Mort ŕ Claybury

[The Good Michael]

An equally ‘compelling circumstantial case’ can be made for Hutch realising he’d been seen near the scene of someone else’s horrific murder and if he didn’t come up with a full explanation, he could find himself under suspicion.

Indeed Caz. Throughout all of the murders, there were several descriptions given of killers... as good as the one that Lewis gave, yet Hutchinson only came forward after Kelly's murder because... because... because this was going to be the only description that could nail him? He had no fear of having to be scrutinized by Lewis because he knew that he was so cunning and clever that he could fool the police enough that they would never think to have her take a look at him. These cops were not only stupid, they were mentally handicapped. I defy anyone to show me a case at any time in history where the police were as stupid as Hutchinsonians want us to believe Abberline and company were. Caz' explanation is so much better than the absolute drivel that comes from Hutchers, they should bow down and say they are not worthy.

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Thanks for your reply.

“But that is of course the mother of all ‘ifs’ to begin with!”

But if we reject the proposed “coincidences” previously described, we’re left with the more likely scenario in which Hutchinson realised he’d been seen by Sarah Lewis who provided her evidence at the inquest, and came forward with an account that attempted to legitimize his presence and behaviour there. In other words, a credible case can at least be advanced that he behaved in a calculating and suspicious manner in relation to one of the ripper-attributed crimes, and while it must naturally be acknowledged that people can appear suspicious and calculating and still end up not being the murderer, it does mean that the “if” in question is not so big after all.

“I would still dispute your assertion that a ‘relatively significant’ proportion of identified serial killers have behaved in a way that can usefully be compared with how Hutch behaved, given his specific circumstances”

And here I must disagree strongly. It is inevitable that all individual circumstances will have a degree of “specificity” that make them unique, but that doesn’t mean that certain telling similarities and parallels cannot be observed. Of the serial killers I’ve referenced over the course of these Hutchinson discussions, the broad motivation for their decision to inject themselves into their own investigations has been consistent; certain circumstances prompted them to take that course of action because they thought it markedly reduced the chances of their being identified and apprehended as a result of those certain circumstances. That doesn’t mean there were no differences in the “specifics” of their cases, and to be honest, it would be a most extraordinary and unlikely thing if there weren’t. They'd be virtually mirror images of eachother.

As for the “the age in which the murders were committed”, this would only count immeasurably in the offender’s favour, given the limited knowledge the police had at their disposal on serial crime. If he wanted to get away with devious tactics on the basis that there was no established precedent for it, the time was ripe. Clearly, in this case, his attempt to portray himself as an “honest witness” ultimately failed, but apparently not to the extent that he was then considered a suspect, and “the age in which the murders were committed” undoubtedly had a good deal to do with this.

For obvious reasons, it is impossible for me to provide any examples of serial offenders who managed to evade detection completely as a result of coming forward, but John Douglas of the FBI, whose knowledge of this behaviour resulted in one offender being flushed out when he came forward, wondered “how many times offenders have come forward who slipped through their fingers because they didn’t know what to look for”.

“You say that Hutch only came forward when Lewis’ account was ‘public’ knowledge. While it’s coincidence-free and convenient for you to conclude that the ‘public’ meant everyone including Hutch, and that he would therefore have heard and managed to absorb all the details by the time he decided to go public himself, it’s yet another huge ‘if’.”

But what’s the realistic alternative? That it really was just random coincidence that Hutchinson came forward very soon after Lewis’ account became public knowledge, despite there being ample opportunity to come forward at any between learning of the murder and the inquest, and any time afterwards? He wouldn’t have needed to absorb “all the details”. It could have resulted from word of mouth – the type that allowed details of Leather Apron and John Pizer to spread like wildfire. In addition, there were reportedly crowds in Shoreditch that threatened to overwhelm the coroner’s office, and it could simply have been a case of somebody noting that Sarah Lewis was one of the witnesses about to give evidence. But the sheer implausibility of the “random coincidence” explanation should be sufficient to nullify the “if” factor here.

“I’d hold onto that one if I were you, because without it you are stuck with him perceiving a desperate need to volunteer false information in order to save his neck.”

No worries on that score – I’m very much holding onto that one as a viable explanation, but that’s not to negate the suggestion that he came forward for the purposes of damage limitation; that he recognised himself in another witness account, and came forward under a false guise with an “innocent” explanation designed to pre-empt the possibility of his being identified later and confronted by the police without a prior explanation, and without having first conveyed a favourable impression. It would not have been fear-crazed panic at the prospect of imminent execution, but rather the recognition of an opportunity – an opportunity to bluff and take down a large pot, relatively secure in the expectation that his opponent doesn’t know enough about poker to call it.

“I notice you didn’t dispense with my “…innocent ones who are caught up in someone else's crime and need to extract themselves”.”

I can’t dispense with it entirely, but what argues against it in my view is Hutchinson’s unique non-alibi for the generally accepted time of death – between 3:30 and 4:00am. “Walking around all night” is just not a plausible claim when made from the perspective of someone who had just finished no end of “walking about all night” all the way from Romford, especially not when the weather conditions were cold and miserable, and yet for someone who had been seen outside the crime scene shortly before he himself committed that crime, “walking around all night” was the only means of disposing of the question of an alibi, since it was effectively the only activity that could not be verified or contradicted. Even a claim to have crashed in a stairwell was vulnerable to contradiction from one of the building’s occupants.

Conversely, Hutchinson the innocent lurker, as seen by Lewis, would have been somewhere other than in room #13 between 3:30 and 4:00am, and was thus in a far better position to procure a real alibi.

“So wouldn’t he have been a tad more careful not to leave anyone in a position to describe him in detail this time, and possibly recognise him again at a later date?”

If he wanted to continue his ripping activities at all after the Lawende-Crawford revelation, he had very little choice in the matter, given the overcrowding in the district and the generally nocturnal habits of a good portion of the local population. He might have resolved never to allow himself to be seen in the company of one of his victims, but not being seen at all would have been far more difficult. If he aborted every attempt in which he was seen, he’d never make any ripping progress again.

“The descriptions given by Long, Lawende and Lewis were, as you say, ‘never sufficient’ to allow for a “spitting image” to exist, but you argue that Hutch ‘could not have known’ that.”

I think the distinction needs to be made between a description and a sighting. A witness might have acquired a very good sighting of someone, to the extent that they may recognise the suspect again very easily, without necessarily being able to describe him/her very well. The reverse may also apply, as I suspect it did in Lawende’s case. He provided a detailed description of the suspect’s clothes, but clearly paid less attention to his features, and was consequently not in a position to recognise him again. But since it’s so reasonable to assume that a good sighting equates to a description, the ripper had every reason to become twitchy about the extent of the Lawende and Lewis sightings, and it is circumstances such as these that have motivated other serial killers into coming forward under false pretenses.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Ben,

Neatly argued in the main, and yes, if we start from the presumption that Hutch and MJK’s killer were one and the same, I agree that sense can be - would have to be - made of all this man’s known behaviour. But that is of course the mother of all ‘ifs’ to begin with!

I would still dispute your assertion that a ‘relatively significant’ proportion of identified serial killers have behaved in a way that can usefully be compared with how Hutch behaved, given his specific circumstances and the age in which the murders were committed.

Saying that if an offender succeeds in coming across as an honest witness there’s an obvious advantage is merely stating the bleedin’ obvious. It’s another big ‘if’ and this time it can hardly apply to Hutch if they quickly decided he had not seen the man in question with the victim at the time stated. They would hardly have presumed he was still totally honest after that, unless they knew something we don’t. In fact, you said as much yourself:

He clearly wasn’t “reasonably genuine” because his account was swiftly discredited by the police…

You say ‘we know they did’, as if offenders have routinely succeeded in conning the police in this way, so why not do yourself a huge favour and provide some specific examples? The police may tentatively accept an offender as an honest witness, or have suspicions they can’t act on without further information, but do they ever presume complete honesty and say so publicly at the time? Or do they tend to keep their options open, given the large amounts of guff they are used to getting from members of the public whenever there has been a high profile incident, or series of incidents?

You say that Hutch only came forward when Lewis’ account was ‘public’ knowledge. While it’s coincidence-free and convenient for you to conclude that the ‘public’ meant everyone including Hutch, and that he would therefore have heard and managed to absorb all the details by the time he decided to go public himself, it’s yet another huge ‘if’. Yes, if he was the ripper and Lewis’ lurker, he would have had an interest in finding out as quickly as possible if the nosey woman had turned up and dropped him in it. But it still requires a leap to assume this would have been a simple matter. If he learned enough to compel him forward, he still had to get his story all worked out first, or at least finalised.

Recognising the ‘incredible similarity between the Lewis and Hutchinson accounts’ and the timing of the latter, ‘very shortly after’ news of the former broke, ‘surely dispenses’ in your view with the ‘attention seekers’, ‘fibbers and fantasists’? Really? But this is an essential fall-back position for you, to argue that Hutch the ripper could have been one of the attention-seeking, fibbing fantasist serial killers who were not forced forward by fear or necessity at all, but merely because they ‘cherished the thrill’ of playing dangerous games with the enemy, by coming out with a load of cobblers and watching everyone going round in ever decreasing circles. I’d hold onto that one if I were you, because without it you are stuck with him perceiving a desperate need to volunteer false information in order to save his neck.

And that leads neatly on to my next point. Assuming Hutch was Lewis’ lurker, he might arguably have felt the same desperate need to explain what he was doing when she saw him there, whether he foolishly went on to commit the murder or had never attacked a female in his life and had just been sniffing round a prostitute of his acquaintance, whose lover had very recently left a convenient Hutch-sized space in her room. I notice you didn’t dispense with my “…innocent ones who are caught up in someone else's crime and need to extract themselves”.

Instead you urge me to: ‘Forget Hutchinson for a moment’, saying that whoever the ripper was, he could have made himself aware that Lawende’s description had been suppressed. But how can either of us forget Hutch, while your whole argument relies on Lawende having seen him with Eddowes? We don’t even know for certain if Lawende saw the ripper (albeit a tiny ‘if’ this time).

Only if Hutch was the ripper and if Lawende saw him could the suppression of the description have ‘unnerved’ him. What if this happens again? Well according to you it did. He allowed himself to be seen again, waiting for the coast to clear in Miller’s Court, yet he went ahead and committed murder there, seemingly oblivious to any danger posed by your potential ‘Kelly witnesses’ doing another Lawende on him. As you say yourself, ‘for all the killer knew’ any of them could have been similarly ‘downplayed’ after the event. So wouldn’t he have been a tad more careful not to leave anyone in a position to describe him in detail this time, and possibly recognise him again at a later date?

The offender who knows, fears or suspects he will be arrested if he doesn’t do something proactive can have quite a bit in common with the innocent man who finds himself caught up in someone else’s crime and takes whatever steps are needed to extract himself. And it’s not always easy for the latter, given that the police don’t need a lot to make them suspicious of anyone in the wrong place at the wrong time, and to hold onto the good thing they’ve got.

The descriptions given by Long, Lawende and Lewis were, as you say, ‘never sufficient’ to allow for a “spitting image” to exist, but you argue that Hutch ‘could not have known’ that. Well clearly it only matters what Hutch as the ripper could have known, and the ripper himself was in a position to estimate how much of an eyeful he had allowed each of these witnesses to get. We know with hindsight that it was not enough, so it’s unlikely that he would have misjudged it to the extent of fearing they were suppressing an accurate and detailed description. That is precisely why I still maintain that if, against the odds, he thought they could be, he’d have been a fool to risk handing them the real thing. But the likelihood is that the ripper rightly judged that the descriptions were all over the place and no witness had seen enough of him to put a rope round his neck.

An equally ‘compelling circumstantial case’ can be made for Hutch realising he’d been seen near the scene of someone else’s horrific murder and if he didn’t come up with a full explanation, he could find himself under suspicion.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“One passage leapt out at me, because you don't seem to make any kind of mental distinction between the man calling himself George Hutchinson and the man who killed MJK.”

No, I’m afraid I can’t accept this criticism. I’ve always made it very clear when I’m exploring the premise that Hutchinson was the killer for the sake of argument, which is why I’ve been very liberal with my sprinkling of “ifs”. For example, you may find me arguing that IF Hutchinson killed Kelly, his behaviour should not be seen as remotely unusual in the context of serial crime and its known perpetrators. Or I might argue on another occasion that IF Hutchinson was the killer, he couldn’t have known that Lewis’ description had been suppressed as Lawende’s had been previously.

A lot of the confusion appears to stem from the erroneous assumption that I’m presenting a case for Hutchinson-as-ripper. That hasn’t been my intention, at least not on this thread. What I have been doing is fending off faulty assertions that Hutchinson wouldn’t have done this, that, or the other if he was a serial killer, and therein lies a crucial difference.

“But as it stands there is no evidence that it's what MJK's killer did.”

Well, someone killed Kelly, and although I will never be in possession of any proof that Hutchinson had any involvement in Kelly’s death, a compelling case can be made that he at least loitered (and was seen loitering) outside the scene of a crime shortly before that crime’s commission and that he then lied about his reasons for being there after realising that he had been spotted by a genuine witness, and that case is based on the timing of certain events and the rejection of the premise that various “coincidences” occurred. Whether he did these things because he killed a prostitute is another matter, but it isn’t remotely a stretch to argue that he did, and my only reason for mentioning other serial cases is to demonstrate as much. At the very least, one can argue persuasively that he fabricated his reasons for being at or near a crime scene, and already that’s light-years ahead of the current crop of suspects.

“You may as well say that some serial offenders have a military bearing, therefore it's a valid argument that Hutchinson could have been one such example.”

Yes, but that’s because nobody has ever argued that Hutchinson couldn't have been the ripper if he had a military bearing, whereas there have been claims to the effect that if Hutchinson was the ripper he wouldn’t have come forward and pretended to be a witness. That’s where my comparison cases with other serial killers come in handy – because they negate that assertion, and rightly so. It isn’t a “relatively small” number of serial killers who have behaved in the fashion I’ve described, incidentally. In proportion to the number of serial killers whose identities have been established, the number is relatively significant, which is why the phenomenon is referred to so often, and even predicated, by experts in the field of criminal psychology.

As I hope I’ve acknowledged in the past, it cannot be ruled out that he simply “turned up at a police station since the first one opened for business, to report an incident or person, and has failed to give an accurate or credible account, for any number of reasons”, but two key factors set Hutchinson apart from these potentially infinite masses, and they are:

A: The incredible similarity between the Lewis and Hutchinson accounts, indicating at the very least that the latter was where he says he was on the night of the murder, i.e. monitoring the entrance to the court in which Mary Kelly was shortly thereafter killed.

B: The fact that the account imparted very shortly after Lewis’ account became public knowledge.

It’s factors such as these that ensure that the potential reasons for Hutchinson’s decision to approach the police do not “stretch out to the crack of doom”. For example, the recognition of A and B surely dispenses with the “reward hunters, attention seekers, nosey parkers, fibbers and fantasists”, and the very exactitude of his description casts serious doubts on the premise that he was “muddled and confused”, misremembering and misinterpreting. The more muddled and confused you are, the more generalized the observations are likely to become, and yet in Hutchinson’s case we’re talking about horseshoe tiepins, dark eyelashes and “white buttons over button boots”. He clearly wasn’t “reasonably genuine” because his account was swiftly discredited by the police, and the idea that he accidentally subconsciously invented such minute personal accessories has not been advanced since the days when Lars used to hang around here, and for good reason!

The point being: once we examine the case-specifics involved, the “veritable army” of reasonable explanations for his behaviour is markedly reduced.

“So my question was what evidence do you have for asserting that Hutchinson would have seen the case heading in his direction and went to the police as a result?”

But few, if any, of the serial offenders I’ve referred to came forward because they knew that an arrest was inevitable had they not come forward and “cooperated” under a false pretence first. They just feared or suspected that outcome, and took steps to prevent it accordingly. Forget Hutchinson for a moment: whoever the ripper was, he would have been aware – if he kept appraised of police progress – that the Lawende description had been suppressed. Besides unnerving him, this reality would have prompted the inevitable question; what if this happens again? And in the case of the Kelly witnesses, any of them could have been downplayed as Lawende’s had been, for all the killer knew. In addition, many of these serial killers were motivated by more than just anxiety at the possibility of capture – they cherished the thrill of contact with their pursuers, and the opportunity it provided them to become more au fait with police progress.

“I still maintain that the ripper would have been a blithering idiot to turn up looking like the spitting image of a combined description furnished by Long, Lawende and Lewis”

But in each case, the description was never sufficient to allow for a “spitting image” to exist, which is something that Hutchinson could not have known.

“But you need evidence that Hutchinson was seen and knew it, if you want his trip to the cop shop to represent evasive action. Where is it?”

I’ve provided this already. Sarah Lewis described a man behaving in a very similar fashion to Hutchinson - as per the latter's claims - at the same time and the same location. This was divulged at the inquest, which took place three days after the murder, and Hutchinson came forward with his account on the evening after the termination of the inquest. Unless we’re prepared to dismiss this as random coincidence, which would be ludicrous, in my opinion, this more than qualifies as a compelling circumstantial case that he realised he’d been seen and took diversionary steps accordingly.

“How exactly were they 'aware' of this? What made them think that this gamble had ever paid off for any offender in criminal history before they tried it?”

Well, if the offenders succeeded in conning the police into accepting them as honest witnesses, you don’t think there were obvious advantages to this? Again, not worth really arguing about because we know they did, and incidentally, it’s far from the case that all or even most of the offenders in question were caught as a direct result of their pre-emptive moves.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Ben,

Just popped back in to see if anything creative went on in my absence.

I think I've seen what the problem between your reasoning and mine may be. One passage leapt out at me, because you don't seem to make any kind of mental distinction between the man calling himself George Hutchinson and the man who killed MJK. That might explain why your arguments can often appear circular.

When I tackled you about why Hutch would have seen the case heading in his direction, you came back with this:

Ah, but this isn't a delusion, since we know (well, I say "we" very loosely) that serial offenders have come forward under false guises for reasons that include fear, bravado and the simply recognition of an opportunity, and I'm sorry, but there tends to be a telling correlation between those who reject the proposal that Hutchinson could have insinuated himself into the investigation, and those whose knowledge of serial cases is on the deficient side. That isn't meant rudely, but when we've evidence of a behavioural trait resorted to by known serial killers, it makes little sense to try to depict as outlandish the suggestion that Hutchinson may have done something similar. Of course we can say "with hindsight" that nobody was really interested in the wideawake man and that the description hadn't been suppressed as Lawende's had been, but Hutchinson could not have known that.

But you see, I wasn't asking in this instance about 'serial offenders' and why they have come forward in the past. Nor was I rejecting the 'proposal' that Hutchinson 'could have' insinuated himself into the investigation. Clearly that was exactly what Hutchinson did. But as it stands there is no evidence that it's what MJK's killer did. You have to compare and connect Hutchinson's behaviour with what you know about the ripper's, not what you have learned about some other serial offenders.

This isn't meant rudely either, but there's a gap about a mile wide that you are leaping when you offer Hutchinson as an example of a serial killer who 'resorted' to this kind of behavioural trait (especially in an era when, as you keep saying yourself, there was very little the police could do to convert a suspicion into a case, if the villain was not caught red-handed and did not confess). Your comparison is not evidence by itself, and it's not even valid without anything to hint at this man being capable of murder.

You may as well say that some serial offenders have a military bearing, therefore it's a valid argument that Hutchinson could have been one such example. This sounds like an extreme analogy but bear with me. There is a finite and relatively small number of known serial offenders who have acted as you claim the ripper may have done, in the person of Hutchinson. Fair enough. But that ignores every non offender, who has ever turned up at a police station since the first one opened for business, to report an incident or person, and has failed to give an accurate or credible account, for any number of reasons. The line must stretch out to the crack of doom. Some are mistaken, muddled or confused; some misremember or misinterpret; some fill in gaps with supposition or imagination; they can under or overestimate the significance of certain details, leave some out or embellish others; they will even unconsciously invent details in their enthusiasm and efforts to help - and those are just the reasonably genuine ones, with no ulterior motives. Then there are all the reward hunters, attention seekers, nosey parkers, fibbers and fantasists, or the innocent ones who are caught up in someone else's crime and need to extract themselves.

How outlandish is the presumption that Hutchinson was just one more soldier in the veritable army of non serial offenders who have done something similar?

So my question was what evidence do you have for asserting that Hutchinson would have seen the case heading in his direction and went to the police as a result? You don't even know for sure he was there! It was the ripper who could not have been sure how much the police knew about him from the various witness descriptions - assuming he was indeed seen by any. (I still maintain that the ripper would have been a blithering idiot to turn up looking like the spitting image of a combined description furnished by Long, Lawende and Lewis, that had been craftily suppressed for just such an occasion. Go straight to Jail, whoever you are, and do not pass Go. But that's a separate issue.)

If George "Mr. Reliable" Hutchinson was never with a victim when she was about to be attacked, of course he knew that nobody had been describing him to the police before he turned up to tell his tale. Even if he was Lewis's lurker he'd have had no worries about previous witnesses. Yes, the ripper was almost certainly seen by Lawende. But you need evidence that Hutchinson was seen and knew it, if you want his trip to the cop shop to represent evasive action. Where is it?

But few, if any of them, knew for certain that they would be tracked down and investigated as a suspect had they not come forward and bullshitted first. They simply feared that outcome, and acted accordingly, aware that there were potentially very positive outcomes if the gamble paid off.

How exactly were they 'aware' of this? What made them think that this gamble had ever paid off for any offender in criminal history before they tried it? All they had is the same as you - a handful of examples of bullshitting offenders who only had negative outcomes in the end. Not your fault - nobody can be expected to give an example of one who got away with murder after taking this gamble and winning. But you are trying to make an example of Hutch, with precious little material to work with.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Sorry for the mixup and the back and forth bickering.

No worries, Pontius. I extend the same.

I certainly take your point concerning Anderson, but as far as Stephenson goes, there's no evidence that the police were interested in him because he injected himself into the investigation. A member of the public had alerted the police because he suspected Stephenson's involvement in the murders, and the police were obliged to follow up the lead for that reason.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

Rest In Peace, Lambeth George.

[Sally]

Yes, those indeed are the signatures I was talking about. I think the confusion came in when I brought up a possible photo of Hutchinson which is the GWT Hutchinson. Now, I know absolutely nothing about that other than a thread I saw with his picture a long time ago. But yes, the 2 signatures you linked above are the reason I think the witness really was a man named George Hutchinson.

Hi Pontius

Hang on - so are you saying you think there's a third candidate for George Hutchinson? As well as Unknown Local Man (ULM) and 'Toppy', I mean?

If this is true, shouldn't we want to know more about this person? Maybe you're right and he is the witness? What was his job? He wasn't a groom was he? No, probably not I guess, somebody would have spotted him if he'd been a groom by now, wouldn't they?

This just gets more complicated. It's very interesting though.

[Pontius2000]

Wait - I've had a "Eureka" moment here.

Pontius,

You are quite right!

My sincere apologies. I've revisited the thread, and there was indeed a George William Hutchinson whose signature was provided by Sam Flynn on the 1911 thread. He did indeed marry a woman named Sarah in 1900.

So, just to clarify, Pontius thinks that George W. Hutchinson of 41 Russell Gardens, Lambeth, signed the statement.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=67619&postcount=1

And no, Pontius, there has been no attempt yet to have this signature compared with the witness statement three.

Best wishes,
Ben

Yes, those indeed are the signatures I was talking about. I think the confusion came in when I brought up a possible photo of Hutchinson which is the GWT Hutchinson. Now, I know absolutely nothing about that other than a thread I saw with his picture a long time ago. But yes, the 2 signatures you linked above are the reason I think the witness really was a man named George Hutchinson.

Sorry for the mixup and the back and forth bickering.

The only other point that I will bring up is back to the part about the killer possibly inserting himself into the investigation. There is at least one case in the JtR saga in which a person -RD Stephenson- went so above and beyond trying to get involved in the case that the police briefly suspected, or at least questioned, him.

So while I agree that the police definitely didn't have all the modern types of detection that we now have, they weren't completely in the dark to some of these ideas either. an example of that is that we assume that only now do we understand enough about serial killers and their motives, etc. But it is clear that at least Anderson quickly dismissed a lot of the sillier theories and was well aware that the killer was a sexually motivated killer.

[DVV]

Oh, yes, I remember Lambeth George....whose signature was said to be similar to Hutch's....until Toppy dethroned him...
Actually, nothing looks more like a Hutchinson signature than a Hutchinson signature.

Amitiés all

[Ben]

Wait - I've had a "Eureka" moment here.

Pontius,

You are quite right!

My sincere apologies. I've revisited the thread, and there was indeed a George William Hutchinson whose signature was provided by Sam Flynn on the 1911 thread. He did indeed marry a woman named Sarah in 1900.

So, just to clarify, Pontius thinks that George W. Hutchinson of 41 Russell Gardens, Lambeth, signed the statement.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=67619&postcount=1

And no, Pontius, there has been no attempt yet to have this signature compared with the witness statement three.

Best wishes,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“but said instead that this unknown, unidentified local witness-cum-killer can be Flem when he is needed to be Flem, to make one argument work better, and Hutch when he is needed to be Hutch, to make another argument work better.”

Understood, but I really don’t see how there’s been any inconsistency here. On the basis of what we know, which is admittedly not much, I believe the proposed Hutchinson-Fleming connection to have at least some merit. Naturally, if anything crops up in the future to flesh out these otherwise blank canvasses, it could either bolster or detract from the proposal.

“How the hell did Lewis's lurker go from being unknown, guaranteed unidentifiable and safe from exposure, as long as he 'kept himself to himself', to walking about Whitechapel”

Safety from having his identity exposed, but not safety from being dragged in courtesy of a subsequent sighting from Sarah Lewis. In the latter event, it wouldn’t have made any difference to his likely fate had the police failed to discover his true identity. He’d have been in serious trouble as George Hutchinson. But that’s only in the event that he was motivated exclusively by fear and not, as I suggest, by a number of factors, which included a certain thrill in the opportunity, provided by Sarah Lewis’ account, to steer the investigation in an entirely false direction.

“And you persist in the delusion that Hutch would have a) seen the case heading in his direction and b) thought the best (or only?) way of diverting it was to face the cops head-on with a pack of lies.”

Ah, but this isn’t a delusion, since we know (well, I say “we“ very loosely) that serial offenders have come forward under false guises for reasons that include fear, bravado and the simply recognition of an opportunity, and I’m sorry, but there tends to be a telling correlation between those who reject the proposal that Hutchinson could have insinuated himself into the investigation, and those whose knowledge of serial cases is on the deficient side. That isn't meant rudely, but when we've evidence of a behavioural trait resorted to by known serial killers, it makes little sense to try to depict as outlandish the suggestion that Hutchinson may have done something similar. Of course we can say “with hindsight” that nobody was really interested in the wideawake man and that the description hadn’t been suppressed as Lawende’s had been, but Hutchinson could not have known that.

“I don't agree that it's a reality that serial offenders often inject themselves into the investigation, either out of fear or bravado, when there would otherwise be nothing whatsoever that could link them with their crimes, and certainly not to the extent of putting them in court.”

But few, if any of them, knew for certain that they would be tracked down and investigated as a suspect had they not come forward and bullshitted first. They simply feared that outcome, and acted accordingly, aware that there were potentially very positive outcomes if the gamble paid off.

“But it means that all the while Hutch was posing as an upright citizen doing his duty, he could hardly have obstructed them with false details without 'diverting' the case straight in his own direction.”

Unless those details had next to no chance of being proven false, in which case, he could have nailed his colours to the helpful witness mast while being secure in the knowledge that he could peddle certain untruths with safety.

it changes like the wind to fit in with every Hutch guilty argument and go against every Hutch innocent one.

I really don't see where I've altered anything with respect to the suggested motivation behind Hutchinson's coming forward. Nor have my counter-objections altered whenever protestations are made to the effect that Hutchinson "would never do that".

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

"It also sounds like you’ve created your own “risk-barometer”, which nobody else need agree with or endorse as accurate." [Ben responding to Pontius.]

Takes one to know one, Ben.

But there's no 'sounds like' in your case. You do create your own "witness/killer/cop behaviour barometer", which nobody can ever challenge because it changes like the wind to fit in with every Hutch guilty argument and go against every Hutch innocent one.

Have the last word - it won't make any difference to the vast majority of posters who don't accept your reasoning or choose to ignore it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

yes, there have been a few serial killers who have injected themselves into the cases. none of them, that I know of, that managed to escape for 122 years.

David's not the only one to find this claim perplexing. "" says it all! The various serial killers who have "injected themselves into the cases" were always considerably less likely to get away with it now that knowledge of the behavioural trait has received more widespread recognition – a luxury that the investigating authorities in 1888 could not have possessed. Any failure, therefore, to jump to the conclusion that the killer had just waltzed into the police station requesting an audience with the police would hardly reflect poorly on them, and it certainly wouldn’t make them fools.

“I guess they just needed you there to solve the case for them huh?”

Again with the lazy sarcasm, Ponts. It does you nary a favour.

“what I saw is that the expert you're referring to compared the witness signature to Topping's signatures, which are NOT the signatures I'm even referring to”

Wow.

The plot really does thicken!

I suppose an apology is order for my rash assumption that you were speaking of a signature match between the “witness” and Toppy.

Who are you referring to then? Somebody who married a woman called Sarah in 1900? Funnily enough, all this is ringing a vague bell. I will have to revisit the thread in question.

“The killer's capacity for risk was deomonstrated moreso in the earlier cases than the later ones. He killed Nichols on an open street, killed Chapman in the small backyard of apartments. later, he killed Eddowes in a dark square with 3 escape routes and Kelly in a private room.”

So you acknowledge that he demonstrated a capacity for risk. Progress. OK. So you’re now arguing that because he had grown progressively more careful, he wouldn’t have come forward under a false guise because such behaviour is too much like his risky old self from the days of Nichols and Chapman, and not in sufficient alignment with his new improved approached to risk management. Bit too convoluted to me, besides which, the Eddowes murder location was about as risky and exposed as his earlier murders, if not more so. It also sounds like you’ve created your own “risk-barometer”, which nobody else need agree with or endorse as accurate.

I cannot, of course, exercise much control over you will or will not “buy”, but I do suggest that you’ve dismissed a reasonable proposal for what strike me as spurious and arbitrary reasons.

[caz]

Again, I’m not remotely insistent that Fleming must have been Hutchinson...

I know Ben. That's why I didn't imply that you were, but said instead that this unknown, unidentified local witness-cum-killer can be Flem when he is needed to be Flem, to make one argument work better, and Hutch when he is needed to be Hutch, to make another argument work better. It helps to read what is on the page or you end up arguing with yourself and making bets with yourself over stuff that nobody else actually wrote.

If, however, he was recognised subsequently by Sarah Lewis, dragged in as a suspect and compared to previous eyewitness sightings (which Hutchinson had every reason to be twitchy about given the latest suppression of evidence at the Eddowes inquest), he would have found himself in poo city irrespective of his identity.

Make your mind up. How the hell did Lewis's lurker go from being unknown, guaranteed unidentifiable and safe from exposure, as long as he 'kept himself to himself', to walking about Whitechapel, oblivious to the possibility of being 'recognised subsequently' by this woman and dragged in as a suspect as a direct result? Did he not have the wits he was born with to have simply avoided any such situation that could have landed him in poo city? "Oh well, while Lewis and I both live and breathe in this place, there's nothing to be done but face the cops and tell them a pack of lies".

Again, you persist in the delusion that a “truly unknown men” will always “keep himself to himself”, whereas in the real world, serial offenders (and criminals in general) have approached their police pursuers with the intention of diverting the case in a false direction.

And you persist in the delusion that Hutch would have a) seen the case heading in his direction and b) thought the best (or only?) way of diverting it was to face the cops head-on with a pack of lies. With hindsight we can safely say the case was not heading in the ripper's direction when Hutch made his appearance, so is there any particular reason for having him shaking in his boots imagining it was?

I don't agree that it's a reality that serial offenders often inject themselves into the investigation, either out of fear or bravado, when there would otherwise be nothing whatsoever that could link them with their crimes, and certainly not to the extent of putting them in court. You keep saying there was no way back then to convert any suspicions against Hutch into proof, so what the hell had he to fear from lying low and taking the tiny risk that he might subsequently be recognised by Lewis if he was really really careless?

Why do you keep saying that the police left themselves with no means of locating Hutchinson again? This was never my contention.

I don't. I keep saying the opposite - keep up. The police would have made damned sure, all the while they saw Hutch as a potentially vital witness, who would be needed if his suspect ever made it into court, that they had the means of locating him again. You evidently don't disagree with this. But it means that all the while Hutch was posing as an upright citizen doing his duty, he could hardly have obstructed them with false details without 'diverting' the case straight in his own direction. In short, it was Hutch who gave them the means and he apparently stepped out of complete obscurity to do it.

Love,

Caz
X