Hutchinson reading the Times?

[Sunbury]

There is at least one historical example in British Law where a killer presented as the key Crown Witness in the murder trial of an innocent man for his victim. It wasn’t in the “primitive” era of the19th Century but post WW2.

I refer of course to the trial of Timothy Evans for the murder of his wife and child. The actual killer, John Christie (the Evans’s landlord) was the key Crown Witness and Evans was found guilty and hung. I would strongly recommend the book “10 Rillington Place” by Ludovic Kennedy that examines the case and eventually resulted in Evans receiving a Posthumous Royal Pardon.
Christie, himself was later executed as a serial killer for killing women in exactly the same way as how Mrs Evans died.

Unbelievably even after Christie’s execution, the British Police and Courts resolutely maintained that there were two killers living in the same house, at the exact same time, killing in the exact identical manner but unknown to each other. It took 13 years of pressure before the British Police and Courts were forced to admit they had got it so dreadfully wrong over Evans.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/10-Rillington-Place-Ludovic-Kennedy/dp/0586034285

[caz]

I don’t see how it can be argued that a significantly reduced chance of getting away with coming forward in the modern era (with all its advances in technology, and the fact that such behaviour is very well documented today), increases the likelihood of an offender trying it on.

Hi Ben,

It's not a case of 'trying it on' when a modern offender only shows his face because he knows he has been, or soon will be, positively identified (by cctv for example) as someone who was at or near his crime scene at the right time, or with his victim. It's a case of being unable to put off the inevitable - the knock on the door that will certainly lead to his arrest if he cannot explain a) why he was there innocently, and b) why he did not come forward as a result of heavy media coverage and police appeals to anyone nearby at the time.

In 1888 it was Sarah Lewis's word (at the very most, assuming it was Hutch she saw) against Hutch's*, in the unlucky event that she could have recognised him again if he stupidly gave her the chance. There is no suggestion whatsoever that she knew her loiterer by name or sight, or she would surely have said so. What was to stop him going back to Romford, or any of a hundred other towns (to look for work, if anyone was remotely interested) without anyone being the wiser? No bugger at the time or since seems to have been aware or given a flying toss who he was, who he associated with, what he did with himself, where he spent his days and nights, or where he went after his fifteen minutes of fame. So there is no reason to think he couldn't similarly have slipped off the radar by not coming forward at all. He could hardly have been on anyone's radar to begin with.

[*I am here assuming he was the ripper for the sake of my argument - and that doesn't mean I agree he was the ripper, in case it's not as clear as daylight .]

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Thank you, Sunbury, for providing that very useful example.

Hi Caz,

The essential point to remember here is that the serial offenders who have come forward as witnesses or informants (modern or otherwise) did so in spite of the availability of other options, such as sitting it out or running away. You're quite wrong about it always being an inevitability that today's serialists will be tracked down as suspects unless they get their version of events in first. That certainly wasn't true of Gary Ridgway, John Eric Armstrong, or the Milats. They might have perceived a likelihood of it happening, just as Hutchinson may have done, but that doesn't mean it was guaranteed. Because it wasn't.

Moreover, given how well established it is today that actual offenders will often come forward under false guises, it is considerably less likely that a modern day killer will come forward with such a pre-emptive strategy, knowing how slim the chances of it succeeding were. In 1888, by contrast, "killer witnesses" were an unknown entity, and the likelihood of such a maneuvre working for someone in Hutchinson's shoes (as per our "assumption") was accordingly very high.

...And all the more tempting for that reason.

He wouldn't have been remotely stupid, incidentally, if Lewis saw him again. She could have spotted him on the streets or in one of the lodging houses, and unless he became a hermit after the Kelly murder, this was not something he could exercise much control over, and nor was it unlikely to happen given the negligible distance between Great Pearl Street and Wentworth Street, and the fact that Lewis had connections to Dorset Street.

I perfectly accept that Lewis couldn't recognise him, and that "no bugger at the time or since seems to have been aware or given a flying toss who he was, who he associated with, what he did with himself, where he spent his days and nights, or where he went after his fifteen minutes of fame", but Hutchinson had no way of knowing this on the evening of 12th November. He didn't know that "slipping off the radar" could be achieved successfully, and without being recognised on the street and dragged in as a suspect minus a convenient bull$hit Astrakhan story.

I equally accept that he had other options, but then so did all the other offenders who came forward, despite the availability of the "slipping off the radar" option.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Thank you, Sunbury, for providing that very useful example.

Hi Caz,

The essential point to remember here is that the serial offenders who have come forward as witnesses or informants (modern or otherwise) did so in spite of the availability of other options, such as sitting it out or running away. You're quite wrong about it always being an inevitability that today's serialists will be tracked down as suspects unless they get their version of events in first. That certainly wasn't true of Gary Ridgway, John Eric Armstrong, or the Milats. They might have perceived a likelihood of it happening, just as Hutchinson may have done, but that doesn't mean it was guaranteed. Because it wasn't.

Moreover, given how well established it is today that actual offenders will often come forward under false guises, it is considerably less likely that a modern day killer will come forward with such a pre-emptive strategy, knowing how slim the chances of it succeeding were. In 1888, by contrast, "killer witnesses" were an unknown entity, and the likelihood of such a maneuvre working for someone in Hutchinson's shoes (as per our "assumption") was accordingly very high.

...And all the more tempting for that reason.

He wouldn't have been remotely stupid, incidentally, if Lewis saw him again. She could have spotted him on the streets or in one of the lodging houses, and unless he became a hermit after the Kelly murder, this was not something he could exercise much control over, and nor was it unlikely to happen given the negligible distance between Great Pearl Street and Wentworth Street, and the fact that Lewis had connections to Dorset Street.

I perfectly accept that Lewis couldn't recognise him, and that "no bugger at the time or since seems to have been aware or given a flying toss who he was, who he associated with, what he did with himself, where he spent his days and nights, or where he went after his fifteen minutes of fame", but Hutchinson had no way of knowing this on the evening of 12th November. He didn't know that "slipping off the radar" could be achieved successfully, and without being recognised on the street and dragged in as a suspect minus a convenient bull$hit Astrakhan story.

I equally accept that he had other options, but then so did all the other offenders who came forward, despite the availability of the "slipping off the radar" option.

All the best,
Ben

totally agree ben
postmortem mutilator serial killers tend to be very organized, hyper sensitive people with an over active imagination (in line with their fantasy world) to the point of paranoia-especially when dealing with getting caught, whos on to them, witnesses etc.

in the rippers case as the series progressed it seems more and more witnesses were getting a look at him. if he thought that sarah lewis knew him and could id him, he may have thought in his own mind that now was the time he needed to come forward as a witness in order to throw off the police.

and they usually seem to have a weird sense of superiority and think they are so much smarter than everyone else, that it gives them the balls to do it because they think they will not get caught because the police are such idiots.

[caz]

You're quite wrong about it always being an inevitability that today's serialists will be tracked down as suspects unless they get their version of events in first.

Hi Ben,

And you're quite wrong to think I said that or meant it. Read my post again. I was merely explaining that 'trying it on' does not apply in those cases where the offender has, for example, been caught on camera and will inevitably be identified and tracked down as a prime suspect. Obviously that is very far from 'always' being the case. But that's the point - it's very rarely the case (and even more rarely in 1888) that criminals willingly approach and engage with the police like this, whether they fear having been seen at the scene or not. It takes a certain character trait, sheer desperation (proving futile when in the face of overwhelming evidence), or an uneasy mix of the two.

He wouldn't have been remotely stupid, incidentally, if Lewis saw him again. She could have spotted him on the streets or in one of the lodging houses, and unless he became a hermit after the Kelly murder, this was not something he could exercise much control over, and nor was it unlikely to happen given the negligible distance between Great Pearl Street and Wentworth Street, and the fact that Lewis had connections to Dorset Street.

Again, read what I wrote. The ripper would have been stupid to hang around the area, waiting to be spotted by Lewis (or Long, or Schwartz, or Pipeman, or Lawende and co for that matter), if he feared this was a real possibility and in fact only came forward because of it. Of course he could have exercised control over this unless he had one foot nailed to the floor. He could have gone back to Romford or wherever on his own two feet, leaving Lewis no chance of ever spotting him again!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

in the rippers case as the series progressed it seems more and more witnesses were getting a look at him. if he thought that sarah lewis knew him and could id him, he may have thought in his own mind that now was the time he needed to come forward as a witness in order to throw off the police.

But Abby, if he picked up the information that she had seen him from her inquest testimony, there is no suggestion there that she knew him - quite the opposite in fact.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

But Abby, if he picked up the information that she had seen him from her inquest testimony, there is no suggestion there that she knew him - quite the opposite in fact.

Love,

Caz
X

maybe it was enough to know she was there. or if he got details from the inquest, that perhaps they withheld it as to not let on.

in his (paranoid) killers mind, who knows what he thought they knew.

[caz]

Ah yes, you can make a suspect think whatever you like, because he is meant to be a deranged killer, with a deranged killer's mindset. But it's all so circular and one can apply it to anyone alive in 1888 with access to London and no alibi.

If they held back details, for all Hutch knew Lewis could have clocked him again furtively entering MJK's room after 3am, when he claimed to have left the court to walk about all night. That would have done him a power of good.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Abby,

“and they usually seem to have a weird sense of superiority and think they are so much smarter than everyone else, that it gives them the balls to do it because they think they will not get caught because the police are such idiots.”

Spot on and well put, and important reminder that self-preservation isn’t the only motivating factor in a serial killer coming forward.

Hi Caz,

Obviously that is very far from 'always' being the case. But that's the point - it's very rarely the case (and even more rarely in 1888) that criminals willingly approach and engage with the police like this, whether they fear having been seen at the scene or not.

It isn't rarely the case at all.

It may seem counter-intuitive to us non criminals, but rare it most certainly isn’t, especially amongst serial killers. There is just no way a trait could be so well-documented and widely researched (even by those who have little insight into criminology), less still predicted by law enforcement, unless the number of known offenders who have resorted to this behaviour have made up a significant percentage of the total number of serialists known about. Serial killers themselves are "very rare", remember, and it takes a "certain character trait" to be one of those too. Arguably therefore, there is a correlation between rare behaviour (i.e. serial murder) and behaviour that WE would consider unusually foolhardy or counterproductive.

I can think of only one case in which CCTV has been the principle factor in the killer coming forward and pretending to be a witness, and even then, CCTV is no guarantee of anything. We've all seen those Crimewatch programs where the police seek help in identifying criminals caught on camera. It doesn't always result in their being identified and captured.

The ripper would have been stupid to hang around the area, waiting to be spotted by Lewis (or Long, or Schwartz, or Pipeman, or Lawende and co for that matter), if he feared this was a real possibility and in fact only came forward because of it

Only Lewis would have been a problem out of that bunch. If the ripper was a Gentile, Long's guessing game that her man might have been foreign would have been most welcome. Schwartz, Pipeman and Lawende weren't "in the area", if we're taking "the area" to mean the heart of the murder district, encompassing the Victoria Home and Dorset Street, and were unlikely to send him running for the hills. So it was mainly Lewis he had to fear bumping into again, and his pre-emptive measure on the 12th arguably took care of that.

Again, it matters very little if WE think running away is preferable to remaining in the area and adopting a more proactive strategy of subterfuge. What matters is what documented offenders have done, and very often it’s the latter.

Regards,
Ben

[caz]

It may seem counter-intuitive to us non criminals, but rare it most certainly isn’t, especially amongst serial killers. There is just no way a trait could be so well-documented and widely researched (even by those who have little insight into criminology), less still predicted by law enforcement, unless the number of known offenders who have resorted to this behaviour have made up a significant percentage of the total number of serialists known about. Serial killers themselves are "very rare", remember, and it takes a "certain character trait" to be one of those too. Arguably therefore, there is a correlation between rare behaviour (i.e. serial murder) and behaviour that WE would consider unusually foolhardy or counterproductive.

Hi Ben,

So still no idea of the actual percentage, but you guess it must be a 'significant' one? Given that only a handful of documented cases would have been needed to establish this as a known phenomenon, to be researched, looked out for and recognised, I'm not sure your reasoning is sound enough without any figures to back it up.

Only Lewis would have been a problem out of that bunch. If the ripper was a Gentile, Long's guessing game that her man might have been foreign would have been most welcome.

Yeah, and if the ripper was in his seventies, a female monarch or a yellow glove puppet, or managed not to be seen by anyone with a victim or near a crime scene, then every witness statement would have been equally welcome - including Lewis's - no doubt about it. Circular I'm afraid, Ben. It can be applied to virtually anyone we wish to suspect.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

maybe it was enough to know she was there. or if he got details from the inquest, that perhaps they withheld it as to not let on.

in his (paranoid) killers mind, who knows what he thought they knew.

Abby, why would you think a vague description like, "short, stout, and wearing a wideawake hat" would signify anybody?

[Abby Normal]

Abby, why would you think a vague description like, "short, stout, and wearing a wideawake hat" would signify anybody?

If he didn't get that or other details specifically from the inquest, then he he didn't know what she said, but knew she was there and might have implicated him.
The other scenario is that he did know she said that but may have thought that they deliberately suppressed more specific specific info about him.

[Wickerman]

If he didn't get that or other details specifically from the inquest, then he he didn't know what she said, but knew she was there and might have implicated him.
The other scenario is that he did know she said that but may have thought that they deliberately suppressed more specific specific info about him.

There was no indication at the inquest that suspicion was attached to this loiterer by the Coroner, so what purpose is to be served by suppressing details?

There was no suggestion that this loiterer must be found at all costs, he is a relatively unimportant figure. In fact the Coroner was more interested in the 'Britannia-man' and his suspicious activity rather than the loiterer.

[Abby Normal]

There was no indication at the inquest that suspicion was attached to this loiterer by the Coroner, so what purpose is to be served by suppressing details?

There was no suggestion that this loiterer must be found at all costs, he is a relatively unimportant figure. In fact the Coroner was more interested in the 'Britannia-man' and his suspicious activity rather than the loiterer.

Wicky
Hutch may have thought they were suppressing details so as not to alert the killer that the police were on to him.

[Wickerman]

Wicky
Hutch may have thought they were suppressing details so as not to alert the killer that the police were on to him.

Regardless, the whole scenario is mute due to the fact Hutchinson, if he was the killer, need only disappear back to Romford to evade detection.