Evidence to prove a suspect valid

[Wickerman]

I'm not going to debate Hewitt with you, Wick. I made an observation based on his statement. I've drawn no firm conclusions. Had you made the observation first I'm sure you would have shared it as I did. But you didn't.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Actually Tom, when all is said and done I didn't see the need to interpret Hewitt's subsequent theory as a change of story.
I thought you were stretching it a bit when you concluded your article with:

"It was a true witness account of the murder of Martha Tabram."

It is reasonable for anyone to conclude that a quarrel preceded such a violent attack, and the fact he heard nothing leads him to suggest that she and her killer crept up the stairs.
I think we can all arrive at similar conclusions without actually seeing or hearing anything.

Therefore, it isn't necessary to conclude that the Hewitt's changed their story.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, even today Superintendents are not your typical local hero, quite the opposite.

I'm not going to debate Hewitt with you, Wick. I made an observation based on his statement. I've drawn no firm conclusions. Had you made the observation first I'm sure you would have shared it as I did. But you didn't.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

G'Day Jon

Given the violent nature of the neighborhood as a whole, what would you expect anyone to shout if someone was being beaten to death?

But the two witnesses to the cry at Kelly's say they just ignored it because it was so common.

Our couch potato existence today does not allow us to appreciate the first idea of the desperate & dangerous conditions these East enders had to live with.

It is one of my greatest interest in the Ripper case, the abysmal conditions that the best off of these poor wretches lived. I grew up with me and my older brother sharing a 6 X 8 foot room, these poor so and so's crammed 6 - 10 people into a room not much bigger. The mind boggles.

[Wickerman]

I wouldn't blame him at all for not getting involved. But then I wasn't paying him to do so. His boss was. There's also reputation to consider. In any event, it's all speculation in regards to what Hewitt did or didn't hear. But with Packer it's a fact that he lied.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom, even today Superintendents are not your typical local hero, quite the opposite.

[Wickerman]

G'Day Jon

Clearly a cry of murder was common, what did it mean, was it just lke we might say today b l o o d y hell?

Given the violent nature of the neighborhood as a whole, what would you expect anyone to shout if someone was being beaten to death?

Our couch potato existence today does not allow us to appreciate the first idea of the desperate & dangerous conditions these East enders had to live with.

[GUT]

G'Day Jon

Who is going to get him 'in trouble'?, when it was a reality that cries of "murder" were common place in their neighborhood.

Clearly a cry of murder was common, what did it mean, was it just lke we might say today b l o o d y hell?

[Tom_Wescott]

Who is going to get him 'in trouble'?, when it was a reality that cries of "murder" were common place in their neighborhood.
Opening that door could expose his wife to immediate danger, he was about 58 years old after all (same as Packer?).

Where would your concern lie?

I wouldn't blame him at all for not getting involved. But then I wasn't paying him to do so. His boss was. There's also reputation to consider. In any event, it's all speculation in regards to what Hewitt did or didn't hear. But with Packer it's a fact that he lied.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Agreed.
I too prefer to believe Hewitt did hear something, my interest is in the fact that his first choice was to avoid telling the police anything that would get him involved.
Just like Packer!

Yet, Tom thinks Hewitt's first story to police was a lie, but that Packer's first story to police was the truth.
With no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to help justify the difference of interpretation.

The difference that jumps out at me is the desire to implicate LeGrand.

I'm not motivated by 'desires', Wick. I became intrigued by Le Grand because up to that point people believed Packer lied to suit some need of his own. It occurred to me that it made far more sense that Le Grand - the bonafide conman - was being the ruse and not Packer. I naturally began to look at Le Grand with suspicion, particularly where Stride's murder was concerned. As a result of this, it was discovered that he was indeed a contemporary Ripper suspect. How many Ripperologists can say they became genuinely interested in a suspect BEFORE it was known that he was a suspect?

In any event, it was already known by all that Packer was a liar before it even became known that Le Grand was any sort of conman. Your attempts to paint me as someone rewriting history to suit my needs does not become you nor does it even remotely resemble reality. If anything, I often feel alone in my pursuit of what is and isn't factual. Everyone else seems more interested in nitpicking, pessimism, discouragement, and preserving their long-held but flawed beliefs.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

... Hewitt's job was not to hear a woman being attacked and do nothing. Of course he'd be in trouble.

Who is going to get him 'in trouble'?, when it was a reality that cries of "murder" were common place in their neighborhood.
Opening that door could expose his wife to immediate danger, he was about 58 years old after all (same as Packer?).

Where would your concern lie?

[Wickerman]

..... I too find it hard to believe that if we accept everything else that is said, or even most of it, that he would not have heard anything at all.

Agreed.
I too prefer to believe Hewitt did hear something, my interest is in the fact that his first choice was to avoid telling the police anything that would get him involved.
Just like Packer!

Yet, Tom thinks Hewitt's first story to police was a lie, but that Packer's first story to police was the truth.
With no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to help justify the difference of interpretation.

The difference that jumps out at me is the desire to implicate LeGrand.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, seriously, no employer gives a rats a$$ about what an employee might tell the press.

What you might not realize is that people deciding to fabricate a story are more concerned about what they might gain, than what they might lose.

What are you talking about? Hewitt's job was not to hear a woman being attacked and do nothing. Of course he'd be in trouble. And I wouldn't say that Hewitt 'fabricated a story'. He MAY have lied about having heard a struggle. And that's only a maybe. Packer and Pearly fabricated stories. In Packer's case it was, like you said, for gain.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

G'Day Jon

Tom, seriously, no employer gives a rats a$$ about what an employee might tell the press.

I seriously doubt that in the social conscious LVP. When appearance meant so much. And it certainly doesn't apply to all jobs and all employers today.

[Wickerman]

Tom, seriously, no employer gives a rats a$$ about what an employee might tell the press.

What you might not realize is that people deciding to fabricate a story are more concerned about what they might gain, than what they might lose.

[Tom_Wescott]

Just for the record, I don't think Hewitt can be implicated in the murder. I didn't bring him up, Wicker did, apparently because he sees similarities between Hewitt and Packer. But there are none as far as I can tell. Tabram was killed 12 feet from Hewitt's door, for what it's worth.

I don't know if she was killed by one or more men, but I can tell you there's absolutely no reason to suspect that soldiers did it. Actually, Hewitt indirectly and unintentionally played a part in Pearly Poll's fictional story. He talked to the Times about the evidence of Jane Gillibank, who thought the dead woman was a lady named Whithers. She said she saw Whithers with a soldier the day before the murder. Hewitt garbled the story (or the reporter did) and published it on the 8th that the dead woman was seen in the company of soldiers (plural) on the day OF the murder. That's what Pearly Poll's story was built around.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

G'Day Tom

Thanks that makes sense to me, I too find it hard to believe that if we accept everything else that is said, or even most of it, that he would not have heard anything at all.

If he admitted to hearing what sounded like a woman being attacked and he did nothing to interfere, he'd likely lose his job, which would also mean losing his home.

hadn't considered that aspect. Again many thanks.