Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

[DYLAN]

Hi Chava.

Well, I'm sort of on the fence about the "From Hell" letter, but apart from that, I agree with every word you've just said.

Regards.
DYLAN

[Chava]

But Hutchinson came forward after the inquest. And at the inquest Lewis described a fairly generic-looking man. Whoever the Ripper was, I don't think he was dumb. He's organized. He's plausible--his victims obviously saw him as a safe punter and had no reservations about going somewhere quiet and alone with him. The 'From Hell' letter, which is the only letter that I give serious consideration, is not the work of a reckless or stupid man. How easy would it have been at that point to sign 'Jack the Ripper'. But he doesn't. He takes care to show a clear line of difference between him and the joker who has appropriated his name. He gives the correct information and backs it up with evidence. And he doesn't send it to the police. He sends it elsewhere. I don't think the Ripper wanted anything whatsoever to do with the cops. I certainly don't think he'd prance up to the lions' den, confront the chief lion, and spin him an over-elaborate story like Hutchinson's pile of crap. I don't think the Ripper spent a lot of time thinking about his victims before he attacked them. In that way he was impulsive. But after the kill, he managed to get out of the way very quickly. He kept his trophies completely hidden. He was very, very careful of his own skin. To say that Ridgeway approached the cops so the Ripper might have doesn't make sense to me. I don't think Ridgeway had any communication with anyone, police or press. The Ripper sent one letter, and that letter, in my opinion, was a response to all the other letters that had been reported. It was a kind of 'no relationship with the business next door' kind of thing. He was saying 'this is who I am, and I don't like being misrepresented'. If there is one thing I am certain of, it's that the Ripper made it his business to fade into the background. I believe it would be entirely out of character for him to come forward and talk to the police for any reason whatsoever.

[Ben]

Excellent points, Frank.

Hi Chava,

I find the Ridgway comparison interesting on many levels, not least because he was a serial killer of prostitutes. The Seattle Times of December 2nd 2001 contained the statement that "Ridgway's activities drew police suspicion in 1984, after he contacted Green River task-force members to tell them about a prostitute he knew. Police later figured he was trying to find out what they knew about him." Hutchinson may have been similarly motivated, especially if he was concerned that he'd been seen by a witness.

Why did Ridgway decide to do it at that point? Difficult to say, but it's perhaps noteworthy that both he and Hutchinson came forward with a claim to have known the victim. Perhaps he he was more jittery and eager to "find out what they knew about him" because the most recently murdered victim was known to the offender. Certainly Ridgway killed more victims after 1984, and it's worth pointing out that is isn't an established fact that Kelly was the last victim in the ripper's tally.

It also seems unlikely that Ridgway came forward purely for "attention-seeking" reasons, though that may have played a part.

Lewis's description of the man in the doorway could have fit thousands of men in Whitechapel at that time

I know, but Hutchinson didn't know that, and even if he knew for certain that the description was vague and encompassing, that would not mean that she couldn't recognise him again. A vague description isn't necessarily indicative of a bad memory or fleeting glance.

[FrankO]

you're right, except that Hutch, coming forward, put himself in a dangerous position: in Miller's Court on the murder's night, so he could be the Wideawake Hat suspect seen by Lewis. Which makes him quite unique in the ripper's case.

Hi David (& dlew),

Exactly, by coming forward Hutchinson put himself in a dangerous position and that's why it's hard to believe that he did that just for a reward, notoriety or just the hell of it.

The striking difference between all those coming forward and making stuff up for rewards and whatnot is that Hutchinson said he was doing exactly what Sarah Lewis saw 'her' man doing at exactly the time Lewis indicated.

Not only that, but according to his story as we've come to know it, he offered a very thin reason, if any at all, for being interested in Kelly and especially her companion in comparison to his very detailed account of the encounter and the 45 minute wait in rather bad weather conditions. There's a striking imbalance there.

What is also striking is that he only came forward after Lewis gave her statement at the inquest and before the police seemed to have suspected the man seen by Lewis.

Not that this should make Hutchinson Kelly's killer or even Jack the Ripper, but it is what clearly sets him apart from all those 'fake' witnesses and confessors. And what makes me inclined to believe that, for whatever reason, he was actually was there that night and that he was the man seen by Lewis.

All the best,
Frank

[Chava]

Talking of Ridgeway, did he ever give a reason as to why he stopped killing?

As for Hutchinson, I take your point, Ben, but there is no suggestion that the police ever saw him as a suspect. Indeed, initially, they thought he was their best witness yet.

Ridgeway apart, on November 11th 1888, unless he had already decided to stop killing, the Ripper had no reason to believe that Kelly would be the final victim. If Hutchinson was the Ripper, why come forward at that point and make himself known to police. Thus running the risk of being seen/recognized in the company of other victims before their deaths. Lewis's description of the man in the doorway could have fit thousands of men in Whitechapel at that time. He has no need to attract attention like that unless he is one of them attention-seeking serial killers. In which case, why did he wait until Kelly to come forward?

[Ben]

A nice juicy suspect has just swum right into their net and they let him go. I don't have any answer as to why, but I bet they had a damn' good reason.

Unfortunately, Chava, that reason could only have been as infuriatingly mundane as an inability to rule him out, leaving surveillance as the only option. That's if they suspected him in the first place. Unfortunalty, there's rarely a quick formula for determining guilt or innocence. Gary Ridgway injected himself into the investigation, was suspected of murder, but the task force had nothing to snare him good 'n' proper with. He turned out to be the Green River Killer.

Best regards,
Ben

[Chava]

Hutchinson is the most divisive person in the entire inquiry!

I think he's tall because he bent down. However, even if he was the same height or shorter, the only way he looks Mr A full in the face after Mr A pulled his hat down around his eyes would be to stand right in front of him, stop him dead, and then look. This also applies if he were taller. The whole thing doesn't make any kind of sense and may have been a contributory factor to his discredit as a witness.

However it's a valid point to look at him as a suspect. And I can't believe the cops didn't take that into consideration. So what took him off the hook? Because something clearly did. By his own admission he is in the right place at the right time to kill Kelly. They stopped believing him very quickly but they didn't run him in as a person helping with inquiries. I wonder if they had Lewis in to ID him. Or if he said something they knew immediately to be untrue. Is that statement of his the only thing we have left from him? Perhaps they interviewed him again and his story changed.

So we are left with an eyewitness who confesses to being in the right place to kill the victim, and who proffers a very acute eye-witness description of a man who could well be the killer. The police (1) don't suspect him as the killer and (2) they don't believe his statement in any way. I think there has to be a (3) that's gone missing in the air raids or whatever. As incompetent as the police may have been, by the time Kelly was killed they must have been desperate to solve this case. A nice juicy suspect has just swum right into their net and they let him go. I don't have any answer as to why, but I bet they had a damn' good reason.

[Ben]

No, I’m not at all familiar with the East End or London, only having lived, worked and played there on and off for 54 years. I bow to your longer and greater experience of the Capital.

Jolly good. In which case, you might ponder your past experiences before making absurd suggestions to the effect that the killer could somehow avoid all contact with potential witnesses in a dense urban environment, especially if we're dealing with 1888 Spitalfields and Whitechapel, where a hefty chunk of the populace were either homeless or living in slum conditions.

I don't know whether he was compelled to kill or not, nor do you, which is why I'd caution against assumptions that the killer was either willing or able to abandon his plans purely because of a potential near-miss with a witness. Bottom line is that you're on to a losing wicket with your assertion that a serial killer would only come forward out of self-preservation if he'd remained miraculously invisible before then when he was killing other victims. Experience says otherwise. Experience pissies and defacates on that assertion because we know it to be false, so persisting in ignorance and assuming that "Caz's guide to prudent serial killer behaviour" somehow carries any weight is simply irritating.

On that basis Hutch could hardly have reassured himself that they were not still suppressing details of previous sightings of him.

Yes, precisely.

But details can only go so far.

If he didn't have a distinctive appearance, then no description, however detailed, could have implicated him. What would have incriminated him is a good sighting (which needn't always translate into a good description), because good sightings can lead to subsequent recognition and identification, and in Lewis' case, that was infinitely more likely on the basis of her geographical location, as opposed to Lawende who lived in Dalson.

And that's just the "self-preservation" hypothesis that you claimed - hilariously, preposterously, lamentably - to have destroyed. We haven't even touched upon the various other reasons for serial killers coming forward under false guises, bravado, misdirection and all the rest if it.

It follows that the only way he could know, when going to the cops, that no previous witness could put him with a previous victim was if he wasn’t there.

He probably feared that they could if they had the opportunity to observe and recognise him again, which was more likely in the case of Lewis who lived in Spitalfields - closer to the Kelly crime scene and closer to the Victoria Home. How else was a previous witness was supposed to "put" him at the crime scene?

They soon would have, if they had established that Hutch was Lewis’s lurker, routinely stuck him in front of Lawende, who then unhesitatingly identified him as the man he saw with Kate.

Which would have been truly perilous had Hutchinson been dragged in as a suspect without getting his story in first and nailing his colours to the "Helpful witness", which is why he may have reasoned to take a proactive stance of order adopted by later serial killers. Again, we need to step away from this misplaced faith in what Prudent Caz would do in a certain predicament and look at what's actually happened. There's no dishonour in making the effort to increase your understanding of such matters.

Hutch the reckless, manipulative, brazen and proactive? Or Hutch the quivering wreck, who is forced to give up his favourite hobby because he imagines Lewis has the power to cook his goose?

Where have I ever claimed that Hutchinson was a quivering wreck who intended to give up his favourite hobby. I have always argued that the act of coming forward was proactive, brazen and manipulative. Reckless, if you like, but no more so that his earlier antics. Conversely, you're "There's no way Hutchinson would have done this if he was the killer" mantra is not only in allignment with a "meek" offender, it also runs contrary to known experience. So I'm afraid that was another failed attempt to identify a contradiction and claim victory over it.

You can’t use the fact that nobody got a whiff of any guilty baggage on Hutch to claim that ‘the ploy worked’.

Yes, I can, easily. I just go: If Hutchinson was the killer and pretended to a witness, it obviously worked if they didn't suspect him. If they did suspect him, it obviously didn't work as well, but then there wouldn't have been anything of substance with which to snare him anyway.

But don’t you reckon they’d have been delighted to see him at the end of a rope if his baggage had included positive identifications by Lawende and Lewis?

Oh chuffed to bits, I'm sure. But then Barnett was never paraded before earlier witnesses, and Lawende professed uncertainty that he'd recognise the man again. Of course, Hutchinson couldn't rely on this outcome, but that was the reality of the situation as we know.

I think you meant ‘to shore up’.

Yes, I did. Thank you very much. See, I really know which is the correct version, but sometimes human beings make errors when they write in haste. I wrote "frward" a while back, but I know the word is really "forward". Sometimes I write "you're" when I meant "your". Often it's a by-product of haste. Maybe I get tired of having to piddle over the usual nonsense for the umpteenth time, or I simply don't respect the poster enough. Or both. Either way, you must be desperately insecure to keep highlighting people's errors as though they're genuinely reflective of ignorance. Maybe a teacher gave you a hard time about it in school, or maybe you're just so desperately out of arguments that you're clutching at anything to score brownie points.

Whatever, you resort to the same silly tactic on the Maybrick threads where it's also met with resentment and derision, so it's something you obviously have a history of. Sad.

But apart from that I’d say this was a pretty accurate description of most of your posts, when you try to shore up your hopeless case for Hutch’s guilt.

Ah, forgot about this one. Another tactic that is more indicative of having lost the argument than anything else is the classic "I know you are, but what am I?" riposte.

Sorry it wasn't Maybrick. Don't take it out on me.

Ben

[caz]

Are you at all familiar with the East End, or London in general? The chances of anyone pulling off a murder without being seen or noticed at any point in so dense and nocturnal a population was effectively zero, which meant that the killer, whoever he was, was compelled to kill in spite of those risks.

Er, no Ben.

No, I’m not at all familiar with the East End or London, only having lived, worked and played there on and off for 54 years. I bow to your longer and greater experience of the Capital.

And no, we don’t know that the ripper was compelled to kill at all. But if he was, he always managed to save the fatal blow for when he was completely alone with his victim. And Hutch is not even in the running if he had the ‘emmoshunall’ wherewithal (see how it feels?) to go to the cops with a contrived and detailed cover story after being seen once too often and then had no trouble at all compelling himself not to kill any more women in risky situations.

Yep, because we know that the police were only suppressing witness sightings after the Eddowes inquest. We know that other serial killers came forward under false guises in the wake of one of their murders, not all of them…

Yes, but if Hutch had killed Mary and Kate, he would have been coming forward under a false guise in the wake of two of his murders - his motivation, according to your theory, being that because the police had suppressed details about him talking to Kate, they could now be suppressing details about him lurking near Mary’s room. On that basis Hutch could hardly have reassured himself that they were not still suppressing details of previous sightings of him.

What we know now has no bearing on what the ripper would have known then about what information the police had on him. I don’t know whether Hutch had a distinctive appearance or not, but I don’t have to know. Your contention is that he came forward believing that Lewis could have seen enough to put him near Mary’s room. It follows that the only way he could know, when going to the cops, that no previous witness could put him with a previous victim was if he wasn’t there.

You have to focus on this from Hutch’s point of view, and not what we know the police actually had in the way of descriptions. If Hutch was Lewis’s lurker and Lawende’s man, what matters was his perception of whether the police could tell, or were at least considering, that the witnesses had seen the same man. He’d have been a fool to assume there was no way for them to cotton on. They soon would have, if they had established that Hutch was Lewis’s lurker, routinely stuck him in front of Lawende, who then unhesitatingly identified him as the man he saw with Kate. There’d have been no wriggling out of that one.

Gee, I can't really remember. It could have been some light-hearted banter on my part, or it could have been a typo made in haste. Were you being ludicrously hypersensitive, or are you really that much of an aggressive, supercilious, vacuous, diary-touting, saggy piece of mutton?

Blimey, me being ludicrously hypersensitive? Get back in the knife drawer, Mr Sharp. No saggy piece of mutton need fear you bumping into them on a dark night if this is your sharpest weapon. Instead of apologising for your haste and clumsiness in attributing your horrible spelling to me, you rant and rave as if it were my fault for not meekly lying down and taking it like a delicate little flower.

Although, for those who have taken time to study the case will instantly recognise the compatibility between a killer who mutilates on the streets in the certainty that a potential witness was piddling over the adjoining fence in Hanbury Street, and one who would seek to manipulate the investigation in a brazen and proactive manner characteristic of other known serial killers.

I’ve never seen such manipulation and backtracking. You wrote that it couldn’t be argued that Hutch was reckless if he were the ripper. I responded that indeed it could and you evidently didn’t know the meaning of the word, and now you are arguing for him being reckless. So what is he now? Hutch the reckless, manipulative, brazen and proactive? Or Hutch the quivering wreck, who is forced to give up his favourite hobby because he imagines Lewis has the power to cook his goose?

And now we get to the bit when keyboard warmongering hobbyists with obvious agendas and perceived "rival" suspects attempt to sure up their futile "objections" by spouting some predictable triumphalist rhetoric, claiming that they've won the argument because they say so.

I think you meant ‘to shore up’. But apart from that I’d say this was a pretty accurate description of most of your posts, when you try to shore up your hopeless case for Hutch’s guilt.

Who says nobody got so much of a whiff of it? They may have done. We don't know. If they didn't, the ploy worked. If they did, there was nothing with which to snare him anyway…

Circular argument. You can’t use the fact that nobody got a whiff of any guilty baggage on Hutch to claim that ‘the ploy worked’. The outcome’s the same if he had no guilty baggage to start with. Nothing to snare him with if he had no guilty baggage. But don’t you reckon they’d have been delighted to see him at the end of a rope if his baggage had included positive identifications by Lawende and Lewis?

Hi Sam,

You make a fair point, except that little Johnny has a bleedin’ obvious connection to his ‘victim’ on account of being his son, and would have come under suspicion with or without his cover story. So no, he wouldn’t be ‘exhibiting precisely the same sort of behaviour as that being discussed here’. If Hutch hadn’t come forward, or claimed that he knew Mary, for instance, there’s a fair chance that nobody here would even know of his existence. He came forward but didn’t become a serious suspect, if they ever suspected him at all.

But people do make stuff up for rewards, for notoriety, for God knows why... during the Ripper case, I believe several witnesses came forward just for the sake of it.

Sad, but constantly true.

Good point.

Didn’t quite a few men come forward and confess? Doesn’t make them all guilty.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

That wouldn't be a reason to discard his testimony, Chava.

It's not as if Hutchinson came forward and said "I was Lewis' man", although granted the congruity and timing was there. If Hutchinson was tall and lean, it wouldn't invalidate the substance of his story, and as such it can't have been the reason for his discrediting. If the police had said "You don't look like Lewis' man, he could simply have countered with "I never claimed to be Lewis' man".

Not that there's any reason to think he wasn't short or stout.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi Chava,
quite the reverse, I'd say! (For reasons posted above)
Do you really think that Abberline, on Monday evening, had already forgotten Lewis 'testimony and statement?
And once again, why would Hutch be a tall guy?

Amitiés,
David

[Chava]

David, that might have been the reason they discounted him so quickly. He comes forward after Sarah Lewis's testimony at the inquest. And apparently he wasn't at the inquest, so didn't hear it himself. He gives his statement and the cops, including Abberline, think 'right! We've got an excellent eye-witness description of the killer!' Until one of them says 'hang on a bit. Didn't Lewis say she saw a stocky man...?' It's exactly the kind of thing that happens all the time in all walks of life. You think you've got the answer because you've forgotten one important thing that bollixes your whole process. And then someone remembers and points it out.

[Fisherman]

David asks:

"Have you ever summarised the story in "Shades of Whitechapel"?"

I have not, David. Quick claimed responsibility of a couple of slayings that had traumatized the whole country, among them the case of an eleven-year old boy who went missing, causing an enormous police investigation and miles and miles of newspaper coverage. The boy was never found, but Quick was convicted anyway. It is an interesting high-profile case - or, to be more exact, it has returned to it´s original status of numerous high-profile cases, since the killers are still at large.

The best!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Absolutely right, David.

I also accept the observation made by various other posters to the effect that people will often invent things for unknown reasons, especially in high profile serial cases. Our challenge is to examine the evidence and try to ascertain what those reasons might have been. Bob Hinton made the excellent point in "From Hell", that lies are conconcted either to advertise or conceal, and I somehow get the impression that Hutchinson was doing both.

"I was only loitering there because I watching the scary man".

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

Just to bring another perspective on things: the most proliferate Swedish serial killer of all times, convicted of eight murders and admitting to a dozen or so more, a guy called Thomas Quick, only two days ago admitted what many criminologists have suspected all along - that he has never killed anybody. He had been making it all up.

The sad thing is that a celebrity prosecutor built his career on the Quick case (and, as you understand, managed to get the guy convicted for eight - 8! - murders that he in all probability is not guilty of).

Quick has sought the media limelight all along, and one can´t help but to think of old Hutch. I´m not saying that there is any built-in parallel here. I´m only saying that there are many odd creatures in the Lord´s creation!

The best!
Fisherman

Hi Fish,
that's interesting. Have you ever summarised the story in "Shades of Whitechapel"?
Amitiés,
David