An hypothesis about Hutchinson that could discard him as a suspect

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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.

[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?

[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.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi CD
I honestly don't think they did. I think they believed him initially, and then came to see him as another time waster. Like Packer, Violena etc.

[Abby Normal]

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

I agree.
whether he was the killer or not, I think he did know her.

If he didn't know her, I think its too risky and too easy to caught in that lie.

[Abby Normal]

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?

Hi JohnG

as far as I know-there is no other evidence he knew her.

But everything seems to point that he did. I just find it to a risky a lie if he didn't know her. and Plus even saying he knew her for a few years. If that was a lie, how did he know long she lived there? what if she just moved there?
hed get sussed out in a hurry.