Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Ben]

I've done so on several occasions, Hatchett.

Most recently at your request.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=181590&postcount=186

[Hatchett]

Hello Ben,

Yes I read that. You have quoted from the press. To misquote Mandy Rice Davies, "well they would say that, wouldnt they?"

Can you show where there is police corroboration for that?

Best wishes.

[Ben]

What, again?

From The Echo, 14th November:

“Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contemporaries, we learned on inquiry at the Commercial-street Police-station to-day that the elaborate description given above is virtually the same as that previously published. It is a little fuller, that is all. But it proceeds from the same source”.

This was in reference to the fact that Hutchinson’s 14th November account, as supplied to a reporter, was obviously a more detailed and elaborate version of the account that appeared the previous morning without Hutchinson’s name attached. Some newspapers thought that they were two independent, mutually supportive accounts, but the Echo approached the police directly in order to ascertain what we now know to be the truth of the matter.

Or maybe it's a big exciting conspiracy, and the Echo invented this police information that just happened to be entirely accurate anyway...?

[Hatchett]

Hi Ben,

Or more likely that they may have invented or exaggerated their Police source.

To know the truth behind that you will have to provide Police evidence. If not then it is supposition.

Best wishes.

[Ben]

Or more likely that they may have invented or exaggerated their Police source

But if you had actually read the above post, and read the 14th November Echo article, you would realize that this cannot have been the case. What the Echo provided was factually accurate information, obtainable only from the police.

[Wickerman]

"... Packer who is an elderly man, has unfortunately made different statements so that apart from the fact of the hour at which he saw the woman (and she was seen afterwards by the P.C. and Schwartz as stated) any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence."

Not to drift off topic...but
Elderly man? Packer was 58 and Swanson was 40 in 1888.
Packer may have looked older (a sketch seems to indicate this), but he wasn't truely "elderly", I mean 58 year old's still have their faculties together, normally.
Packer's statement was fine, it was only the differing times that were at issue. That could simply be the result of no visible clock at the time he sold the grapes...

Regards, Jon

[babybird67]

The principle concern here is whether Hutchinson truely was discredited at all. I invited arguments in support of this contention, but what was offered in return as evidence are all arguable interpretations, not evidence.

Sorry Jon but I don't accept that. There is evidence. Interpretations of the evidence can vary, as mine and yours does, but it doesn't erase the evidence that leads to the interpretation. There is plenty of evidence which taken as a whole 'proves' (I accept you don't think it does, but that's my interpretation) that Hutchinson's account was discredited. The Press reports, the focus of the investigation, the prioritising of other witnesses to the detriment of Hutchinson.

The police are being set up as the one's who will pursue one specific description to the exclusion of any others, or as thee principal suspect superior to all others. Either way the police are to search the streets, Lodging-houses & tenements, day & night in pursuit of Astrachan.
Because they do not, or there is no strong evidence that they did, then this is taken as support for the contention that Hutchinson was discredited.

Part of the picture, yes.

However, a police issued description is not to be taken as meaning, "we are looking for this man", for the immediate future, no expense spared.
As I explained to Garry, when the police issue a description they are asking the public for help, the meaning being, "have you seen this man?"
Certainly the police are 'looking' for the man himself but they are not so naive to think he still wanders the streets in the same attire. Especially now his appearance is public knowledge.

As has been pointed out before, this person would have people who knew him. The accessories and clothing were SO distinctive that even if he put them away and failed to wear them again, somebody would recognise that he had them. First of all you have to conceive of a murderer so idiotic that he had the front to go waltzing into Whitechapel on a mission to murder someone dressed in all his finery which itself is a ludicrous suggestion, when you look at how silently he blended into the background of all the other Ripper murders. Yet nobody saw him that night with Kelly or in the vicinity and nobody saw anybody resembling him at the other sites of the other murders. I think the Police realised exactly this once they had time to reflect on the statement he had given. I don't see how they could not have realised it.

So, why publish the description? - because they are asking the public if they recognise the man, is he your neighbour, friend, have you seen him in the streets, at the pub, club, church?

Yet nobody had. Either there, where Hutchinson said he thought he lived locally, or anywhere else. Nobody saw him at all, except Hutchinson.

The description given by Hutchinson, is just the same value as that given by Lawende, Schwartz, Smith or Long. They are all "moments in time", this is what he looked like that day, and perhaps on occasion, for several days before.

This is where I cannot comprehend your argument. Why would the Police have given it the same value? How can such a detailed, prolonged sighting, and hearing, and following of a suspect, be given exactly the same value as a fleeting glimpse of a generic shabby-genteel man from the back? Explain the logic of a Police force that would give exactly the same value to those two descriptions, because if you are really arguing that was the case, then accusations of incompetence would really have a point. I don't believe the Police were incompetent idiots and didn't catch the Ripper just because they gave everybody's witness testimony exactly the same value. I beleive they didn't catch him because the best description they had of the alleged suspect was a lie, so they had to fall back on the generic fleeting glimpses of a man the description of whom could have applied to many hundreds if not thousands of inhabitants of the local area.


Even arguing that he appeared like that 'on that day' and maybe a few days before is just absurd. Nobody intending to murder someone would dress like that. You would have to believe that the murder was spontaneous and he hadn't intended it, if you accept that the murderer willingly dressed in such ostentatious finery...or that he was so mentally challenged he didn't comprehend the link between dressing to be noticed and needing to be invisible because he was about to commit the most appalling murder then known to mankind. Even if he never dressed like that again, you don't think any of his associates, friends, family, servants etc would know he was in possession of those clothes and accessories, the tie pin, the watch with the big red jewel etc etc. How many of those were in circulation at that time?

This is an important differance because the police do not, and never had, with any of the previous suspect descriptions, focused all their attention on one specific suspect with a defined appearance.

Because the other witness testimony was all vague, fleeting glimpses. Hutchinson's was not.

Therefore, holding the police up to this false ideal of pursuing the latest suspect description for days/weeks on end (which they wouldn't), then suggesting that because they didn't, Hutchinson was discredited, is a straw-man arguement.

It's nothing to do with the latest suspect description. It's the quality of the descriptions that would have made a difference.

How many men living in Whitechapel, once they read this description, would have pushed their expensive astrachan coats to the back of the wardrobe?, who would dare go out in such a coat, ...for weeks?

Wouldn't have made any difference. Someone would have known that they possessed those things and brought such a man to the attention of the Police. Unless he lived in a vacuum and had no human contact before or after Kelly, or, of course, he was fictional.

Of course the police do not expect to see the killer on the streets flaunting himself in the same murderous attire, as published, so I say "obviously" the police fully expect he will change his appearance, therefore they are not specifically "looking" for a man to fit the description, they are asking for help from anyone who recognises a man dressed like this on the day, or days previous to the murder.

And again, someone would have known someone who dressed like that/owned those things. IF he existed.

Ok, you mentioned "memoirs", where retired officers try to convince us they knew who the murderer was.
In reply I posted quotes by the chief investigator, Reid, who makes it quite clear that the police "had no clue" who to suspect, which means "everybody" was a suspect.
If they suspect no-one then by defacto, they suspect everyone, yes?

I understand your point but as I said before, it supports my argument, because if they gave Hutchinson credit, they wouldn't have been looking at anyone and everyone as a suspect. Poor people don't wear astakhan or huge gold watches with red jewels. So if they believed Hutchinson's account, the suspect list would have narrowed considerably based upon the information he had given them. It didn't. Because he was discredited.

Therefore, there are no grounds for suggesting the police ignored one particular description, everyone was of interest. Which also means there are equally no grounds for claiming the police discredited any one particular witness.

Everyone wouldn't have been if Hutchinson's extremely detailed quality description down to eyelash colour was believed.

This is getting too long but I hope you see where I am coming from Jen.
Regards, Jon S.

I get what you are trying to argue. It just doesn't make sense to me, for the above reasons. There is no logical reason the Police would continue to search for a poor murderer if they believed that Hutchinson had seen the Whitechapel murderer.

Jen

[Phil H]

I'm convinced that the horseshoe was introduced as a jewish symbol, which would have been understood at the time, as it hung above some jewish shops ( a hamsa).

Sorry to be late in replying, my home PC is hors de combat at present.

Would a more logical and non-semitic reason for the use of horseshoe pins be HUNTING? I think that would explain how common and widespread such items appear to be on the antique market. HUNTING with hounds was, of course, a popular pastime for upper and middle class men and woman.

Phil

[Hatchett]

Hi Wickerman,

In 1888 because of the age to which people normally lived ( or survived) particularly in the East End of London, 58 would have been considered considerably older than it is today.

Just a point to consider.

It is also evident from Swanson's report that he was considering Packer's evidence as to how it would stand up in court, particularly under cross examination.

Best wishes.

[Rubyretro]

I'm convinced that the horseshoe was introduced as a jewish symbol, which would have been understood at the time, as it hung above some jewish shops ( a hamsa).

Sorry to be late in replying, my home PC is hors de combat at present.

Would a more logical and non-semitic reason for the use of horseshoe pins be HUNTING? I think that would explain how common and widespread such items appear to be on the antique market. HUNTING with hounds was, of course, a popular pastime for upper and middle class men and woman.

Phil

Hi Phil - I used to believe that the horseshoe tie pin had a link to horses.
No coincidence that Hutch used to be a groom.

Still, after Joel Hall, who is jewish, pointed out to me the significance of the horseshoe symbol in jewish culture (just try googling 'horseshoe hamsa jewish'),
and I realised that the link was more readily associated at the time - even
appearing over jewish shops - i think that it is the likelier explanation.

If the horseshoe has come to mean 'good luck' in our culture, it's roots are in a stylised version of the 'hand of fatima';

Hutchinson clearly mean't to describe A-Man as jewish looking -and the horseshoe was underlining the fact.

[Lechmere]

Sally
There is of course very little empirical evidence available in the Ripper case and the bulk of what we have to go on is effectively hearsay – hence these lengthy slanging matches, I mean debates.
Warren Street was very close to the slums of Drummond Street. A young man who made a slight success of his life could easily have gravitated from an East End lodging house to a Warren Street lodging house. It was not like moving from a park bench to the Ritz.
Discounting Toppy means his current ancestors are a bunch of liars – a step I would be reluctant to take.

On the subject of police searches of lodging houses – Sally found a reference to those in Dorset Street being turned over, didn’t she?
There were references to lodging houses being searched in the aftermath of the Nichols killing also – in fact I believe you will be able to find references to lodging houses being searched throughout the case.
I don’t think anything can be read into the fact that lodging houses were being searched after Hutchinson’s A-man description had been circulated. I am sure the police were capable of holding more than one opinion as to who the culprit might be and were he might be found.
Having said that there were definite signs that they thought they ‘had their man’ on two occasions, but that was early on – with Pizer and Iscenschmidt.
I would suggest that we don’t actually know what happened to Hutchinson’s credibility with the police and we cannot place reliance on the Echo to inform us. We can deduce that his story was probably discounted, devalued or relegated in value, but that is about all I think that can be said.

The Echo claim to have obtained information from Commercial Street Police Station does not directly relate to the claim that Hutchinson was discredited. Two different stories, on different days, which they claim (with no other corroboration) came directly from the police need not be given the same weight. Further, whether the Echo had an official source, an off the record source or a sly copper giving them his opinions for a few shillings (the likely answer in my opinion) is open to conjecture. Did the Echo repeat their 13th claims on the 14th?

Rubyretro
What is a toff/Jew/villain cliché description?
Is it similar to a wide-awake/short, stout military bearing description? Or that old clichéd poor/aristocratic/savage description?

Also I think trying to find significance in the horseshoe symbolism in the alleged tie pin is stretching things a bit – just my opinion.

[Abby Normal]

Sally
There is of course very little empirical evidence available in the Ripper case and the bulk of what we have to go on is effectively hearsay – hence these lengthy slanging matches, I mean debates.
Warren Street was very close to the slums of Drummond Street. A young man who made a slight success of his life could easily have gravitated from an East End lodging house to a Warren Street lodging house. It was not like moving from a park bench to the Ritz.
Discounting Toppy means his current ancestors are a bunch of liars – a step I would be reluctant to take.

On the subject of police searches of lodging houses – Sally found a reference to those in Dorset Street being turned over, didn’t she?
There were references to lodging houses being searched in the aftermath of the Nichols killing also – in fact I believe you will be able to find references to lodging houses being searched throughout the case.
I don’t think anything can be read into the fact that lodging houses were being searched after Hutchinson’s A-man description had been circulated. I am sure the police were capable of holding more than one opinion as to who the culprit might be and were he might be found.
Having said that there were definite signs that they thought they ‘had their man’ on two occasions, but that was early on – with Pizer and Iscenschmidt.
I would suggest that we don’t actually know what happened to Hutchinson’s credibility with the police and we cannot place reliance on the Echo to inform us. We can deduce that his story was probably discounted, devalued or relegated in value, but that is about all I think that can be said.

The Echo claim to have obtained information from Commercial Street Police Station does not directly relate to the claim that Hutchinson was discredited. Two different stories, on different days, which they claim (with no other corroboration) came directly from the police need not be given the same weight. Further, whether the Echo had an official source, an off the record source or a sly copper giving them his opinions for a few shillings (the likely answer in my opinion) is open to conjecture. Did the Echo repeat their 13th claims on the 14th?

Rubyretro
What is a toff/Jew/villain cliché description?
Is it similar to a wide-awake/short, stout military bearing description? Or that old clichéd poor/aristocratic/savage description?

Also I think trying to find significance in the horseshoe symbolism in the alleged tie pin is stretching things a bit – just my opinion.

Hi Lech

We can deduce that his story was probably discounted, devalued or relegated in value, but that is about all I think that can be said.

Totally agree!!

[Sally]

Sally

Lechmere

There is of course very little empirical evidence available in the Ripper case and the bulk of what we have to go on is effectively hearsay – hence these lengthy slanging matches, I mean debates.

Tsk Tsk. Whatever can you mean?

Warren Street was very close to the slums of Drummond Street.

Close, yes.

A young man who made a slight success of his life could easily have gravitated from an East End lodging house to a Warren Street lodging house.

Doubtful.

It was not like moving from a park bench to the Ritz.

Not quite so dramatic, true. It was like moving from an East-End lodging house to Warren Street. In fact, it was exactly that. Comparatively similar, however. If I didn't know it would have been a dramatic upturn in fortune, I wouldn't have said so, Lechmere.

Discounting Toppy means his current ancestors are a bunch of liars – a step I would be reluctant to take.

It does? Now I didn't say anything about that, I'm sure. Family stories, Lechmere, are very often incorrect. Things get garbled, embroidered, made up, forgotten and half-remembered. It happened in my own family, I've seen it in many, many more. There's no necessity for deliberate falsehood. Family stories are anecdotal - however interesting. They are not empirical evidence in themselves.

On the subject of police searches of lodging houses – Sally found a reference to those in Dorset Street being turned over, didn’t she?

I believe she did. I must congratulate her on that the next time I see her.

[Lechmere]

Sally
Yes indeed family traditions get distorted.
Can an East End family tradition relating to a grandparent called George Hutchinson being involved in the Ripper case, be distorted but still basically true, but at the same time not equate to the George Hutchinson under discussion? Unless it is a lie?

[Sally]

Trouble at t'Lodging-House...

It is indeed strange that in the present case no fellow-lodger, fellow-workman, no mate or companion seems to have had any suspicion of the murderer

Yes, how strange...

But wait - remember the Ratcliffe Highway Murders!

Williamson was only arrested on suspicion some days after the latter crime. Yet he lived in a lodging-house

So he did! Isn't it true that he borrowed a hammer and a knife from one of the other lodgers and hid them in the common dust hole afterwards? Hmm...

It is true that his fellow-lodgers had their suspicions about him from the first

Now that could be awkward..

The police are keenly on their mettle, and it should not be many days before, by one means or another, the wretch is arrested

Gosh, any murderer who was living in a lodging house should be really worried, I'd say..

Thanks for that, Sunday Paper!

(all from The Observer, 11th November, 1888)