Mort à Claybury

[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

[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.

[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.

[DVV]

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

[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

[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]

"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]

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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[DVV]

Rest In Peace, Lambeth George.

[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

[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