Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Rubyretro]

Fish -first of all, I agree with you about the 'latest enquiries' bit, ruling Hutch out...but the big problem is that we have no way of knowing at all, what those enquiries were...so it's all supposition.

You can make up a scenario of Police enquiries in Romford and I can make up a scenario of the Police finding no other witness at all having seen A Man (a very remarkable 'person') and deciding that Hutch was not in London at the times of some of the other killings and that MJK was killed by the same person as Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes and(at least), that Hutch was not a raving mad Jewish butcher, that he volunteered to put himself under Police suspicion, and ergo he was a harmless fantasist but not the Ripper.

We can make up any sort of Police enquiries, and Press enquiries , that we like, but without knowing what they were, we cannot just 'accept' them, since we know that there have been very many Police mistakes made in the past.

Indeed, googling around about 'witnesses' to murders of serial sillers, what I found is that the Police now have a difficult job having witnesses come forward because the witnesses are frightened of being treated like a 'suspect'. The Police look upon witnesses as potential suspects, because they've learned from experience that serial killers do present themselves as witnesses,as some of them like to involve themselves in their own investigations ; it is a known Fact.

Did the Police never make enquiries about these Witness/Killers ?

I'm sure that they did, but they made mistakes, because serial killers are often 'bright' and make sure that they cover their backs.

In short, not knowing what form the Police/Press enquiries took, we can't take them as discounting Hutch as a Suspect.

So, what are we left with ?

We're left with a single man, in the right age group, living in the centre of the murder sites, with the GSG on a direct route between Mitre Square and his lodgings, of the type to go unremarked in the streets, placing himself at the site of the last murder at the right time, -and this being independently corroborated by a witness, patently lying, purporting to have had a personal link to the victim and (my personal opinion)offering up a Jewish 'suspect' when there is a strong Jewish link between the other murder sites, and the murders stopping once he becomes known to the Police.

I am very willing to keep an open mind, but Hutch fits perfectly what we now know of serial killers as none of the other 'suspects' do.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I am very willing to keep an open mind, but Hutch fits perfectly what we now know of serial killers as none of the other 'suspects' do."

Does being a single man make him fit the picture of a serial killer?

Does being in the right age group make him fit the picture of a serial killer?

Does living in the Victoria home make him fit the picture of a serial killer?

Does being a man few people took notice of (and how on earth do we know that this applies in his case???) make him fit the picture of a serial killer?

Does his willingness to witness about his part in a crime make him fit the picture of a serial killer?

Does the fact that the murders stopped after he had become known to the police make him fit the picture of a serial killer? As far as I can tell, other serialists who have made contact with the police have gone on killing - it seems they (or at least some of them) enjoy the added spice.

I´m sorry, Ruby, but I cannot see one single thing here that points in the diection of a serial killer. Nothing. Nada. Rien.
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?

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.

Ruby, George Hutchinson was a man who went to the police under the impression that he could help out with a murder inquiry. There is the chance that he did it because he thought he could make a buck or two out of it, but in either case, we know that the police said thanks, but no thanks, and sent him on his way.

How many men throughout history do you think have gone to the police to offer testimony in criminal cases?

How many of these men do you think actually lived near the place where the crime they took an interest in had occurred?

How many of them would have been of an age where they could be serial killers (and we have such creatures in ages from the teen years and upwards through their fifties, at the very least)?

Finally, since these pointers are all pointers towards a sordid life as a serial killer, I take it that the major part of these men ended up on death row, unless they did a "Hutch" and fooled the pants of the police force?

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?

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.

But you don´t have that, do you? And if you take a look on what is being discussed right now, inbetween Garry and me, I think you may need to stay away from pouring kerosene all over my argument that Hutchinsonians have a propensity for jumping to untenable conclusions on extremely meagre information, or - as in this case - no information at all. It´s bad enough as it is.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Well, here’s my theory with regard to the assumed Romford investigation.

The police, as we’ve discovered, will investigate as far as they can, but cannot always expect those investigations to deliver the goods.

Let’s say the police start asking around in Romford.

Result? Nobody saw him and nobody could verify his claim that he was there on the Thursday.

The authorities are now very doubtful about that claim, and add it to the various other doubts they were already harbouring. The Echo somehow got wind of this, and the result of the article of 13th November.

I think we can be absolutely certain that the authorities did not know the truth of the matter. They were left with their own suspicions, and some of them were outlined in the Echo article. If we accept this, we can also appreciate that there are no blanks to fill. We don’t need imaginary “construction sites” (?) or imaginary claims to have applied for Romford jobs, or imaginary Hutch-spotting “managers” to explain away both the doubt and ensuing lack of interest in Hutchinson.

They couldn’t prove that he lied.

They couldn’t prove he was mistaken.

Thy simply no longer trusted him.

And with the release of the heavily embellished and contradictory police versions, that mistrust could only have been fuelled. All of which make it more than understandable that Abberline may indeed have come to conclude “Bugger, I must have been wrong!”.

Nobody can realistically expect anyone to swallow any explanation “proving” Hutchinson was in the clear without providing evidence or even vague indications in support of their argument. We’ve had reams of invented scenarios, events, and people, and they’re all being used – with palpable lack of success – to rule Hutchinson out both as a suspect and a witness, and to compound the gaffe, these complicated imaginary scenarios are being touted as the “simple explanation”.

But it’s clear from the evidence that the police had no such knowledge.

[Monty]

But (sic) it’s clear from the available evidence that the police had no such knowledge.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Vive la difference!

Thanks, Monty!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

The immediate priority in modern serial killer investigations, as far as suspects are concerned, is to ascertain who was at the scene of the crime, and who had good reason to be there. If these types were ruled out because little was known about them, and because there wasn’t any evidence immediately to hand to the effect that they were preoccupied with blood and guts, they’d be guilty of dereliction of duty and failing to learn from past cases.

Firstly, the expectation that the killer would convey outward and visible signs of bloodthirstiness is very naïve. Whatever the Whitechapel murderer’s identity, the chances of encountering a long and meticulously recorded life history are incredibly remote, especially if he belonged to the working class poor. Similarly, we’re very unlikely to find ourselves in a position to know whether or not Hutchinson ever harboured “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”. If the police in 1888 had limited themselves only to those with known tendencies in that regard, the chances of them overlooking the real killer were very strong.

Modern investigators are even more aware than this, which is why the investigative focus has been shifted to assessing the actions and behaviour of suspected individuals in relation to a crime or crime scene. Serial killers have been known to insert themselves into police investigations as “witnesses” for various reasons, often out of self-preservation, but occasionally just for their sheer bravado value of getting one over on the police. Hutchinson came forward shortly after Sarah Lewis’ evidence was made public knowledge, and the chances of this being a coincidence are incredibly slim, especially given the congruity of detail between the wideawake suspect and Hutchinson in terms of behaviour and movements, It seems likely, therefore, that Hutchinson had recognised himself in another witness report and came forward with an excuse that attempted to vindicate his presence there, just as Colin Ireland had recognised himself from CCTV footage, thus prompting him to come forward as a witness to lie about his reasons for being there.

Unfortunately, if Hutchinson was motivated by this concern, and really was loitering outside Kelly's home, he stands at least a reasonbale chance of having been the killer, since pre-crime surveillance has also been resorted to by more recent serial killers. Most people favour an "unknown local male", and I place Hutchinson in that large category. I just feel he has a bit more going for him as a suspect than the vast number of ULMers, of whom we know nothing.

The other factors, such as his residence in the heart of the murder district, and the fact that he generally fits the popular “unknown local” model are all supplementary to the above, and don’t individually constitute evidence of serial crime. If people have convinced themselves that Hutchinson was “22” and that he “went to the police under the impression that he could help out with a murder inquiry”, they’re welcome to those conclusions, but as I’ve stated several times, I believe the evidence points strongly against it.

Best regards,
Ben

P.S. Yes, it is clear from the available evidence that the police had no knowledge with regard to determining for certain whether or not Hutchinson was/was not lying or was/was not at the crime scene. Which means than any attempt to procure the necessary proof has the distinctly unenviable task of choosing invented scenarios NOT in evidence.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"The immediate priority in modern serial killer investigations, as far as suspects are concerned, is to ascertain who was at the scene of the crime, and who had good reason to be there. If these types were ruled out because little was known about them, and because there wasn’t any evidence immediately to hand to the effect that they were preoccupied with blood and guts, they’d be guilty of dereliction of duty and failing to learn from past cases.
Firstly, the expectation that the killer would convey outward and visible signs of bloodthirstiness is very naïve. Whatever the Whitechapel murderer’s identity, the chances of encountering a long and meticulously recorded life history are incredibly remote, especially if he belonged to the working class poor."

Please Ben; where am I saying that serial killers generally show their lust for blood outwards? Where? And if I dont do that, when did I deserve being dubbed naïve? Please?

What I said in my exchange with Ruby was that not one single trait of the ones she mentioned carries even the remotest evidence of being a serial killer.
That still applies.
Being 22 years old, living in the neighbourhood, placing yourself on the spot of a crime, being discarded as a witness are all things that do not hinder Hutchinson from being a serial killer - but none of them says one iota of whether he was that or not. Not one of them even remotely hints at it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Being 22 years old, living in the neighbourhood, placing yourself on the spot of a crime, being discarded as a witness are all things that do not hinder Hutchinson from being a serial killer

Indeed Fish, but coming forward with a dubious account in an effort to vindicate your presence at a crime scene after recognising yourself in another witness account positively enhances those chances, in my view, and as I've explained in painful detail before, I believe this is the only explanation that satisfactorily accounts for the various "coincidences" in terms of timing, and corresponds pretty well with the beahviour of more recent serial killers. If Hutchinson had a history of a preoccupation with innards or anything of that nature, the chances are slim that we'll ever know about it, which is why it pays no focus on people's actions and behaviour in relation to the crime scene.

Quick plea here, can we leave the whole Hutchinson "being 22 years old" thing? You know I utterly reject this, so can I respectfully submit that we leave this as a point of contention?

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

It does not matter in the least, Ben, that Hutchinson came forward in the way he did. 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!! How hard can that be to take in? You have used Violenia a lot before in your argumentation - was he showing the serial killer in him as he came forward? Packer?

Once and for all, what Hutchinson did means that one may take a legitimate interest in him - but he never did one thing or say one word that means that in itself pointed him out as a potential serial killer. Speaking to the police does NOT prove that you are a serial killer, nor does providing them with a strange story. If, on the other hand, you feel that it DOES, then congratulations - you have found the Ripper!

I´m outta here!
Fisherman

[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.

[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]

Exactly.

[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.

[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.

[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