Where was Jack the Ripper's payment? How much did Mary Jane Kelly charge?

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Which only serves to show that the police had not dismissed those witnesses just because their names were not published in the press every week.
In this respect, Hutchinson is treated just the same.

I haven't written a single word about - less still invested any significance in - the presence or otherwise of witnesses' names "in the press every week". I have been discussing the treatment of those witnesses in the fullness of time; the faith ultimately placed in them by senior investigators, and the roles they played - if any - in attempting to identify suspects. Hutchinson's suspect, if real, could not possibly have provided an alibi. He was the most likely suspect in the Kelly murder, adjudged to be the work of the ripper, and yet neither Hutchinson's name nor his description appear in any document penned by a senior police official. To make matters worse, lesser witnesses were described as having gained better "views" (which would simply not be true if Hutchinson was still in the frame), and at least one of these lesser witnesses was invited to confront a suspect with a view to identifying him.

These realities are wholly irreconcilable with the notion that Hutchinson continued to be considered a genuine witnesses in the years following the murderers.

We can do without the unnecessary reminders that certain published documents contained errors, and that the memories of senior detectives "failed" them on certain points; I'm afraid such protests just won't cut it. Unless we're prepared to attribute collective, simultaneous grand-scale amnesia to the police seniority, it is impossible to accept any other explanation than the one gleaned from police sources at the time - that Hutchinson's story was discredited.

"A representative of the Press, in an interview yesterday with Superintendent Foster, of the City police, was assured that the rumour that a portion of the body of the woman found in Mitre-square was missing was totally unfounded."
Morning Advertiser, 2 Oct.

That sounds about right for the good old "Morning Advertiser". I wonder what most people would accept as the more credible explanation; that the police "lied" to the press for no good reason, or that a second-rate booze magazine obtained bogus information from an unreliable source (perhaps the same source that supplied them with misleading and inaccurate information concerning Hutchinson)?

And another...

"The police at Leman-street refuse to give any information, and some officials who had come from Scotland-yard denied that such an arrest had been made, but this statement was, of course, incorrect, seeing that the arrest is admitted by the prisoner's relatives. The prisoner is a Jew."
Star, 9 Nov.

That isn't evidence of the police lying to the press. It is evidence of them refusing to provide information on one particular issue. You've yet to explain the logic of the police supposedly "giving the reporters the brush-off in an attempt to steer them away from the Isaacs/Astrachan investigation". Firstly, there was no “Isaacs/Astrakhan investigation” at any point, less still on the 13th November, and secondly, have you considered the potentially dire conaequences of employing such reckless and senseless subterfuge? What if the general public, lulled into a false sense of security by the “false” claim that Hutchinson’s story was discredited, concluded that Astrakhan men were therefore “safe” and didn’t need to be reported?

It really amazes me how you can be so comfortable with elaborate, pointless ploys involving the police lying to the press, and yet can’t seem to get your head around the basic concept of journalistic invention and embellishment.

“What did the Echo have to offer the police for them to suddenly engage this tabloid with 'facts' not to be shared with their peers?”

Use your imagination.

Why do some press sources receive preferential treatment over others? What was so special about Tom Bulling that he received more inside information than rival journalists? Because they had a better reputation, perhaps? Because they weren’t known for adopting a hostile stance towards the police’s efforts? Because some senior police figure felt he could rely on a particular press figure, because they were both members of the same ornithological society? All you need to appreciate is that it happens in real life all the time, and it certainly happened in this case.

“Only 'you' make this claim, and no-one has come to your aid to help you prove something that simply never happened.”

That’s because I didn’t need “aid”, and nor do I need “help to prove” something that certainly did happen. You obviously have a rather over-inflated opinion of the worth of your objections if you think I require some sort of army to combat them. You can place whatever outlandish spin you like on the outcome of the communication between police and Echo, but the evidence clearly demonstrates that the Echo did visit Commercial Street Police Station on the 14th November, just as they reported. We’ve been through this enough times now, and I suggest you stop pretending you have the energy and inclination to go through it all again. You can try, by all means, and we’ll see what the outcome might be. Otherwise, you’d be better off revisiting earlier threads that relate specifically to the Echo and Hutchinson’s discrediting, and reacquainting yourself with my position. It hasn’t changed, believe me.

“Bowyer did not mention the man in his police statement on 9th Nov. because the rumor on the street was that Kelly had been killed after 9:00 am.”

It’s no use regurgitating the same exceptionally unlikely and baseless claim – which, in this case, paints both Abberline and Bowyer in the poorest light imaginable – and expect me not to counter with the same response; which, incidentally, was this:

Even in the exceptionally unlikely event that Bowyer was oblivious to news of an early morning time of death when he provided his statement, he would unquestionably have been aware of it long before Hutchinson made himself known, and certainly in advance of the inquest. If he really saw a man in the court on Friday morning, he would certainly have “reflected on his sighting” before he took the stand on the 12th, and would certainly have mentioned his sighting when he did so. The fact that there is no mention from Bowyer of any Friday morning stranger tells us that there wasn’t one.

It presumably never occurred to you that a competent investigator will encourage his witnesses to disregard anything they might have read in the newspapers, and relate their experiences from a specified point in time. How would the police have reacted, I wonder, upon discovery of the "Friday sighting" press article? "Look at this, Fred. I knew we should have asked him about that stuff; I did tell you! Surely you've been around the east end long enough to know that all working class people are gullible, cap-doffing imbeciles who never volunteer information without first being guided by press rumour?!".When you suggest, preposterously, that the police unwittingly encouraged the practice of witnesses dictating for themselves what was important to include and exclude from their evidence – because of what they had concluded, erroneously, from press gossip – you perhaps don’t realise what a damning indictment you make against their professionalism and competence.

The police would not have been so cretinous as to allow vital evidence to be suppressed and ignored because they didn’t think to prevent witnesses from being guided by false press reports.

“Bowyer knew nothing about this 'scream'.”

So bang goes your argument that stooopid, easily impressionable Bowyer based his evidence on press rumour, then?

He followed the press closely enough to pick up on reports of a later morning time of death, but completely missed Mrs. Kennedy’s report of a scream?

I’m afraid it is very clear that you’re making most of this up as you go along.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

We most assuredly do read about other witnesses later on, as the articles I’ve referenced make very clear indeed. Hutchinson is the conspicuous exception.

Of notable interest is the summary of principal witnesses descriptions published in the press on the 13th Nov. in one large paragraph.
The reader is reminded of all the descriptions the police have been searching for since the Bucks Row tragedy. Yet since the publication of each respective witnesses testimony the press have not found it necessary to keep the witness in the headlines or even as a footnote at the end of a column.
Which only serves to show that the police had not dismissed those witnesses just because their names were not published in the press every week.
In this respect, Hutchinson is treated just the same.

Don’t even contemplate regurgitating that Isaacs nonsense all over again; we all know where that got you. If you are to credit Abberline with those spurious exhortations attributed to him in that uncorroborated press article, you presumably accept that he was the utter plonker depicted therein? The police’s short-lived interest in Isaacs had absolutely bugger-all to do with any perception on their part that he “resembled” Astrakhan – which he didn’t, incidentally. Here’s something you might appreciate from the Echo, 7th December, in relation to Isaacs:

“The East End police this morning gave an emphatic denial to the report that the Whitechapel murderer was arrested yesterday. “The only ground” assert the officials, “for such a story is that a cab containing a prisoner drove up to the police-station, and the cry was at once raised, “There’s Jack the Ripper”. The man was apprehended on a warrant for robbery. The authorities declare there is not the slightest reason for asserting that he has been in any way engaged in the commission of the murders”.

I have a number of denials by the police, here's one for you:

"A representative of the Press, in an interview yesterday with Superintendent Foster, of the City police, was assured that the rumour that a portion of the body of the woman found in Mitre-square was missing was totally unfounded."
Morning Advertiser, 2 Oct.

And another...

"The police at Leman-street refuse to give any information, and some officials who had come from Scotland-yard denied that such an arrest had been made, but this statement was, of course, incorrect, seeing that the arrest is admitted by the prisoner's relatives. The prisoner is a Jew."
Star, 9 Nov.

Yes Ben, the police LIED to the press. Giving the reporters the brush-off in an attempt to steer them away from the Isaacs/Astrachan investigation is very much in keeping with their attitude towards the press.

This is nonsense.

The Echo obtained the true “reason” for the “reduced importance” directly from the police – no “interpretation” required – and it related to doubts about Hutchinson’s credibility; nothing remotely to do with any “focus” being “divided”. You can either accept the article or dream up a bad excuse for rejecting it, but don’t pretend it says something it clearly doesn’t.

Oh, and here are two more which explain the reason for the above:

"We have only probabilities to go upon, and we must piece these together as best we may."
Star 10 Nov.

"The result of the police reticence has been the creation of a market for false news,..."
Star 12 Nov.

Piecing probabilities together and creating false news..... who'da thought!

We’re talking about Commercial Street Police Station, not “Scotland Yard”, and yes, the Echo most assuredly and provably DID establish a communication with the police ....

What did the Echo have to offer the police for them to suddenly engage this tabloid with 'facts' not to be shared with their peers?
Nothing...

Claiming you have "proved" your argument, a somewhat repetitive stance, does not change the fact you have failed to prove a connection which quite frankly can not be proven.
Only 'you' make this claim, and no-one has come to your aid to help you prove something that simply never happened.
What the Echo received by way of information from Commercial St. was publicly available.
They had no special relationship, except in your mind.

The basis for my objection is perfectly simple – it is utterly impossible for Bowyer to have persisted in his supposed (by you) ignorance of news regarding an early morning time of death until after learning of Hutchinson’s description. By the time his turn came on the witness stand, he would have been well aware of other evidence pointing towards a small hours death and, accordingly, well aware of the potential significance of his 3.00am sighting.

Before the Inquest, has nothing to do with it.
Bowyer did not mention the man in his police statement on 9th Nov. because the rumor on the street was that Kelly had been killed after 9:00 am.
What Bowyer learned over the weekend had no bearing on what he wrote to police in his statement.

What was written on his statement is what the Coroner will question him on.
And that is what happened.

Bowyer’s sighting of a man in the court allegedly occurred after Lewis saw her loiterer, closer in time to the “scream”,...

Bowyer knew nothing about this 'scream'.

[John G]

With respect, Jon, I struggle to understand why you're finding this so difficult. Let's have the relevant quote from the PMG article again.

"One discrepancy only have I noted, and this is that the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty-five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view".

This criterion excludes Hutchinson, whose description of his mid-thirties suspect involved an extremely memorable front view.

Yes, I realise it excludes one or two others as well, but he can be forgiven for misremembering details of Lawende's description (for instance), since it was taken by a separate police force, and he was unlikely to have had any contact with the witness himself. He cannot be forgiven for forgetting all about the unambiguously face-to-face sighting alleged by Hutchinson, with whom he had direct personal contact.

Here was a golden opportunity for Klosowski-touting Abberline to establish a potential link between his brand new suspect and the facial description provided by his star witness from 1888, and yet when it came to inferring parallels with eyewitness descriptions, Hutchinson doesn't receive a mention. In fact, worse that not receiving a mention, he is completely nullified by Abberline's exclusive criteria.

I wouldn't assume, incidentally, that Abberline was referring to the witnesses themselves when he wrote that "all agree, too, that he was a foreign-looking man". Surely not even the most senile of former detectives could have run away with such a patently false idea. I can only assume he was referring to his former police colleagues.



But all of them rely on police reminiscences to formulate their conclusions, which, according to you, is a "desperate move".



Eh? I thought your Bowyer sighting was supposed to have occurred at 3.00am? Thats an hour at most before the scream, not "six hours prior"! By the time of the inquest, Bowyer would have been well aware of the "scream"'s potential significance.



Yes, but I'm looking for evidence that this supposedly common occurrence "occurred" on the morning in question. I was under the impression that you had evidence of a "number" of strangers "coming in and out of the court" that morning. My mistake, evidently.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

I find Abberline's comments perplexing to say the least. I mean, wouldn't they exclude, by implication, just about every witness apart from Mrs Long?For instance, Schwartz, PC Smith, Lawende, Hutchinson and even Mary Ann Cox?

[Ben]

Oh no, say it ain't so.

"Say it ain't so
Jon will not go

Turn the lights off
Carry him home"

- Blink-182, 1999

[Ben]

The "they" used by Abberline is wrong, the line therefore is entirely aimed at Mrs Long. "She only saw him from his back", is what Abberline should have wrote.

But why was it "entirely aimed at Mrs Long"?

Why bother referencing "Mrs Long" at all when he had the opportunity to wheel out the Hutch-bombshell in "support" of Klososwki's candidacy? Your brand new theory seems to be that Abberline was a forgetful old duffer by 1903; your favourite detective reduced to a ponderous, addle-minded buffoon the instant you thought it might aid your cause to depict him as such. Trouble is, how does your newly revised perception of Abberline's recollective abilities square up with his apparent ability to recall only lesser witnesses, with whom he had little or no personal contact? Why did they remain at the forefront of his mind, while star witness Hutchinson - who could have been such an asset in the "case" against Klosowski - did not?

He didn't need to make any reference to gold chains and spats; he only needed to make reference to the fact that the best witness of the bunch - the extremely memorable, non-discredited wonder that was Hutchinson - had seen his "middle-aged" suspect face to face. But he didn't, and the question I'm asking you is why.

It doesn't bother me if Abberline had a "failing memory" when it came to recalling some of the circumstances surrounding other, less memorable, less important witnesses (as they all would have been, effectively, if Hutchinson wasn't discredited); he at least mentioned them, as other senior police officials did.

Hutchinson claimed to have seen the suspect's face, and that face was surly, foreign-looking, and sported a dark moustache - just like Klosowski's. There is absolutely no chance of Abberline "forgetting" this. If Hutchinson's evidence was still considered genuine by 1903, Abberline would certainly have seized the opportunity to establish favourable parallels with his suspect.

Debate over.

Oh, and as I've demonstrated a trillion times, Isaacs' arrest on 6th December doesn't provide the vaguest fart of an indication that Abberline "still believe(d) in Hutchinson" at that stage.

I think you will find the Metropolitan Police issued descriptions of all three witnesses (Lawende, Schwartz, Smith) in their Police Gazette on 19th Oct.
To try create a wedge to separate Abberline from the City Police suspect description betrays another desperate attempt to salvage Abberline's failing memory.

What's silly old Abberline gone and done now? Not helped your latest poor argument, that's what; which means the very man whose opinion you previously relied upon so heavily - to salvage Hutchinson's credibility, no less - must now be dismissed as a dodderer in order to salvage Hutchinson's credibility! It's a little too ironic ("and yeah, I really do think...").

My point was a very simple one: Abberline the Senile can be forgiven for "forgetting" details of witnesses with whom he had considerably less contact than Hutchinson, and whose sightings were considerably less memorable. There is no way he could have "forgotten" that Hutchinson's sighting was front-on.

No, I am not "throwing Lawende under a bus" - that's what you're trying to do, without success. I'm quite sure that Abberline and his colleagues all believed that Lawende provided a genuine sighting - fleeting though it may have been - of the actual murderer. While it is true that he made no mention of the man having a foreign appearance, it is possible that the police concluded for other reasons that the ripper was "foreign". Indeed, if events occurred as Anderson related, Lawende may have identified Kosmisnki without realising he was a "Polish Jew".

If you feel confident, please tell me, when & where did Anderson's I.D. take place, who was the witness and who was in attendance. Then tell me how you "know".

I'm not saying I "know" any such thing, or even that I have particularly strong views on the subject. You, on the other hand, do. You confidently and comfortably assert that none of it happened, and disparage reputable authors for "relying" on police interviews and memoirs - describing them as "desperate" for doing so. Keep digging that hole by all means, but would you mind doing so on a more appropriate thread? Take it to the Anderson/Kosminski threads, and I'll be fascinated to see how your denunciations are received there.

If you remember, my reply was in response to you mentioning Lewis's Loiterer, and the Bethnal Green man outside the Britannia. I said, because they were in the immediate vicinity and near the time of the scream

But not as near to the scene, nor as close in time to the scream, as your Bowyer "sighting".

Why, who was talking about the scream?

Why, your favourite "witness" Mrs. Kennedy, of course! Don't tell me you've forgotten all about her? Here she is, regurgitating Lewis's story to the Evening News on the 10th November, well in advance of the inquest:

"Passing the Britannia, commonly known as Ringer's, at the top of Dorset street, at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man, whom she identified as having accosted her a night or two before.

THE CRY OF "MURDER (big, unmissable letters!)

She passed them without taking any notice, and went home to bed. Between half past three and four o'clock in the morning Mrs. Kennedy, who passed a very restless night, heard a cry of "Murder" that seemed to come from the opposite side of the court."

And if that didn't clue Bowyer in to the possibility of an early morning time of death, I'm sure the vast bulk of press reports from that same day would have done the trick. There is, quite simply, no possibility of Bowyer persisting in his supposed (by you and no one else) ignorance of all reports indicating an early morning time of death; not even a slight one.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Oh no, say it ain't so.

It ain't so!

[Wickerman]

With respect, Jon, I struggle to understand why you're finding this so difficult. Let's have the relevant quote from the PMG article again.

"One discrepancy only have I noted, and this is that the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty-five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view".

Yes Ben, we covered the whole paragraph and the statement is incorrect. The age estimate includes Hutchinson (34-35 yrs old), and Mrs Long (over 40). The other main witnesses like Lawende and Schwartz both said about 30 yrs old, and neither witness described a foreigner, so the "they" who only saw Jack from the rear does not include Schwartz or Lawende either.
(So much for Anderson's witness, I guess)
The "they" used by Abberline is wrong, the line therefore is entirely aimed at Mrs Long. "She only saw him from his back", is what Abberline should have wrote.

Trusting in recollections and memoirs required you jump through hoops to explain the unexplainable. Abberline's memory was letting him down, so why he did not detail out the Astrachan suspect, gaiters, gold chain and all is irrelevant. Abberline did still believe in Hutchinson's suspect as late as Dec. 6th when Isaacs was arrested, which is almost a whole month, a good three weeks at least after the Star published their gaff concerning a "discredited" witness.
They didn't repeat it, and no other paper picked up on it either. Most experienced press outlets knew better.

Yes, I realise it excludes one or two others as well, but he can be forgiven for misremembering details of Lawende's description (for instance), since it was taken by a separate police force, and he was unlikely to have had any contact with the witness himself.

Are you dabbling in apologetics now Ben?
I think you will find the Metropolitan Police issued descriptions of all three witnesses (Lawende, Schwartz, Smith) in their Police Gazette on 19th Oct.
To try create a wedge to separate Abberline from the City Police suspect description betrays another desperate attempt to salvage Abberline's failing memory.

I wouldn't assume, incidentally, that Abberline was referring to the witnesses themselves when he wrote that "all agree, too, that he was a foreign-looking man". Surely not even the most senile of former detectives could have run away with such a patently false idea. I can only assume he was referring to his former police colleagues.

Oh... so now you're throwing Lawende under the bus?
He didn't describe a "foreign-looking man", and now you are saying Abberline's former police colleagues did not believe Lawende?

But all of them rely on police reminiscences to formulate their conclusions, which, according to you, is a "desperate move".

When memoirs and recollections have been shown to be unreliable, this conclusion applies to everyone Ben, author and student alike.
Sure, some claims have been verified, "some", in the main, they can't be trusted, certainly it is folly to use these writings to support a theory.

If you feel confident, please tell me, when & where did Anderson's I.D. take place, who was the witness and who was in attendance. Then tell me how you "know".

Eh? I thought your Bowyer sighting was supposed to have occurred at 3.00am? Thats an hour at most before the scream, not "six hours prior"!

If you remember, my reply was in response to you mentioning Lewis's Loiterer, and the Bethnal Green man outside the Britannia. I said, because they were in the immediate vicinity and near the time of the scream.

By the time of the inquest, Bowyer would have been well aware of the "scream"'s potential significance.

Why, who was talking about the scream?

Quote:
"It is most extraordinary that nothing should have been heard by the neighbours, as there are people passing backwards and forwards at all hours of the night, but no one heard so much as a scream."
(My emphasis)

Remember your oft. quoted "parroting" article (Oh, murder) by the Star......I'll remind you what the Star reporter concluded.
"A Star reporter who inquired into the matter extracted from one of the women the confession that the story was, as far as she was concerned, a fabrication; and he came to the conclusion that it was to be disregarded."

Even Mrs Prater lied to the press on the 10th:
"She had heard nothing during the night,.."
Likely at the behest of Scotland Yard.

Therefore, no local "gossip" about screams of murder to play on Bowyer's mind and jolt his memory.

Yes, but I'm looking for evidence that this supposedly common occurrence "occurred" on the morning in question. I was under the impression that you had evidence of a "number" of strangers "coming in and out of the court" that morning. My mistake, evidently.

No mistake, check what Cox said.
"I heard men going in and out, several go in and out".

It was raining hard yet several men were going in and out of the court.
Busy place at the best of times, and the worst of times.

[Scott Nelson]

Thanks for the debate, but I think that's probably it. I can't see much progress ahead.

Oh no, say it ain't so.

[Ben]

“We don't read anything from other witnesses either, they all fade from publicity”

No, they don’t.

Wrong.

Stop repeating the same erroneous claims as though they have never been addressed. We most assuredly do read about other witnesses later on, as the articles I’ve referenced make very clear indeed. Hutchinson is the conspicuous exception.

“One very significant and patently obvious clue that Hutchinson's sighting was still foremost in Abberline's mind is his reaction on Dec 6th at the apprehension of Isaacs - "Keep this quiet; we have got the right man at last. This is a big thing.”…”

Don’t even contemplate regurgitating that Isaacs nonsense all over again; we all know where that got you. If you are to credit Abberline with those spurious exhortations attributed to him in that uncorroborated press article, you presumably accept that he was the utter plonker depicted therein? The police’s short-lived interest in Isaacs had absolutely bugger-all to do with any perception on their part that he “resembled” Astrakhan – which he didn’t, incidentally. Here’s something you might appreciate from the Echo, 7th December, in relation to Isaacs:

“The East End police this morning gave an emphatic denial to the report that the Whitechapel murderer was arrested yesterday. “The only ground” assert the officials, “for such a story is that a cab containing a prisoner drove up to the police-station, and the cry was at once raised, “There’s Jack the Ripper”. The man was apprehended on a warrant for robbery. The authorities declare there is not the slightest reason for asserting that he has been in any way engaged in the commission of the murders”.

“Who said anything about "treat as gospel"? The police divide their focus from primarily being on Astrachan, to now looking for both Blotchy & Astrachan. Which some of the press interpret as "reduced importance" with respect to Astrachan.”

This is nonsense.

The Echo obtained the true “reason” for the “reduced importance” directly from the police – no “interpretation” required – and it related to doubts about Hutchinson’s credibility; nothing remotely to do with any “focus” being “divided”. You can either accept the article or dream up a bad excuse for rejecting it, but don’t pretend it says something it clearly doesn’t.

“Well let me educate you for future reference, you will find this entirely consistent with my posted views.
- Interviews with witnesses which are published in the press are 'statements'.
- Compositions which suggest to the reader that the press know the direction of the investigation by Scotland Yard, and purport to hint they obtained 'inside' knowledge, are press opinion.”

I wonder if you even realise the extent of your own glaring double standards and circular arguments? Probably not, but I’ll try to render assistance as best I can. You describe your first category as “interviews with witnesses”, which means you’ve decided, uncritically, that the interviews are genuine, as opposed to gossip or invention; and that the “witnesses” are equally so, as opposed to being the ramblings of publicity/money-seekers. But when you describe your second category, you suddenly dispense with the uncritical, face-value acceptance, and introduce some very negative, misleading and manipulative terminology, such as “suggest to the reader” and “purport to hint”. That pisses me right off, Jon – I’ll be quite honest – and I suggest you stop it; you don’t have the subtlety to pull the stunt off effectively. Here, let me “educate” you in the pitfalls of trying, unsuccessfully, to be manipulative, and flip those two categories:

- Compositions which suggest to the reader that they’ve managed to track down a genuine witness, hitherto glossed over by the authorities, who purport to hint that they have seen something of significance.

- Reports based on direct police communication.

Catergory #2 looks an awful lot better now, doesn’t it, now that we've relocated all those "suggests" and "purports" and "hints"?

“There was no communication between the Echo and Scotland Yard”

We’re talking about Commercial Street Police Station, not “Scotland Yard”, and yes, the Echo most assuredly and provably DID establish a communication with the police on the ground by attending the police station personally. Unrelenting copy-and-pastes if you try to revive that debate again. The Echo stopped complaining about a lack of police communication as soon as they got some in mid-November. They didn’t “pretend to convey the impression” that the police was their source – they demonstrated very clearly that it was. If you say one more time that the Echo didn’t provide a source in their 13th November article, I can only assume you’re either disturbingly forgetful or, frankly, fibbing for some reason.

“You are the one insisting there HAD to be a connection IF Bowyer saw the man at 3:00am, but you scurry to your bolt-hole when pressed to explain the basis of that objection.”

Don’t you dare accuse me of “scurrying”. Show me a single point that I haven’t addressed. Direct me to a single discussion we’ve had where the “last word” (coveted by you, apparently) hasn’t been mine. The basis for my objection is perfectly simple – it is utterly impossible for Bowyer to have persisted in his supposed (by you) ignorance of news regarding an early morning time of death until after learning of Hutchinson’s description. By the time his turn came on the witness stand, he would have been well aware of other evidence pointing towards a small hours death and, accordingly, well aware of the potential significance of his 3.00am sighting. Even your original idea – that Bowyer decided for himself what was and wasn’t important on the basis of press rumour – is complete nonsense, unless you’re prepared to accept gross incompetence on Abberline’s part.

“Cox did not mention this man in her police statement, just like Bowyer.”

That’s because she didn’t see a “man”, unlike Bowyer (well, according to you and nobody else).

If you can see a man, you’re in a position to describe that man, as Bowyer presumably was.

“Likewise Bowyer was there to explain his discovery, not to speculate on seeing one particular man, who may or may not have been there legitimately, six hours before she was last seen alive.
Lewis did mention the loiterer because his presence was just prior to her hearing the 'scream', which makes his presence of potential importance.”

For feck’s sake, Jon!

Bowyer’s sighting of a man in the court allegedly occurred after Lewis saw her loiterer, closer in time to the “scream”, so how on earth do you even begin to contemplate arguing that the 2.30am loiterer outside the court is of “potential importance”, while the 3.00am loiterer inside the court is not?

No, it is not the case that Bowyer’s sole function was to “explain his discovery”; he was there to provide any evidence that might be of “potential importance” to the investigation, which a sighting of a stranger at 3.00am unquestionably was.

I think that’s probably you done with this.

Thanks for the debate, but I think that's probably it. I can't see much progress ahead.

You're being rightly and roundly taken to task on another thread for your eccentric approach to press sources, and I suggest you occupy yourself with that.

[Wickerman]

That's right, Jon - nothing about Hutchinson after that. Plenty about other witnesses, .....

We don't read anything from other witnesses either, they all fade from publicity, the press move on, but this is no indication what the police are doing beyond the eyes and ears of the press.

One very significant and patently obvious clue that Hutchinson's sighting was still foremost in Abberline's mind is his reaction on Dec 6th at the apprehension of Isaacs - "Keep this quiet; we have got the right man at last. This is a big thing.”
A man stated to personify the description given by Hutchinson.
Hardly the dismissive reaction we would expect had Hutchinson already been "discredited", as he clearly was not.

Yes, and if his "preference" was for "foreign-looking" Klosowski, what better witness to wheel out in support of that theory than "foreign-looking man"-spotter extraordinaire George Hutchinson?

Which he did, ie - the "foreign looking man".

A closer look, yes, but that doesn't mean excluding anything and everything that was not immediately compatible with Bond's time of death; which the police did not, in any case, treat as gospel, or even particularly agree with.

Who said anything about "treat as gospel"? The police divide their focus from primarily being on Astrachan, to now looking for both Blotchy & Astrachan. Which some of the press interpret as "reduced importance" with respect to Astrachan. Reasonably so.
This isn't the only time the police are given an estimated time of death that is not entirely consistent with witness testimonies - but they still are required to investigate.

I've noticed a naughty little habit of yours, Jon. Whenever you endorse a press claim as accurate, you call it a "statement", but if an article argues against your conclusions - as the more reliable ones tend to do - it gets demoted to "press opinion".

Well let me educate you for future reference, you will find this entirely consistent with my posted views.
- Interviews with witnesses which are published in the press are 'statements'.
- Compositions which suggest to the reader that the press know the direction of the investigation by Scotland Yard, and purport to hint they obtained 'inside' knowledge, are press opinion.

Simple really, their press 'opinion' never has a source, unless that source be the City police.

In reality, the Echo article that so inconveniences you does not convey any hint of their own opinions at all; it is simply a report of a communication between that newspaper and their source. In this case the "source" was the police, whereas in the case of your interesting press selections, it was an unidentified "customer" who might have spoken to Mrs. McCarthy who, in turn, might have spoken to the press.

There was no communication between the Echo and Scotland Yard - the Echo told us that themselves. Which is why your contrary opinion on this pales into insignificance.
We have it in writing from the horses mouth.

But you don't, and it's one of your major stumbling blocks. You're prepared to uphold any old press nonsense as accurate on the grounds that it can't be "proved" false.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, I was under the impression that was your role. Trying, somewhat miserably, to legitimize press conjecture which provides no source and pretends to convey the impression 'they' have inside knowledge of the police investigation?

No.

I completely reject the premise - remember? - so there is no onus on me to "explain" any such thing.

Well who is then?
You are the one insisting there HAD to be a connection IF Bowyer saw the man at 3:00am, but you scurry to your bolt-hole when pressed to explain the basis of that objection.
That is as good as admitting that there is no connection, not that you need to. Six hours had passed so that time window speaks for itself.

But it was mentioned at the inquest, unlike Bowyer's mythical Friday sighting, despite being considerably less valuable owing to the fact that Cox only heard footsteps, as opposed to seeing a person who could then be described!

Cox did not mention this man in her police statement, just like Bowyer.
This detail only surfaced because of questions by the Coroner.
Cox was present to speak about her sighting around midnight, not to speculate on hearing a man in the court six hours later!
Likewise Bowyer was there to explain his discovery, not to speculate on seeing one particular man, who may or may not have been there legitimately, six hours before she was last seen alive.
Lewis did mention the loiterer because his presence was just prior to her hearing the 'scream', which makes his presence of potential importance.

The Coroner never asked Bowyer if he saw or heard any men in the court at any time, so naturally he made no statement to that effect. It's that simple.

[Ben]

With respect, Jon, I struggle to understand why you're finding this so difficult. Let's have the relevant quote from the PMG article again.

"One discrepancy only have I noted, and this is that the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty-five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view".

This criterion excludes Hutchinson, whose description of his mid-thirties suspect involved an extremely memorable front view.

Yes, I realise it excludes one or two others as well, but he can be forgiven for misremembering details of Lawende's description (for instance), since it was taken by a separate police force, and he was unlikely to have had any contact with the witness himself. He cannot be forgiven for forgetting all about the unambiguously face-to-face sighting alleged by Hutchinson, with whom he had direct personal contact.

Here was a golden opportunity for Klosowski-touting Abberline to establish a potential link between his brand new suspect and the facial description provided by his star witness from 1888, and yet when it came to inferring parallels with eyewitness descriptions, Hutchinson doesn't receive a mention. In fact, worse that not receiving a mention, he is completely nullified by Abberline's exclusive criteria.

I wouldn't assume, incidentally, that Abberline was referring to the witnesses themselves when he wrote that "all agree, too, that he was a foreign-looking man". Surely not even the most senile of former detectives could have run away with such a patently false idea. I can only assume he was referring to his former police colleagues.

I know what you are trying to do but, like me, not all of them believe Anderson either.

But all of them rely on police reminiscences to formulate their conclusions, which, according to you, is a "desperate move".

Clearly because both those men were in the immediate vicinity near the time of the scream, not six hours prior.

Eh? I thought your Bowyer sighting was supposed to have occurred at 3.00am? Thats an hour at most before the scream, not "six hours prior"! By the time of the inquest, Bowyer would have been well aware of the "scream"'s potential significance.

A court where prostitutes reside not having men coming and going would be unusual

Yes, but I'm looking for evidence that this supposedly common occurrence "occurred" on the morning in question. I was under the impression that you had evidence of a "number" of strangers "coming in and out of the court" that morning. My mistake, evidently.

All the best,
Ben

[Scott Nelson]

Jon Smyth vs Ben Holm

Better than

Ben Holm vs Fisherman ?

[Wickerman]

And that's perfectly fine, Jon.

It still doesn't explain Abberline's failure to mention Hutchinson's description, though.

Not sure what you mean by that Ben, Abberline described the ripper as a "a foreign-looking man", and Hutchinson also described him as "Jewish Appearance", and "Looked like a foreigner".
Mrs Long said, "He looked like a foreigner."

It seems like he got it right to me.
Of course, if you are looking for specific mention of the Astrachan coat or gold watch then you will be disappointed, but he didn't mention the brown low-crowned felt hat, or dark coat, or shabby genteel of Mrs Long's description either.

Maybe you are just overlooking the obvious - both Long and Hutchinson saw a foreign looking man, and Abberline was using both sightings because he used Hutchinson's estimate of 35 yrs old as a minimum, along with Long's estimate of 40 yrs old.
Good enough for Abberline, just not good enough for Ben, right?

Then perhaps you ought to inform Messrs, Begg, Fido, Evans, Skinner, Rumbelow (etc) that they've spent the last several decades making "desperate moves".

I know what you are trying to do but, like me, not all of them believe Anderson either.

Long, Cox and Schwartz were all ostensibly "rear" sightings, incidentally.

Neither Cox nor Schwartz described a "foreign looking man" though.

P.S. That's also nonsense, by the way, about the coroner not being interested in sightings of men who weren't seen in Kelly's company. Neither Lewis's loiterer nor her Bethnal Green botherer were observed in Kelly's company, and yet both were mentioned at the inquest.

Clearly because both those men were in the immediate vicinity near the time of the scream, not six hours prior.

P.P.S. That's also nonsense, by the way, about "strangers coming in and out of the court" in the early morning - a "number" of them, you say. No evidence for that at all.

A court where prostitutes reside not having men coming and going would be unusual, like Prater said:
" It was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased."

[Ben]

Hutchinson gave his statement on the 12th, and the press are still writing about him for the next 2-3 weeks, but nothing after that.

That's right, Jon - nothing about Hutchinson after that. Plenty about other witnesses, but nothing more about that one star witness whose description, if true, would have been worth a million Lawendes. I wonder why that might be? Not the simplest explanation, surely? Not the obvious one - because Hutchinson's statement was "considerably discounted" at the time, as reported by a reliable (for a change!) press source?

Can you honestly think of a simpler reason why the police would invest most importance in one of the Jewish witnesses, despite none of them acquiring anything like as "good" a sighting as Hutchinson's? Your previous suggestion - that the police conspired to lie about the whole thing in documents never intended for public consumption - simply won't do, and nor will any of that sorry stuff about Astrakhan being "exonerated" thanks to a magic, totally impossible alibi.

A "foreign looking man" is a foreign looking man, whether Mrs Long saw him or Hutchinson. Abberline was influenced by the suggestion likely due to his own preferences.

Yes, and if his "preference" was for "foreign-looking" Klosowski, what better witness to wheel out in support of that theory than "foreign-looking man"-spotter extraordinaire George Hutchinson?

Dr. Bond's report is not press opinion, it constitutes medical evidence. And, it provides a perfectly reasonable cause for the police to take a closer look at Cox's evidence.

A closer look, yes, but that doesn't mean excluding anything and everything that was not immediately compatible with Bond's time of death; which the police did not, in any case, treat as gospel, or even particularly agree with.

Press opinion never has been, and never will be, regarded by anyone as "evidence".

I've noticed a naughty little habit of yours, Jon. Whenever you endorse a press claim as accurate, you call it a "statement", but if an article argues against your conclusions - as the more reliable ones tend to do - it gets demoted to "press opinion". In reality, the Echo article that so inconveniences you does not convey any hint of their own opinions at all; it is simply a report of a communication between that newspaper and their source. In this case the "source" was the police, whereas in the case of your interesting press selections, it was an unidentified "customer" who might have spoken to Mrs. McCarthy who, in turn, might have spoken to the press.

So long as the Echo complained that the police tell them nothing, the onus is on you to prove otherwise.

"So long as" being the operative phrase here, since we know full well that they didn't complain after mid-November, after their appetite for police information had been satiated.

If, at any time I accuse the press of invention or misrepresenting the facts, it is because I have written evidence to prove my case.

But you don't, and it's one of your major stumbling blocks. You're prepared to uphold any old press nonsense as accurate on the grounds that it can't be "proved" false. A competent investigator works very differently; he uses his powers of judgement and discernment to separate the wheat from the obvious chaff. The other problem is your persistent failure to practice what you preach - if a press article is injurious to one of your conclusions, to the lavatory it must instantly be consigned, whether you can "prove" it false or not. Such was the fate of the Echo on the 13th November.

Go ahead, try explain where the "obvious" connection is between a man in the court at 3:00 am, and a murder after 9:00 am, six hours later.

No.

I completely reject the premise - remember? - so there is no onus on me to "explain" any such thing. Bowyer would not have persisted in his acceptance of a late-morning time of death, nor would he have decided for himself what details to include on that fragile basis. It just doesn't work like that, and I hope I've explained why more than enough times now.

There was a man heard passing in and out of the court about 6:00 am, nothing assumed to be critical about that. No "great interest", no orders to break any doors down to find this man.

But it was mentioned at the inquest, unlike Bowyer's mythical Friday sighting, despite being considerably less valuable owing to the fact that Cox only heard footsteps, as opposed to seeing a person who could then be described!

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Are you suggesting that witness sightings go down in value if, after three weeks, “nothing of value came of their sightings”? How does that work?

I've been asking you that question since you've been peddling this idea for years. Hutchinson gave his statement on the 12th, and the press are still writing about him for the next 2-3 weeks, but nothing after that.
It's normal Ben, as can be seen with the earlier witnesses.

Is there anything wrong with the much more simple and obvious explanation, which is that “nothing of value came of their sightings” because the suspects in question didn’t allow themselves to be caught during that period of time?

Perfect, now apply that to Hutchinson and you might begin to accept his disappearance from the public eye is perfectly normal.

How is it remotely the fault of the witness or his description if the police fail to apprehend the person described?

You don't think the suspect was invented then?

Anderson wasn’t writing “three weeks after those witnesses gave their statements”; he was writing considerably later, after something "of value" did finally come of a sighting, at least in the minds of the police.

The letter I quoted was dated 23rd Oct. 1888, - three weeks after the incident.

If anything better had turned up, or if seemingly “better” evidence hadn’t been discredited – no names mentioned, of course – I’m sure the police would have gone with that instead.

A "foreign looking man" is a foreign looking man, whether Mrs Long saw him or Hutchinson. Abberline was influenced by the suggestion likely due to his own preferences.

You show me the “documented evidence” that Hutchinson’s “very reduced importance” had anything remotely to do with the police supporting Dr. Bond and his suggested 1.00-2.00am time of death for Kelly, to the exclusion or marginalisation of other evidence.

Like I said, "what" other evidence?
Your opinions?, your interpretations?, your assumptions?
What other evidence exists?

While you’re at it, show me anyone who agrees with you in that regard.

Why do you lean so much on others for support?, stand on your own two feet man.

The actual “documented evidence” informs us that it was because of his failure to attend the inquest, which cannot be the whole story, as I’ve discussed elsewhere, but it is at the very least illustrative of the fact that this reduction of importance related to doubts about his credibility.

Press opinion never has been, and never will be, regarded by anyone as "evidence".
Dr. Bond's report is not press opinion, it constitutes medical evidence. And, it provides a perfectly reasonable cause for the police to take a closer look at Cox's evidence.

Come on, Jon, that was an appallingly weak attempt at deflection. We weren’t discussing the “case against Hutchinson”.

The basic premise behind much of what we debate is the defense of your Hutchinson theory, it permeates everything.

We were discussing something entirely different, namely your baffling and unsupportable assertion that press invention and hearsay didn’t exist during the entire nripper investigation.

If, at any time I accuse the press of invention or misrepresenting the facts, it is because I have written evidence to prove my case.
I expect the same of others, in this case yourself. Not opinions, not assumptions, not unrelated press articles from a hundred years later.
I have yet to see you come up with the goods.

But the press would only do that in cases where they hadn’t already established a cordial relationship with the police. If they had – as the Echo unquestionably had by mid-November – they would have been absolutely cuckoo to jeopardise that relationship by printing glaring falsehoods.

More opinion, more assumption, nothing factual.
So long as the Echo complained that the police tell them nothing, the onus is on you to prove otherwise.

Don’t you “no no” me, and don’t tell me what “my” theory “insists”.

You insisted:
"There is no evidence that Bowyer ever gave a statement to the police about seeing a man in the court on Friday morning; had it been otherwise, he would certainly have mentioned it in his statement and at the inquest."

A stranger observed standing a few feet from the spot where the body was discovered (by the “observer” no less) a few hours later is not “babble”, and nor is it a “seemingly unrelated event”.

Go ahead, try explain where the "obvious" connection is between a man in the court at 3:00 am, and a murder after 9:00 am, six hours later.
Slow worker?

There was a man heard passing in and out of the court about 6:00 am, nothing assumed to be critical about that. No "great interest", no orders to break any doors down to find this man.

Quite simply, Bowyer was not immediately struck by the connection until he learned of Hutchinson's story on the 12th.