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.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox
Collapse
X
-
And at the inquest Lewis described a fairly generic-looking man.
He's plausible--his victims obviously saw him as a safe punter and had no reservations about going somewhere quiet and alone with him
I don't think you can use the assumption that the killer wrote the "From Hell" letter to bolster the assumption that the author wouldn't have come forward in the manner I've described. That's slightly circular. Firsly, I don't think there's anything that would remotely preclude the author of that letter from coming forward as a witness, and secondly, it's by no means proven (or even likely) that the letter was ripper-authored.
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 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.
To say that Ridgeway approached the cops so the Ripper might have doesn't make sense to me.
I believe it would be entirely out of character for him to come forward and talk to the police for any reason whatsoever.
Best regards,
BenLast edited by Ben; 11-22-2008, 05:24 PM.
Comment
-
Hi Ben and everyone,
Here we go with Gary Ridgeway again. I object. Please refer to my post #85 of the thread Hutchinson's Sunday. I don't care what the newspaper said, nor what John Douglas said, the statement about Ridgeway is made in isolation of the known facts that he, Ridgeway had already been targeted by police. They had stopped his truck on the strip. He had a future vicitim in it. Then, in a second incident, another victim's boyfriend had seen her get in his truck, and when she later vanished, he spotted the truck again, followed it to Ridgeway's home, and told police. The police came to his home and questioned him.
It was after all this that Ridgeway came forward.
Why does this matter?
(1) Because that police-initiated contact could affect his, Ridgeway's thinking and his actions. He may have come forward as a result of it. His thinking being, well the cops have already sought me out and questioned me, they know who I am, I better come forward. I'll beat them at their own game.
(2) There is nothing like this in the George Hutchinson file. Yes he apparently lived in the area, and therefore could have been contacted in the sweeps, but every male was. That doesn't count. For Ridgeway to be a good comparison to Hutch coming forward, you would need a scenario like this: Hutch was seen walking down the street with say, Polly Nichols the night of her death. The police came to his lodging, specifically asked for him and questioned him. But didn't hold him. Then later he came forward after the Kelly murder.
Again, Ben, I am not knocking the theory overall. Criminals do come forward. But I balk every time you use Ridgeway as your example. Because of the prior, known police-initiated contact specifically directed at him before he came forward, of which there is none in the Hutch file.
RoySink the Bismark
Comment
-
Hi Roy,
I understand your objections, but I don't see how that invalidate my observation, or those of the Seattle Times and John Douglas, both of whom - we may assume - have more knowledge of the case, particularly the latter.
Not every case will mirror one another with exactitute, but where the paralells are obvious, it's a bit churlish to ignore them. In this instance, the "difference" you're highlighting argues even more vehemently against the assumption that no serial killer could ever be brazen, reckless, "dumb" enough to come forward under a false guise.
One of the advantages of "spiking their guns in advance" is to pre-empt suspicion by sowing the seeds of a false preconception; to nail their colours to the "co-operative" mast before suspicion can arrive. The fact that he'd already been suspected makes it less likely that he'd come forward under a false guise, nor more so, and far from being different to Hutchinson, all he was doing was taking it to a greater extreme. If Hutchinson was the killer, then his actions would be much more in allignment with most other serial killers who come forward - the one's who weren't already suspected. Gary Ridgeway essentially employed a greater risk and was arguably more wreckless by creating false image of himself when an unfaviourable image already existed.
If you think about it, it's much harder to convince the cops of honesty if there was already a history of naughtiness, than if there was a clean slate. That doesn't mean the motivation isn't the same. If Hutchinson did have suspicion attached to him prior to the Kelly murder, I'd think it less likely that he'd introduce himself as a false witness.
That doesn't mean Ridgway "doesn't count" or that the motivation is somehow completely different. It just meant that he was taking a far greater risk than most killers who come forward, on account of the existing baggage already attached to his name by May 1984. And as for the "Hutch file", I'm afraid I'm yet to be privy to that!
Best regards,
BenLast edited by Ben; 11-22-2008, 07:06 PM.
Comment
-
Dylan, I'm not sure that 'From Hell' came from the Ripper either, although I think it may well be possible. Especially since it was not signed 'Jack the Ripper' which was the obvious thing to do. Just that it's the only letter that may remotely have come from the killer. It's just as possible that the Ripper never communicated with anyone.
That having been said, Roy has expressed all the reasons why we can't equate the Ripper with Ridgeway. In fact Ridgeway sounds more like Sutcliffe in that he was seen and known on the strolls as a man who frequented prostitutes.
If Hutchinson is the Ripper, why does he come forward? Does he want to pre-empt someone recognizing Lewis's description and coming after him? Or does he just want to find out how much the police know?
If it's the former, that's entirely possible. But nowhere is it documented that the police thought he fit Lewis's description. Abberline notes that Hutchinson is believable but doesn't say why. And then all of a sudden he isn't believable at all. And we don't know why that happened either. However one thing I'm sure of: If the police discounted Hutchinson's evidence, they did so in the knowledge that he was nowhere near the crime scene. Because if they didn't believe his evidence, but they did believe that he was Lewis's man, then it's a very easy jump to see him as a suspect. And this never happened. He gives his statement and then disappears and we never hear from him again. There is no suggestion that the police would like to keep track of him. No hint that they might have followed him. He arrives, speaks his piece, and then is lost. Believe me, there was nothing Abberline etc wanted more than to tell the press We've Got Him!!! If there was a fraction of a hint that Hutchinson could have been responsible for killing Kelly, I think they would have been all over it. They were all over John Pizer on much less evidence than this.
And one more question which I have asked above: if Hutchinson wants to inject himself into the inquiry, why does he wait until victim #5?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chava View Post
And one more question which I have asked above: if Hutchinson wants to inject himself into the inquiry, why does he wait until victim #5?
ps. victim # 5??!!best,
claire
Comment
-
Hi Chava,
That having been said, Roy has expressed all the reasons why we can't equate the Ripper with Ridgeway
If Hutchinson is the Ripper, why does he come forward? Does he want to pre-empt someone recognizing Lewis's description and coming after him? Or does he just want to find out how much the police know?
There could also be an element of bravado involved, the thrill of being right under their noses, and a desire to misdirct the police. By coming forward, two crucial criteria were fulfilled; A) It legitimized the behaviour of the wideawake man, which would otherwise be considered suspicious if left unexplained, and B) It deflected suspicion back in the direction of the most obvious scapegoat around.
Because if they didn't believe his evidence, but they did believe that he was Lewis's man, then it's a very easy jump to see him as a suspect. And this never happened.
It might well have done, but being suspected isn't the same thing as being convicted. You can suspect someone but still lack the evidence to actually pin the mantle of "killer" upon them. That's precisely what happened in the Green River case. He came forward. They didn't buy it. They suspected him, but couldn't do anything it about owing to the lack of evidence. He turned out to be the killer years later.
Having said that, Hutchinson's failure to conform to the mad, foreign, medical/butchery criteria favoured at the time by the police may have ensured that he was never much of a "popular" suspect, if a suspect he was at any stage.
There is no suggestion that the police would like to keep track of him. No hint that they might have followed him.
They were all over John Pizer on much less evidence than this.
if Hutchinson wants to inject himself into the inquiry, why does he wait until victim #5?
Best regards,
Ben
P.S. Claire - Yes, possibly that too!Last edited by Ben; 11-22-2008, 09:39 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chava View PostAnd one more question which I have asked above: if Hutchinson wants to inject himself into the inquiry, why does he wait until victim #5?
It might have had something to do with crapping on his doorstep, for example:
First victim - no witnesses
Second victim - witness only sees the back of the alleged Ripper, and thinks he's foreign
Third victim - possibly not one of Jack's anyway, but if not it was extremely unlikely that the (apparently) best witness would have known Hutchinson, being an immigrant Jew from the comparatively far-flung St Georges East
Fourth victim - witnesses are Jews moving in Jewish circles & the best of them lives in comparatively far-flung Dalston. Unlikely to have known Hutchinson or his sort in a million years
Fifth victim - killed a couple of blocks away from Hutchinson's regular home. There are local gentile witnesses who report having seen men in the company of the deceased on the night of her death.Kind regards, Sam Flynn
"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Comment
-
Hi Ben,
I understand your objections
Thank you.
Not every case will mirror one another with exactitute, but where the paralells are obvious, it's a bit churlish to ignore them. In this instance, the "difference" you're highlighting argues even more vehemently against the assumption that no serial killer could ever be brazen, reckless, "dumb" enough to come forward under a false guise.
I agree 100% that every case is different, and I acknowledge the obvious parallel that Ridgeway came forward, as you propose a guilty Hutchnison did. I am not ignoring anything, therefore I am not churlish. I never argued that a serial killer would not come forward. Not once. The difference I am arguing is substantial. Because Ridgeway is not playing the first hand. The police have already done that.
The fact that he'd already been suspected makes it less likely that he'd come forward under a false guise, nor more so, and far from being different to Hutchinson, all he was doing was taking it to a greater extreme.
This is not the Gary Ridgeway show. No need to show how extra bold he was. It confuses the issue
If Hutchinson was the killer, then his actions would be much more in allignment with most other serial killers who come forward - the one's who weren't already suspected.
You said it. The crux of my argument. Find an example like this and you have hit pay dirt.
If you think about it, it's much harder to convince the cops of honesty if there was already a history of naughtiness
Right, so don't use that person as a comparison.
That doesn't mean the motivation isn't the same.
How do we know? It's not a viable comparison.
If Hutchinson did have suspicion attached to him prior to the Kelly murder, I'd think it less likely that he'd introduce himself as a false witness.
It doesn't matter because all we have is a clean slate. We know of no prior suspicison on him.
That doesn't mean Ridgway "doesn't count" or that the motivation is somehow completely different.
But why even bother with Ridgeway? Find an example of a serail killer who came forward that had no prior police-initiated contact.
And as for the "Hutch file", I'm afraid I'm yet to be privy to that!
Exactly my point. There is no file. He walked in out of the blue. Find yourself a known serial killer who did that, and you have a good comparison.
RoySink the Bismark
Comment
-
Hi Roy,
I acknowledge the obvious parallel that Ridgeway came forward, as you propose a guilty Hutchnison did
It can only be argued that the police played the first hand in relation to his coming forward if can be demonstrated that his behaviour was in direct response to his earlier suspicions. Invariably, there will be slight differences between serials in terms of the case-specifics, but if broad similarities can be pinpointed, that is at least significant.
There are plenty of examples of killers coming forward without any prior police suspicion, and I can't remember why Ridgway in particular came up in this discussion.
There is no file. He walked in out of the blue. Find yourself a known serial killer who did that, and you have a good comparison.
All the best,
BenLast edited by Ben; 11-23-2008, 01:36 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ben View PostDon't think I'll have too much luck finding a "known" serial killer who walked into the blue with no file.
There's no reason to suppose that serial killers would behave any differently than anyone else who decided to defuse a potentially awkward situation by coming forward and telling a lie. Asking for examples where "serial killers" did X or Y is ultimately irrelevant. One may as well ask for examples that prove that serial killers have yellow piss.Kind regards, Sam Flynn
"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Comment
-
I've mentioned this before, but hey, reliving old times, eh?
The Milat brothers were never under suspicion for the 'Backpacker' murders until Alex Milat told a friend, and then told the police, a made-up story about seeing 2 types of vehicles near the scene of the killings. He described the cars and their occupants. All BS, of course, dismissed initially, until much later when the police began reviewing 'leads', and that unsolicited police contact by one Milat eventually led to the arrest and conviction of his brother Ivan for seven murders, although it is believed he might have murdered up to thirty people.
While not the convicted killer coming forward, a possible accomplice and close relative who knew plenty about the crimes, inadvertently focused attention on himself and his family by injecting his false witness claims into an investigation.
JM
Comment
Comment