Hutch's signatures, what now?

[Malcolm X]

lets say until we know for sure that his sigs match, what now?

1....we still dont know enough about Hutchinson

2....he could still be the ripper, because for him to be believed and to insert himself into this case as a thrill/attention seeker, he has to tell the truth about his name and about some of his earlier life, if not he could easily be un-masked, he spent 2 to 3 days with the police; maybe even more.

3....he only has to make sure that there's no evidence lieing around at home, before he goes to see Abberline, this done; the police have nothing on him.

4....he still looks as guilty as hell, for everying myself and Ben have discussed in the past, this goes without saying

if he was the ripper:-

1....the first thing he'll do after going to the police, is to realise a week later; that he's been a reckless fool, because going to the police is a stupid thing to do...........REGARDLESS of how smart he was, it's just asking for trouble.

2.....he will therefore back right off as JTR, he wont kill again for ages and he wont kill with the same M.O either, he also wont kill close to home...it just depends how smart he is...because going to the police has seriously compramised him, he can not afford to be seen at any murder from now on.

but was he the ripper?

1.....the ripper wont quit, he'll either leave London, end up in a loony bin or die, but Hutch was still around. i need to research the possibility of more murders in S.E England, until then i cant comment any more on this.

2......a killer's Signature is something that he might leave at a murder scene, it could be a calling card, notes, graffiti, posing the body, inserting something into the body.... was the GSG the same as his description of LA DI DA, is this his signature, i'm not sure, but it does look highly suspicious; signature or not.

3.... he also mentions in his description of LA DI DA, things that only somebody who has studied these murders would know.... he knows slightly too much about JTR, these i wont reveal here.... but you might know what these clues are anyway!

it's very hard not to get obsessed with a suspect, but he does look very guilty. but the big thing that weakens him, is no more murders (yet found) while he was still around, it takes him from about 85% likely to about 15% likely.

if he wasn't the ripper, was he outside Millers Court?................i just dont know, but he lied about everything; Regardless, so my guess is he wasn't outside at all!.........if so, where're seriously screwed

what now?............well, i need to find more murders after 1891 dont i, if not; he aint JTR

[Scott Nelson]

Please Mr. X, don't start this nonsense all over again.

[DVV]

Please Mr. X, don't start this nonsense all over again.

You're off-topic, Scott Nelson.

Amitiés,
David

[babybird67]

hi Malcolm

people seem comfortable attributing to Hutch the adoption of a unlikely stereotype in his description...but it makes more sense to me to attribute the creation of this stereotype to the murderer, thus being in control of the witness/investigation. Makes sense if you also think of the GSG as the first step in this process.

It seems likely that the murderer changed elements of his appearance in terms of moustache/hair colour etc...could he not also change his clothes? Would it not also make sense to risk being seen in this disguise, which would be unlike the reality of the other witness statements that this was a shabby genteel type person?

It seems easy to accuse Hutch of falsification, but has anyone considered that the killer was orchestrating the falsities in the witness description?

After killing MJK, would he not have changed clothing? Would it not make sense to change completely, not just into clean clothes but into a different type of clothing? Thus if spotted within that area around that time, if Hutch was called to identify him, he would be more likely to say, "No that's nothing like the man i saw" ?

To my mind, someone like Klosowski could be doing this...i think he liked control and would have enjoyed being in control of the witness/police investigation in such a way.

All speculation on my part but interesting i think.

[Crystal]

Yes, I've thought of this, in fact I've already said it somewhere. I cconsider the statement as likely to be a stage in a larger, calculated deception.

[Ben]

Hi BB,

As I mentioned on the other thread, the false description diversionary tactic makes better sense coming from Hutchinson than it does from "Astrakhan" man himself. If you're the murderer and you want to implicate a particular group that had already become the generic scapegoat, there is a major disadvantage in employing that tactic before you even commit the crime. Firstly, you're likely to attract undesirable attention and suspicion from the worst possible quarter, and secondly, the widely circulated nature of the "bogeyman" image you're trying to emulate is likely to deter your intended victims. Basically, he'd be hampering his chances of pulling off an efficient crime - significantly.

Conversely, if you've been getting away with murder, in part, because you're the physical opposite of that sinister Jewish stereotype, there is an obvious advantage in projecting that type into the minds of those who do the "suspecting" after you've committed a crime, especially if the purpose of the exercise is to neutralize any awkward questions that might turn up your doorstep, such as why were you loitering opposite the crime scene? "Oh, because I was watching the scary Jewish man with a prostitute, of course".

All the best,
Ben

[babybird67]

hi Ben

Hi BB,

As I mentioned on the other thread, the false description diversionary tactic makes better sense coming from Hutchinson than it does from "Astrakhan" man himself. If you're the murderer and you want to implicate a particular group that had already become the generic scapegoat, there is a major disadvantage in employing that tactic before you even commit the crime. Firstly, you're likely to attract undesirable attention and suspicion from the worst possible quarter, and secondly, the widely circulated nature of the "bogeyman" image you're trying to emulate is likely to deter your intended victims. Basically, he'd be hampering his chances of pulling off an efficient crime - significantly.

Conversely, if you've been getting away with murder, in part, because you're the physical opposite of that sinister Jewish stereotype, there is an obvious advantage in projecting that type into the minds of those who do the "suspecting" after you've committed a crime, especially if the purpose of the exercise is to neutralize any awkward questions that might turn up your doorstep, such as why were you loitering opposite the crime scene? "Oh, because I was watching the scary Jewish man with a prostitute, of course".

All the best,
Ben

I agree Ben in that it doesn't "make sense" in the conventional way a person thinks of this; but if you take the view that Klosowski was a sociopath, he wouldn't have been having similar thoughts. He would be in HIS reality, in which he would never be caught...risks that you or i might think of become irrelevant then, as we are talking about basic differences of psychology. (Don't know enough about this to be sure...but that's my take from what i have read so far)

For example, i was surprised to hear that all his later poisoned wives were aware of the others before them...he took no care to conceal this at this point or to move somewhere else and change his name again...sloppy. He had diaries detailing his wive's declining conditions and things like that. I think at that point his psychology had developed to the point that he felt himself unassailable by an objective reality. I think he thought he would never get caught...perhaps if he WAS the Ripper, this contributed to his belief?

If it was Klosowski, as i believe a distinct possibility, you have to see him as someone who was a familiar figure in the immediate vicinity...so disguise is perhaps more important. I believe the victims knew the killer and were comfortable enough with him not to suspect he was JtR...which would fit if he was a barber (and publican...not sure when he became a publican though, need to read more).

hi Crystal

yes i think you mentioned the possibilty that the GSG and the Astrkhan man were linked in the chat room when i was in there with you, although not in connection with Klosowski.

hope to catch up with you soon!

[Ben]

Hi BB,

Serial killers are very capable of forming organized criminal intent, and in that respect they're not always slaves to some self-imposed delusional state. Sociopathy doesn't mean you're totally divorced from reality. For Klosowski to dress as the generic scapegoat in order to attract suspicion of the worst possibile variety (whilst at the same time deterring his intended victims), he'd be quite a rarity amongst serial offenders, and it would be almost impossible to accept that an individual with such a mindset could continue to evade capture.

I'm not saying Klosowski's a bad suspect necessarily, but I'd caution very strongly against identifying him with the "Astrakhan man". There are too many compelling factors that militate against such a proposal.

Best regards,
Ben