Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"There’s no evidence that such an investigation ever took place, Fisherman."

On the contrary, Ben - it is in the Echo, loud and clear. "In the light of furth investigation" it surfaced that Hutch was not to be trusted. Investigation. I-N-V-E-S-T-I-G-A-T-I-O-N. That is written evidence from a contemporarty source. "We" know this.

"However, if there was an investigation and the reports of it haven’t survived, the chances are that they were never able to confirm or deny those suspicions"

Once again, there WAS an investigation, as witnessed about in the Echo. And it did turn something up, as evidenced in the paper. And since we have no further reports and no further material on Hutchinson whatsoever, the wise thing to believe is that what was suspected as a result of the investigation mentioned in the Echo, became verified later on. And the Star bears this out very clearly.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

That is why I put forward the argument that even the Met would have been able to realize this, and thus they would never have missed that they had two witnesses speaking about such a person - one of them actually taking on the role of the loiterer. But that suggestion, somehow, did not seem to please you? In that case, not even the police would necessarily have picked up on it...?

Fish -I don't blame you for not bothering to read my previous Posts on this thread, but I DO blame you -the journalist- for being lazy enough to reply to me on this subject without seeing what I had to say on it.

I stated clearly 2 or 3 times that I agree with YOU, rather than Ben and Garry
(no, I'm not their 'lapdog'), that I feel that it is unbelievable that the Police would not have put Mrs Lewis's testimony at the inquest together with Hutch's statement and come to the conclusion that they were one and the same person.

I think that when they chucked out Hutch, they therefore decided that 'Wideawake' was accounted for -and so threw the 'baby out with the bathwater'.

[Ben]

And that puts Abberline where? Since he first was supplied with the suspicioius behaviour of our George, what happened with the investigation of whether he was a killer or not?”

There’s no evidence that such an investigation ever took place, Fisherman. However, if there was an investigation and the reports of it haven’t survived, the chances are that they were never able to confirm or deny those suspicions, just as they couldn’t with Druitt, Kosminski and even Ostrog. I hope you understand what I mean now about assessing the propensity of a suspect (or not) to kill. This question is normally considered only after the suspicious circumstances of behaviour are registered. I’ve assessed that “propensity” on the basis of his alleged actions and movements, and the timing of his decision to approach the police amongst other things. All of which render him, in my view – and taking into account the aforementioned similarities with other serial offenders – a legitimately suspicious character.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"From where I’m standing, Fish, the preceding statement perfectly encapsulates the deficiencies in your own arguments. "

This should be interesting...!

"You insist, for example, that investigators subjected Hutchinson’s press revelations to minute examination, but present not a shred of evidence in support of such a claim"

The other way around, was what I was referring to. YOU and Ben seem to believe that Abberline went over Hutch´s description over and over again, detail for detail, starting to doubt it. And on the 14:th, he continues it, by comparing each and every detail inbetween Police report and news articles, arriving at a confirmation that he had been correct in suspecting foul play. It is YOU that have produced that argument, not me. I consider it as wrong now as I did yesterday and the day before.

"You maintain that police regarded Sarah Lewis as a stellar witness, but again neglect to accompany your argument with anything in the way of evidential corroboration"

Once again, no - what I say is that she was arguably the most important witness. It is MY suggestion that she was so, not something i necessarily ascribe to the police. I do, however, very much oppose to the suggestion that they would have hauled her in, found out that she could have seen the Ripper, overheard or read that she changed her testimony and gave a description (albeit sketchy, it was very, very important in pointing to a short, stout man - if I were Abberline, such men would have become extremely interesting if they could be tied to the case), and as a result yawned and said "Unfortunate - no, can´t be trusted. What was that about a wideawake then? Ah, never mind...).

"Likewise, you declare as fact your contention that police not only noticed the description of Wideawake related by Sarah Lewis to the press and inquest jury, but that they further used it to disprove Hutchinson’s story. Predictably, this declaration is also accompanied by no supporting evidence."

I am saying that it COULD have been used in such a fashion, and that it would have been bad policing if the two were not brought together. And that stands.

"Are you beginning to see a pattern here?"

Am I! Three accusations, three faults.

"Again, Fish, I merely follow the evidence."

Okay, I´ll play.

You state, together with Ben, that the article in the Echo is evidence that the police ruled Hutch out because of his description of Astrakhan man - that the inherent qualities of that description disqualified him. Ben has worded it that "we" KNOW that this is why Hutch was ruled out.

I, on the other hand, say that something must have turned up that called for the decision, something that was not there from the beginning. And that is precisely what you seem to pounce on, no matter how viable the suggestion is - since I cannot PROVE it. You even tell me that I am a bad journalist for pointing out the possibility without proving it. Really, Garry! When was the last time you read a paper or listened to the news? Should it not have been reported that there was a suspicion about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? As you know, the press did not have the proof - and what´s more, there never WAS any proof!
No, Garry, you do what you do best, and leave journalism to me, and we shall both be fine.

Right, back to how much you follow the evidence in the issue at hand! The Echo tells us that the statement Hutchinson had made was suddenly being seriously doubted. It does NOT tell us WHAT PART of the statement it was that was being doubted, however. It never says that the Astrakahan description was in doubt. It therefore applies that it could have been each and every part of it, or parts of it, or the statement on the whole that could have appeared suspicious. Now, how do you propose to have "followed the evidence" when you tell me that the wording could ONLY have meant the description of Astrakhan man? When we scrutinize things, we are left with some sort of linguistic talibanism, more or less.

Right, then! How did I do when I said that we are dealing with something new, something that enters the issue after Hutch had dropped the pen, signing the police report?
Well, Garry, we actually have the paper clearly stating that an investigation was undertaken at this stage ("in light of later investigation"). Now, how does an investigation come about? Correct, an investigation is ordered. It does not just grow out of the soil. The police does not work that way. They represent a strictly hierarchical organization, even more so in the 1880:s, and somebody at the top decides what to do, whereas somebody further down carries it out and reports back.

Right, were were we? Ah, yes: we KNOW for a fact that an investigation was set afoot, since the Echo tells us this (let´s give them the benfit of a doubt - you seem to be more than willing to do it presenting your own case). Now, do we know that it actually turned up something? Yes, we do, because it clearly states in the article that the doubts the police had come to harbour, had arisen "in light of later investigation". Ergo, they did not know about it BEFORE the investigation, but AFTER it, they felt pretty sure that doubts must be raised against George´s testimony. It was not until two days later that the investigation had led to a secured verdict, as evidenced by the Star: now the police had been able to verify their suspicions, and Hutch had gone from a suspected dealer in broken goods to a verified one.

It is all in the evidence, and as far as I can see it puts my suggestion that the reason George William Topping Hutchinson was dropped as an important witness beyond any reasonable doubt - IF we are to rely on the Echo. There WAS an investigation made - as reported in the Echo, the very same source you rely on when asserting me what cannot be asserted - and it was this investigation and nothing else that turned up the goods.

It´s all in the paper, Garry, word by word. Thank God for journalists!

Case dismissed.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Placed himself at the scene of a murder. No he did not. He placed himself with a victim prior to the murder and most certainly not in Millers court
Placed himself watching Mary's room -for 3/4 of an hour (so watching Miller's Court entrance), in the early hours of the morning, and immediately prior to the estimated time of death.
Gives an unbelievable detailed description of a 'suspect' That is a matter of opinion. As we have no other feedback on Hutchinsons personality we base this assumption on experience of witness testimony. There is no problem with this however whilst we can state his description is 'unbelievable' we cannot catergorically state it is erronous.

having supposedly seen A Man for a minute(or less) gave a detailed description featuring both his face and footwear (how could be fixed on both at the same time ? -as Bob Hinton pointed out). How could he have noted colours (red handkerchief, red stone on watch, in the dark . The description
defies logic on every point.

Admitted he waited and watched murder scene (corroberated by lewis)

This is true, and it a begs the question why, if guilty, would Hutchinson admit to this? There is no gain.

Changed his story He changed his story? He embellished and embroidered it. He only exaggerated the face afterwards, to make it more villainous.
read this thread, and my previous answersas to why he might come forward.

[

B]intentionally missed the inquest[/B] Again, conjecture. It is plausible he had not heard of the crime, though admittedly improbable. The chance remains however

. Very improbable. He lived within a stones's throw of the Crime, and the streets nearby were full of people trying to get close to the scene of the Crime. It was the talk of all of London, and news travels fast. Even if he were elsewhere, the papers were full of the crime -and news travels fast..

admitted knowing the victim As does Barnett.

Different context :Barnett was her 'ex'. He was not claiming to have seen her later than 8pm, nor to have been 'watching' her room in the early hours of the morning.

was friendly with the members of the victim type As was Barnett.

Hutch only claimled to have breen an acquaintence of MJK (as far as I know).

lived in the immediate vicinity As was Barnett

Lots of people did -they did not become involved in the investigation with suspicious stories.

was a long time local Ditto

Ditto

For every point damning there is one exonerating. There is no real evidence against Hutchinson, only conjecture.

There are alot of damning points, there are no real exonerating ones -only conjecture.

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

“He placed himself with a victim prior to the murder and most certainly not in Millers court”

In subsequent press versions of his account, Hutchinson claimed to have entered the court itself and waited outside Kelly’s home. That constitutes placing himself at the scene of the crime.

“That is a matter of opinion. As we have no other feedback on Hutchinsons personality we base this assumption on experience of witness testimony”

Only inasmuch as we don’t have evidence that he had practically superhuman powers of observation and recollection, but the reasonable assumption that he did not. Even scientific tests for so-called photographic memory don’t require the sheer level of detail alleged by Hutchinson. I personally consider it “barely possible” as opposed to simply “unbelievable” but if anyone’s up for a rousing debate on the description itself, I’ll probably have to copy and paste from other threads on that subject, and there are a great many of those.

“This is true, and it a begs the question why, if guilty, would Hutchinson admit to this? There is no gain.”

Because he realised he’d been seen by an independent witness and wanted to pre-empt suspicion by getting a false story in first, as other serial killers have done. Insisting that a guilty party would not approach the police and admit to having some association with the victim or the crime is the opposite of what we should have learned from other cases.

“He changed his story?”

Yes – significant elements of it in press versions of his account. Yes, it is conjecture that he intentionally missed the inquest, but that’s based on the unutterable absurdity of the premise that he hadn’t heard of the murder.

“For every point damning there is one exonerating.”

Well, with respect, none of the above “counters” were particularly exonerating. The case against any suspect entails a certain amount of conjecture, but as suspects go, I can’t see how anyone fares better at this remove in time.

Best regards,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Placed himself at the scene of a murder. No he did not. He placed himself with a victim prior to the murder and most certainly not in Millers court

Gives an unbelievable detailed description of a 'suspect' That is a matter of opinion. As we have no other feedback on Hutchinsons personality we base this assumption on experience of witness testimony. There is no problem with this however whilst we can state his description is 'unbelievable' we cannot catergorically state it is erronous.

Admitted he waited and watched murder scene (corroberated by lewis) This is true, and it a begs the question why, if guilty, would Hutchinson admit to this? There is no gain.

Changed his story He changed his story?

intentionally missed the inquest Again, conjecture. It is plausible he had not heard of the crime, though admittedly improbable. The chance remains however.

admitted knowing the victim As does Barnett.

was friendly with the members of the victim type As was Barnett.

lived in the immediate vicinity As was Barnett

was a long time local Ditto

fit the physical description of witnesses Ditto

For every point damning there is one exonerating. There is no real evidence against Hutchinson, only conjecture.

The carousel has not dropped a pace since I last rode it.

Enjoy the ride.

Monty

Hi Monty

Thanks for the response.


There is no real evidence against Hutchinson, only conjecture.

pretty much agree (depending on what your definition of evidence is)-It is my conjecture that IMO makes him a viable suspect.

BTW-I also think Barnett is a viable suspect, but less so than Hutch.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Fisherman - a responsible investigative force will first assess the behaviour of individuals associated with the crime or crime scene, and then tackle the issue of how this behaviour impacts on their "propensity to kill", not the other way round."

And that puts Abberline where? Since he first was supplied with the suspicioius behaviour of our George, what happened with the investigation of whether he was a killer or not? Exactly - he "interrogated" Hutch, and came up with the decision that he was clean; a benevolent witness. When lateron it surfaced that his testimony did not hold up, he was dropped. And not a living soul seems to have cared about him any further.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"each isolated point proves nothing...Taken all together though, it's interesting."

Ah, Ruby - but THAT is another thing altogether! I would never say that a person standing outside a murder site of the night of the murder, seemingly watching that site, was anything but interesting. I would, in fact, say that such persons are EXTREMELY interesting. That is why I put forward the argument that even the Met would have been able to realize this, and thus they would never have missed that they had two witnesses speaking about such a person - one of them actually taking on the role of the loiterer. But that suggestion, somehow, did not seem to please you? In that case, not even the police would necessarily have picked up on it...?

Anyhow, I do hope that you are not of the mindset that I myself would have judged such a thing disinteresting...?

It STILL, however, applies that none of the traits you spoke of have anything at all to do with a propensity to kill, as you seem to think. For that they have not, not on their own and not taken together. They should logically ensure that the matter is looked into, but to be perfectly honest, if a man can be placed outside the site of a murder in a series of murders, it ALWAYS stands to reason that such a man needs to be either tied to or cleared from suspicion. And there is no need for him to "act suspiciously" - if he is spending the night knitting mittens, it will STILL earn him an investigation, long as he is in the wrong spot. That´s how things work, as you point out.
But - and once again - knitting mittens is not a detail that should make us go "Aha - serial killer!", is it? And the same applies to taking a look up a court - it is just as admissible as proof of a serial killer´s instinct. And when you add up all of the parametres we have that all point to George Hutchinson being a serial killer, you will find yourself with nothing.

I don´t know how many more ways I can tell you this, Ruby. I hope it is the last one.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Placed himself at the scene of a murder. No he did not. He placed himself with a victim prior to the murder and most certainly not in Millers court

Gives an unbelievable detailed description of a 'suspect' That is a matter of opinion. As we have no other feedback on Hutchinsons personality we base this assumption on experience of witness testimony. There is no problem with this however whilst we can state his description is 'unbelievable' we cannot catergorically state it is erronous.

Admitted he waited and watched murder scene (corroberated by lewis) This is true, and it a begs the question why, if guilty, would Hutchinson admit to this? There is no gain.

Changed his story He changed his story?

intentionally missed the inquest Again, conjecture. It is plausible he had not heard of the crime, though admittedly improbable. The chance remains however.

admitted knowing the victim As does Barnett.

was friendly with the members of the victim type As was Barnett.

lived in the immediate vicinity As was Barnett

was a long time local Ditto

fit the physical description of witnesses Ditto

For every point damning there is one exonerating. There is no real evidence against Hutchinson, only conjecture.

The carousel has not dropped a pace since I last rode it.

Enjoy the ride.

Monty

[Abby Normal]

Hutch:
Placed himself at the scene of a murder.
Gives an unbeleivable detailed description of a 'suspect'
Admitted he waited and watched murder scene (corroberated by lewis)
Changed his story
intentionally missed the inquest
admitted knowing the victim
was friendly with the members of the victim type
lived in the immediate vicinity
was a long time local
fit the physical description of witnesses

IMHO these things when added together should make him a viable suspect.

[Garry Wroe]

… Hutchinsonians have a propensity for jumping to untenable conclusions on extremely meagre information, or - as in this case - no information at all.

From where I’m standing, Fish, the preceding statement perfectly encapsulates the deficiencies in your own arguments. You insist, for example, that investigators subjected Hutchinson’s press revelations to minute examination, but present not a shred of evidence in support of such a claim. You maintain that police regarded Sarah Lewis as a stellar witness, but again neglect to accompany your argument with anything in the way of evidential corroboration. Likewise, you declare as fact your contention that police not only noticed the description of Wideawake related by Sarah Lewis to the press and inquest jury, but that they further used it to disprove Hutchinson’s story. Predictably, this declaration is also accompanied by no supporting evidence.

Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

Despite your twenty-five years of journalistic experience, Fish, you have consistently disregarded the most fundamental tenet of didactic argument – make a statement and then qualify it. It is for this reason and this reason alone that your assertions have failed to persuade myself and others. But if you persist in believing that there exists some underlying bias on my part, a disinclination to accept anything that might undermine Hutchinson’s status as a Ripper candidate, then you are woefully wide of the mark.

Again, Fish, I merely follow the evidence.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Rubyretro]

Exactly.

[Ben]

Such a thing can at best be said to tally with what a few serial killers have done, and - and that is the whole and only point - it does not in itself point towards a propensity to kill!!

Fisherman - a responsible investigative force will first assess the behaviour of individuals associated with the crime or crime scene, and then tackle the issue of how this behaviour impacts on their "propensity to kill", not the other way round. Having dodgy number plates and then popping round the corner for what was initially assumed to be a quick piddle, says nothing about Sutcliffe's "propensity to kill", but they constituted circumstances and behaviour that prompted suspicion.

I've already outlined what I regard as the suspicious "circumstances and behaviour" in Hutchinson's case. I believe he came forward after realising he'd been seen not only loitering outside, but actually monitering the entrance to Miller's Court at a time critical to Kelly's murder, and since recent serial killers have done both these things; pre-crime surveillance and bogus contact with the police, I tend to think Hutchinson makes a reasonable suspect.

Best regards,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

Well, first of all Fish, obviously you are being totally disingenuous when you list the traits that I've given as the profile of a Serial killer -given what we now know about them- individually, and then ridicule them. I am certain that you've heard this Profile many times before.

It is a Profile that came about because it has been elaborated using data from everything that we now know about Serial Killers, and is just a 'sketch' : therefore there are exceptions on every point, just as each isolated point proves nothing.
Taken all together though, it's interesting.

Even taken all together isn't 'proof' -but it makes the person fitting them, and coming forward to the Case, a subject worthy of suspicion -particularly if we can place him at a crime scene at the right time , in questionable circumstances.

McCarthy, Lawende, Schwartz, Cadosche, Best, Gardner - what about them? They all seem to have lived in the vicinity. They all were the right age. Some of them approached the police themselves. Does that point an almighty finger towards their flair for killing hoards of people? Does the bloodthirst lie in the address? Or in the fact that they spoke to the police?

Evidently, if any of those witnesses showed any suspicious behaviour then we would question it now..and there are people on these threads who question McCarthy and Schwartz's moral intergrity (I'm not one of them), although they don't accuse them of being JtR (could it be that, from what they know about them, they don't 'fit' a Serial Killer , as Hutch does). Cadosche's vagueness speaks against him exciting commentary, and the others were in company.

I have managed to steer free from too much killing myself, although I was once "the right age" for a serial killer. I did not think much of it then; maybe I was just a lucky exception. Once, back in the 80:s, a young girl was battered to death with a stone on a hillside less than threehundred yards from my families summer house, but in spite of my being close when it happened and in spite of my age and my habit of passing through the streets of most large cities unnoticed, the question was never put to me how I was going to defend myself, given the fact that so much spoke against me and pointed me out as a lethal member of society.

I feel sure that you are not tlling the whole story. If that murder had been part of a series, if the Police had no idea who the murderer was, or if you had tried to insert yourself into the case -then I feel certain that you would have become a justifiable
person to suspect.

Please, PLEASE, let´s be a little bit more realistic about this, Ruby.Being 22 years old is not incomparable with being a serial killer, but that is another thing altogether - most things are not incomparable with it, in fact. Musicians, ugly people, timid guys, geniuses, women with different hangups, school failures, big businessmen, warlords and photographers have at one stage or another all proven to be serial killers. But it was reasonably not being musicians, ugly people, timid guys, geniuses, women with different hangups, school failures, big businessmen, warlords and photographers that led up to the killings on their behalfs, was it?

I could add to your list ad-nauseum if I wanted to play silly-buggers. There are exceptional character details, exceptional circumstances, but if a 'Profile' exists on killers such as JtR , then it's based on corralated traits in a number of serial Killers who are of the type to fit these Crimes. Since Hutch fits them too -I am justified in suspecting him.

What points serial killers out are things like a lust for mutilation, a wish to torment, a need to get back on women for having been taunted, a fascination with blood and guts, an inner voice that urges them to strike ... you name it. THOSE are the things that tell us that there is a potential killer about. And when you can point to one such single factor adhering to George Hutchinson, then yes, you have something that begins to look like the making of a killer.

Serial Killers never appear to have anything like 'lust for mutilation' written on their foreheads; the fact that they kill several people means that they good at appearing innocent.
Since we know nothing about Hutch's early life, it is difficult to know for sure what he might have done before. You can speculate "nothing" and I can speculate "surely SOMETHING".

Until someone proves something either way, he remains someone very suspicious...and I think the most suspicious person
known to the Case.