Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Abby Normal]

And those are the facts, in a nutshell.

and those are the incorrect facts in a nut shell.

Abberline had already-as I have pointed out repeatedly-written down pages of his thoughts about it before the reporter ever showed up.

And all the major witnesses, either directly named or indirecty alluded to, were commented on/written about by police officials after 1888-including Long, lawende, schwartz, even minor one like maxwell.
And when the witnesses are spoken of generally we get statements like-they only saw his back.

the ONLY mention of Hutch was from Dew-who thinks he was mistaken-glowing review that.


the silence on Hutch, who should have been witness extrordinaire-is deafening and you know it.

[Sam Flynn]

They might look twice if someone raised the alarm on discovery of a bloody murder. Indeed, the discoverer of said murder might notice the killer vaulting over the fences of the adjoining houses. Fences which, it seems, were rather rickety anyway.

Assuming the killer had scaled one or two of them en route, what next? He'd have had to get out onto Hanbury Street at some point, presumably via the passageway of one of the houses, without knowing whether it would have been obligingly left open for him to make good his escape. Without knowing whether someone else would be using the passage concurrently. Without knowing who might be standing outside the front door.

Make no mistake, the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street at waking-up time was a very risky place for a killer to choose.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I agree with Sam that vaulting over fences would wake everyone with windows open facing that yard, but at that point who cares,..he still can get away. He is not "trapped".

(Originally published by Michael W Richards)

There have been several comments re the likelihood or unlikelihood (delete where applicable) of the murderer making his getaway by climbing over backyard dykes or fences.

I grew up in a Glasgow tenement, most of these tenements had a back court which was separated from the parallel tenements by a brick dyke/wall.

It was commonplace for people to clamber over the wall into the other tenements back yard and walk through the close of the other tenement.

Local people wouldn't look twice at someone clambering over walls and fences whatever the time of day.

This was done in order to save time by avoiding the need to walk along the front of the tenement and walk back up the other side of the parallel tenement.over the wall.

It should be pointed out that these dykes normally had a broken section in them at some place which made it possible for women to take the shortcut without the indignity of having to clamber over the wall.
Very handy if you are lugging some shopping with you.

With me so far?

The point is, that if it was common practice in 1950's and 1960's Glasgow, it was probably commonplace for local residents in 1880's Whitechapel.

Local people wouldn't look twice at someone clambering over a wall or fence, irrespective of the time of day.

[Ben]

Hi RJ,

I never suggested that there was a “great body” of correspondence on the subject of witnesses. I’m saying that the extant written material, post-1888, is more than sufficient to conclude that the reports of Hutchinson’s discrediting were correct. In fact, it’s the very paucity of material on the subject that really underscores the point. If the police officials under scrutiny were to dedicate but a fraction of their interview, marginalia, memoranda or whatever else to the ripper witnesses, they would surely have made an absolute beeline for the very best the evidence at the time had to offer - and that “very best” ought to have been Hutchinson, had his evidence not been discarded.

I have obviously been a little careless with my terminology if the words “document” and “discussion” have been the cause of confusion, which is why I am more than happy to retract these in favour of the more general description: comments made over the years subsequent to the murders on the subject witnesses by serving and former senior police officials associated with the ripper investigation.

Further, Hutch's man was 35, spoke or at least understood English (with Kelly), and was dressed to the teeth.

Klosowski was 23, a newly arrived immigrant, impoverished and quite probably didn't even speak English, and certainly wouldn't have dressed in spats, etc.

I agree entirely, but I suspect that with the exception of age (which is easily surmountable), most of the above was unknown to Abberline at that stage, whose knowledge of Klosowski’s history was demonstrably hazy at best. 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).

Abberline would only have been familiar with Klosowski’s current appearance, without suspecting he looked appreciably different in 1888, making Hutchinson’s Astrakhan suspect an obvious one to latch onto for comparison purposes.

Because Dew does not state Astrachan did not exist; he states that he believes Hutchinson had the wrong night.

As I’ve already mentioned, though, Dew made it abundantly clear that his “mistaken” theory was entirely his own; he wasn’t passing on the official stance adopted by his former superiors on the subject. Abberline might independently have come to the same conclusion, but the early reports of Hutchinson’s discarding - the ones which correlate so well with the total absence of any mention of him in the aforementioned missives - cite doubts about his credibility as the reason for it, not date or time confusion.

But you’re right, we can but agree to disagree on our interpretation of these particular sources.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

As you have noted yourself, Hutchinson gave an initial statement to police in just the same way as Bowyer did on 9 Nov., and Hutchinson was asked if he saw anybody in Dorset street - a natural question to put to the witness. His well known response being that he didn't

You’re quite wrong, Jon.

Hutchinson’s statement contained not a single mention of whether or not he had seen anybody in Dorset Street. He was almost certainly asked the question, but just as in Bowyer’s case, his response in the negative obviated the need to include a mention of it.

You’ve obviously confused the police statement with the press interview. In only the latter did he address the question of whether or not he saw anybody else on Dorset Street.

If the coroner 'knew' the murder took place around 3:00 am, there was no need to call Maxwell

Who are you quoting when you wrap the word “knew” in speech marks like that? I never claimed that the coroner knew when the murder took place. I observed simply that he was aware that Maxwell’s evidence was in the minority, as evinced by his caution to her to “be careful” with her evidence because it was “different to other people’s”. I didn’t say that the “murder” cry was a firm sign, although they may have considered it a likely one for obvious reasons.

As I also explained, it was an "internal police circular" which means not for publication

I know you “explained” it, but I’m afraid you didn’t demonstrate it at all. How do you know it was an “internal police circular” as opposed to an unsanctioned leak to a newspaper not officially endorsed by the police? What was the point in the existence of the Police Gazette if not to establish a clear distinction between officially sanctioned police disclosures and mere press gossip?

No-one has suggested that there was no cry of murder, what is at issue is whether the cry was legitimate, as many - provably, were not.

At least one of them believed the cry came from the court, and since a particularly bloody murder occurred in that very court, I know exactly where my money would be going.

Anyway, YOU think the cry of murder came from Kelly just seconds before her actual murder, so what are we really arguing about?

Corroboration is the responsibility of the police, not the coroner. No need to call witnesses to provide the same evidence.

This is still nonsense.

When one witness independently and separately offers the same time as another witness to a particular event, it’s called “corroboration”, which is a very sought after commodity by police and coroner alike. Given your constant reminders that the coroner was there to establish time and cause of death, corroborative testimony would have been especially crucial to include.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

As he says to the report, if he had known HE (the killer) was THERE (in the court), he wouldn't have got away.
Just plain English Ben, without the twists.

I couldn’t agree more.

But he knew “the killer was there” because the mutilated corpse in room #13 attested unambiguously to it. I’m asking why the quote itself doesn’t mention seeing any man, or more importantly, any description. If there was an opportunity to quote Bowyer personally, why not capture the most important words; the ones actually involving the appearance of the 3.00am stranger?

The police do not release articles to the press concerning witnesses after they have been interviewed, unless there are new revelations.

But there were “new revelations”; they took the form of “later investigations”, conducted by the police and alluded to by the Echo, which evidently cast doubt on Hutchinson’s credibility. The “treatment” I refer to was one of discrediting, and much the same was meted out to Packer and Violenia when their stories were ultimately deemed wanting.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

It’s not that I’m complaining about your decision to address all my posts, including the ones I specifically address to other people, but it might be construed as a little greedy, given how much time and words I’m already lavishing on you above all others.

To draw a direct comparison between his recent suspect and the statement of a witness involved in the case would be viewed by his peers as along the lines of disreputable conduct.

Yes, but they were all mentioning witnesses, regardless of what unofficial rule they may or may not have been breaking. It wasn’t as though they were using the witnesses’ names.

It is far better to indirectly link his recent suspect with the case by simply using his description, and let the reader draw their own conclusion.

I absolutely agree.

So in a parallel universe, in which Hutchinson wasn’t discredited but instead remained the most crucial witness, we would have observed the following remarks:

Macnaghten: “Only one man ever saw the Whitechapel murderer, and that was the labourer near Miller’s Court”

Anderson: “The only person to get a good view of the murderer was a civilian walking near Dorset Street”

Abberline: “He is foreign in appearance, sporting a black moustache, pale complexion and surly countenance, precisely fitting the best description I got of the murderer”.

There was never an accusation that the incident didn't happened, but the man he saw is never included in modern suspect theories. This is a mistake, Packer was not believed to have invented the incident, it was purely an issue of 'time'.

It can never be “purely” an issue of time. If Packer offered various different times, that inevitably invited suspicion that he was lying, which in turn invited equally inevitable suspicion that he didn’t see any man with Stride in his shop that night. It wasn’t merely his times that were at variance; he initially reported that he had shut up shop for the night, without any man and women entering it. It was because his entire stories were contradictory that he came to be discarded.

You try to revive him as a genuine witness now for the same reason you try to revive Hutchinson’s - he described a well-dressed man, and you’re desperate for that sort of man to have been the ripper. We’ll figure out why one day, I’m sure.

All the best
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

It would certainly have been Iremonger’s fault if she confused an original document with a modern piece of paper, scrawled on by a registrar.

Cheers,
Ben

[Wickerman]

.... If Hutchinson was still considered a valuable witness, Abberline would have seized on the golden opportunity to infer similarities between his new star suspect and the man vividly described by his star witness.

If you were a retired Scotland Yard detective you would hold a different opinion. In fact I think it was Swanson who referred to this unwritten rule not to talk about the cases they were involved in. Several did, yes I know, but it was up to each individual officer to respect the traditions of their old department.
To draw a direct comparison between his recent suspect and the statement of a witness involved in the case would be viewed by his peers as along the lines of disreputable conduct.
It is far better to indirectly link his recent suspect with the case by simply using his description, and let the reader draw their own conclusion.

...Packer was discredited, just as Hutchinson was, perfectly accounting for the non-mention in his case.

Packer's evidence was devalued because he changed the time of the incident he claimed to witness. Originally he had said he saw Stride at about 12:30, then in a further interview he said 11:30.
Should the case ever be brought to trial his statement would not be credible.
There was never an accusation that the incident didn't happened, but the man he saw is never included in modern suspect theories. This is a mistake, Packer was not believed to have invented the incident, it was purely an issue of 'time'.
However, the press were not aware of this reason, all they knew was the grape story could not be substantiated, so they theorized this was the reason he was not believed.

You use the term "discredit" far too loosely, though it is clear why you do it, so you can draw a parallel with Hutchinson.

[Wickerman]

Abby: Abberline was going to write to Macnaghten, but his arm was still recovering from a gardening accident, and he didn't write. The interview spared him the effort. It is unknown if he wrote at a later date, and no one knows what he would have written. So to claim that Abberline's extensive writings don't mention Hutchinson is utterly ridiculous. Those extensive writings don't exist any more than Ben's extensive police reports mentioning witnesses after Nov 1888.

And those are the facts, in a nutshell.

[Wickerman]

No, it isn’t.

No, it definitely and most emphatically isn’t.

In the actual quoted section of the article, Bowyer gave no indication whatsoever that he had seen anyone - instead he expressed regret that he hadn’t. If he had known that a killer was lurking in the court, concealed from view inside Kelly’s room, he would have prevented his escape.

But in the suspiciously unquoted portion of the article - the hearsay bit - we’re suddenly being told about a man inside the court at that time; a man you bafflingly want to have been Astrakhan, despite the fact that he should have been indoors in a dark room with Kelly at that time.

Knowing how easy it is to misrepresent the meaning of an article, it is always best to provide the actual quote.

"Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid. Bowyer, who is known as "Indian Harry" has travelled a great deal, and formerly lived in India. He said to an Echo reporter this morning. "The murderer couldn't have come to a worse place (for escaping) than this court. There is only this narrow entrance, and If I had known he was there when I went to the water tap at three o'clock, I reckon he wouldn't have got off."

Which makes it abundantly clear that Bowyer saw a man in the court, but he had no idea that the man he saw at 3:00 am on Friday morning was the long sought killer.
As he says to the report, if he had known HE (the killer) was THERE (in the court), he wouldn't have got away.
Just plain English Ben, without the twists.

It is one of the many crucial pieces of evidence indicating that Hutchinson was not believed...

It isn't crucial, and it certainly is not evidence.

....which, while not insignificant in isolation, becomes considerably weightier when viewed in conjunction with the treatment of Hutchinson from mid-November 1888 onwards coupled with the subsequent reports and memoirs of senior police officials.

I think you mean "not significant in isolation", and what "treatment" would this be?
The police do not release articles to the press concerning witnesses after they have been interviewed, unless there are new revelations.

[Wickerman]

Hello Ben, I'll sidestep the repetitive grandstanding, entertaining though it is, informative it is not.

You’re the one forever gassing on about proper police procedure, reminding everyone that detectives would typically ask “interrogating” questions of their witnesses after listening to their initial narratives. According to your oft-repeated dogma, therefore, it is clear that Abberline did ask Bowyer if he had seen any suspicious strangers that night, but because the latter clearly responded in the negative, there was absolutely no need to mention it in the police report.

As you have noted yourself, Hutchinson gave an initial statement to police in just the same way as Bowyer did on 9 Nov., and Hutchinson was asked if he saw anybody in Dorset street - a natural question to put to the witness. His well known response being that he didn't.

Which shows two things - that it is necessary to make a record of the response even if it was in the negative. And, therefore, the question was never put to Bowyer, as we have no response in the negative or the positive to such a question.

You really need to appear in a court to see how the process works. What is expected of the witness, and what is not permitted.

And what about those exceptionally rare instances in which a cry of “murder” is very shortly thereafter followed by an actual murder? Or more to the point, what policeman worthy of his rank (or sane human being worthy of his skin) would instinctively dismiss the two events as unrelated coincidence?

If the coroner 'knew' the murder took place around 3:00 am, there was no need to call Maxwell.
Macdonald was also a surgeon, unlike Baxter, so Bond & Phillips were his peers, and a professional relationship can be expected to have existed between the three gentlemen.
Which shows the cry of murder was not a deal breaker as a firm sign of when the murder took place.

You’re quite sure that this press release was authorised by the police?

I didn't say that.
I explained that the description was...:
"...an official police suspect release. It is taken from an internal police circular issued across all stations."

These releases are published by the press periodically throughout the series of murders, but they are not provided by the police.
As I also explained, it was an "internal police circular" which means not for publication. These releases end up in the papers because reporters hand copy the details from a police notice board in the station.

Quite right, they’re not, but they provide mutual corroboration of a cry of “murder”.

No-one has suggested that there was no cry of murder, what is at issue is whether the cry was legitimate, as many - provably, were not.

Maxwell and Maurice Lewis were not “duplicates” either, but they provide mutual corroboration for a later morning time of death. It was therefore essential to provide both witnesses at the inquest in order to demonstrate this corroborative element to the coroner, unless of course one of those witnesses was considered unworthy of inclusion at the inquest for whatever reason.

Corroboration is the responsibility of the police, not the coroner. No need to call witnesses to provide the same evidence. Neither M.Lewis nor Mrs Kennedy had anything to offer that wasn't already provided by Maxwell & S.Lewis, respectively.

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

Given that our Man on the Clapham Omnibus read everything, he would know that all three of MM's JtR suspects displayed definite multiple killer tendencies, having appeared in the press for committing suicide, failing to muzzle a dog, and theft from a jeweller.

With regard to your question, I would say that your answer is correct.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

By all means make an entreaty to Sue Iremonger, but I suspect she would be rather insulted at the insinuation that there was the slightest question mark over her original 1993 analysis.

If she was mistakenly given the wrong version of the certificate rather than the original, it's hardly her fault.

[rjpalmer]

If it were possible, how would a contemporary interested newspaper-reading Man on the Clapham Omnibus have interpreted the Macnaghten Memorandum?

That the police kept a tight lid on their investigation, and we know very little about it. Sir Mel is mentioning suspects that your newspaper-reading man from Clapham has never heard of.

But tell me, Simon, have you dropped us a clue as to where you are headed? You earlier state that Abberline was gullible. You now state that Hutchinson did not exist. How does a gullible man interview a suspect that does not exist?

It's a puzzle with only one answer.