Sympathy for Hutch

[kensei]

I am no expert on the case, but just one of many amature followers, so everyone feel free to slam me for what I will say here as being just a piece of melodramatic tripe. But in reading all the accounts of George Hutchinson, a few things have seemed to suggest themselves to me. I know his report to the police of the man he saw with Mary Kelly is way too detailed to be believable, and I know some have gone as far as to suggest that he was actually the Ripper himself (!). But he's listed as someone who knew Mary personally, and in reading his account I've always wondered why he felt this need to study the man she was with so closely, and especially why he then followed them and then stood and watched and waited for them to come back out of her room for such a long time on a cold November night when he no doubt had a pretty good idea what they were doing. Honestly, he has always struck me as a friend of Mary's who secretly seriously fancied her, knowing what she was but wishing things were different and feeling the need to watch over her that night when he saw her with a man that made him uneasy (and who I feel was almost certainly Jack the Ripper, decked out as if for a night at the opera). Or maybe I've just seen way too many movies.

[Ben]

Hi Kensei,

If he was "watching over her" out of concern, he'd be useless as a preventative measure in the event of her Astrakhan-bedecked companion getting slashy with the contents of his American-cloth wrapped parcel, and he certainly couldn't see what was going on inside. Better, surely, to alert the nearest constable at the earliest opportunity? Or failing that, at least come forward at the earliest opportunity rather than procrastinating for three days and allowing the trail of his friend's killer to grow cold.

Significantly, not even Hutchinson claimed to have loitered there out of "concern".

(and who I feel was almost certainly Jack the Ripper, decked out as if for a night at the opera).

Ah, yes.

Unfortunately, this is one of the reasons why faith in the veracity of his account survives, to a decreasing extent, even to this day. It allows for some perpetuation of the fallacy that the killer was a "toff", and that he'd approach his crime scenes "decked out as if for a night at the opera". Our challenge is to prevent a desire for a glamorous solution to murders to cloud our judgement.

"Let the time go by
With no alibi!
Loitering on the streets where you live"

[Ally]

Speaking of wish-fulfillment fallacies the "toff" theory ranks right up there with Hutchinsonites who believe that GH, as the actual Ripper, would walk in to the police and place himself there at the scene of the crime.

Everybody hates all wish-fulfillment scenarios except their own.

[Ben]

Well, not really, because I don't "wish" for it to be true.

I know only that a number of serial killers have approached police and placed themselves at or near the scene of the crime. None of us know for certain if that's what happened, but it wouldn't be at all unusual or unlikely.

[Ally]

I love it when people make unsubstantiated claims such as "quite a number of serial killers approach the police and place themselves at the scene of a crime". Serial killers may call, they may write letters, from an anonymous distance, but I bet you'd be hard pressed to find a single case of a serial killer who walked into a police station and placed himself at the scene of a crime.

And even if you were able to find such a case, for every single instance you find, I could find 20-30 instances where people who were in no way related interjected themselves into the crime with useless "witness" testimony.

And for every instance of a serial killer you find walking into a police station directly and placing himself at the scene, I can find you an instance of an upper income gentleman who committed murder.

One scenario is just as based in personal wish-fulfillment as the other.

[Suzi]

Hi Kensai-
'Decked out for a night at the Opera'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Definately a few too movies too many!!!
a) There wasn't anything quite of the scenario you imagine in the area....some wondrous Music Halls of varying dubiosity but certainly not an Opera House!!!
and b) Our man .....whoever he was most certainly didnt toddle around dressed as 'Champagne Charlie' (He wouldn't have made it from one end of Dorset St to the other!) IMHO- He was a grey/ be-capped/moustachioed(probably) well known local- known and trusted by the victims....there we are I've had my say on that ...........but to be honest you'll never dissuade me from that point of view......Now if that was GH so be it!

Suzi x

[Suzi]

This is a piece I did of Harry Champion at some point in my chequered career!

NOT a Dorset Street Regular .....(or Irregular come to that!)

[Ben]

I love it when people make unsubstantiated claims such as "quite a number of serial killers approach the police and place themselves at the scene of a crime".

'Course in this case it isn't "unsubstantiated" at all. It's true, and no, I don't mean writing lettes from an anonymous distance. I'm talking about actual killers, both serial and one-off, who approach the police in person with false information, from Ian Huntley to Nathanial Code. It doesn't matter if people on message boards think it's unusual or outlandish when the historical record clearly demonstrates otherwise.

And even if you were able to find such a case, for every single instance you find, I could find 20-30 instances where people who were in no way related interjected themselves into the crime with useless "witness" testimony.

No, I don't beleve you could. In this case, you'd have to dismiss as "coincidence" the strong correlation between between Sarah Lewis' sighting of a man loitering outside Miller's Court apprently "waiting for someone to come out" and Hutchinson's claim to have waited outside Miller's Court for someone to come out. Both at 2:30am on 9th November.

And for every instance of a serial killer you find walking into a police station directly and placing himself at the scene, I can find you an instance of an upper income gentleman who committed murder.

An upper income serial killer who advertises his wealth in the most conspicuous manner imaginable in the worst possible location? Nope. I don't reckon you could.

[Suzi]

Exactly Ben-

Not about to start rattling on here but the number of letters written to and from diverse angles does NOT suggest ONE man/woman writer ...and to be honest there's no reasonable logic between them all!.......Guess the Dear Boss and the Saucy Jack have a certain frisson ......but........!

This aside but the lurkers/helpers are worrying...........as in Huntley ...didn't Kurten do something along those lines too?

Suzi x

[Ally]

Yeah, I love it too, because it's true, and no, I don't mean writing lettes from an anonymous distance. I'm talking about actual killers, both serial and one-off, who approach the police in person with false information, from Ian Huntley to Nathanial Code. It doesn't matter if people on message boards think it's unusual or outlandish when the historical record clearly demonstrates otherwise.

I notice the only two examples you can come up with is people who did not interject themselves into the investigation by going to the police but interjected themselves by killing people in close proximity to themselves and drawing police suspicion that way. Code killed his grandfather and two nephews. Not anonymous hookers he had never been linked to in anyway. And he only interjected himself after the killings of the people he was directly linked to. A neighbor SAW Nathaniel Code and reported it to the police and said "I saw NATHANIAL CODE" not "I saw a guy with brown hair and brown eyes leaving the scene". Huntley was not a serial killer and killed two girls at a school he worked for, and he had a sexual past with young girls. So the question stands: a serial killer who interjected himself into the investigation entirely voluntarily without having any connection to a victim? Nope. Listing examples of suspects that kill people they have a direct connection to is not remotely similar, and you should well know, fallacy in the extreme. Keep trying though. Serial Killers not connected to victims in anyway interjecting themselves? People always say they do, so it should be easy to prove. Serial killers interjecting themselves directly when there is no known connection to the victim.

No, I don't beleve you could. In this case, you'd have to dismiss as "coincidence" the strong correlation between between Sarah Lewis' sighting of a man loitering outside Miller's Court apprently "waiting for someone to come out" and Hutchinson's claim to have waited outside Miller's Court for someone to come out. Both at 2:30am on 9th November.

Er, no that's pretty much the exact point. If Hutchinson wanted to interject himself into the investigation as a witness merely for the sake of glory or being involved, all he had to do was follow her account exactly as given. It's not much of a coincidence there's a strong correlation considering he didn't bother coming forward with his story until her story had been detailed at the inquest!

An upper income serial killer who advertises his wealth in the most conspicuous manner imaginable in the worst possible location? Nope. I don't reckon you could.

Yeah it's just about as credible as a serial killer walking into a police station, and placing himself at the scene of a crime when no one else had named him as being there.

[Suzi]

Exactlly!! unlikely!....unless you want to want to be in the frame! and if so .....why???? (maybe he'd have got off on it?)

[Ben]

I notice the only two examples you can come up with is people who did not interject themselves into the investigation by going to the police but interjected themselves by killing people in close proximity to themselves and drawing police suspicion that way.

Hutchinson claimed to have known Kelly for three years, something which, unlike many aspects of his account, was capable of being investigated to a degree, if only along the lines of "Did Kelly ever mention knowing a man named George Hutchinson?", so the comparison with Nathanial Code and Ian Huntley is obviously applicable. Huntley didn't have any connection to the victims. The girls were last seen at the end of the long road he lived on. He wasn't observed loitering near a crime scene an hour before the murder as Hutchinson was, and yet he still came forward as a helpful witness, escorting coppers hither and thither and delivering accounts of "suspicious" men in the district.

Same with Nathanial Code and the comparisons with Hutchinson. The latter had no idea how much Lewis had seen or recalled, just as Nathaniel Code didn't, and even if she didn't know him personally, there was the obvious potential of a subsequent sighting and identification occuring in a close-knit district. Incidentally, Code came forward before learning of the neighbour's account. That's assuming that Hutchinson came forward out of self-preservation rather than bravado anyway, and the latter has certainly proved an incentive for some.

So the question stands: a serial killer who interjected himself into the investigation entirely voluntarily without having any connection to a victim?

We don't know if Hutchinson had any connection to the victim or not, but just to go with the flow, there's Gary Ridgeway who injected himself into the Green River case in 1984. In that case, it was even predicted. Then there's Ivan Milat, who came forward of his own volition and signed a "witness" statement that was initially considered so detailed that it was chalked up to "photographic memory". Sounds familiar.

If Hutchinson wanted to interject himself into the investigation as a witness merely for the sake of glory or being involved, all he had to do was follow her account exactly as given.

Well if that's your theory, perhaps you could prove an example of a false witness who used a real witness's account to lend support for his own tall tale?

Yeah it's just about as credible as a serial killer walking into a police station, and placing himself at the scene of a crime when no one else had named him as being there.

You're welcome to that opinion, but you'd simply be wrong, and most of us should really be concerned with what actually happens in real life, as opposed to what message board contributiors don't find credible.

[Pilgrim]

Recklessness.

An extreme example of "recklessness and immersion" would be the Viennese serial killer Jack Unterweger. He did not contact the police as a witness, but in the capacity of being a journalist, whilst alredy being known to have served a sentence for murdering a woman. When staying in Los Angeles he also exposed himself by picking up one of the prostitutes he murdered right across the street from the hotel he was staying at. At that time he was a fairly well known public figure in Vienna.

What makes the Whitechapel murders so different however, is the fact that there were no such thing as public transport back then, and still, people very rarely walked anywhere. And there's the very special circumstance, a scientifically proven fact more or less, that the whole district was hermetically sealed to any outsiders, except when accompanied by heavily armed guards, sort of like an early version of "Ripper guides". The main arterial roads even, could not be entered by anyone but the local population, or the local police. These special circumstances would of course have made it absolutely impossible for an "LVP Jack Unterweger" to have entered the area without such "Ripper guides". The fact that the Whitechapel/Spitalfields area was hermetically sealed to any outsiders could also, possibly, explain why these "local murders" eventually acquired a cultist following as hermetically sealed to outside influence as that area once was.

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Ben;1327]

Hutchinson claimed to have known Kelly for three years, something which, unlike many aspects of his account, was capable of being investigated to a degree, if only along the lines of "Did Kelly ever mention knowing a man named George Hutchinson?", so the comparison with Nathanial Code and Ian Huntley is obviously applicable.

What he claims means diddly squat. Not one person said "I saw George Hutchinson outside Mary Kelly's apartment at 2:30. If he is going to be interjecting himself for WHATEVER reason, he has to have a reason for being there. A false claim to know the victim is not outside the bounds. There is no connection, to MJK whatsoever, that has ever been proven, and either way you look at it, everyone is in agreement that Hutchinson lies.

f Hutchinson had any connection to the victim or not, but just to go with the fow, there's Gary Ridgeway who injected himself into the Green River case in 1984.

Er yeah...being arrested for prostitution, giving up hair and saliva samples and taking a polygraph test AFTER you are a suspect is NOT interjecting yoruself. Ridgeway was arrested for prostitution. Not exactly independent interjection.

In that case, it was even predicated. Then there's Ivan Milat, who came forward of his own volition and signed a "witness" statement that was initially considered so detailed that it was chalked up to "photographic memory". Sounds familiar.

Sigh. Milat didn't come forwardof his own volition. Police contacted HIM after someone told them Milat had told them about suspicious goings on in the forest. Milat told stories. People told stories about Milat, and police contacted him.

Keep trying though.

Well if that's your theory, perhaps you could prove an example of a false witness who used a real witness's account to lend support for his own tall tale?

I'm still waiting for you to come up with one!

You're welcome to that opinion, but you'd simply be wrong, and most of us should really be concerned with what actually happens in real life, as opposed to what message board contributiors don't find credible.

Ditto.

[Ben]

What he claims means diddly squat. Not one person said "I saw George Hutchinson outside Mary Kelly's apartment at 2:30. If he is going to be interjecting himself for WHATEVER reason, he has to have a reason for being there. A false claim to know the victim is not outside the bounds. There is no connection, to MJK whatsoever, that has ever been proven, and either way you look at it, everyone is in agreement that Hutchinson lies.

Yes. Agree.

Except in the sense that someone would need to name Hutchinson by name in order for him to come forward.

Er yeah...being arrested for prostitution, giving up hair and saliva samples and taking a polygraph test AFTER you are a suspect is NOT interjecting yoruself. Ridgeway was arrested for prostitution.

No. Disagree.

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.

Sigh. Milat didn't come forwardof his own volition. Police contacted HIM after someone told them Milat had told them about suspicious goings on in the forest.

...And what did Milat do? Just claim ignorance to the stories being attributed to him and say "Sorry, can't help"? Not a bit of it. He admitted authorship of the "stories" and delivered a ludicrously detailed desscription that was initially chalked up to "photographic memory", just as Hutchinson's is today on occasions. In fact, the Milat's tale-telling to friends and acqauintances is rather reminiscent of Hutchinson's claim to have told some fellow lodgers about it.