Mort à Claybury

[DVV]

There was a mad killer called Fleming
Who went to the cops like a lemming
He pretended to be Hutch...
This is all a bit much

Caz

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

[caz]

Hi Ben,

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

How's this for comedy? What gives it a touch of genius is that you don't even know you are writing it:

'Or unless he knew there was a far better than average chance of his real identity not being discovered, which considering the era in which the police were operating, was almost guaranteed to be the case, even if he was kept under surveillance... If he used an alias from the outset and/or generally kept himself to himself, there was very little chance of being “exposed” by a putative surveillance team...

...Of course, none of this means that the police “left themselves with no means of getting hold of Hutch's arse again”. At least, this isn’t something I’ve ever suggested...

...I submit only that in Hutchinson’s case, we have an unknown local man who was seen loitering outside a crime scene, and who lied about his reasons for being there.'

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, because he had an almost guaranteed ability to keep his real identity from being discovered, and very little chance of being "exposed" if he 'kept himself to himself'. And what's more, he knew it.

So does this truly unknown man keep himself to himself? Does he bollocks. He voluntarily "exposes" himself to an interrogation by the cops, admitting his presence near the latest murder scene and lying about why he was there. And the cops are now left with the means of getting hold of him again, when they'd have had no chance - according to you - of even identifying the twit, never mind locating him and bringing his arse in for questioning as a suspect, if only he'd kept himself to himself.

I love the mental dexterity of this whole argument - it has bordered on farce for the longest time, but now it has taken a great leap forward.

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

Love,

Caz
X

[claire]

(Can you imagine if anyone really wanted to keep fighting on a "creative writing" thread?)

You want to see the quills at dawn at the Poetry Society AGM. Bloody, I tell you; bloody

[Pontius2000]

Hutch is Hutch and Joe is Joe and n'er the twain shall meet
Because to make it FlemingGeorge is rather no small feat
The proctor at ye Olde Vic House would have a hopping fit
To follow Joe no George I mean as bed to bed he flit

Roy

better be careful posting such or someone may tell you to "read more" into far-fetched theories.

can you write up some poetic lines indicating that Polly Poll was hard to locate and uncooperative because she was, in fact, Jill the Ripper? I believe she actually killed Tabram while the colonel was being occupied by that fictitious Hutchinson dressed in drag.

[DVV]

[Roy Corduroy]

Hutch is Hutch and Joe is Joe and n'er the twain shall meet
Because to make it FlemingGeorge is rather no small feat
The proctor at ye Olde Vic House would have a hopping fit
To follow Joe no George I mean as bed to bed he flit

Roy

[DVV]

Well, Ben, we would have to give up and cry on the mountain...

[Ben]

Indeed, Dave.

I just hope we can now revert to the creative and light-hearted spirit that inspired this thread.

Back to the poerty, everyone!

Unless?

(Can you imagine if anyone really wanted to keep fighting on a "creative writing" thread?)

[DVV]

when it was clear that David was only interested in creating a bit of harmless poetry about his views on Joseph Fleming.

Thanks Ben, indeed, I'd like that to be taken as a recreation.

Amitiés
David

[DVV]

.....haven't read Fish's article, I was far from the ripper world for months....but I will....
Just remember the time Fish and I were struggling....until he put Him (JF) at the top of his list.

Hutch or not, JtR died in Claybury.

Amitiés
David

[Ben]

“I appreciate your support here Caz.”

I’m sure you do. It was sorely needed in your case.

Now, I will leave it up to everyone else to decide whether or not they want to persist a discussion over the identity of George Hutchinson, but your categorization of suspicion-value in the case of known suspects is just risible in the extreme. If we don’t examine the suspects in terms of modern knowledge of serial killers acquired over the decades since the ripper murders were committed, then we are guilty of bad creative writing and nothing more. You are regrettably ignorant about a subject you purport both knowledge and an interest in. Don’t feel disheartened by this - we all have to start somewhere, but at the same time, try and tone down the overconfident brazen pronouncements a bit.

The fact that you decry certain theories as “wild speculation” doesn’t make them so, especially when you don’t bother to explain your reasoning. What we get instead is an appallingly vacuous grading of suspicion in which “doctors collecting specimens etc” are included amongst those at the top of the tree. The senior police officials had no experience of serial crime, and when it came to the identity of the killer, they disagreed. This doesn't make the contemporary police in any way "foolish", but it does make delightful mincemeat of your bold assertion that they were "on the right track".

“and based on what we now know about serial killers, JtR was probably someone like a Kosminski or Druitt if not them specifically.”

But it’s statements of this nature that announce your cloying ignorance on the subject. You honestly think that the killer was “probably someone like Druitt” on the basis of what we now know about serial killers? Look, you really must educate yourself a lot better if this is a subject you wish to spend time and energy discussing. One of the age-old criticisms of the case against Druitt is that its key particulars are vastly at odds with “what we now know about serial killers”. I’d be hugely entertained to see a list of the number of serial offenders who commit suicide after the “awful glut” that constituted their last murder, for example.

Most students of the case accept that the killer was in all likelihood an unknown local man, and I submit only that in Hutchinson’s case, we have an unknown local man who was seen loitering outside a crime scene, and who lied about his reasons for being there. You're very unlikely to do much better as far as suspects go, and an increasing number of researchers seem to be in agreement with that suggestion. They know better than to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

“Pick whatever suspect you want. If you want to believe Hutchinson was the killer, fine. But show some proof please.”

So you want me to show you “proof” that Hutchinson was the killer?

Presumably, you’d ask the same of all ripper commentators who have ever argued the case for a given suspect?

Didn't think so.

“I'm going to look at the supposed expert's opinion.”

Yes, for goodness sake, do some reading. There are many, many threads dedicated to the issue of Hutchinson and the signatures, and when you’ve finished reading them, I don’t expect to see the same gauche objections that I’ve seen chundered up many times, nor do I expect anyone to persist in a gobshyting Toppy/signature argument when it was clear that David was only interested in creating a bit of harmless poetry about his views on Joseph Fleming.

Joe Fleming as a suspect stands on his own now. Why he has to be combined with anything Hutchwise is a mystery to me.

He doesn't have to be, Roy.

He's a suspect in his own right, as is Hutchinson.

The only legitimate objection to the putative Hutchinson-Fleming connection concerns the issue of height, which is more than reasonable, and which is why I haven't committed myself to this theory to the extent that I'm currently being accused of. I only find myself riled - rather badly in this case, I don't mind admitting - by the aggressively phrased and highly generalized naysaying emanating from certain quarters.

[DVV]

Hi Roy

can't get rid of Flemchinson. But look, I put it on the artistic thread !

Amitiés mon cher
David

[Roy Corduroy]

Why do you think that Flemming and Hutch are one and the same ?

Because I don't think there were two diffenrent guys dossing in the VH who would both have known Mary for 3 years and used to give her money at times.

Hold everything, David. If suspicion is cast on Hutch, it begins with not believing him. So everything he said is suspect. Such as he knew Mary Kelly at all.

In contrast, Joe Fleming is a known factor. Modern research has made him knowable to us, as we have seen unfold here on Casebook, summarized in Fisherman's article.

Joe Fleming as a suspect stands on his own now. Why he has to be combined with anything Hutchwise is a mystery to me. I thought we were past that.

Roy

[Pontius2000]

Bhoù !
Caroline et Ben sur le même thread.....
Je remballe mon M-16 et je me casse !
Des dommages collatéraux sont si vite arrivés !
....et dire que ce n'était que de la (mauvaise) poésie au départ....

Amitiés ALL
David

tres bien.
ont un beau jour!

[DVV]

Bhoù !
Caroline et Ben sur le même thread.....
Je remballe mon M-16 et je me casse !
Des dommages collatéraux sont si vite arrivés !
....et dire que ce n'était que de la (mauvaise) poésie au départ....

Amitiés ALL
David