps Caz can tell us how a serial killer will behave.Perfectly logical question of mine,and not easy to dismiss easily and quickly.Many people who pose questions,lecturers,teachers etc,already know the answer,I thought you might have.Then you write 'no I can't',followed by,'serial killers perform in many mysterious ways',so it appears you can explain.Like to expand on these mysterios ways.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Some valid questions raised there. In the absence of independent verification for most witness sightings, the police were compelled to use their own investigative abilities to seperate the wheat from the chaff. In consigning Hutchinson's evidence to the latter dustbin, as they appear to have done, one can't help but wonder about their reasons for doing so; whether he was dismissed as another publicity-seeking nuisance or whether they entertained any real suspicions against him in the process.

Michael Connor wrote an article implicating Cross, incidentally, which you may find interesting.

All the best,
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

G'day Ben,

Does it ever occur to you that for many potentially key sources like Hutch..Schwartz for one, I suppose Goldstein for another...Diemshutz and some of the International Club witnesses, ....the initial of the multiple witnesses that discover Mary Ann Nichols body...we have no verification for any of their statements.

For example,...Fanny never saw any of Schwartz's alleged incident, no-one saw Diemshutz arrive, we only have the first witnesses claim that he found Mary Ann. How do we know Liz wasnt being murdered or already lying there when Golstein passes the gates?

In that sense Hutch's story isnt any more problematic than any of the others mentioned..the only difference with him is that we know he is disbelieved within 72 hours. We dont know whether they believed Schwartz, we only know he wasnt mentioned or called at the Inquest. Was it Cross that was the first man to find Polly,...well, how can we be certain he wasnt the killer injecting himself into that case?

Since no-one corroborates Schwartz, and he places himself at the scene of a soon to be murder.....how do we know he didnt off her? No-one saw his story unfolding but him. Who says Goldstein couldnt have seen Liz lying there when he passes by the gates...its within the cut time frame suggested by Blackwell...oh yeah, his translator said so.

Hutch isnt a unique character in that regard...hes a witness who comes forth to tell a story that no-one can validate.

Its the story he comes up with that separates him from all the others....he describes the man down to a horse head tie pin, and he says he could recognize him. Lawende wasnt sure he could, Schwartz's story doesnt suggest he looked in the mans face for long at all.

So Hutch's is really the only story within the group of murders that made him a Police ID Tool, he would recognize the suspect again.... if he wasnt lying of course.

Thats why he has so much influence on the police initially....maybe the only witness to that date that says he saw the likely killers face well enough to remember it.

Best regards Ben.

[caz]

Perhaps Caz can tell us how a serial killer will behave,then perhaps we can make a comparison.

No I can't, Harry.

That was the whole point of my introductory post, which you totally and utterly missed.

Serial killers behave in many mysterious ways, their atrocities to perform. All we know is that the ripper was out of step with the rest of society but always one step ahead. We don't know whether that would have included stepping into the limelight in person, or stepping as far into the shadows as possible.

So while we can't say that Ben is out of step to believe the very worst of Hutch, because anything is possible, it's the fact that anything is possible in the absence of any fresh information, that makes me keep all the 'innocent but flawed' options well and truly open alongside the one 'guilty as sin' option.

I'll come back at some point (probably not until April) to read the other responses here, but I had a couple of minutes and saw yours was nice and brief and easily addressed.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, if only! I just wondered why you thought we were wasting our time and money researching random Hutchinson's born any old place? You don't seem to have much faith in any of our casebookers skills. Sorry for going off topic here everyone, I won't do it again.

No, that doesn't follow. If anything, it implies the reverse.

[Debra A]

Yes, if only! I just wondered why you thought we were wasting our time and money researching random Hutchinson's born any old place?
You don't seem to have much faith in any of our casebookers skills.

Sorry for going off topic here everyone, I won't do it again.

You think? I think it might be a bit more complicated than that, actually. If only it was that easy to track people down!

[Debra A]

I guess my point would be that there are several experienced genealogists on these boards, some may even fall into the 'expert' or 'professional' class. if we had something as substantial as a birthplace as a clue, then throwing up signatures of random Hutchinson's from the 1911 census would have been a pointless exercise.

I'm not sure I see the point of you saying that and I'm not going to get into a silly argument about it. I was just asking. Fair enough?

[Debra A]

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

If there had been any clues at all as to Hutchinson's background there wouldn't be half the hoo ha there is on the 1911 signature thread.

Thanks Ben, interesting.

[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

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