Sympathy for Hutch

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Ben;1345]Yes. Agree.

You're thinking of something that happened later. In 1984, Gary Ridegway came forward entirely of his own volition, in the capcity of a helpful informer with helpful information, and with a claim to have known one of the victims. He certainly wasn't under arrest at this point.

No I am thinking of how in 1984 after having already been arrested and considered a suspect in 83, TWO different prostitutes gave Ridgeway's name to the police prompting them to question him and prompting him to become a helpful witness contacting them about prostitutes he "knew".


And as for your Milat theory that he could have just said "Oh No, after all the stories I told everyone about what I saw, now I'm not going to help the police", it STILL is not a single serial killer with no known connection to a victim coming forward independently without being contacted first by the police.

I am sure you'll find one though, after all "everyone" knows it happens.

[Suzi]

Right -lets get back to the bare bones here OK -Georgie says he's known the 'woman Kelly' for 3 or maybe a 'few' years- Now this may be in an 'Ello darling 'biblical' KNOW sense or maybe just as a friend and to be honest living in those streets and times a friend would be a good chap/chum to have!!!
This may explain the 6d line....I always think that that was a line from a friend to a (if not a friend) a.........someone she felt 'comfortable' with friend.
Now....... as to why George waited to come forward is of course a problem BUT I can't see George at the end of the day as The Ripper but of course........ he fits the profile of the grey/recognised/happy with frame!!!
Listening to the News here re the Steve Wright murder of 5 prostitutes in Ipswich is somewhat chilling though ....He's been convicted now as a serial killer and someone was saying this is ridiculous they all knew him and the man was 'unoticed'!.The police told the 'workers ' to be aware but of course nothing happened... apart from another murder..I rest my case! 5 kills (A Nichol...blesser) and well at least we have a conviction...There are loads of pieces of CCTV footage with this dark Ford Mondeo Mk 3 seen 4-5 times on Police CCTV Hmmmm belonged to a local man Steve Wright(No relation mercifully to the lovely Radio2 DJ) but not interviewed.........despite the fact that a black nylon fibre from this car was found in Tanya Nichols hair.......a perfect match! They're asking WHY Steve Wright did this (He's only 25 after all having travelled to Thailand and marrying a child bride) Then he seems to have not quite managed to hold down a job running a pub or two etc and he seems to have been a FRIEND of all the girls who called him ' A lonely Old Bloke' he complains that his childhood messed him up and Mother says that he never saw him get angry..........odd that....... The Law have said that he was driven by anger after a 'bad' childhood!' Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Ben]

I'm talking about Ridgway's 12th April 1984 "cooperative" interview with police, in whic his discussed his acquaintance with one of the victims, and which he certainly wasn't dragged in for against his will at the police's behest.

And as for your Milat theory that he could have just said "Oh No, after all the stories I told everyone about what I saw, now I'm not going to help the police",

It wasn't everyone. Just one person reported it, and yes, Milat could easily have feigned ignorance to the entire thing had he so desired. Of course, it he didn't want to be interviewed as a witness by the police, it would have been extremely prudent not to mention his "detailed description" to acquaintances at all.

it STILL is not a single serial killer with no known connection to a victim coming forward independently without being contacted first by the police

Ah, maybe that's why it was actually predicted in the Green River case, Nathanial Code case, and in San Diego. Maybe that's why the FBI and police authorities have laid traps in anticipation of that outcome. Trouble is, you're adding more to the "criteria" with each post, and suddenly it's "a single serial killer with no known connection to a victim coming forward independently without being contacted first by the police." You're making it more acutely specific each time, but no serial killer's behaviour mirrors that of another to the extent you're expecting.

[Suzi]

Hi Ben
The fact is that our 'friend' could disappear.......whether into the local populace or into the 'investigators' of what ever sort .....I'm convinced that's where we should be looking... fruitlessly though I feel.

[Ally]

I'm talking about Ridgway's 12th April 1984 "cooperative" interview with police, in whic his discussed his acquaintance with one of the victims, and which he certainly wasn't dragged in for against his will at the police's behest.

FEBRUARY 1984--Dawn White goes to police and gives testimony about her suspicions re: Gary Ridgway. This is of course not to mention he's ALREADY been interviewed in 83 about one of the other murders. ALREADY INTERVIEWED by the time he became a "helpful" witness.

Maybe it's predicted the same way that everything else is predicted. I mean everyone knows that serial killers are white men, not married ...etc. Oh whoops..lots of serial killers are married though aren't they.

Still not a single serial killer who interjected themselves independently.
It's all part of that great big "profiling" Bullsh@t that people just can't let go of.


Adding: My criteria hasn't changed: A serial killer, with no known connection to a victim coming forth INDEPENDENTLY.

Prior contact with police or being interviewed by them in relation to the homicides is the OPPOSITE of independently, don't ya know?

[Varqm]

I agree with Ally.

Additionally with the citizen mobs and their hostility and the unusally high focus from the police and media, it is much harder to believe that the ripper would risk himself.

[FrankO]

Hi Ally,

...STILL is not a single serial killer with no known connection to a victim coming forward independently without being contacted first by the police.

James Koedatich would be one.

"Born in 1948, Koedatich committed his first known murder in Dade County, Florida, on June 13, 1971. The victim was his roommate, 40-year-old Robert Anderson, and Koedatich served eleven years on conviction of murder and robbery, winning parole from Raiford prison in August 1982. He moved north with the state's permission, settling in Morristown, New Jersey, and he lasted all of two months before his bloodlust surfaced again. On November 23, 1982, Amy Hoffman, a high school cheerleader, was kidnapped from a Morristown shopping mall, fatally stabbed in the chest and back with a long-bladed knife, her body recovered from a rural water tank on Thanksgiving Day. Witnesses described her abductor, but police had no suspects in sight twelve days later, when 29-year-old Deirdre O'Brian was snatched from her car on a dark country road, raped and stabbed, then left for dead near Allamuchy, 20 miles from Morristown. She lived long enough to describe her attacker as "resembling a truck driver." On the night of January 16, James Koedatich phoned police in Morristown, complaining that he had been stopped by an unknown assailant and stabbed in the back while driving through Morris Township, a quarter-mile from the scene of Deirdre O'Brian's murder. Authorities routinely checked his car as part of their investigation, noting that his tires matched tracks discovered at the latest murder site. A further search turned up sufficient evidence to warrant his arrest, and Koedatich was held in lieu of $250,000 bail, formally charged with Deirdre O'Brian's murder on May 12. Seven months later, on December 15, he was also indicted for murdering Amy Hoffman. Tried on the latter charge first, in October 1984, Koedatich was convicted of murder, kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, and unlawful possession of a weapon with intent to kill. On October 29, he became the first man sentenced to die under New Jersey's revised capital punishment statute. (Serial slayer Richard Biegenwald was the second, in 1985.) Convicted of Deirdre O'Brian's murder in May 1985, Koedatich received a sentence of life imprisonment when three jurors balked at voting the death penalty."

All the best,
Frank

[Ally]

We have ONE! Woo hoo! Only several dozen more and we'll have met Ben's statement that "I know only that a number of serial killers have approached police and placed themselves at or near the scene of the crime."

I won't even argue the semantical he made himself into a victim and didn't actually place himself at the scene of the crime, I'll go with my broader statement of he "interjected himself", even though he didn't actually interject himself into the investigation, he called and reported an attack against himself....

I'll accept it. We have one. Any more?

[Ben]

I'll accept it. We have one. Any more

Yep, all the others I referenced earlier, all of whom met the criteria more than adequately without trying to come up with as many excuses as possible to rule them out. As for trying to rule Gary Ridgeway out on the grounds that he'd already been interviewed, that doesn't detract from the fact that he injected himself into the investigation at all (as was initially predicted). Many lodging houses and thousands of individual lodgers were questioned during the house-to-house searches that were in session during the Whitechapel murders. Unless Hutchinson mysteriously slipped the net, the probability is strong that he was one of these.

[Ally]

Uh, no not a single person you listed met any of the criteria. And it's either out right delusion or pure-wishfull thinking on your part to say that it does. And attempting to say that the police interviewed tens of thousands of people in the east end so Hutchinson was probably interviewed is grasping at straws to thin to be believed.

There is absolutely NO basis to the idea that serial killers often interject themselves into the investigation. For every one that does, there are dozens more who don't. It's the same with serial killers are single, blah blah. Blatant invention and wishful thinking.

[Ben]

Damn, I'm glad we're kicking the new discussion forums off with plenty of Hutchinson debate.

Uh, no not a single person you listed met any of the criteria

Yes, they did.

Yes, they definitely did.

All you're doing is changing the criteria every time in an effort to make it more and more specific and coming up with the most trivial details imaginable to try to make them look "different". Serial killers and one-off killers inject themselves into police invesigations in a vareity of different ways for a variety of different reasons, and professionals with actual experience in crimonology are fully aware of this, which is why they predict it on occasions and lay traps accordingly. Obviously, if it only happened rarely, they wouldn't place their investigative eggs in that particular basket.

It doesn't matter if there are "dozens more who don't". There is no single behaviour trait I know of amongst serial killers (apart from killing and mutilating) than crops up more often that not. We're not interested in what "most" killers do "most" of the time. We're interested - or should be interested - in the number of serial killers who take the sort of pre-emptive action I've outlined in relation to the number of serial killers we know about.

Just gasping for another marathon Hutch session,

Ben

[Ally]

Yes, they did.

Yes, they definitely did.

No they didn't. Period. And you can say yes they did and I can say no they didn't ad nauseum, but bottom line, you are still wrong.

All you're doing is changing the criteria every time in an effort to make it more and more specific and coming up with the most trivial details imaginable in an effort to make them look "different".

Criteria has not changed since the beginning and you know it. Trying to say a serial killer who killed his grandfather and introduced himself to the police is in any way equivalent to a man killing anonymous prostitutes is laughable. But laughable is about par for the course for most suspect pushers. And absolutely no different than saying a rich man would have worn expensive clothes to commit murder in.

Serial killers and one-off killers inject themselves into police invesigations in a vareity of different ways for a variety of different reasons, and professionals with actual experience in crimonology are fully aware of this, which is why they predict it on occasions and lay traps accordingly.

And professionals say that serial killers are most likely to be single, impotent, never in a committed relationship, all sorts of things that on analysis prove not to be true. You read a book like Criminal Profilling or Mindhunters and with judicious editing of the timeline, of course "serial killers" interject themselves, omiting the several police contacts made prior to that. Omiting that it is only with victims close to them, omiting that it is only when witness testimony places them there. Shoddy cheap manipulation of "facts" to reach an already predetermined conclusion.

Obviously, if it only happened rarely, they wouldn't place their investigative eggs in that particular basket.

Yeah like every investigation into a serial killer doesn't still start off with single. That's proven REALLY effective and always correct.

It doesn't matter if there are "dozens more who don't". There is no single behaviour trait I know of amongst serial killers (apart from killing and mutilating) than crops up more often that not. We're not interested in what "most" killers do "most" of the time. We're interested - or should be interested - in the number of serial killers who take the sort of pre-emptive action I've outlined in relation to the number of serial killers we know about.

And the number of serial killers we know about indicate that the vast majority of them do not interject themselves into action. From Bundy, to Dahmer, to etc.

Just gasping for another marathon Hutch session,

Ben

[/QUOTE]

More like gasping to shore up your flimsy position.

[Ben]

No they didn't. Period. And you can say yes they did and I can say no they didn't ad nauseum, but bottom line, you are still wrong.

Yes they do. "Period". You can say no they didn't and I can say yes they ad nauseam, but bottom line, you are still wrong. This should be fun.

Trying to say a serial killer who killed his grandfather and introduced himself to the police is in any way equivalent to a man killing anonymous prostitutes is laughable

What's laughable is your attempts to come up with irrelevent "differnces" that don't detract in the slightest from the far more salient points. Nathaniel Code introduced himself to police because he was concerned that somebody had seen him at the scene, thus prompting him to come forward and legitimise his presence. The same motivation prompted Soham murderer Ian Huntley to do the very same thing. Hutchinson could very well have done similiarly. As for "anonymous" prostitutes, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, but since we don't know if any of the ripper's victims were acquainted, however mildly, with their killer, it's probably better to avoid assertions that lack evidence.

And professionals say that serial killers are most likely to be single, impotent, never in a committed relationship, all sorts of things that on analysis prove not to be true.

No, they don't. Which professionals say that?

Omiting that it is only with victims close to them

Nope. Koedatich wasn't "close" to his victims, Gary Ridgeway wasn't "close to his. Ditto Milat and Huntley. And again, we don't know how close Kelly's killer was to her. But if you want to convince yourself that all criminologists are horrible bastards, and that bulletin board contributors know more about their field of expertise than they do, fine by me. I'm loving how the anti (pro?) Hutchinson camp always have to rely on the bashing of experts in the field to advance their case. And it's already be demonstrated, more than adequately, than "prior police contact" isn't remotely a prerequesite for offenders coming forward.

And the number of serial killers we know about indicate that the vast majority of them do not interject themselves into action

And you can say that of pretty much every behavioural trait asociated with serial killers. What here is the observation?

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Ben;1434]

Yes they do. "Period". You can say no they didn't and I can say yes they ad nauseam, but bottom line, you are still wrong. This should be fun.

No they didn't and you are right it's a delight. I've always found that peopel who have to do the "I know you are but what am I" without adding anything substantial to be the weakest form of debators, and likewise, the most amusing.

it's probably better to avoid assertions that lack evidence.

That was hysterically ironic. Did you mean to be that amusing.

No, they don't. Which professionals say that?

The exact same ones who say serial killers interject themselves into investigations.

Nope. Koedatich wasn't "close" to his victims, Gary Ridgeway wasn't "close to his. Ditto Milat.

And only one out of the three actually indepndently interjected himself into the investigation and it wasn't even one you thought up!

But if you want to convince yourself that all criminologists are horrible bastards, and that bulletin board contributors know more about their field of expertise than they do, fine by me.

I don't think they are horrible bastards I think they are fools who think they can make blanket statemetns like "serial killers interject themselves into investigations" when the facts are the vast majority of known serial killers did not interject themselves into the investigations.

'm loving how the anti (pro?) Hutchinson camp always have to rely on the bashing of experts in the field to advance their case.

And I love how the "hutch did it camp" rely on profiling woo-woo that's been proven wrong time and time again to advance their case. Isn't it nice there is so much love in the world?

And you can say that of pretty much every behavioural trait asociated with serial killers. What here is the observation?

That the vast number of serial killers don't interject themselves into the investiations. That was a fairly simple observation, I am surprised you need it spelled out. I can make it simpler. Saying that "a number of serial killers place themselves at the scene of the crime" is false. So far, you haven't even been able to come up with one much less "a number".

[Ben]

No they didn't and you are right it's a delight.

Did. Did. Did.

It doesn't even get boring after a while, does it? I'm parroting you back becase you've been doing the same thing, hoping to "wear me" out or something. You've asked me to cite some examples of a pretty text-book and oftimes predicted trait amonst serial and one-off offenders, and I've done so. So has Frank. But because you're so annoyed at having cornered yourself into a view that you can't possibly justify, you've tried to come up with as many reasons as possible to invalidate those examples - unsuccessfully.

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.

No, they don't. Which professionals say that?

The exact same ones who say serial killers interject themselves into investigations.

The experts and professionals in the fiield. Thought so.