Questions for Fairclough

[DVV]

Hi Harry

Perhaps a more intimate connection to Kelly than the giving of a shilling now and again?

You can say it again.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon
But he did. And other killers did.

Other killers, today?
Compare today's killers with todays killers, not with century old cases which you only assume to be relevant.
Circumstances were totally different a century ago.

There is still no reason for him to have come forward only after the inquest.
No good reason, I mean. Richard Nunweek has an explanation of his own, which is the most reasonable scenario one can draw, but still it does not work.

There is a perfectly good reason.
Kelly's time of death was not known over the weekend. Hutchinson had no reason to think he saw Kelly with her last client.
Papers over the weekend were printing stories that she might have died anywhere between 6 o'clock to 9 o'clock Friday morning. Cries of "murder" were all too frequent for anyone to get exited about, as many will testify.

Where was the urgency for Hutchinson to come forward when he last saw her about 2:15 Friday morning? He may never have come forward at all if another lodger had not talked him into it.
The only difference for Hutchinson on Monday was, that the Inquest ruled out the 9 am Time of Death.

So, if Hutchinson truely was the killer, what on earth is he doing talking about it with another lodger?

That is excessive, although that (old) objection makes some sense in my opinion.

How can it be excessive Dave?, when we compare the descriptions given by Schwartz & Lawende, which could certainly lead to an identification, a comment like "short and stout" is not about to cause concern to anyone.

The reasoning employed "against" Hutchinson needs to be so exaggerated to have any impact at all. Which should send alarm ring bells ringing in anyone's mind.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

Csi

Hello Jon.

"Compare today's killers with today's killers, not with century old cases which you only assume to be relevant.
Circumstances were totally different a century ago."

Why are we thinking so much alike? Are you, too, a sworn enemy of CSI?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon.

"Compare today's killers with today's killers, not with century old cases which you only assume to be relevant.
Circumstances were totally different a century ago."

Why are we thinking so much alike? Are you, too, a sworn enemy of CSI?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.
I'm not 100% sure that is what David was suggesting, but I'm alert to anyone mixing apples and oranges in an attempt to support the anti-Hutchinson argument.

The "it could be" therefore "it is" argument is all they have to rely on, oh, and "unverified" newspaper claims.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Hi Jon

Other killers, today?
Compare today's killers with todays killers, not with century old cases which you only assume to be relevant.
Circumstances were totally different a century ago.

You really seem to misinterpret the whole case, my friend. This case is OBVIOUSLY a "modern" one, handled by 19th century's investigators with 19th century's methods.

He may never have come forward at all if another lodger had not talked him into it.

Ah, you believe this also... Then there's nothing I can do.

How can it be excessive Dave?, when we compare the descriptions given by Schwartz & Lawende, which could certainly lead to an identification, a comment like "short and stout" is not about to cause concern to anyone.

Once again, this old objection IS reasonable. But it is excessive in the sense that other killers did things you would consider stupid or counterproductive, took risks involving themselves in their own case, etc etc, and you are not in JtR's mind to flatly assert he did nothing of the kind.

[Fisherman]

One thing I have argued before, and that I think is relevant here, is that when we list examples of killers that have gone to the police, either to confuse or to taunt them, we list killers that all have gone on stage after the Ripper.

I think that the element of risktaking - and it is a huge risk to approach the police and try to con them - is something that has presented more and more of an appeal to a special category of killers as the years have passed. Killers like the Zodiac, for example, would have appealed to this special category very much. It has thus become a sport of some sort to be the cleverest and most daring killer, just as it has become a sport to become the killer with the largest number of victims. A connection of killer-police-press-audience (and that would be us) has been established, a daredevils theatre of killers if you like.

Od course, if this lies within the human nature, it will have been there from the outset. But I would still like to see examples of this behaviour that PRECEDE the Ripper, instead of examples AFTER him. For even if the mechanism lies within us, it seems obvious to me that it has not exploded until well after 1888.

If anybody can exemplify this behaviour from pre-Ripper times, it would be interesting to hear about it!

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Precisely, Fish, so many people tried to taunt or confuse the police during the Ripper hunt, which proves the possibility wasn't unthinkable in 1888.
There is in fact no precedent of this : I'm not aware of any previous case in which the police has been taunted that much.

[Fisherman]

I think you may have misunderstood me, David. I am not looking for the many people who disliked the police or tried to make themselves interesting. I am looking for a pre-Ripper example of a murderer that injected himself into the ongoing police investigation.
As an aside, I do think it IS interesting that the Ripper case revealed the characters you speak of - it tallies quite well with my assumption that the media coverage of things will have some sort of effect, and the Ripper case was arguably a pioneer case when it came to such coverage.

Still, the pre-Ripper, police contacting killer is what I´m after, nothing else.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

compare and contrast

Hello Christer.

"if this lies within the human nature, it will have been there from the outset. But I would still like to see examples of this behaviour that PRECEDE the Ripper, instead of examples AFTER him. For even if the mechanism lies within us, it seems obvious to me that it has not exploded until well after 1888."

I think you've hit it. Human nature changes but little from epoch to epoch. But how that nature expresses itself in overt behavior varies greatly according to technology, societal mores and so on.

Comparing the perpetrator(s) of the WCM to modern serial killers is, in my humble estimate, misleading at best, and leads to a prolongation of the case at worst.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

But he did. And other killers did.

Circular reasoning David. Tut tut. You cannot talk about 'other' killers when you have yet to establish that the killer of MJK came forward and was Hutch.

There is still no reason for him to have come forward only after the inquest. No good reason, I mean. Richard Nunweek has an explanation of his own, which is the most reasonable scenario one can draw, but still it does not work.
According to Richard, Hutch delayed out of fear to be suspected. But then, why coming forward at all ? and worse : why coming forward on Monday evening, after the inquest ? It makes him look even more suspicious.
Anyway, he came forward, and still according to Richard, that was almost heroic - ie : he took the risk to be suspected because he wanted too much to help the police catch the ripper. Good boy.
Unfortunately, the interviews Hutch gave to the press at the very moment he was looking for Astrakhan with the police prove otherwise.

You don't think the police investigating at the time might have noticed any of this obviously suspicious behaviour, which you see so clearly from 123 years in the future?

Man waits for prossie's current customer to finish and leave; 45 minutes later man is still bloody waiting; man gives up, not imagining for a moment that prossie will be found ripped up in her own bed in the morning. What the hell does he do when he finds out? God knows who might have seen him hanging around all that time. So he waits (he's good at that) and thinks, and waits some more (he's good at that too) and thinks some more - and eventually he decides to come forward with his account of the customer who was still in that bloody room at 3am.

Now what is so suspicious and so unreasonable about any of that? Thousands of innocent men have come forward to clear themselves in this way when a serious crime has been committed nearby. The police were dealing daily with men in the immediate area who all needed to be eliminated. Hutch was just one of them, but he had claimed to be very near the crime scene between 2.15 and 3am. That would not have escaped Abberline unless he had the brain of a backward flea.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

One thing I have argued before, and that I think is relevant here, is that when we list examples of killers that have gone to the police, either to confuse or to taunt them, we list killers that all have gone on stage after the Ripper.

I think that the element of risktaking - and it is a huge risk to approach the police and try to con them - is something that has presented more and more of an appeal to a special category of killers as the years have passed. Killers like the Zodiac, for example, would have appealed to this special category very much. It has thus become a sport of some sort to be the cleverest and most daring killer, just as it has become a sport to become the killer with the largest number of victims. A connection of killer-police-press-audience (and that would be us) has been established, a daredevils theatre of killers if you like.

Od course, if this lies within the human nature, it will have been there from the outset. But I would still like to see examples of this behaviour that PRECEDE the Ripper, instead of examples AFTER him. For even if the mechanism lies within us, it seems obvious to me that it has not exploded until well after 1888.

If anybody can exemplify this behaviour from pre-Ripper times, it would be interesting to hear about it!

All the best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

I'm not sure this exercise is strictly necessary if the aim is to test the argument that Hutch came forward because he was one of these daredevils who need centre stage not only by killing, but by injecting themselves into the investigation and playing games with the police, the media and the public.

Not very good at it, was he? Where was he after November 1888? Busy doing nothing and saying nothing, that's what - until he eventually becomes pipe and slippers man boring the family with how he came to be a witness in the Jack the Ripper case.

Love,

Caz
X

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
lets again try to put all of this into prospective.
We have a name for George Hutchinson, the only one given to the media since 1888, that being, Topping.
So unless we can prove conclusively that he was not the witness, I can only picture him as being the person as shown in the well known picture of Reg's father.
The statement of George Hutchinson is there for all to see, it would have been viewed exactly as it is today, and would have aroused suspicion by the police, and he would have initially been''interogated'' as Abberline states , before he would have been satisfied that he was not responsible for murder.
Was he being totally honest?
His motive for waiting forty five minutes is questionable but he would hardly say'' I was waiting for that dude to leave, so I can kip down in her room'', so just waiting out of curiosity would suffice much better.
Was Hutchinson just doing his public duty, believing he may have seen the killer.?
I would say Yes.
Did he see the killer?
I would say most likely not.
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

Circular reasoning David. Tut tut.

Hello Caroline, you sure the objection wasn't semi-circular already ?

[DVV]

We have a name for George Hutchinson, the only one given to the media since 1888, that being, Topping.
Regards Richard.

Reg owes you a mass in A Flat Major, my friend.
Have I to recall that nobody has ever trusted Reg except you and Fairclough ? - but the latter trusted him just for a while and commercial reasons.
Feldman rejected Reg.
Edwards rejected Reg.
Iremonger said the signatures didn't match.
Reg never tried to prove his good faith, although his testimony was used to back up the craziest theory ever, featuring PAV (as Count Orlock).
He could go and talk to Rumbelow, SPE, Sugden, Begg, Nunweek, The Good Mike, whoever. Twas easy to do, and he could hope some benefit, he who is known for accepting easy money (and that I got from you, Richard).
He did NOT.

[DVV]

You don't think the police investigating at the time might have noticed any of this obviously suspicious behaviour, which you see so clearly from 123 years in the future?

Man waits for prossie's current customer to finish and leave; 45 minutes later man is still bloody waiting; man gives up, not imagining for a moment that prossie will be found ripped up in her own bed in the morning. What the hell does he do when he finds out? God knows who might have seen him hanging around all that time. So he waits (he's good at that) and thinks, and waits some more (he's good at that too) and thinks some more - and eventually he decides to come forward with his account of the customer who was still in that bloody room at 3am.

Now what is so suspicious and so unreasonable about any of that? Thousands of innocent men have come forward to clear themselves in this way when a serious crime has been committed nearby. The police were dealing daily with men in the immediate area who all needed to be eliminated. Hutch was just one of them, but he had claimed to be very near the crime scene between 2.15 and 3am. That would not have escaped Abberline unless he had the brain of a backward flea.
X

Hello again, well, that's how candidacies are all working, don't you think ? I could jump into any Kosminski thread and say : "he was just a harmless lunatic named by an old wishful thinker". And nobody could prove me wrong.
However, given Anderson's opinion, Swanson's marginalia, etc, I can easily understand why some are making Kosminski their fav suspect.
And the same with Hutch.
He was back from Romford and spent that cold night walking the streets.
Why not ?
He met Mary, whom he claimed to have known for 3 years.
Err....why not...even though none of them were living in Whitechapel 3 years before.
He saw a suspicious man with her. And guess what ? A Jew ! But not the sort of poor Jew you can see in old East End pics. No. Rather Mr King, who inspired Fu Manchu to Sax Rohmer.
Why not....? But errr....
And Hutch almost saw Astrakhan underpants.
Ok, he had good eyes. Quite amazing when compared to other witnesses testimonies, but why not...
Then, on the morrow, Hutch learnt that his friend Mary had been butchered. But he did not come forward.
Again, why not. But why ?
On Sunday morning...bingo ! Astrakhan again ! But still Hutch did not move.
Why ? Why not ? I don't know what to say.
Then the inquest, his coming forward, etc etc.
And right at the time he was supposed to help the police, looking for the man in the district....you know what ? He explained everything he was doing to the press, as if willing to warn the killer.

With all that, even if you don't favour Hutch as a suspect, you should at least understand why some consider him a possible one.