The Red Handkerchief...

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“Dr. Bond's estimated 'time-of-death' for Kelly, will have exactly the same effect.”

But it didn’t “have the same effect” because the police did not prioritise Bond’s estimated time of death to the exclusion of all other evidence that might have been at odds with it, such as the mutually supportive evidence of Prater and Lewis with regard to the cry of “murder”, which was heard much later than 1.00am. I never said anything about the Echo receiving “crucial information”. It is only “crucial” to those of us who obsess on a daily basis over the minutiae of anything and everything that might relate, however tangentially, to Hutchinson – you being by far the most extreme example at the moment. To the police and press of 1888, however, the dismissal of yet another time-waster was hardly a bombshell on the newsworthiness scale, and certainly not the sort of detail that necessitated elaborate subterfuge to conceal.

“If what you claim is true the Echo had no cause to consistently write this:
"Up to the present the police refuse the Press any information".”

They did not "consistently write" any such thing. You conveniently omit a date for that “up to present” quote, but I’ll bet you any money it originates from before 13th November, when the police most assuredly passed on some information. I've explained before; the fact that the police were generally reticent at providing the press with information does not permit us to conclude that they never provided any information to any journalist at any point.

“Had they been able to obtain quantifiable and reliable case related information what was stopping them from saying so in unrestricted detail?”

That’s obviously a very silly argument. So, according to you, the police were only capable of providing every single detail pertinent to the reporter’s enquiry or no information at all, and if the police supply a journalist with only some details, they must be lying about it? That is crazy-talk yet again, Jon. What’s wrong with the simple, logical explanation that the police informed the Echo of the “very reduced importance” they had lately attached to Hutchinson’s account, and provided a broad explanation for “considerably discounting” his story? Why does it have to be all or nothing? If the Echo pressed the police for more information, and the latter had responded with “Sod off, that’s all you’re getting, and you ought to count yourselves lucky that you’re getting anything at all” (which would have been a very good point), does it follow that the police were lying? You need to understand that neither the police nor the press can be blamed for failing to make allowances for your irrational scepticism 120 years later.

“The police have no cause to inform the press, so today, interested parties like yourself are left to guess what this explanation was, along with the press of the time.”

But the police do inform the press time and time again during the course of investigations of this nature, regardless of whether you think they had “cause” to or not. What’s this “dark light” you’re talking about? Abberline might well have obtained an “explanation” for Hutchinson’s delay (a completely unverifiable one at that stage, I hope you understand?), but the “later investigations” conducted by the authorities obviously cast doubt on that explanation to the extent that his failure to come forward earlier was a renewed problem.

“It might appear distinctive to you, or anyone today, but when you take into account how the poor did dress in those days, it is pretty common.”

So all poor people were 36 years old, 5’5” in height, with fully carroty moustaches and blotchy complexions, and because the police realised this, they completely abandoned the hunt for anyone who might fit that description? Please don’t ever, ever seek professional employment in an investigative capacity, Jon. Promise me.

“The police are not interested in proving a story false, they only care about it being verified as true.
If they can't, he will stay there until they do, or until he comes up with another version, but, Hutchinson isn't going anywhere.”

This is shockingly ludicrous nonsense.

Firstly, the very notion of keeping a witness in detention indefinitely until his/her is proven correct is utterly absurd and completely illegal. Can you imagine what a deterrent it would have created for any potential witness had that been the criminal policy? – “come forward with any information you might deem helpful by all means, but you must expect to become our prisoner until such time as we can verify your story”. And if that verification is not forthcoming, what happens? They are prisoners for life, presumably? Is that what happened to Packer and Violenia when their stories couldn’t be verified? Did they die in captivity?

“Check the papers, lots of suspects were held until their stories checked out - they were HELD, Ben, not sent away.”

Hutchinson was not a suspect in the minds of the police, just a witness, unless of course you want to repeat the “automatic suspect” nonsense again? Just let me know, and I’ll copy and paste my “bookmarked” objection yet again. I’m looking for an excuse.

“- The police were aware that Packer changed his story, not so with Hutchinson.”

YES so with Hutchinson.

If a polar opposite description doesn’t qualify as a “change”, I don’t know what does. Hutchinson’s initial statement described the man as having a “pale” complexion, and yet in the police-endorsed release of his description circulated in the press on the 13th, that complexion had changed to “dark”, which is the complete opposite. Unless the police were blind or oblivious, they would have been well aware that he “changed his story”. That’s just one example of a change – there are numerous others in press versions of his testimony. If you want these changes to have been the work of a lying Central News reporter (lying for what possible reason?), I’m afraid you no longer get to use these “embellishments” in support of your other highly controversial arguments. Gone is the Sunday policeman and the Petticoat Lane sighting because, according to you, these are press embellishments.

“Not only that, in your preferred Ripper source, the Star, we read that two suspects were arrested in connection with Schwartz's story.
Their statements could have implicated Schwartz or exonerated him, as the case maybe.
Apparently, the police had no cause to suspect him - though not due to guesswork.”

Huh?

The “two suspects (who) were arrested in connection with Schwartz’s story” obviously came to the attention of the police because they were suspected of being either “Broad-shoulders” or “Pipeman”, but turned out not to be. How on earth would this “implicate” or “exonerate” Schwartz himself? I’m quite sure the police never considered Schwartz in the capacity of a suspect, but it had nothing to do with him being “proven innocent” of the Stride murder.

“That is precisely what their separate accounts do, they alibi each other.”

No they don’t. That’s just silly. It’s like saying Bonnie “alibis” Clyde.

“But as for accurate case related inside information, no, they have no idea.”

Stop repeating yourself.

It’ll just lead to counter-repetition.

They most certainty had “accurate case related inside information”, even if it wasn’t detailed, and what’s more, every single high-profile investigation in history has involved the disclosure of “accurate case related inside information” from police to press. The idea that it never occurred in this particular case is horribly naïve.

“The IPN was of interest, like so many other reports through November, because the press can see the investigation in progress on the streets”

Wow, so no attempt at subtlety with that complete U-turn on your previously stated position. So the IPN was in possession of “accurate case related inside information” of the type that no other newspaper had, despite it not even professing to have used any police source, unlike the Echo who made direct inquiries at Commercial Street police station? I love the double-standards too – if the Astrak-hunt is no longer happening it’s “accurate case related inside information”, but if it’s ongoing, it isn’t. Lovely consistency there.

“Your "Commercial-street" reference is only with respect to the Echo learning what was already public knowledge, that both descriptions came from the same source”

Repetition again. Stop it. You’ll lose. It was not public “knowledge” that both descriptions came from the same source. It was an assumption that could only be confirmed by the police. And the Commercial Street visit was not “only” regarding this detail; they also extracted the information that Hutchinson’s account had been “considerably discounted” because it had not been made at the inquest and in the proper manner.

Best regards (but getting more than a bit cross now),

Ben

[Ben]

Hi John,

Doesn't this article perfectly illustrate that there were Whitechapel residents, apart from Astrakhan, who could afford some of the finer things in life, such as expensive gold watches?

No, not really.

"Afford" implies that M'Lachlin had paid for the watch himself, which may not have been the case. It might have been in the family for years, and he merely inherited it. Also, it is one thing to own an expensive watch, but quite another to parade it around the worst area in London in the small hours, and since there is no evidence that M'Lachlin himself did any such thing, he doesn't offer much of a comparison with the antics of Astrakhan man.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Doesn't this article perfectly illustrate that there were Whitechapel residents, apart from Astrakhan, who could afford some of the finer things in life, such as expensive gold watches? If so, perhaps Astrakhan's presence in Whitechapel wasn't quite so incongruous as it might first appear.

Hi John.
If you recall, Hutchinson did not see a watch, only a watch chain.

Joseph Isaacs used to wear an imitation gold watch chain, but only the chain. He couldn't afford a watch either - he used to steal them.

[Garry Wroe]

But didn't the Echo update its report on the 19th by stating that some of the authorities were inclined to support Hutchinson's account over Cox's, suggesting opinions were divided?

For what it’s worth, John, I’ve long believed that the Echo had one or more inside police sources who sold case-related information and that the visit to Commercial Street Police Station occurred in an attempt to secure confirmation of information received from one such source. When looked at from this perspective it is possible to understand how the Echo stole a march on its rivals with respect to the Hutchinson ‘diminution’, and why it printed the more equivocal piece of the 19th. My feeling is that the ‘authorities’ cited in the piece were detectives engaged on the case. Whereas some had dismissed Hutchinson as a viable witness, others remained more open minded. We see similar differences of opinion when in later years ‘inside’ comments began to surface. Abberline was clearly of the opinion that Chapman was the Ripper. Macnaghten was convinced of Druitt’s guilt. Anderson opted for Kosminski. Others spoke of ‘a certain doctor’, and another thought it likely that the killer might have been found in the Victoria Home. On this basis, therefore, I think it more than plausible that a few of those engaged on the case were still not convinced that Hutchinson was a time-waster and that this uncertainty was reflected by the Echo in its piece of the 19th. The opinion that really counted, however, was that which prevailed amongst those leading the investigation, and the available evidence is overwhelmingly indicative that Hutchinson had been jettisoned, as indeed had Packer and Violenia before him.

I sense that the police were becoming increasingly frustrated at their lack of progress. Thus, on the face of it they had in Astrakhan Man the first highly detailed description of a suspect. However, despite their best efforts they were unable to find astrakhan or any other witnesses that recalled seeing Kelly in the company of such a man … The problem is, much the same could be said of Blotchy. And it's worth pointing out that Cox also quickly disappears from the enquiry, as does Schwartz for that matter, possibly as the result of a failure to find BS man.

The point here, John, is that after their initial contact with police, witnesses were only ever going to be of use once a viable suspect was in custody. Hence I do not share your view that Cox, Schwartz and others were cast aside. They would have been utilized with the emergence of any realistic suspect. The fact that some believe that Lawende alone was used during the Saddler affair is a misapprehension in my view. The likelier scenario is that the press never got wind of other attempted identifications. But of one thing you may be certain: investigators would never have neglected any witness who might have helped to identify and later convict Jack the Ripper.

I'm inclined to think that there was no proof that Hutchinson actually lied but that lack of progress simply meant that the investigation into Kelly's murder eventually just ground to a halt.

And that would be perfectly fine, John, were it not for Anderson’s contention (and Swanson’s tacit agreement) that the only witness who ever got a good view of the Ripper was Jewish, and that the person he saw was the wretched Kosminski. So the witness was not Hutchinson and the suspect was certainly not Astrakhan. Thus we may conclude that Hutchinson’s Astrakhan account had been rejected.

[Garry Wroe]

I couldn't agree more. Quite often the 'solutions' to the evident problems with Hutchinson's account are so preposterous as to be vaguely amusing - but the real problem is of course that it does distract from the real issues, as you say. I also think that the rather obsessive attempts of a vocal minority to 'exonerate' Hutchinson are bound to discourage any new debate. Perhaps that's the intention.

Couldn't agree more, Sally.

[John G]

Hello Garry,

I would agree that a reason for not utilizing Hutchinson as a witness would be that the serious suspects that were considered at the time, such as Saddler and Kosminkski, didn't remotely resemble Astrakhan man. In fact, they probably didn't resemble Blotchy either, which might explain the lack of evidence for Cox being subsequently utilized in the investigation.

Furthermore, I am firmly of the opinion that the police effectively decided to put all of their eggs in one basket by relying, possibly exclusively, on their prime witness Joseph Lawende. And the driving force seems to be proximity of sighting to time of death. I mean, how else can Anderson's comments, almost certainly in relation to Lawende, "I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer..." be explained? Thus, in addition to Hutchinson, Cox, Schwartz and Pc Smith all clearly had better sightings of a suspect.

And, in respect of Kelly, the authorities clearly had no firm evidence of the likely time of death. Maxwell, suggested she could have been alive as late as 8:30, and the medical evidence is extremely uncertain, with Dr Bond calculating that time of death could be anywhere between 2am and 8am. Okay, screams of "oh murder" were heard at around 4am, but such screams were commonplace in the neighbourhood. Moreover, this time doesn't remotely accord with Dr Bond's best guesstimate of time of death: between 1 and 2am.

In fact, it's with noting that Anderson placed great reliance on Bond's opinions: in respect of Rose Mylett, for instance, he asked Dr Bond to reconsider his opinion, that she was murdered, and he subsequently decided that her death was due to natural causes. This is despite the fact that four other doctors believed she'd been murdered and that was the conclusion of the coroner Wynne Baxter. Nonetheless, even in The Lighter Side of My Official Life (1910), Anderson was still expressing a firm view that Mylett's death was one of natural causes. And, of course, crucially, Dr Bond believed that the latest Kelly had been murdered was 2am, half an hour before Hutchinson's sighting.

[John G]

Hello Garry,

Just to correct my last post. Hutchinson's sighting was, of course, at 2am not 2.30am, as I earlier implied. However, Dr Bond believed the latest Kelly had been killed was 2am, and he was also of the opinion that she was probably asleep at the time she was attacked, implying that she entered her lodgings, with her killer, well before Hutchinson's sighting. If Anderson accepted that, and as noted in my earlier post he seemed to place great reliance on Dr Bond's opinions, then I would submit that alone would probably have been sufficient enough to rule Hutchinson out as a witness, at least in Anderson's mind. Plus Kosminski looked nothing like Astrakhan Man!

[Sally]

Joseph Isaacs used to wear an imitation gold watch chain, but only the chain. He couldn't afford a watch either - he used to steal them.

Sorry Jon, going to have to stop you there - there are local press reports pertaining to one - yes, just one occasion on which Isaacs sported an imitation chain. Stating that he 'used' to wear an imitation chain indicates that it was habitual; and is misleading given what is actually evidenced.

While we're at it, perhaps you can evidence your claim that Isaacs 'used' to steal watches? I fear that nicking a watch was a consequence of his typical 'hit, run and pawn' M.O. during this period rather than of any particular desire for watches per se - unless you have evidence to the contrary of course.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
But it didn’t “have the same effect” because the police did not prioritise Bond’s estimated time of death to the exclusion of all other evidence that might have been at odds with it, such as the mutually supportive evidence of Prater and Lewis with regard to the cry of “murder”, which was heard much later than 1.00am.

We are not talking about "the police", we are talking about what the Echo were able to learn, and they were not able to share much with their readers, a few hints here and there, but nothing convincing.
Scotland Yard will not prioritize when they have more than one line of inquiry, they divide their resources, not throw out the overload.
It seems like you still have not learned what "parallel lines of inquiry" means.

I've explained before; the fact that the police were generally reticent at providing the press with information does not permit us to conclude that they never provided any information to any journalist at any point.

It is in the interests of the press to word their stories so as to make the reader 'think' they know more than they do. I'm surprised you cannot see this, though maybe you can, but admitting it will weaken your case.
We have examples of the City Police offering information, and the source is named.
Why is this no so with the Met.? - no clear information, no named source.
The reason is self evident.

So, according to you, the police were only capable of providing every single detail pertinent to the reporter’s enquiry or no information at all, and if the police supply a journalist with only some details, they must be lying about it?

No, I am still waiting for you to show the Echo printed something of value, something above a "nod", or passing remark, or a brush-off comment.
If the Echo had an inside contact, what is he telling them?, because their articles do not contain anything that puts the Echo ahead of their contemporaries.
To date you have nothing of significance printed by the Echo.

A story that now has a "very reduced importance" can easily be deduced by monitoring Detectives making inquiries about the Cox suspect as well as the Hutchinson suspect, instead of exclusively the Hutchinson suspect, as they expect.
Such an interpretation does not require inside information.

And, like I said, the Echo could have spoken to a doctor, either Bond or Hebbert, who may have hinted at something which brings the Cox suspect back to the fore.
Your claim of "inside information" from the Met. is not the only solution, therefore, cannot be asserted as such by you.

But the police do inform the press time and time again during the course of investigations of this nature,

You are talking about the official Press Release, of course, this is intentional. We know this Ben, no need for obfuscation. Official Press Releases are intended for broad Press distribution, so lets not try to say this is proof of the Echo receiving inside knowledge.

Abberline might well have obtained an “explanation” for Hutchinson’s delay (a completely unverifiable one at that stage, I hope you understand?), but the “later investigations” conducted by the authorities obviously cast doubt on that explanation to the extent that his failure to come forward earlier was a renewed problem.

But this is you guessing again. You are also guessing that his 'delay' could not have been verified that same night, which is amusing when you don't know what the reason for the delay was. Surely even you can see the silly side of that argument. We need to know what the reason was before we can estimate how difficult, or easy, it would be to verify.

So all poor people were 36 years old, 5’5” in height, with fully carroty moustaches and blotchy complexions, and because the police realised this, they completely abandoned the hunt

Of course they didn't abandon the hunt, they never bothered to publish this description though, did they. Not like that of Astrachan.
Now you know why, the description given by Cox was too generic, likely a fifth of the male adults in Whitechapel would have been fingered by someone.
The police don't have time for that.

Firstly, the very notion of keeping a witness in detention indefinitely until his/her is proven correct is utterly absurd and completely illegal.

Well, I can see you have some reading to do.
That is precisely what was done, and it didn't take forever. If they had to stay overnight then that is what happened.
In Hutchinson's case all they had to do was send an officer around to Sarah Lewis. The basic outline of his story could be verified within the hour.

The police are only interested in confirming what they have been told, and Abberline's expressed opinion tells us it was confirmed.

Hutchinson was not a suspect in the minds of the police, just a witness,...

Correct, and this is due to the fact he was believed.
Had he not been believed, the story would have been quite different.

If a polar opposite description doesn’t qualify as a “change”, I don’t know what does. Hutchinson’s initial statement described the man as having a “pale” complexion, and yet in the police-endorsed release of his description circulated in the press on the 13th, that complexion had changed to “dark”, which is the complete opposite. Unless the police were blind or oblivious,

You seem at a loss to understand the sequence of events.
Hutchinson gave his description to police Monday night.
The Police sent it to All Stations.

At some point that same night this description was sent to a Press Agency for broad distribution - this version carried the errors.
The erroneous version is not Hutchinson's fault.

... there are numerous others in press versions of his testimony. If you want these changes to have been the work of a lying Central News reporter (lying for what possible reason?),

What conceivable reason would Hutchinson have to make any changes, it's not like the press are going to keep it a secret. What are we talking about here, “Ha ha, I told the press the truth and no-one will ever know!”

I’m afraid you no longer get to use these “embellishments” in support of your other highly controversial arguments. Gone is the Sunday policeman and the Petticoat Lane sighting because, according to you, these are press embellishments.

You have no way of knowing what mistakes the Central News reporter is responsible for. And, as for the Sunday morning policeman, Hutch never told police that he didn't go to the market on Sunday morning.
Extra detail is not proof of a change of detail.

I’m quite sure the police never considered Schwartz in the capacity of a suspect, but it had nothing to do with him being “proven innocent” of the Stride murder.

Well, you don't know what the police were thinking the first day Schwartz came forward to tell his story. He did have a fixed address, and doubtless a place of employment, none of which could be supplied by Hutchinson. If they had any suspicions at all, at least they knew where they could find him. This detail seemed to be common among those detained by police, so long as they could verify their story, or who they were, the police let them leave.
Schwartz is not in the same situation as Hutchinson.

No they don’t. That’s just silly. It’s like saying Bonnie “alibis” Clyde.

Oh, I didn't realize you were suggesting Lawende, Levy & Harris all carved Eddowes up together. I could have swore you only said Lawende was not a suspect.

They most certainty had “accurate case related inside information”, even if it wasn’t detailed,....

How can you tell if it's accurate when it isn't detailed?
Created another problem for yourself again.

......and what’s more, every single high-profile investigation in history has involved the disclosure of “accurate case related inside information” from police to press.

Exactly, and how do we know this? - because we have highly detailed accounts from inside sources – remember Julian Assange, did he release vague insinuations, did he refer to unnamed “authorities”, or vague “investigations”? No!
He released highly detailed inside sources, all named.

That, my friend, is how we know.
Neither you nor Garry can find anything in the press to substantiate your beliefs. You are desperate to believe it, but you have nothing to show for your belief.

Wow, so no attempt at subtlety with that complete U-turn on your previously stated position. So the IPN was in possession of “accurate case related inside information” .....

Take your time to read what is written Ben.
The IPN, as with all the press were able to see the investigation proceding on the streets.
What on earth are you going on about “accurate case related.”..etc.?
None of the press had that luxury, beyond details obtained at the Inquest, and official press releases from Scotland Yard.

I love the double-standards too – if the Astrak-hunt is no longer happening it’s “accurate case related inside information”, but if it’s ongoing, it isn’t. Lovely consistency there.

I see no cause to try to understand what you are talking about here. Try to read a little slower Ben, then it may all come clear.

.... It was an assumption that could only be confirmed by the police.

If you read it carefully, the Echo learned that, “the elaborate description” is virtually the same as that previously published. They only had to read both descriptions themselves, to realize that. Anyone comparing both descriptions will arrive at that conclusion.
The fact they are told it proceeds from the same source is not “inside” information anymore, as Hutchinson gave his name to the reporter.
The “source” is therefore now public knowledge.

And the Commercial Street visit was not “only” regarding this detail; they also extracted the information that Hutchinson’s account had been “considerably discounted” because it had not been made at the inquest and in the proper manner.

Show me where that interpretation is attributed to the police, or “authorities”, or Commercial St.

Here, read it yourself:
The importance of this description lies (so says the morning papers) in the fact that it agrees with that furnished to the police yesterday, but which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner. There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity.

All three reasons in that short paragraph are attributed to the morning papers. The Echo make no suggestion (as you can see) that they obtained any of those reasons from the police. This is your imagination working overtime again.

Best regards (but getting more than a bit cross now),

I understand we have a resident psychologist available...

[Wickerman]

Sorry Jon, going to have to stop you there - there are local press reports pertaining to one - yes, just one occasion on which Isaacs sported an imitation chain.

The article pertains to him being caught wearing it once, not only wearing it once.
See the difference?

[Sally]

The article pertains to him being caught wearing it once, not only wearing it once.
See the difference?

Ah, so what you're suggesting is that having been caught wearing said chain the once, he cleverly avoided wearing it ever again when he was out pilfering; reserving it only for those occasions when he was out trawling for local prostitutes?

Is that right?

Oh, yes, that makes perfect sense

The reality here - as I've said to you before - is that you've taken the slightest evidence regarding Isaacs and extrapolated from that to create your Isaacstrachan theory.

You berate others for 'guessing'; yet that's exactly what you're doing - and wildly, at that.

[Garry Wroe]

I would agree that a reason for not utilizing Hutchinson as a witness would be that the serious suspects that were considered at the time, such as Saddler and Kosminkski, didn't remotely resemble Astrakhan man. In fact, they probably didn't resemble Blotchy either, which might explain the lack of evidence for Cox being subsequently utilized in the investigation.

I fear that you may have confused my argument somewhat, John. My firm belief is that all of the viable witnesses would have been used in one way or another. The fact that we have evidence of Lawende alone having been recalled for the Saddler identification almost certainly means that the press remained ignorant of other identifications involving other witnesses.

Forensic science was in its infancy at the time of the Ripper killings, a determinant which meant that prosecution cases often hinged on eyewitness identifications. Swanson alluded to as much in his marginalia notes when observing that the identificational evidence of Anderson’s witness would have been sufficient in itself to have hanged Kosminski. Thus, since identificational evidence was critical in such cases, investigators would never have discarded witnesses on a whim, and nor would they have used them selectively in order to gain a conviction. Any even semi-competent defence counsel would simply have used the discarded witnesses in order to blow the prosecution identification(s) out of the water. This explains why emergent eyewitnesses who disclosed possibly valuable case-related information were interrogated at some length in order to test the validity of their claims, a process which, I’m sure you remember, exposed Violenia as either a publicity seeker or profiteer.

In short, it seems clear that Hutchinson was discarded because those leading the manhunt uncovered evidence which in some way discredited his claims regarding Kelly and Astrakhan. I would suggest that you look closely at the cases of Packer, Maxwell and Violenia and draw your own conclusions as to what this evidence might have been. Those hunting the Ripper were not the bumbling buffoons that many appear to imagine. They had systematic investigative processes in place which were surprisingly sophisticated for the time. The one thing of which we may be absolutely certain, therefore, is that they did not disregard potentially important witnesses without good reasons for so doing. Since we know that Hutchinson was jettisoned, it must be assumed that this was a course of action taken on the basis of solid evidence, and anyone who thinks otherwise fails to appreciate the investigative methods which prevailed at the time.

[John G]

I fear that you may have confused my argument somewhat, John. My firm belief is that all of the viable witnesses would have been used in one way or another. The fact that we have evidence of Lawende alone having been recalled for the Saddler identification almost certainly means that the press remained ignorant of other identifications involving other witnesses.

Forensic science was in its infancy at the time of the Ripper killings, a determinant which meant that prosecution cases often hinged on eyewitness identifications. Swanson alluded to as much in his marginalia notes when observing that the identificational evidence of Anderson’s witness would have been sufficient in itself to have hanged Kosminski. Thus, since identificational evidence was critical in such cases, investigators would never have discarded witnesses on a whim, and nor would they have used them selectively in order to gain a conviction. Any even semi-competent defence counsel would simply have used the discarded witnesses in order to blow the prosecution identification(s) out of the water. This explains why emergent eyewitnesses who disclosed possibly valuable case-related information were interrogated at some length in order to test the validity of their claims, a process which, I’m sure you remember, exposed Violenia as either a publicity seeker or profiteer.

In short, it seems clear that Hutchinson was discarded because those leading the manhunt uncovered evidence which in some way discredited his claims regarding Kelly and Astrakhan. I would suggest that you look closely at the cases of Packer, Maxwell and Violenia and draw your own conclusions as to what this evidence might have been. Those hunting the Ripper were not the bumbling buffoons that many appear to imagine. They had systematic investigative processes in place which were surprisingly sophisticated for the time. The one thing of which we may be absolutely certain, therefore, is that they did not disregard potentially important witnesses without good reasons for so doing. Since we know that Hutchinson was jettisoned, it must be assumed that this was a course of action taken on the basis of solid evidence, and anyone who thinks otherwise fails to appreciate the investigative methods which prevailed at the time.

Hello Garry,

As I've argued on another thread there is, in my opinion, no evidence that any witness was utilized for identification purposes apart from Lawende. The evidence is clearly overwhelming that he was the witness in respect of Grainger, Saddler and Kosminski. I am unaware of any viable evidence that might suggest other witnesses being utilized for I.D purposes.

[Wickerman]

So we have Ben claiming that Hutchinson was dismissed due to suspicions that the police couldn't prove, and Garry saying his dismissal was on the basis of solid evidence?

[Wickerman]

For all the repeated hyperbolic rhetoric used to assert the dismissal of Hutchinson by the police, the only factual document that exists which would, both:
- Cause the murder investigation to divide into two lines of inquiry.
- Present an apparent lessening of importance initially afforded to Hutchinson.
is the report provided by Dr. Bond containing the estimated time of death for Mary Kelly.

Hypothetical theories adopted by a handful of members, which find no support of a tangible nature, certainly nothing official, do not even compete with the most likely scenario.

Hutchinson was never dismissed, his story became reduced in importance due to the receipt of medical opinion at Scotland Yard which enforced Cox's evidence.
From that moment on two separate lines of inquiry were pursued, as evidenced by the press, though both inquiries petered out over the next few weeks.