Sympathy for Hutch

[kensei]

[QUOTE=The Good Michael;1473]All these reasons are why she probably wasn't a Ripper victim, but the result of infighting between one of thousands of beaus.

Mike,

I've always been extremely skeptical of the idea that Mary wasn't a Ripper victim, for the simple reason that serial killers and all killers of a particularly brutal nature are, in spite of the large number of cases, still rare within the general population. It seems unlikely to an extreme degree that even in the violent East End there was more than one person that would have even been mentally capable of literally cutting a woman to pieces. Murder in general yes, but not to that degree.

[Ben]

To admit to be that man or played the police that he was that man is hugely different from Frank's example

No it isn't. VarQ. Not at all. If witnesses from previous murders were reintroduced into the equation and all identified Hutchinson as the man they'd seem, he'd be in a spot on bother. It wouldn't have mattered if he'd only be seen an hour before the crime scene. Several witnesses attesting to having seen the same man would have been incriminating enough. And that's assuming he came forward purely for reasons of self preservation, and not out of purely bravado, or because he wanted to keep appraised of police progress.

Somebody has apparently stolen my profile and is posting remarkably good Poster posts about profiling and GH The Unlikely Suspect!!

Well, she's doing a better job than you, but then that's hardly an achievement given your posting history, as you demonstrate with unnecessarily goading comments and silly exclamation marks.

They perhaps do (rarely) when they have been caught on camera, seen, have killed the neighbours, havent heard all the testimony at the inquest and DON'T live in a homogeneous seething mass of untraceable, unidentifiable, non-ID-toting GH flat cap clones.

Why no, Lars. Wrong, Lars. They come forward for a variety of reasons in a variety of ways, not just for the ones you've outlined, and if 1888 Whitechapel is as seething and anoymous as you claim, it's pretty amazing how John Pizer suddenly became the most hated man in the district for a while, purely on account of a witness description.

What we know criminals actually do and in the overwhelmingly greater number of cases is to try and evade capture. Thats why police exist.

Yes, and it is to the end of evading capture than many pre-emptive moves are directed.

Now....on what basis do you think it is more likely that GH popped up at the cop shop after killing Kelly instead of doing what legions of felons try and do?

Absolutely irrevelent, because we know that GH did pop to the cop shop. We don't know why than happened, but if he did so because he was the killer attempting to "legitimize" his presence at a crime scene, it wouldn't be remotely unusual or unlikely.

Of course we also know that hoards of witnesses to crimes come forward late with their information for a plethora of good reasons.

Yes, but startlingly few of them come forward immediately after the opportunity to be scrutinised in public had disappeared, and immediately after discovering that an independent witness had observed them loitering near a crime scene at a time crucial to the murder. He could have come forward at any stage during the three days before the inquest, or any stage afterwards, but he chose just afterwards, but chalk it up to "freak coincidence" if you want.

[Ben]

Point number 4 requires a burden of proof to be able to be able to connect it with point 1., therefore, Ally's argument, as much as I hate her being right, is the stronger argument.

Not really, Good Mike.

If it had only been observed that I lacked the burden of proof (and there's no disputing you're right about that), then yes, that would be a reasonable argument. If it went further, and people tried to claim that anything I've argued in relation to Hutchinson is somehow "unlikely", then no, that isn't a very strong argument at all because it hasn't been demonstrated.

[Ally]

Chava,

As Ben himself points out in another thread, phony witness testimony from glory seeking hounds has been common since the first day of crime reporting.

Let's look at the likelies:

1. George Hutchinson is not the Ripper and was not the man seen by Sarah Lewis. He wants to be a part of the glory, and goes forward and says, hey I was outside, I saw this and that etc. Pure attention seeking glory for no apparent reason.

2. George Hutchinson is not the Ripper and was the man seen by Sarah Lewis. He was hanging out, for any manner of reason. He realizes he was spotted. He could have said, gee people will think I am the Ripper, gee, they might be looking for me, gee, I should go to the cops. He goes to the cops. Maybe he's nervous at being considered a suspect, maybe he still does want a bit of the glory, in any event he spins a witness tale to relieve suspicion.

3. George Hutchinso was the Ripper. He realizes he's been spotted and for some reason, known only to him, and discounting the fact that he's been spotted AT LEAST twice before this, this time, he decides that because he was spotted, THIS TIME he's going to go walk into the police station and deliver himself into the eye of the coppers to alleviate suspicion.


If he was worried about being spotted which is the claim by the Hutch-pushers, this argument is completely negated by the fact that he was spotted before and never seemed particularly bothered by it. A better reason for Hutch handing himself over to the coppers is needed.

[Ben]

Hi Ally,

In scenario #2, the mindset isn't so different from mindset #3, the difference being that he wouldn't be the killer in the former. The only problem is that we'd need another reason for Hutchinson being there, and posit the existence of the "real" killer arriving on the scene at a later stage. Since the loitering man was monitering the court shortly before the murder (and killers have been known to use prior surveillance), he's a reaonsonable suspect in her murder anyway, irrespective of identity.

#1 is possible, but then I've never heard of any false witness using a real witnesses' evidence to lend credence to their own account.

If he was worried about being spotted which is the claim by the Hutch-pushers, this argument is completely negated by the fact that he was spotted before and never seemed particularly bothered by it.

Less bothered, yes, because before October 19th he had every reason to believe that the witnesses who had observed him had only provided inadequate descriptions. 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.

Now, if the police used that ploy with the Lawende's evidence, what was preventing them from repeating it at the next inquest?

In any case, he couldn't have come forward as Lawende's or Schwartz's man even if he desperately wanted to. The timing was too tight for anyone to arrive on the scene and dispatch Eddowes' after the Lawende's sighting, and as for Schwartz, well "Yes, I was the man hurling anti-semetic insults and attacking the victim at around the time the doctors believed she died, but no, I left just aftewards, just as Mr. Astrakhan emerged from the gloom"

Hardly plausible.

[Ally]

Ben,

Any "false witness" who interjects themselves uses facts available to support their witness account, whether it be newspaper reports, gossip or whatever. If Hutch was spurred to come forward for glory, it is not completely unlikely as you attempt to make it seem, that he would have read of Lewis testimony and if he were tryiing to make his story seem plausible to say hey, I was there at 2:30. In fact, that would be relatively...uh plausible. Do you think all "fake witnesses" just completely decide to go up and give testimony in a total vacuum without acquainting themselves with the bare facts of the case?

As for the "killers have been known to use prior surveillance" yeah, and people have also been known to loiter in areas where prostitutes frequent or just loiter for a while, in a doorway or convenient stopping place. We don't need a reason for Hutch to be there. I am often found in places I have no reason for being, I just happen to be there at that particular time. Saying that Hutch requires a reason for being there, is ludicrous. But frankly, I don't think Hutch was the man that Sarah Lewis saw, so arguing scenario 2 is beyond a waste of time.

Hardly plausible he would suddenly become worried and trot off to the cops either. He'd had much closer calls with witnesses, killed anyway and escaped undetected. This doesn't speak of a man likely to give in to nerves over being identified when a vague tentative desciption by a witness of a man loitering in the area arises.

Still waiting for the list of ten.

[Sam Flynn]

before October 19th he had every reason to believe that the witnesses who had observed him had only provided inadequate descriptions.

A stronger reason would be that the killer may have struck on his own doorstep this time. It's scarcely credible that the recent immigrant Schwartz of Ellen Street, or Dalston-based Lawende, both Jews, would have known him by name, and the risk of being recognised by a local gentile would have been considerably greater. Provided, of course, the Ripper lived in the heart of Spitalfields - which, whether he was Hutchinson or not, I'm inclined to believe he did.

[Ben]

Hi Ally,

Any "false witness" who interjects themselves uses facts available to support their witness account, whether it be newspaper reports, gossip or whatever

True, but unfortunately so do killers who come forward whatever reason. All I'm saying is that I've yet to encounter one example of a false witness who assumed the identity of someone seen by a real witness. Not that they definitely don't exist, just that nobody seems to have heard of any. And surely it wasn't worth the risk of whatever suspicion such a course of action would entail unless he was really there? Surely, for example, he'd give an account of where he really was at the time of the murder?

Certainly you get random loiterers in prostitute-populated areas, but here we're talking about a loiterer who was reported to have sustained a particular interest in the very court that the body was eventually found in. Given that his sentinel occured shortly before the murder, he certainly would need a reason to be there, if only to elimate him from further inquiries. Someone had to have killed Kelly that night, and although we could posit the existance of someone who arrived on the scene later, there's no reason why we shouldn't use the evidence available and entertain the possibility that the man who sustained an interest in the court an hour before the murder may have been the murderer.

As I mentioned in my last post, you're quite right, he did have closer calls with earlier witnesses, but it would have been that very "closeness" that prevented him from coming forward on those occasions even if he wanted to. Besides which, there was no evidence that the police were suppresing witness descriptions until after the Eddowes murder.

Best regards,
Ben

Edit: Just noticed Gareth's post. Another very good reason!

[Chava]

1. George Hutchinson is not the Ripper and was not the man seen by Sarah Lewis. He wants to be a part of the glory, and goes forward and says, hey I was outside, I saw this and that etc. Pure attention seeking glory for no apparent reason.

Hi Ally

I know that. In fact I brought that up earlier on the board before it went down. It seemed to me, and still does, entirely possible that he came forward with that story to attention-seek, but also for possible financial and certain alcoholic gain. 'Cheque-book journalism' is alive and well in the UK, and probably was being practiced then as well. Even if he couldn't sell an exclusive I Was The Last To See Her Alive On The Fatal Night story to a newspaper, he might have been able to milk it for free drinks for months.

My problems with GH start with the fact that he doesn't turn up until after Sarah Lewis mentions a man in the alley. And end with that overly-accurate eye-witness description of Mr A. If in fact it was GH in the alley, he might have intended to keep quiet about it. However Lewis does give one concrete detail that could identify someone. She says the man wore a 'wideawake' hat. Here's a link to an image of such a hat:

http://v.pynchonwiki.com/wiki/index....eawake-hat.gif

That would have been an extremely unusual hat for the East End in those days. Not many men would have been wearing such a hat. If GH did have a hat like that or was known for wearing one, then I could see that he might feel he should come forward and 'clear his name'. In those circumstances I can see him making up a story out of whole cloth of a mysterious and foreign-looking Jewish gentleman in an astrakhan coat. I must here note that there is no suggestion of a wideawake hat in any other possible sighting of the Ripper. So GH may or may not have anything to do with Kelly's death, but he doesn't seem to be implicated in the murder of Chapman, Stride or Eddowes, all of whom were seen with men in close proximity to their deaths.

[Ben]

Hi Chava,

Interestingly, the wideawake hat crops up elsewhere too. Ada Wilson's attacker was reportedly 5"6' with a sunburnt complexion and a wideawake hat. In the Stride murder too, Schwartz's second man - the solitary fella with a pipe - wore a felt hat with a wide brim, as I recall.

[paul emmett]

Hello, Folks.

I would like to suggest two interrelated points that somehow express sympathy for Hutch. First, Hutch did say that MJK's room was dark and "noiseless" at say 2:20 and possibly later, which coincides with Cox's statement for 3:00. Now, it might not be such a gamble for H. to say a room was dark at 2:30 a.m., but since his own story has MJK and friend just coming in, they might well have lit a candle--or a fire! So it's a bit of a gamble if he's making it up. Still, he might have studyed Cox's statement and used the assertion of dark and quiet to bolster his story.

That's where the second point comes in. It would seem that if he knew Cox's statements, he would certianly know Lewis's, but he doesn't know them very well. Lewis puts LM across the street by the Lodging House and/or in the street. GH claims he was at the court, about the entrance to Miller's Ct.

The difference here makes me think GH don't know much, but along with his "knowledge" that the room was dark and quiet, it makes me think he really was there.

Is that sympathetic?

[FrankO]

Hi Ally,

Let's make it simple and directly related to Hutchinson. Hutchinson had absolutely no reason to go to the police. No one had pointed a finger at him, his name had not been brought up, the police had not officially questioned him at all and there was nothing linking him to the crime.

Not that I think it's the most likely that GH was MJK's killer, but there would have been no sense in going to the police when he knew he had already been questioned/was already suspected/was looked for. Obviously, it would have been too late then. So, if he chose to come forward to try and deflect possible suspicion away from him, he had to do it before he was ever named or fingered.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Hi Paul,

Now, it might not be such a gamble for H. to say a room was dark at 2:30 a.m., but since his own story has MJK and friend just coming in, they might well have lit a candle--or a fire! So it's a bit of a gamble if he's making it up.

It's not clear when exactly he's supposed to have gone up the court to see that MJK's room was dark and quiet. It may well have been just before he said he left his vigil, which would be close to 3 am. It would even make sense for him to leave at that point: the darkness and quietness suggested the client would stay the night and that the couple were asleep, so there was nothing left to do for him.

Lewis puts LM across the street by the Lodging House and/or in the street. GH claims he was at the court, about the entrance to Miller's Ct.

GH didn't clearly state where exactly he was standing or if he was standing in one spot the whole time. He just stated he "went to the court to see if I could see them" and that he "stood there" for about 45 minutes. That doesn't mean he necessarily stood at the very entrance to the court, nor that he necessarily stood at the exact same spot the whole time. It was a rather cold night, he may have moved from time to time.

The difference here makes me think GH don't know much, but along with his "knowledge" that the room was dark and quiet, it makes me think he really was there.

Having said the above, I also think he was there - getting the attention and perhaps even some money would all be fine and dandy, but running the risk of being suspected would be quite another thing, I'd imagine.

All the best,
Frank

[paul emmett]

Hi Paul,

It's not clear when exactly he's supposed to have gone up the court to see that MJK's room was dark and quiet. It may well have been just before he said he left his vigil, which would be close to 3 am. It would even make sense for him to leave at that point: the darkness and quietness suggested the client would stay the night and that the couple were asleep, so there was nothing left to do for him.

GH didn't clearly state where exactly he was standing or if he was standing in one spot the whole time. He just stated he "went to the court to see if I could see them" and that he "stood there" for about 45 minutes. That doesn't mean he necessarily stood at the very entrance to the court, nor that he necessarily stood at the exact same spot the whole time. It was a rather cold night, he may have moved from time to time.

Having said the above, I also think he was there - getting the attention and perhaps even some money would all be fine and dandy, but running the risk of being suspected would be quite another thing, I'd imagine.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Id like to say something to each paragraph, but I'm not so good at the techy stuff.
One, I was saying that with respect to dark and quiet, Hut's story matched Cox's, so to me it doesn't matter if he's talking 2:15 or 3:00. Indeed, 3 is closer to Cox, and it is one small thing that makes me believe him.

Two, "to the court" doesn't sound like across the street to me, and in the papers Hut was more explicit: Sugden says, "he stood about the enterance of Miller's Court for about 45 minutes." So this is one discrepency that makes me lean toward George.

Three, we agree on the bottom line anyways, so I know all this is academic. Do you then think Hut saw MJK and guest? Clearly, he was running the risk of being suspected.

Paul

[Ben]

Good points, Frank.

Hut's story matched Cox's, so to me it doesn't matter if he's talking 2:15 or 3:00. Indeed, 3 is closer to Cox, and it is one small thing that makes me believe him

But you've addressed this yourself, Paul. If he learned about Lewis' evidence concerning the 2:30am loiterer and became spooked into fabricating a story to vindicate his presence there, he probably learned about Cox's evidence at the same time, and "used" it to bolster his version of events. I'd agree with Frank's observation that there is no real discrepency with regard to Hutchinson's location. People who are "watching and waiting" for someone for any length of time don't usually cement themselves to one fixed spot, but tend instead to move around, especially if the weather is cold. Besides, Dorset Street was eight feet wide, so there wouldn't have been any appreciable movement.

Incidentally the "dark, noiselss" detail was only introduced in press accounts. Nothing of that nature was mentioned in the initial police statement.

Best regards,
Ben