Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Ben]

The most obvious reason for Hutchinson's failure to come forward in response to earlier witness sightings was the fact that, by 9th November, it had became public knowledge that descriptions were being withheld at the behest of the authorities. Prior to the Eddowes inquest, the killer (whatever his identity) had every reason to believe that the vague descriptions offered by Lawende, Schwartz and others reflected the totality of their sighting.

Crawford's insistence that the key particular's of Lawende's description be withheld for a "special reason" would undoubtedly have given the killer the jitters if, like many serial offenders, he wanted to keep appraised of police progress.

Hutchinson also had a far greater chance of encountering the Miller's Court witnesses than he did Schwartz, for instance, who lived in St. George-in-the-East, or Lawende who saw the likely ripper in the City, and was himself based in relatively far flung Dalston.

Finally, if there's any truth to the suggestion that Hutchinson was acquainted with Kelly, this also could have played a role. Ridgway didn't come forward with a bogus witness ploy for the any of his victims bar one - a woman he was personally acquainted with, and whose body was posed very differently to the others. The implication, of course, is that the murder of an acquaintance increased the likelihood - in the mind of the offender - of his coming under eventual suspicion.

Richard - the radio interview is absolutely impermissible as evidence until you can provide evidence of its existence.

I agree with you regarding an incomplete witness statement. Therefore, the statement as made at the inquest, must not resemble Hutchinson in any way.

Huh?

No, I think you've misunderstood Garry's point, Mike. If Lewis provided a description at the inquest that wasn't offered in her police statement, and the police noticed this, they would have reinterviewed Lewis. But we have no evidence of this re-interview, which suggests that this incongruity was never noticed, and that the police were satisfied with the information contained in the Lewis police report in which she claimed that the "cannot describe" the wideawake man.

But it's clear that he wasn't "a witness...just like Lewis, because he was discredited as such.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Gary,

I agree with you regarding an incomplete witness statement. Therefore, the statement as made at the inquest, must not resemble Hutchinson in any way. For that reason and others that had to have occurred, Hutchinson was not a suspect, but a witness... just like Lewis.

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hello Harry,
As I have said before, only one name has come forth ,claiming to be the witness Hutchinson since 1888, and that , [albeit from the son ] was Topping, although It was known by Toppings younger brother also , according to a report from that persons daughter-in -law.
I read the version printed in 1992 'THE Ripper and the Royals with my own eyes, and I heard that version on radio some 18 years earlier on radio, with my own ears...so the story Reg related to Fairclough, was not conjured up solely for the publication.
What you are suggesting has indeed happened before, Neville Heath springs to mind, he tried to incorporate himself into the initial investigation, but i find it unlikely in this case, if Hutchinson was the Ripper, he had every chance to feel paranoid, in Hanbury street, Bernier street, or Mitre square, where he was also seen by various people, why should Mrs Lewis be any different.?
Being a staunch Hutch is 'Innocent', and believing Topping was the witness, having the character reference directly from his son, i find it inconceivable that he was, anything more then as he said' I knew one of the victims, and I gave the police a statement'.
No Big deal, no contract with magazines, no offers of fame and fortune, just a witness , amongst many, but this one we all tear shreds in....I guess everyone told lies in 1888.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Harry,

Why not come forward on the other murders. There were witness statements about possible rippers. Why not come forward earlier?

Mike

[harry]

A person giving the name George Hutchinson came forward and admitted being in the immediate vicinity of a murder,(Kelly's)at a time span in which the murder could have been committed.Suspicion arises through the reasons he gave for being there.This sets him apart from any other individual.
The two reasons commonly given for his innocense are(1)an opinion given by a police officer as to his truthfulness,and(2)a killer does not willingly come forward .Both reasons are flawed.
In over 90 per cent of killings,the person responsible willingly confronts police.Very few flee.
In the ripper crimes it is obvious the killer fooled many people, why should Aberline be an exception?
So Toppy or not,the Hutchinson who gave information on the 12 November 1888,will in my opinion,unless evidence to the contrary surfaces,be a strong ripper suspect,and rightly so.

[Garry Wroe]

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.

Let me repeat, Michael: Sarah Lewis provided no description of Wideawake in her official police statement. The description that did eventually emerge came to us via her inquest testimony and several newspaper reports.

You also appear to be overlooking the absolute certainty that Sarah would have been re-interviewed had the police felt that she had provided them with an incomplete witness statement, particularly if the missing information incorporated a description of a potential suspect. Tellingly, neither the surviving police files nor any newspaper report I have ever seen even hint at such an eventuality. This fact alone, I would suggest, provides a powerful indication that the police failed to make the link between Wideawake and Hutchinson. Or do you have evidence to the contrary?

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

Don’t tell me we’re back on the triumphalist rhetoric again?

Anything but that.

Probability dictates X or Y because Mike says it does. Well with that irrefutable, impenetrable logic, who is anyone to disagree?

Seriously, though, the "probabilities" you describe are nothing of the sort, and I delight in the knowledge that none of these fantastically implausible “probabilities” will ever enter into widespread or mainstream thinking on the subject.

Because of “many details” I’m of the opinion that Toppy wasn’t the witness, but you won’t see me mutating that into established fact.

Because of “many details”, I’m of the opinion that Hutchinson stands a reasonable chance of having been the murder, but I’m not about to make a series of irritating ex cathedra pronouncements that my views on “probability” must be accepted as gospel.

Because of “many details”, I personally consider it astonishingly unlikely that Hutchinson was not the individual seen by Lewis.

“Probability says that Hutchinson would not have been let go if his alibi didn't check out, his description matched Lewis' sighting, or if he had some criminal past.”

Why didn’t you read Garry’s post? Lewis’ description was so lacking in detail and so generic that the possibility of anyone “matching” it counts for next to nothing. What mattered considerably more at the time was whether or not Lewis could recognise the man again. You can recognise someone without necessarily being able to provide a good description of them.

And what’s all this about not letting Hutchinson go if he matched this generic, encompassing description? Even if they thought Hutchinson was the most suspicious individual they had encountered in the investigation, they still had to “let him go” if they had nothing concrete with which to hold him. And yes, a clever detective believed him a few hours after the statement was made, after which it was quickly discredited, from which we might reasonably deduce that this belief was incredibly short-lived.

If it's so easy to dismiss the "probability" of Hutchinson being the Whitechapel murderer, nobody should be positing the existence of imaginary or hoped for events and scenarios in order to sustain that probability, and yet that's precisely what appears to be happending here.

No more empty, generalized rhetoric, please. It antagonizes.

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Ruby,

What I give you is probability. Yet you and the others, because of an inkling, refuse to budge. Probability says that Hutchinson was Toppy because of many details. Probability says that Hutchinson would not have been let go if his alibi didn't check out, his description matched Lewis' sighting, or if he had some criminal past. You and the others refute every last thing based upon an inkling, a hunch, a shot in the dark. Why is that, do you suppose? What possible reason could anyone have for denying that probability lies in the direction of Hutchinson not being the East End murderer? Of course there's a possibility that Hutch did those things, a slight one. Just as there's a possibility that Abberline was the murderer. Probability aims away from both of them, however.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

The police simply would not have let Hutchinson go if there was anything remotely close

.

Obviously, Mike.

Still, in the absence of cameras, finger prints, DNA etc -and without him being caught red handed- they couldn't have got very close by any concrete means.

And we have seen that even with modern techniques, the Police still make mistakes (infact, people are scared nowadays of coming forward as witnesses to a Murder..I saw by googing around..because the Police are immediately suspicious of the witnesses, and that's because they've gained experience).

The Police in 1888 relied on witnesses and 'gut instinct' to a (too) large extent.

You can speculate on hypothetical alibis all you want..you don't know. I can equally demolish those alibis..I don't know either.

However, I can remember newsclips with Maxine Carr when the search was on for the two little girls in Suffolk (?)..she knew that her boyfriend had murdered them, and had actively cleaned as much evidence away as possible in the house -and not even the hard bitten Press suspected anything. It was cameras that put the Police onto Ian Huntley, and in 1888 he would have been interviewed and let go.

We have seen that some killers need to involve themselves in their own cases,and I still think that Hutch was such a person, and the
Police in 1888 did not realise that fact..and they let him go due to his personality coupled with their lack of hard links..

..but there are links there still..

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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