Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by Simon Wood 1 hour and 17 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by MrBarnett 4 hours ago.
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by packers stem 6 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: "Ripperland" by Andrew Firth - by Herlock Sholmes 7 hours ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by Robert 7 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - (21 posts)
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - (5 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (4 posts)
Non-Fiction: "Ripperland" by Andrew Firth - (4 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (2 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Hutchinson, George

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #521  
Old 07-21-2018, 08:44 AM
Ben Ben is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,843
Default

Quote:
“His duty is to pursue his assignment. Which, in the scenario proposed here, is...”
...to track down the most wanted man in history, Jon, the importance and urgency of which instantly superseding any other line of police investigation, such as whether or not someone might be tempted to steal someone else’s hat from the market.

Quote:
”What Abberline learned is open to debate, what is not defensible is to believe he wrote nothing down, or did not learn anything more than what was on the initial statement”
Quite so, but any information of interest that Abberline managed to extract, beyond that contained in the statement, ended up in his accompanying report, such as the detail that he had known Kelly for three years, and that he was surprised at seeing a man so well-dressed in her company “which caused him to follow them”.

Quote:
“You keep repeating the "early morning time of death", yet have trouble finding sufficient examples. This is another case of manning the trenches to defend an argument.”
Alright then, “reports which strongly indicated an early morning, small hours time of death, in common with all other ripper victims”. Better? The point being that Hutchinson could not have failed to read these reports if he was following newspaper coverage as you suggest, thus totally nullifying any excuse not to come forward immediately thereafter and relating his early morning, small-hours experience involving his three-year acquaintance.

But now you’re suggesting that it required Hutchinson getting his hands on a copy of Lloyds Weekly News, and satisfying himself that the “medical examination” tallied with the time of his sighting, to finally motivate him into getting off his lazy arse and relating his evidence (which, regardless of timing and regardless of conflicting reports, he should have informed the police about the moment he learned of the murder).

Honestly Jon, if I was Hutchinson I think I would rather be labelled a serial killer than have such ludicrous non-rationale posthumously ascribed to me.

No, “eyeing him up for robbery” is not very “feasible” because anyone with such expensive looking clothes and accessories so ostentatiously on display would have BEEN robbed long before Hutchinson had even clapped eyes on him.

Quote:
“Coming forward is that last thing you would do.”
Well how wonderfully sensible and prudent of “you”, whoever that’s supposed to refer to. What I’m interested in, though, are the actions and behavioural traits of known serial offenders who have come forward as “witnesses” when they feared (rationally or otherwise) an impending link being established between them and the crime scene or victim, and who have attempted to deflect suspicion in a convenient false direction.

“You” might well disapprove of their strategies, but it doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.

Finally, are you seriously suggesting that the homeless of Victorian Whitechapel had “no choice” but to remain in a stationary, upright position on the exposed streets?

All the best,
Ben

Last edited by Ben : 07-21-2018 at 09:08 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #522  
Old 07-21-2018, 08:57 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packers stem View Post
With three completely different Hutchinson signatures on it ....
They're not "completely different". Only one capital "H" differs materially, and that can be due to a number of reasons: e.g. a variation caused by a "cold start"; rustiness/lack of practice in writing his signature; or perhaps - has anyone considered this? - he simply wrote, rather than signed, his name on the first page. When I write my name in cursive script, neither the "G" at the start of my forename, the "H" at the start of my middle name, nor the "W" at the start of my surname look much like their equivalents in my signature, and the other letters differ slightly too.

I see no reason whatsoever to doubt that Hutchinson signed all three pages of the statement. There's no mystery here, ladies and gentlemen. Time to move along.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

Last edited by Sam Flynn : 07-21-2018 at 09:04 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #523  
Old 07-21-2018, 09:00 AM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Not supposition, but common sense and an awareness that identification at a mortuary was the norm, if not standard procedure.
You think they were going to shove his face into the minced-up remains on the bed? I know the Victorian era was tough, but they weren't barbarians.
It's all we've got a though .
We could all suppose anything we want to but the evidence suggests that nobody went anywhere near the coffin .
We have press reports on the 12th of people turning up at Shoreditch but being refused entry .
We have the girl with the wreath some six days after the murder denied permission to place a wreath on the coffin ..... why ? Only took someone to make sure the lid was closed .

Barnett had already said it was her by peeping through the window ..... seems that was deemed sufficient .
As I say ..... identified by location , nothing more unless someone comes up with actual evidence to suggest otherwise rather than supposition
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #524  
Old 07-21-2018, 09:03 AM
Ben Ben is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,843
Default

Hi RJ,

It’s not impossible that I’ve confused the year. It’s been a while since I looked at the Green River case. Apologies if so.

John Douglas had the following to say on Ridgway’s “proactive technique”:

"...We indicated the UNSUB would inject himself into the investigation. Ridgway did so by providing information about one of the victims, whom he knew. That victim was killed differently than the others. A bag was placed over her head, an empty wine bottle and a pair of dead fish placed on her body. My analysis to police was that the killer knew this victim due to how the killer posed her after death. Ridgway came forward to “volunteer” information on this one because I'm sure he was afraid police would come across his name during the investigation.

It was his own proactive technique."


Apparently the victim in question was Carol Ann Christensen who did, as it would later transpire, know Ridgeway personally.

I concede a difference with the Hutchinson scenario insofar as Ridgway was already known to the police when he came forward, whereas Hutchinson ostensibly was not. Far more significant to my mind, however, are the similarities; injecting himself into the investigation, and knowing the deceased personally, the latter’s body having been “posed differently to the others”.

Ridgeway was motivated into coming forward because he feared an incriminating link being made between himself and the victim, just as several authors have proposed with regard to Hutchinson and Kelly.

All the best,
Ben

Last edited by Ben : 07-21-2018 at 09:10 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #525  
Old 07-21-2018, 09:12 AM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
They're not "completely different". Only one capital "H" differs materially, and that can be due to a number of reasons: e.g. a variation caused by a "cold start"; rustiness/lack of practice in writing his signature; or perhaps - has anyone considered this? - he simply wrote, rather than signed, his name on the first page. When I write my name in cursive script, neither the "G" at the start of my forename, the "H" at the start of my middle name, nor the "W" at the start of my surname look much like their equivalents in my signature.

I see no reason whatsoever to doubt that Hutchinson signed all three pages of the statement. There's no mystery here, ladies and gentlemen. Time to move along.
I disagree
If you have a form where you are asked to write or print your name as opposed to sign then it's block capitals
Page 1 is a signature apart from a wonderfully artistic capital H
Page 2 (rge) disappears off George and the H becomes bog standard .
Page 3 (rge) makes a return and the H looks as if it was deliberately made to be 'messy'

You don't doubt that someone would sign three different signatures on three sheets of paper ,that's your choice ,but we're not talking a slip of a pen here are we ? if the value of the Hutchinson statement is central to your theory then you will convince yourself ..... convincing the majority though is another thing entirely .

You are free to move along Sam .... doesn't mean others are obliged to follow .
Plenty of mystery I'm afraid.
Denying it will not remove it
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #526  
Old 07-21-2018, 09:44 AM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,605
Default

GH should have signed all three sheets in a similar fashion.

Name:  GH1.jpg
Views: 176
Size:  58.5 KB
Name:  GH2.jpg
Views: 176
Size:  39.5 KB
Name:  GH3.jpg
Views: 177
Size:  42.0 KB
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #527  
Old 07-21-2018, 10:26 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
GH should have signed all three sheets in a similar fashion.
They might not be signed in a similar fashion, but all three are signed by the same person.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #528  
Old 07-21-2018, 10:52 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 437
Default

Hi Ben - It looks to me like John Douglas, the famous FBI profiler, is blowing smoke up your backside.

Note how he phrases his claim, as if to pat himself on the back.

I, the great profiler, predicted the Green River killer would inject himself into the investigation. And lo and behold, when he was arrested a full nineteen years later, through standard police work, it turns out that he once offered information about a victim!’ My profile was right!!!

I call b.s. on Douglas. Let’s look at the details and the chronology.

If you read the NY Times article I linked, Ridgway abducted Marie Malvar on April 2, 1983. She was seen in his truck , the truck was traced, and a couple days later Ridgway was being questioned by detectives as a suspect in Malvar’s abduction.

Meanwhile, on May 2—ie., the same week--Ridgway murdered Carol Christiansen, the woman Douglas is referring to. The woman that Ridgway supposedly came forward to “injected his information” about.

But did Ridgway actually come forward, or did this information come during his being questioned about the Malvar disappearance?

Do you not really see an enormous difference, Ben?

So what really happened? Is it possible that Douglas is trying to make his profile look retrospectively brilliant when in fact it wasn’t?

As I read it, Ridgway first came to the attention of the police thru a tip by the concerned public. He did NOT inject himself in the investigation.
He was traced to his house and questioned by detectives. During the course of that questioning he mentioned the recent disappearance and subsequent discovery of the body of a woman he knew, Carol Christensen. He was, of course, also her murderer, but he did know her.

So, with these facts in mind, is Douglas giving an accurate description of what happened?

And if not, why should we trust the claims of police profilers?

Personally, I call B.S. Ridgway did nothing of the sort.

Ridgway was already being questioned. And while being interviewed he casually mentioned another victim who was just then in the news.

It’s like Druitt being questioned for the Kelly murder and mentioning in passing the horrible death of Polly Nichols.

If you accept this as an example of a murderer “injecting” himself into an investigation, then your standards of what it means to “inject” is so low that nearly anything will fill the bill.

In Douglas’s strange and self-serving world, Ridgway “injected” himself AFTER he was already a suspect. Which means he DIDN’T inject himself.

Like so many profilers, he is manipulating the facts to fit his claims.

And, of course, Ridgway’s behavior bears not even the slightest similarity to what you are suggesting Hutchinson did.

We are asked to believe that George Hutchinson boldly walked in the front door of a police station out of the blue, plopped himself in a chair, threw his shoulders back, asked to see a detective, and then told them in no uncertain terms that he spent 45 minutes outside the worst crime scene in modern UK history.

That’s not injection. That’s injection on steroids.

I’m seeing nothing even remotely similar in the cases of Chikatilo, Sutcliffe, Ridgway, or Shawcross.

It’s more like a scenario out of a Hollywood “serial killer” film.

Last edited by rjpalmer : 07-21-2018 at 10:54 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #529  
Old 07-21-2018, 10:55 AM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,605
Default

Hi Sam,

" . . . but all three are signed by the same person."

What makes you say that?

Regards,

Simon
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #530  
Old 07-21-2018, 11:07 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
Hi Sam,

" . . . but all three are signed by the same person."

What makes you say that?
By comparing them, Simon - it's glaringly obvious to me that the same person provided all three signatures (or wrote his name on p1 and signed the other two; see my musing on this particular point above).

Only the capital "H" in Hutchinson on p1 materially differs, and that (a) doesn't faze me, because these things do happen; and (b) it can be explained for various reasons I've suggested already. Apart from that one letter, the rest of the letters are similar throughout.

I don't propose to discuss it further, as I've been involved in similar discussions before, and things can get quite fraught. Besides, no amount of words is going to change some people's minds.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.