Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Sam Flynn]

Your probably onto something Batman.

I'm not so sure. It's easy to find semitic connections, pro or anti, in a part of London with such a large Jewish population.

[John Wheat]

Right, it doesn't tell us who JtR is. However, it does tell us who he isn't or else it's a Jew with a serious identity crisis. Kozminski is a favourite Jewish suspect. Yet these anti-semitic correlations in the Stride and Eddowes scenes are pointing away from Kozmisnki and not at him as a suspect.

Fair enough although I've always seen Kosminski as a weak suspect.

[Observer]

I'm not so sure. It's easy to find semitic connections, pro or anti, in a part of London with such a large Jewish population.

Indeed. Also, it's pure supposition that Eddowes murderer wrote the GSG. Add to that the fact that it's debatable whether Stride was indeed a JTR victim. Mr's Long described a foreign looking man talking to Chapman very shortly before she was murdered. If the Swanson marginalia is genuine, we have again a Jewish suspect implicated. Anderson implicated a Jew as the culprit. Last, but not least of course, there's Hutchinson's suspect haha.

[Wickerman]

I’ve provided them so many times it is starting to become tedious. For what I hope may be the last time, I am referring to comments made over the years subsequent to the murders on the subject of witnesses by serving and former senior police officials associated with the ripper investigation.

Hi Ben.
Why is it you can always be bothered to argue, but you can't be bothered to provide sources?
Surely, you're, "I've provided them so many times" applies to the argument too?
Yet you do.

He didn’t.

He informed both Sergeant White and Assistant Commissioner Bruce that he had seen the couple at 11pm, an hour and a half prior to PC Smith’s sighting, whereas previously he had told the police he hadn’t seen anything at all.

Really?, you might want to check again.

"I asked him what time he closed his shop on the previous night. He replied Half past twelve"
Sgt White.

Also...
"....he said “Yes, I believe she bought some grapes at my shop about 12. o'clock on Saturday."
Sgt. White.

There were margin notes added to the statement by another hand that provided "11:30" and "11.00", respectively, to those comments.

Don’t be ridiculous.

There have always been very grave suspicions that he invented the grape man, and a very strong likelihood of same.

The grapes issue was brought up by Diemschitz & Kozebrodski, not by Packer.
In a relevant thread, just show me any contemporary suspicions that Packer invented the man.

By the evening of the 14th, there was a great deal of press speculation that the murder occurred around that time. An unscrupulous journalist (or more likely an opportunist falsely claiming insight into Bowyer’s movements) could even have latched on to Hutchinson’s story, published in the press that morning.

Ah, this is nothing to do with Bowyer then, you just choose to resort to that baseless arguments that everybody is lying. Only Ben knows the truth - ok, gotcha!

No, it shows they were drawing an inference, one that was confirmed “upon enquiry at the Commercial Street police station” the following day.

Had that been so they would have no need to use "it appears", they would have been justified in being more assertive had their inferences been confirmed.
Which demonstrates you are grasping at straws once again.

The Echo were hardly at liberty to provide direct quotes from senior police officials. As you once spent pages of posts arguing, divulging such information to the press was officially contra-protocol (despite the reality that it happens all the time), and quoting individuals would have necessitated the naming of a source.

The Echo were the ones who admit the police do not tell them anything. So we are not contesting their published opinions, we know they are merely speculation.
It is your assertion that is under scrutiny, not the Echo.
It is you who insist the Echo are lying to the public by claiming the police tell them nothing, all the while obtaining privy details from officials not divulged to other media of the day.
It is you who needs to justify your claim.

“Discredited”, for the trillionth time, does not mean “proven false”. It means strongly suspected of being so.

You really don't get it Ben.
The statement of any important witness in a murder case such as this will be thoroughly tested before it is rejected.
The statement will be deemed usable in a court of law, or it won't - it's black or white.
Just like Violenia was, and the reason why was not a secret. The same with Packer, the reason why he could not be used as a witness was because he changed the times in his story.

No such justification was attached to Hutchinson at any time so there is no comparison to Violenia & Packer.
We're only dealing with your personal bias here, nothing more.

[Wickerman]

... Even Hargrave Adam was prone to repeating errors, such as the one about Klosowski being a snappy dresser from the moment he set foot in London (whereas in reality, his sartorial style was almost certainly cultivated in America).

H.L. Adam was a well respected writer of crime & police work.
In his Police Work from Within, 1914, he wrote a chapter on the Whitechapel Murders. On page 240 he wrote:

Many arrests were subsequently made, but all the
men were afterwards released, A description of a
man with whom the deceased was seen early on
the morning of the 9th was given by a man who
knew Kelly well. The description was as follows
" Respectable appearance. Height 5 ft. 6 in., age
between thirty-four and thirty-five, dark complexion
and moustache curled at ends ; wearing dark coat
with astrachan trimmings, black necktie, horseshoe
pin, dark gaiters, light buttons on boots; massive
gold chain."

H L Adam began writing on crime about 1908, his principal source, if I remember correctly, was Sir Robert Anderson.
Hutchinson, though not named, had not been forgotten.

[Abby Normal]

H.L. Adam was a well respected writer of crime & police work.
In his Police Work from Within, 1914, he wrote a chapter on the Whitechapel Murders. On page 240 he wrote:

Many arrests were subsequently made, but all the
men were afterwards released, A description of a
man with whom the deceased was seen early on
the morning of the 9th was given by a man who
knew Kelly well. The description was as follows
" Respectable appearance. Height 5 ft. 6 in., age
between thirty-four and thirty-five, dark complexion
and moustache curled at ends ; wearing dark coat
with astrachan trimmings, black necktie, horseshoe
pin, dark gaiters, light buttons on boots; massive
gold chain."

H L Adam began writing on crime about 1908, his principal source, if I remember correctly, was Sir Robert Anderson.
Hutchinson, though not named, had not been forgotten.

ZZ top writing in 1988 hadnt either

Clean shirt, new shoes
And I don't know where I am goin' to.
Silk suit, black tie,
I don't need a reason why.

They come runnin' just as fast as they can
'Cause every girl crazy 'bout a sharp dressed man.

Gold watch, diamond ring,
I ain't missin' not a single thing.
And cuff links, stick pin,
When I step out I'm gonna do you in.

They come runnin' just as fast as they can
'Cause every girl crazy 'bout a sharp dressed man


LOL!

[Batman]

Indeed. Also, it's pure supposition that Eddowes murderer wrote the GSG. Add to that the fact that it's debatable whether Stride was indeed a JTR victim.

Both of these are modern views which come about for one reason and one reason only - to make a Jewish suspect fit the crimes.

In order for JtR to be a Jew like Kozminski, one needs to take two major anti-semitic incidents connected to two crimes as coincidence and not related (or else claim the Jew has an identity problem). Namely, the insult directed to Schwartz as Lipski now has to be put down to lies/mistakes/ conspiracies/not the killer AND Eddowes bloody apron next to some anti-semitic graffiti in chalk unrelated and not connected. Not to mention Stride was killed next to a mostly Jewish social club. They have to be explained away as multiple coincidences.

It is obvious that Kozminski is not the first preference for many of the lead investigators in this case and one of them has strongly suggested no one believed that JtR was ever committed to an asylum or anything like that.

Yet even those early Kozminski proponents never did explain how they lined this up with the evidence surrounding Stride and Eddowes murders. As far I can tell they still believed Stride as a JtR victim.

I suspect this is why Abberline says "and you must understand that we have never believed all those stories about Jack the Ripper being dead, or that he was a lunatic, or anything of that kind." (Although one must see Abberline's statement in the context that he is commenting on George Chapman.)

It is almost certain that Kozminski was uncovered not by witnesses but by door to door searches all over Whitechapel to turn up potential suspects. Kozminski, a public masturbator, with family members who probably did suspect him, was obviously the new Piser who ended up with a remarkable non-violent life decades in an asylum. This is apparently JtR, case closed.

Yet in the background, there loom several pieces of anti-semitic evidence that get put aside to make all this try to fit.

This is called fitting the evidence to a suspect and not fitting a suspect to the evidence.

We are omitting evidence because it points away from a Jew not at a Jew. Simple as that.

I believe it was Fido in his book The Crimes, Detection and Death of JtR that had such a good suspect in his Kozminski/Cohen find that started to suggest the GSG was not related. It's been decades since I read his book but did he suggest he would go so far as to say Stride wasn't a Ripper victim? I don't think so. In the documentaries, he seems to suggest she was.

I think one ends up in historical revisionism by relegated much of the anti-semitic facts of this case to coincidence.

[Sam Flynn]

Folks, there's a lot of good stuff here about the Stride/Eddowes murders and/or the broad topic of antisemitism and its relation to the Whitechapel Murders as a whole. It would be a shame if this ended up buried in a George Hutchinson thread.

[Ben]

Just quickly though, before returning to topic: excellent post well argued, Batman. Thoroughly agreed.

[Ben]

H L Adam began writing on crime about 1908, his principal source, if I remember correctly, was Sir Robert Anderson

But he most certainly was not the source for the Astrakhan description, which Adam clearly obtained from the readily available newspapers. This is evident from the description he used, which cited a “dark” complexion, contrary to Hutchinson’s original statement (which gave a “pale” one), but entirely in keeping with the press version of his account.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Why is it you can always be bothered to argue, but you can't be bothered to provide sources

I’ve provided my sources on numerous occasions, I’ve discussed them extensively with RJ and others, and I refuse to do so again purely at your behest. As for your accusation that I can “always be bothered to argue”, you’re an interesting pot to call this kettle black!

You said you weren’t going to discuss Packer again, recognising that it was off-topic, or was that piece of advice dependent on you having the last word on the subject first?

So you’re disputing that Packer initially told the police he had closed his shop without seeing anything of consequence that night? Or are you now claiming that he did mention the grape-buying episode during his initial interview on the 4th October, and that White mysteriously didn’t mention it in his report?

I asked him what time he closed his shop on the previous night. He replied Half past twelve"
Sgt White.

Also...
"....he said “Yes, I believe she bought some grapes at my shop about 12. o'clock on Saturday."
Sgt. White.

These two quotes originate from different sources. The first is from White’s original interview where Packer mentioned nothing of Stride or grapes, whilst the second is from a reported conversation that took place between Packer and White as the latter made his way to the mortuary.

Had that been so they would have no need to use "it appears", they would have been justified in being more assertive had their inferences been confirmed

But they were confirmed, which is why they were “justified in being more assertive” on 14th November when they published their report, assertively declaring than Hutchinson’s account had been “considerably discounted”.

The Echo were the ones who admit the police do not tell them anything

The Echo were the ones who used to complain about the police “not telling them anything” prior to mid-November, prior to the divulgence of the information that Hutchinson had been discredited. Thereafter, with their curiosity assuaged, and their suspicion of police silence ameliorated, they had no cause to complain.

Bemoaning the fact that the police refuse to share information on one particular subject does not equate to an acceptance that they would never share any information on any subject at any point.

I’m not suggesting that the Echo were lying about anything. They expressed irritation at a particular instance of police reticence relating to a particular topic.

The statement of any important witness in a murder case such as this will be thoroughly tested before it is rejected.

Actually, I think you’ll find that “the statement of any important witness in a murder case such as this will be thoroughly tested” before it is accepted. Contrary to what you’ve long convinced yourself of, the “unchangeableness” of a story doesn’t serve as its ultimate gauge of truthfulness, and the police are perfectly capable of arriving at a conclusion that a witness probably lied, regardless of to what extent, if any, his story “changed” (as Hutchinson’s did considerably between the press and police versions).

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi RJ,

Massive change of topic there, but fair enough.

You’re obviously somewhat conflicted over being in such a conspicuous minority of opinion, and for such good reason. You would prefer the ripper to have been an educated, interesting “toff”, and appear affronted that the tide of popular opinion (and overwhelming common sense) is going against you.

I’m afraid it won’t aid your cause in the slightest to list a couple of rare examples of better educated serial killers in Chikatilo and Bundy, neither of whom were “toffs” by any stretch of the imagination. The fact remains that the vast majority of serial killers come from working class background and are generally blue-collar workers.

Speaking of vast majorities, the region circumscribed by the crimes were populated in the main by the Great Unwashed and the Great Unlettered; the sort of menially employed “local chaps” you’re so anxious to exclude from any question of culpability in the ripper’s crimes. And yet, statistics have demonstrated an extremely high probability of the offender living within that circumscribed region, increasing the probability that the killer was a “local chap” rather than your West End toff who swanned in for the express purpose of ripping, adorned in his finery.

That’s why “profiling” and its adherents must be so annoying to some people; it deprives those seeking an exotic solution to the murders of the validity of their exotic “dashing doc” suspects.

I don’t know why you keep revisiting the John Douglas profile. We’ve established that it is outdated in many respects - forgivable, really, as it is now 30 years old - and would consider Hutchinson too “organised” for crazy old Jack anyway.

Further, the idea of "Jack the Jewbaiter" murdering middle-aged prostitutes in order to implicate the Jews is every bit as fanciful as the Royal Conspiracy of the 1970s

But what isn’t “fanciful”, and instead has considerable evidential support, is the idea of Jack murdering middle-aged prostitutes and then taking advantage of prevalent anti-semtism in the district in order to lay a false trail. In fact, far from being fanciful, attempting to throw suspicion in a bogus direction is a frequently occurring trait amongst serial killers.

He didn’t need to “hate” Jews per se - he simply recognised their obvious advantage as scapegoats.

Misogynists, like psychopaths, come from various economic backgrounds; no reason to believe he was a non-descript chap a la Lechmere, Barnett, Hutchinson, etc. etc

Experience, statistics, and the demography of the locality in which the crimes were committed should immediately inform you otherwise.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

He doesn’t need to “hate” Jews - he simply recognised their obvious advantage as scapegoats.

... but only in connection with the Double Event, apparently. Canonical murders 1, 2 and 5 occurred in predominantly gentile locations, with nary a discarded garment nor graffito in sight. Hutchinson might have reported a foreign/Jewish-looking suspect, but so did Mrs Long.

[Batman]

... but only in connection with the Double Event, apparently. Canonical murders 1, 2 and 5 occurred in predominantly gentile locations, with nary a discarded garment nor graffito in sight. Hutchinson might have reported a foreign/Jewish-looking suspect, but so did Mrs Long.

Right after the murder of Nichols, you had a suspect called 'Leather Apron' who happened to also be Jewish. Therein is the start of the view that JtR was a Jew although there was already strong anti-semitic views being held at the time.

So prior to the JtR murders JtR doesn't appear to be using the anti-semitic hysteria to his advantage because it wasn't associated until Pizer. Then he had cover to go about as a gentile, meets with Chapman. When Pizer is cleared he then uses tries to put the blame back on the Jews again, first by attacking Stride near a Jewish socialist club, shouting Lipski when seen, in the hope that someone might associate this with a Jew. Then he fails to get his emotional satisfaction and goes off to do his signature on someone else and follows this up by throwing her bloody apron piece into a Jewish market sector with some anti-semitic graffiti underneath. Again, people hear about this and suspect a Jew, so off he goes to Kelly as a gentile, following the path of Chapman again.

It isn't hard to figure out that JtR was using anti-Semitic hysteria as a cover for himself.

Which really deals a stake to the heart of ideas that JtR was Jew. Either he was a gentile or a Jew with a serious identity crisis.

Heck even many of the investigators ended up believing he was Jew.

So to that end, JtR was successful. Which seems obvious because he wasn't caught.

[Sam Flynn]

Right after the murder of Nichols, you had a suspect called 'Leather Apron'...

I've opened another thread, Batman.