Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[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]

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]

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

[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?

[Scott Nelson]

But he was a suspect.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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