Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[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]

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]

Hi Colin,

Quite right.

I wrote in haste.

Best wishes.

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.