Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[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. Thatīs 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 killerīs 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 donīt know how many more ways I can tell you this, Ruby. I hope it is the last one.

The best,
Fisherman

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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 Hutchīs 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, canīt 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, Iīll 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 whatīs 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 (letīs 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 Georgeīs 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.

Itīs all in the paper, Garry, word by word. Thank God for journalists!

Case dismissed.

The best,
Fisherman

[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

[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'.

[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

[Ben]

Can some of us try hard to condense their posts a bit – make them a little more succinct?

And I do wish people wouldn’t keep pinning “statements” on me that I’m supposed to have made, when I didn’t. Yes, I don’t consider it a matter for debate that the neither the Echo journalists nor the police had any more compelling reasons to rule Hutchinson out that the ones mentioned. We know some of the reasons why the “authorities” were attaching a “very reduced importance” to Hutchinson, and I’ve already accepted that they didn’t centre exclusively on the Astrakhan description. They were concerned with, amongst other things, the fact that Hutchinson took three days to come forward, and the incompatibility of Mr. Astrakhan with any other witness sighting.

What is ludicrously apparent is that whatever doubts the authorities harboured, they had absolutely nothing to do with proof having been secured to rule Hutchinson out for certain as a witness. Had it been otherwise, the Echo would not have referred to a “very reduced importance” (as distinct from “no importance at all”), and they certainly wouldn’t have cited lesser reasons for doubting Hutchinson’s account if they were sitting on bombshells that could prove Hutchinson was wrong.

Whatever they might have suspected, they certainly were not in a position to know the truth. Any insistence to the contrary has the almighty task of having to fiddle with the wording of the Echo and invent several scenarios for which we have no evidence. I accept, of course, that the article referred to a later investigation, but what is clear is that the results of it did not culminate in Hutchinson being ruled out as a witness or a suspect.

The Star stated that the account had been discredited, and this arrived – not so coincidentally – after Hutchinson’s press versions appeared, which contained numerous embellishments, contradictions, and at least one flat out falsehood. This certainly does not permit us to conclude that he was a proven false witness, but suggests instead that the press versions had compounded their suspicions against Hutchinson, and that they had arrived at an educated police consensus to drop him. Both Packer and Violenia were discredited as witnesses, but crucially, not because anything had emerged to “prove” that they were lying.

And as far as I’m concerned, “George William Topping Hutchinson” could never have been dropped as a witness because he was never involved in the investigation was not the “George Hutchinson” who introduced himself to police as such on the 12th November, and I’m distinctly troubled that people want to create antagonism by trying to incorporate that irrelevant angle into this discussion.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

I-N-V-E-S-I-T-G-A-T-I-O-N. That is written evidence from a contemporarty source. "We" know this.

Yep, I know what the source said, Fisherman.

Too bad that the investigation did not turn up the necessary goods, and only resulted in suspicions and doubts being fostered, as we learn from the Echo. And if you think that "discredited" means "proven wrong", I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken.

Just on a separate note: when people say "once again" at the beginning of their sentence, do they really mean "once again", or a potentially infinite number of times again?

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"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."

Oh, I did see that, Ruby, both times over (or was it three?) - and I would not argue with you over it. And if I seem to treat all of you, in spite of your assertion that you are not their lapdog, as a uniform kennel, Iīm sorry. But I have argued about Hutchinsonianism so long and so hard that I sometimes feel Iīm wrestling with a ghost.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Yep, I know what the source said, Fisherman.

Too bad that the investigation did not turn up the necessary goods, and only resulted in suspicions and doubts being fostered, as we learn from the Echo. And if you think that "discredited" means "proven wrong", I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken."

Absolutely, Ben! That is why I donīt make that mistake, but instead settle for only telling you that it now seems apparent that I was correct in suggesting that something came up AFTER the police report was signed - as evidenced in the Echo. I then moved on to say that it was not something that had proven Hutchinson wrong at the moment it was published in the Echo, for at that stage it was obviously only a strong suspicion. But since we thankfully have the Star telling us two days later that the suspicions had moved on to become strong enough to rule Hutch out, I think we have a very good pointer to a confirmation right there and then.

Agreed?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

That is why I donīt make that mistake, but instead settle for only telling you that it now seems apparent that I was correct in suggesting that something came up AFTER the police report was signed - as evidenced in the Echo.

Not an unreasonable suggestion, Fisherman, but whatever than "something" may have been, it can't have been any more compelling that the reasons cited in the Echo, or else it too would have been included; and it also couldn't have resulted in proof being secured. Yes, the account was downgraded two days later to become "discredited" but I strongly suspect that this was due to the publication of Hutchinson's press accounts which undermined his initial statement. Still no proof; just an educated police view which resulted in Hutchinson being dropped, just as Packer had been.

Cheers,
Ben

[Monty]

Ben,

I honestly have no energy for what I deem a pointless debate.

Suffice to say a lot of this evidence supporting Hutchinson as a suspect is newspaper based and not found in official documentation.

Hutchinson never placed himself inside Kellys room, ergo he was not at the scene of crime.

His powers of observation are, if believed, unique, granted. My point is that we are basing an assumption Hutchinson is lying on assessment of probability. That, as Ive stated, is logical and natural. However, having never met Hutchinson nor absorbed any feedback regarding his personality, we cannot dismiss him as a liar.

We both know what you, and others (including myself), cannot state with clarity that Hutchinson lied or told the truth.

To base a suspicion of murder on Hutchinson is fine, as long as its painted as such and not to the detriment of other logical, and innocent, scenarios.

Suspect Ripperology is beneficial in my opinion. However it is dangerous if not worded correctly (and Im not stating you or others do that, tis a mere obsevation) and creates falsities which in some cases never get corrected.

And with that Im gone.

Goodbye

Monty