Mary Kelly-By Luck, or Design?

I think its important to remember that being selective about what portion of Hutchinsons story might actually be true is not what the officers concerned did.......as his status indicates by Nov 16th, the witness was "discredited".

Not that his suspect was dismissed, that he himself was discredited.

Sarah Lewis didnt see George Hutchinson as Wideawake unless he was actually there at the time....and it would appear the police didnt support any of his account, so it would seem they likely did not believe any of it.

I accept their judgment even while knowing I cannot know why they made that judgment, ....but I do accept that looking into the mans eyes and investigating his story gives them the right to make the comments.

For Hutch to have any value at all.....that one element of his discredited story must be authentic.......and based on their comments, I wouldnt back it myself.

My best regards all.

[Jane Welland]

Ben writes:

Indeed, Jane, a very good point. I'd also endorse your observation about his alleged presence opposite the crime scene being considered suspicious "if the case were current today".

Why thankyou Ben! How Kind!

Yes, it's an interesting game to play (one I might possibly win (see below) and makes a change from Scrabble) to consider a parallel case today - I think it might be viewed somewhat differently.

I have considered, in all fairness, an innocent Hutch scenario, and I just don't think it works so well. I think that's because there's something missing from the picture whichever way you turn it. By that I don't mean that we don't know everything - that's the case with the entire case, isn't it?

I mean that it doesn't make sense.

Hutchinson's statement to the police survives. Have you ever wondered why that is, when many others have not? Hmm?

Coincidence? Or not?

But I think that's probably for another time.

I think the problem here is actually with what Hutchinson said. Maybe it's me, but I do come back to the question of what he was doing there to begin with? If he was hoping for a place with Kelly for the night, why not say? For example.

Besides, there must have been other ways to acquire shelter - even if it was only a doorway. I think it's suspicious.

Jane x

[Ben]

Indeed, Jane, a very good point. I'd also endorse your observation about his alleged presence opposite the crime scene being considered suspicious "if the case were current today".

Thanks for clarifying, Fish.

All the best,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

Statistics

We compile them so that we can try to understand behavioural patterns - and this clearly does have its benefits, since at one level, people are relatively predictable. On the other hand, people are all individual, too - so I wouldn't expect any two serial killers to behave in exactly the same way - unless by design.

In this case, there seem to me to be too many unknowns and variables to be certain of much - better to rely on what little we know (beyond reasonable doubt) to be so.

Jane x

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"virtually every action a serial killer ever takes will, of necessity, place those actions in the "less credible thing to do statistically" catergory"

It will, Ben. Which is why I added that I spoke relating to statistics. This case, as any other case, will have itīs own inherent qualities, and therefore my pointing to statistics will be more or less useful - but it belongs to the discussion.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Hi Richard

I take your points on board - but how about this - what was Hutchinson doing loitering outside Millers Court on a cold, wet, November night at 2 in the morning in the first place? It doesn't seem a little curious to you?

I mean, why there exactly? If the case were current today, I really do think he would have been treated as most suspicious. Ok, so he came forward eventually and gave a statement - but if he was as suspicious about Mr A as he said in his statement, and given that by his own admission, he had known Kelly for 3 years - why didn't he come forward sooner?

He knew, of course, of the Whitechapel Murderer - don't you think, if he did know Kelly, he might have said something at the time - either to her, or to the police the next day?

No, sorry, Richard, something's very wrong with all of this. Do I think Hutchinson was the killer - well, it's possible, isn't it? I think at the very least, there is more to his tale than he told - he was up to something - had to be, because it just doesn't add up imo.

Ben - of course generic Kelly threads will end up here - bound to, since Hutchinson was the last person to see her alive - that we accept. It seems that Maxwell's testimony is usually discarded.

[Ben]

in the words of his son Reg' If he said he saw it , he saw it'.

Ah but Richard, that means you're taking things entirely at face value, which isn't a sound approach. You need to actually assess the content before making determinations such as these.

and he would have been extremely foolish to invent such a scenerio, for one thing 'what would he have gained?

That depends why he invented such a scenario. If he was looking for money and publicity, then yes, I agree, pretending he was loitering near a crime scene and failing to provide an alibi doesn't make a lot of sense. However, if he really was at the crime scene for nefarious reasons, but realised he'd been seen, the Astrakhan invention doesn't seem all that foolhardy at all. He'd legitimise his presence and deflect suspicion in a false direction, thus covering himself in the event that he is identified by Lewis.

I still can't get over the fact that generic Kelly threads are inevitably Hutchward-bound.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Oh, we're having a Hutchinson debate.

Well, I'm playing, obviously.

Just to clarify things, Jane, it should be pointed out that Lewis never specifically pointed Hutchinson out, and so nobody said that they saw Hutchinson at the scene.

Strictly speaking, Fish, you're quite right, allthough we're left with one heck of an implausible coincidence of detail and timing if Lewis' man was anyone other than Hutchinson.

despite the fact that we are aware of killers who have contacted the police, it remains the less credible thing to do statistically.

But virtually every action a serial killer ever takes will, of necessity, place those actions in the "less credible thing to do statistically" catergory, with the obvious exception of killing people, which suffice to say is a theme common to all serial killers! The majority of serialists don't extract organs, the majority don't engage in excessive mutilation, the majority don't write letters. There's no such thing as a serial killer who does what the majority of them do all the time. Wisdom instead lies in exploring behavioural trends that have occured on several occasions. It permits us to conclude that such a thing could well happen again if the offender found himself in a predicament that might occasion such behaviour.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Jane,
It is assumed by many on Casebook , that the man Hutchinson was a very suspicious individual, and he was up to all sorts of evil deeds on that friday morning.
I personal do not see anything wrong with his statement, in the words of his son Reg' If he said he saw it , he saw it'.
He could only relate to the police what he witnessed, and he would have been extremely foolish to invent such a scenerio, for one thing 'what would he have gained?
A Reward? hardly, how can he point out a man, that would have been convicted, if he didnt exist?
Fame... What fame? there were loads of witnesses throughout that autumn, i hardly think he would have instantly been in Whitechapels 'Hall of fame'.
So no benefits, but look at the downfuls...
By placing himself at the crime scene, at a time medical opinion believe Kelly was killed, stating that he knew the woman well, without any alibi for the relevant time, would to say the least been really silly, with possible serious consquences.
Why wait until monday evening before approaching the police?
That was explained fully by GH, but again is not believed by the majority of Casebook.
We should remember, that in the form book, GH did not see the last male with MJK..Maxwell did, so if Astracan existed, does not mean he was her killer.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland writes:

"doesn't it look a bit...well, odd to find that a man was loitering outside Millers Court on the night of the murder, who came forward to say he was there only after somebody said they saw him and who by his own admission knew the deceased?"

Just to clarify things, Jane, it should be pointed out that Lewis never specifically pointed Hutchinson out, and so nobody said that they saw Hutchinson at the scene.
Besides, whichever way we turn it, we are faced with an oddity or two - despite the fact that we are aware of killers who have contacted the police, it remains the less credible thing to do statistically.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Not sure

Hi Barnaby - I don't know if this is possible to know - I wouldn't have thought so - but others may think differently. If you assume that MK is one of JTR's victims, and given the rapidity with which he seems to be able to carry out his mutilations (so far as we know) it may not have been that long. Or on the other hand, I think an indoor location has to be viewed differently to outside kill spots - perhaps, if he did feel comfortable there, he took his time. I personally think that the extent of his 'work' on MK probably indicates that he was comfortable there, as does the fact that he was there in the first place - very risky, killing indoors, in a crowded tenement - he could very easily have been discovered.

Richard - I was just thinking about Toppy - decent - chap - and I decided it didn't necessarily mean that he wasn't an evil killer as well. JTR was never caught, as we all know - guess he was quite good at his murdering pastime. Such a person may well have able to fool others - maybe he carried on his trade and his life as normal, and nobody ever suspected. Maybe, after MK, he didn't stop at all, but just changed his MO - how would we know?


Jane x

[Barnaby]

Any estimates of how long Jack spent in the room after murdering Kelly? This duration might give us an idea of how comfortable he was in these surroundings and might suggest someone known to Kelly. A person like Joe Barnett would have a good idea of the probability of being interrupted. In addition, being interrupted would be less of a problem for Barnett (or Flemming). He could claim that he had just discovered the body...This security might allow him to take his time.

[Ben]

But afraid Hutch is not one of them

Hutch most assuredly is one of them, Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
Tonque in cheek Ben, I was just being mischievious about Topping[ you know my view on that], as for Barnett, a doubtful modern day suspect , but not twenty years ago, fleming is a better bet, also as stated who was Lawrence, according to Mrs Hewiit, a neighbour of kelly he very much existed.
I am well known on Casebook as pointing towards Barnett, but although never to be dismissed, others are more intresting in 2009.
But afraid Hutch is not one of them.
Regards Richard.

[Jane Welland]

Hi Richard

You don't presuppose that Toppy was Hutch do you?

You may believe that, of course - and clearly, you're not alone - but I'm not sure it's proven, exactly.

But in any case - this isn't a thread about that! I think the clothes and the key make a case for an intruder/murderer known to the victim. I'm pretty sure that if we saw a similar case today, the police would think it likely. I mean, missing key, door locked with a victim inside, scene showing signs that the victim had gone to bed.... it all adds up, doesn't it?

Yes, the window was broken - so why then didn't the police at the scene in the morning after Kelly's body was found just open the door through the window?

And if you accept that it is likely the murderer was known to the victim, doesn't it look a bit...well, odd to find that a man was loitering outside Millers Court on the night of the murder, who came forward to say he was there only after somebody said they saw him and who by his own admission knew the deceased?

Richard, I've been through several stages of thought regarding this Hutch/Toppy/Murderer/Witness Hoo-Hah - and I've variously thought his statement to be so ridiculous that it shouldn't have fooled a child of five, let alone a grown policemen or several; that maybe he was in the employ of the press; that maybe he was a witness and that's all he was. But you know, the more I think about it, and the more I learn, the more I entertain grave doubts about Mr Hutchinson - Toppy or no.

Jane x