An hypothesis about Hutchinson that could discard him as a suspect

[John G]

Actually, John, there have been several cases of serial killers (and plain old one-off killers) doing precisely that, some of which I expounded in an article I wrote for the Casebook Examiner a few years ago. I'm not overly anxious to repeat it all again here, but if you're interested, I would be glad to send to a link via PM. What I found especially revealing about the frequency with which this sort of behaviour occurs is that on one particular occasion, John Douglas, an expert on serial killer behaviour and psychology, correctly anticipated that an uncaught offender would come forward and do precisely what you described.

"In San Diego, a young woman’s body was found in the hills, strangled and raped, with a dog collar and leash around her neck. Her car was found along one of the highways. Apparently, she had run out of gas and her killer had picked her up – either as a Good Samaritan or forcibly – and had driven her to where she was found.

I suggested to the police that they release information to the press in a particular order. First, they should describe the crime and our crime analysis. Second, they should emphasize the full thrust of FBI involvement with the state and local authorities and that “if it takes us twenty years, we’re going to get this guy!” And third, on a busy road like that where a young woman was broken down, someone had to have seen something. I wanted the third story to say that there had been reports of someone or something suspicious around the time of her abduction and that the police were asking the public to come forward with information.

My reasoning here was that if the killer thought someone might have seen him at some point (which they probably did), then he would think he had to neutralize that with the police, to explain and legitimize his presence on the scene. He would come forward and say something to the effect of, “I drove by and saw she was stuck. I pulled over and asked if I could help, but she said she was okay, so I drove off.”

Now, police do seek help from the public all the time through the media. But too often they don’t consider it a proactive technique. I wonder how many times offenders have come forward who slipped through their fingers because they didn’t know what to look for ... In the San Diego case, the technique worked just as I had outlined it. The UNSUB injected himself into the investigation and was caught."

From Douglas's book Mindhunter as quoted in Garry Wroe's Jack the Ripper...Person or Persons Unknown?



On the contrary, John.

It was Astrakhan Man's striking appearance that formed the basis for Hutchinson's whole excuse for loitering opposite the crime scene, where he was spotted - in all probability - by Sarah Lewis. Replace that striking appearance with Joe Average, and that excuse is invalided. In addition to which, he would have been aware that popular suspicions had been directed towards the medical profession and the Jewish community, and that Astrakhan's appearance amalgamated both.



I'm not sure what you mean by "coming forward for elimination purposes". Goldstein specifically drew attention to the fact that Fanny Mortimer had seen a man carrying a black bag, and that he was the man in question (we don't know if his "elimination" was made complete by a concrete alibi). Hutchinson, by contrast, didn't even make reference to Sarah Lewis, which was rather a wise move if he wanted to conceal the fact that he had been spooked into coming forward by her evidence, and he certainly did not have an "alibi" for Kelly's murder.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

Yes, I would be very grateful if you could PM me the link to your Casebook Examiner article.

Of course, Hutchinson may have failed to refer to Lewis because he was not actually there at all or, alternatively, he was there but failed to notice her.

[John G]

Hi Ben
I absolutely agree with everything you say here.

As a point of emphasis, hutch is the only legit witness/suspect who knew the victim. NONE, nada, zilch of the other witnesses, who could have been jack the ripper, knew the victim and claimed to have been with them around the TOD.
I think this is a point that's get seriously overlooked here.

Add to that that he engaged in stalking behavior with the victim the night of her murder, MUST make him a serious suspect, regardless what the police, thought or didn't think at the time. It really is as simple as that.

Hi Abby,

But apart from Hutchinson's own testimony is there any other evidence that he knew the victim? Moreover, as Sarah Lewis was unable to effectively describe or identify the man she saw, are we not also reliant on Hutchinson's own testimony as evidence that he was there at all?

[Ben]

I understand, Caz.

It wasn't a criticism of you personally; I was talking more about the way in which an innocent catch-up session, such as you've initiated, spirals into a repetition-fest.

[caz]

What I find a bit perplexing is the sudden and inexplicable flare-up of Hutchinson threads. Normally, such a thing only happens in response to an aggressive and persistent campaign to promote a pariticular suspect, but nobody has gone out of their way to do that with Hutchinson for years. I suspect the calmer heads around here would quietly concede at least some of your sensible points and acknowledge that Hutchinson is probably one of the better bets of a bad bunch, and yet judging by the recent multi-threaded targetting of Hutchinson, anyone would think he's been made the latest Hollywood villain in the chilling new thriller "Miller's Court", starring Andy Serkis.

All the best,
Ben

For my part, Ben, it's merely a case of finally having time to catch up with the Hutchinson threads from my previous visits some time last year, to read the posts I missed at the time and respond accordingly.

I can't speak for others who see a thread revived in this way and carry it on.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

He'd have been better off saying he didn't know Kelly and didn't speak to her if that was the case. He'd still have a story to tell, of the flashy stranger being picked up by the unfortunate and taken to Miller's Court.

But then he would still have his loitering vigil, as witnesses by Sarah Lewis, to account for, which he would not have been able to do anywhere near as convincingly if he had claimed that Kelly was a stranger. The police would surely have assumed - even without Hutchinson saying so explicitly - that the length of his loitering was at least partially accounted for by Hutchinson having a personal connection with the victim. I take your point that his claim to have known Kelly would have "invited questions", but I don't see how they would have been difficult to field.

Gary Ridgway injected himself into the Green River Killer investigation following the murder of a woman with whom he had a "friendly acquaintance", evidently out of concern concern that an incriminating link could be established between the two. She had also been "posed" differently to the others.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Thanks, Abby - and you're spot on, of course.

What I find a bit perplexing is the sudden and inexplicable flare-up of Hutchinson threads. Normally, such a thing only happens in response to an aggressive and persistent campaign to promote a pariticular suspect, but nobody has gone out of their way to do that with Hutchinson for years. I suspect the calmer heads around here would quietly concede at least some of your sensible points and acknowledge that Hutchinson is probably one of the better bets of a bad bunch, and yet judging by the recent multi-threaded targetting of Hutchinson, anyone would think he's been made the latest Hollywood villain in the chilling new thriller "Miller's Court", starring Andy Serkis.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

Come to think of it, following on from Michael's recent post, how many prostitute killers have come forward and claimed a friendly acquaintance with their latest victim, when there wasn't one at all?

Seems an odd and unnecessary risk to invite questions about a victim one barely knew, if at all. That would apply whether Hutch was the killer or an attention seeker who invented an encounter with Kelly shortly before she was killed. He'd have been better off saying he didn't know Kelly and didn't speak to her if that was the case. He'd still have a story to tell, of the flashy stranger being picked up by the unfortunate and taken to where she was later found murdered. And he wouldn't have faced as much criticism for leaving an unknown woman to her fate, then putting off going to the police about it.

If there's one thing that rings true to me about Hutch's tale, it's his claim to have known Kelly reasonably well. If this was so and he went on to kill her, he presumably didn't dare pretend she was a stranger.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Hello Abby,

But are we to assume that none of that occurred to the police at the time? And if it did occur to them, wouldn't they have acted accordingly?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Actually, John, there have been several cases of serial killers (and plain old one-off killers) doing precisely that, some of which I expounded in an article I wrote for the Casebook Examiner a few years ago. I'm not overly anxious to repeat it all again here, but if you're interested, I would be glad to send to a link via PM. What I found especially revealing about the frequency with which this sort of behaviour occurs is that on one particular occasion, John Douglas, an expert on serial killer behaviour and psychology, correctly anticipated that an uncaught offender would come forward and do precisely what you described.

"In San Diego, a young woman’s body was found in the hills, strangled and raped, with a dog collar and leash around her neck. Her car was found along one of the highways. Apparently, she had run out of gas and her killer had picked her up – either as a Good Samaritan or forcibly – and had driven her to where she was found.

I suggested to the police that they release information to the press in a particular order. First, they should describe the crime and our crime analysis. Second, they should emphasize the full thrust of FBI involvement with the state and local authorities and that “if it takes us twenty years, we’re going to get this guy!” And third, on a busy road like that where a young woman was broken down, someone had to have seen something. I wanted the third story to say that there had been reports of someone or something suspicious around the time of her abduction and that the police were asking the public to come forward with information.

My reasoning here was that if the killer thought someone might have seen him at some point (which they probably did), then he would think he had to neutralize that with the police, to explain and legitimize his presence on the scene. He would come forward and say something to the effect of, “I drove by and saw she was stuck. I pulled over and asked if I could help, but she said she was okay, so I drove off.”

Now, police do seek help from the public all the time through the media. But too often they don’t consider it a proactive technique. I wonder how many times offenders have come forward who slipped through their fingers because they didn’t know what to look for ... In the San Diego case, the technique worked just as I had outlined it. The UNSUB injected himself into the investigation and was caught."

From Douglas's book Mindhunter as quoted in Garry Wroe's Jack the Ripper...Person or Persons Unknown?



On the contrary, John.

It was Astrakhan Man's striking appearance that formed the basis for Hutchinson's whole excuse for loitering opposite the crime scene, where he was spotted - in all probability - by Sarah Lewis. Replace that striking appearance with Joe Average, and that excuse is invalided. In addition to which, he would have been aware that popular suspicions had been directed towards the medical profession and the Jewish community, and that Astrakhan's appearance pandered to these precisely.



I'm not sure what you mean by "coming forward for elimination purposes". Goldstein specifically drew attention to the fact that Fanny Mortimer had seen a man carrying a black bag, and that he was the man in question (we don't know if his "elimination" was made complete by a concrete alibi). Hutchinson, by contrast, didn't even make reference to Sarah Lewis, which was rather a wise move if he wanted to conceal the fact that he had been spooked into coming forward by her evidence, and he certainly did not have an "alibi" for Kelly's murder.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben
I absolutely agree with everything you say here.

As a point of emphasis, hutch is the only legit witness/suspect who knew the victim. NONE, nada, zilch of the other witnesses, who could have been jack the ripper, knew the victim and claimed to have been with them around the TOD.
I think this is a point that's get seriously overlooked here.

Add to that that he engaged in stalking behavior with the victim the night of her murder, MUST make him a serious suspect, regardless what the police, thought or didn't think at the time. It really is as simple as that.

[Ben]

Short of searching a suspect's dwelling and finding a diary, a knife and some organs or personal items belonging to the victim, it would seem that the best they could do would be to accumulate information leading them to conclude that it would be prudent to have that particular suspect followed in the hopes of catching him in the act.

It's a great point, c.d. and I'm glad we see eye to eye on something!

You're quite right - IF Hutchinson was ever considered a suspect, the only realistic option the police had was to keep him under discreet surveillance, Kosminski-style.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

I mean, I'm not aware of a single precedent for a murderer coming forward voluntarily, and placing themselves near to the scene of murder they had committed, when they had not been identified by a single witness.

Actually, John, there have been several cases of serial killers (and plain old one-off killers) doing precisely that, some of which I expounded in an article I wrote for the Casebook Examiner a few years ago. I'm not overly anxious to repeat it all again here, but if you're interested, I would be glad to send to a link via PM. What I found especially revealing about the frequency with which this sort of behaviour occurs is that on one particular occasion, John Douglas, an expert on serial killer behaviour and psychology, correctly anticipated that an uncaught offender would come forward and do precisely what you described.

"In San Diego, a young woman’s body was found in the hills, strangled and raped, with a dog collar and leash around her neck. Her car was found along one of the highways. Apparently, she had run out of gas and her killer had picked her up – either as a Good Samaritan or forcibly – and had driven her to where she was found.

I suggested to the police that they release information to the press in a particular order. First, they should describe the crime and our crime analysis. Second, they should emphasize the full thrust of FBI involvement with the state and local authorities and that “if it takes us twenty years, we’re going to get this guy!” And third, on a busy road like that where a young woman was broken down, someone had to have seen something. I wanted the third story to say that there had been reports of someone or something suspicious around the time of her abduction and that the police were asking the public to come forward with information.

My reasoning here was that if the killer thought someone might have seen him at some point (which they probably did), then he would think he had to neutralize that with the police, to explain and legitimize his presence on the scene. He would come forward and say something to the effect of, “I drove by and saw she was stuck. I pulled over and asked if I could help, but she said she was okay, so I drove off.”

Now, police do seek help from the public all the time through the media. But too often they don’t consider it a proactive technique. I wonder how many times offenders have come forward who slipped through their fingers because they didn’t know what to look for ... In the San Diego case, the technique worked just as I had outlined it. The UNSUB injected himself into the investigation and was caught."

From Douglas's book Mindhunter as quoted in Garry Wroe's Jack the Ripper...Person or Persons Unknown?

"And, if it was his intention to misdirect the police inquiry, wouldn't he have come up with a more plausible "suspect" than Astrachan Man?"

On the contrary, John.

It was Astrakhan Man's striking appearance that formed the basis for Hutchinson's whole excuse for loitering opposite the crime scene, where he was spotted - in all probability - by Sarah Lewis. Replace that striking appearance with Joe Average, and that excuse is invalided. In addition to which, he would have been aware that popular suspicions had been directed towards the medical profession and the Jewish community, and that Astrakhan's appearance amalgamated both.

"Also, if coming forward for elimination purposes is sufficient to make you a suspect, then isn't Leon Goldstein, with his little black bag, a more likely candidate?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "coming forward for elimination purposes". Goldstein specifically drew attention to the fact that Fanny Mortimer had seen a man carrying a black bag, and that he was the man in question (we don't know if his "elimination" was made complete by a concrete alibi). Hutchinson, by contrast, didn't even make reference to Sarah Lewis, which was rather a wise move if he wanted to conceal the fact that he had been spooked into coming forward by her evidence, and he certainly did not have an "alibi" for Kelly's murder.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

And how did we conclude that he was a friend of Mary Janes again? Only by virtue of his word, thats how. Virtue which, as we can see, is suspect. Its has as much value as a claim by him that he could fly.

In case you hadn't noticed, Michael, Abby and I were discussing at that point a scenario in which Hutch was innocent, and telling the truth as far as he was able and willing.

Of course he could have been lying - about some or all of the night's events. But what we do here is to look at all the possibilities and consider which we find more plausible than others.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Hello Ben,

You make a good point in that even an "in-depth" investigation could only turn up so much information. Short of searching a suspect's dwelling and finding a diary, a knife and some organs or personal items belonging to the victim, it would seem that the best they could do would be to accumulate information leading them to conclude that it would be prudent to have that particular suspect followed in the hopes of catching him in the act. This point seems to get overlooked.

c.d.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Why would you use Lawende to back up an argument, when it is by no means certain that Lawende & Co. even saw Eddowes?

Lawende was clearly the witness taken most seriously by the police, which is why he - and apparently nobody else - was requested to examine suspects with a view to comparing them with the red neckerchief-wearing man he had seen at the end of Church Passage. I've read the arguments for dismissing the validity of Lawende's suspect - they're weak, they run contrary to the historical record, and they're usually made by those who don't want the ripper to have been a working class nobody. But regardless of your dismissals, the police clearly believed Lawende was the last person (along with his companions) to have seen Eddowes alive, which, according to your rule-book, would make him an automatic suspect in her murder.

You are asking why the police would show an interest in 'the last person to see the victim alive'?

No, I'm asking you how the police were in a position to establish who the last person was to see the victim alive in each case, bearing in mind that for the most part, they only had the witnesses' own unverified claims and uncertain times of death to go on. In the case of Kelly, and according to your interesting logic, the prime suspect would have been Caroline Maxwell, who claimed to have seen her later than anyone else. I'm quite aware that she could easily account for her movements, but according to your unique suspect-sifting criteria, she would have been first on the police list.

Any suspicion about a witness is developed by the investigator, from his attitude, his appearance, his manner - does he look nervous?, and if the investigator thinks something isn't right, they will investigate.

But if the witness doesn't appear nervous, and instead creates a generally favourable impression, what then? Does that automatically prove the witness genuine and innocent? Only in some fantasy world in which only clumsy liars exists, and where there is no such thing as convincing manipulation. In reality, however, examining body language is a notoriously unreliable barometer of truthfulness, as David Canter made clear in a recent documentary entitled "Crocodile Tears". His advice to any would-be investigator was to pay attention to what the witness/suspect is saying, not how s/he is saying it.

In the case of Schwartz, they may have spoke to his wife to ask what time he came home, what he said or did, and his appearance at the time.

You're still appear to be having trouble digesting this business about alibis, and the futility of expecting them to be reliable when extracted from a close family member. If there was ever any question of Schwartz being considered a suspect - and there clearly was not - detectives would have had more nous than to exonerate him on the basis of an alibi provided by his wife; in the same way that the Gloucestershire police didn't rely on Rosemary West's evidence to exonerate her husband.

You "believe" he was dismissed, even though there is no police record of this.
Your "belief" does not constitute a "correction".

You're doing that thing you do again - wrapping words and phrases in quotation marks to convey a false impression that they were written by your debating opponent. I never used the word "believe" in the context of Hutchinson's discrediting, and nor would I, because it is not a "belief", but an established reality. Of course, if you fancy having that debate all over again...

There was plenty of time to have witness statements checked, police pocket books checked

"Police pocket books"??

That's a brand new one, I'll give you that.

Why would Abberline expect to find confirmation of Hutchinson's story in a "police pocket book"? Which policeman are we even talking about? Sarah Lewis's "coincidental sighting" you can forget immediately. There is no evidence that a connection was ever made between Hutchinson and Lewis's wideawake man until the mid-1990s.

Violenia gave a Hanbury St. address, so we can hardly suggest he was not in Hanbury St.

I know. Don't worry; "we" are not suggesting that. "We" are suggesting that the police came to conclude that Violenia fabricated his sighting of a man threatening a woman, possibly because he wanted to gawp at a corpse, and possibly because he wanted to implicate Pizer. You're the only person I've ever come across to suggest an actual encounter took place.

It is "evidence" that is required to form a theory in the first place.

I'm not the one "forming a theory"; you are.

It is your theory that Hutchinson was considered a "suspect" or "person of interest. It is, therefore, you who "requires" evidence, and you who fails to convince by not having any.

All the best,
Ben

[John G]

It seems to me that it would be quite logical for the police not to regard Hutchinson as a suspect. I mean, I'm not aware of a single precedent for a murderer coming forward voluntarily, and placing themselves near to the scene of murder they had committed, when they had not been identified by a single witness.

And, if it was his intention to misdirect the police inquiry, wouldn't he have come up with a more plausible "suspect" than Astrachan Man? Also, if coming forward for elimination purposes is sufficient to make you a suspect, then isn't Leon Goldstein, with his little black bag, a more likely candidate? After all, he was seen near to the scene of a murder, during the time frame when the victim must have been killed and just prior to her body being discovered, whereas the same cannot be said of Hutchinson, i.e. because we have no precise idea of when Kelly was murdered.

However, I agree that he cannot be entirely ruled out as suspect, if only because serial killers are sometimes incredibly stupid. A good example is Peter Manuel, After committing a triple murder, he stayed in the victims house for almost a week-even feeding the family cat- before stealing the victims' car. Unbelievably, he then gave a lift to a police officer in the same vehicle, and it just so happened that this officer was investigating the disappearance of a woman that Manuel had previously murdered. He then helpfully told this officer that the police were looking in the wrong place!

Nonetheless, I tend to view Hutchinson as a bit of a romancer, in a similar vein to Matthew Packer, when he tried to convince the authorities that he'd sold rabbits to Jack the Ripper's cousin!