Hutchinson Content---Moved from MJK crime scene thread

[Ben]

There is not even anything that says he ever stayed/lived in Whitechapel prior to the day he testified.

Uh...yeah, yeah there is.

A police statement citing the place where he "usually sleeps" as the Victoria Home for Working Men at 39-41 Commercial Street, an aspect of his account which could be corroborated.

How much more with the jump that he was the ripper/possible ripper which requires a set of evidence/things with a higher standard.

That doesn't make sense.

[Varqm]

These GH arguments as to his guilt are bizarre in the extreme. Mr. Poster

Yes I agree.It can't be even shown the simple fact that the man lewis saw was hutchinson...was he there or did he just assumed the identity of the man.There is not even anything that says he ever stayed/lived in Whitechapel prior to the day he testified.And we are just covering the most basic here.How much more with the jump that he was the ripper/possible ripper which requires a set of evidence/things with a higher standard. It's all a mirage.

[Ben]

I've missed you, Lars. That's all.

[Mr Poster]

hi ho Ben

It's like I have control over people's time and internet activity.

Nope. Its like you have no control over your own.

Only JVO (Hi ho JVO) can possibly compete with yourself in the league of constantly watching for posts on certain threads and then posting the same old information over and over.

p

[Ben]

When reminded that Anderson (and possibly Abberline) also discarded anyone Hutchlike, he leaves them to be wallflowers and quick steps over to Mrs Long and Lawende, to do the twist with them and produce the Hutch sighting he is so desperate to achieve.

Has it really not sunk in yet?

Nobody discarded Hutchinson because of earlier witness descriptons. None of the Jewish witnesses described a Jewish individual. And yet we know that Anderson's ostensibly important and thoroughly non-discredited witness was Jewish. Yes, it appears that this witness discovered that Kosminski was Jewish after the ID, but no, there is nothing to indicate that he thought he was beforehand. So all this "wallflowers" is just obfuscatory fluff and fluster, and I won't even bother with your "challenge" to come up with an acutely specific criteria-overloaded example. No serial killer mirrors the behaviour of another to the unrealistic extent you're expecting.

In the meantime he keeps Hutch doing the hot shoe shuffle with what the cops might already know about the killer and what they will instantly forget when Hutch fox trots down the cop shop to offer them a killer he knows nobody could have witnessed if he is the killer himself.

Where does this come from? When have I ever claimed that no witness had seen Hutchinson before 9th November?

It's all very well for Ben to keep insisting that a killer will occasionally inject himself into the investigation if it suits his purposes to do so, and the cops back in the good old days had no experience of this. But how would the killer know what experience they had?

It doesn't matter, because they do it anyway, irrespective of what decade they may be operating in. They may not have consulted Caz's Guilde to Prudent SK Behaviour, but then not many of them do, which makes it all the more surprising that net-warriors are honestly expecting people to care what they consider sensible behaviour.

[Ben]

They always blitz the Hutchinson forums as early as the possibly can, don't they? Meanwhile I continue to rub my hands together in blissful euphoria, utterly secure in the knowledge that we're set to have several mammoth Hutchinson discussions running at the same time. Marvellous. It's like I have control over people's time and internet activity.

And a man who calculated that he had a better chance of showing up at the cop shop and risking his neck in a complex double bluff, then brazening it out with th epolice over a couple of daus, and risking the press than he had of just vanishing

Not a complex "double-bluff", Lars. You use that expression quite often in the wrong context. It would have been relatively straightforward and fairly textbook behaviour from a guilty party, prompted from a desire for self-preservation, bravado or both, and as I've explained before, no one should give a rat's bottom what internet hobbyists, keyboard warriors and Maybrick-touters consider unlikely when the historical record clearly indicates otherwise.

What these people find "unlikely" becomes automatically irrelevant in light of the evidence we have of other killers - both serial and one-off - coming forward under false pretences to legitimise potentially incrimating evidence linking them to a crime or crime scene. It's important to establish a distinction between what you personally consider to be an imprudent, shortsighted move on the part of a killer, and what killers actually do. The latter is obviously what we should be interested in, not the former, but even if it was necessary to rationalise behaviour that we know happens anyway, that's a doddle too.

So now, if he had factored in the fact that police might be suppresssing evidence ....he never would have turned up at all as the same factor theat apparently shot him forward would also have kept him back....as he could not have known that th epolice didnt have a witness who could describe him very well.

No. That's the whole point. If he feared that a witness could describe him very well, it wouldn't be at all unreasonable to surmise that he may have come forward to neutralise police suspicion. To come forward as a witness to the "real" killer is better than being dragged in as a suspect and having to explain his presence at of near a crime scene.

how come a police force who were (as we know) dragging in pretty much anyone who had a shifty look or a glint in his eye or a table knife in his pocket or even the whiff of being slightly off kilter..........suddenly went from being what can only be described as completely paranoid to completely thick and decided that, relative to our butter knife wielding shiny eyed passers by, this man.....discredited as a witness apparently, who was outside the flat of a victim, with no "good" story and who failed to do anything remotely useful whilst traipsing round Whitechapel with the police...........DID NOT make a good suspect

They may or may not have suspected him. I've addressed this over and over again, and I'm literally foaming at the mouth in anticipation of regurgitating it all again. Don't you understand? If they never suspected him, it woudn't be at all surprising. They had clearly exhibited a preference for suspects with some form of medical training or experience in butchery, and those who exhibited some sort of external menace. If Hutchinson met none of this criteria why should we expect an 1888 police force - with no experience of serial crime and its perpetrators - to jump to the immediate conclusion that he must secretly be Jack the Ripper waltzing into a police station requesting an interview?

On the other hand, how could they possibly have snared him had he been guilty and they did suspect him? Not very easily, given his solitary (and thus unverifiable) actions and movements on the night in question. What are we expecting - a mysterious and convenient alibi to appear out of the blue in one of those lost-in-the-blitz reports? Or maybe we're expecting a lodging house deputy to recall the movements of one of his 400+ lodgers six weeks ago?

Not to mention the fact that we are still left with the over arching problem that we KNOW that criminals, or the vast overwhelming majority of them, never come willingly to the police station at all.

The propensity of serial killers to come forward is dependent upon existing factors that prompted them into taking such action in the first place. If those factors weren't there - in the shape of an inconvenient witness for example - of course there's no incentive to come forward. And yet some do it anyway, just for jolly. It's still makes little sense to speak of the "vast majority" of serial killers doing or not doing this or that. Very few behavioural traits are shared by the vast majority.

Of course, the vast majority of killers don't hop from slashing to poisoning, but since when has that deterred you from Klosowski-touting?

[Sam Flynn]

Almost as odd as the fact that neither the press not the public nor anyone else at all decided that the polices apparently slap dash dismissal of our man GH was a bit odd given his location on the night. Strange...non?

Not really, MrP, when one considers that until very recently, thanks to press exposés and "Rough Justice" programmes on telly, the public's general perception of the police was that their judgment was practically unimpeachable. Even if they'd cared or read about Hutchinson that much, given the diminishing column-inches devoted to the Ripper case after Kelly's death, the fact that the "good old British bobby" had seen fit to endorse his integrity as a witness would have been good enough for most people.

[Mr Poster]

Hi ho Caz

I guess we will both be waiting...............because what I want to know is:

how come a police force who were (as we know) dragging in pretty much anyone who had a shifty look or a glint in his eye or a table knife in his pocket or even the whiff of being slightly off kilter..........suddenly went from being what can only be described as completely paranoid to completely thick and decided that, relative to our butter knife wielding shiny eyed passers by, this man.....discredited as a witness apparently, who was outside the flat of a victim, with no "good" story and who failed to do anything remotely useful whilst traipsing round Whitechapel with the police...........DID NOT make a good suspect.

And all that with the press, public and political establishment demanding progress.

Unless of course they had a good reason not to.

It is also interesting that GH was apparently jerked forward (as opposed to just running) by the fact that the police were "suppressing evidence".

And yet we are expected to believe that we know "everything" about GH that the police did.

So....they suppress evidence when it suits the theory....but didnt when it doesnt.


Not to mention the fact that we are still left with the over arching problem that we KNOW that criminals, or the vast overwhelming majority of them, never come willingly to the police station at all.

Its odd that.

Almost as odd as the fact that neither the press not the public nor anyone else at all decided that the polices apparently slap dash dismissal of our man GH was a bit odd given his location on the night. Strange...non?

p

[caz]

Twist and Shout

Hi Mr P,

It's a merry dance isn't it?

Ben does the gentleman's excuse me with Abberline and Anderson when he needs the stamp of their authority on Hutch's Mr A being discarded.

When reminded that Anderson (and possibly Abberline) also discarded anyone Hutchlike, he leaves them to be wallflowers and quick steps over to Mrs Long and Lawende, to do the twist with them and produce the Hutch sighting he is so desperate to achieve.

In the meantime he keeps Hutch doing the hot shoe shuffle with what the cops might already know about the killer and what they will instantly forget when Hutch fox trots down the cop shop to offer them a killer he knows nobody could have witnessed if he is the killer himself.

What I would like to see from Ben is just one example of a known serial killer (I say 'known' because the other type traditionally dodges the cops and keeps on dodging) who was later found to have gone to the cops at one point and placed himself outside a crime scene for nearly an hour, and produced a bogus suspect who was later discarded - but was never even considered a person of interest in his own right until eventually some entirely independent evidence turned up to connect him to the murder series.

It's all very well for Ben to keep insisting that a killer will occasionally inject himself into the investigation if it suits his purposes to do so, and the cops back in the good old days had no experience of this. But how would the killer know what experience they had? How might a killer have expected a cop in November 1888 to treat a tardy witness with a tall tale who lurks outside the scene of arguably the most horrific crime any cop will ever have experienced? Ben's killer is a semi-literate working class local, not a 21st century police psychologist! He'd surely be expecting the grilling of his life, by cops baying for the killer's blood, not a "Much obliged I'm sure, my good fellow, now how about a cuppa and a digestive, one lump or two?"

Love,

Caz
X

[Mr Poster]

hi ho

Before October 19th he had every reason to believe that earlier witnesses had only provided inadequate descriptions based on inadequate sightings. After that date, it had become public knowledge that the police were deliberately suppressing witness descriptions only to appear in full weeks later in the Police Gazette.

And a man who calculated that he had a better chance of showing up at the cop shop and risking his neck in a complex double bluff, then brazening it out with th epolice over a couple of daus, and risking the press than he had of just vanishing...........all based on a intricate analysis of what the police MIGHT have known and on the "known-knowns" (Rumsfeld-ism) (that Lewis had seen someone) and the "known-unknowns" (he knew he didnt know what the police knew about what Lewis did or did not know) and the "unknown-knowns" (he didnt know what the police knew in detail) and the "unknown - unknowns" (he didnt know what the police didnt know).

Now a man who works out all that, and he had to to determine that showing up was the best option (which it wasnt).................would never assume that the police had not been suppressing stuff for all the other murders and it just hadnt hit the papers (which after all is fairly logical to assume: if they are suppressing stuff there is no reason to think they are telling the press that).

So now, if he had factored in the fact that police might be suppresssing evidence ....he never would have turned up at all as the same factor theat apparently shot him forward would also have kept him back....as he could not have known that th epolice didnt have a witness who could describe him very well.

These GH arguments as to his guilt are bizarre in the extreme.

p

[Varqm]

I hope there will be something new about Hutchinson and others.As long as it does not come from the factory.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Is that any clearer for you now?

Perfectly thankyou, and it wasn't necessary for you to "(sigh)" in light of my previous acknowledgement that I may have misunderstood your original point.

The fact that Mrs. Long had only acquired a rear view of her suspect doesn't detract one iota from the likelihood of her having seen Chapman's killer. I've never suggested that Anderson's belief in Jack's Jewishness had anything to do with any witness evidence that came to the fore before the Kosminski identification (especially not Liz Long's), and it wouldn't have mattered if Anderson's witness hadn't singled him out as Jewish beforehand. Indeed, it appears that the witness only became aware of Kosminski's Jewishness after he had made the identification, which was two years after the initial sighting.

If the witness was Lawende, for example, and he thought at the time that the man seen with Eddowes had a conspicuously Jewish appearance, then yes, Hutchinson wouldn't emerge as the best candidate for Mr. Red Neckerchief, but that clearly wasn't the case. Indeed, it appears the same witness singled out the thoroughly Gentile William Grant Grainger at a later date.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Ben,

(Sigh)

I'm not trying to argue that Abberline and Anderson didn't consider Hutch's account as a witness discredited. All I am asking is why you keep using their favoured witness sightings to argue that they rightly discarded Hutch's Mr A, when the same cops must have been completely wrong in your view for not also discarding Mrs Long's Mr F (for foreign - never mind if she could not have known any such thing - she obviously didn't recognise him as an Englishman) and the Mr J (for Jewish) seen by Anderson's witness. As sure as eggs are eggs Anderson never deviated from his conclusion that Jack would turn out to be a low class Jew, and he believed his star witness had proved him right on that score.

You may as well chuck their favoured witness sightings in the Thames for what good they can do you, because Mr A being sent packing in favour of a possible Mr F or a Mr J doesn't help you put a man who was neither foreign nor Jewish - your very own Mr H - in the necessary position to have been spotted with a victim.

Is that any clearer for you now?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

VarQ at 10:14: "If only there is a newspaper article"

VarQ at 01:21: "I'm still waiting for that article."

Be a little patient, VarQ!

I'm not quite sure why you'd be expecting an article that says "I had a drink with Hutchinson on Leman Street"..? Hardly front-page stuff.

Neither Hutchinson's residence nor his approximate length of residence were entirely beyond the realms of "checkability", unlike other aspects of his account. It would either have been a case of "Does a man named George Hutchinson lodge here?", or more likely: "Does this man (presents Hutchinson) lodge here?"

[Varqm]

I'm still waiting for that article.For all we know that day of the inquest was hutchinson's first day in whitechapel\spitalfileds in a month.He was a homeless man from Stepney.