Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
The overcoat undone, the brazen showing of his watch and chain, the button boots, the kid gloves, the meeting of prostitute, and client, the ''All right my dear you will be be comfy''.not forgetting the wrapped parcel..
If all of this did occur, then one could suggest, that the whole event was staged to give the impression that the victim , was seen with a man that may warrant suspicion.
We also have the report that morning,of a couple entering the court, laughing at the reward poster close by.
My question is?
If the event was staged , for what reason?
Was the victim already dead in room 13, therefore not MJK?
It was alleged in one press report, that Mary had let her room to another woman.
We have the report of one man and two women outside Ringers, the man trying to entice the better dressed female to go with him , whilst the other watched.
We have the strange belief of the police, that Kelly's velvet jacket and a bonnet was burnt ..because they were bloodstained... explanation needed?
According to Mrs Prater, Kelly was wearing these items at 9pm Thursday evening, was she wearing them at 2am in commercial street?
We have no report about Kelly's clothing seen by Hutchinson.
Question ..Did Mary burn her clothing because they became bloodstained, surely the killer would not have.. if so why?
Also the police believed the murder happened in daylight[ press report] why?
Is it therefore a possibility, that Maxwell did see Mary Kelly, up and dressed at 8am? because she was not dead?
Lets look at what is known.
Mrs Harvey had no plans to stay at Kelly's Thursday Evening, but remarks to her 'I will leave my bonnet then'
At 9pm..Mary is seen by Prater at the corner of the passage wearing her velvet jacket , and a bonnet... she is clearly dressed up.
Question . was that to give the impression she was out to impress someone of fancy?
At midnight according to Cox, Kelly was not wearing those clothes,,, explanation needed.. was she making it known that she was bringing home men that evening[ something she was not known to do previous].
Moving on to Hutchinson's report.
''They stood opposite the court for about three minutes''
Again just across from McCarthy's shop, which was apparently still open , as Bowyer mentioned that he was fetching water at 3am.
Was that for others to note? they clearly put on a show for Hutchinson.Why would the killer, wish to advertise himself, if not just for that reason.
There is definitely more to events of the 8th/9th Nov, then is known, so a new line of inquiry is needed...
Regards Richard.

[FrankO]

And your objection to my comment was to suggest that anyone dressing up like Astrachan "must be mad"?

Hmm, something’s gone terribly wrong here, Jon, ‘cause I certainly didn’t suggest anything like that. I haven’t been talking about dressing up, nor have I suggested that anyone who’d do that ‘must be mad’.

All I said was that, from a weather and ‘safety’ point of view, it would have been logical for him if he’d kept his coat buttoned up.

What Hutchinson said was it was unusual to see Kelly with such a "well-dressed" man (ie; not working-class).

Yes, that’s what Hutchinson said - or at least that's what Abberline recorded of it. Based on that alone, we indeed might not draw the conclusion that well dressed men of the Mr A type were uncommon in the East End.

But, as I already wrote in an earlier post, one might wonder why Hutchinson didn’t often see Kelly in company of well dressed men. One viable reason may be that there weren’t many to be seen in the district when Kelly was plying her trade. I’m sure that such well dressed men would have been a treat to Kelly (she could sure use the money), and from their point of view, Kelly was young and apparently rather attractive with a room of her own.

Anyway, apart from the oddity that he kept his coat open and that he was there as a well dressed man on his own well after the pubs had closed, perhaps the oddity lies not so much in the fact that Kelly’s punter was well dressed, but rather in the fact that, considering the conditions, Hutchinson was able to see so many details and remember them too. And that he apparently gave no reason for doing so. The closest thing he gave as a reason was that he was just surprised to see a man so well dressed in Kelly’s company – and that’s a very thin one at that for all the actions that he took that night.

All the best,
Frank

[Ben]

No apology necessary, Garry. On the contrary, I'd delighted to see we're in agreement here!

[Garry Wroe]

Apologies, Ben. There appears to have been more than a little replication regarding our most recent posts.

[Garry Wroe]

Reasonable, but a "respectable citizen" is perhaps either, a private detective or more likely a member of the Whitechapel Vigilance volunteers?

As I have already stated, Jon, another newspaper provided much more in the way of detail, and there is no question of the man having been a private detective or vigilante. He was an undercover policeman.

I do think it necessary to mention I think Ben already offered that as a solution to which I may not have responded because this 'solution' only answers the question of why this 'Blotchy' was not arrested. It does not answer the rest of the reply that the constable: "was looking for a man of a very different appearance."

Although I’m confused as to your intended meaning with reference to Ben, I think it abundantly obvious that the policeman concerned merely sought to reassure Mr Galloway in order to protect the integrity of whatever operation his undercover colleague was engaged on. That is the nature of police work, Jon. We know neither the essence of this particular operation, nor for how long it had been active. But of one thing we may be certain: no even moderately competent policeman would have risked compromising it by taking into his confidence a member of the general public. Hence I think it likely that the officer concerned provided an explanation that was simply calculated to deter Mr Galloway from further pursuing the matter.

Do I take it you accept the other three instances mentioned, and we can put this issue to bed?

You do not, Jon.

At about ten o'clock this morning, a man answering every description to the particulars furnished to the police by G. Hutchinson, as seen by him on the night of the murder of the woman Kelly, attracted attention in Queen Victoria-street, Blackfriars....Evening News, 16 November 1888

This was a sighting made by a member of the general public whose ‘suspicions’ were almost certainly aroused as a consequence of the published description of Astrakhan. As such, it in no way serves to confirm the thinking of those leading the hunt for the Whitechapel Murderer.

The arrest of Nikaner Benelius....”the prisoner is a man of decidedly foreign appearance, with a moustache, but otherwise cannot be said to resemble any of the published descriptions of men suspected in connection with the Whitechapel murders (the prisoner had been arrested by the police and detained in connection with the Berner-street murder).”The Times, 19 November, 1888.

‘[C]annot be said to resemble any of the published descriptions of men suspected in connection with the Whitechapel murders’. So how is it, Jon, that you consider this supportive of your argument that police continued to view Astrakhan as a viable suspect?

The Star, reporting on the same story went a little further, that ,...”the suspected man was of gentlemanly appearance and manners, and somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been seen in the company with Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered”

Oh, I see. The Star. Isn’t this the very newspaper that you have previously condemned as untrustworthy?

As far as I’m aware, no-one who appeared at the inquest hearing deposed that Mary Jane was seen in the company of an urbane individual on the morning of her death. I suspect that this is mere confusion on the part of The Star and perhaps alludes to the ‘clerkly’ man with whom Kelly was allegedly seen consorting in the Britannia. But, as with the Blackfriars incident, it provides nothing in the way of corroboration that Astrakhan continued to be viewed by investigators as a prime suspect.

That of Josef Isaacs, “the man who was arrested in Drury-lane on Thursday afternoon on suspicion of being connected with the Whitechapel murders. It transpired during the hearing of this charge that it was committed at the very time the prisoner was being watched as a person 'wanted'.....”the prisoner, who's appearance certainly answered the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat” London Evening News, 8 December, 1888.

The name of Joseph Isaacs was first reported to police by Mary Cusins shortly after the Kelly murder and on the flimsiest of ‘evidence’. Investigators were clearly not anxious to lay hands on Isaacs, otherwise they would have done a little more than advise that Cusins follow him if and when she saw him again. Almost a month after the Miller’s Court murder Isaacs was arrested after stealing a watch. He was then interviewed by Abberline purely as a matter of procedure – in other words, because his name had come to the attention of investigators courtesy of a member of the public – and was deemed to have had no involvement in the killings.

So Isaacs was never a realistic suspect, and even if his appearance did resemble that of the affluent-looking Astrakhan (which is doubtful in the extreme given the fact that he had been lodging in Little Paternoster Row), it was purely coincidental to his arrest rather than being a contributory factor.

Thus, Jon, none of the points you have raised constitute ‘evidence’ that Astrakhan was considered a realistic suspect by those at the sharp end of the investigation. If they satisfy you, then fine. But don’t be too surprised if others insist on looking at the bigger picture.

[Ben]

The evidence for Hutchinson’s discrediting has been provided.

I’m sorry for those whose world views are negatively affected by this, but it is a reality nonetheless. To call it “unsubstantiated conjecture” is therefore factually incorrect, and those who have threatened to “always throw back” this allegation whenever the subject of Hutchinson’s discrediting is broached cannot have been participating in these threads for very long if they think that this approach will have any effect. For as long as you’re prepared to call it “unsubstantiated conjecture”, I for one will always reject that accusation and explain why it is nothing of the sort.

The Echo’s disclosures were the result of a direct communication with the police – fact. Their information came directly from the Commercial Street police station, and we know for certain that it was accurate. It therefore constitutes direct evidence, not obtained second hand from a press agency in Morning Advertiser fashion. By all means continue the discussion as to how this might impact on our overall impression of Hutchinson, but it is both futile and wrong in the extreme to assert that he was not discredited.

The suggestion that the Echo were making up their police communication can be thus safely expunged from any further consideration, let alone discussion. The fact that the police exchange lasted more than one day only reinforces the fact that such an exchange took place, and the communication from the 14th clearly validates the communication from the 13th. What is the alternative? That the Echo approached the police on the 14th, and said, “Hello cops, yes, we lied about talking to you yesterday, but do tell all today!”

Let’s have a look at Jon’s points and see if they really indicate a sustained police interest in Hutchinson.

“Point 1: At about ten o'clock this morning, a man answering every description to the particulars furnished to the police by G. Hutchinson, as seen by him on the night of the murder of the woman Kelly, attracted attention in Queen Victoria-street, Blackfriars....
Evening News, 16 November 1888”

He "attracted attention" because he bore a similarity with a description that had been circulated widely in the newspapers at that time. A member of the public evidently reported this man based on Hutchinson's description, believing that the Astrakhan man was still considered vital evidence. There is absolutely no evidence, however, that the police were interested in this individual based on his alleged physical similarity with Hutchinson’s man.

“Point 2
Mr. Galloway, a clerk employed in the City, ....... informed the constable of what I had seen, and pointed out the man's extraordinary resemblance to the individual described by Cox. The constable declined to arrest the man, saying that he was looking for a man of a very different appearance."
The Star, 16 November 1888.”

Garry has dealt with this already, and I have pointed out the following:

Regardless of the date on which his account was published, the actual sighting was alleged to have occurred “in the early hours of Wednesday morning”, which was only a very short time after Hutchinson’s account had suffered a “very reduced importance”, as reported on Tuesday evening by the Echo. Since the first doubts surrounding Hutchinson’s credibility surfaced on the evening of the 13th, it is unsurprising that the policeman on beat were still searching for the Astrakhan man in the “early hours” of the 14th. This was all to change very quickly, of course. If nothing else, it demonstrates the extent to which Hutchinson’s short stay in the limelight derailed the investigation, with Cox’s potentially crucial evidence being temporarily cast aside in favour of a futile Astrak-hunt.

”Point 3,a
The arrest of Nikaner Benelius....”the prisoner is a man of decidedly foreign appearance, with a moustache,but otherwise cannot be said to resemble any of the published descriptions of men suspected in connection with the Whitechapel murders (the prisoner had been arrested by the police and detained in connection with the Berner-street murder).”The Times, 19 November, 1888.”

“Cannot” be said to publish any of the published descriptions.

Of course he wasn’t being compared to the Astrakhan man, and there is certainly no permitting the inference that the police were interested in him because of his appearance. He was detained in connection with the Berner Street murder, and there is no evidence of Hutchinson coming forward and description Astrakhan-types at that location.

”the suspected man was of gentlemanly appearance and manners, and somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been seen in the company with Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered”

This was published in both the Echo and the Star, amongst other newspapers, and these two at least were aware of both Hutchinson’s discrediting and the fact that he did not appear at the inquest. So you can forget the idea that the man with gentlemanly appearance and manners referred to Astrakhan man. This was clearly a reference to the evidence of Sarah Lewis, who did describe a “gentlemanly” individual, and who did attend the inquest.

So this isn’t evidence of a sustained interest in Hutchinson either, just like the preceding press snippets weren’t. Not looking terribly rosy for the attempts to undiscredit Hutchinson so far. Let’s look at the last one:

Point 4
That of Josef Isaacs, “the man who was arrested in Drury-lane on Thursday afternoon on suspicion of beingconnected with the Whitechapel murders. It transpired during the hearing of this charge that it was committed at the very time the prisoner was being watched as a person 'wanted'.....”the prisoner, who's appearance certainly answered the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat”
London Evening News, 8 December, 1888.

Oh, this one again. I've dealt with it more times than I care to remember, but ear with me while I type in “Isaacs” in the keyword search engine….here we go:

Joseph Isaacs was arrested because of his criminal act and allegations that he intended violence, not because of his appearance. The alleged Astrakhan similarity was observed by the press only, and the extent of that similarity must be doubted, considering Isaacs' impoverished circumstances at the time of his arrest. Anyone alleged to threaten violence to any woman over the age of 17 was guaranteed to attract negative police attention, irrespective of his appearance.

In not one of these “points” do we find the slightest indication that the Astrakhan man continued to be pursued after the Star reported that Hutchinson’s account had been discredited. This was not made up by the Star either, unhappily for those who continue to pretend to believe it was. Included in the same article denouncing these “Worthless Stories” was Matthew Packer, and nobody makes nearly as much fuss when it is observed that HE was discredited, let alone asserts that the Star invented the fact that he was.

None of the articles provided above cast the slightest doubt on this.

I think Frank’s sensible observation was missed; that a serial killer would not behave in a manner that was practically guaranteed to impede his chances of pulling off an efficient crime, such as dressing in the most conspicuous manner possible in the least suitable location at the least suitable time – a manner that would have deterred his intended victims while attracting the attention of muggers, policeman, and twitchy wannabe vigilantes.

Finally, it doesn’t matter remotely if Hutchinson himself didn’t state explicitly that the man’s attire was unusual for the location. It was unusual, simple as that. It’s time to do some research and revise your opinion if you think that opulently dressed men with thick gold chains and evening gaiters were commonplace in the Whitechapel streets in the small hours of the morning.

[harry]

I do not think it is innuendo that is being brought against Hutchinson.He signed a statement alledging a series of incidents occured.Except in one instance,none of the incidents were witnessed,and none were proven.It would be quite legitimate,in a court of law,had there been a trial,to suggest those incidents did not happen,and it is quite in order that today the same thing can be argued.

[Wickerman]

Not surprising, really, given that the Blotchy lookalike was an undercover detective. I cannot recall where the fuller story was detailed, but here’s an extract from The Evening News of 17 November:-

‘The police state that the man who aroused the suspicion of Mr. Galloway by frequently crossing and recrossing the road, is a respectable citizen, and that he was, as a matter of fact, acting in concert with them in his "mysterious movements."’

Sugden has a great deal to answer for.

Reasonable, but a "respectable citizen" is perhaps either, a private detective or more likely a member of the Whitechapel Vigilance volunteers?

Do I take it you accept the other three instances mentioned, and we can put this issue to bed?

Regards, Jon S.
P.S.
I do think it necessary to mention I think Ben already offered that as a solution to which I may not have responded because this 'solution' only answers the question of why this 'Blotchy' was not arrested. It does not answer the rest of the reply that the constable:
"was looking for a man of a very different appearance."

[Garry Wroe]

Mr. Galloway, a clerk employed in the City, ....... informed the constable of what I had seen, and pointed out the man's extraordinary resemblance to the individual described by Cox. The constable declined to arrest the man, saying that he was looking for a man of a very different appearance."
The Star, 16 November 1888.

Not surprising, really, given that the Blotchy lookalike was an undercover detective. I cannot recall where the fuller story was detailed, but here’s an extract from The Evening News of 17 November:-

‘The police state that the man who aroused the suspicion of Mr. Galloway by frequently crossing and recrossing the road, is a respectable citizen, and that he was, as a matter of fact, acting in concert with them in his "mysterious movements."’

Sugden has a great deal to answer for.

[Wickerman]

Still, it would be foolish to walk around with your coat open to display a thick gold chain, also in light of the fact that it was cold and possibly wet.

Hello Frank.
Did you just say what I think you said?

Ok, let me put this in some perspective, with a dash of "tongue-in-cheek".
I am essentially arguing that Hutchinson was telling the truth.

In this series of murders we know the police were suspicious of insane medical students, a mad butcher, and a range of lunatics.
Current medical opinion suggested the murderer may have suffered from some undefined mania, while the press were frightening the public with talk of unrestrained madness.

And your objection to my comment was to suggest that anyone dressing up like Astrachan "must be mad"?


Cheers Franko!



On a more serious note...

I can imagine that you wouldn’t want to be disturbed by a mugger, let alone a gang of them, on your way to create your 'master piece'.

We do not know how many nights this killer, who ever he was, was out looking to define his master-piece. Is anyone suggesting he was a stranger in these parts of town?

Once again I think the depth of detail given by Hutchinson has left most researchers & interested parties with the, I think wrong, impression that the man Hutchinson saw was 'overdressed' for the location he was in.
On the contrary, it was very common for a man to carry his watch on a watch-chain (could you tell brass from gold?), and spats & gaiters alone do not make a man unique.

The stranger was simply dressed in an overcoat, jacket, white shirt, tie, waistcoat, trousers, hat & gloves - nothing special. We see such men in any number of common street scenes of the period.
What Hutchinson said was it was unusual to see Kelly with such a "well-dressed" man (ie; not working-class).

Best Wishes, Jon S.

[babybird67]

Thank you, and yes I am. My disciplines are English and history, so I am well aware what evidence is. I even quoted a dictionary definition of it for you, however you seem to be labouring under the delusion that 'evidence' and 'proof' are antonyms, which they are not.

That will teach me to go out for an hour long walk without editing my post first.

For antonyms, read synonyms. Apologies.

[Wickerman]

The initial excitement and prioritising of Hutchinson and his story, followed by its complete abandonment.

This has been brought up before, and been countered before, and can and has been demonstrated to be wholly untrue.

Point 1
At about ten o'clock this morning, a man answering every description to the particulars furnished to the police by G. Hutchinson, as seen by him on the night of the murder of the woman Kelly, attracted attention in Queen Victoria-street, Blackfriars....
Evening News, 16 November 1888

Point 2
Mr. Galloway, a clerk employed in the City, ....... informed the constable of what I had seen, and pointed out the man's extraordinary resemblance to the individual described by Cox. The constable declined to arrest the man, saying that he was looking for a man of a very different appearance."
The Star, 16 November 1888.

Point 3,a
The arrest of Nikaner Benelius....”the prisoner is a man of decidedly foreign appearance, with a moustache, but otherwise cannot be said to resemble any of the published descriptions of men suspected in connection with the Whitechapel murders (the prisoner had been arrested by the police and detained in connection with the Berner-street murder).”
The Times, 19 November, 1888.

Point 3,b
The Star, reporting on the same story went a little further, that ,...”the suspected man was of gentlemanly appearance and manners, and somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been seen in the company with Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered”

Considerations to this account must be given to the fact that Blotchy was not described as having a “foreign appearance”, neither a “gentlemanly appearance”,
Also Cox saw Blotchy before midnight, times vary between 11:45-12:00, so this was a Thursday night sighting not “early on Friday morning”. So which witness is this report making reference to?

As Hutchinson did not appear at the inquest, we can assume either one of two possibilites:
-That the Star were referring to the inquest evidence given by Maxwell, that she saw Kelly “early Friday morning” in the company of a man described as, “not a tall man, he had on dark clothes and a sort of plaid coat”, or
-That the reporter confused Hutchinson's description as if given at the inquest, when in truth it was not.

Point 4
That of Josef Isaacs, “the man who was arrested in Drury-lane on Thursday afternoon on suspicion of being connected with the Whitechapel murders. It transpired during the hearing of this charge that it was committed at the very time the prisoner was being watched as a person 'wanted'.....”the prisoner, who's appearance certainly answered the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat”
London Evening News, 8 December, 1888.

I am almost tempted to borrow one of your sides overused adverb's, and state that “..Clearly.....your argument that the police abandoned all direction towards the Astrachan-type suspect given by Hutchinson, is completely and demonstrably, dare I say (by your own level of juris prudence – newspaper stories), “proven” wrong”!

Therefore, also, bogus claims by a newspaper, which has been proven to resort to inflaming public sentiment against the authorites, who have described Hutchinson as “discredited” (either as a noun or verb), can be equally dispensed with as “simply more of the same” - tabloid journalism, and wrong!

Regards, Jon S.

[babybird67]

The onus is on the proponants of this charge to provide “evidence” (not opinion), yet you ask me to dispense with explaining why your arguments do not constitute evidence?

Which we have, numerous times.

Excellent, and congratulations, I therefore may reasonably assume you are familiar with procedure in your chosen discipline.

Thank you, and yes I am. My disciplines are English and history, so I am well aware what evidence is. I even quoted a dictionary definition of it for you, however you seem to be labouring under the delusion that 'evidence' and 'proof' are antonyms, which they are not.

Josephus is not an official source, likewise the Echo/Star newspapers are not official sources. We know, as serious students of historical research that the claims made by Josephus “are not evidence” that the mass suicide occurred.

Nope. They are evidence, just not proof. There is a difference.

Then likewise these reports in newspapers are “not evidence” that Hutchinson was discredited.

Nope again. The Press reports exist, fact, therefore they are evidence. I wouldn't call them proof on their own, but taken with the picture, as a whole, which I keep trying (but failing) to direct your attention to, the contention that Hutchinson was discredited becomes more and more difficult to argue against.

Also, the sources which the press use are also in most cases second hand, via news agencies. The police were commonly known not to discuss current case evidence with the press, so when any press account claims “internal” corroboration we can take this as one example of “one-up-man-ship” to impress its readers.

Yes that's why the evidence shouldn't be taken in isolation but addressed in its historical context. I am sure you don't want another long list highlighting the big picture for you. Also, you seem to dismiss the source which communicated directly with the Police as well. That, to me, has greater weight of evidence than the other Press reports alone.

When the Echo asked Commercial-Street to confirm that the 2nd published description came from the same source as the 1st, this is not confirming anything about Hutchinson being discredited – the two arguments are unrelated.

Read the report. You'll find the authorities had a little more to say than 'yes they were unrelated.'

What you choose to accept by way of third-party sources, newspapers, which report a change of priorities for the investigation, and interpret such reports as “evidence” that Hutchinson was “discredited”, is a manipulation of the press accounts.

No. It's looking at all the sources we have available to us and making an informed decision as to what all that meant. You'll find a lot of that in the discipline of history. It's what keeps it alive and less of a 'train-spotting' type club of fact and number accumulation that would bore the pants off most grown people.

What you are talking about is “innuendo”, in other words “an indirect charge against a person where direct evidence is lacking”.

It's innuendo taking what the Police actually said about having no clue? Press reports are all innuendo? Looking at the facts of how the Police looked for the Ripper is innuendo? Sorry but you'll have to do a lot better than that.

[Note: Coincidently, in the ongoing trial of Casey Anthony, Judge Belvin Perry Jr, has just instructed the defence counsel, “Innuendo is not evidence!” - what I have been attempting to explain to you (all of you).]

You don't get to decide what everybody else thinks or dismiss evidence just because you don't like it or other people's interpretation of it. Why is there a section on Casebook detailing Press reports if we are not allowed to use them as source material? Or is it only when you agree with what they say that they are admissable?

If you choose to continue this debate under the premis that you (all) “think” he may have lied, “think” he may have been discredited, but admit such determinations are only one interpretation of the circumstantial evidence, where other explanations are certainly possible, then you can rest your case.
Otherwise, you are just blowing your assertions into the wind, they will always be thrown back at you as “unsubstantiated conjecture”!

By the ignorant, yes. I think we can live with that.

Certainly not, I hold no beliefs in that direction!

Oh, so YOU don't believe Hutchinson either? I 'm glad we got that sorted.

This exchange only concerns me to the point that you (as a group) are criticizing a witness with exaggerated & dogmatic assertions for which other explanations are equally available.

Still waiting to hear those explanations...are they going to be logical ones at all?

I do not entertain a particular suspect, in fact I have offered elsewhere that in my opinion most published Ripper suspect “theories” are fabrications. Simply because outside the few contemporary suspects referred to by Scotland Yard not a single iota of evidence is available to suspect anybody.

Despite Hutchinson's down- to -eyelash -colour description of the last man to enter Mary Kelly's room before she was found murdered and mutilated? Wow. I wonder why the Police bother with witnesses at all if when presented with an almost photographic recollection of a practically-certain murderer, they still had no clue.

[Wickerman]

So please can we dispense with this contention of yours that there is no evidence of Hutchinson's discrediting, because that is false. There is evidence his testimony was discounted.

The initial question which started this debate was the suggestion that Hutchinson suffered a 'Fall from grace', and my response was in effect to ask, “on what grounds was that determination made?”
The onus is on the proponants of this charge to provide “evidence” (not opinion), yet you ask me to dispense with explaining why your arguments do not constitute evidence?

I took a degree in English and history........[edit] my essay on Coriolanus.

Excellent, and congratulations, I therefore may reasonably assume you are familiar with procedure in your chosen discipline.
Just by way of one example, take the writings of Josephus concerning a contemporary event in Judea at Masada. Specifically the so-called mass suicide of the resident Jews.
Josephus is our only source for this literary account, what is more, Josephus admits that the story he relates came to him second hand from the mouths of survivors of the seige.

Josephus is not an official source, likewise the Echo/Star newspapers are not official sources. We know, as serious students of historical research that the claims made by Josephus “are not evidence” that the mass suicide occurred.
Then likewise these reports in newspapers are “not evidence” that Hutchinson was discredited.

Also, the sources which the press use are also in most cases second hand, via news agencies. The police were commonly known not to discuss current case evidence with the press, so when any press account claims “internal” corroboration we can take this as one example of “one-up-man-ship” to impress its readers.
When the Echo asked Commercial-Street to confirm that the 2nd published description came from the same source as the 1st, this is not confirming anything about Hutchinson being discredited – the two arguments are unrelated.

What you choose to accept by way of third-party sources, newspapers, which report a change of priorities for the investigation, and interpret such reports as “evidence” that Hutchinson was “discredited”, is a manipulation of the press accounts.
What you are talking about is “innuendo”, in other words “an indirect charge against a person where direct evidence is lacking”.

[Note: Coincidently, in the ongoing trial of Casey Anthony, Judge Belvin Perry Jr, has just instructed the defence counsel, “Innuendo is not evidence!” - what I have been attempting to explain to you (all of you).]

If you choose to continue this debate under the premis that you (all) “think” he may have lied, “think” he may have been discredited, but admit such determinations are only one interpretation of the circumstantial evidence, where other explanations are certainly possible, then you can rest your case.
Otherwise, you are just blowing your assertions into the wind, they will always be thrown back at you as “unsubstantiated conjecture”!

So you believe the Ripper was a member of the gentry?

Certainly not, I hold no beliefs in that direction!
This exchange only concerns me to the point that you (as a group) are criticizing a witness with exaggerated & dogmatic assertions for which other explanations are equally available.

I do not entertain a particular suspect, in fact I have offered elsewhere that in my opinion most published Ripper suspect “theories” are fabrications. Simply because outside the few contemporary suspects referred to by Scotland Yard not a single iota of evidence is available to suspect anybody.
Only conjecture, only innuendo, only speculation.

Neither of which can be remotely construed as “evidence”.

Regards, Jon S.

[Garry Wroe]

Despite being armed with a hammer and knives, Peter Sucliffe abandoned the attacks on both Anna Rogulskyj and Theresa Sykes when interrupted by passers-by. Rather than stand his ground, he took to his heels and fled.