Mort à Claybury

[Pontius2000]

Well I would certainly agree with that, Pontius, but I suddenly thought: what the heck is Ben doing arguing for his pet suspect in Creative Writing? And then I answered my own question - at least the ridiculous belongs here.

Love,

Caz
X

I appreciate your support here Caz.


to me, there are suspects who the police had grounds for at least reasonable suspicion...types like Kosminski, Druitt. even Tumblety, "mad" Russian doctors, doctors collecting specimens, etc.

then there are those whose circumstances made them reasonable suspects...like James Kelly, Bury, George Chapman, etc.

then there are manufactured suspects, like Maybrick and Sickert.

and then there are suspects based on wild speculation, like Robert Mann, George Hutchinson, etc.

This whole thing about someone with a "George Hutchinson" alias is very much a stretch. To me, the only difference between him and Sickert or Maybrick here appears to be that we don't have an envelope that he supposedly licked or a diary that he supposedly wrote.

I choose to believe that the police, while overwhelmed and not perfect, were not the mindless dolts that people make them out to be. They were on the right trail, and based on what we now know about serial killers, JtR was probably someone like a Kosminski or Druitt if not them specifically.

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

I'm going to look at the supposed expert's opinion. Because to me, it's quite clear that the signatures are the same, allowing for subtle differences considering they were written 23 years apart.

As for why this is in "Creative Writing", I don't know. I just clicked on "new posts" at the top of the page and this is what I found.

[Ben]

Oh, no...

This is exactly what happened last year, and the year before.

Someone decides to take me on, and this incredible chain reaction happens. A sort of lost sheep mentality. The end result, of course, is that everyone ends up wanting a go.

And I oblige.

And then round and round in entertaining circles we go.

“And then I answered my own question - at least the ridiculous belongs here.”

But you’ve done such a terribly bad and unconvincing job of showing it to be “ridiculous" - that's the problem, and it’s not even a theory I’ve nailed my colours to. I’ve even acknowledged that the height issue could cast serious doubt upon, if not demolish, the theory. But all this gets overlooked ‘midst the cherished pursuit of pissing Ben off.

“so he'd have been an idiot to feed them a bogus identity or false contact details - unless he knew he could easily give them the slip at any time”

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. Fleming had moved into the Whitechapel district as late as September 1888 and the indications are strong that he worked at the docks as a labourer. 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. The likelihood is that Fleming was not well known in an area he had only recently moved into.

“When they took his suspect out of the equation it meant taking Hutchy Boy out too”

As a witness, yes.

That’s precisely what happened.

As a suspect? No. Hideously unlikely. There’s not a scrap of evidence to suggest he was ever suspected, and in the unlikely event that he was, it’s even less likely that the police were ever in a position to convert those suspicions into a concrete conclusion of either guilt or innocence. 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.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

so he kills Kelly, and decides to put himself at risk by assuming an alias and coming forward to the police with an elaborate account, even though the police weren't even looking for him. the "ridiculous" part is not that someone would use an alias. the ridiculous part is that someone would come forward for no reason, using an alias.

Well I would certainly agree with that, Pontius, but I suddenly thought: what the heck is Ben doing arguing for his pet suspect in Creative Writing? And then I answered my own question - at least the ridiculous belongs here.

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
So I won't even bother trying to rhyme the last line.

Look, the witness wanted the cops to take his account seriously. And they did - at first. They even got him to take them round the area looking for the man he claimed to see entering Mary's room long after Blotchy, which would have been the last sighting of any man with Mary that night. They'd have made bloody sure they could keep tabs on this witness in case he would be needed to testify in court, so he'd have been an idiot to feed them a bogus identity or false contact details - unless he knew he could easily give them the slip at any time, in which case he'd have done that and not come forward at all.

When they took his suspect out of the equation it meant taking Hutchy Boy out too, or he would effectively have become their last man with Mary, having admitted to a conversation with her and following her back to the court. There is no way on earth they'd have left themselves with no means of getting hold of Hutch's arse again in the future, if they weren't 100% satisfied that he couldn't help them with their enquiries in any capacity.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

did this man insert himself into the murder investigation for no reason?

No.

If he was the killer, he came forward to legitimize his presence at a crime scene and deflect suspicion in a false direction. His motivations for this pre-emptive move would probably have included fear (at the prospect of being recognised by a witness and dragged in as a suspect) and a certain thrill at the opportunities presented by a direct communication with the police under a false guise.

Your suggestion that he came forward for "no reason" is circular reasoning at its most annoying, stemming as it does from the pre-decided conclusion that he can't have killed anyone. If he did, he obviously had a "reason" for coming forward.

If you think there is anything extraordinary about the above premise, then you ought to research the subject of serial crime in greater depth, as examples of perpetrators approaching police under false guises aren't difficult to come by.

Again, given the ignorance to cockiness ratio you've displayed here, it shouldn't be surprising if nobody invests much stock in your condemnations.

My apologies to everyone else for repeating this again, but this person is clearly looking for a scrap, and here of all places.

[Ben]

Very good point, Claire!

where is the report of this handwriting "expert" that said those signatures were written by different people?

Submitted to the World Association of Document Examiners (WADE) conference in 1993, as discussed on the threads which deal with this issue.

Please go there and read about it if you're interested in this topic.

(I wonder if any more hints are necessary? We'll see...)

and again, where is any proof outside of wild speculation that this person had any whatsoever to do with any murder?

Proof? Haven't got any, and never claimed I had. I feel that a compelling circumstantial case can be made in that regard, and given that other intelligent and discerning commentators agree with me (even if some of them might not share my ultimate conclusion), you might understand why I'm not about to get too saddened by your accusations of "wild speculation".

YOU are the one who started with the antagonizing by advising I needed to better acquaint myself with this subject.

That's because you made a number of statements that were plain wrong, and whereas a "thanks for the correction" might have been the appropriate reaction, you instead launched into some deeply unsophisticated sarcasm. I've also suggested that the information you seek may be found in the threads that you've already consulted, but this doesn't appear to have been embraced either.

[Pontius2000]

Alas, we do know that a man whose real name was Joseph Fleming adopted the alias of James Evans, during or before 1892, and retained that alias for 28 years until his death. So, being so incredulous that someone would adopt an alias for such a length of time doesn't really lend any weight to your argument.

And: 'Mayan.'

did this man insert himself into the murder investigation for no reason? let's say that George Hutchinson IS a fake....why would he come forward days later with false information, despite the fact that the police weren't looking for him, weren't looking for Fleming either? so he kills Kelly, and decides to put himself at risk by assuming an alias and coming forward to the police with an elaborate account, even though the police weren't even looking for him. the "ridiculous" part is not that someone would use an alias. the ridiculous part is that someone would come forward for no reason, using an alias.

and yes, I also find it ridiculous to try to claim there was no such George Hutchinson, when there certainly a lot of candidates for the REAL existence of the man.

there are a lot of suspects who are suspects based on at least a little bit of circumstantial evidence. and then there are suspects based on wild speculation. and this theory on Hutchinson is wild speculation.

[Pontius2000]

Been done, Ponts. In 1993. And the handwriting expert who examined the original documents came to the conclusion that they were written by different people, which makes a laughably mockery of your insistence to the contrary as though it were an established fact. And no, you do not appear to have familiarised yourself properly with the topic, or else you wouldn’t be repeating an argument that has been thrashed out numerous times, nor would you make the hopelessly muddled pronouncement that the real George Hutchinson married someone named Sarah in 1900.



What are you getting confused about now? Why would he have been required to keep the alias for 23 years? If Hutchinson came forward with an either an invented story or an alias, it wouldn’t be for an “unknown reason”. It would because he wished to conceal something whilst advertising something else, all of which has been explored in depth on more appropriate threads.



It’s also possible – probable even – that I’m currently dealing with an undeservedly cocky and thoroughly uninformed timewaster who wants to start a Hutchinson debate on a “creative writing” thread. Now, you really need to stop with the embarrassingly bad attempts at rhetoric, use Capital Letters at the beginning of your sentences, and pop yourself along to the Hutchinson threads with a view to educating yourself. If you still want to pick a fight and use antagonistic language after that, I’ll see you there.

where is the report of this handwriting "expert" that said those signatures were written by different people?

and again, where is any proof outside of wild speculation that this person had any whatsoever to do with any murder?

YOU are the one who started with the antagonizing by advising I needed to better acquaint myself with this subject. I've been acquainting myself with this subject for over 20 years now. and you cannot produce one shred of evidence that the person who signed the witness statement was not a man whose actual name was George Hutchinson or that he had anything at all to do with killing Kelly or anybody else.

[claire]

o
so I guess it's possible that a man, for some unknown reason, took up the alias "George Hutchinson" and kept the alias for at least 23 years. this same man, again for unknown reasons, came forward days after the Kelly murder and gave the police his alias and a completely made up story. it's also possible that space aliens built the Myan temples.

Alas, we do know that a man whose real name was Joseph Fleming adopted the alias of James Evans, during or before 1892, and retained that alias for 28 years until his death. So, being so incredulous that someone would adopt an alias for such a length of time doesn't really lend any weight to your argument.

And: 'Mayan.'

[Ben]

“hire a handwriting expert, and they'll tell you the same thing”

Been done, Ponts. In 1993. And the handwriting expert who examined the original documents came to the conclusion that they were written by different people, which makes a laughably mockery of your insistence to the contrary as though it were an established fact. And no, you do not appear to have familiarised yourself properly with the topic, or else you wouldn’t be repeating an argument that has been thrashed out numerous times, nor would you make the hopelessly muddled pronouncement that the real George Hutchinson married someone named Sarah in 1900.

“so I guess it's possible that a man, for some unknown reason, took up the alias "George Hutchinson" and kept the alias for at least 23 years”

What are you getting confused about now? Why would he have been required to keep the alias for 23 years? If Hutchinson came forward with an either an invented story or an alias, it wouldn’t be for an “unknown reason”. It would be because he wished to conceal something whilst advertising something else, the suggested reasons for which have been explored in depth on more appropriate threads.

“it's also possible that space aliens built the Myan temples”

It’s also possible – probable even – that I’m currently dealing with an undeservedly cocky and thoroughly uninformed timewaster who wants to start a Hutchinson debate on a “creative writing” thread. Now, you really need to stop with the embarrassingly bad attempts at rhetoric, use Capital Letters at the beginning of your sentences, and pop yourself along to the Hutchinson threads with a view to educating yourself. If you still want to pick a fight and use antagonistic language after that, I’ll see you there.

[Pontius2000]

No.

This has not been established at all. Some subscribe to this view, while others do not.



No.

He married a woman named Florence in 1898.



We have no corroboration for this claim at all, though. If the claim was false, it certainly doesn't follow that "some of these people who knew her also knew Hutchinson". There's no evidence that any of the Miller's Court residences had a face to put to the name of either Fleming or Hutchinson.



No, that's impossible.

I think you need to acquaint yourself a little better with the subject matter.

oh, I'm acquainted with the subject, thanks. the hand that signed the signature in 1888 is the same that signed in 1911. I guess you are assuming that signatures signed 23 years apart should be mirror images of each other, which is again, ridiculous. I don't need a smoking gun, all I need is common sense. they were signed by the same hand. hire a handwriting expert, and they'll tell you the same thing.

so I guess it's possible that a man, for some unknown reason, took up the alias "George Hutchinson" and kept the alias for at least 23 years. this same man, again for unknown reasons, came forward days after the Kelly murder and gave the police his alias and a completely made up story. it's also possible that space aliens built the Myan temples.

now, come back at me that all that is only my opinion and I have no proof of it. then, I'll come back at you and ask for any shred of proof that someone (Fleming or otherwise) used the alias "George Hutchinson". and I'll also ask for any evidence, other than wild speculation, that this person killed Kelly.

[Ben]

the man who signed "George Hutchinson" to the witness statement, also signed "George Hutchinson" to the 1911 census.

No.

This has not been established at all. Some subscribe to this view, while others do not.

and the 1911 census "George Hutchinson" married a woman named Sarah in 1900.

No.

He married a woman named Florence in 1898.

Hutchinson says he knew Kelly for several years

We have no corroboration for this claim at all, though. If the claim was false, it certainly doesn't follow that "some of these people who knew her also knew Hutchinson". There's no evidence that any of the Miller's Court residences had a face to put to the name of either Fleming or Hutchinson.

you can make a much stronger argument that Fleming didn't exist.

No, that's impossible.

I think you need to acquaint yourself a little better with the subject matter.

[Pontius2000]

No, I'm afraid there's no evidence for this at all.

Some people think the real George Hutchinson was married in 1898, but that certainly doesn't reflect mainstream thinking on the subject.



Why?



There's no evidence that anyone knew or heard of Hutchinson, and Fleming was only referred to by Kelly.

the man who signed "George Hutchinson" to the witness statement, also signed "George Hutchinson" to the 1911 census. and the 1911 census "George Hutchinson" married a woman named Sarah in 1900.

you seem to be saying that 'mainstream thinking' does not agree with this. I think you're wrong. may not be YOUR thinking. I think most people agree that George Hutchinson was the actual name of the witness. now, whether or not they actually believe that he witnessed anything is a different story. but I think the suggestion that George Hutchinson was not his real name is kind of ridiculous.

Hutchinson says he knew Kelly for several years, and was supposedly nearby her residence on the night of her death. she ran with several other prostitutes, and was known by many inside Miller's Court. so it stands to reason that some of these people who knew her also knew Hutchinson. but no one came forward and said, "that guy's Fleming, not Hutchinson".

you can make a much stronger argument that Fleming didn't exist.

[Ben]

the person who signed "George Hutchinson" to the witness statement in 1888 was married under the name George Hutchinson in 1900

No, I'm afraid there's no evidence for this at all.

Some people think the real George Hutchinson was married in 1898, but that certainly doesn't reflect mainstream thinking on the subject.

I think it's a stretch to say that the person who came forward as a witness was NOT George Hutchinson.

Why?

since there were surely people living in Miller's Court who knew both Hutchinson and Fleming.

There's no evidence that anyone knew or heard of Hutchinson, and Fleming was only referred to by Kelly.

[DVV]

Now, friends, as lazy as ever, let me try another quatrain...but in English this time...

Jesus ! Mary ! Joseph
Fleming
Why is it only death
You bring ?

[DVV]

I don't even think that's very believable since there were surely people living in Miller's Court who knew both Hutchinson and Fleming.

Hi Pontius

who knew both Hutch and Fleming ? Venturney and Barnett merely knew what Mary had told them about Fleming.

Amitiés
David