Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[FrankO]

What would he have to be concerned about?, assuming he was the killer.
Part of the psychological make-up of some serial killers is the apparent perception that they are in total control, they dominate all those around them.
Besides, if he was the killer he had a 6" blade on his person, would he not have the upper hand in any confrontation?

I see your point, Jon, but I don’t know if what you say is true. I think that serial killers feel they are in total control in the situations and with the victims that they choose. They almost always choose victims who are weaker than themselves and who, obviously, don’t know what's going to happen.

I don’t know if that’s true for situations they don’t choose or create, and in which they turn out to be the ones being attacked themselves. Even if they carry knifes. I certainly don’t think that, even with a 6’’ knife, Mr. A would have had the upper hand in a confrontation with one of the gangs operating in the district.

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. 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'.

All the best,
Frank

[babybird67]

Hello Frank.
What would he have to be concerned about?, assuming he was the killer.

Being caught and hanged might be a good one to start with.

[Wickerman]

What they do use as a main logical reason is the fact that Dorset Street and direct surroundings has been said to be one of the worst places in the East End in the sense that crime & vice were rife there, especially at night when it was dark. So, one might wonder if a well dressed man would be out there at that time, on his own, in that kind of weather and with his coat open to display a very thick gold chain and a horse shoe pin.

All the best,
Frank

Hello Frank.
What would he have to be concerned about?, assuming he was the killer.
Part of the psychological make-up of some serial killers is the apparent perception that they are in total control, they dominate all those around them.
Besides, if he was the killer he had a 6" blade on his person, would he not have the upper hand in any confrontation?

Regards, Jon

[babybird67]

hmmmm

Hello Babybird,

To be fair, people had much better night vision then. Compare Mr Pickwick´s misadventures with the new patent lamp in Pickwick Papers.

C4

Perhaps they ate more carrots.

[curious4]

And I am trying hard to remain respectful of you, Jon, when you are being completely patronising to me. I am quite able to differentiate between evidence and lack of evidence, and I have tried to explain to you that while evidence exists which I interpret one way and you another, we can respectfully disagree as to what these elements of evidence signify, you continually retort to me that I don't comprehend what evidence consists of.

Here is the definition from the Oxford online dictionary for the noun,
'evidence':



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.

Numerous press reports state that it was. One of these reports allege their information came directly from the Police station, which is corroborated by the rest of the facts they provided turning out to be true, and known only to the Police at that time.

There are the numerous comments by Police officials either prioritising other witnesses (which wouldn't be logical as on paper Hutchinson got by far the best view) or stating they had no clue who the Ripper was (which also wouldn't be logical if they believed Hutchinson, because such a description provided a myriad of clues, IF it was to be believed).

There is the direction and focus of the investigation, which was directed in favour of non-Astrakhan type suspects.

The searching of lodging houses etc etc.

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

All this, whether you like it or not, constitutes evidence (signs, indications, facts, information) that argues for the contention that Hutchinson was discredited. Please don't patronise me any further by suggesting I need anything explaining to me, or that I don't understand your argument. I completely understand it. I just don't agree with it.

Not to boast, but you really are talking to a very intelligent woman here. I took a degree in English and history. Six months before my finals I gave birth by caesarean to my first son, who was also unwell at the time. Despite all that, I managed to sweep the boards in my finals, gaining first class marks in all eight sections of my course. I was awarded the prize for English for my year. Later I took my M.A. At the beginning of my course, I was pregnant with my daughter. She was born on a Thursday. After I gave birth I was working on my essay on Coriolanus. I was back in class the following Tuesday. At the end of the course I was pregnant with my last son. I obtained a distinction. My dissertation was published in The Historian journal.

So you really are not talking to someone who needs you to speak to her in such a manner.






All evidence is filtered through subjective human perception. Try asking any simple historical question. Ask a number of historians questions about the facts and the evidence. You'd be surprised at how many different answers you would get. There is no one size fits all with history. That is its beauty and its joy. It's not like maths where 2 plus 2 equals 2 no matter how many different people add it together. That is what attracts a lot of us to history...the magic of its plurality and the myriad of interpretations exactly the same facts and data can give rise to.




Most evidence is circumstantial. Very few facts stand alone or do not admit of more than one interpretation. It doesn't make them any less evidence. And we are all entitled to weigh up the evidence as we see fit. If you do not find the evidence that exists that indicates Hutch was discredited convincing, then that's fine. We agree to disagree, hopefully without inferring that either one of us needs some kind of A,B,C explanation of things to the other.



In a court of law, yes, because there is a much more stringent burden of proof. What is strict is what facts can be established by the evidence.



No, you have been claiming there is no evidence for those interpretations in the first place, which is clearly wrong. If you believe the way myself, Ben, Garry, Sally are interpreting is incorrect because the evidence that exists doesn't convince you, then that is your right, and you're perfectly entitled to believe that. But we are perfectly entitled to be convinced by that same evidence and hold an opposite view to yourself, without being told our arguments are pure speculation and without substantiation, because that latter claim is clearly not true. We have not plucked the view that Hutch was discredited out of the air. Evidence exists, and has been quoted and referred to, which supports it. You, Hatchett and others on the opposing side need not be convinced, that's your choice. But don't keep suggesting there is no evidence for our beliefs because that is plainly wrong.





So you believe the Ripper was a member of the gentry? And not only a member of the gentry, but one that would go out planning to murder someone dressed so distinctively as to arouse suspicion? A stupid member of the gentry? Yet one that managed to appear to all other Ripper witnesses as a shabby-genteel non-descript sort of person. He just thought he would dress up for Kelly's murder as he was going to make it the worst one yet? To mark it out as special?





I am sure they went to show off but I am sure they wouldn't have dressed like that if they were planning to murder anyone! I am also pretty sure they would have been spotted by more than one person.





Possible, yes. Likely, no. But again, this is you taking the evidence available and making your own interpretation of it, which is fine.





Neither of them was particularly detailed. Hutchinson's is in a league of its own as far as witness testimony is concerned, and it would be sheer incompetence on the part of the authorities not to prioritise it accordingly.





I don't accept that is true.




Again I disagree.




Why, because the only wealthy people in Whitechapel were Jewish? I don't accept that either.



Not at all. What is strange is being able to notice everything he said he did, down to eyelash colour, when there was little if any lighting, and being able to look at a man's face, torso, legs and feet all in a fleeting glance under a barely glimmering lamp, and then recall every detail point for point three days later when conveniently the opportunity to do so under oath and be compared with other witnesses had just passed by. As the authorities themselves noted.

Hello Babybird,

To be fair, people had much better night vision then. Compare Mr Pickwick´s misadventures with the new patent lamp in Pickwick Papers.

C4

[FrankO]

Which only serves to emphasize the point I was making, it is the detail of the description which grabs the attention, not the actual attire suggested.

Therefore arguments based on, "such a well-dressed man is unusual in that part of town", are not supported by Hutchinson's statement, nor the above quote.

Hi Jon,

I don’t think people who think Hutchinson made up Kelly's punter, actually use the argument that it was necessarily supported by the fact that he declared to Abberline that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in Kelly’s company. One might, however, wonder why he apparently didn’t often see Kelly in the company of well dressed men, in general or during night time particularly.

What they do use as a main logical reason is the fact that Dorset Street and direct surroundings has been said to be one of the worst places in the East End in the sense that crime & vice were rife there, especially at night when it was dark. So, one might wonder if a well dressed man would be out there at that time, on his own, in that kind of weather and with his coat open to display a very thick gold chain and a horse shoe pin.

All the best,
Frank

[Hatchett]

Hi Colin,

Quite right.

I wrote in haste.

Best wishes.

[Colin Roberts]

It was what was perceived to be expensive clothing by a man who was walking the streets with no where to sleep for the night.

Let's rephrase that, Hatchett.

It was what was perceived to be gentlemanly clothing by a man who was walking the streets with nowhere to sleep for the night.

[Hatchett]

Hello Colin,

You are right. It was what was perceived to be expensive clothing by a man who was walking the streets with no where to sleep for the night.


Best wishes.

[Colin Roberts]

The following 'quotation' is derived from a different thread.

However, given the direction that has been taken, by some of the most recent discussion, in this thread; I thought that it might be of some relevance.

The Whitechapel Registration District: A sort of 'Greater Whitechapel'


Whitechapel Registration District / Poor Law Union - 1888 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2010

Whitechapel Registration District / Poor Law Union (Populations, in Accordance with the Census of England & Wales, 1891):
- The Liberty of Norton Folgate (Green): 1,449
- The Old Artillery Ground (Aqua): 2,138
- The Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields (Blue): 22,859
- The Hamlet of Mile End New Town (Orange): 11,303
- The Parish of Holy Trinity ('Minories') (Yellow): 301
- The Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel (Red): 32,326
----- {Portion within the County of Middlesex, -1889; ... the County of London, 1889-1965: 32,284}
----- {Portion within the City of London, -1900: 42}
- The Liberty of Her Majesty's Tower of London (Orange): 933
----- {The Liberty of the Tower: n/a}
----- {The Precinct of Old Tower Without: 65}
----- {The Tower: 868}
- The Precinct of St. Katharine (Blue): 182
- The Parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate (Green): 2,971
----- {Portion within the County of Middlesex, -1889; ... the County of London, 1889-1965: 2,971}

The portion of the Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel (42) that was situated within the Municipality of the City of London, was a component of the Whitechapel Registration District / Poor Law Union; until becoming a part of the Parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate, City of London, in 1900; and accordingly being then included within the Registration / Poor Law administration of the City of London.

- Total Population - Whitechapel Registration District / Poor Law Union (In Accordance with the Census of England & Wales, 1891): 74,462

---


Whitechapel Registration District; as Depicted in Charles Booth's Descriptive Map of London Poverty, 1887-1889 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

Charles Booth's Socio-Economic Classifications

Below the 'Line of Poverty'
- Class A: Lowest Class; 'Vicious' (i.e. vice-ridden), 'Semi-Criminal'
- Class B: Very Poor; 'Casual' (i.e. day-to-day) Income
- Class C: Poor; Intermittent Income
- Class D: Poor; Regular, but, Inadequate Income

Above the 'Line of Poverty'
- Class E: Working Class; Regular Income
- Class F: Upper Working Class; Skilled Labour
- Class G: Lower Middle Class
- Class H: Upper Middle Class

---

Distribution of Charles Booth's Socio-Economic Classifications, Whitechapel Registration District / Poor Law Union, 1889

Below the 'Line of Poverty'
- Class A: 2,487 / 3.38%
- Class B: 6,333 / 8.61%
- Class C: 7,525 / 10.24%
- Class D: 12,157 / 16.54%

- Sub-Total: 28,502 / 38.77%

Above the 'Line of Poverty'
- Class E: 32,501 / 44.21%
- Class F: 7,560 / 10.28%
- Class G: 4,087 / 5.56%
- Class H: 868 / 1.18%

- Sub-Total: 45,016 / 61.23%

- Total: 73,518 / 100.00%


Distribution of Charles Booth's Socio-Economic Classifications: Whitechapel Registration District / Poor Law Union, 1889 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)


Distribution of Charles Booth's Socio-Economic Classifications: Whitechapel Registration District / Poor Law Union, 1889 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

---

"Who lived there besides the lowest-of-the-economic-low?"

Contrary to conventional misconception; London's 'East End', of 1888, was not a vast landscape of abject poverty.

Rather; it was a vast landscape of 'blue-collar' working class society that was burdened with, perhaps, slightly more than its fair share of enclaves, of abject poverty.

Whitechapel was no exception.

Incidentally; the greatest concentrations of London's poverty, in 1888, were found, not in the 'East End', but south of the River Thames, in the so-called 'Bankside' portions of the Borough of Southwark, and the adjoining western-most reaches of the Parish of St. Mary Magdalen Bermondsey.

~~~

Incidentally, ...

I have never considered Hutchinson's description - whether a complete fabrication, a gross embellishment, or an accurate account - to have been that of a so-called 'Toff'.

John Gotti wasn't a 'toff', by any stretch, of anyone's imagination. Neither were the Kray twins.

Having the wherewithal to own expensive clothing, and actually knowing how to wear expensive clothing, do not necessarily go hand-in-hand.

[babybird67]

Well I thought Babybird’s post was spot on, personally.

Thank you Benz. I always find yours well argued and referenced and to the point too.

Beebs x

[babybird67]

Jen.
I'm trying to think of a way to help you understand why these arguments are not evidence of discredit. Don't take this as patronising, thats not my intention.

And I am trying hard to remain respectful of you, Jon, when you are being completely patronising to me. I am quite able to differentiate between evidence and lack of evidence, and I have tried to explain to you that while evidence exists which I interpret one way and you another, we can respectfully disagree as to what these elements of evidence signify, you continually retort to me that I don't comprehend what evidence consists of.

Here is the definition from the Oxford online dictionary for the noun,
'evidence':

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination
Law information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court:
without evidence, they can't bring a charge
signs or indications of something:
there was no obvious evidence of a break-in

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.

Numerous press reports state that it was. One of these reports allege their information came directly from the Police station, which is corroborated by the rest of the facts they provided turning out to be true, and known only to the Police at that time.

There are the numerous comments by Police officials either prioritising other witnesses (which wouldn't be logical as on paper Hutchinson got by far the best view) or stating they had no clue who the Ripper was (which also wouldn't be logical if they believed Hutchinson, because such a description provided a myriad of clues, IF it was to be believed).

There is the direction and focus of the investigation, which was directed in favour of non-Astrakhan type suspects.

The searching of lodging houses etc etc.

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

All this, whether you like it or not, constitutes evidence (signs, indications, facts, information) that argues for the contention that Hutchinson was discredited. Please don't patronise me any further by suggesting I need anything explaining to me, or that I don't understand your argument. I completely understand it. I just don't agree with it.

Not to boast, but you really are talking to a very intelligent woman here. I took a degree in English and history. Six months before my finals I gave birth by caesarean to my first son, who was also unwell at the time. Despite all that, I managed to sweep the boards in my finals, gaining first class marks in all eight sections of my course. I was awarded the prize for English for my year. Later I took my M.A. At the beginning of my course, I was pregnant with my daughter. She was born on a Thursday. After I gave birth I was working on my essay on Coriolanus. I was back in class the following Tuesday. At the end of the course I was pregnant with my last son. I obtained a distinction. My dissertation was published in The Historian journal.

So you really are not talking to someone who needs you to speak to her in such a manner.

I'll try this, you say, "that's my interpretation", ok, I can easily accept that. But, you have just admitted that your argument is really "circumstantial evidence", true "evidence" is direct, it requires no interpretation.

All evidence is filtered through subjective human perception. Try asking any simple historical question. Ask a number of historians questions about the facts and the evidence. You'd be surprised at how many different answers you would get. There is no one size fits all with history. That is its beauty and its joy. It's not like maths where 2 plus 2 equals 2 no matter how many different people add it together. That is what attracts a lot of us to history...the magic of its plurality and the myriad of interpretations exactly the same facts and data can give rise to.

Once "evidence" requires interpretation in order to be explained, it has suffered "diminution", it now become "circumstantial evidence", in other words it is open to alternate interpretations.

Most evidence is circumstantial. Very few facts stand alone or do not admit of more than one interpretation. It doesn't make them any less evidence. And we are all entitled to weigh up the evidence as we see fit. If you do not find the evidence that exists that indicates Hutch was discredited convincing, then that's fine. We agree to disagree, hopefully without inferring that either one of us needs some kind of A,B,C explanation of things to the other.

"Evidence" (of something) is a rather strict condition.

In a court of law, yes, because there is a much more stringent burden of proof. What is strict is what facts can be established by the evidence.

I am claiming that these arguments all have alternate interpretations, but are being intentionally interpreted in one particular fashion in order to support the isolated charge made by the Star newspaper.

No, you have been claiming there is no evidence for those interpretations in the first place, which is clearly wrong. If you believe the way myself, Ben, Garry, Sally are interpreting is incorrect because the evidence that exists doesn't convince you, then that is your right, and you're perfectly entitled to believe that. But we are perfectly entitled to be convinced by that same evidence and hold an opposite view to yourself, without being told our arguments are pure speculation and without substantiation, because that latter claim is clearly not true. We have not plucked the view that Hutch was discredited out of the air. Evidence exists, and has been quoted and referred to, which supports it. You, Hatchett and others on the opposing side need not be convinced, that's your choice. But don't keep suggesting there is no evidence for our beliefs because that is plainly wrong.

Hutchinson did not say that he never saw such a well-dressed man in Dorset St., nor, that he never saw such a well-dressed man out at that time of night. What he did say was, "in her company" - (surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company).
In Hutchinson's opinion Kelly did not normally take up with gentry, that is all he is saying.

So you believe the Ripper was a member of the gentry? And not only a member of the gentry, but one that would go out planning to murder someone dressed so distinctively as to arouse suspicion? A stupid member of the gentry? Yet one that managed to appear to all other Ripper witnesses as a shabby-genteel non-descript sort of person. He just thought he would dress up for Kelly's murder as he was going to make it the worst one yet? To mark it out as special?

When you read of all those West end'ers who went down Whitechapel "slumming", do you ever read of how they were dressed?
You think they wore rags?

I am sure they went to show off but I am sure they wouldn't have dressed like that if they were planning to murder anyone! I am also pretty sure they would have been spotted by more than one person.

Yet, we have the statements of Lewis, Paumier & others, who did describe a "well-dressed" man, just not with the same degree of detail. That does not rule Astrachan out, it does though leave open the possibility that they were one and the same.

Possible, yes. Likely, no. But again, this is you taking the evidence available and making your own interpretation of it, which is fine.

Incompetence has nothing to do with it. Lawende's description was considerably more detailed than Mrs Long's, yet there was no preferences shown for one over the other that I am aware of.

Neither of them was particularly detailed. Hutchinson's is in a league of its own as far as witness testimony is concerned, and it would be sheer incompetence on the part of the authorities not to prioritise it accordingly.

This is such a distorted view, well-dressed gents were everywhere in Whitechapel, why wouldn't they be?,

I don't accept that is true.

What is exceptional is not how Astrachan looks, it is the degree of detail that Hutchinson described. This is not the same thing.

Again I disagree.

Also, because Hutchinson added "Jewish appearance" we can take it he is indicating the obvious opulence demonstrated by his attire.

Why, because the only wealthy people in Whitechapel were Jewish? I don't accept that either.

Where you see, Exceptional Attire - Unbelievable man, I see, Exceptional Attire, remarkable detail.
A generation raised in T-shirts & jeans is thinking Gold Chains & spats are "strange", because we are out of touch with the Victorian era.

Regards, Jon S.

Not at all. What is strange is being able to notice everything he said he did, down to eyelash colour, when there was little if any lighting, and being able to look at a man's face, torso, legs and feet all in a fleeting glance under a barely glimmering lamp, and then recall every detail point for point three days later when conveniently the opportunity to do so under oath and be compared with other witnesses had just passed by. As the authorities themselves noted.

[Ben]

Which only serves to emphasize the point I was making, it is the detail of the description which grabs the attention, not the actual attire suggested.

I understand the distinction, Jon, but unfortunately, they are both highly implausible. Whether or not Hutchinson explicitly stated that the man's appearance was conspicuously out of place for that district is neither here not there. It was out of place. This is beyond dispute.

Which could easily be argued in support of Sarah Lewis, Mrs Paumier, and Bowyer, in the court, and their lack of detail?

Absolutely no way.

Neither of these witnesses provided anywhere near the same degree of detail as Hutchinson alleged. His perceptiveness is completely irrelevant. There were only so many details that a "perceptive" individual could realistically have noticed and memorized in those conditions, and the totality of the Astrakhan description goes way beyond that. The police did not "believe him" in the long run. He was discredited. It is entirely legitimate, therefore, to be suspicious of both the account and its creator.

But please let's keep going round in circles on this issue.

I could really do with a last-man-standing war.

However, if you claimed, "this is evidence that a live human hand made this impression", that claim would be false.

It wouldn't be false at all.

It would be evidence. It just wouldn't be proof.

[Hatchett]

Hello Ben,

Those police officers must have been pretty old if they had been serving in 1888!

Best wishes.

[Ben]

Woah, someone hasn't quite mastered the art of using exclamation marks sparingly!!!!!!

Look, you really are being idiotic in the extreme, Hatchett.

I just demonstrated that people were sceptical of the Astrakhan description in 1888. As for members of the police not considering the description preposterous, it is clear that Hutchinson's account was ultimately discredited by the police because they doubted his story. Bob Hinton spoke to a number of police officers when researching his book, both serving and retired, and they all informed him that the description was "pure fantasy".

They were members of the Police.

You are not!

Lucky I'm in complete agreement with them as far as Hutchinson's discrediting is concerned, then. Like or not, it is substantiated evidence that the police imparted accurate information to the Echo.

Have a look at some other aspect of the case, because if there's any poster less suited to the much-coveted task of bringing Ben down a peg or two, it's you.