Mort à Claybury

[caz]

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.

Morning Ben,

You are right up to a point. Simple logic tells us that while Gordon Cummins, the Blackout Ripper, could have been much smarter than Hutch the unemployed labourer, he was caught because he made a careless but fatal mistake and dropped his army issue gas mask as he fled the scene of one of his attacks. It only takes the one mistake, careless, stupid or unavoidable. Yet we know that the ripper managed to avoid any fatal slips. Until we know who he was, we won't know how much could have been luck rather than good judgement on his part. We can look at Hutchy Boy, however, and make a stab at how lucky or clever he was if he did indeed get away with murder.

Coming forward as a bogus witness would have been a deliberate mistake on the ripper's part if he had put one foot wrong during questioning and if only the police had been bright enough to observe: "'Ello 'ello 'ello, this man not only matches the description given by Lewis in every detail, but he could be Lawende's man too. He was a long time in coming forward, if he was really a friend to the Kelly woman, and his story doesn't ring true in every detail."

But according to you, if any of this had struck them with Hutch, either at the time of questioning or after he failed to find Mr A and blabbed a modified account to the papers, the lack of any recorded attempts to do something about it can be explained by the fact that he had come forward of his own volition, and the fact that they were not 'at that stage' using witnesses to give likely or potential suspects the once-over.

I would turn that right round and suggest that they would have used their witnesses like a shot 'at that stage' if only they had had a promising enough suspect staring back at them. And on the face of it, a man lurking outside Kelly's room at 3am - the last known man in a position to commit the murder - would have fit that bill like nobody else. Comes forward late, when Lewis's story is out, and they only have his word for it that he was waiting for another man to come out, but left the scene before he did so.

In short, Hutch tried - but failed - to put this other man in the frame, but I suppose the police had their hands tied: "If only the wretched chap hadn't come forward as a witness he might have made a most promising suspect. But then, if only we were currently using witnesses to look at the most promising suspects... oh well, you can't win 'em all."

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Abberline and co took the necessary steps to establish Hutch's circumstances and satisfy themselves that he was no danger to the public.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

I feel certain we’ve had thing Luck versus Cunning argument before.

“Coming forward as a bogus witness would have been a deliberate mistake on the ripper's part if he had put one foot wrong during questioning and if only the police had been bright enough to observe”

But we can say precisely the same thing about any number of actions that we know the real ripper took. It would have been a deliberate mistake on the ripper’s part if Albert Cadosch had ventured a peek over the fence of #27 Hanbury Street to investigate the source of that thud. The fact that he didn’t was incredibly fortunate for the killer, since the chances of “putting one foot wrong” were so high. In fact, it could even be argued that he did put a foot wrong, and simply got away with it in this case, just as he successfully dodged George Morris in Mitre Square who decided, on this occasion, to forgo his customary outside smoke.

As far as risk-management goes, it just doesn’t make sense to argue that a killer who was demonstrably prepared to take the risks he did at Hanbury Street and Mitre Square (which he got away with thanks to a combination of daring AND luck) would not have taken the equally risky decision to do what other risky serial killers have done and approach the police under the guise of a witness or informer.

“I would turn that right round and suggest that they would have used their witnesses like a shot 'at that stage' if only they had had a promising enough suspect staring back at them.”

And I’d have to disagree very strongly here. A great number of suspects would have come under the investigative radar during the course of the investigation, and it just isn’t credible to argue that not one of them was considered suspicious enough to warrant an identity attempt with the witnesses IF they were using them at that stage. In addition, whenever such an attempt did occur, the press generally learned of it, as they did in the case of William Piggot, who was lined up along side other men “taken from the street” and presented before the witnesses from Mrs. Fiddymont’s pub. Certainly, there’s no evidence that any other witnesses were ever used in that capacity with the exception of Joseph Lawende, whose services did not appear to have been required until the 1890s! But even if we disregard all this, and conclude that Lawende must have been confronted with Hutchinson, it should be remembered that he expressed doubt as to whether he would identify the man again – a point which would not, incidentally, have reassured the killer at the time, given the suppression of his full description.

Fundamentally, we can’t argue that the circumstances that make Hutchinson suspicious (as you outline in your fourth paragraph) can be used in an attempt to rule him out a suspect. This only perpetuates the misconception that the police always have some handy barometer for determining the guilt or innocence or anyone they happen to suspect. Decades of experience from other high profile (including serial) cases should have told us that the exact opposite is more often the case. If the Green River Task Force in the 1980s couldn’t prove their suspect’s guilt despite having found the correct man, I don’t see how or why we should expect any better of their investigative counterparts 100 years previously.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

"Fundamentally, we can’t argue that the circumstances that make Hutchinson suspicious (as you outline in your fourth paragraph) can be used in an attempt to rule him out a suspect."

No, we can't Ben. But we also can't argue that the circumstances that make Hutchinson suspicious were the same circumstances, and the only circumstances, that the police knew about and were able to consider at the time. We just don't know the extent of their knowledge and information about the man we know so little about, beyond the name he used to sign his statement and talk to the press.

If they knew what we know about the circumstances and nothing else that would change anything, we can't argue that the police would have ignored those circumstances, or seen nothing suspicious themselves, or would have had no means whatsoever that they could have used to test their suspicions, assuming they would have been strong enough to warrant the effort.

In short, we can argue precious little beyond tossing the possibilities around - possibilities based on not nearly enough intelligence concerning what intelligence the police had - and plumping for our personal favourite explanation for Hutch's rapid rise and fall from the spotlight.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

“In short, we can argue precious little beyond tossing the possibilities around - possibilities based on not nearly enough intelligence concerning what intelligence the police had”

Absolutely, Caz, and this is why I’m so resistant to overconfident assumptions – not made by you, by occasionally touted in Hutchville – that the police must have suspected Hutchinson, and must have uncovered proof positive to rule him out both as a witness and as a suspect. This, to me, is stretching things far beyond what the few indications about the extent of police intelligence reveal to us, and actually militate against them. I believe that the little evidence we have would indicate non-suspicion of Hutchinson rather than dismissed suspicion, although unconfirmed suspicion (i.e. suspicion that never translated into proof) remains a viable option.

All the best,
Ben