A theory on GH for JtR

[Garry Wroe]

It is hardly likely, Fish, that investigators would have discredited Hutchinson’s police statement but continued to view the Astrakhan description as reliable. The two, I would suggest, are mutually exclusive.

It might also be borne in mind that the police continued to raid low lodging houses in their search for the killer, a situation that would hardly have prevailed had they been looking for an affluent offender. Likewise, it was Lawende rather than Hutchinson who was called in to give Saddler the once over during the investigation into Coles’ death. All of this, added to the reality that none of the senior investigating officers who later wrote of the case gave Hutchinson so much as a mention, ought to be sufficient to provide overwhelming inferential confirmation that the Astrakhan description was accepted only briefly before being discarded.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"It is hardly likely, Fish, that investigators would have discredited Hutchinson’s police statement but continued to view the Astrakhan description as reliable."

Makes two of us, Garry. Thats why I answered Ben that a discarding of Astrakhan man followed more or less naturally from a discarding of Hutchinson.

"It might also be borne in mind that the police continued to raid low lodging houses in their search for the killer, a situation that would hardly have prevailed had they been looking for an affluent offender. Likewise, it was Lawende rather than Hutchinson who was called in to give Saddler the once over during the investigation into Coles’ death. All of this, added to the reality that none of the senior investigating officers who later wrote of the case gave Hutchinson so much as a mention, ought to be sufficient to provide overwhelming inferential confirmation that the Astrakhan description was accepted only briefly before being discarded."

Yes. Yes. And yes. But, as I said, none of it goes to prove that it was the description in itself that caused the police to give old George the slip. The only judgement we have on record goes in the other direction altogether - Abberlines´ assertion that he believed Hutchinson had told the truth.

The best,
Fisherman

[jason_c]

I think it quite possible the police discounted the Astrakhan man description as a result of Kelly's likely time of death. Kelly had "punters" after Mr A. If GH was wasting police time he would have been charged. We have hoax letter writers claiming to be from the murderer charged for less serious offences.

[Ben]

If GH was wasting police time he would have been charged.

Not if they couldn't prove it, Jason.

Which is why we also have no evidence that either Packer or Violenia were charged, despite it being obvious that they too were "wasting police time".

Which "punters after Mr. A" are you referring to?

Best regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

I think it quite possible the police discounted the Astrakhan man description as a result of Kelly's likely time of death.

I certainly believe that Dr Bond’s projected 1:00 to 2:00am time of death may have influenced police thinking, Jason, but would have some difficulty in accepting that this prevented investigators from considering other possibilities. There again, this is precisely the scenario that appears to have arisen in the Chapman case courtesy of Dr Phillips’ estimated time of death.

If GH was wasting police time he would have been charged. We have hoax letter writers claiming to be from the murderer charged for less serious offences.

Perhaps, Jason. But we also have Packer and Violenia who were most certainly not charged. They were simply dropped like a stone by investigators.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Fisherman]

Jason_C:

"I think it quite possible the police discounted the Astrakhan man description as a result of Kelly's likely time of death."

Not very likely, no. He was, after all, the one customer coming closest to the time of her death. And even if they must have discussed just how well the times tallied with Kelly´s death, being the last customer seen with a killed prostitute has a nasty tendency of putting you in focus.

He would have been discarded along with the rest of Hutch´s testimony for other reason/s.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Hi All

I think my conclusion is that I have a lot to learn. I think this is an interesting area of the case, and I'm open minded about what the answer is. I really haven't theorised it so well as some contributors to this thread, so I'll leave it there for now.

But, I do have one question.

If, for the sake of argument, Hutchinson was a killer, JTR!

Then, wouldn't taking himself off to the cop shop (excuse the vernacular, its been a long day) mean shooting himself in the foot?

Once he'd made himself known to the police, and (arugably worse) the press; surely it would have been a bit more tricky to continue his fiendish career?

There were contemporary sketches - which are often quite good, I believe. So wouldn't he have run the risk of being caught?

In this scenario, he must have realised this - so what did he do? Give it up? Move away?

What does everybody think?

[Abby Normal]

Hi All

I think my conclusion is that I have a lot to learn. I think this is an interesting area of the case, and I'm open minded about what the answer is. I really haven't theorised it so well as some contributors to this thread, so I'll leave it there for now.

But, I do have one question.

If, for the sake of argument, Hutchinson was a killer, JTR!

Then, wouldn't taking himself off to the cop shop (excuse the vernacular, its been a long day) mean shooting himself in the foot?

Once he'd made himself known to the police, and (arugably worse) the press; surely it would have been a bit more tricky to continue his fiendish career?

There were contemporary sketches - which are often quite good, I believe. So wouldn't he have run the risk of being caught?

In this scenario, he must have realised this - so what did he do? Give it up? Move away?

What does everybody think?

Hi Sally

Then, wouldn't taking himself off to the cop shop (excuse the vernacular, its been a long day) mean shooting himself in the foot?

IMHO it was a calculated risk as i stated in my original post:

"On the night of Mary Kelly’s murder, he is seen again by a witness by Sarah Lewis, as he waits outside of Miller’s court. After missing the inquest-where he knows there will be witnesses-he decides to make the bold decision to go to the police (on his terms) this time in his plan of misleading them further and to give a reason of why he was there that night. Perhaps he recognized Lewis that night and feared she might know him as well (perhaps even his name) since by his own admission he had known Mary Kelly for a long time. If there was a good chance they might be looking for him as a suspect who was perhaps suspiciously waiting and watching outside the murdered woman’s court, perhaps it was a good calculated risk to come forward as a potential witness instead."

so what did he do? Give it up? Move away?

Its not clear what became of him.

If he was "Toppy" apparently he went on to have, as far as we know, a normal marriage and had kids.

If he was not Toppy and therefore basically "unknown GH"- who knows?
I personally lean toward unknown GH and that after Mary Kelly's murder he took time off from his murders as the investigation got too hot and then during this time he either became ill and/or died, moved away, or was incarcerated.

[jason_c]

Hi Sally

Then, wouldn't taking himself off to the cop shop (excuse the vernacular, its been a long day) mean shooting himself in the foot?

IMHO it was a calculated risk as i stated in my original post:

"On the night of Mary Kelly’s murder, he is seen again by a witness by Sarah Lewis, as he waits outside of Miller’s court. After missing the inquest-where he knows there will be witnesses-he decides to make the bold decision to go to the police (on his terms) this time in his plan of misleading them further and to give a reason of why he was there that night. Perhaps he recognized Lewis that night and feared she might know him as well (perhaps even his name) since by his own admission he had known Mary Kelly for a long time. If there was a good chance they might be looking for him as a suspect who was perhaps suspiciously waiting and watching outside the murdered woman’s court, perhaps it was a good calculated risk to come forward as a potential witness instead."

so what did he do? Give it up? Move away?

Its not clear what became of him.

If he was "Toppy" apparently he went on to have, as far as we know, a normal marriage and had kids.

If he was not Toppy and therefore basically "unknown GH"- who knows?
I personally lean toward unknown GH and that after Mary Kelly's murder he took time off from his murders as the investigation got too hot and then during this time he either became ill and/or died, moved away, or was incarcerated.

Hes also had a number of other witnesses who could then identify him, Lawende and Schwartz.

GH seen at one crime scene is a coincidence, at two of them hes a killer set for the gallows.

[jason_c]

With regards Packer. Do we know what he told police in his second statement? Or was it all newspaper talk? I genuinely do not know.

[Rubyretro]

If, for the sake of argument, Hutchinson was a killer, JTR!

Then, wouldn't taking himself off to the cop shop (excuse the vernacular, its been a long day) mean shooting himself in the foot?

Quite !

Indeed, I think, personally that's why the murders stopped. Certainly if JtR and Hutch were one and the same, then he was no longer in the position to ever be seen near a murder site again...

...but maybe he hadn't thought that bit through sufficiently beforehand in his excited state at butchering MJK, playing cat and mouse with the Police, and being the centre of Press attention?

Maybe his immediate motivations in coming forward over-rode other considerations in the heat of the moment ?

We can only speculate as to what became of Hutch...as we don't know who he was..serial killers certainly can stop killing, and accidents and illnesses happen, as does getting locked up for a totally different offence.He may have moved away or emigrated,
for all we know. It is possible that his name was an alias.

I certainly disagree that the 'Jewish part' of Hutch's description, was less important that the 'wealthy' part. Hutch clearly stated 'jewish appearence' 'foreign looking' and he put a horseshoe tiepin on the man -google 'hamsa horseshoe'. By saying that he maybe saw the man again on Petticoat market, he was placing A Man in a place which was described as '90 %' Jewish.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Hes also had a number of other witnesses who could then identify him, Lawende and Schwartz.

Not certain at all.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Ben

Hi Fleets,

The observation is that “such a man” was very unlikely to have ventured into that area at that time, attired in such a fashion and with his gold watch on proud and curiously unbuttoned display, not that it was beyond the realms of possibility.

Semantics Ben.

The argument goes that the level of detail and the man's supposed wealth casts serious doubt on his statement. Those who discredit Hutchinson use this as a cornerstone of the argument - I think you'll agree.

Now if it is 'very unlikely' then reason dictates that it is very unlikely Hutchinson would have described such a man where telling a lie.

Logic/reason means that if you think he is unlikely to have been in that type of area at that time of night....and the majority of the board think it unlikely......majority view and all that.....which is the best you would have to go on when it comes to reason and logic in this case......then the chances are that another human being....Hutchinson....would have thought it unlikely to have been believed. That's logical.

It is fallacious in the extreme, incidentally, to argue that the implausible level of detail in the Hutchinson description somehow increases the chances of it being true. In fact it’s disturbing similar to some of the old arguments I’ve heard touted in favour of the Maybrick diary. Oh yes, the handwriting doesn’t match the real James’ in the slightest, but since no forger could ever be so “unbelievably dim” as to abandon any attempt a emulating James’ penmanship, the diary must be real – or so the Maybrickian argument goes.

Except it's not a case of 'could never have been' when the evidence suggests that in fact it wasn't. Evidence lacking in order to refute Hutchinson by the way. And I didn't say he wasn't lying...I said he would have had to have been unbelievablly dim to present such a case and expect it to be taken for granted. Perhaps he was. The difference with the Maybrick forger is that he would have had to have gone some to ensure that diary could not have been proven beyond reasonable doubt to have been a forgery.....whereas Hutchinson had a very easy task on his hands....just describe Broad Shoulders or someone similar....easy....which ensures my point stands.....Hutchinson went the very long way round telling a tale...were it a tale.

And then there's a flaw with your logic Ben.....in that you ask the board to believe that because the Maybrick forger was dim then it follows so was Hutchinson....when in fact it doesn't follow at all. The Maybrick forger bears absolutely on significance to what Hutchinson did or didn't see.

A) The level of detail is demonstrably implausible if not borderline impossible given the conditions described.

Can you put some meat on the bones of this one Ben.....because if this is the case then it renders our conversation redundant within seconds.

B) It conveniently tallies with various physical components that had already been associated with the popular perception of the ripper’s appearance.

This doesn't follow at all. In the first instance you're asking the board to believe he was fabricating to the point of 'unbelievable level of detail'......then you're suggesting that he was following the norm. Which is it? And were he following the norm.....then just describe broad shoulders...surely more believable and in line with the norm?

The desire to “rob” another individual certainly does not bestow the putative "robber" with near superhuman powers of observation and recollection

Superhuman? You're stretching it Ben...he remembers or lies about his clothes a watch a red neckerchief and one or two other things. In all honestly....I was sitting next to a girl on the train back from work today and I reckon I could give you a very accurate and detailed description of her.....clothes......looks......bag she was carrying....admittedly it was light.....and I spoke with her and reckon I could tell you roughly which part of Manchester she comes from and recognise her voice again. Some people just catch your eye and you remember them......seems unlikely to you.....not to me because I personally have a good memory for these things...perhaps Hutchinson did too.

[claire]

If we presume, for a moment, that he actually did see someone, it's worth remembering that Hutchinson was making his statement in the full knowledge of what had transpired after he'd seen Mr A. In other words, it's perfectly plausible that, given what he knew had happened to MK, he filled in a few blanks in his own memory, putting slants and details on things that weren't necessarily there, simply because he wanted to help the police.

This really isn't unusual--I remember when I was doing some research at the police training college in NZ, and they were teaching basic interview techniques, they emphasised the importance of ensuring witnesses didn't provide information simply because the interviewing officer asked for it. (Apologies, Ben, I am about to go into a dialogue.) Otherwise, you'd typically get something like, 'Did you see what colour his hair was?' 'Erm...' 'Brown? Light?' 'Yes, light.' 'Sure?' 'Yep, I think so. Yep.'

It's easy to read GH's interview statement as a continuous narrative, because that's how it's presented on the page. But it seems to me perfectly likely that this is not how he presented it to the police. Asked for 'any additional detail,' for example, he may have offered up more than he could actually remember (astrakhan cuffs, red hankies and so on)...and actually started to see those details in his memory. People like to be helpful, sometimes to the point of being obstructive, and I think there is at least a chance that this was the case with Hutchinson (even to the point where he mistook the day).

People's own prejudices can come into play here, too, and not necessarily vindictively. We carry a lot of preconceptions and prejudices with us, and it's plausible that GH just got carried away with the moment. This makes him not a malicious time-waster, or a person intent on seeking attention, but a man whose tedious everyday life was suddenly given a bit of colour by his casual association with a high profile crime.

Just thoughts, of course, but in fancying GH (as I have, and still do, often), it's worth considering the more mundane possible psychologies behind his actions.

[Garry Wroe]

You are absolutely correct, Claire, that witness statements are vulnerable to influences such as leading questions or the dreaded interviewer effect – the phenomenon by which subconscious cognitive processes lead an interviewee to inadvertently provide answers that will please the interviewer. In order for such processes to have affected Hutchinson’s police interview, however, there must by necessity have been a pre-existing suspicion on the part of Abberline or/and Badham that the Whitechapel Murderer was an affluent Jew given to displays of ostentation. Yet the evidence indicates that senior investigators sought the killer amongst the mean streets that surrounded the slums of Flower and Dean Street – hardly the vicinity in which an individual such as Astrakhan Man was liable to be found. On this basis, therefore, I think it highly unlikely that Hutchinson’s official statement was unduly influenced by his police inquisitors. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how Astrakhan Man could have deviated more from official police thinking regarding the killer’s likely appearance and social status.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.