Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ben. Unfortunately, I don't consider the FBI profile to be a 'sober' step towards enlightenment. In some ways, the 60s and 70s had more wisdom than those chasing this pseudo-scientific fantasy of the 90s.

John Douglas claimed the Ripper would be a local chap who would seek a job cutting up animals.

O really? Did Chikatilo work as a fish gutter? Did Ted Bundy seek employment in a horse rendering plant?

Why would anyone believe this bilge?

Chikatilo was a school teacher; Bundy was a want-to-be lawyer who wore tweed jackets and turtlenecked sweaters--a pseudo intellectual who hob-knobbed on college campuses. I'd call that a 'toff.'

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.

It brings us back to the era of Stephen Knight, ABBA, and bellbottom jeans.

There are cases of mass murderers who target groups, of course; the nutter in Montreal, for instance, who hated feminists and shot women on a college campus. Mark Essex, who hated white people and killed a number of them. John Glover in Australia who hated old women and murdered them with a hammer.

Simply put, if the Ripper hated Jews, he would have targeted Jews. The psychology is really that simple.

The idea that he is targeting gentile "unfortunates" in order to get at the Jews is a "literary" solution to the case; it might be a "cracking good read," but it is no more psychologically realistic or plausible than Sir William Gullible killing East End women in order to silence a Royal scandal.

The Ripper was a misogynist. Any attempt to stray beyond that reality is a fantasy. 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. You've merely exchanged one myth for another myth, wrapped it in dubious science, and fly it in the air like a flag of victory.

[Ben]

Fair enough, Gareth. Substitute “heralded” for “embodied”, and I don’t think we’re too wide of the mark.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, I agree, and the increasing popularity of his candidacy has heralded a seismic shift away from the “Gentleman Jack” model, as popularised in the 1970s, in favour of a more realistic, criminological and, as you say, “commonsense” approach to the study of these crimes

I'd say that the interest in Hutchinson as a suspect came about during the more sober approach to the case that has arisen in recent decades. Hutch was one among many suspects who didn't conform to the Gentleman Jack model, but he wasn't the first, and he wasn't exactly the herald of a new age of ripperology.

[Ben]

Hi RJ,

Abberline doesn’t mention Hutchinson because he is speaking in a general way about men seen with peaked cap.

Yes, but the only reason he was “speaking in a general way about men seen with peaked caps” is because he didn’t have anything better to offer the PMG in terms of eyewitness compatibility between Klosowski and the ripper witnesses. The peaked cap parallel was a tenuous one at best, but that was all Abberline had, whereas had not Hutchinson been discredited, he would unquestionably and with great zeal have latched onto the Astrakhan description for comparison purposes.

Walter Dew evidently became aware at some point that the police were no longer interested in apprehending Astrakhan-resembling suspects, but not enjoying a senior enough rank, was kept into the dark as to why, prompting him to speculate years later.

Next up is Sir Mel. Here is Macnaghten’s only statement about witnesses (Aberconway version):

“This man [Kosminski] in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square.

That was most certainly not his “only statement about witnesses”; he also stated that “nobody ever saw the Whitechapel murderer unless possibly it was the City PC a beat near Mitre Square”.

Unless Macnaghten was confidently able to exclude Astrakhan as the murderer while still accepting Hutchinson’s truthfulness - which wasn’t possible - the above remark very clearly demonstrates that Hutchinson was no longer considered a valid witness. Otherwise, it is astoundingly clear that he would have cited Hutchinson as the best candidate for “possibly” seeing the Whitechapel murderer.

“The only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him, but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him."

Your logic is not difficult to follow; if only one person ever had a good view of the murderer (and this person is Lawende) than we must dismiss Elizabeth Long, George Hutchinson, Israel Schwartz, Matt Packer, etc. as not having had a good view of the murderer. They all must be swept aside as pretenders, liars, and irrelevancies, and the books by Begg, Sugden, et al. must be seriously revised.

Anderson’s own words - the ones you’ve just quoted - make a nonsense of what you’ve written. Please let’s just look again at Anderson’s observation: “The only person who ever had a good view of the murderer...”

Are you suggesting that Elizabeth Long had a “good view” of the murderer? Well then, there’s your explanation for her not being Anderson’s witness, ditto Cox, Marshall and a whole host of others who, by their own admissions, didn’t get “good” views at all. Packer was discredited, so he’s out too.

Which leaves us, setting Hutchinson aside for the moment, with Schwartz and Lawende, who not-so-coincidentally meet Anderson’s “Jewish” criterion. Both acquired “good views” in the sense that their physical proximity to the suspects facilitated fairly detailed descriptions of their faces and clothing, but were they anything like as “good” as Hutchinson’s. No, they were absolute dross in comparison, and yet for some reason, Hutchinson was excluded from both consideration and use as a potential suspect identifier in the future.* For some reason, Anderson and Swanson came to accept that Hutchinson did not get “a good view” of the murderer.

What credible reason exists for this, other than the one the Echo obtained from the police in mid-November 1888 - that Hutchinson’s statement had been “considerably discounted” because of doubts about its credibility?

But then you suddenly leapfrog into a huge tangent about Hutchinson as a ripper suspect, which is entirely unrelated to the issue currently under discussion. I’m not sure quite how the police seniority all agreeing on Hutchinson’s discrediting is weakened by two of them fancying Kosminski on the basis of an alleged three-year-old identification.

Moreover, I don’t see how Hutchinson’s discrediting materially affects the question of his potential culpability in the crimes. If there was no evidence for any discrediting, and I wished to make a case for Hutchinson as the ripper, I could just as easily argue that he successfully and permanently pulled the wool over the eyes of the police, sending them on a perpetual wild goose chase in pursuit of a fictional Astrakhan suspect.

That said, I’m in a generous mood tonight. There are worst suspects than Hutch. He is the suspect of the ‘commonsense’ Ripperologist

Yes, I agree, and the increasing popularity of his candidacy has heralded a seismic shift away from the “Gentleman Jack” model, as popularised in the 1970s, in favour of a more realistic, criminological and, as you say, “commonsense” approach to the study of these crimes, despite fierce residence in some quarters.

All the best,
Ben

*Yes, I’m aware that a preference for one of the Jewish witnesses as “the only person...etc” tends to preclude the other from consideration, but that’s an entirely separate discussion.

[sleekviper]

Thanks Wick!

[rjpalmer]

Sorry Ben, but I can only chuckle, rather sadly, at how much emphasis you place on what WASN’T SAID by the notoriously tight-lipped officials at Scotland Yard, as they write and speak in general terms in later years. If I wanted to theorize on the basis of what four or five people didn’t mention, I could weave all sort of fantastic tales.

These vague and general remarks about witnesses need to be viewed in their context. Abberline doesn’t mention Hutchinson because he is speaking in a general way about men seen with peaked caps. Dew openly remarks on Hutchinson’s honesty…which is hardly a refutation.

Next up is Sir Mel. Here is Macnaghten’s only statement about witnesses (Aberconway version):

“This man [Kosminski] in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square."

That’s it, in its entirety.

Anyone claiming this simple statement is a denouncement of Hutchinson has been sampling too many gin and tonics.

So let’s move on to your only remotely valid argument: Swanson and Anderson; we can safely lump them together because Swanson is simply commenting on Anderson’s remarks.

Here is the totality of it, in Anderson’s words:

“The only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him, but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him."

Your logic is not difficult to follow; if only one person ever had a good view of the murderer (and this person is Lawende) than we must dismiss Elizabeth Long, George Hutchinson, Israel Schwartz, Matt Packer, etc. as not having had a good view of the murderer. They all must be swept aside as pretenders, liars, and irrelevancies, and the books by Begg, Sugden, et al. must be seriously revised.

Alas, if this is the rock on which you build your fortress, it puts you in the rather awkward position of accepting Anderson as making a statement of FACT. And if this is a statement of FACT, then you have little option but to concede that Kosminski was positively identified as the murderer, in which case Hutchinson was as innocent as a newborn lamb.

But, eventually, we must wake up to reality. There is no direct police refutations of Hutchinson like we get with Violena; the only two coppers who mention Hutch by name both remark on his fundamental honesty—Abberline and Dew.

So, ultimately, the only policemen in your corner is, by default, the tag team of Swanson and Anderson, and, rather embarrassingly for your theory, they name another man as the murderer.

I find it rather odd that you accept this identification of someone else as a major plank in your theory.

That said, I’m in a generous mood tonight. There are worst suspects than Hutch. He is the suspect of the ‘commonsense’ Ripperologist. He’s not really the murderer, of course, but one can see why he delights those still stuck in the world of 1990s “profiling.” Ah, the good ol’ 90s. Almost makes me want to put on grunge clothing and crank up a bit of Nirvana or Pixies on vinyl. With all good wishes.

[Wickerman]

I have a question; if Abberline, on the evening of the 12th, wanted to check on a crime reported in the Romford area in 1885, approximately how long would it take to obtain that information? Anyone have any idea?

The police had use of the telegraph to contact a station in Romford. The rest is up to investigation time at the other end.

[Abby Normal]

Hi RJ,

Nobody has claimed to know what Abberline “would” have written to Macnaghten, but it’s astoundingly clear what he didn’t write and wouldn’t have written, and that was a favourable review of Hutchinson’s account (and importance as a potential suspect identifier), after mysteriously mentioning nothing of him in the PMG interview. If he was trying to “sell” Klosowski to the PMG from the point of view of supposed compatibility with witness testimony from 1888, as he clearly was, he would obviously have used the “best” evidence available for a potential comparison.

If the “best” was represented by Hutchinson, why would Abberline have chosen to “save it” for Mac while withholding it from the PMG, to whom he was presenting a case for SK-as-ripper?



...And Abberline’s comments on the witnesses as published in the PMG.

What more do you need, exactly? That’s four senior police officials, plus a decidedly lower ranking one, mentioning ripper-related eyewitness evidence after 1888. Their observations, which are wholly in alignment with the reported discrediting of Hutchinson in 1888, didn’t need making more than once. Their comments conveyed all they needed to about Hutchinson perceived credibility, or rather lack thereof.

Why do you need more reports? What are you hoping for? For a separate, additional report from Macnaghten, for instance, which might have read “Oops, wait a minute! Contrary to what I said in my memo, I’ve just remembered that there was a brilliant witness who probably saw the murderer - forget what I said about a City PC”.



Frankly, I’m at a loss as to what you’re talking about. It is quite clear that the post-1888 comments on the witnesses were written in the full knowledge of Hutchinson’s existence and story.

All the best,
Ben

Careful ben, your about to get a dissertation on semantics lol

[Ben]

Hi RJ,

Nobody has claimed to know what Abberline “would” have written to Macnaghten, but it’s astoundingly clear what he didn’t write and wouldn’t have written, and that was a favourable review of Hutchinson’s account (and importance as a potential suspect identifier), after mysteriously mentioning nothing of him in the PMG interview. If he was trying to “sell” Klosowski to the PMG from the point of view of supposed compatibility with witness testimony from 1888, as he clearly was, he would obviously have used the “best” evidence available for a potential comparison.

If the “best” was represented by Hutchinson, why would Abberline have chosen to “save it” for Mac while withholding it from the PMG, to whom he was presenting a case for SK-as-ripper?

Other than the Macnaghten Memo ("no one saw the murderer"), Anderson and Swanson's comments on the supposed identification of Kosminski, and the thoughts of Walter Dew (who doesn't make a peep about Hutch having lied) you've yet to name a single "subsequent report" by a police source mentioning witnesses.

...And Abberline’s comments on the witnesses as published in the PMG.

What more do you need, exactly? That’s four senior police officials, plus a decidedly lower ranking one, mentioning ripper-related eyewitness evidence after 1888. Their observations, which are wholly in alignment with the reported discrediting of Hutchinson in 1888, didn’t need making more than once. Their comments conveyed all they needed to about Hutchinson perceived credibility, or rather lack thereof.

Why do you need more reports? What are you hoping for? For a separate, additional report from Macnaghten, for instance, which might have read “Oops, wait a minute! Contrary to what I said in my memo, I’ve just remembered that there was a brilliant witness who probably saw the murderer - forget what I said about a City PC”.

Frankly, I suspect you and Abby, for all the talk of bad memories, have simply formed a wrong impression based on internal police discussions of Schwartz and other witnesses that PRE-DATED Hutchinson coming forward.

Frankly, I’m at a loss as to what you’re talking about. It is quite clear that the post-1888 comments on the witnesses were written in the full knowledge of Hutchinson’s existence and story.

All the best,
Ben

[sleekviper]

I have a question; if Abberline, on the evening of the 12th, wanted to check on a crime reported in the Romford area in 1885, approximately how long would it take to obtain that information? Anyone have any idea?

[rjpalmer]

So you don’t agree with RJ then, when he speculates that Abberline’s pages of notes intended for Macnaghten probably contained a glowing mention of non-discredited Hutchinson?

No, Ben, I was not seriously suggesting Abberline gave a glowing mention of anyone; there is no evidence this mythical letter was ever sent, nor, if sent, has it survived. It's just bluff and bluster.

The point was that it is utterly ridiculous for the Hutchinson doubters to claim they know what Abberline would have written and thus the mere act of writing somehow suggests Hutchinson was discredited.

It was a transparently bad argument, and still is.

Other than the Macnaghten Memo ("no one saw the murderer"), Anderson and Swanson's comments on the supposed identification of Kosminski, and the thoughts of Walter Dew (who doesn't make a peep about Hutch having lied) you've yet to name a single "subsequent report" by a police source mentioning witnesses.

Is that all you have? Or is there another source you have in mind?

If you can't name your sources, then I can only conclude you don't have any other than the four mentioned.

Frankly, I suspect you and Abby, for all the talk of bad memories, have simply formed a wrong impression based on internal police discussions of Schwartz and other witnesses that PRE-DATED Hutchinson coming forward.

After November, 1888, there is no literally no discussion of the major police witnesses we heard so much about during the reign of terror. These reports you keep mentioning do not exist. With all good wishes, RP

[Abby Normal]

One page, and a half. That is all he wrote.
The folder he had with him contained documents and newspaper cuttings.
Documents is what the police use, it doesn't mean he wrote pages and pages of details.
As is often the case you are exaggerating the facts, he only wrote one and a half pages, and we have no idea whether he named witnesses. Likely not if anything.



At some point I have read all those memoirs by retired officials. I don't recall any names of witnesses, there may be some. If you are so sure maybe you can provide some quotes.



If Hutchinson had been discredited, wouldn't Dew have made that clear?
Being discredited means they 'know' you lied, Dew only thinks he was mistaken as to the day.
How does that support your argument?



Tell us which witnesses, aside from Lawende, were mentioned by police officials long after the murders?

Ive been around to long to know your game wicky... i just named them in the post above.
Either you and rj are losing your memory or are intentionally being obstinate.

Either way im out.

[Batman]

Not sure, but Baxter wasn't a doctor and I think it was Abberline who joined Pinkertons.

https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../18891104.html

It was Inspector Moore who described doing the experiment.

Which demonstrates even LE didn't know about the routes to and from an area.

[Ben]

Good grief Ben, Bowyer didn't know the man he saw at 3:00 was the killer because no-one had reported a murder at 3:00.

Not true, I’m afraid.

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.

Who are you going to ask, seeing as everyone is dead who might know?

My question was a rhetorical one, the purpose of which was illustrate that the article is obviously nonsense.

The Echo wrote, "it appears", which shows they were guessing.
Where is the direct quote from a police source?

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

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.

No such impediment for Bowyer who, incidentally, clearly never met the author of the article.

So you don’t agree with RJ then, when he speculates that Abberline’s pages of notes intended for Macnaghten probably contained a glowing mention of non-discredited Hutchinson?

Nobody mentioned the witnesses by name, not even Lawende; I think we’ve established that by now. Who else received an honourable mention? Well, Abberline referenced peaked caps, so that might include Lawende, Schwartz and a handful of others. He also mentioned witnesses describing rear views of men over 35 indicating Long and possibly Cox too. Macnaghten mentioned a City PC, which might be a conflation of Lawende’s and PC Smith’s men.

Guess whose description doesn’t get so much as a look-in?

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

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Not sure what you mean by "all mentioning witnesses". It would help if you could throw in a few quotes with sources to support your argument.

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.

Purely by coincidence then, he managed to place the man & Stride at the same spot on the street, at the same time (12:30), as PC Smith saw a man with Stride.

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.

That was the time we are talking about - he shut up shop at 12:30, but for some reason Ass. Comm. Bruce made notes indicating different times

So it’s all Bruce’s fault that Packer provided wildly different times and wildly different stories? Yes, the report probably was the basis - or part of it - for Swanson’s negative opinion of Packer, and it’s a bloody good “basis”.

Packer was a witness, there never was a concern that he invented the grape-man

Don’t be ridiculous.

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

But yes, best to leave Packer for the relevant threads.

There are more respectably dressed suspects in this case than shabby dossers.

Nothing could be more remote from the truth. The above only holds true if you want to revive every morsel of press dreck that did the rounds at the time.