Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Ben]

No prizes for guessing that Jon wouldn't graciously receive information that he was completely ignorant of beforehand, but it was ever thus.

Quote me who says an incomplete written statement is of superior value to a face-to-face meeting with the witness.
I think if you had a quotable source you would have used it.

I never used the word "superior", and I'll thank you not to misrepresent my views. Your assertion that an "interviewer can always understand more from a face-to-face interview" can only be based on the false premise, utterly contradicted by actual experts, that it is easy to tell apart a liar from a non-liar on the basis on demeanour.

It is not easy to deduce a nervous witness from a lying witness. Abberline needs to investigate what the witness is nervous about.

Yes.

Well done.

But what if the witness is not nervous at all but still lying?

What use are amateur psychological evaluations based on body language then? If you're not an expert on such matters, and rely - in your amateurish ignorance - on body language in order to separate liars from honest witnesses in your interviews, what happens when you come across a witness who evinces none of the behavioural clues that you've decided must point to a liar? Do you give him a clean bill of health on the amusingly wrong basis that liars are always nervous and hesitant, and never confident, forthright and confident as this one seems to be? Or do you examine his actual words, i.e what s/he is actually saying, and form your judgment accordingly?

Because, if you pick the latter option, as indeed you should, you'll quickly spot that we're at no disadvantage compared to Abberline.

Discrediting can only come from the police, no such report or memo concerning a change of heart by the police towards Hutchinson exists.

It doesn't need to.

And such an expectation is utterly preposterous.

The police were deluged with time-wasters and publicity-seekers during the course of the Whitechapel investigation. If they made an official newsflash out of the discovery that each one of them was bogus, they would never get any real work done. It was also heavily in their interests to play down the fact that yet another false witness had led them astray, especially in Hutchinson's case, where such enthusiasm was invested in his statement for an extremely short-lived period. Remember also that in the absence of proof that Hutchinson was lying, an official police declaration that Hutchinson was discredited due to suspicions of fabrication would have sent any potential future witness to any potential future crime running from the hills, utterly deterred from coming forward as witnesses for fear of being disbelieved and publicly shamed.

What we have instead is a report that his statement had suffered a "very reduced importance" owing to reasons that were inextricably linked to the question of his credibility, or rather lack thereof. The report in question was obtained directly from Commercial Street Police Station after obtaining other information from the police that we know for a fact to be true, and which we know for a fact could be obtained only via police sources.

no-one who expects to be taken seriously will promote an unverified story in the Star as 'the truth'.

Nobody who still thinks it's cool to bash the Star will be taken seriously either, it being an old-hat, out-of-fashion, unimaginative and eccentrically silly viewpoint. That Star simply "echoed" the Echo in publishing a story entitled "worthless stories lead police on false scents", which also included a piece on Packer. Do you doubt the accuracy of the Star's discrediting of Matthew Packer, who was hurled into precisely the same category as Hutchinson? No, but that's because you don't have crazy, unsupported theories that rely on Packer being a squeakly-clean, honest-to-goodness witness, whereas you do with Hutchinson.

You have no proof, so we can be quite certain you have never provided proof.

I have provided the proof, "we" may be quite certain that I have provided the proof, and I will maintain and demonstrate as much for as long as Jon wants to dance along with me, which I hope will be forever, considering the fun I'm having at the moment.

[Paddy]

Inquests

It is not the role of the Coroner to decide any question of criminal or civil liability, or to apportion guilt or attribute blame.
The coroner decides who to call as a witness. As part of his investigation, the coroner will request a statement from you and may call you as a witness at the inquest. If you are called as a witness, the coroner may ask you to read through your statement, or may take you through the statement in court. You may be asked to produce a report and may not be called as a witness if your evidence is unlikely to be controversial.

An inquest is an inquisitorial proceeding, to find out:
Who the deceased was
When and where the deceased died
How and in what circumstances

The Police did their job and submitted statements. It is not the role of the Coroner to decide any question of criminal or civil liability, or to apportion guilt or attribute blame.
Most of this info is from a current website "Inquests- England fact sheets" but I would think that the information was the same then?

Nothing appears to discredit Hutchinson in my view...Or other witnesses.

Pat..................................

[Wickerman]

According to who?

Just you? Again?

I had an inkling, but unfortunately, your claim is flatly contradicted by those with actual experience who argue the precise opposite; ...

Quote me who says an incomplete written statement is of superior value to a face-to-face meeting with the witness.
I think if you had a quotable source you would have used it.

Another trap that interviewers can fall into is an over-reliance on outward and visible signs of "lying", and the false deduction that if these signs are absent in the subject, he or she must be telling the truth.

That is likely your 'false deduction', not that of an experienced officer. It is not easy to deduce a nervous witness from a lying witness. Abberline needs to investigate what the witness is nervous about.
The benefit being, a nervous demeanor does not come across in the dictated statement.

I shall be extremely annoyed if I receive any other response than "thanks for the information" to the forgoing.

Sorry to spoil your day.

Yes, I have provided the proof that Hutchinson was discredited (not proven to have lied, just discredited) over and over again.

Discrediting can only come from the police, no such report or memo concerning a change of heart by the police towards Hutchinson exists.

When the Echo report that Hutchinson's statement appears of lesser value, and the Star then exaggerates this to a discrediting, these reports are in no way considered factual by any serious student of the case.
Newspaper reports are not proof of anything, and given the known animosity between Scotland Yard/The Met. and the press in general, and the Star in particular, no-one who expects to be taken seriously will promote an unverified story in the Star as 'the truth'.
Their credibility will suffer.

You have no proof, so we can be quite certain you have never provided proof.
This is what you have been told by others in past years, and this is what you are being told today.
Nothing has changed.

[Ben]

An interviewer can always understand more from a face-to-face interview, than we can from words on a paper.

According to who?

Just you? Again?

I had an inkling, but unfortunately, your claim is flatly contradicted by those with actual experience who argue the precise opposite; that it is essential to pay heed only to the content of the statement, rather than allowing your judgment to be tainted by impressions based on body language. Many psychopaths will often have a very sincere and engaging demeanour, and the tendency to be overly impressed by this can have the detrimental effect of obscuring the suspicious nature of what they're actually saying.

Another trap that interviewers can fall into is an over-reliance on outward and visible signs of "lying", and the false deduction that if these signs are absent in the subject, he or she must be telling the truth. Could Abberline have fallen into this trap? Well, one key piece of evidence suggests he might have done. In 1885 he interviewed a man suspected of being involved in the Tower of London Bombing, and discovered his guilt from the "hesitation in his replies and his general manner". Could Abberline's successful outing of a bad and possibly guilt-ridden liar have led to an over-reliance on his own ability to weed out all liars, even good ones who don't give the game away with hesitation and nervousness? The answer is yes, of course it could.

I shall be extremely annoyed if I receive any other response than "thanks for the information" to the forgoing.

So long as you continue to maintain proof exists for an issue which everyone else knows does not

Again, this is hilarious in its delusion value. "Everyone else" does not participate in Hutchinson discussions. "Everyone else" probably doesn't read them, let alone familiarise themselves with the latest developments and observations therein. The notion that there is a huge army of people challenging me and demanding proof of me is a joke, to be laughed and laughed at. Yes, I have provided the proof that Hutchinson was discredited (not proven to have lied, just discredited) over and over again. When you've asked me to repeat the proof, I have repeated it, and where you've challenged it, I have responded to that challenge in great detail and depth.

I'm not insisting that you must be satisfied that I've provided this proof if your bizarre theories dictate that you must forever be hell-bent against it, but you're not going to win a war of attrition and repetition. I will maintain that I have provided the demanded the proof, and demonstrate accordingly, for far longer than you are capable of fruitlessly naysaying to the contrary.

Your fantasy is the methods you adopt in order to try 'prove' his culpability.

Again with the insufferable misrepresentation of my views.

I have never once sought to "prove" Hutchinson's culpability in the ripper crimes.

[Wickerman]

I'm thinking of those who refer continually to the fact that Abberline "looked him in the eye" in order to defend the position that he must have been correct in his assessment.

An interviewer can always understand more from a face-to-face interview, than we can from words on a paper.

No, I don't deny that.

But the above is a documented and factual reality. If Hutchinson was the killer, then he was an example of a serial offender injecting himself into the investigation as a witness. That's not profiling. That's simply a suggested explanation for Hutchinson's behaviour based on known facts about known serial killers. If I said that Jack the Ripper may have had an alcoholic mother and set fire to rats a child, that would be profiling.

What does Canter say about a detective being able to determine the truthfulness of a witness from his written statement, as opposed to a face-to-face interrogation?

What we have here are a handful of people choosing to find fault with what was written in a voluntary statement, in preference to the conclusions of an experienced detective conducting a personal interview.

The only question of any value here is to what degree of absurdity is this.

You fail miserably in your attempts to intimidate me, Jon.

I'm not in a "corner" and nor am I on a "hook". You're trying to empower yourself with the fantasy notion that I'm under some sort of pressure from you, but the reality simply doesn't bear this out. I've told you before, you cannot expect the people you've insulted to do what you want them to do. You refer to people who know more about the case than me, and who have written about Hutchinson long before I have heard of him, as my "followers" and a "flock", and then insist that they must join a petty squabble at your behest. They don't value your opinion of them, Jon, although they are far more sensible than me in refusing spend any time on your nonsense.

Duck and weave all you like, the hook remains firmly embedded.
You are, and always will be on the hook, as anyone is who makes unsubstantiated claims.
So long as you continue to maintain proof exists for an issue which everyone else knows does not, then it is and always will be incumbent on you, and only you, to provide such proof.

It's your fantasy Ben, as has been pointed out to you on another thread.
The fantasy, should it need to be pointed out, is not your overall theory, concerning the culpability of Hutchinson. Your fantasy is the methods you adopt in order to try 'prove' his culpability.

In short, it is not that Hutchinson could not have been guilty of something, of course he could. It is the false arguments you create in order to make him appear guilty, that's where the fantasizing comes in, your firm belief in your own guesswork.

[Ben]

I emphasized the "always" in order to enquire exactly who made such a statement?

I'm thinking of those who refer continually to the fact that Abberline "looked him in the eye" in order to defend the position that he must have been correct in his assessment.

You deny then that the tendency for an offender to inject himself into a case, in this example as a witness, can be an acknowledged part of an offenders makeup?

No, I don't deny that.

But the above is a documented and factual reality. If Hutchinson was the killer, then he was an example of a serial offender injecting himself into the investigation as a witness. That's not profiling. That's simply a suggested explanation for Hutchinson's behaviour based on known facts about known serial killers. If I said that Jack the Ripper may have had an alcoholic mother and set fire to rats a child, that would be profiling.

You are still on the hook to show this proof, claiming you already have does not get you out of the corner.
And, no-one seems to want to help you out.

You fail miserably in your attempts to intimidate me, Jon.

I'm not in a "corner" and nor am I on a "hook". You're trying to empower yourself with the fantasy notion that I'm under some sort of pressure from you, but the reality simply doesn't bear this out. I've told you before, you cannot expect the people you've insulted to do what you want them to do. You refer to people who know more about the case than me, and who have written about Hutchinson long before I have heard of him, as my "followers" and a "flock", and then insist that they must join a petty squabble at your behest. They don't value your opinion of them, Jon, although they are far more sensible than me in refusing spend any time on your nonsense.

[Wickerman]

..... and that it is "nonsense" to claim that an honest man can always be told apart from a liar on the basis of such judgments, .....

I emphasized the "always" in order to enquire exactly who made such a statement?
Another straw-man argument from you, I suspect?

David Canter is a psychologist who specialises in true crime, where he is highly respected for his contributions to that field. However, his observation regarding interviewing techniques and relying on body language to gauge a witness' truthfulness and/or a suspect's guilt had absolutely nothing to do with offender profiling.

You deny then that the tendency for an offender to inject himself into a case, in this example as a witness, can be an acknowledged part of an offenders makeup?
And here is me thinking you had claimed it was.

Yes, I have.

More times than you are capable of saying that I haven't: yes, I have.

You are still on the hook to show this proof, claiming you already have does not get you out of the corner.
And, no-one seems to want to help you out.

Look, you can't expect people to be at your beck and call, and to join a thread at your aggressive insistence after insulting them. That just isn't going to fly. Now cultivate a less childish debating strategy please, or don't post.

Lets just circumvent this tittle-tattle and have you come clean and admit, no proof exists for your 'discrediting' claims. That is why no-one chooses to paint themselves into a corner along with yourself.

It's not like we don't all know the real situation.

[Ben]

'We' do not need a David Canter to educate us on that, well, you might, but the average person doesn't.

But when we have an expert in the field informing us that judgments based on body language are notoriously unreliable, and that it is "nonsense" to claim that an honest man can always be told apart from a liar on the basis of such judgments, it is sensible to pay heed to that advice, as opposed to insisting that looking a person "in the eye" counts for more than the actual bonafide experts know that it does.

David Canter is a psychologist who specialises in true crime, where he is highly respected for his contributions to that field. However, his observation regarding interviewing techniques and relying on body language to gauge a witness' truthfulness and/or a suspect's guilt had absolutely nothing to do with offender profiling.

And you have not provided anything like 'proof'.

Yes, I have.

More times than you are capable of saying that I haven't: yes, I have.

You care because it enables me to expose the fact that you do not have the broad support you claim to have.

Yeah, Jon.

A real "Exposé" job you've done there...

Look, you can't expect people to be at your beck and call, and to join a thread at your aggressive insistence after insulting them. That just isn't going to fly. Now cultivate a less childish debating strategy please, or don't post.

[Wickerman]

Firstly, I'd like to see the "expert" who "cannot agree" with this specific conclusion of Canter's ...

This may come as a bit of a shock to you Ben, but most ordinary people will tell you that in some cases it is possible to use body language (well established fact), and in other cases body language is not in itself sufficient.

'We' do not need a David Canter to educate us on that, well, you might, but the average person doesn't.

And secondly, who said anything about "profiling"?

You did!
David Canter's claim to fame is Offender Profiling, and the point you were attempting to make is drawn from Canter's teachings.
Hence, you are dabbling in Offender Profiling.

I've provided the proof.

I don't even slightly care if you dispute this, ....

Then why respond? - of course you care
And you have not provided anything like 'proof'.

I do care when you demand that anyone who agrees with me must contribute to a slanging match of your own crafting purely at your behest, and threaten to claim victory if they don't. Because such behaviour is faintly comical in its immaturity.

I agree you care about this, but not for the reason's you offer.
You care because it enables me to expose the fact that you do not have the broad support you claim to have.

[Ben]

When experts cannot agree then what use is it to promote one over the other?
One of the major problems with Profiling is, it is too subjective, not too far removed from palm-reading.

Firstly, I'd like to see the "expert" who "cannot agree" with this specific conclusion of Canter's with regard to the suitability of interview techniques that draw conclusions from body language. And secondly, who said anything about "profiling"? Profiling has nothing to do with "palm-reading", and it is ironically the latter description that applies more accurately to conclusions drawn from a suspect/witness's body language and mannerisms, which is precisely what Canter eschews.

And I'm still waiting for this proof of discrediting, anyone, everyone, I'll listen to all-comers, no-one shall be excluded. If anyone cares to support your claim the floor is open for them to provide the proof.

I've provided the proof.

I don't even slightly care if you dispute this, because I know that your reasons for disputing it are flawed.

I do care when you demand that anyone who agrees with me must contribute to a slanging match of your own crafting purely at your behest, and threaten to claim victory if they don't. Because such behaviour is faintly comical in its immaturity.

Hi CD,

Hutchinson knew the victim. He was the last person to see her alive. He was standing outside the place where she was killed.

Let's correct this: Hutchinson claimed he knew the victim. He claimed he was the last person to see her alive. He claimed he was standing outside the place where she was killed. The fact that he claimed these things does not make them true. Emmanuel Violenia claimed to have been the last person to see Annie Chapman, but like Hutchinson, he was discredited as an attention-seeker who lied about the whole thing, including his alleged presence there. Since there was a precedent established for bogus witness alleging bogus connections to the crime scenes, despite having none at all in reality, it is so easy to understand how Hutchinson could have been lumped into this same category.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

But did he have more criminological and psychological insight than David Canter, who is a known expert in both fields,

When experts cannot agree then what use is it to promote one over the other?
One of the major problems with Profiling is, it is too subjective, not too far removed from palm-reading.

And I'm still waiting for this proof of discrediting, anyone, everyone, I'll listen to all-comers, no-one shall be excluded. If anyone cares to support your claim the floor is open for them to provide the proof.

'We' shouldn't hold our breath, right?

[Ben]

Ok, lets review.
Of those members who's opinion really matters, they have told you more than once that your 'discredited' argument is only your opinion, nothing more.
Certainly not a fact, and in no way proven.

And, of those same voices, not one has ever voiced an opinion on my considerations of 'Dr. Bonds est. TOD', and the possibility of 'Isaacs being the Hutchinson suspect'.

What does that tell you?

It tells me that you're all out of arguments, that you are not spending your Christmas leisure time as productively and wholesomely as you ought to be, and that you're resorting to deeply babyish behaviour in order to score some evidently cherished points against me, and here you fail. You're resorted to this "those members who's (sic) opinion really matters" nonsense before, and it's still just as comical it its gaucherie. "All the good people agree with me, whereas only the rubbish people agree with you" isn't the most mature debating strategy, especially as you're defining anyone who agrees with you as a "mover and shaker" and anyone who disagrees with me as a "follower". Circular reasoning much?

The people I regard as "movers and shakers" in this area of study either agree with me or haven't heard of me, in all probability. Oh, or they have a "rival" suspect who receives less support than Hutchinson. As for your Isaacs theory and your contention that Bond's time of death had anything remotely to do with the loss of interest in Hutchinson, no offense, but I doubt many people even know these are your views. They tend to get buried amidst long-winded Hutchinson squabbles with me, and sink without trace before their implausible implications can even register with most.

I gave your followers a week to come to your assistance

Just a helpful tip here, but if you insult and belittle people, don't expect them to be at your beck and call to join a thread at your behest, especially when they have more productive and engaging things to be doing at this time of year. As should you (hinty-hint).

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.

But did he have more criminological and psychological insight than David Canter, who is a known expert in both fields, and who stated that it was nonsense to claim it was possible to distinguish a liar from a honest man based on body language? I rather think not, and in any case, Hutchinson's swift discrediting shortly after his statement first appeared is sufficient evidence that Abberline's face-value impression of Hutchinson was quickly revised.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

You’re failing to make any distinction between what we know to be true now and what Hutchinson might have feared in 1888. No, it was not “exceptionally unlikely” that Lewis might have recognised Hutchinson on the streets again, especially as they lived relatively close to each other, and with Lewis having a contact in the “Keylers” at Miler’s Court itself, much closer to Hutchinson’s place of residence. But Hutchinson had no possible way of knowing that the police were unlikely to have progressed with their suspicions, even in the “exceptionally unlikely” event that they levelled any his way. I have suggested in the past that if the police ever had a vague hope of nailing him for the crimes, it was on the basis of a police line-up (or the 1888 equivalent) with Lawende or one of the other witnesses from an earlier ripper crime. This was evidently not the practice with those suspected in 1888 (it didn’t happen with Barnett, for instance), and yet Hutchinson could not have known it. As far as any ordinary member of the public was concerned, it was a very real possibility that suspected individuals would be compared to previous eyewitnesses.

“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”

Really? Let’s see some evidence for this rather bold assertion please. They may have had experience of innocent individuals coming forward to clear themselves after being mentioned by name, yes, but that is quite different to guilty parties coming forward voluntarily and pretending to be witnesses. If you think the police had “plenty of experience” of such behaviour, I’d be interested in seeing the evidence. The very fact that Hutchinson demonstrated proactivity in coming forward would almost certainly have obscured any hint that his voluntary measures were purely reactive, and in response to another witness’ evidence.

They would have viewed his account in the context of a man trying to clear himself only if they jumped to the conclusion that he came forward in response to Lewis' evidence, but as I’ve made clear and demonstrated gawd knows how many times, no connection between wideawake and Hutchinson was made public until over 100 years after the event, piddling somewhat over the suggestion that it was oh-so obvious and the police must have been silly to miss it. So I’m afraid that as much as a small minority of people might make a noise about it, the only options Abberline was likely to have considered were: honest-witness versus attention seeker.

“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 you’re laughing on the basis of what which you don’t understand, and haven’t researched in any great depth. Your accusation that my speculation has “very little merit” is based on this same lack of knowledge about matters you feel oddly comfortable wading into, and is difficult to take seriously for that reason. I’m not trying to be horrible here, but the reality is that I’ve done a bit more homework into other serial killers and true crime in general than you. For example, it is not a “teeny-tiny” minority of serial killers who have come forward. Serial killers make up a “teeny-tiny” population of the criminal fraternity, let alone the population. You have to look at the frequency of certain behavioural traits that have been proven to have occurred within an already “teeny-tiny” group, and the act of coming forward as a false witness is far from a rare occurrence. Were it otherwise, seasoned criminological expects would not correctly anticipate this outcome in the cases of uncaught offenders, and lay successful traps accordingly. And yet that’s precisely what has happened.

A serial killer’s propensity towards coming forward (or not) is wholly dependent on the circumstances they find themselves in. If they’re not seen by a potentially incriminating witness, then they might choose to keep “as far away from the cops as possible”. On the other hand, numerous offenders have approached the police, under one guise or another, without self-preservation having anything to do with it.

“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.”

But this couldn’t be more different to what is being suggested of Hutchinson, which is that he was the real killer injecting himself into the investigation by pretending to be a genuine witness, not an innocent individual pretending to be the real killer. I’m quite sure the police had experience of the latter, but were unlikely to have contemplated the former. You’re quite right to observe that the police were interested in separating the genuine witnesses from the conmen, and it was undoubtedly for the purpose of determining this that Abberline “interrogated” Hutchinson. The ripper investigation was bombarded with attention-seekers, and the police were understandably anxious to grill witnesses in order to smoke the dud ones out. Could this have blinded them to considering possibilities other than “genuine witness” or attention-seeker? The answer is emphatically yes, especially if they had no experience of serial killers coming forward pretending to be witnesses.

“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.”

It is extremely unlikely that they ever considered that his “motive” differed from those of the vast majority of attention-seeking or money-seeking witnesses. However extensively the police may have explored the “possible” motives for bogus witnesses coming forward, it is quite clear that “Hey, maybe this is Jack the Ripper” wasn’t one of them, or else we’d have evidence for suspicion in all the other cases too, such as Packer’s and Violenia’s.

“So he looked nothing remotely like the man seen by Lawende and co or Schwartz then?”

I’m not talking about physical appearance. I’m referring to things like employment, ethnicity, and perceived state of mental health. These were the factors that made suspects interesting to the police in 1888, and if an individual didn’t meet any of these criteria, it is unlikely that the police went to any great lengths to rule them out. Barnett, for instance, only had a long chat with the police and his clothing checked for bloodstains.

“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”

The crucial and obvious difference here is that neither Violenia nor Packer was seen at a crime scene by an independent witness, as Hutchinson apparently was by Lewis. Nor is there any evidence that the first two mentioned came forward in response to being seen, as there unquestionably is in Hutchinson’s case. The evidence, however, is that this passed unnoticed by police and press at the time, thus resulting in Hutchinson being lumped in the same category as Violenia and Packer and determined to have been fibbing about his very presence there. Any insistence that the police “must have” noticed that which we armchair hobbyists have found leisure to scrutinise, and only notice in the mid 1990s, takes us away from the evidence and away from our knowledge of serial murder investigations, where details like these are missed all the time.

“But Hutch is only a reasonable and compelling suspect in your own imagination.”

Err, not just mine, actually.

Hutchinson has been put forward as a potential suspect by several authors before I’d even heard of him. There are more books naming Hutchinson than any other suspect, and he enjoys more popularity than most. The screenwriters of the “Whitechapel” series also consider Hutchinson a plausible suspect, which is why they used him as the fictional detective’s suspect preference, and they had consulted these message boards beforehand. Making me out to be some sort of lone voice, and the architect of “Hutchinsonism” is very flattering, but rather dislocated from reality, I’m afraid.

“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.”

No, not at all. The crucial difference here is that a modern understanding of what constitutes “suspicious” behaviour may differ considerably from that of the nascent 1888 police force, and this is because we have a century’s worth of criminological insight with which to inform our judgment. Even today we have people objecting to Hutchinson’s candidacy on the basis of no evidence for any history of violence against women, a fact that held true of numerous other serial killers before they were caught. A modern investigator doesn’t just pick someone with a history of violence against woman, and hope that they had some connection to London, let alone the actual crime scene. They investigate the latter first, paying particular attention to any behaviour that might be construed as suspicious there before they start hunting for villainous types further afield.

Best regards,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hutchinson knew the victim. He was the last person to see her alive. He was standing outside the place where she was killed. He waited till after the inquest to come forward. That was suspicious in 1888 just as it is now. Serial killers be damned. A serial killer is still a killer. If Abberline and others at Scotland Yard couldn't figure that out then they were complete idiots.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

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.

Ok, lets review.
Of those members who's opinion really matters, they have told you more than once that your 'discredited' argument is only your opinion, nothing more.
Certainly not a fact, and in no way proven.

And, of those same voices, not one has ever voiced an opinion on my considerations of 'Dr. Bonds est. TOD', and the possibility of 'Isaacs being the Hutchinson suspect'.

What does that tell you?

I gave your followers a week to come to your assistance, it appears you need longer.
They will not show up Ben because they know, as I know, that your claims are false.

Have a happy xmas.