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

[Wickerman]

Not so, Jon. Not remotely so.

It is clear from Abberline's 1903 Pall Mall Gazette interview that he still considered Elizabeth Long a valid witness 15 years later.

What,...because she described a "foreign looking man"?, well so did Hutchinson, so a 'check' for Mrs Long is also a 'check' for Hutchinson.

Robert Anderson wrote that the only person to get a "good view of the murderer" was Jewish; clearly referencing either Lawende or Schwartz. Whereas Hutchinson, whose "view of the murderer" would have been vastly superior to those obtained by the aforementioned three - had it been considered genuine - is not mentioned at all.

Let me remind you what Anderson wrote three weeks after the double murder.

"That a crime of this kind should have been committed without any clue being supplied by the criminal, in unusual, but that five successive murders should have been committed without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime."
(My emphasis)

So much for your Jewish witness......
The Anderson-line sailed and sunk a long time ago Ben.

The "very reduced importance" attached to Hutchinson's account still has absolutely nothing to do with Bond's proffered earlier time of death, as we've discussed a million times already. There is no evidence that the police considered the 1.00am-2.00am time frame likely, let alone factually correct to the exclusion of all other evidence. What do you mean "we" already know? You need more than one person for a "we" to "already know", and that doesn't apply here considering that nobody shares your opinion.

One of your preferred sources told you so...
"The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement."
Echo, 13 Nov.

Only now we have the document that would quite reasonably "induce" the police to look again at Blotchy.

Meaning what, exactly?

Meaning, that makes for a rather desperate argument to say that false statements were credited to witnesses in 1888 because this situation did happen a hundred years later.
It's really so completely irrelevant.

Any accusation based on events in 1888 have to be proven in 1888. What may or may not have happened a hundred years later - somewhere else, has nothing to do with this.

Could you please clarify the following by way of a yes/no answer: Is it your position that the police seniority conspired to lie to the public....

Police telling the press falsies are a matter of historical record, we covered that months ago.

...and to each other, in internal documents, by conveying a false impression that Lawende was an extremely important witness

Who wrote this internal memo Ben?
"In this case I understand from City Police that Mr Lewin (Lawende) one of the men identified the clothes only of the murdered woman Eddowes, which is a serious drawback to the value of the description of the man".

Serious drawback to the value of the description of the man!

Lawende was the best of a poor lot, the police just had to make the most of what they had.

Now, what was your question?

It's quite true that Sadler's age and facial hair doesn't exactly call to mind the "red-neckerchief" man, but on the other hand, Lawende only admitted to a brief look at the man, and we don't know what Sadler looked like in 1888.

Which sounds desperate for the very reasons you noted in your last line above.

I'm pretty sure the police in 1888 realised that too, but that didn't prevent Cox from being a witness at the inquest; evidently because the failure to "verify" that particular aspect of her story didn't lead anyone to conclude that she lied about the whole thing for poos and giggles.

Yet you do not grant Hutchinson's "unverifiable?" story the same concession, in your view HE must have lied.

I thought I was supposed to be the one with the short memory.

Back we go to your original statement a few posts ago, which read as follows:

“More importantly though, Bowyer was not sufficiently disturbed by this man's presence to even mention him in his police statement. Naturally, Bowyer may only reflect on his sighting once he read Hutchinson's statement in the press”

Yes, I don't see anything wrong with that.
The rumors on the street Friday afternoon were that Kelly was still alive after daylight, so Bowyer in his Friday afternoon statement made no mention of his meeting of a man in the court at 3:00 am Friday morning.
Even the press over the weekend still published theories that ranged from an overnight murder to a murder after 9;00 am.
Bowyer, just like anyone else could not learn anything more definite from the press, after all the press were only printing what the public were telling them.
Bowyer was likely smart enough to know that himself.

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.

Sadly for your argument, that is not how a court works.
The witness is not there to ramble on about his life story, the witness keeps quiet until asked a question. The witness replies to that question, and that is all.
I do remember you mention this scenario before, that you think a witness can just talk about what ever they like in a courtroom - I don't think you have ever been in a courtroom have you Ben?
The Coroner only wanted Bowyer to tell the Jury about how he discovered the body, and what steps he took afterwards.

The Jury asked Bowyer when he last saw Kelly, and he responded "on Wednesday", which suggests that he did not see her Friday morning with the stranger. A detail that is corroborated by the later press article where he also makes no mention of seeing Kelly, only the stranger.

Regardless of press theories over the weekend concerning when the murder may have occurred, only when an actual witness steps forward who admits to seeing a man enter the court with the victim, only then will Bowyer realize that man he saw about 3:00 am, may have not been so innocent afterall.

[Ben]

What,...because she described a "foreign looking man"?, well so did Hutchinson, so a 'check' for Mrs Long is also a 'check' for Hutchinson.

Please familiarise yourself properly with the interview I referenced, Jon. Abberline made it quite clear that the witnesses he considered genuine - who described "foreign-looking" men - only managed to see their suspects' backs. So that's a "check" for Elizabeth long, whose evidence meets this criteria precisely, but a weary chuckle and roll of the eyes for Hutchinson, whose claim to have come face to face with his Jewish/foreign stranger had long since been discarded.

Let me remind you what Anderson wrote three weeks after the double murder.

"That a crime of this kind should have been committed without any clue being supplied by the criminal, in unusual, but that five successive murders should have been committed without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime."
(My emphasis)

So much for your Jewish witness......

"My" Jewish witness? He's mine now, is he? What about the numerous respected authors and researchers who have argued for decades that the seniority of the CID placed particular value in a Jewish witness; so much so, apparently, that his identification of a fellow Jew would have been the "means of murderer being hanged", according to Swanson? I'm flattered that you think I originated the idea as part of a grand Hutchinsonian conspiracy, but trust me - it's been around for a while.

Supporters of Anderson would probably question your assertion that his comments regarding the paucity of clues "weeks after the double event" somehow cancelled out his statement published in Blackwoods. They might argue that the evidence of the unspecified Jewish witness had simply borne fruit by the time of the latter interview, despite its failure to produce the "slightest clue" beforehand.

The Anderson-line sailed and sunk a long time ago Ben.

Really, by whom? You? Have you alerted Paul Begg and Martin Fido (and many others) to news of this foundering?

One of your preferred sources told you so...
"The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement."
Echo, 13 Nov.

All that source "tells me" is that the police preferred Cox's evidence over Hutchinson's. Why? Because Hutchinson's statement was already the subject of doubt by the evening of the 13th, for reasons entirely unconnected to Bond's ventured time of death, as the same article makes very clear.

Meaning, that makes for a rather desperate argument to say that false statements were credited to witnesses in 1888 because this situation did happen a hundred years later.

No, not a hundred years later - all the time. Journalistic embellishment and invention has been around since the first journalists and the first newspapers; so has gossip and hearsay. If you have even the slightest scrap of evidence to indicate that this practice desisted for a few months in 1888 before resuming again for eternity, I would be fascinated to see it.

Police telling the press falsies are a matter of historical record, we covered that months ago.

So "police telling the press falsies is a matter of historical record", whereas the press "telling falsies" themselves is a foreign concept to you? The police tell "falsies" only when it is in the greater public interest to do so, as we discussed "months ago".

Lawende was the best of a poor lot, the police just had to make the most of what they had.

Exactly, Jon - the best of a poor lot.

So what is your excuse for continually undermining the "best" available, whilst dredging up the very worst of a poor lot, and claiming they equate to genuine sightings of Jack the Ripper in the way that Lawende's didn't?

Yet you do not grant Hutchinson's "unverifiable?" story the same concession, in your view HE must have lied.

Of all the problems people have with Hutchinson's story, I would say its "unverifiability" is pretty far down the list.

Bowyer, just like anyone else could not learn anything more definite from the press, after all the press were only printing what the public were telling them.
Bowyer was likely smart enough to know that himself

But not smart enough to avoid allowing the content of his statement to be dictated by the press and "rumours on the street", apparently. He evidently didn't even toy with the idea that his sighting of a stranger a few feet from the spot where he discovered the latest ripper victim a few hours thereafter just might be significant. So really, your big hero in the equation is the 14th pressman who finally managed to extract this "Friday sighting" from Bowyer, where the police and coroner had failed so miserably (?).

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?!".

I don't think you have ever been in a courtroom have you Ben?

I have, actually.

If you think it is unprecedented for witnesses in a courtroom to volunteer information unprompted, I'm afraid you've divorced yourself from reality. I didn't say anything about relating a "life story"; I'm talking about a single piece of eyewitness testimony that would have been extremely pertinent to the investigation.

You are, as per usual, the sole advocate for reviving a discredited piece of press tattle as a genuine ripper sighting, but you fail very badly in your attempts to account for its absence from any other document than a few lines in a 14th November press article. Bowyer had absolutely no reason not to mention such a sighting, had it truly occurred, when he had an opportunity to do so; at the time of his initial police statement, and at the inquest.

Sorry Jon, but long-discarded press gossip isn't going to salvage Hutchinson's credibility any more than Joseph Isaacs did. You will have to change tactics yet again.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Journalistic embellishment and invention has been around since the first journalists and the first newspapers; so has gossip and hearsay. If you have even the slightest scrap of evidence to indicate that this practice desisted for a few months in 1888 before resuming again for eternity, I would be fascinated to see it.

In which context, Ben, the following makes for fascinating reading:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_News_Agency_(London)

[Ben]

Very much so, Garry, and thanks for the link.

I had no idea the Central News had such a poor reputation.

[Fisherman]

Very much so, Garry, and thanks for the link.

I had no idea the Central News had such a poor reputation.

Without being knowledgeable myself about the reputation of the CNA, I would generally urge people to exercise some caution with Wikipedia entries. They can be treacherous at times.

[Wickerman]

Please familiarise yourself properly with the interview I referenced, Jon. Abberline made it quite clear that the witnesses he considered genuine - who described "foreign-looking" men - only managed to see their suspects' backs. So that's a "check" for Elizabeth long, whose evidence meets this criteria precisely, but a weary chuckle and roll of the eyes for Hutchinson, whose claim to have come face to face with his Jewish/foreign stranger had long since been discarded.

I'm quite familiar with both articles Ben, but as is often the case you only choose to see what you want to see.

Lets just read the relevant lines...
" All agree, too, that he was a foreign- looking man,--but that, of course, helped us little in a district so full of foreigners as Whitechapel."

Who is "all" Ben, more than one I imagine, in fact it might be just two.
Lawende did not suggest his suspect was "foreign-looking", and neither did Schwartz, nor P.C. Smith for that matter.
In fact, only two used that term, both Mrs Long AND George Hutchinson.

Next...
"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."

Who is Abberline referring to here?
Mrs Long gave her estimation ....."By the look of him he seemed to me a man over forty years of age."

George Hutchinson gave his estimation ....."Description age about 34 or 35."

Ah, so now we know who the "all" referred to, both Mrs Long AND George Hutchinson.

Finally...
"They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view."

Well we know this to be his error, there was no "they" who only saw any suspect from the rear. Only ONE witness, Mrs Long. So this comment refers exclusively to Mrs Long.
Also in an earlier line Abberline wrote:
"...and the height of the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
Neither Long nor Hutchinson described a peaked cap, so Abberline's memory is confused in these later years of his life. Those detail came from Lawende & Schwartz.

All Fred Abberline is doing is cherry-picking a variety of details from a host of suspect descriptions which just happen to fit his own personal suspect - George Chapman - a foreign-looking man (who looked) about 35-40 yrs of age, and who is known to wear a peaked cap.

Who'da thunk


Really Ben, when you scrape the bottom of the barrel to find something to support your theory I suggest you read your source v e r y carefully!

Frederick G. Abberline was unduly influenced by the suspect descriptions of the only two witnesses who saw a "foreign looking man" - both Mrs Long AND George Hutchinson.

[check] Mrs Long.
[check] Geo. Hutchinson, and for the sake of the peaked cap...
[check] Lawende and Schwartz.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

In a refreshing departure from your usual stance on the abilities of senior police officials - which typically asserts that Abberline was golden boy, while his bosses were incompetent desk jockeys - you now suggest that he falsified original eyewitness testimony to make it more compatible with his newly latched-onto Klosowski theory. It's an interesting notion, but not one that makes a great deal of sense in the context of Hutchinson's exclusion.

Consider this: Abberline had the opportunity to infer a link between dark-haired, moustachioed foreign-looking Astrakhan man and dark-haired, moustachioed, foreign-looking Severin Klosowski, but he never made one – electing instead to infer tenuous parallels with witnesses who only saw their suspects’ backs, and men wearing “P&O” caps. If he wanted to fictionalise and cherry-pick from 1888 eyewitness evidence in order to bolster his Klosowski theory, Hutchinson was a very curious omission. Why even bother mentioning witnesses who had only managed to acquire rear sightings if he had the Hutch-bombshell up his sleeve? Why did he not say, "one witness only saw his back, but our very best witness managed to provide a very detailed description of the man's face, and it's a dead ringer for Klosowski"...?

Please don't suggest, before you're tempted, that he "forgot"; that one won't work either. Abberline interviewed Hutchinson at length, unlike Lawende - to whose evidence he made reference in the PMG interview - who wasn't even a Met police witness. He might well have forgotten that Lawende had seen his suspect's face, and that it was the victim whose back was to him (it's possible he had it the wrong way round), but the same can hardly be said of Hutchinson, to whom he had direct and prolonged exposure.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

In a refreshing departure from your usual stance on the abilities of senior police officials - which typically asserts that Abberline was golden boy, while his bosses were incompetent desk jockeys - you now suggest that he falsified original eyewitness testimony to make it more compatible with his newly latched-onto Klosowski theory. It's an interesting notion, but not one that makes a great deal of sense in the context of Hutchinson's exclusion.

Hello Ben.

As you are aware, I have always had the utmost respect for police officials on active duty throughout the Whitechapel Murders.

What I have always said, and repeatedly, is that those past recollections, memoirs, reflections of their 'golden days', are so fraught with exaggerations, confusions, and embellishments as to be largely untrustworthy.
My position on that has never changed, and this example by Abberline is more proof of the pudding.
This view has been demonstrated by many others time and time again. Maybe you should read The First Fifty Years of Jack the Ripper, vol. I & II (1997), for a reasonably good overview of the infallibility of the human memory.

Why even bother mentioning witnesses who had only managed to acquire rear sightings if he had the Hutch-bombshell up his sleeve? Why did he not say, "one witness only saw his back, but our very best witness managed to provide a very detailed description of the man's face, and it's a dead ringer for Klosowski"...?

"Why" does not matter, he attributed the "rear view" to more than one witness which we know is incorrect. Except, for the slender possibility that Schwartz had the same "rear view", which would allow Abberline to include the cap, but not the "foreign-looking" man detail.

The use of memoirs by modern-day theorists betrays a desperate move to find 'something' however inaccurate with which to support their theory.
In this Ben, you are not alone.

[Wickerman]

"My" Jewish witness? He's mine now, is he? What about the numerous respected authors and researchers who have argued for decades that the seniority of the CID placed particular value in a Jewish witness; so much so, apparently, that his identification of a fellow Jew would have been the "means of murderer being hanged", according to Swanson?

He's "yours" in the sense that you chose to introduce him in support of your argument.
Those "numerous respected authors" will no doubt continue to argue, and equally continue to fail to prove their case.
The fact of the matter is memoirs & recollections concerning personal involvement in the Whitechapel murders are in general unreliable.

Supporters of Anderson would probably question your assertion that his comments regarding the paucity of clues "weeks after the double event" somehow cancelled out his statement published in Blackwoods. They might argue that the evidence of the unspecified Jewish witness had simply borne fruit by the time of the latter interview, despite its failure to produce the "slightest clue" beforehand.

This assertion in Blackwoods is generally taken to allude to either Schwartz or Lawende, yet for three weeks after those witnesses gave their statements, nothing of value came of their sightings.

The very fact that Anderson's "Jewish witness" was given the task of identifying a person he only had a fleeting glimpse of, at night, several years ago, speaks more of desperation on behalf of Scotland Yard than anything remotely like a "smoking gun".

All that source "tells me" is that the police preferred Cox's evidence over Hutchinson's. Why? Because Hutchinson's statement was already the subject of doubt by the evening of the 13th, for reasons entirely unconnected to Bond's ventured time of death, as the same article makes very clear.

The difference Ben is, you offer a theory about the "why", which finds zero support in the surviving police documents. Whereas I offer documented evidence - the written word. A document that the press had no idea existed.

No, not a hundred years later - all the time.

Because something 'can' happen is no assurance that it did.
Your case rests far too much on possibilities and not enough on occurrences.

The case against Hutchinson can be summarized as follows:
- He may have lied - because some people do.
- He may have only exaggerated - because some people do.
- He may have been an accomplice - because some people are.
- He may have been the killer - because he was there.

A ridiculously feeble list of accusations by anyone's standards.

So "police telling the press falsies is a matter of historical record", whereas the press "telling falsies" themselves is a foreign concept to you? The police tell "falsies" only when it is in the greater public interest to do so, as we discussed "months ago".

Too general again, ....the press are telling "falsies" when they purport to convey the belief they have inside information. This is clearly speculation about the direction of the police investigation.

Exactly, Jon - the best of a poor lot.

So what is your excuse for continually undermining the "best" available, whilst dredging up the very worst of a poor lot, and claiming they equate to genuine sightings of Jack the Ripper in the way that Lawende's didn't?

Swanson, at the time of the murders, was not confident about Lawende's sighting - that is clear. Modern theorists put more reliance on Lawende than Swanson did, mostly because Lawende's sighting fit's their personal theories.
The killer had to be seen by someone, typically someone not previously considered by police at the time.

By "poor lot", I am not referring to the character of the witness, but from the police perspective - that is to say a sighting from which they cannot get a definite description, or exact time, when compared to Lawende is "poor" from the point of view of their ability to use it.

Of all the problems people have with Hutchinson's story, I would say its "unverifiability" is pretty far down the list.

Modern people have problems, typically again, modern theorists who mostly have already made their minds up. All the critique over Hutchinson's sighting is based on the pursuit of desperately trying to find something tangible to "throw" at Hutchinson to hang him. These theorists have already condemned him long ago, they just fail to provide justification.

Hutchinson sits in his cell already condemned, he is waiting for his accusers to agree on a trumped-up charge with which to hang him.

But not smart enough to avoid allowing the content of his statement to be dictated by the press and "rumours on the street", apparently. He evidently didn't even toy with the idea that his sighting of a stranger a few feet from the spot where he discovered the latest ripper victim a few hours thereafter just might be significant.

The number of men, strangers, coming in and out of that court makes his early morning sighting more common, not of any great significance. Especially for a murder that occurred, as rumor has it, a good six hours later.

So really, your big hero in the equation is the 14th pressman who finally managed to extract this "Friday sighting" from Bowyer, where the police and coroner had failed so miserably (?).

As Bowyer makes no claim to seeing Kelly at 3:00 am, what connection was there for him, the Coroner or the police to make?

Cox's statement was of interest directly because she saw Blotchy with Kelly - Bowyer did not.

If you think it is unprecedented for witnesses in a courtroom to volunteer information unprompted, I'm afraid you've divorced yourself from reality.

No no, your theory insists that had to babble on about other seemingly unrelated events that happened six hours prior to a murder, and, because he didn't, we must assume those unrelated events are not true. This is patently absurd.
The Coroner is there to keep the focus of the inquest on the task at hand, which is one reason why the babbling of Maria Harvey was recorded in the press as entertaining and unusual.

Your argument will not allow for the possibility that Bowyer may not have thought it relevant, as usual you insist on reaching for the absolute - he HAD to mention it.

It's your expectations of absolutes in condemning a witness that contrasts so markedly with your use of generalities in making accusations that strike me as so amusing.

[Ben]

“He's "yours" in the sense that you chose to introduce him in support of your argument.”

Well, in that case I’ll take him, because “support (my) argument” he most certainty does. I’m not suggesting that any researcher or author has “proved” his or her case with regard to a Jewish witness being taken especially seriously by those in charge of the ripper investigation; they simply make the most persuasive argument, which is presumably why it is accepted by the vast majority. Perhaps they’re all “Hutchinsonians”?

“This assertion in Blackwoods is generally taken to allude to either Schwartz or Lawende, yet for three weeks after those witnesses gave their statements, nothing of value came of their sightings.”

Yes.

And?

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? 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? How is it remotely the fault of the witness or his description if the police fail to apprehend the person described? 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 very fact that Anderson's "Jewish witness" was given the task of identifying a person he only had a fleeting glimpse of, at night, several years ago, speaks more of desperation on behalf of Scotland Yard than anything remotely like a "smoking gun".”

You’re preaching to the choir with that one, but what it does illustrate is that they were making the best of a less than ideal situation. They were using – to appropriate your useful phrase – “the best of a bad lot”. 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.

“The difference Ben is, you offer a theory about the "why", which finds zero support in the surviving police documents. Whereas I offer documented evidence - the written word.”

Well let’s see it, then.

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

“Because something 'can' happen is no assurance that it did.
Your case rests far too much on possibilities and not enough on occurrences.”

Come on, Jon, that was an appallingly weak attempt at deflection. We weren’t discussing the “case against Hutchinson”. If you want to do that, go away and find the relevant thread and I’ll look forward to out-repeating you there when I’m done here, but in the meantime, I’ll thank you not to misrepresent my position by writing silly lists purporting to “summarise” it. 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 it’s “ridiculous feeble” arguments that you have an aversion to, you’ll need to re-think yours here.

“Too general again, ....the press are telling "falsies" when they purport to convey the belief they have inside information.”

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. Pick this fight with me again, I entreat you.

“Swanson, at the time of the murders, was not confident about Lawende's sighting - that is clear. Modern theorists put more reliance on Lawende than Swanson did, mostly because Lawende's sighting fit's their personal theories.”

No, not much evidence of that, and I’d be fascinated to know what theory of mine is supposed to benefit from Lawende’s sighting. Which Jewish witness was Swanson writing about in his copy of Anderson’s book, then; the one whose identification might have been the “means of the murderer being hanged”? Pick Schwartz if you like; it won’t make any difference to my grand scheme to send Hutchinson to the hangman. There is nothing remotely “typical” about the most valuable witnesses being “not previously considered by the police at the time”; that’s just your latest excuse for trivialising genuine witnesses in favour of discredited press dreck.

“Modern people have problems, typically again, modern theorists who mostly have already made their minds up. All the critique over Hutchinson's sighting is based on the pursuit of desperately trying to find something tangible to "throw" at Hutchinson to hang him.”

This sort of wishy-washy, generalized, feigned indignation doesn’t achieve very much, and certainly doesn’t provide any ammunition against these pesky “critiquers”. It's not even an argument. Provide a focussed argument on the topics we’ve been discussing, and don’t seek to obfuscate by introducing his possible culpability in the murders. If you want to do discuss that, you must trot along to the Hutchinson threads and have a good old rummage through the 15,000 posts there. I have been very clear in stating my specific problems with Hutchinson’s statement, and as challenging as you must find it, I belong in the majority in that regard. More people question Hutchinson’s statement than accept it uncritically.

“The number of men, strangers, coming in and out of that court makes his early morning sighting more common, not of any great significance.”

Hang on - you’re the only one insisting that it is of great significance.

But for it to be so – as opposed to the discredited bit of nonsense every else accepts it was – we must accept that everyone at the time missed it due to breathtakingly irrational stupidity. Stupid, hapless Bowyer for failing to mention it in his police statement and inquest testimony, because he had allowed his evidence to be dictated by press rumour; stupid, hapless Abberline for failing to utilise his experience as a detective to ensure that that didn’t happen; stupid, hapless MacDonald for not giving Bowyer an opportunity to mention his “Friday sighting” at the inquest; but clever, astute, brilliant 14th November journalist for finally managing to extract the information, without whom Jon would never have found Jack-in-the-court over a hundred years later. This is terrible stuff, Jon – truly it is.

“No no, your theory insists that had to babble on about other seemingly unrelated events that happened six hours prior to a murder”

Don’t you “no no” me, and don’t tell me what “my” theory “insists”. 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”. It is a critical piece of information that police and coroner would show a great interest in. 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.

“It's your expectations of absolutes in condemning a witness that contrasts so markedly with your use of generalities in making accusations that strike me as so amusing.”

…Whatever that means! (?)

[Ben]

What I have always said, and repeatedly, is that those past recollections, memoirs, reflections of their 'golden days', are so fraught with exaggerations, confusions, and embellishments as to be largely untrustworthy.

And that's perfectly fine, Jon.

It still doesn't explain Abberline's failure to mention Hutchinson's description, though. It doesn't matter if the former was lying, confused, embellishing, forgetful, or whatever else; it still made absolutely no sense not to make reference to Hutchinson's statement if his intention was to demonstrate a compatibility between Klosowski's appearance and contemporary witness evidence.

The use of memoirs by modern-day theorists betrays a desperate move to find 'something' however inaccurate with which to support their theory.

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

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

Regards,
Ben

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.

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.

[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.

[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]

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."

[Scott Nelson]

Jon Smyth vs Ben Holm

Better than

Ben Holm vs Fisherman ?