Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

[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.

[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

[Ben]

And at the inquest Lewis described a fairly generic-looking man.

But as I mentioned, Chava, Hutchinson couldn't possibly have known that the published description reflected its full extent. He would have known that a "fairly generic-looking" description at the Eddowes inquest quickly turned out to be a fairly specific-looking individual, at least insofar as it relates to clothes and headgear. The same could have happened with Lewis' evidence as far as Hutchinson knew. Even if it didn't, a weak description doesn't equate to a weak sighting, and it certainly doesn't equate to an inability to recognise the suspect again.

He's plausible--his victims obviously saw him as a safe punter and had no reservations about going somewhere quiet and alone with him

Yes, but then so was Gary Ridgway, whose approach was ostensibly more organized than that of the ripper. I think we need to dispose of the mindset that coming forward under a false guise in order to manipulate and confuse the police is "dumb". It isn't, and the other serial killers who resorted to similar tactics certainly weren't "dumb" either. Risky, brazen of course, but then we've evidence aplenty of comparable risky, brazen behaviour on the part of both this killer and the others who resorted to the strategy.

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

But that's an asumption, though, and one that may be wrong. I don't mind people acknowledging that "yes, yes, other serial killers may have come forward but I don't think Jack the Ripper was the sort to do that" providing there is adequate reasoning behind the assumption, and I just don't believe that references to letters which he MAY have written quality on that score.

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.

But they're all assumptions though, and don't carry much weight not so much because they're necessarily wrong, but because they can just be met by counter-assumptions. For example I think the killer may well have been interested in contacting the police, and may well have "thought about his victims" prior to attacking. I prefer my assumptions, especially if we're dealing with an organized offender (as you believe), since it's usually the more organized offenders (the not-so-dumb ones) that come forward.

To say that Ridgeway approached the cops so the Ripper might have doesn't make sense to me.

It makes perfect sense, simply because it provides an instant obstacle to anyone claiming that the ripper wouldn't have done that because he was too organized. The examples serve to counter that assumption very easily. If equally organized killers can do it, why not this one? Ridgway did communicate - he came forward as a false witness AND he wrote a letter...which he didn't send to the police and didn't sign "The Green River Killer"! (Thus perfectly comparable to "From Hell")

I believe it would be entirely out of character for him to come forward and talk to the police for any reason whatsoever.

I'd strongly disagree, and feel that your assumptions as to the ripper's "character" are predicated too much on a belief in the authenticity of the "From Hell" letter.

Best regards,
Ben

[Roy Corduroy]

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.

Roy

[Ben]

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,
Ben

[Ben]

wreckless

Ah! Did it again! Damn shipwrecks for being my other historical passion, and damn Caz for getting it on my brain!

[Roy Corduroy]

Ah! Did it again! Damn shipwrecks

Keep this up and we're gettin you a dinghy for Christmas.

Roy

[Chava]

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?

[claire]

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?

I think the obvious answer to this is simply that he was acquainted with the victim, and clearly had a 'fondness' for her.

ps. victim # 5??!!

[Ben]

Hi Chava,

That having been said, Roy has expressed all the reasons why we can't equate the Ripper with Ridgeway

Wait a minute. Roy hasn't expressed any reasons why we can't equate the Ripper with Ridgway, thank goodness (because there really aren't any compelling ones). You say he sounds more like Sutcliffe on the grounds that both were known and seen as men who frequented prostitutes, but on what grounds can we possibly say that this would not have been true of Jack the Ripper? Since all prostitute killers are prostitute-users (with many of them being on nodding acquaintances with one or more of their victims) the ripper was statistically likely to fall into this catergory himself.

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?

Either or both.

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.

How do you know?

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.

Right, but that doesn't mean it definitely didn't happen.

They were all over John Pizer on much less evidence than this.

Yes, because he'd already become the pariah by that stage, conforming as he did to the menacing Jew of popular ripper lore. If there was any suspicion directed towards Hutchinson, it would have been a disasterous move to make it public. Why? Because it would send the message that that was how the police treated witnesses who wished to help the police, which, in turn, would deter any future genuine witnesses from coming forward.

if Hutchinson wants to inject himself into the inquiry, why does he wait until victim #5?

Well "wait" suggests that it was something he planned to do before he started killing people and was anxious for an opportunity to do so. I don't see it that way. I think he recognised that certain circumstances had changed, and seized what he perceived as an opportunity.

Best regards,
Ben

P.S. Claire - Yes, possibly that too!

[Sam Flynn]

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?

Hi Chava,

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.

[Roy Corduroy]

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.

Roy

[Ben]

Hi Roy,

I acknowledge the obvious parallel that Ridgeway came forward, as you propose a guilty Hutchnison did

But then why argue in favour of ruling out Ridgway altogether as a possible comparison study? Surely if you acknowledge that fundamental paralell, it stands to reason that he's at least worth mentioning for that reason? We're simply not aware of the extent to which his prior police contact impacted upon his decision to come forward, if it played a part at all. It may have been irrelevent. Personally, I can't think of any reason why he could come forward because of prior police contact.

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.

Don't think I'll have too much luck finding a "known" serial killer who walked into the blue with no file.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Don't think I'll have too much luck finding a "known" serial killer who walked into the blue with no file.

I wouldn't waste too much time trying, either, if I were you, Ben. If you know of a "known" human being who got their intervention in first, by lying to throw someone off the scent, the job's as good as done. Thinks... yes, I can think of a few examples from my own life experiences that answer the question. I'm sure that Roy can as well. QED.

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.

[jmenges]

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