Mort à Claybury

[DVV]

none of them, that I know of, that managed to escape for 122 years.

[Pontius2000]

Indeed. Good job nobody has ever suggested as much.



But then this is what serial killers have been known to do on occasions, as you'll discover if you conduct some rudimentary research on the subject. I have an article impending in which many of these are discussed.



No. This is where you must be getting confused. Nobody has ever suggested that Fleming would have been required to retain his alias for 23 years. Where are you getting this idea from?



No. It was the other way round. Abberline initially believed him, but the doubts surfaced very shortly thereafter.



Not a great argument I'm afraid.

The killer had a demonstrated capacity for extreme risk, and yet you argue that the proposed pre-emptive contact with the police was too risky. What has "120+ years" got to do with it? He could hardly have affected the situation for the vast majority of those 120+ years, could he?

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. Which all goes back to whether or not you believe that the police were fools who had no idea what they were doing, which I don't. I guess they just needed you there to solve the case for them huh?

It is very clear to me that the person who signed the witness statement is the one who signed the census info in 1911. I scanned through that very long thread and found nothing about any handwriting expert comparing these signatures. however, if you want to point out which posts exactly discuss this, I'll be glad to read it. 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. It is very clear to me that the 1888 and 1911 signatures are by the same hand, with subtle differences allowing for time. and if they are, this proves that George Hutchinson (the witness) was a either a real person, or someone was using the alias for 23 years. buy hey, I'm just a dummy that needs to do more research according to you.

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. This is pretty clear proof that he was being more careful as he gained more experience. and if we assume that Elizabeth Jackson is a ripper victim (and there's really no reason not to, since we're here assuming that Hutchinson was the ripper we may as well let the speculation fly), he was being even more careful by dismembering the body and disposing of it away from the scene of the murder. so I'm not buying for a second that the killer would wilfully place himself in the middle of the investigation because he got a kick from it.

[Ben]

If one believe's George Hutchinson's account, then it weighs against Joe Fleming killing her. Because Hutch saw the foreign toff with her.

Well, the account was discredited, Roy, so that one is swiftly dealt with. Entirely unproblematic to the candidacy of both Hutchinson and Fleming too.

Again, Fleming -Hutch, it's time for separation.

Maybe so, but the case for them being the same individual is far from unreasonable, and should further research reveal that they were indeed separate entities, it wouldn't weaken the case for either of them having been responsible for the ripper murders.

[DVV]

Hello Roy

But if you don't believe George Hutchinson's story, then you needn't concern yourself with it such as " I knew her." What Hutch said becomes irrelevant.

Not necessarily, imo.

Break the hypnotic Hutchlike spell you have been under, David. Soar free and clear above the clouds with Joe Fleming.

I'll try my best, mate ! In any case, Flemchinson IS Fleming, aka the Ripper (once again, imho).



Houuuuu ! I forgot how to multi-quote properly !!! sorry !

Roy

[claire]

Be careful going down the alley
With good old Pearly Poll.
When you start to get all pally,
You'll find the alley is not one at all.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good morning David,

what happened with lines 1 and 3 ?

I can see them. Can you not see them on your screen? Let me know and I will gladly re-poetize for your convenience.

Fleming and Hutch are supposed to have helped her

If one believe's George Hutchinson's account, then it weighs against Joe Fleming killing her. Because Hutch saw the foreign toff with her.

But if you don't believe George Hutchinson's story, then you needn't concern yourself with it such as " I knew her." What Hutch said becomes irrelevant.

Again, Fleming -Hutch, it's time for separation.

Break the hypnotic Hutchlike spell you have been under, David. Soar free and clear above the clouds with Joe Fleming.

Roy

[DVV]

Hi Roy

what happened with lines 1 and 3 ?

Amitiés
David

[Roy Corduroy]

can you write up some poetic lines indicating that Polly Poll was hard

Be careful down the alley
Where you go with Pearly Poll
You may find her equipment
Is not what you thought at all

Roy

[DVV]

as for them giving Kelly money...she was a prostitute who was said to be at least somewhat attractive. I imagine A LOT of men gave her money.

That's not the way Fleming and Hutch are supposed to have helped her, Pontius.
As for "a lot of men" giving her money, well, it doesn't seem so. Attractive or not, she was penniless.

Amitiés
David

[Ben]

and moreso to do with whether or not the witness George Hutchinson existed. that's the far-fetched part

Indeed. Good job nobody has ever suggested as much.

....that the murderer would actually inject himself into the investigation when he was not the least bit suspected.

But then this is what serial killers have been known to do on occasions, as you'll discover if you conduct some rudimentary research on the subject. I have an article impending in which many of these are discussed.

then take on an alias, which he would use for at least 23 years

No. This is where you must be getting confused. Nobody has ever suggested that Fleming would have been required to retain his alias for 23 years. Where are you getting this idea from?

and give the police an account which is almost unbelievable. by reading the account of Abberline's "interrogation" of Hutchinson, it seems that the police at first did not totally believe his story.

No. It was the other way round. Abberline initially believed him, but the doubts surfaced very shortly thereafter.

so this, if he were actually the murderer, would have certainly put him at a lot of undue risk. for a guy who committed these crimes and has remained unknown for 120+ years, this would seem very careless.

Not a great argument I'm afraid.

The killer had a demonstrated capacity for extreme risk, and yet you argue that the proposed pre-emptive contact with the police was too risky. What has "120+ years" got to do with it? He could hardly have affected the situation for the vast majority of those 120+ years, could he?

[Pontius2000]

Hi Caz,

for those who don't believe Toppy was Hutch, no, this "isn't all a bit much".
Hutch said he knew Mary for about 3 years.
Just like Fleming.
Hutch said he used to give money to Mary at times.
Venturney : "Joe used to give her money..."
Both Hutch and Fleming were dossing inthe VH.

Were they one and the same guy ?
Why not ?
In any case, I've seen far more outlandish theories on boards.

Amitiés
David

I think the argument now has nothing to do with Toppy, and moreso to do with whether or not the witness George Hutchinson existed. that's the far-fetched part....that the murderer would actually inject himself into the investigation when he was not the least bit suspected. then take on an alias, which he would use for at least 23 years, and give the police an account which is almost unbelievable. by reading the account of Abberline's "interrogation" of Hutchinson, it seems that the police at first did not totally believe his story. so this, if he were actually the murderer, would have certainly put him at a lot of undue risk. for a guy who committed these crimes and has remained unknown for 120+ years, this would seem very careless.

as for them giving Kelly money...she was a prostitute who was said to be at least somewhat attractive. I imagine A LOT of men gave her money.

[Garry Wroe]

Just out of interest, has anyone ever seen an official document (other than Hutchinson's police statement) on which an individual has applied three signatures, each radically different in form and style to the other two? If so, might you be so kind as to provide me with the details of the said document?

Thanks in advance.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

Didn’t really think for one moment that certain parties could even begin to resist the temptation to embrace my suggestion to return to the light-hearted poetic spirit with which Dave initiated the discussion

Correction:

Didn’t really think for one moment that certain parties were even remotely willing to embrace my suggestion to return to the light-hearted poetic spirit with which Dave initiated the discussion

[Ben]

Ah, well…

Didn’t really think for one moment that certain parties could even begin to resist the temptation to embrace my suggestion to return to the light-hearted poetic spirit with which Dave initiated the discussion, so it looks like we’re back to Ben-bothering instead. Good. So I’m all set for lots of lovely long posts, a battle of stamina, and the terrifically fun game of “Who gets the last word?”. My money’s on me.

“If you are alllowed your comic prose, you can hardly dictate that everyone else must go back to "poerty”

Oh, that joke again? The exact same joke you made in your last post, and the exact same little emoticon. How fun. Only this time, you’ve made an even more hilarious joke about a typo I made, despite you writing “alllowed” in the same sentence. Seriously though, if I’m still doing that sort of thing when I’m in my late 50s, I'll need someone put me out of my obvious misery.

“And there you have it: a truly unknown man, in pretty much every sense, who can be Fleming when we want him to be Fleming and Hutch when we want him to be Hutch”

Again, I’m not remotely insistent that Fleming must have been Hutchinson, so I can only assume you have some unsuccessfully belittling motive in implying that I am. Hutchinson remains an "unknown local man" inasmuch as his identity has yet to be established. The only difference with this particular "ULM" is that a case can be made for his proximity to, and preoccupation with, a crime scene shortly before the commission of that crime, and that he then lied about his reasons for being there. If his real identity was Joseph Fleming – and I concede that we’re dealing with a fairly hefty “if” – he would have had a reasonable degree of assurance that his two-month tenure in the Whitechapel district ensured that he wasn’t well known there. If he used the alias “James Evans” in the early 1890s, it isn’t a stretch to fathom that he could also have been using one in the late 1880s, i.e. when he moved into Whitechapel.

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. Any failure on the part of the police to connect him with Joseph Fleming would hardly have made any difference to the fate of the “George Hutchinson” incarnation.

That’s assuming, of course, that fear was the primary motivational factor. It’s equally plausible that he simply recognised an opportunity in the wake of Lewis’ evidence, and sought to take advantage of it.

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. The fact that you don’t consider the proposal plausible is not really a problem for the reality that it has occurred, nor is it a problem that you consider the suggestion a "farce". Why do you keep saying that the police left themselves with no means of locating Hutchinson again? This was never my contention. I said they would have been unable to convert any suspicions they had into proof of either guilt or innocence, not that they allowed themselves to lose track of him altogether.

“Are you by any chance auditioning for "Whoops, there go my trousers" this festive season?”

Nope, but they’re scouting for someone to play the Dotty Dame.

Boom!

[Ben]

In any case, I've seen far more outlandish theories on boards.

Of course, David.

I rather suspect that the latest attack mode embraced by some is more of a personal nature and has less to do with Hutchinson or Fleming than first appearances might suggest.