Jack the........ Police Officer??

[Fisherman]

I think the rest of the boards are fully fait with your methods Fish,

No, I'm afraid you can't wriggle off the hook here. You stated, quite clearly to Caz, that "people who know themselves to be innocent will very often come forward."

Cross came forward.

Yes...it is that simple.

Monty

So, no answer to my questions. As anticipated, actually.

Yes, I stated that "people who know themselves to be innocent will very often come forward."

It was and is completely true. I of course stand by it. Furthermore, onehundred per cent of the people out here know it is true.

It is however false to lead on that I would have said that this guarantees the innocence of all who approach the police, thereby meaning that Lechmere must have been innocent since he did. Onehundred per cent of the people out here know this too.

To claim that this would be what I did is therefore not true. Onehundred per cent of the people out here know this too. And I count you into that group of insightful people too.

It would therefore seem that you have other aims for your posts in this department. You are welcome to elaborate on it anytime, but I believe it is a fair bet that this will be of as much interest to you as it was to answer the two simple questions I posed. You wriggle instead, my dear Monty.

Most inappropriate.

Now, letīs do something more useful instead. Unless you want to pursue this hmmm ... strange business? For whatever reason?

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

I think the rest of the boards are fully fait with your methods Fish,

No, I'm afraid you can't wriggle off the hook here. You stated, quite clearly to Caz, that "people who know themselves to be innocent will very often come forward."

Cross came forward.

Yes...it is that simple.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Twisty turny Fish,

Condemned by your own argument

Fallacious....so you DO know the meaning of the word. What am I saying?, of course you do.

Monty

Twisty? Turny?

No, thatīs what you engage in here.

Itīs all incredibly easy. Answer these two questions:

1. Is it normal that people who witness a crime turn to the police regardless if it puts themselves in the picture as having been present at a crime scene?

2. Are there any examples of criminals - killers included - have turned to the police, posing as innocent witnesses?

Once you provide the answers to these two extremely simple questions - and I feel very certain that you will do so, as you normally do - you will (together with the rest of the boards) find out just who is twisting around here.

All the best,
Fisherman
waiting

[Monty]

Twisty turny Fish,

Condemned by your own argument

Fallacious....so you DO know the meaning of the word. What am I saying?, of course you do.

Monty

[Fisherman]

"Nope, Caz - we cannot "safely" say this. People who know themselves to be innocent will very often come forward."

Obviously this stands the same for Cross, and is one of the major flaws in that theory.

Monty, just throwing it in there, as the majority here have the inability (or the rudeness) to stay on topic.

Monty

If it was an overall truth that ONLY people who knew themselves to be innocent come forward after a murder, you would be having a point, Monty.

But since both you and me know that people who are NOT innocent sometimes come forward after a murder, either for baconsaving purposes or for the sheer kick of it, you of course have no point at all.

It goes without saying that for every lying killer that presents himself to the police, there will be hundreds of innocent witnesses, telling the police what they know without reflecting about this simultaneousy putting them on a spot where a crime has been committed.

But Iīm happy to see that this fallacious argument of yours is what you present as one of the "major flaws" of the Lechmere theory. Thereīs a "wow"-factor to it, and it kind of tells the rest of the story alongside. We all know that another of the "major flaws" you have mentioned is your contention that a killer would not be able to stay on the murder spot to bluff his way out.

Amazing points, both of them.

Back to the police impersonating Jack now, yes ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

"Nope, Caz - we cannot "safely" say this. People who know themselves to be innocent will very often come forward."

Obviously this stands the same for Cross, and is one of the major flaws in that theory.

Monty, just throwing it in there, as the majority here have the inability (or the rudeness) to stay on topic.

Monty

[Ben]

Ben, Mary Ann Cox was among the lowest of the low, an admitted prostitute

What are you actually saying here, Jon?

And think very carefully, because at the moment you're scaring me with this outrageously prejudiced nonsense.

Are you saying that because you consider her "the lowest of the low" (in what sense? Class?) this detracts from her credibility? Anything that comes from a "lowly" prostitute has bad provenance? Is that what you're suggesting? Wow. You also remind me, unnecessarily, that Cox was an "admitted prostitute" as though it were a bad thing for her to acknowledge as much in public. So to your mind, Cox loses a point for being honest and circumspect about the nature of her occupation? Really? You'd like it better if the women lied under oath and pretended they weren't prostitutes?

First she claims Kelly was singing at 1:00, and after 1:00.
"...I returned about one o'clock. She was singing then. I warmed my hands and went out again, she was still singing."

Then she contradicts herself.
"I heard no noise, it was raining hard. I did not go to sleep at all. I heard nothing whatever after one o'clock."

I was suspicious of your failure to provide the sources for these quotes, and for good reason, because when I did some digging, I quickly discovered that they are two different versions of the same piece of inquest testimony - Mary Cox's. It's not a case of "first" she said that and "then" she said the other. Since she cannot possibly have made both contradictory statements on the stand at the inquest, it follows that one or the other must be wrong - wholly the fault of the reporter, and certainly not a "contradiction" on the part of Mary Cox.

She also claimed to hear no scream when both Lewis & Prater said there was one

Simply because Prater and Lewis were both closer to Kelly's room. Nothing complicated here at all. Lewis's room was situated opposite Kelly's room, while Prater's was a floor above. Mary Cox's room, by contrast, was located as far away from Kelly's room as it was possible to be within the court. A perfect explanation for Cox's failure to hear the "murder" cry. Did that make her a little overconfident and forthright in claiming there was no cry? Possibly. 40 lashes for "lowly lowest of the low" prostitute Cox! However, in the minds of the sane, and in the minds of the police at the time, she was still a credible witness.

Mary Malcolm gave sworn testimony that Liz Stride was her sister - "not the slightest doubt", she said. And, lets not forget Maxwell who felt so certain she was correct.

Yes, exactly.

They believed that what they were saying was true.

Which makes them honest witnesses who turned up to the public inquest with every intention of imparting what they believed to be a true account. It does not make them inquest-dodging, discredited, Hutchinson-esque witnesses who fell from grace because they were considered untrustworthy.

I hope you are not trying to take us down this dead-end path again.

Well, I was trying to suggest a return to the topic, but people seem to prefer dredging up Hutchinson arguments again. If you don't want to have the "Hutchinson-discredited" argument for the millionth time, don't pick the fight.

Cheers,
Ben

[Wickerman]

You're not taking into account the issue of provenance, Jon, and whether that provenance is good or bad.

Ben, Mary Ann Cox was among the lowest of the low, an admitted prostitute, and, she offers contradictory testimony. First she claims Kelly was singing at 1:00, and after 1:00.
"...I returned about one o'clock. She was singing then. I warmed my hands and went out again, she was still singing."

Then she contradicts herself.
"I heard no noise, it was raining hard. I did not go to sleep at all. I heard nothing whatever after one o'clock."

So this reliable witness of yours insists Kelly is singing after 1:00, then claims to hear nothing whatever after 1:00?
Which is it Ben, which story do you want to believe?
What were you saying about provenance?

She also claimed to hear no scream when both Lewis & Prater said there was one.
Cox: "...I should have heard any cry of murder. I heard nothing."

She would have heard a cry if there was one? Clearly, she is adamant there was no such cry?
Although Vanturney also heard no scream, she at least admitted that she dozed off now and then, but Cox claimed to be awake all night "..I did not go to sleep at all" - She doesn't even allow for the possibility that she could be mistaken. Is she trying to be too helpful and overplaying her hand?

If you're dealing with a police statement provided by a woman who also have her evidence under oath at a public inquest .....

Are you still talking about Cox?
Why are you comparing Cox to "...a third-hand piece of hearsay"?
I was comparing Cox to Hutchinson, Maxwell, Lewis & Kennedy.

Mary Malcolm gave sworn testimony that Liz Stride was her sister - "not the slightest doubt", she said. And, lets not forget Maxwell who felt so certain she was correct.
Remind me again Ben, what were you saying about sworn testimony being the most reliable?
Think again...

Hutchinson gave an implausible statement which was quickly discredited,.....

I hope you are not trying to take us down this dead-end path again.
Your false premise is totally exposed.

[Ben]

So, Jack the police officer then - whadda we all reckon?

Whoops, false alarm. We're straight back to Hutchinson.

Jolly good.

Now then...

This is presumably the argument which states that no-one can be observant under poor lighting conditions and without a specific reason to be so? Yes?

No.

This is the argument that relates the obvious and indisputable reality that Hutchinson could not even noticed all that he alleged in the time and conditions available, let alone memorized it all. Not even the tests for photographic or eidetic memory require such a feat of observation and recollection. The only opportunity Hutchinson had to notice anything beyond a dark figure in an overcoat passed fleetingly as Astrakhan and Kelly allegedly walked in closish proximity to a gas lamp. Trouble is, Hutchinson spent that fleeting opportunity, by his own admission, peering intently into the man's face. It is not possible to notice the detailed particulars of a man's upper body as well as the detailed particulars within the space of a few seconds, especially not if you're only paying attention to one aspect.

Moreover, this was an 1888 gas lamp - a negligible naked flame encased in glass, which emitted a piddle-poor degree of light. They served the purpose of beacons and little besides. Matters improved very marginally by 1891, but too late for Hutchinson. Further problems present themselves when we consider the location of the lamp in question, set back several feet into Fashion Street itself, and unlikely to provide much illumination for anyone walking along Commercial Street. I once considered the possibility that there was a separate gas lamp for the Queen's Head pub, but I was informed by experts on this forum that two gas lamps situated so close together was unlikely.

It's often argued that Astrakhan Man couldn't have visited the area dressed as described because he would have attracted the attention of one or more street robbers. Yet this overlooks the obvious possibility that he did exactly that

It's just so unlikely that anyone would be so comically unstreetwise as to risk it, even less likely that he'd depart the area unaccosted if he did, even if not by Hutchinson. Also, if robbery was on Hutchinson's mind that night, would he really have alluded to the man's expensive accessories when speaking with police, incriminating himself so blatantly? And if Astrakhan was aware of Hutchinson following him, just how likely is that he'd corner himself in a small room with the full expectation that he might be hanging around to rob him? And with such a wealth of accessories there for the grabbing, why give up after purely on account of Astrakhan's failure to emerge after 45 minutes? And what obstacle was Kelly to any robbery attempt?

The fact remains that Abberline was no mug, and, even after interrogation, he believed Hutchinson's account to be truthful.

Initially, yes, but evidently not for very long.

By whom?

I'm loath to give any interested parties short shift, Bridewell, but I've been through this one a truly obscene amount of times? If you'll give me a minute, I'll dig up a link to one of the many threads where this was all discussed at great length, rather than writing it all out again.

All the best,
Ben

[Bridewell]

Implausible?

Hutchinson gave an implausible statement

This is presumably the argument which states that no-one can be observant under poor lighting conditions and without a specific reason to be so? Yes?

So where was the nearest light source?

Hutchinson:

"I stood against the lamp of the Queen's Head Public House and watched him". (Not them, note, but him)

Was he credible?

Abberline:

"I have interrogated him this evening and am of opinion his statement is true".



So how come he was so much more observant than any other witness?

Abberline's Report:

"Also that he (Hutchinson) was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them"

So he had a reason for doing so:- He was watching the couple because the man was so well-dressed. I wonder why.

It's often argued that Astrakhan Man couldn't have visited the area dressed as described because he would have attracted the attention of one or more street robbers. Yet this overlooks the obvious possibility that he did exactly that. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Hutchinson was marking Kelly's client down as a possible revenue source. Would you?

Hutchinson:

"I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away".

Which of them was he waiting for then, penniless Kelly or affluent Astrakhan Man? More likely to have been the latter I would have thought.

According to Abberline Hutchinson was "in no regular employment"; yet he was believed when he claimed that he "had occasionally given the deceased a few shillings". The inference I draw from that is that Hutchinson was a thief and known by Abberline to be such. Why else would be believed?

If he was loitering with intent to commit a street robbery, as seems eminently plausible, that would explain his reticence and delay in coming forward. What we don't know is (a) what he said to Badham and Abberline which didn't make it into his statement or (b) why Abberline believed him to be telling the truth. The fact remains that Abberline was no mug, and, even after interrogation, he believed Hutchinson's account to be truthful.

which was quickly discredited,

By whom?

[Fisherman]

Caz:

Hmm, I think we can safely say that nobody in the room that night, Blotchy especially, would have been fool enough to come forward afterwards of his own accord, proving Hutch a liar and his description false. Quite the reverse in fact. Blotchy must have thanked his lucky stars when he read Hutch's account of the flash harry who entered that room a good hour after he had been seen by Cox. If I were in Blotchy's shoes I might have paid good money for a break like that.

Nope, Caz - we cannot "safely" say this. People who know themselves to be innocent will very often come forward. If you know that you are not the culprit, you donīt realize the risk. There is also the possibility that Blotchy would have passed the next client on his way out, and felt eager to tell the police.
Ruling any of these possibilities out would put Hutchinson at a very obvioius risk. And that risk would be effectively eliminated by the non-descript version of a Mr Nobody, as I said before, whereas he would stand no chance at all with his toff invention - if, that is, it WAS an invention. I think it wasnīt.

Yes, but we are stuck with that overcomplication, whether Hutch did see a man matching his description (which you appear to believe he did, but on the previous night) or decided to invent one on the murder night. We can't get inside Hutch's head, but it may be that he had a fixed idea - like so many others then and now - of how the ripper should have looked, and how he could have charmed Kelly into inviting him in. Looking 'normal' was not an option for many people back then.

Thatīs a fair point, Caz. But it still applies that even nif he did have a fanciful perception, it would be kind of daft to serve it to the coppers.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Nail, Fish, surely? 'Mail' indicates something quite different.

It was a "post" thinking error, Sally.

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Your language so totally gives you away here, and I'm not sure you are even aware of it.

I thought I'd made it clear that I was exploring the hypothetical premise that Hutchinson was the killer; how Kelly's time of death, the presence of the wideawake man, and Hutchinson's subsequent behaviour can all be convincingly explained, at least to the satisfaction of those well versed in serial crime and its perpetrators, if he was the killer. If you're concerned that the paragraph you quoted betrayed a total conviction on my part that Hutchinson was responsible, I can assure you that's not the case. It just gets tedious to preface every paragraph with "pursuant to the strictly hypothetical idea we're currently exploring that Hutchinson was the killer".

But you don't know that Hutch was making any such 'proactive efforts' to avoid that outcome, and he couldn't have had a clue if they would work or make things ten times worse for him.

No, he couldn't, but then nor could John Eric Armstrong "know" that detectives wouldn't instantly jump to the conclusion that he was the real Detroit prostitute killer and not the bright-eyed, bushy-tailed helpful informant he presented himself to be. The point being that if we have known proven examples of serial offenders putting themselves "in the public eye" as witnesses, they totally nullify any rationale we non-criminals might have constructed in our minds for not coming forward.

Even if they had both dozed off he may have been hoping it was only temporary, then finally gave up when there was no sign of the man calling it a night.

I know very few people who doze only temporarily in the small hours of the morning. As such, Hutchinson would still be coloured the over-optimistic fool to hover in the cold and wet for 45 minutes, to my mind at least.

Regards,
Ben

[caz]

In Hutchinson's case, he had motivation beyond the need for concealment and the panic that all roads would lead to him. He was attempting to both gain insight into the progress of the investigation, and steer it in quite the wrong direction with the aid of the fictional Astrakhan suspect. And yes, almost certainly bravado played a role too, going on the strength of what we know of other serialists who have injected themselves into their investigations.

Hi Ben,

Your language so totally gives you away here, and I'm not sure you are even aware of it. You have not even begun to demonstrate what Hutch's motivation was; what he was attempting to do; that bravado played any part at all, except possibly in an attention-seeking sense; or least of all that he was one among other serialists.

I disagree that he'd have been a fool to come forward if he was anxious to avoid other witnesses from previous murders looking him over. That would only happen if he hadn't already come forward voluntarily under a false witness guise; if he'd been identified by Lewis on the streets of Spitalfields or in a lodging house and dragged in as a suspect. I would argue that his proactive efforts avoided that outcome successfully.

But you don't know that Hutch was making any such 'proactive efforts' to avoid that outcome, and he couldn't have had a clue if they would work or make things ten times worse for him. Previous witnesses would always have been a danger to him if he was the ripper and remained in the vicinity; a supporting element if he was innocent. Putting himself in the public eye could have resulted in a reporter describing him in detail, or providing a lifelike sketch, which would have undone all his 'proactive efforts' to hoodwink the police had previous witnesses recognised him in their newspapers.

He could have determined if Kelly was having an all-nighter relatively quickly and easily - by listening in and perhaps moving the pilot coat covering the smashed-pane window - without the need for for a 45-minute vigil.

It rather depends on what Kelly and her guest were doing at the time, doesn't it? Even if they had both dozed off he may have been hoping it was only temporary, then finally gave up when there was no sign of the man calling it a night.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sally]

You are guessing away, as usual. And once again - true to your theory - you try to mail Hutchinson as discredited.

Nail, Fish, surely? 'Mail' indicates something quite different.