Mort ŕ Claybury

[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,

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,

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

[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

[Rubyretro]

Caz -

I totally agree with you that there is no evidence, whatsoever, against Hutch, only a string of coincidences (all of which may be just that...) and circumstance :

-We don't know his age for sure, but he would appear to fall into the most common age group for serial killers

-He had a string of precarious jobs and at least once or twice had worked as a night watchman,( which would mean that he was out on the streets at all hours), and he had at least once left town looking for work...so we can surmise that he could come and go from his lodgings as he liked.

-He was an ordinary looking East End man who would be unremarkable on the streets

-He lived in the centre of the area of the murders

-the GSG and apron was on a route from Mitre Square to his lodgings

-The Double event killings both happened near Jewish clubs, on club nights, and Eddowes' apron piece was found in a building mainly inhabited by Jews, under some graffiti mentioning the word 'juwes', and Hutch invented (lets call a spade a spade) a 'Jewish' suspect.

-He knew (according to his own admission) at least one prostitute

-The prostitute that he knew was the last murder victim of the C5

-His lodgings were close by the room of that victim -MJK- ,close by the spot where she habitually solicited, and he lodged in the same place as two of her ex-lovers

-He placed himself, in the same time frame, at the 'last' murder site.

-He described himself engaged in the exact same activity as a man described by an independant witness

-He didn't volunteer the information about his presence at the murder site, until that witness had come forward

-He told alot of lies ( call a spade etc..) to the Police and to the Press

-He was 'unemployed' and according to him had spent all his money 'going down to Romford' on Thursday, but he was back in his lodgings on at least Friday and Sunday, so had got some money from somewhere. No money was found in Mary's room -even though we know that she had had at least one customer late Thursday night.

-The murders (or at least the C5) stopped once Hutch became known to the Police, Press (and thus the public).


I think that it is a 'given' that Serial Killers often come forward to Police as 'witnesses', for the thrill of involving themselves in their own cases, and in an attempt to control and divert the investigation. Indeed, I read recently that the American Police were complaining that they were having a hard job having witnesses come forward in murder cases, since those witnesses
felt automatically included as prime supects. There is a reason for that !

It is therefore perfectly reasonable for US to look upon witnesses in the JTR case as potential suspects too, and the list of
coincidences surrounding Hutch -TAKEN ALL TOGETHER- make him the best suspect that we have, in my opinion.

-

[Ben]

Look who’s here yet again…

It’s Mikey!

And like yesterday, he’s in full rectal mode and utterly determined to introduce some hostilities into what had been a very civil thread.

“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?”

Why don’t you actually read the posts where this was discussed in extensive detail? Oh yes, because I’m on your “ignore” list. Nobody has ever asserted that: “this was going to be the only description that could nail him”. It has been suggested that the recent suppression of eyewitness evidence, specifically Lawende’s, would probably have unnerved the ripper whoever he was, and that he was therefore likely to be wary of future eyewitness sightings also being suppressed, Lewis’ included. In any case, if you conduct a wee bit of research into the subject, you’ll notice that the serial offenders who inserted themselves into their own investigations did so in response to one sighting, not "several", for startlingly obvious reasons.

“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.”

It would be wasted on you, though, since you’ll be using the same decidedly arbitrary, not-to-taken-seriously “truth barometer” that you are here. There is no aspect to the suggestion that Hutchinson may have been involved in Kelly’s murder that demands that the police were “stupid”. That was one of the really spurious objections from – gosh! – as far back as 2005 believe! Both premises have been explored: Hutchinson was suspected, versus Hutchinson wasn’t suspected. In the former event, they were very unlikely to have found themselves in a position to confirm or deny those suspicions, and in the latter, it would simply mean that the police discarded him as a publicity-seeker. They may have done so in error, but it certainly wouldn’t make them “stupid”.

“Caz' explanation is so much better than the absolute drivel that comes from Hutchers, they should bow down and say they are not worthy.”

Says the wonderfully unbiased source of posting genius that is Mikey, who knows exactly how many George Hutchinsons there were “in the area” in 1888.

[Abby Normal]

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

Hi Mike, Caz


Originally Posted by caz

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.


But why , if he is innocent, would he have to wait until he finds out he is seen there? is not the most likely thing to happen is that he would come forward to the police immediately after discovering she is murdered?

Hi Mike

yet Hutchinson only came forward after Kelly's murder because... because... because this was going to be the only description that could nail him?

perhaps. By his own admission, he had known MK for several years, so there may be a good chance they knew mutual friends. he probably saw Sarah Lewis see him standing there and could possibly have thought, does she know me/my name? if he was the murderer, perhaps he thought it may be better to go to the police as a witness, then be found as a suspect.

[Abby Normal]

Caz -

I totally agree with you that there is no evidence, whatsoever, against Hutch, only a string of coincidences (all of which may be just that...) and circumstance :

-We don't know his age for sure, but he would appear to fall into the most common age group for serial killers

-He had a string of precarious jobs and at least once or twice had worked as a night watchman,( which would mean that he was out on the streets at all hours), and he had at least once left town looking for work...so we can surmise that he could come and go from his lodgings as he liked.

-He was an ordinary looking East End man who would be unremarkable on the streets

-He lived in the centre of the area of the murders

-the GSG and apron was on a route from Mitre Square to his lodgings

-The Double event killings both happened near Jewish clubs, on club nights, and Eddowes' apron piece was found in a building mainly inhabited by Jews, under some graffiti mentioning the word 'juwes', and Hutch invented (lets call a spade a spade) a 'Jewish' suspect.

-He knew (according to his own admission) at least one prostitute

-The prostitute that he knew was the last murder victim of the C5

-His lodgings were close by the room of that victim -MJK- ,close by the spot where she habitually solicited, and he lodged in the same place as two of her ex-lovers

-He placed himself, in the same time frame, at the 'last' murder site.

-He described himself engaged in the exact same activity as a man described by an independant witness

-He didn't volunteer the information about his presence at the murder site, until that witness had come forward

-He told alot of lies ( call a spade etc..) to the Police and to the Press

-He was 'unemployed' and according to him had spent all his money 'going down to Romford' on Thursday, but he was back in his lodgings on at least Friday and Sunday, so had got some money from somewhere. No money was found in Mary's room -even though we know that she had had at least one customer late Thursday night.

-The murders (or at least the C5) stopped once Hutch became known to the Police, Press (and thus the public).


I think that it is a 'given' that Serial Killers often come forward to Police as 'witnesses', for the thrill of involving themselves in their own cases, and in an attempt to control and divert the investigation. Indeed, I read recently that the American Police were complaining that they were having a hard job having witnesses come forward in murder cases, since those witnesses
felt automatically included as prime supects. There is a reason for that !

It is therefore perfectly reasonable for US to look upon witnesses in the JTR case as potential suspects too, and the list of
coincidences surrounding Hutch -TAKEN ALL TOGETHER- make him the best suspect that we have, in my opinion.

-

Hi Ruby
Great summary.

I would also add that:
he missed the inquiry and only came forward after it was over.
he gave an almost unbeleiveable detailed description of a 'suspect'.

[The Good Michael]

But why , if he is innocent, would he have to wait until he finds out he is seen there? is not the most likely thing to happen is that he would come forward to the police immediately after discovering she is murdered?

No. That is a common misconception. The fact is, the vast majority of people don't come forward with information, preferring not to get involved. If one finds that he or she is involved, then maybe the ball gets rolling.

There is nothing in the Hutch argument save for contrivance.

Mike

[Ben]

is not the most likely thing to happen is that he would come forward to the police immediately after discovering she is murdered?

It certainly is, Abby.

If Hutchinson was innocent and saw what he claimed to have seen, it would have made him one of the last people - if not the last person - to see Kelly (his three-year acquaintance, apparently!) alive, and with an extremely likely suspect in her murder. If Mike's claim is that the "vast majority" of witnesses in similar cirumctances "don't come forward with information, preferring not to get involved", we'll need to see some evidence to back up that claim.

There is nothing in the Hutch argument save for contrivance.

But you just haven't done a very good job of showing it to be contrived - that's the problem.

Regards,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

No. That is a common misconception. The fact is, the vast majority of people don't come forward with information, preferring not to get involved. If one finds that he or she is involved, then maybe the ball gets rolling.

There is nothing in the Hutch argument save for contrivance.

Mike

Hi GM
I see what your saying but:
re:not wanting to get involved:
-They knew each other/were "friends"-motivation would be to help find the killer asap.
-The killer was targeting very specific people(female prostitute)-so no real fear from hutch that the killer would retaliate against him.
-Was out of work anyway so did not have to worry about losing work/wages by getting involved, which leads to
-could possibly gain financially by getting involved either by being paid by reward/police to help catch the killer and/or being paid by papers for the story.
-probably knew he was seen standing there anyway, so best to come forward sooner rather than later.

i think any of these things would have hutch running to the police as soon as he found out about MK's murder.

[caz]

...he probably saw Sarah Lewis see him standing there and could possibly have thought, does she know me/my name?

I'm sorry, Abby, but if the ripper saw Lewis looking at him while he was waiting for the opportuntiy to rip another one up nearby, and thought there was any way in the world that she might cause him trouble, perhaps even recognise him again while he was out and about in the vicinity after his big night in, then he might just have been dim enough to carry on ripping regardless and sod the consequences. Dimmer murderers have been known - because the dimmest ones tend to buckle themselves.

But is it then likely that this half wit, realising his mistake and deciding to take his chances in the lion's den with Abberline and co, when the bloody woman naturally told them all about him, suddenly grew himself enough brain cells to outwit the lot of 'em, leaving them powerless to do anything even when they found his story ultimately unsatisfactory?

Ben keeps suggesting that if the cops, by some miracle, were sharp enough to wonder what Hutch was really up to that night (once his Mr A was out of the equation) they would have had no way of finding out enough to hold him on suspicion or eliminate him. But in the next breath he will argue that Hutch came forward because he would have been in "poo city" had the cops tracked him down as a suspect, stuck him in front of the various witnesses and found that one or more recognised him.

In short, I don't get the distinction Ben makes here between Hutch going from fugitive to suspect and thence to poo city, and going from witness to suspect but coming out untouchable and smelling of roses.

Love,

Caz
X

[Rubyretro]

I'm sorry, Abby, but if the ripper saw Lewis looking at him while he was waiting for the opportuntiy to rip another one up nearby, and thought there was any way in the world that she might cause him trouble, perhaps even recognise him again while he was out and about in the vicinity after his big night in, then he might just have been dim enough to carry on ripping regardless and sod the consequences. Dimmer murderers have been known - because the dimmest ones tend to buckle themselves.

I think that it is perfectly feasible that someone who had Mary Kelly in their sights, knew she was alone ( whats more in a private room, which would -for the first time- give him free reign to indulge in his fantasies) would be in a high state of excitation and unwilling to let the 'prey' get away. If it was a cold and rainy night, and he had just completed a long walk, the private room with a fire might add to the attraction. None but the Ripper would know how many people had seen him but never ever come forward to the Police...only
there's the rub- Mrs Lewis DID come forward.

Ben keeps suggesting that if the cops, by some miracle, were sharp enough to wonder what Hutch was really up to that night (once his Mr A was out of the equation) they would have had no way of finding out enough to hold him on suspicion or eliminate him. But in the next breath he will argue that Hutch came forward because he would have been in "poo city" had the cops tracked him down as a suspect, stuck him in front of the various witnesses and found that one or more recognised him.

Well, if he DID go for 'damage limitation' (and prolonging the thrills of the murder), then I , personally, think that he was neither BS Man, nor the man seen by Lawende *, and so had nothing to fear from any 'lineup'. Indeed a 'line
up' would have appeared to vindicate him

I agree totally with Ben, that the Police at the time did not have the experience of dealing with Serial Killers, and of knowing that insinuating oneself into one's own Case (as a witness), was one of their 'comportments'.

It's perfectly reasonable that Hutch knew nothing of Serial Killers behaviour either, and assumed that volunteering himself as a witness to the Police was an 'insurance' against being arrested as a Suspect.


* by that I mean also that the woman was NOT Kate Eddowes -a woman who could not be identified by her face, but by a bit of soiled fabric.

[Abby Normal]

...he probably saw Sarah Lewis see him standing there and could possibly have thought, does she know me/my name?

I'm sorry, Abby, but if the ripper saw Lewis looking at him while he was waiting for the opportuntiy to rip another one up nearby, and thought there was any way in the world that she might cause him trouble, perhaps even recognise him again while he was out and about in the vicinity after his big night in, then he might just have been dim enough to carry on ripping regardless and sod the consequences. Dimmer murderers have been known - because the dimmest ones tend to buckle themselves.

But is it then likely that this half wit, realising his mistake and deciding to take his chances in the lion's den with Abberline and co, when the bloody woman naturally told them all about him, suddenly grew himself enough brain cells to outwit the lot of 'em, leaving them powerless to do anything even when they found his story ultimately unsatisfactory?

Ben keeps suggesting that if the cops, by some miracle, were sharp enough to wonder what Hutch was really up to that night (once his Mr A was out of the equation) they would have had no way of finding out enough to hold him on suspicion or eliminate him. But in the next breath he will argue that Hutch came forward because he would have been in "poo city" had the cops tracked him down as a suspect, stuck him in front of the various witnesses and found that one or more recognised him.

In short, I don't get the distinction Ben makes here between Hutch going from fugitive to suspect and thence to poo city, and going from witness to suspect but coming out untouchable and smelling of roses.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
I'm sorry, Abby, but if the ripper saw Lewis looking at him while he was waiting for the opportuntiy to rip another one up nearby, and thought there was any way in the world that she might cause him trouble, perhaps even recognise him again while he was out and about in the vicinity after his big night in, then he might just have been dim enough to carry on ripping regardless and sod the consequences. Dimmer murderers have been known - because the dimmest ones tend to buckle themselves.

It was only after he learns that she went to the police,went to the inquest, remembers seeing "waiting man" and told them about it that he may of thought- now she can cause me real trouble. That night he might have thought she would not do any of these things. Dim-wit, no. Risk taker-yes.

But is it then likely that this half wit, realising his mistake and deciding to take his chances in the lion's den with Abberline and co, when the bloody woman naturally told them all about him, suddenly grew himself enough brain cells to outwit the lot of 'em, leaving them powerless to do anything even when they found his story ultimately unsatisfactory?

No, he was not a half wit and had enough brain cells from the beginning. he was just a very successful calculated risk taker who wanted his kill very badly that night.

[Ben]

“I'm sorry, Abby, but if the ripper saw Lewis looking at him while he was waiting for the opportuntiy to rip another one up nearby, and thought there was any way in the world that she might cause him trouble, perhaps even recognise him again while he was out and about in the vicinity after his big night in, then he might just have been dim enough to carry on ripping regardless and sod the consequences.”

It’s not so much a question of “dimness”, Caz, but rather one of being determined to kill on the night in question regardless of the consequences, which he would worry about later. He wouldn’t have had any hope of progressing a step further with his ripping career if he aborted every attempt in which a potential witness had spotted him. Instead, he had to persevere in spite of this danger, and adapt accordingly if things went wrong.

It isn’t the case, by the way, that the cleverest serial killers are the ones who evade capture while the caught ones are consistently “dim”. The extent to which luck plays a significant role in capturing serial offenders cannot be ignored. David Canter even observed in “Criminal Shadows” that the disorganized killers are often the most difficult to identity and apprehend.

“But in the next breath he will argue that Hutch came forward because he would have been in "poo city" had the cops tracked him down as a suspect”

My contention is that he thought he stood a better than average chance of ending up in "poo city" if he came forward with a self-legitimizing account of his movements, rather than resting on his laurals and awaiting a subsequent identification by Sarah Lewis, and that he had every reason to fear this outcome, given the recent suppression of Lawende’s description. He was not to know, at that stage, that witnesses were not being used in identity line-up attempts, and had not been since the attempt by the police to have the “Fiddymont’s Pub” witnesses look over Piggot and Isenschmidt.

All the best,
Ben