Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

I think this is the irrefutable point for anyone with a clear head. A man matching Lewis' description, given that he came forth to the police and placed himself in the vicinity and at the time, would not have been let go, let alone have the police fall for his story. I am dumbfounded that this can even be argued coherently... actually it isn't so coherent, is it?

It goes nowhere. If this could be accepted, then Toppy should be close behind. It isn't and he isn't for ... THEM.

Alas,

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Lewis and Cox were not the only two witnesses to describe men seen in the company of Mary Kelly. Caroline Maxwell most assuredly belongs in the mix, in light of the obvious uncertainty as to the correct time of death. On that subject, incidentally, I’ve noticed nobody tackling Garry’s observation that Dr. Bond’s may have swayed the police’s judgement with regard to time of death. They had demonstrated a preference for professional over civilian evidence at the Chapman inquest, and it wouldn’t be at all unusual if the same thing happened with Kelly. In which case an accepted time of death of between 1.00am and 2.00am would severely diminish the ripper candidacy, and therefore investigative priority, of the wideawake loiterer.

It isn’t a “fact that it is strange” for nobody to have picked up on the connection. It’s fact that it is not a fact, in fact!

But this has turned into one of those occasions where you make a comment like: “let’s not go here anymore”, I agree, but then you go straight back to posting on the very subject we agreed to call it quits on. This is the sort of thing that got me hot and bothered in the terrible old days. So a quick reminder of my unshakable stance on this issue, which was: Given the nature of the investigation, the regularity with which publicity-seekers and time-wasters were cropping up, the demonstrated propensity of high profile investigations to overlook seemingly trivial details, and the nascency of policing in general would markedly reduce the "oddity" factor of the police in 1888 failing to have picked up on the Lewis-Hutchinson correlation.

And it’s clear I’m not the only person who thinks so.

So it’s stalemate on this one, and onto the next avenue of contention.

Unless?

(Please don’t anyone seriously think of taking me up on that “unless”.)

“I too never would not claim that the connection was never made - but if it was, it was very soon dispelled.”

I disagree with the most profoundly ferocious zeal, Fish. This requires two of those terrible fill-in-the-blanks; one zero evidence event being used to reinforce another zero evidence event. There’s no evidence that a connection was ever made, and there’s no evidence that it was “soon dispelled”, and yet you’re arguing that one gave way to the other. No, I consider it more likely that the connection was never inferred, or it was but NOT dispelled.

“I too would say that it is extremely feasible that it was never made - for reasons involved in either an incompatibility inbetween wideawake and Hutch, or owing to evidence surfacing due to further investigation, as the Echo put it.”

Blank-filling again, that very unFishermanesque trait and therefore quite disappointing. It’s far simpler that the connection was never noticed, neatly accounting for the fact that no allusion was made to it anywhere, even in the press. And no nitwittery on the part of any party is required for such an oversight to have been made. As Garry has pointed out, the annals of true crime is full of examples of the authorities overlooking seemingly trivial details.

“because the police has STATED that they had seen reason to do this or that, and no more.”

Yes, but with the Echo article, we have not only the detail that the “authorities” were attaching a “very reduced importance” to the account, but several of the reasons why those same “authorities” were of that persuasion. They may well have been reluctant to go into further matters, but what emerges from the article, irrespective of the actual reasons, was that the police were harbouring doubts ONLY about the account. There was never any hint that they had procured proof of the type that could rule him out for certain both as a witness and a suspect, and there’s no evidence that this has changed to this day.

“And in that situation they would let him walk if the reason for not believing him lay in a verified belief that he was not wideawake man.”

Again no, another reason for letting him walk would be that they didn’t believe him, and took him to be yet another publicity-seeker who, despite claiming to have been at the crime scene a la Violenia, was assumed to have been lying about his very presence there. And again – and possibly a million more times, if necessary (depending on who’s up for a repetition war) – the Echo made it abundantly clear that whatever “beliefs” they had, they were certainly not “verified”.

“If, on the other hand, they did believe that he WAS there on the night, but did NOT believe that he had told the truth about what he was doing there, then they would reasonably have”

Weren’t you here when I addressed this possibility in considerable detail? I’ve told you already that I consider this a viable possibility. If they didn’t believe him, but identified him as the wideawake man, it obviously follows that he’d be treated with suspicion. In which case, the police were very unlikely to have been in a position to convert those suspicions into a concrete judgement of guilt or innocence, for reasons discussed ad nauseam,

“But still, you "utterly reject" when I say that what little we have, points to Hutch being significantly taller than Astrakhan man...? How does that cut?”

Here’s how it cuts, Fish.

A) If the Astrakhan wore a low-crowned hat over his eyes with the intention of concealing his face, as per Hutchinson’s statement, it would mean that Hutchinson would have needed to stoop even if he was the same height as Astrakhan. So no reason on earth to assume Hutchinson was taller for that crucial reason.

B) If Hutchinson lied about the whole dratted encounter with the Astrakhan man, it might be somewhat silly to start gauging heights on the basis of fictional encounters with fictional people. So there’s another, even better reason to avoid the “Hutchinson was taller” claim.

I also consider amazingly improbable that Hutchinson was anything other than “not tall and stout” given the extreme unlikelihood that he was not the individual described by Sarah Lewis.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Mike’s back, despite assuring us that he wouldn’t be.

“I will just say this: It is absolutely impossible, given Lewis' testimony and Hutchinson's statement, that Hutchinson wasn't checked out and dismissed as Lewis' man.”

You’re just wrong, Mike, and event the most die-hard defenders would consider that an outlandish claim. It is, on the contrary, unlikely in the extreme that Hutchinson was dismissed as Lewis’ man. Once again, you’re inventing two zero-evidence events and claiming that one of them gave way to the other. There’s no evidence that the connection was ever made between Hutchinson and Lewis’ man, let alone that he was dismissed as a consequence. You seem to be taking a rather magic-wand approach to police inquiries, assuming that all they had to do was check out something, and immediately arrive at an ironclad conclusion.

This militates against the evidence, which strongly suggests that the police had their unproven opinions with regard to Hutchinson, and frankly, common sense and experience, with time and again reveals that high profile investigations are full of leads and suspicions that cannot be satisfactorily resolved. Inventing imaginary proof, alibis, and tall statures perpetuate that dreadful fallacy that the evidence isn’t sufficient, and requires adding to in order to arrive at the pre-decided conclusion.

If they made the connection, the chances are very strong that they couldn’t prove a connection, or guilt, or innocence because they were not in position to convert those suspicions into results. More often than not, that’s what happened generally in the Whitechapel investigation, so why expect miracles in Hutchinson’s case?

There is, most assuredly and emphatically, no evidence that any proof had been procured with regard to Hutchinson’s alleged actions and movements, but as ever, I look forward to going round in repetitive circles with anyone who wants to insist otherwise.

Not only that, but he could (much like Sherlock Holmes) adjust his appearance and height so as not to be accused. This is Joran van der Hutchinson for sure.

Ummm...

Adjusted his height?

You haven't just accepted the extreme minority view, cooked up on this thread and nowhere else, that Hutchinson was tall and thin, did you?

Phew! Don't scare me like that.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Lewis and Cox were not the only two witnesses to describe men seen in the company of Mary Kelly. Caroline Maxwell most assuredly belongs in the mix, in light of the obvious uncertainty as to the correct time of death."

Wow, Ben. So there were three - if we allow for the possibility of Maxwell being correct. The medicos as well as the police regarded her testimony as outlandish, but what the heck, Ben. I´m not sure, though, do you mean that this would have taken the eyes of Lewis´man completely ...?

"It isn’t a “fact that it is strange” for nobody to have picked up on the connection. It’s fact that it is not a fact, in fact!"

Wow again, Ben. Well, you are entitled to that wiew. I fail to see why anybody would try and wrench it from your hands, so chances are that you get to keep it.

"So it’s stalemate on this one, and onto the next avenue of contention.

Unless?"

Unless what, Ben? I was under the impression that I make my calls and you make yours. Has that changed? I also notice that you want to exclude Mike from the discussion, but don´t you think it is only fair to let anybody who wishes to express their wiew do so? Especially since your own posts are somewhat provocative, themewise, and hard to swallow for those who see the world from another perspective than yours. So if you could please refrain from trying to allow or disallow posters to engage in the discussion, I´d be quite pleased. And if you feel that a topic has been done to death, then why would you force yourself to go on posting on it yourself if it dismays you?

"It’s far simpler that the connection was never noticed"

I prefer feasible and viable to simple, Ben. So no. Not a chance. Not if the likeness was there.

"Yes, but with the Echo article, we have not only the detail that the “authorities” were attaching a “very reduced importance” to the account, but several of the reasons why those same “authorities” were of that persuasion."

You did it again, Ben. It´s not "we". It´s you. It would seem that people disagree with you, unless you have noticed it. Last time over, it was Claire, and now it is Caz and Mike. So please: YOU think that you have a complete listing over all the things that affected the decision to drop Hutchinson, whereas others believe that your suggestion is incredibly premature and very much unviable. Plus we have a world history riddled with tons of related press messages from other investigations begging for some delicacy on behalf of the authorities.
But who am I to object? I´m just the journalist, after all. What do I know of such things that you don´t know better?

"Again no, another reason for letting him walk would be that they didn’t believe him, and took him to be yet another publicity-seeker who, despite claiming to have been at the crime scene a la Violenia, was assumed to have been lying about his very presence there."

And the fact that he fit Lewis description and the fact that the police felt that he was a liar never made them put a torch to his behind. Yeah, right, Ben ...

"If they didn’t believe him, but identified him as the wideawake man, it obviously follows that he’d be treated with suspicion."

But they did not, did they? They let him go. So what does that tell us? My suggestion is that it tells us that he was not identified as wideawake man. They had enough to put him in the clear after a time span that was so short that no other scenario fits the picture.

"Here’s how it cuts, Fish."

It cuts better if you read ALL of my posts, Ben. I already admitted that I made a mistake in this respect - I remembered the wording of the Daily News, where it was only said that the brim of the man´s hat covered his eyes, but sure enough, the police report has Astrakhan man bending his neck down, as if to avoid Hutch´s look.

So that is one issue taken care of - and considering the problems we seem to have to reach an agreement on the other points, that´s none too bad.

On your post to Mike:

"You’re just wrong, Mike, and event the most die-hard defenders would consider that an outlandish claim."

Actually no, Ben - I am living proof of that.

the best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

He didn't step forward and make himself known to the police at any time.

That's true, Chava, but Gary Ridgway did and he came to be suspected as a consequence, and yet despite those suspicions, the police were unable to pin the murders on him until the advancement of DNA techniques. There was no convenient means of converting suspicions into concrete proof, and here we're speaking of comparatively enlightened and sophisticated times in terms of policing. The point being is that if the 1888 police had become in any way suspicion of Hutchinson after he came forward, there are absolutely no grounds for assuming that they were in a position to convert those suspicions into concrete proof.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"Fisherman, I think this is the irrefutable point for anyone with a clear head. A man matching Lewis' description, given that he came forth to the police and placed himself in the vicinity and at the time, would not have been let go, let alone have the police fall for his story. I am dumbfounded that this can even be argued coherently... actually it isn't so coherent, is it?"

Fully agreed, Mike - if it had been just the one dumb copper, then maybe. Two ...? Well, perhaps. But if we take the whole of Scotland Yard and the united efforts of the press and apply it on the question, then the chance for it is non-existant, other than from a purely philosophical angle.

"It goes nowhere."

And that is the salient observation here. I think that both you and I have presented our case admirably well, and I do believe that it has earned at least me a good weekend´s rest. Don´t know about you, but it´s either that or two more days of mudwrestling that I can do without.

Have a nice weekend, Mike!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

... and you, Ben!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I´ll just cram this one in for good measure:

Ben:

"That's true, Chava, but Gary Ridgway did and he came to be suspected as a consequence, and yet despite those suspicions, the police were unable to pin the murders on him until the advancement of DNA techniques."

That is correct, Ben. But it is also correct to say that Ridgway was always regarded as a very hot contender of the Green River killer title, and there was work going on about him for the longest time on behalf of the police. Not so with Hutch, apparently. He was dropped with no subsequent interest at all - and THAT would have owed to the police being of the opinion that he was in the clear and not a possible Ripper.

NOW I´ll log off!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

The medicos as well as the police regarded her testimony as outlandish, but what the heck, Ben. I´m not sure, though, do you mean that this would have taken the eyes of Lewis´man completely ...?

No, but I consider it likely from the evidence that his significance was overlooked on account of the more immediately suspicions individuals reported by the women at the inquest. I don't recall any contemporary source decrying Maxwell’s evidence as “outlandish”, and there have been intelligent modern commentators who have made the case for a later time of death. But Garry’s observation still stands that if the police were overly swayed by Bond’s evidence, the chances of wideawake being overlooked or given scant attention is markedly increased.

“I was under the impression that I make my calls and you make yours. Has that changed?”

But if you make you’re call, don’t then change it!

“You did it again, Ben. It´s not "we". It´s you.

When I use the “we” word, Fish, I’m speaking not of my own opinions but of observations committed to paper over which I am exercising no control. The wording used in the Echo article was “very reduced importance” and sane people don’t use this type of phraseology if they really mean “dismissed utterly as a result of proof”, nor do they cite other lesser reasons for doubting his account if they were sitting on bombshells such as “Romford alibis” and other goodies.

“And the fact that he fit Lewis description and the fact that the police felt that he was a liar never made them put a torch to his behind.”

No. I didn’t say this. Quite the reverse; if they made the connection and still considered him a liar, of course they’d suspect him. I just consider it highly doubtful that they would have made such progress with their suspicions.

“But they did not, did they? They let him go.”

We don’t know whether or not he was treated with suspicion. If he was, they still had to “let him go” if there was nothing concrete with which to hold him. Their only option in that event was discreet surveillance a la Kosminski.

Not so with Hutch, apparently. He was dropped with no subsequent interest at all - and THAT would have owed to the police being of the opinion that he was in the clear and not a possible Ripper.

No, it wouldn't have owed to any such thing, and we don't even know the level of interest in Hutchinson as a suspect or how long it lasted, nor should we expect details of every police suspicion to have survived the test of time. Tellingly, in Hutchinson's case, he didn't conform to the type of suspect preferred at the time; namely foreigners, butchers, medical men, and those with a history of mental illness, and this could also have played a part in the diminished interest attached to Hutchinson. All we know is that he came to be dismissed as a witness - everything else is guesswork at best.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Just a few observations, if I may, Richard

“that if Topping was the actual GH, then it is almost inconceivable that he was a bloodthirsty monster,that presented himself, as normal as the next man. throughout the remainder of his life. I know it has happened on occasions, but not this time.”

It’s actually more common that not for “bloodthirsty monsters” to be adept at conveying an outward impression of normality. Whether that extends to their entire lives in less certain, but then we don’t have Toppy’s behavioural life history at our disposal (not that I believe for one moment that Toppy was a “bloodthirsty monster”).

“I have never had a problem, with the description given by Hutchinson, he could only describe what he saw.”

“Only”?

We know that can’t possibly true. There are many other things he “could” have done, including fabricate the description.

“what else could I say, its irrelevant that people find it suspicious”

Well, it depends upon the level of the detail you described, the lighting conditions, timing and various other factors, and if all are feasible as opposed to barely possible, nobody is likely to find it suspicious.

All – just a quick observation about the Sutcliffe comparison, and what would have transpired had someone provided a description of Sutcliffe and he had approached the police as a consequence. The argument does that in such an event, Sutcliffe guaranteed to come under suspicion, but it’s worth pointing out that “thinnish, medium height man with dark, curly hair and a beard” is a good deal more specific and far less encompassing that the highly generic description proffered by Lewis.

Best regards,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

Brian Matloff - "After four murders, of which the authorities were aware of three, the BAU and their new agent, Spencer Reid, were able to track him down by narrowing down the list of Forest Service employees. When they did so, they discovered that Matloff, who was the type of offender who needed to insert himself into the investigation, had come forward as a witness."

Riverman -(interview with Ted Bundy) : "Ted knew very well that some guys sustained control of their need for continuing the excitement of the murder by taunting the Police, or trying to throw them off the track. By pursuing that track we would have some idea of whether Ted ever actively involved himself in the investigation of his murders. So I asked Ted if he thought there was any chance that Riverman would offer information on his own case.Without hestitation Ted answered "Yes, Sure there is" (Robert Keppel)

"As serial killers continue to offend without being captured, they can become empowered, feeling they will never be identified" -FBI

[The Good Michael]

Ruby,

Ted agreed that there was a chance. A chance is a far cry from probability. Besides, Ted could fabricate with the best of them. I don't believe a word he said.

Mike

[Garry Wroe]

Well, this contempraneous sketch of Hutchinson hardly depicts a tall, slim type. And neither does it deviate from the description provided by Sarah Lewis.



Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Garry Wroe]

I think this is the irrefutable point for anyone with a clear head. A man matching Lewis' description, given that he came forth to the police and placed himself in the vicinity and at the time, would not have been let go, let alone have the police fall for his story. I am dumbfounded that this can even be argued coherently... actually it isn't so coherent, is it?

Correct me if I’m wrong, Michael, but I believe that Fish recently argued that the description of Wideawake provided in Sarah Lewis’s police statement was extremely vague and contained little of the detail that would emerge three days later at the inquest hearing. Apparently, then, you think it inconceivable that the police failed to recognize the similarities between Hutchinson and a man for whom they had no documented description.

What was that again about coherent thought?

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[The Good Michael]

Correct me if I’m wrong, Michael

I have, but you don't change. I can't keep doing it over and over again. Fisherman has that function. To clarify, I believe that any description that would have even a small resemblance to Hutchinson, would have created a stir as the cops put two and two together. The police simply would not have let Hutchinson go if there was anything remotely close. Instead what do we have? We have Hutchinson's testimony believed by at least one clever detective as well as (if you choose to believe) his being paid for his time if not for his information. Fisherman's comment about vagueness is his argument, not mine.

Cheers,

Mike