Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Wickerman]

... One of the things the police may have simply missed and not known the significance of-is stalking behaviour and what it leads to and that is violence. Given what police know now about serial killers in general and stalking specifically it seems obvious to us now, but back then it probably didn't and they simply missed the significance of his stalking behaviour.

Hi Abby.
Abberline was more than capable in dealing with street crime and street criminals, how to interview them, what to be aware of, how deceptive these criminals can be, and stalking was hardly a new phenomena - really

What it all really boils down to is, were the police experienced enough to determine when a witness is lying?
Abberline, of all people was placed in that position precisely because he had experience in these matters.

[Abby Normal]

Fine, Abby, but then we must also surely allow for the likelihood that there were very good reasons, that we can know nothing about, for Hutch not being considered a suspect.

I don't think one can have it both ways. The more one tries to argue that his words and actions must be considered highly suspicious, even indicative of his involvement, the less sense it makes that the police would have noticed nothing remotely suspicious about his coming late to the party, with a 'ludicrous' description of the supposedly last man in with Kelly, who was later discounted as a viable suspect. If they didn't suspect his motives regardless of all this, the possibility has to remain that they knew something about him that we don't.

Love,

Caz
X

Fair enough Caz!

And that may be true, they may have known something about him that we dont know that excluded him from ever even being a suspect, but one of the those things may have been that they came to the conclusion he was simply a time waster. But I agree with you, we just dont know.

On the other hand--
To me, the biggest red flag on hutch is his stalking behaviour and placing himself there at the approx TOD. One of the things the police may have simply missed and not known the significance of-is stalking behaviour and what it leads to and that is violence. Given what police know now about serial killers in general and stalking specifically it seems obvious to us now, but back then it probably didn't and they simply missed the significance of his stalking behaviour.

[caz]

Hi Caz
happy Holidays to you.

since there is no evidence Hutch was ever a suspect by the police and also no evidence that he was cleared as a suspect, we have to surmise based on the evidence that in all liklihood that Hutch was never a suspect. so for honestys sake lets put that one to bed once and for all, can we?

If we want to focus on other things that argue that hutch is not a viable suspect, than fine, but pleae can we at least admit that as far as we know -he was never a suspect?

Fine, Abby, but then we must also surely allow for the likelihood that there were very good reasons, that we can know nothing about, for Hutch not being considered a suspect.

I don't think one can have it both ways. The more one tries to argue that his words and actions must be considered highly suspicious, even indicative of his involvement, the less sense it makes that the police would have noticed nothing remotely suspicious about his coming late to the party, with a 'ludicrous' description of the supposedly last man in with Kelly, who was later discounted as a viable suspect. If they didn't suspect his motives regardless of all this, the possibility has to remain that they knew something about him that we don't.

Love,

Caz
X

[Varqm]

It would not have been surprising if they did not pursue that angle. But there is nothing to indicate that Hutchinson ever knew anyone of these Miller's Court people and have any connection with them at all except his statement which was dismissed. He is like all those false witnesses in this case. We can't stretch the maybe's too much.

[Scott Nelson]

But he was a suspect.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Caz
happy Holidays to you.

since there is no evidence Hutch was ever a suspect by the police and also no evidence that he was cleared as a suspect, we have to surmise based on the evidence that in all liklihood that Hutch was never a suspect. so for honestys sake lets put that one to bed once and for all, can we?

If we want to focus on other things that argue that hutch is not a viable suspect, than fine, but pleae can we at least admit that as far as we know -he was never a suspect?

[caz]

Another major misunderstanding is that I'm going out of way to make a "case" for Hutchinson's involvement. I'm not. But when the baby is thrown out with the bathwater, and a reasonable and compelling suspect cast aside due to faulty reasoning, I tend to get involved.

But Hutch is only a reasonable and compelling suspect in your own imagination. He is merely a potential suspect, with zero evidence for him ever being violent towards a woman, and few if any of us have 'cast him aside'. Nobody can prove he was innocent, but you do seem to have used an awful lot of words trying your hardest, not just to question his motives, but to put the very worst interpretation on everything he said.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

But nor was Hutchinson the last to see Kelly alive. That distinction would go to the suspect seen in her company, if the overall statement was believed. Packer still claimed to be at the crime scene at a time relevant to Stride's death, just as Violenia claimed to have been at the crime scene at a time relevant to Chapman's death. According to some of the arguments employed here, that ought to qualify both of them suspect status, and yet neither was considered a suspect, thus reinforcing the reality that Hutchinson wasn't either.

But Ben, you have reason not to suspect Packer or Violenia of murdering anyone, just like the police. Yet you keep comparing the claims of these two witnesses to Hutch's claims, which only draws attention to the fact that the police must have had reason not to suspect him either, while you see everything he said as an indication of his involvement. Why not give credit where credit is due, and allow for the possibility that the police were right not to suspect Hutch, just as they got it right with the others?

You want to see Hutch in a completely different light from Packer and Violenia, so it might be wise to stop lumping their stories together to imply they are much the same.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi CD,

No, for reasons I've outlined in several of my recent posts here, it is unlikely (although not impossible) that they considered the possibility of Hutchinson's guilt.

A) The 1888 police were unlikely to have fathomed for one moment that the real killer would inject himself into the investigation.

See my previous post, Ben. If Hutch's account was discredited, he became in police eyes a conman who had attempted to put an innocent man (whether real or invented) in the murder room with Kelly. All his possible motives for doing so must have been explored if they narrowed them down to attention seeking or the hope of financial gain.

B) Hutchinson didn't remotely conform to the type of person the police were interested in.

So he looked nothing remotely like the man seen by Lawende and co or Schwartz then? False ginger beard perhaps?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Alibis I've already dealt with - he clearly didn't have one for the Kelly murder, and he could easily have bluffed his way out of the others by claiming he was asleep in the extremely busy Victoria Home on those nights (i.e. just like every other night). Even in the exceptionally unlikely event that the police did suspect Hutchinson, they had no means of shoring up those suspicions beyond staking him out and hoping to catch him in the act...

Hi Ben,

I think you just rubbished your whole argument for Hutch coming forward in the first place if he had killed anyone. You seem fairly insistent, and consistent, when you say the police had no means of doing anything about it, even if they had found Hutch's late appearance, changing accounts and description of Astrakhan Man as suspicious and risible as you do. But the same would have applied if Hutch had not come forward, and had the bad luck to be found and questioned as a direct result of Lewis's sighting - an exceptionally unlikely event in itself. There was either evidence that could have incriminated him or there wasn't. Being a witness or a suspect wouldn't have changed that. Merely failing to come forward to clear himself (as in Blotchy's case) would not have amounted to evidence of his involvement, any more than doing so automatically put him above suspicion.

When a witness comes forward late, after someone has put him near a crime scene (however vaguely), it is for the purpose of clearing himself. The police would have had plenty of experience with witnesses doing just that, even if they saw no connection in this instance between Lewis's loiterer and Hutch's delayed admission to loitering. Hutch would effectively be seeking to clear himself, by explaining what he was doing there. So it seems quite absurd to imagine that Abberline and co would not have seen his account in this context, but only in the black-and-white 'upright citizen wanting to do his duty and grass up Astrakhan Man' or 'time-wasting, attention-seeking liar'.

You can't use one zero-evidence piece of speculation (Hutchinson being suspected) to bolster an equally zero-evidence and untenable conclusion (that he was absolved of this zero-evidence suspicion).

That's just too funny, Ben. There is evidence that a teeny-tiny minority of serial killers have come forward, often when they believed they had been backed into a tight corner, less often just for the pure thrill of it when they had no need at all. But there is zero evidence for Hutch - or indeed the ripper - having been one of them from either category. It's pure speculation with very little merit. The ripper (just like your argument for him being a local man) is far more likely to be found among the vast majority of offenders who have kept as far away from the cops as possible.

You also shouldn't apply purely modern perspectives when deciding how "foolish" or "incompetent" the 1888 police must have been to overlook certain possibilities. The options they entertained will have been conditioned by prior knowledge and experience, and if that didn't involve the most wanted criminal in London's history wandering into the police station and talking "innocently" to detectives, they can hardly be blamed for not considering it as an option.

Well we know that several false witnesses wandered into police stations to confess to being this most wanted criminal, and they didn't pull the wool over anyone's eyes. The police didn't take them at face value, but still had to be satisfied they were all liars or innocent lunatics. They must also have experienced genuine confessions, from thieves, murderers, accomplices and all sorts, so they routinely had to distinguish between genuine witnesses and conmen. Rewards were only presumably offered to those who gave information about a crime, or criminal, that could be backed up by hard evidence. In order to sort out who should get such a reward, and who should be sent off with a flea in his ear, it would have been no good at all automatically trusting a witness merely because he had come to them voluntarily. Real criminals have always had a vested interest in framing someone else, and the police would have been well aware of it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Ok, just for arguments sake, lets say we take this serious (sic) and put this to the test once and for all.

Ok, just for arguments sake, let's just be preposterous for a moment and pretend that everyone on Casebook is as fascinated with monitoring the "progress" of Jon's petty squabbles with Ben as Jon is.

On second thoughts, let's not.

Nobody gives a monkeys, Jon.

Face it.

Everybody's got better things to do.

I don't value your opinion that I haven't provided proof that Hutchinson was discredited, and I laugh loudly and heartily at your poor attempts to recruit the participation of the bigger boys by pointing out that I've been disagreed with on occasion. We have all had our views challenged, especially you, with your controversial theories involving Isaacs, Kennedy and the Daily News that get practically no support whatsoever in comparison to the far more popular contention that Hutchinson lied.

If you ask me where the proof is, I will post what I consider the proof to be, and if you argue the point, I will argue straight back at you, and around and around we will go in entertaining circles.

You make disparaging references to my supposed "flock", just as you insult and belittle anyone that happens to agree with me, but they are unlikely to covet good your opinion of their contributions any more than I value your judgment as to what I've proved and not proved. But your pathetic "Come here at my behest and state your agreement with Ben, and let my ego my salvaged intact, because then I can claim victory over him!" is likely to be treated with the contempt and derision it richly deserves.

You should rise above this things, seriously.

Don't empower me to the extent you're doing at the moment.

[Wickerman]

We all get disagreed with at times, but since my views get more adherents than yours,....

Ok, just for arguments sake, lets say we take this serious and put this to the test once and for all.

Since the central pillar of your claim against Hutchinson is that he was discredited (I have proof, it is a fact, etc.), yet after numerous requests from myself and others you have failed miserably to provided this 'proof', then perhaps your followers can be relied upon to do what you are unable to do?

If the Shepherd is not up to the task, then the duty should fall to the 'flock'.
So, who among the flock of adherents who soak up your every word are prepared to step up and bail you out?


And, the second task, to prove that the Lloyds article is not an error and was the result of factual research, ie; that a legitimate record of his imprisonment on Nov. 9th does exist.

Can we hand the task to anyone in your flock on your behalf?, as it is apparent that your claims are insufficient to settle the issue.

So, lets see who steps up and who chooses to be seen to support you in these very central claims of yours.

[Wickerman]

Yes, I think you may have slightly misunderstood what she was getting at, but no matter.

We discussed the concept in detail, we were friends at the time.

Isaacs was conclusively ruled out as "Astrakhan man"...

What you mean is, Astrachan was ruled out as a suspect, in December.

[Ben]

I have just shared part of her 'teaching' with you, so regardless how you choose to object, the method is sound scientific reasoning, tried, tested and true.

Yes, I think you may have slightly misunderstood what she was getting at, but no matter.

What I have said is that to-date, there is no better candidate.

Which, unfortunately, isn't true.

Isaacs was conclusively ruled out as "Astrakhan man", in contrast to the potentially millions of men who were never investigated as such.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Uniquely fascinating, Jon, but with respect, you ought really to be helping yourself. If you think that "theories" only result from placing facts (or joining the dots!) in a different sequence (?!?) then I'm afraid someone must have given you the wrong idea.

It isn't "what I think", Ben.
Back in the late 1990's, when the most dominant thread on Casebook was the Maybrick Diary, one of the then members tried to explain to those 'Diary' adherents just how to distinguish between an hypothesis & a theory.
This member knew precisely what they were talking about because they worked for NASA.
I have just shared part of her 'teaching' with you, so regardless how you choose to object, the method is sound scientific reasoning, tried, tested and true.

And you must recall that more members than myself have tried to explain to you that your Isaacstrakhan theory is dreadfully week.

Yes, it is weak, and it will likely remain weak due to no witness statement surviving from Joseph Isaacs. I have never suggested it was strong, have I!
What I have said is that to-date, there is no better candidate.

.... but since my views get more adherents than yours, ...

ROFL
I'm sorry Ben, I'll leave that last word from you