Mort ŕ Claybury

[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

[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]

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]

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]

“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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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'.

[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.

[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.

[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.

-