Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

second Toppy/Hutch were do we stand...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Hello Ben,
    Hutchinson [ regardless of ID] was a recorded witness in the events leading up to the murder of kelly.
    He was never officially named a suspect, just a witness.
    Just because his description was very specific, does not mean he was lying, so how have you convinced youself that he had sinister motives?
    Richard.

    Comment


    • #17
      Hi Richard,

      Hutchinson [ regardless of ID]
      Oh no, I was addressing the hypothetical Toppy-as-Ripper with that last question. We want to avoid another generic "Is Hutchinson suspicious?" debate in this particular thread, but I'll quickly observe that it's mighty difficult to be "specific" about items that he almost certainly couldn't have even seen.

      Cheers,
      Ben

      Comment


      • #18
        Funny....

        Originally posted by Ben View Post
        That's a misheard lyric, I'm afraid. The violin-accompanied song was actually "I lied with glee".

        Easy mistake to make.


        You're a funny man, you are!

        Mind you, I think you missed the main point here, which is that phrase of the day appears to be 'Non-Starter'....

        See ya! Wouldn't want to be....

        Yeah, you get the drift...!

        Jane x

        Comment


        • #19
          And Funnier Still.....

          Is what appears to date to be a landslide vote in favour of .....

          Toppy not= Hutch....

          Uhuh....



          Jane x

          Comment


          • #20
            "It's a possibilty that cannot be ruled out. That's as far as the evidence takes us."
            From my time lurking on Casebook, this is what I've taken from the many discussions.

            Comment


            • #21
              Hello,

              I think that since Hutchinson evidently has zero witness evidence worth considering, who he really was is of little importance to the Ripper cases.

              I personally dont accept that he was at the location he claimed that night, let alone that he was a friend of Marys and he also saw her with a fuzzy cuffed toff, based on their dismissal of him.....not just portions of his statement.

              Im constantly amazed at how much gets discussed about him....and how come Packer or Maxwell dont get such attention as they werent believed by the contemporary authorities either.

              Relevance to the investigations is where I draw my line of interest personally, perhaps many are just interested in his personal disgrace more than I am.

              I know Ben will object to this post....but my friend Ben will admit that nothing exists in this world or any other that shows us Hutchinson should not be discarded completely.... just like they did 120 years ago.

              Hunches dont constitute possible evidence of culpability.

              My best regards all.

              Comment


              • #22
                Hi Mike,

                The main difference here is that Hutchinson's behaviour would appear suspicious to any modern investigator based on what we've since learned about serial killers and their behaviour over the decades since 1888, and because that knowledge couldn't possibly have been available to any of the detectives from that period, we're more than entitled to speculate that they may have been wrong in consigning him to to the ever-burgeoning list of publicity-seeking time-wasters, and moreover, that they may have overlooked a serial killer resorting to documented (and occasionally predicted) self-preservation tactics in the process. None of that really applies in the cases of Packer and Maxwell, which may explain why they aren't discussed as often.

                All the best,
                Ben
                Last edited by Ben; 07-17-2009, 01:18 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Ben View Post
                  Hi Mike,

                  The main difference here is that Hutchinson's behaviour would appear suspicious to any modern investigator based on what we've since learned about serial killers and their behaviour over the decades since 1888, and because that knowledge couldn't possibly have been available to any of the detectives from that period, we're more than entitled to speculate that they may have been wrong in consigning him to to the ever-burgeoning list of publicity-seeking time-wasters, and moreover, that they may have overlooked a serial killer resorting to documented (and occasionally predicted) self-preservation tactics in the process. None of that really applies in the cases of Packer and Maxwell, which may explain why they aren't discussed as often.

                  All the best,
                  Ben
                  Im not misunderstanding your contention in bold above Ben. Im just not sure that its a warranted perspective, and I would dispute what possible value modern serial killer behavioral analysis might have when analyzing Jack the Ripper ......seems in every case where we can breakdown the actions and motivations of serial killers its the result of having the killer to interview, and having a specific victims list for them that is linked to them by identified physical evidence. Fibre, Blood, Hair, footprints, tire tracks, fingerprints, security cameras..witnesses, ...traces of matter..tangible, qualifiable and quantifiable.

                  Not only is all "matter evidence" gathered for Jack inconclusive, meaning it points in no-ones direction, we dont even know which murders to attach to his "spree", if a spree at all. On the books its plausible that Jack the Ripper killed 2 women, perhaps 3. That killer link is qualifiable and quantifiable in only that many murders. The rest are circumstantial cases only, or by the personality and history profiling of proposed killer(s). Chapman suggested as viable because he had a George Yard address at the time and was named as a suspect at the time in memos, ...I think thats a good example of what I mean. Hes supposedly one of the best bets for Jack...based on the above? And poisonings?

                  As the commercial catch phrase says...."Wheres the "beef"?

                  Short story made long......no modern data from defined killers and defined kills can be used to suggest the behavior or characteristics of Jack the Ripper.

                  Because the only thing we do know,..is that there is no Jack the Ripper, there are 5 murder cases that were among 13 or 14 unsolved attacks or murders of Unfortunates that the authorities suspect were committed by the same one or more men. How Hutch may be perceived now by the police is irrelevant, particularly when the killers identity in the crime investigation he is a witness for remains unknown. He may well be a discredited witness for a copy cat killing that had nothing to fo with Jack the Ripper or had foundations or motivations in the victims personal behaviors and life. Which is why I wonder aloud about why he could possibly seem interesting to anyone based on what is known here to date.

                  I dont suggest that you arent right to be curious about him....or why he wasnt looked at as a suspect for his placing himself in Wideawakes Hat,....I do suggest that we do know that he is dismissed entirely from the show,.... by the people who talked to him, watched him, followed his "lead" up... and stated publicly that they found his account not worthy of trust.

                  Odds are, if they were rightly judging him, he used the Wideawake Hat man to make his fiction plausible for a short time.

                  All the best Ben, as always.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Im just not sure that its a warranted perspective, and I would dispute what possible value modern serial killer behavioral analysis might have when analyzing Jack the Ripper ......seems in every case where we can breakdown the actions and motivations of serial killers its the result of having the killer to interview
                    I can assure you that isn't the case at all, Mike.

                    The behavioural traits referred to above, along with many others, are the result of documented facts and not hearsay from interviews with serial killers. Since human nature hasn't evolved significantly since 1888, behavioural analyses of modern serial killers are certainly of value when contemplating the identity of the Whitechapel murderer.

                    On the books its plausible that Jack the Ripper killed 2 women, perhaps 3
                    It's plausible that he was responsible for more murders and attacks than "2 woman, perhaps 3" because to reason otherwise would be to fine-tune a serial killer's methods to an extent that just isn't permitted by any historical precedent, and then we really would run the risk of straying into implausible territory. It's possible that he only murdered three, but I consider it far more likely that he claimed more victims than that, not that this has much to do with the hypothetical identifcation of Toppy with Hutch. It isn't remotely likely that he was responsible for only two (!)

                    There's no evidence that Klosowski had a George Yard domestic address at the time of the murders, incidentally, although he may have worked there at the time. I don't think he's generally accepted as "one of the best bets for Jack".

                    Which is why I wonder aloud about why he could possibly seem interesting to anyone based on what is known here to date.
                    He is a compelling suspect based on his behaviour in association with the Kelly murder. If you believe Kelly was a "copycat" killing, fair enough, but for the majority, a legitimately suspicious character for the Kelly murder is usually considered a viable candidate for the others by extension, and Hutchinson would unquestionably qualify on that score. I certainly don't buy into the idea that he wasn't there at all, but pretended to be a witness seen by another witness. Too complicated, and no historical precedent, and I'm one heck of an anorak when it comes to historical precedent. To that end:

                    Serial killers pretending to be witnesses - yes.

                    Publicity-seekers pretending to be witnesses who, in turn, are seen by real witnesses - no.

                    All the best,
                    Ben
                    Last edited by Ben; 07-17-2009, 03:28 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Slightly off Topic, but..

                      Hi Mike, Ben, all -

                      I'm not of the persuasion myself that JTR (whoever he was) was only responsible for 2 or 3 murders. I see that as somewhat revisionist.

                      My views change often, but probably my preference for a 'long' view in this respect will not - and that's because I consider it inherently unlikely.

                      To explain - the murder of Polly Nicholls - how likely is it really that the killer came to that situation and killed her as a first strike - if you'll pardon the phrase - without having worked up to that in stages? I personally don't think that's how it works - for me, there must have been precedents, even if Nicholls was the first one - and I'm not sure I believe that.

                      Where I'm going with this is that I would expect to see a progression - and that is what I do see, personally. So, returning to the current question, Kelly may be, if not the culmination of that process, then perhaps the zenith - and I do see a logical progression that leads to her death.

                      Therefore, I suppose, my interest in Hutchinson lies primarily in the possibility that he was there, as he said, on the night of her death. His testimony, and indeed, the entire set of events surrounding his statement and subsequent discrediting, are full of discrepancies and problems for me.

                      It's a mystery for me.

                      Therein lies the fascination.

                      Taking a step back from my personal interest, though, I think that Hutchinson placing himself in such close proximity to Kelly's death warrants close inspection. Particularly, in his case, as there are so many unanswered questions. I have always felt that somewhere in there lies a key to this enquiry - maybe even the one to Kelly's room - Joke!

                      And at the very least, if we could discount him, it would be progress.

                      Best to all

                      Jane x

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by perrymason View Post
                        I think that since Hutchinson evidently has zero witness evidence worth considering, who he really was is of little importance to the Ripper cases.
                        Hi Michael,

                        I have a couple of questions for you.

                        Why, according to you, isnít his evidence worth considering?

                        Why, do you think, would anyone want to put himself there at that time, intently looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out, firmly linking himself to MJK that night and knowing that she was thought to have been killed quite soon after heíd been sighted there?
                        Because the only thing we do know,..is that there is no Jack the Ripper,...
                        Obviously, we know no such thing, Mike. In fact, Iím sure that Jack the Ripper was there. How many women he attacked and who, is another question.
                        I do suggest that we do know that he is dismissed entirely from the show,.... by the people who talked to him, watched him, followed his "lead" up... and stated publicly that they found his account not worthy of trust.
                        You mean to say that besides the one short sentence in one newspaper, the sensationalist Star, an official document exists, stating that the police didnít trust his account?

                        All the best,
                        Frank
                        "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                        Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Jane Welland View Post
                          Taking a step back from my personal interest, though, I think that Hutchinson placing himself in such close proximity to Kelly's death warrants close inspection. Particularly, in his case, as there are so many unanswered questions.

                          And at the very least, if we could discount him, it would be progress.
                          Couldn't agree more with you here, Jane.
                          "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                          Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X