Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Ben]

The cart still ain't going anywhere, so I'm just taking my horse and leaving.

Well saddle up and off you trot then, Mike.

But you said all this a few posts ago; that you were sick of all these nasty Hutch-hasslers and wanted nothing more to do with these threads, but beack you seem to have come. This had been an enjoyable and courteous exchange so far - amazingly so for Hutchinson threads, but then contrary to your complaints, I haven't seen anyone trying to convince anyone else here of his guilt or innocence. At least, not for a good few pages.

So, with respect, I feel the exasperation is deeply misplaced here and best reserved for Toppy threads.

All the best,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

You know, Mike, I don't think that it's only Hutch-ites that have a favourite 'theory'..

..I do read all the other Threads , and there are people who believe equally in Tumblety, or 'conspiracies', or believe that one or several of the murders were domestics and not Ripper killings at all.

There are plenty of people who construct 'profiles', and everyone -without exception -'speculates' somewhere. It is inevitable, because we have a myriad of disparate and often contradictory evidence to go on. What is one person's 'pure fact', might be open to different interpretations.

It seems natural to me that when one reads everything about the case, one forms an opinion. This site is to share opinions, and research (but even research is selective and open to opinion...I'm thinking of the MJK/Tottenham type thing). When you give an opinion and people debate it, you have to defend it -either the arguments convince you to change your mind, or they harden those opinions.

I personally relish reading people like Fish, even if I don't agree with him (well, I totally agree with 'middle aged' being 30ish), and Ben's answers, because I'm always open to their arguments, but I find Ben better informed and more convincing.

If people have no opinion on the matter, that is perfectly fine as well.

I have personally backtracked on alot of my former opinions, because I have accepted that other people have stronger arguments -but in the case of Hutch, and the C5, the pros still outweigh the antis for Me.

[The Good Michael]

My a$$ really hurts from reading this Hutchinson nonsense. Look, there are those who have believed in Hutchinson's guilt from the get-go, and nothing can change their minds. They have created a new set of logic based upon assumptions. The cart has indeed been placed before the horse and the cart is going nowhere. That is the same as the Hutchinson debate. Little details, that have no bearing upon Hutchinson's guilt or innocence, are cast aside just in case they could cast a shred of doubt upon his guilt. They do and they have, but the pro-hutchers ain't buying it. It saddens me that people can be so unidirectional. But, there you have it and there we are. The cart still ain't going anywhere, so I'm just taking my horse and leaving.

Mike

[Natalie Severn]

Yes,I think Claire,that the descriptions of the victim"s injuries were spread throughout Whitechapel where there were neighbours who had attended inquests such as John Richardson and his mother in Hanbury Street.The fact that Annie Chapman"s uterus had been taken and Kate Eddowes kidney was missing etc was well known by the 9th November so if Hutch/Fleming was the killer of Mary,he could have focussed on taking the heart because it symbolized complete control of her libidinous life at long last!

[claire]

That would be my interpretation, too, Norma...and that would have to, for me, distinguish it from the other murders, as you note in your reply to Rubyretro. Seems to me that, although all the murders, Stride aside, could be characterised by anger, an obsessed Hutchinson would also, in a warped kind of a way, be a man capable of, and consumed by, love. Seems to me that that is quite different from the look of the others.

However (there always is a 'however' with these cases, aren't there?), would you then consider the removal of the heart to be a copycat, or a natural progression of the 'broken heart' trope? I've no idea; just working through the potential psychologies of such a killer.

[Natalie Severn]

posted by Claire:

My lingering doubt, however, is due to the question of whether GH was 'simply' obsessed with MJ and couldn't give up that obsession, even after her death, or whether that was all part of his own murderous activities

Well Claire,I would see it as a crime of passion---jealousy and obsession, rather than a premeditated act of murder,ie if Hutch committed the murder.But if Hutch was actually Fleming,then it wasnt very long before he was sectioned---thank goodness.
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

I wouldn't want to advance myself on that, Nathalie..although I think there is something 'different' about the MJK killing, and I get the feeling that her killer /Hutch knew her-even if I open my mind to entertain doubts that they weren't one and the same; for one thing I think that he knew that she now lived alone, and he wouldn't be interrupted if he got into the room.

But 'great chutzpah', and daring, fit's with my idea of the Ripper's personality -allied with self preservation.

Hi Rubyretro, But maybe the killer of Mary Kelly wasnt the ripper,who seemed to prefer operating in the open air!
It may have been part of his obsession to plant himself at the police station and keep "in touch" with her through the fall out from her murder!

[Fisherman]

My post:

“Could it NEVER have been that Hutch himself had contradicted what he had said, as he was out on his nightly walk with the two PC:s, something that had made these PC:s make inquiries that forced Abberline to realize that he could have been wrong?”

Bens answer:

"Of course it could"

Thanks, Ben - I needed to hear that, since you have earlier voiced the opinion that there was no other reasonable interpretation to what happened than yours, and since you stated that there never was any doubt about what "later investigation" meant in this context.

NOW I will merrily leave it at an agreement of a disagreement!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"The fact remains that we have a witness statement tying a person that fits Hutch's description to a crime scene at the crucial time. We have a person admitting that he is that suspect, fitting the description, and with spurious story."

Please, Ruby, we have been over this before. We have no such thing as anybody tying Hutchs description to the crime scene! I am perfectly happy to debate all of the material adhering to Hutchinson - but this is no such material, period.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“Not only were they sown, Ben - they were fullgrown and harvested, more or less. In no time at all. I find that pretty amazing.”

But why, Fish?

Hutchinson approached the police at 6.00pm, and Abberline penned his approval that very evening, before any attempt at verifying key aspects of the statement, or even a detailed analysis of its content could realistically have occurred. Clearly, both of those things had occurred to a degree by the following day, with the result being that doubt was now attached to the statement, albeit not the sort of doubt that resulted in the statement being proven false, since the wording of the article makes abundantly clear that this simply did not happen.

We sometimes talk about Abberline as though his was the only relevant voice of approval, or otherwise, for Hutchinson, whereas in reality, the moment Abberline communicated his 12th November missive to his superiors, in was open to external input and analysis. Even so, it isn’t remotely amazing for someone to alter an opinion upon considered reflection and as a result of further investigation and analysis.

I’d rather not get into a semantic debate over what “investigation” meant in the context of 13th November article. I’ve no doubt that the police investigated and analyzed as much as they could between the 12th and 13th, but whatever the results of those investigations were, they most assuredly did not include a revelation that Hutchinson was proven to have been elsewhere at the time of his sighting, or else they would have said so, and they would most assuredly and emphatically not have said that only a “reduced importance” had been attached to his account, if that were the case.

“Could it NEVER have been that Hutch himself had contradicted what he had said, as he was out on his nightly walk with the two PC:s, something that had made these PC:s make inquiries that forced Abberline to realize that he could have been wrong?”

Of course it could, but realizing that he “could have” been makes sense of the article. If Abberline knew for certain that he was wrong, then the article makes no sense whatsoever. Crucially, the 13th November article is to the effect that they were doubtful ONLY. They clearly had not secured proof that Hutchinson was either lying or in the clear.

And “my” version of events, if it can be termed as such, is merely an acknowledgement of what the article actually says. As for you being “wrong”, I can’t prove that, no, but I personally suspect you are. But then wasn’t this why we agreed to disagree earlier? In fact, when did that stop being a good idea?

Best regards,
Ben

[claire]

There are lots of details that tie Hutch to the case, and no convincing details that tie anyone else.

If it wasn't Hutch, then it was ' Mr unknown' -only, how to explain why the murders stopped after MJK, if it was 'Mr Unkown' ?

No, there aren't 'lots of details that tie Hutch to the case.' I know that there has been surmise about this, but the only detail that ties GH to the case is his offering himself as a witness in the MJK murder. That is a detail, or link, shared by a sizeable number of others.

Second, it is only opinion, really, and an adherence to the post-hoc C5 theory, that the murders stopped after MJK. Further, even if we accept the C5, there were other unknown individuals who could have quite compelling reasons of their own to quit killing after MJ. What, for instance, do we know of Fleming, for just one example?

These are unanswered issues; it isn't enough to form a coherent scenario and ignore the other possibilities.

[claire]

'In the light of later investigation' does, really, hint that some investigative process had influenced the police suspicions over Hutchinson's account; that would be the usual interpretation of it. And I'm not sure that I agree that a few hours' consideration of the inherent features of GH's account would really count for 'later investigation.' One slight compromise to this, however, is the press account that, 'from later inquiries, it appears...' Possible, I concede, that the press would enquire of the police as to any developments on the witness statement, and they responded that they were according it 'reduced importance.' The surmise about 'investigation,' therefore, would be that of the press.

Still, it seems unlikely, in my mind, that the police's suspicions about GH had arisen from no real additional information. Certainly, Abberline's initial opinions as to the veracity of the GH statement may not have been shared by other officers, who may have voiced their views to the press. But I still tend to the belief that something came to light that altered police opinion, given that the overwhelming urge must have been to grab at any possible clue (sorry, that sounds a bit archaic, but still) in the first few hours after a new witness statement.

Nevertheless, I agree with you, Norma. There's something somewhat compelling about GH and his need to provide such a detailed account of MJ, careful to note the length of their acquaintanceship, prepared to state that he hung around on a cold, wet night when he knew she was in her room with another man. It is unusual, particularly since, really, for all his careful description of the man he says he saw with MJ, it provides little in the way of an ability to identify a suspect, once that man was stripped of his costume (this, for me, has always been the snagging point of the possibility of Mr A. being a suspect--why would anyone, intent on murder, dress themselves up to the point where they would stand at contrepoint to most others in the district [certainly at that time of night, on that particular street, in that weather]?). My lingering doubt, however, is due to the question of whether GH was 'simply' obsessed with MJ and couldn't give up that obsession, even after her death, or whether that was all part of his own murderous activities.

And, if the latter, do we consider MJ a canonical, or not? (I now recognise I am about to enter the realms of fantasy and speculation, so will desist!)

I am now going to check out the Dumas book...something else to occupy me, rather than work

[Rubyretro]

There is not enough in it to make such a call, quite simply. Fair is fair.

Fish -I think that there is enough to make a call that Hutch is the best suspect in the Case,and reading regularly other people's assessments of their
favourite suspects, I've never been convinced by an argument in favour of anyone else.

There are lots of details that tie Hutch to the case, and no convincing details that tie anyone else.

If it wasn't Hutch, then it was ' Mr unknown' -only, how to explain why the murders stopped after MJK, if it was 'Mr Unkown' ?

.. and there is a very logical explanation why the murders stopped, if it was Hutch (too close to the investigation).

I have no difficulty explaining why Hutch might have come forward , nor in
seeing why Abberline might believe him at first contact.

As to why Abberline changed his mind, whether it was Hutch's interviews to the papers which were patently false, or 'in light of further investigation' -
it might be one of those things, or both.. and what does 'in light of further investigation' mean ? You don't know, and I don't know.

(It is worth remembering that the Yorkshire Ripper was investigated by Police , and then dismissed, and only caught due to a traffic misdemeanour).

That it was quickly proved that Hutch was a liar, I'm sure would be easy. That he had an alibi..I've already showed that he could have lots of witnesses to give an 'alibi' that he wasn't in London (whilst still being in London). If he was friends with such people as BSM and Pipe, who were up to no good themselvs, he might have false alibis -we cannot know anything about this. In the absence of CTT, DNA testing, finger prints etc, the Police would have a hard job in any investigation where the killer wasn't caught red handed.

The fact remains that we have a witness statement tying a person that fits Hutch's description to a crime scene at the crucial time. We have a person admitting that he is that suspect, fitting the description, and with spurious story. We then have the spate of murders stopping.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"It’s also clear – again, as you’ve already observed – that the concerns of the police centred not so much around the content of the statement or the discrepancies, but the fact that he had delayed coming forward, and that no other witnesses reported seeing Astrakhan-type suspects.
So the seeds of doubt had already been sown."

Not only were they sown, Ben - they were fullgrown and harvested, more or less. In no time at all. I find that pretty amazing.
But it is nice to see that you agree that it would seem that neither the discrepancies involved in the later press reports or the story of the policeman Hutch claimed to have spoken to, would have had any influence at all in forming the doubtfulness you mean was clawing itīs way into Abberlineīs chest.
So, we are faced with an Abberline who on day one does not think it too strange to believe that Hutch was three days late, nor does he believe that Astrakhan man must have been a conjured-up fake.
But on day two, however - poof! - he suddenly realizes that he had not seen the significance of all this the day before, and sends a wire to the London Echo about it first thing in the morning.

"There’s no doubt over the issue of what “later investigation” meant"

But surely you must have read my posts, Ben? And Claires? We actually DO doubt your version of the events. Very much, actually.

Letīs put it this way, Ben: We KNOW that the Echo - for whatever itīs worth - wrote that the police were doubtful about the veracity of Hutch, and they clearly stated that they put those doubts down to "later investigation". Are you saying that this "later investigation" could not have been the police acting on a tip from somebody, saying that Hutch had been elsewhere on the night, and asking away? Just as one example of thousands that I could formulate, and that would all lend themselves very nicely to corresponding to an activity that could be described as "later investigation". Could it NEVER have been that Hutch himself had contradicted what he had said, as he was out on his nightly walk with the two PC:s, something that had made these PC:s make inquiries that forced Abberline to realize that he could have been wrong? Could that not be the case? Would that not tally exactly with what the Echo stated: that there was police work, investigations, going on, to establish to what degree Hutchinson could be trusted? And could not that police work have turned something up?
I know that you think that this is unnecessary surplus work and that there is no need to fill anything in at all, but since there are those of us who think that your interpretation is less credible in itīs picture of a ping-pongish Abberline, would it not be fair to say that there is nothing at all on record that hinders the suggestion that "investigations" actually meant investigations?
Or MUST we be wrong?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

The timetable makes perfect sense once the timing involved is examined. By 13th November, the police had already come to doubt Hutchinson’s account. By this stage, the “D” word had not been mentioned, but it was observed that a reduced importance was being attached to it. As you correctly note, the police were not then aware of the later embellished press accounts that appeared from the 14th onwards. It’s also clear – again, as you’ve already observed – that the concerns of the police centred, at this stage, not so much around the content of the statement or the discrepancies, but the fact that he had delayed coming forward, and that no other witnesses reported seeing Astrakhan-type suspects.

So the seeds of doubt had already been sown.

Then along come the press versions of his account, which include embellishments, contradictions, and claims (as mentioned earlier) that could easily be checked up upon and proven false. What effect could these press reports have had on the already doubtful police other than confirmation that their earlier doubts had been well-founded? When viewed in this light, the schedule doesn’t appear to be nearly so tight. Instead we see an altogether more gradual “doubting” of Hutchinson’s account, beginning with an acceptance on the evening of 12th and culminating in a discrediting on either the 14th or 15th. The “delay” sowed the seeds of doubt and the dodgy press versions cemented them, hence the transition from “reduced importance” (13th) to “discredited” (15th). It’s surely no coincidence either that the “discredited” reference came so soon after the release of his press account.

In fact, I honestly can’t see how any of this is coincidence.

Again, in the presence of all these very telling indicators that the “discrediting” process was a gradual affair, there has never been any less need for a big, external "something else" for which we have no evidence. There are simply no blanks to fill, especially not with mysterious unrecorded “alibis”! There’s no doubt over the issue of what “later investigation” meant, and we know it wasn’t something mega that put Hutchinson magically in the clear, or else they wouldn’t have said that only a “reduced importance” has been attached to the account. It would have been “no importance whatsoever”. The later investigation clearly referred to the reconsiderations that the article goes on to mention.

All the best,
Ben