The Sixteen Possibilities of the Murder of Mary Jane Kelly

[The Rookie Detective]

Bump up



RD

[Stephen Thomas]

Just look at the Huntley case and all the false leads of people seeing the girls after they were dead and buried.

Hi Ally

Yes, Huntley made a happy mistake by coming forward. If he had laid low he might have got away with it. There was no guarantee that neighbours had seen the girls enter his house and even if one or more said they had, Huntley could have just said that he didn't want to potentially incriminate himself.

[DVV]

And?

...and the Haarmann case shows that a serial killer can be "under the nose" of police, without being suspected.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

And there is nothing that says Hutch became an "informer" after the fact of Kelly's murder.

I (clumsily) mean : he was more than an ordinary witness, searching the suspect with the police.

Re Mary Kelly, yes, I believe she wasn't a random victim. Not an ascertained fact, as we can't prove anything, but far from a nonsense.

Amitiés,
David

[Ally]

And? By the logic used to accuse Hutch, Maxwell and Cox were also as likely to be the killer. And there is nothing that says Hutch became an "informer" after the fact of Kelly's murder. Maxwell is just as likely to be the Ripper as Hutchinson, which is to say: very unlikely. If she was male instead of female, there would have been people no doubt accusing her of being the ripper, but because she is female, even though there is really no more evidence against Hutch than against them, they escape accusation.

This determination to fit Hutch to it is all part of the same mindset that makes a certain subset of Ripperologists give more importance to Mary Kelly than to the others victims, somehow determined that all the murders revolved around her. Which is in my opinion nonsensical.

[DVV]

From wikipedia ("Fritz Haarmann"):

"Until Haarmann was arrested, it had never occurred to police that the serial killer they were looking for was well known to them and right under their nose [FH was a police informant], even though some of the victims were last seen in his company."

As everybody knows, Hutch became both a witness and a police informant after he came forward.

Amitiés,
David

[Garry Wroe]

Absolutely, Ben. And new DNA techniques when applied to so-called 'cold cases' are throwing up some fascinating insights into offender behaviour.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

In Douglas’s experience, more frequently than might be generally supposed.

Absolutely, Garry, and as you demonstrated in your book, investigative authorities have laid successful traps, on occasions, in anticipation of the very behaviour you outline. I doubt very much that they would ever resort to such a strategy if this sort of pre-emptive behaviour on the part of the offenders was so uncommon.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

For the purpose of clarification, Ally, the post to which I responded …

Hutch lied to try to shill some coin or gain some attention … It's what all fake witness reports down the ages come down to

… made no reference to serial killers, nor indeed any other category of offender. My response, therefore, was confined to the parameters laid down by yourself as cited above.

As for Heath, I am not familiar with that case and the only one I could find had no mention of anyone coming forward voluntarily.

Neville Heath was a British conman and murderer who, in the midst of a police investigation into the disappearance of Doreen Marshall, presented himself at a Bournemouth police station in the guise of a concerned citizen. He was later convicted of the Marshall murder as well as that of Margery Gardner.

The myth of a serial killer voluntarily identifying himself to the police is mostly a myth. Do crazy nutbags do it every once in a while? Sure. But you know what happens then? the police suspect them and they get CAUGHT.

The flaw in that particular line of logic, Ally, is that we know only about those ‘crazy nutbags’ who come forward and are identified as offenders. Those who successfully pull the wool over the eyes of investigators are not identified and continue to be viewed as mere eyewitnesses. As such, they become the investigative equivalent of dark matter. According to John Douglas:-

Now, police do seek help from the public all the time through the media … I wonder how many times offenders have come forward who slipped through their fingers because they didn’t know what to look for.

In Douglas’s experience, more frequently than might be generally supposed.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[DVV]

Hutch lied to try to shill some coin or gain some attention.

Then you mean "attention from the police", Ally.
Why not ?
But may be not his prime motivation - which could be Lewis testimony.

Amitiés,
David

[Ally]

Not so with the Huntley, Heath and Christie cases, Ally. And there are plenty more examples if you'd care to do some digging.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

For every notorious murder case throughout the ages there have been false witnesses coming forth for whatever psychological thrills being a fake witness provides.

Huntley is not a serial killer and no doubt panicked. The girls had gone to his house that afternoon, what if someone had seen them? Christie didn't voluntarily come forward to the police, if you are thinking of the Evans murders where he testified--they were committed in his residence and the husband accused him of doing it. As for Heath, I am not familiar with that case and the only one I could find had no mention of anyone coming forward voluntarily.

The myth of a serial killer voluntarily identifying himself to the police is mostly a myth. Do crazy nutbags do it every once in a while? Sure. But you know what happens then? the police suspect them and they get CAUGHT. For every single real life murderer that voluntarily hands themselves over to the police there are no doubt thousands upon thousands of people making false police reports.

Just look at the Huntley case and all the false leads of people seeing the girls after they were dead and buried.

One would also observe that Hutch didn't talk much to the press (and that's why we know so little about him). He gave perhaps only one interview, variously transcribed (that he had ever met a journalist has even been challenged). That does not indicate money or attention as his prime motivation.

Actually what you just quoted is irrelevant to money. We don't know what he asked the police for so we cannot say it doesn't indicate money. And no one said that the attention he was seeking was the public's at large. Many of these people want to be in good with the police for various reasons and the approbation of police might well have been all he wanted.

[DVV]

Hutch lied to try to shill some coin or gain some attention.

Hi Ally,

of course, that's a possibility.
But not the most likely imo.
I agree with Celesta regarding the reward and Hutch's most elusive suspect...
One would also observe that Hutch didn't talk much to the press (and that's why we know so little about him). He gave perhaps only one interview, variously transcribed (that he had ever met a journalist has even been challenged). That does not indicate money or attention as his prime motivation.

Amitiés,
David

[Garry Wroe]

Hutch lied to try to shill some coin or gain some attention ... It's what all fake witness reports down the ages come down to.

Not so with the Huntley, Heath and Christie cases, Ally. And there are plenty more examples if you'd care to do some digging.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Celesta]

I keep wondering about the timing of his appearance at the police station. Hutch went to the police very close to the time the reward was announced. I don't know how he thought he could really get a reward without an actual suspect though, unless he was framing someone. That's too elaborate.

[Ally]

Hutch lied to try to shill some coin or gain some attention. Not really indiscernible of a reason. It's what all fake witness reports down the ages come down to.