|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Frank van Oploo
Police Constable
Username: Franko
Post Number: 2
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 4:02 pm: |       |
Hej Glenn,
Regarding your last remark: I sure will. I only had a couple of minutes after I got home from work before I had to leave again, so I was just too anxcious to post a message that I couldn't wait and first fill in my profile, so I'm going to do that now!
In case I forget it before you go, have a good holiday!
Proost!
Frank  |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 207
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 4:59 pm: | |
Hej Frank,
I just had to post this before I move on to other things -- this thread is in fact supposed to be about Barnett...
Nice to see the profile, Frank. I see that we are almost exactly the same age. I'll be 38 in November, so your just about a month older than me. Rats!
Thank you, Frank, I feel a cold coming on, unfortunately, but I'll make the best of my trip just the same -- but we'll probably talk again before I leave.
Hej så länge (crack that one, if you can ...)
Hälsningar 
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 713
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 6:25 pm: | |
Hi Frank
Certain parts of eastern England have affinities with Holland. There are windmills in Norfolk. I went into a small row of old merchants' houses in Yarmouth, on the coast, and the attics were walk-through - no dividing walls.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 652
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 4:00 am: | |
G'day all,
CHUCK: Yeah lots have serial killers have confessed mate, when their 'game' is over! Many have spoken to psychiatrists on 'Death Row' as if in the hope to gain some sympathy and understanding, but they don't voluntarily go the police like Hutchinson did.
After the murder they fade back into society under their 'mask of sanity', and appear as a normal, innocent, community-caring citizen.
Who said that serial killers usually kill within their age group? They obviously didn't take into account Carlton Gary, who murdered older women, John Wayne Gacy who murdered youths, Roy Lewis Norris & Lawrence S. Bittiker who murdered teenage girls, Wayne B. Williams who murdered children, 31 year old Peter Sutcliffe who murdered 42 year old Emily Jackson and 20 year old Jacqueline Hill!
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Police Constable
Username: Franko
Post Number: 4
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 11:42 am: | |
Hi there Robert,
I've been to England only twice. Once in 1983 with two of my friends, then I went to Suffolk near Norwich and once in 1989, when I visited London(!) with the same two friends. We were there for only a couple of days and the nearest I came to Jack's hunting grounds was when we visited The Tower of London, which I found very impressive! I wish I'd been as interested in the case then as I am now, because that was a big chance to see all the sites...
All the best,
Frank |
Frank van Oploo
Police Constable
Username: Franko
Post Number: 5
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 1:13 pm: | |
G'day Leanne,
Here's a quote from "Jack the Ripper ... Person or Persons unknown?" by Garry Wroe, which is somewhere to be found on this site. It's a part at the end of chapter 8:
"Even so, notwithstanding the quite astonishing capacity for self-preservation that emerges through the Sutcliffe, Bianchi, Christie and Young cases, it is one of the world’s foremost authorities on both profiling and the aberrant offender who confers upon the Hutchinson hypothesis a very real sense of plausibility. In his book Mindhunter, published not long after his 1995 retirement from the Behavioural Science Unit, John Douglas discusses the technique of proactive detection, a kind of psychological warfare intended to unnerve and eventually flush out the UNSUB (unknown subject). His account of one such case runs thus:
-In San Diego, a young woman’s body was found in the hills, strangled and raped, with a dog collar and leash around her neck. Her car was found along one of the highways. Apparently, she had run out of gas and her killer had picked her up – either as a Good Samaritan or forcibly – and had driven her to where she was found.
I suggested to the police that they release information to the press in a particular order. First, they should describe the crime and our crime analysis. Second, they should emphasize the full thrust of FBI involvement with the state and local authorities and that “if it takes us twenty years, we’re going to get this guy!” And third, on a busy road like that where a young woman was broken down, someone had to have seen something. I wanted the third story to say that there had been reports of someone or something suspicious around the time of her abduction and that the police were asking the public to come forward with information.
My reasoning here was that if the killer thought someone might have seen him at some point (which they probably did), then he would think he had to neutralize that with the police, to explain and legitimize his presence on the scene. He would come forward and say something to the effect of, “I drove by and saw she was stuck. I pulled over and asked if I could help, but she said she was okay, so I drove off.”
Now, police do seek help from the public all the time through the media. But too often they don’t consider it a proactive technique. I wonder how many times offenders have come forward who slipped through their fingers because they didn’t know what to look for ... In the San Diego case, the technique worked just as I had outlined it. The UNSUB injected himself into the investigation and was caught.-
The parallels between this case (as well as others like it) and the Hutchinson hypothesis are remarkable. Here is an episode wherein a young woman was murdered in ritualistic fashion. At some point thereafter the killer learned through the media that he might have been sighted with the victim. Galvanized by the fear of imminent arrest, he then came forward with a smokescreen response calculated to ‘explain and legitimize his presence on the scene.’ So manifest are these similarities that, suffice to say, the alternative scenario to Mary Kelly’s death must be considered a very real possibility. Equally, Douglas’s speculation as to ‘how many times offenders have come forward who slipped through [police] fingers because they didn’t know what to look for’ assumes particular resonance with regard to Hutchinson’s police interview."
Again, I'm not claiming that George Hutchinson was the Ripper, but if he were, it was most probably his capacity for self-preservation that compelled him to come forward. Or, in other words, he didn't come forward to confess, but to prevent his game from being up.
Furthermore, it doesn't seem to be uncommon for the FBI or police forces to speculate or even count on behaviour very similar to that displayed by George Hutchinson, just because apparently killers act that way.
All the best,
Frank  |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 725
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 7:05 pm: | |
Hi Frank
Unfortunately I've never been to Holland, but I did manage to see the Rembrandt exhibition at the National Gallery a few years ago. Fantastic stuff!
Robert |
Chuck
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 6:50 pm: | |
Leanne,
I think you are overlooking my point. My point is that you cannot say for a fact that no serial killer has turned himself in or gone to the police sort of like what Hutchinson did.
It's like saying there are no female serial killers. Also, you say "lots of serial killers" have confessed, but that does not mean all of them have. And who says serial killers confess? Profiling?
Well, profiling also contradicts itself. Plus, I think you missed my point when I said serial killers "usually" kill within their age group. I did not say every single one of them has; I said it is more common to find that than the opposite.
Chuck |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 239
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 4:54 am: | |
Hi everyone,
George Hutchinson, has been described as a stalker, a liar, and even a possible murderer.
How about an honest man , who gave a genuine account of his recollections on the early hours of the 9th november.
How about this scenerio, Kelly approaches hutchinson , askíng him for any spare cash, then walks towards a man, who sticks out a arm as if to detain her, this man Hutchinson describes as dressed in good quality clothes, complete with spats.
Is it not therefore a possibility that the man símply asked Kelly if there was a prívate room nearby where he could rest, till first light, to me the most obvious reason for his appearence, was he was dressed to take part in the Lord mayors activities, the spats are a dead give away.
This man was not jack, he was hardly dressed to kill.
Dont forget weather wise it was a ghastly night, and a person who was dressed in that manner , would hardly wish to attend a lodging house.
I Can imagine the thought of spending some time somewhere dry was his main concern.
Hutchinson would have been alarmed, Kelly was a sailors client, and he was concerned that she was taking this stranger back to her room.
i believe when approaching near morning this man left Kellys room, and went on his way, leaving Kelly asleep, this could have been the reason for a fire being lit to dry the mans damp clothes.
I Realize that the 'oh murder' has to be explained, and I can do that , but it will be in the book,
So there we go, no mystery, no murder, and no lying Hutchinson.
I can imagine this poor man , when hearing about the murder, would have been horrified, he could have never came forward, even if he had told the truth , nobody would have believed him.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 656
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 7:48 am: | |
G'day Chuck,
In Joel Norris' book: 'Serial Killers, The Growing Menace' there are interviews with four serial killers in prison:
HENRY LEE LUCAS: Confessed to more than 300 murders, claiming that there was a force inside him that he couldn't control. "I hated all my life. I hated everyone. When I first grew up and can remember, I was dressed as a girl by my mother....I grew up and watched prostitution like that with my mother till I was fourteen years old."
CARLTON GARY: Confessed to being at the scene of each murder, but the murders were committed by someone else. He admitted to having mental blackouts.
BOBBY JOE LONG: From his cell on Floridas' death-row, described his murders in detail, his sexual fantasies, how he would sleep deeply after each murder then wake hoping it was all a dream. He rarely saw his father and his mother was always out with other men and working late. He was left with neighbours.
CHARLES MANSON: Was an illegitimate child and said he felt he was an outsider being retrieved from strangers homes at the last minute. Then his mother put him in an institution.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 657
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 8:01 am: | |
G'day Frank,
George Hutchinson turned up at Commercial Street Police Station on November 12, hours after Mary Kelly's inquest had concluded. It was reported in the newspapers on the 13th.
Yes Douglas was right when he said that offenders often slip through the fingers of the police. So howcome people use Barnett's 4 hour interrigation as absolute proof of his innocence?
If Hutchinson thought that he had to come forward because someone saw a short but stout man wearing a Wideawake hat, and he feared that police were going to come knocking on his door any minute, then he should have been hung to put him out of his misery! 
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 334
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 12:00 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Who has used Barnett's interrogation as 'absolute proof' of his innocence?
All I have seen anyone do is suggest to you gently that his interrogation and subsequent release without charge or further suspicion might mean that the police were right to think he was innocent.
If anyone should be providing 'absolute proof' of anything, it should be those who argue that Barnett was guilty.
Love,
Caz |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 659
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 4:44 pm: | |
G'day Caz,
We'll never get absolute proof of anything, a hundred and fifteen years after the events. We have to use sensible speculation!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 231
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 6:01 pm: | |
G'day Leanne,
"We'll never get absolute proof of anything, a hundred and fifteen years after the events. We have to use sensible speculation!"
I absolutely agree. But I don't think that's good enough when one is claiming someone to be a certain suspect. To speculate about MO:s, murder situations, the number of canonical victims etc. -- yes! That's OK with me.
But to stress a specific suspect without compelling evidence is higly questionable from a moral point of view (here we have the responsibility to follow the procedures of general police investigations and courts of law), and far too speculative an approach. By doing that, one is falling into the same trap as Cornwell and Stephen Knight. I believe the burden of evidence have to lay heavily upon those who claim they have the true suspect.
Then you might say: well, that would make any such investigations impossible! And that's just the point! Doing an investigation from a suspect-oriented point of view is totally unacceptable unless you can display facts and proof that is beyond doubts -- and therefore the approach is academically impossible.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 67
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 6:33 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I couldn't agree more. The approach of starting with a suspect and then seeing if speculation can make that suspect fit is entirely backwards in terms of how an investigation should be run. This is because you can always speculate something to connect anyone if you use a bit of imagination.
This is why we have to start with the evidence we have and see how far we can get with it. Investigation has nothing to do with "what questions you want to answer" and everything to do with "what questions can you answer". You can't always get what you want.
- Jeff |
Frank van Oploo
Police Constable
Username: Franko
Post Number: 7
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 7:14 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
You say: "Dont forget weather wise it was a ghastly night, and a person who was dressed in that manner , would hardly wish to attend a lodging house."
Part of the discription given by Hutchinson reads: "Dress: long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed with astrakhan and a dark jacket under; light waistcoat; ...; wore a very thick gold chain;..." The Hebrew alledgedly seen by Hutchinson did not seem to have buttoned up his long dark coat trimmed with astrakhan and as a result, hanging from his waistcoat, a massive gold chain was displayed. Would it be logical in this ghastly weather to leave one's coat unbuttoned? Would it be logical to display a massive gold chain in one of the worst and disreputable streets of Whitechapel? I think this man would wish to be nowhere near Whitechapel!
Hi Leanne,
"So howcome people use Barnett's 4 hour interrigation as absolute proof of his innocence?"
I don't know, you should ask them, not me, if there really are people that stated it to be 'absolute proof'.
Regarding Hutchinson, I think you're missing the point completely.
Not his description made him suspicious, nor his presence alone. Not even his behaviour really made him all that suspicious. As I've said before, there are two things that did. First, the fact that he waited for over 3 and a half days to make his statement + that he made it only hours after Sarah Lewis made her's. And second, his unbelievably detailed description of Mary's companion and the rest of his inveracious story. This is how far the facts go.
Only by suggesting that Hutchinson had something to hide can we explain his presence in Dorset Street, the fact that he didn't come forward on Friday, and the story he told. It's as simple as that.
Again, I'm merely saying that Hutchinson acted suspiciously in direct connection with Mary Kelly's murder, I'm not saying that he was Jack, but only that he could have been. So, to come back to Richard's original remark: here you have another suspect, which in my view is at least as 'good' as your precious Barnett.
FRANK  |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 735
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 7:44 pm: | |
Hi Frank
The Hutchinson business is very strange. I suppose there's a remote possibility that someone dressed like Hutchinson's man was walking around the East End at night like this - there were some crazy nutters out Ripper hunting during that period. All kinds of idiots, like Dr Holt of Willesden, used to make a nuisance of themselves.
But how to explain Hutchinson's unbelievably detailed description? There was one George Hutchinson who was an artist, so I suppose an artist's eye might have been able to take in all that detail. But then surely the police would have asked him to draw the man for them? It would have been a Godsend for them.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 241
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 4:08 am: | |
Hi Frank.
Quotes like' Oh I have lost my Hankerchief'
I have the horrors of drink'
I have had some, and brought it up again.
I saw her leave her room, and return shortly afterwards,
The above remarks , show that these were made by witnesses , who were telling the truth, the hallmarks of lies are not present,
Richard. |
Frank van Oploo
Police Constable
Username: Franko
Post Number: 9
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 11:38 am: | |
Hi Robert,
The Hutchinson business is indeed very strange. In my view his complete story smells of fabrication. And if fabricated, what was the reason for making it up? But of course, anything's possible...
Hutchinson as an artist, hmmm. That's interesting. I can surely imagine Inspector Abberline falling upon his knees and bursting out thanking the Lord. If it wouldn't have helped the police though, it at least would have given us some idea of what Jack might have looked like.
By the way, I'm a great admirer of Rembrandt's work (I read your post about his work on another thread).
Hi there Richard,
Except for the one about the handkerchief, all remarks indeed do not bear the hallmarks of a lie because they were made by witnesses who either told the truth or believed that they were. I'm sure the things they refer to actually happened.
And in itself the remark about the handkerchief bears no hint of being a lie, but as it's part of Hutchinson's story, I doubt if those words ever actually passed Mary Kelly's lips in the situation described.
All the best,
Frank |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 739
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 3:49 pm: | |
Hi Frank
Have you read Bob Hinton's book "From Hell"? It makes a strong case for Hutchinson being the Ripper. I'm not convinced he was, but I think he's a good suspect.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 660
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 4:02 am: | |
G'day,
Richard and I are starting by looking at factual contemporary reports of the living conditions of desserted children in Whitechapel during the mid-late nineteenth century. That's where Barnett lived, he was born in 1858, his father died when he was 6 and his mother disappeared. Such children were left to either steal or starve on the streets, but we're not accusing him of stealing, (that will be a reader's choice). Is that speculating, or is it an aspect that no one in modern times has considered?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 741
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 4:36 am: | |
Hi Leanne
It may be that Barnett used to steal when he was a child. But remember : the better he was at stealing, the more we have to ask why he didn't try this obvious way of augmenting his income in order to keep Kelly off the streets when he lost his job - disembowelling women seems a very drastic solution to the problem!
Robert |
Chuck
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 11:04 pm: | |
Leanne,
I'm not being mean here, but
are you even understanding what I'm trying to say?
I state the following as a fact:
There has been at least one serial killer who has not confessed in his crimes and there has been at least one serial killer who has turned himself in. Those are facts.
I just don't think you get my point.
Do you?
Chuck |
new poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 6:06 pm: | |
Leanne/Richard
I am truly looking forward to seeing your book on sale. I like yourselves and 2 or 3 authors previously believed Joe to be the Ripper. When I suggested this idea on the old boards I was more or less boo-hooed. I do hope your book will be out soon. Don't pay attention to those who want to discredit your theories, it seems to happen to many of the authors who have posted on casebook, but that's the beauty of it ,(to a point) intelligent minds debating the who done it.
Good luck to you both
j |
Frank van Oploo
Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 12
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 9:46 am: | |
Hi Robert,
I haven't read Bob Hinton's "From Hell" (yet), but I sure am interested in it. What I read about the book is that Bob Hinton theorizes Hutchinson to have been a stalker, but I don't think that he was, if he was the killer.
In the newspaper reports George Hutchinson added some things to what he told Abberline and he also contradicted himself there. Although we must handle these reports with caution, they add to my belief that Hutchinson wasn't telling the truth.
The fact that he seems to have only been regarded as a witness by the officials of that time and not a very important one too, seems to contradict his insincerity. But here we must keep in mind that perhaps their inexperience with these kind of cases caused them not to recognize Hutchinson as a suspect, and that it's also possible that official information on him other than we have didn't survive.
I am convinced that Huchinson was hiding something, but - like you - I'm not convinced that he was Jack the Ripper. He only makes a good suspect because of the substance and the timing of his statement(s).
All the best,
Frank
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
