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

[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

[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]

“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.

[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.

[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.

[Wickerman]

Oh no, say it ain't so.

It ain't so!

[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

[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

[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?

[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'.

[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]

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?

It makes no difference how we speculate as to why Abberline mentioned the sighting by Mrs Long, we cannot possibly know the reason.

If Lawende was the "best" of the group (ref: his later involvement in I.D.'s) then Abberline should have used him as the reference, yet he didn't.
Lawende should have been Abberline's witness of choice, but he wasn't.

We have the same question with Hutchinson, yet Abberline's mention of the age range between "35-40" is clearly influenced by Hutchinson's description. No other suspect described by either Lawende, Schwartz, PC Smith, or Mrs Long gave "35" as the age estimate - only Hutchinson.

As for your argument that Abberline did not use him as the reference because he came to disbelieve Hutchinson at some point, this only works if the doubt came immediately after Nov. 12th.

The reality is, Abberline - if he harbored any doubts at all, could well have developed those doubts long after 1888.
After the arrest of Isaacs he was seemingly struck by the resemblance, but then as it turned out Isaacs had been in police custody over the night in question, then Abberline could easily have assumed Hutchinson was correct about the person, but incorrect about the date.
This was the conclusion mentioned by Dew, perhaps he got the idea from Abberline.

Regardless, Abberline "could" have developed doubts at any time between Dec 6th 1888 and 1903, your argument depends on Abberline having these doubts before Nov 15th 1888 - and for this there is no evidence whatsoever.
In fact the Echo is still promoting the idea that some "authorities" are still behind Hutchinson and his Astrachan suspect on Nov 19th. So clearly there had been no discrediting by police before that date.
But this is a dead-end argument as there has never been any evidence of the police discrediting Hutchinson at any time - it remains where it began, purely as press conjecture.

The division of the "authorities" into two camps alluded to by the Echo reflects the belief at the time that the City police and Met. police were divided in their pursuit of two different suspects. In reality, hardly likely at all.

Your brand new theory seems to be that Abberline was a forgetful old duffer by 1903;...

He was only 60 by 1903, but it is evident from his writings that his recollections were very selective, not too clear. As a result he makes for an unreliable source by this time.
As with all the police officials, better stay with their writings made at the time of the murders.

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".

Is it really?, perhaps you care to help us all understand how they could possibly have achieved this.

Indeed, if events occurred as Anderson related, Lawende may have identified Kosmisnki without realising he was a "Polish Jew".

Being a foreigner, and looking like a foreigner are not the same.
Abberline wrote, "foreign-looking", not a "foreigner".
The Lawende suspect was not "foreign looking", whether he was foreign or not is immaterial.

Why, your favourite "witness" Mrs. Kennedy, of course! Don't tell me you've forgotten all about her?

No, I intentionally left that door open for you to see how you handled it. If you think Dorset St. was awash with rumors of a "scream of murder" then you only have Mrs Kennedy to thank for this.

Only Mrs Kennedy mentioned 3:30-4:00 am, the other source indicates 2:00 am.

One woman (as reported below) who lives in the court stated that at about two o'clock she heard a cry of "Murder." This story soon became popular, until at last half a dozen women were retailing it as their own personal experience. Each story contradicted the others with respect to the time at which the cry was heard.
Star 10 Nov.

The press made it quite clear that the stories told to them were to be dismissed, and Bowyer can be sure the man he saw appeared after those screams, but before the time given by Mrs Kennedy.
Typical of the vague nature of the evidence at that time. Screams continued to be heard from 2-4 o'clock, or at least that is how the press convey the situation, consequently the press dismissed the idea.
Nothing to arrest the suspicions of Bowyer, and in support of this we have Prater at the inquest saying she heard screams all the time, it didn't alarm her either.

[Ben]

It makes no difference how we speculate as to why Abberline mentioned the sighting by Mrs Long, we cannot possibly know the reason.

Yes, we can.

Abberline couldn't have made the "reason" any clearer; he was attempting to illustrate how well Klosowski's appearance corresponded to the known eyewitness evidence, and made reference to Elizabeth Long's foreign-looking man accordingly - not Hutchinson's. Why not? Why exclude the star witness of them all; the one who provided not only the "best" sighting in terms of detail and proximity, but the most favourable of all to the Klosowski theory - lightyears ahead of Long's?

You claim that Abberline neglected to "use" Lawende's sighting as "the reference" for any potential Kosowski-ripper comparison, forgetting perhaps that his reference to the killer wearing a "P&O" cap makes very clear the fact the he considered Lawende an important witness. The fact that he got the suspect's estimated age wrong is utterly trivial - it is perfectly understandable detail to forget. The same cannot be said of all details concerning the most important witness unearthed by the entire investigation, which Hutchinson unquestionably would have been, had he not been discredited.

We have the same question with Hutchinson, yet Abberline's mention of the age range between "35-40" is clearly influenced by Hutchinson's description. No other suspect described by either Lawende, Schwartz, PC Smith, or Mrs Long gave "35" as the age estimate - only Hutchinson.

Wrong.

Mrs. Cox estimated her suspect's age at 36, meeting Abberline's age criterion perfectly.

Abberline can't have been the slightest bit "influenced by Hutchinson's description" if he "forgot" that his dream witness had stared straight into his suspect's dark-moustachioed, Klosowski-resembling mug. You're suggesting he remembered the age, but not this?

As for your argument that Abberline did not use him as the reference because he came to disbelieve Hutchinson at some point, this only works if the doubt came immediately after Nov. 12th.

The police as a collective certainly harboured doubts at that stage. I can't speak for Abberline personally, but the authorities had already attached a "very reduced importance" to Hutchinson's story by the evening of the 13th. The Echo visited Commercial Street police station the following day and there ascertained two important details: a) that the 13th November unattributed press account "proceeds from the same source" as Hutchinson's 14th November press interview, and b) that the story had been "considerably discounted". Since confirmation of (a) was only obtainable from the police, it follows that the Echo could not have been lying about approaching the them directly, and that the police, in turn, were very unlikely to have lied about (b).

Is it a "coincidence" that the above would perfectly explain the absence of Hutchinson from any senior police interview, report or memoir after 1888? Is it a "coincidence" that it would perfectly explain the use of a Jewish witness in subsequent identity attempts? Is it a "coincidence" that it would perfectly explain the total lack of evidence of Astrakhan men being actively sought after mid-November?

In the absence of proof that Hutchinson lied, I don't doubt that "some of the authorities" may have wondered if it might have been premature to lump him in with Packer, Violenia et al. But in what respect did these intrepid "some" influence the direction of the investigation?

But this is a dead-end argument as there has never been any evidence of the police discrediting Hutchinson at any time - it remains where it began, purely as press conjecture.

There's plenty of evidence, as I've just illustrated for the umpteeth time, and as I'm prepared to repeat for so much longer than you're capable of persisting, fruitlessly and boringly, to the contrary. What irritates me is your mischaracterisation of the nature of the source. It's one thing to dream up crap excuses for dismissing the 13th November Echo article, but don't pretend the Echo themselves were "speculating", because they were doing nothing of the sort. They were reporting on what the "authorities" had told them - whether they were doing so truthfully or as part of some exercise in utterly pointless inventon is for you to decide, but "speculation" doesn't come into it.

The reality is, Abberline - if he harbored any doubts at all, could well have developed those doubts long after 1888.
After the arrest of Isaacs he was seemingly struck by the resemblance, but then as it turned out Isaacs had been in police custody over the night in question, then Abberline could easily have assumed Hutchinson was correct about the person, but incorrect about the date.
This was the conclusion mentioned by Dew, perhaps he got the idea from Abberline.

Please please reassure me that you're only foisting this lunacy onto Abberline and speculating that he might have subscribed to it, rather than you personally believing that Isaacs was Astrakhan, as observed by Hutchinson whose evidence was "incorrect about the date"? You still can't bear to relinquish "Isaacstrakhan", can you? Despite the fact that your own research finally confirmed what I had been arguing all along - that he was entirely unconnected to Kelly, Hutchinson or the murders. There is not the slightest shred of evidence that Abberline was ever, at any stage "struck by the resemblance" (that never was) between Isaacs and Astrakhan. There isn't even any indication that the utter rubbish attributed to Abberline in that single press article - "This is it, boys, we got 'im! OMG this is huge! Wow, this is mega! Mum's the word, eh? Don't let the press OVERHEAR US!!" - had anything to do with Astrakhan.

He was only 60 by 1903, but it is evident from his writings that his recollections were very selective, not too clear. As a result he makes for an unreliable source by this time.

So his actual recorded words are to be dismissed as "unreliable", whereas some air-headed, platitudinous guff that some journalist claimed to have overheard him say - that's to be treated as gospel, presumably? You call Abberline "selective", but don't explain why he didn't "select" the one piece of evidence that would have aided his cause better than any other.

Abberline wrote, "foreign-looking", not a "foreigner".

Right, so your explanation for Abberline making no reference at all to star witness Hutchinson, who had a face-to-face encounter with a foreign-looking man is...?

No, I intentionally left that door open for you to see how you handled it.

Yeah right, Jon - 'course you did.

You didn't simply forget the source yourself; no, you were laying a cunning trap to see if I would fall into it, like a mean old spider to a fly.

If you think Dorset St. was awash with rumors of a "scream of murder" then you only have Mrs Kennedy to thank for this.

In which case, thank you Mrs. Kennedy!

Thank you for doing a nice big poo on Jon's exceptionally poor and ill-conceived argument that hapless, gormless Bowyer gave a statement to the police that was based not on what he had actually seen, but rather on that which he had read in the papers - rumour, gossip, and hearsay. In this respect he was aided, or rather not aided, by Abberline's abysmal failure to ensure that witnesses provided their own timeline, rather than allowing their statements to be coloured by erroneous external factoids.

I'm particularly indebted to you, Mrs. Kennedy, for stating that the cry of "murder" occurred between 3.30 and 4.00. Obviously Bowyer, who trawled through the press to determine which pieces of his own evidence he ought to alert the police or inquest about (without any help or guidance from the police), would have read about your "scream" and realised the significance of his alleged 3.00am sighting.

Is there anything in the Evening News article that would have reassured Bowyer that the "scream" was either definitely nonsense or definitely heard prior to his sighting? No, there isn't, so the idea that a press-sifting Bowyer remained ignorant of the "scream" and its potential significance remains nonsense.

Typical of the vague nature of the evidence at that time

Yes, it's almost as if we shouldn't be reviving the very worst of it as gospel, isn't it?

[Scott Nelson]

What happened to "All the best"?

[Ben]

All the best, Jon.

I get cross with the nonsense, but I still wish you the best.

But more importantly, congratulations to Scott on his 1000th post!