George or Jack

[Sally]

It's worth pointing out that the last time we had a general 'Who was the Ripper?' poll the named candidate who had the most votes was Druitt; Charles le Grand came second and Hutchinson wasn't included in the options at all!

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...highlight=poll

Perhaps it's time we had a new one...

[Fisherman]

I ran a similar ‘Was he the Ripper?’ poll for Charles Crossmere a couple of years back and had similar results – although that poll was set up with a range of options to reflect the scale of opinion that we should expect and thus probably a more accurate measure of that opinion.

Yeah - you used the four options "Very likely" (5 takers, 9.26%), "Possible" (15 votes, 27.78%), "Improbable", 13 disciples, 24.07%) and "Highly unlikely" 21 takers, 38,89 %).
If we split this in positive and negative groupings, we get 37,04 per cent for and 62,96 per cent against, as opposed to Hutchinsons 4-25, or 80 per cent plus against.
Then again - CAN we divide it into a positive and a negative group ni the Lechmere case? No, we cannot, since all the groups except "very likely"/"highly unlikely" and "highly likely/improbable" float into each other. The outcome is therefore a very hard one to interpret.
I said back then and I say now that there was never anything wrong with a scale ranging from 1-10, representing "almost certain he was" down to "almost certain he was not".

That can be good to keep in mind the next time we poll away. And there is also how we ask things to consider: the question "Was XX the Ripper?" will inevitably be regarded as something most people won´t buy into, whereas the question "How big is the chance that XX was the Ripper?" or "Could XX have been the Ripper?" will attract more positivism.

Polls are unpredictable beasts if you walk them in the wrong kind of leash.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

It's worth pointing out that the last time we had a general 'Who was the Ripper?' poll the named candidate who had the most votes was Druitt; Charles le Grand came second and Hutchinson wasn't included in the options at all!

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...highlight=poll

Perhaps it's time we had a new one...

TWO people voted for Feigenbaum ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

TWO people voted for Feigenbaum ...?

The best,
Fisherman

Apparently so, Fish - and six for Druitt. Who are all these closet Druittists??

I'd like to see a new general suspect poll as a successor to the first - just out of interest - a more inclusive poll, perhaps.

[bolo]

In a yes-or-no poll, I would always vote no for every suspect that has been named in the past years. There is none that I find really convincing.

[Wickerman]

The question posed in the poll is really too pointed. Hutchinson could have been a lot of things without being 'Jack' himself.

Is the question aimed at Hutchinson's character, or is it aimed at identifying JtR?

Similar poll's could have asked, "Was Hutchinson guilty of anything?"
Or, "Did Hutchinson lie about anything?".
I'm sure the results would be markedly different from what we have at present.

And no, I haven't even voted on this poll yet.

... There is none that I find really convincing.

Agreed.
Though I might add that the killer may have been mentioned in passing, in the press. Some unnamed character arrested for suspicious behavior, then let go...

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Wickerman,

The question posed in the poll is really too pointed. Is the question aimed at Hutchinson's character, or is it aimed at identifying JtR?

I don't think its pointed at all for a SUSPECT Thread. The question is obviously aimed at whether George Hutchinson was Jack the Ripper. Because this is a George Hutchinson Suspect Thread. You are aware that George Hutchinson was proposed as a Ripper suspect, aren't you?

Hutchinson could have been a lot of things without being 'Jack' himself.

Absolutely. And all of those things, in fact, everything under the sun the moon and the stars, the planets, the universe, the pillars of graphology and all the rest can be discussed in a thread under

Witnesses

Its' easy to make a George Hutchinson Witness thread on Casebook Message Boards. I've done it several times. Simply go to the Witness section, and IGNORE the name George Hutchinson with an arrow at the TOP, because that will automatically re-direct your thread to be a George Hutchinson Suspect Thread.



Instead, go the very BOTTOM and choose New Thread.

Roy

[Sally]

The question posed in the poll is really too pointed. Hutchinson could have been a lot of things without being 'Jack' himself.

Is the question aimed at Hutchinson's character, or is it aimed at identifying JtR?

Similar poll's could have asked, "Was Hutchinson guilty of anything?"
Or, "Did Hutchinson lie about anything?".
I'm sure the results would be markedly different from what we have at present.

And no, I haven't even voted on this poll yet.

I might add that the killer may have been mentioned in passing, in the press. Some unnamed character arrested for suspicious behavior, then let go...

Great post, Jon. For once, we're in agreement

[Fisherman]

Great post, Jon. For once, we're in agreement

Can I join in too...?

I must make a reservation for the soundness of DRoys argument, though - in a suspect thread, the question alternatives do suffice to some extent!

As a tool to grasp the full extent of what people think of Hutchinson as a suspect, the alternatives are not enough, though.

... but as I´ve said, polls are hard to handle. My suggestion of a scale with ten graded but unnamed alternatives ranging from "He was almost certainly the Ripper" to "He was almost certainly not the Ripper" makes for the best alternative, methinks - but even in this case, what we ask will govern what is answered. If we ask "Is it probable that Hutchinson was the Ripper", then people will think "No, as such it is not probable, so let´s grade it a two or so", but if we instead ask "Is there a possibility that Hutchinson could have been the Ripper", then people will instead identify a possibility to allow them to speculate in a positive manner, and then the same respondents will inevitably go "Yes, of course the possibility is there, so let´s say five", or something like that.

It´s a precarious balance act, shaping a poll, and not everybody realizes this.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Hi Fish,

I'm not sure that everybody takes polls as seriously as you appear to - at least not when they're put up on an internet message forum. That's not a criticism, by the way - just an observation.

At the end of the day, the most that can be hoped for from a poll is to guage popular opinion; and even then, the results of a poll can't be definitive. Obviously the way in which a poll is phrased can have a direct bearing on the results - as in this case. We've had our difference over polls in the past - I'm sorry that you thought my Crossmere poll was inadequate; I was trying to include a range of options [as I've said above] rather than a polar question. As I may have said, I didn't vote for 'improbable' [or whatever it was] because at the end of the day I can't entirely rule out Crossmere looking at it objectively [however unlikely I consider it to be personally]

The same for Hutch, really. As you and Jon both suggest, there are several options here. Realistically, that's how the situation stands and will probably remain, on the assumption that our current state of knowledge remains unaltered.

I hope you've seen that Crossmere is included in the latest round of suspect polls - I was going to put one up [and also would have included Crossmere] but Roy beat me to it.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Your post #32 was reasonable, with the disappointing exception of this bit:

"Yeah - you used the four options "Very likely" (5 takers, 9.26%), "Possible" (15 votes, 27.78%), "Improbable", 13 disciples, 24.07%) and "Highly unlikely" 21 takers, 38,89 %. If we split this in positive and negative groupings, we get 37,04 per cent for and 62,96 per cent against, as opposed to Hutchinsons 4-25, or 80 per cent plus against."

You can forget that immediately, since we know that amongst the "no" voters were those who would have given what you describe as a "positive" vote had there been an option such as "possible" or "reasonable" on the Hutchinson poll. We also know there were others who didn't post at all due the lack of these options.

Regards,
Ben

[babybird67]

indeed Benz

I would have been a 'probable' if given the option. He is the epitome of the 'uknown local male', can be placed at a crime scene at a time germane to the commission of the crime, delayed coming forward, certainly lied about aspects of his account which doesn't make sense and in geographical location and other descriptors fits what we now know via profiling about the behaviour of serial killers.

By far, by far, the best suspect we have.

By the way, I am sure I once fielded a poll to try to garner opinion on whether Hutchinson was thought by modern researchers and us lay persons who aren't really allowed an opinion () to be lying, and I am sure it was a resounding, yes we believe he was lying. I can remember Fish then fielding a retaliatory one asking was the other witness who saw him there lying and that was a resounding no. I can't locate them at the moment. I can't remember the other witness's name either...Sarah something...sorry I am currently experiencing a relapse of my illness and brain fog is one of the worst symptoms.

Beebs x

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Your post #32 was reasonable, with the disappointing exception of this bit:



You can forget that immediately, since we know that amongst the "no" voters were those who would have given what you describe as a "positive" vote had there been an option such as "possible" or "reasonable" on the Hutchinson poll. We also know there were others who didn't post at all due the lack of these options.

Regards,
Ben

The problem is - for example - that the "worst" bid (highly unlikely) shares space with the next best one (possible). It will inevitably muddle the outcome, I´m afraid.

Fisherman

[pinkmoon]

Why didn't Mr Hutchinson pay Mary Kelly a visit? He was prepared to hang round for a long time on a cold night he would have seen her clients leave so is it possible he did visit her and found her murdered.

[Wickerman]

Why didn't Mr Hutchinson pay Mary Kelly a visit? He was prepared to hang round for a long time on a cold night he would have seen her clients leave so is it possible he did visit her and found her murdered.

If you put yourself in Hutchinson's position (as above), wouldn't you have told the police?