Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[harry]

It is not how long it takes to pass a certain spot,it is how much light is present in which identification is possible.Outside of the cone of light which must have been cast by the lamp at the Queens head,visibility would have shrunk rapidly,so it would have been an extremely short period in which to see details.Not to forget,half of the time taken,only the person's rear would have been in vision.So,it comes down to mere seconds only,and that depending on the state of the gas mantle and covering.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"he would have needed to go to some extreme lengths to even notice them, let alone commit them to memory, and time spent doing this would have "used up" the fleeting window of opportunity in which to notice any of the other details of the man's appearance."

Gee, Ben, itīs nice to know that whenever the rest of us are at a loss to determine timings and such things, you always have the answer ready at hand. You just know all these things - and seemingly with no effort at all.

Maybe thatīs whatīs wrong.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

We won't mention the eyelashes, or the collar, or the Billycock hat, or the fact he was well-dressed.

...And interestingly, Jon, neither Best nor Gardner were called to attend the inquest, despite their having provided their evidence in advance of it.

[Ausgirl]

"sore eyes without any eyelashes" - is a rather peculiar and precise detail, even for a made-up or mistaken one, though the rest of the description is simple enough. If it -was- somebody witnessed in the area - what causes a man with a black moustache to have sore-looking eyes and no eyelashes (the contrast possibly why it stood out that he had none?). Conjunctivitis? A fungal disorder? Alopecia is out - unless the moustache was fake...

Oh okay - here's some causes that also give an irritated look to the eyes as well as lash loss, starting with the most common ones:

Blepharitis -which is much more likely to affect adults than children, is characterized by chronic swelling of the eyelid, and it can also cause redness, itching, burning, and light sensitivity. There is no cure.
Thrichotillomania - is an impulse disorder that causes sufferers to compulsively pull out scalp hair, body hair, eyelashes, and eyebrows.
Alopecia areata - an autoimmune disease that causes the immune system to attack hair follicles.The hair loss caused by this affliction usually occurs in round patches at first, but in can progress to complete baldness and hairlessness, eyelashes included.
Ichthyosis.
Discoid lupus.
Leprosy.
Seiman's syndrome.

And possibly being caught in a fire. But then one would expect that luxurious moustache to have suffered.

.. if the guy was real at all.

[Abby Normal]

What do you think about the description given by Best and Gardner of a man seen with Stride about 11:00pm, not long before her death.

"The man was about 5ft. 5in. in height. He was well dressed in a black morning suit with a morning coat. He had rather weak eyes. I mean he had sore eyes without any eyelashes. I should know the man again amongst a hundred. He had a thick black moustache and no beard. He wore a black billycock hat, rather tall, and had on a collar. I don't know the colour of his tie."

We won't mention the eyelashes, or the collar, or the Billycock hat, or the fact he was well-dressed.
Do you think these witnesses were trustworthy? were their observations of any use?

Unfortunately, you will not recieve much of a consensus about which witness to accept or which to reject, much depends on what theory some struggle to promote.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Wickerman
I'll mention the eyelashes! or lack thereof. i find there testimony very interesting. I do not have any problem with witnesses noticing one or even two seeminly very small or strange details about someone. It happens all the time when something stands out as odd to someone. These two were very close to this couple and talked to them. The man did not respond back so i am sure they were looking closely at his eyes to try and read his reaction and so noticed something different about them.

Its when someone like Hutch's testimony where there is just to many small details that makes it suspect.

And to the point of the thread-yes witness testimony is very important, but unfortinately in the JtR case not important enough!

[Wickerman]

...And interestingly, Jon, neither Best nor Gardner were called to attend the inquest, despite their having provided their evidence in advance of it.

Perhaps Ben, because they are both liars?, those scheming, good-for-nuthin layabouts just made the whole thing up? We all know, re, Benjamin's Guide to the Dark Streets of Whitchapel, that Well-dressed men were too smart to go out at night, right?

A Coroner's inquest requires sufficient evidence in order to establish cause of death, and by what means.
Best & Gardiner's evidence does not contribute to these ends.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Perhaps Ben, because they are both liars?, those scheming, good-for-nuthin layabouts just made the whole thing up?

It's possible, Jon.

A Coroner's inquest requires sufficient evidence in order to establish cause of death, and by what means. Best & Gardiner's evidence does not contribute to these ends.

Yes, it took a while for this reality to dawn upon you, finally, after Bob explained it to you on another Hutchinson thread. You were evidently oblivious to it last night when you expressed surprise that none of the policeman on-beat were called to the Kelly inquest. Obviously, a policeman who saw nothing of any significance would not "contribute to (the) ends" of ascertaining time of death.

And my name's not Benjamin.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman
I'll mention the eyelashes! or lack thereof. i find there testimony very interesting.

There is another version where the same man is described as having fair, or blond eyelashes, but I couldn't locate an original source for that version.
It's possible the eyelashes were just small and faintly visible.

There are a handfull of 'well-dressed man' descriptions (Bachert, 'Dairyman', Bowyer, Lewis/Kennedy, Best/Gardner, Paumier, and perhaps Hutchinson) where we read of 'Billycock Hat; white collars; faint, peculiar, or staring eyes, morning/cutaway coat, aged 28-35 yrs old, in some cases a white or pale complexion.
I am of the opinion these varied descriptions just may be the same man. Someone who has been hovering in the background, either coincidental with, or shortly before, a murder was perpetrated.

This is an individual who appears to have slipped under the radar of every researcher & apparently even the police of the time. However, if these descriptions were the same man, and it is only an "if", then he just may have been a named suspect for which we have no description. In other words, the police may well have known about him, we just don't know that they did.

There is nothing here we can build a theory on because we cannot identify him, he is destined to remain an anomaly.

Its when someone like Hutch's testimony where there is just to many small details that makes it suspect.

Well, thats is perhaps because you choose to draw the line where you do.

The strange thing is, when people here talk about what a witness can possible see and how much they can remember, they appear to treat everyone as if they are clones. If one person is nearsighted, everyone has to be nearsighted. If one person is colourblind, everyone is colourblind.
I have no need to suggest to you that people are very different, seeing, hearing & judging things differently, so when someone claims to see and remember details we have no valid reason to argue that they couldn't.
And here I arrive back at the point of the thread...

I treat every witness statement as if they are doing their best to be truthful and accurate. Alternately, there are a number of members here who selectively dismiss this or that witness in order to justify some modern hypothesis. This selective and subjective approach I find deplorable, which is why some debates become almost heated every once in a while

My opinion (2 cents?) is, that if 'we' cannot use every witness statement as given, then 'we' fail to do justice and are not even trying to understand what truely occured on those nights in Whitechapel. Rather such people who do dismiss & reject are only trying to push a theory.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

As far as the eyewitness descriptions are concerned, the boring reality is that the ones that were not discredited, the ones that appeared at the inquest, and the ones were probably of the ripper, invariably involved a non-descript shabby-looking individual. Lawende is the most obvious case in point here. He described a "rough and shabby" individual who wore a neckerchief and a peaked cap. Despite the witness' admission that he was unlikely to recognize the man again, the police clearly considered this to be the most reliable eyewitness account of a potential suspect.

Unfortunately, some people are determined to resist this - the boring reality that he killer was in all likelihood a working class local, and focus instead on the most bogus nonsense to emerge from the investigation just because it involved someone "well-dressed" and more in accordance with popular mythology as to the ripper's appearance. Bowyer, Paumier, Backet?? People should not forsake their reason. Of course the occasional toff description did the rounds, but then this was an image popularly associated with the ripper's appearance, thanks to some sensationalist press accounts and rumours on the street. It's akin to describing the Loch Ness Monster as a thistle-chewing Plesiosaur with three humps and a tartan scarf. It's more "interesting", more sensationalist and frankly more titillating than the reality that the monster didn't exist or was heavily embellished.

It is necessary to be selective in our approach to the evidence on order to arrive at a sensible conclusion. For instance, the evidence of Joseph Lawende is lightyears ahead of "Mrs. Paumier's" one-off press claim in terms of overall credibility. Lawende provided his evidence in a police statement and at the inquest, and was consequently treated as a serious witness. "Mrs. Paumier" on the other hand, did not appear to have had any contact with the police at all, and did not appear at the inquest. I'd far rather "push a theory" on the basis of Lawende's evidence (for example) than pretend that all alleged witnesses were on an equal footing, credibility-wise, in the Whitechapel murders investigation.

[Wickerman]

Yes, it took a while for this reality to dawn upon you, finally, after Bob explained it to you on another Hutchinson thread.

I explained it to you weeks ago Ben, if you care to look it up.

Now, I will take a look at what Bob has been saying.

And my name's not Benjamin.

I'll make a note of that...

[Abby Normal]

There is another version where the same man is described as having fair, or blond eyelashes, but I couldn't locate an original source for that version.
It's possible the eyelashes were just small and faintly visible.

There are a handfull of 'well-dressed man' descriptions (Bachert, 'Dairyman', Bowyer, Lewis/Kennedy, Best/Gardner, Paumier, and perhaps Hutchinson) where we read of 'Billycock Hat; white collars; faint, peculiar, or staring eyes, morning/cutaway coat, aged 28-35 yrs old, in some cases a white or pale complexion.
I am of the opinion these varied descriptions just may be the same man. Someone who has been hovering in the background, either coincidental with, or shortly before, a murder was perpetrated.

This is an individual who appears to have slipped under the radar of every researcher & apparently even the police of the time. However, if these descriptions were the same man, and it is only an "if", then he just may have been a named suspect for which we have no description. In other words, the police may well have known about him, we just don't know that they did.

There is nothing here we can build a theory on because we cannot identify him, he is destined to remain an anomaly.



Well, thats is perhaps because you choose to draw the line where you do.

The strange thing is, when people here talk about what a witness can possible see and how much they can remember, they appear to treat everyone as if they are clones. If one person is nearsighted, everyone has to be nearsighted. If one person is colourblind, everyone is colourblind.
I have no need to suggest to you that people are very different, seeing, hearing & judging things differently, so when someone claims to see and remember details we have no valid reason to argue that they couldn't.
And here I arrive back at the point of the thread...

I treat every witness statement as if they are doing their best to be truthful and accurate. Alternately, there are a number of members here who selectively dismiss this or that witness in order to justify some modern hypothesis. This selective and subjective approach I find deplorable, which is why some debates become almost heated every once in a while

My opinion (2 cents?) is, that if 'we' cannot use every witness statement as given, then 'we' fail to do justice and are not even trying to understand what truely occured on those nights in Whitechapel. Rather such people who do dismiss & reject are only trying to push a theory.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Wicker
Thanks for your well thought out and specific reply.

There is another version where the same man is described as having fair, or blond eyelashes, but I couldn't locate an original source for that version.
It's possible the eyelashes were just small and faintly visible.

There are a handfull of 'well-dressed man' descriptions (Bachert, 'Dairyman', Bowyer, Lewis/Kennedy, Best/Gardner, Paumier, and perhaps Hutchinson) where we read of 'Billycock Hat; white collars; faint, peculiar, or staring eyes, morning/cutaway coat, aged 28-35 yrs old, in some cases a white or pale complexion.
I am of the opinion these varied descriptions just may be the same man. Someone who has been hovering in the background, either coincidental with, or shortly before, a murder was perpetrated.

This is an individual who appears to have slipped under the radar of every researcher & apparently even the police of the time. However, if these descriptions were the same man, and it is only an "if", then he just may have been a named suspect for which we have no description. In other words, the police may well have known about him, we just don't know that they did.

There is nothing here we can build a theory on because we cannot identify him, he is destined to remain an anomaly.

I pretty much agree with you and have often felt the same way myself about this possibly mysterious well dressed suspect. Specifically as i have said before I am intrigued by Bethnel man who scared Sara Lewis and his similarity with A-man. However the weight of most valid witness evidence seems to be of the type of suspect that is not so respectively dressed. Anyway, I dont totally rule out this type of character and if there is anything to it, hopefully wont be an anomaly, (or anonomous) forever!

I treat every witness statement as if they are doing their best to be truthful and accurate. Alternately, there are a number of members here who selectively dismiss this or that witness in order to justify some modern hypothesis. This selective and subjective approach I find deplorable, which is why some debates become almost heated every once in a while

My opinion (2 cents?) is, that if 'we' cannot use every witness statement as given, then 'we' fail to do justice and are not even trying to understand what truely occured on those nights in Whitechapel. Rather such people who do dismiss & reject are only trying to push a theory.

But Wickerman, with all due respect, are you not doing the same when vehemently debate folks who think Hutch is suspect, when you yourself have just admitted your own theory about the mysterious well dressed man?
Could not we view your passionate defense of Hutch as being because his story backs up your theory/ idea/suspect?

We know witnesses sometime lie, embellish, forget for any number of reasons-Can you at least admit Hutch's story (and his behaviour) throws up a red flag, for at the very least(and not even considering he was a murderer), being less than truthful?

[Wickerman]

Hi Wicker
Thanks for your well thought out and specific reply.

I pretty much agree with you and have often felt the same way myself about this possibly mysterious well dressed suspect. Specifically as i have said before I am intrigued by Bethnel man who scared Sara Lewis and his similarity with A-man.

Thankyou Abby.
There are similarities, but there are also differences. I'm intrigued, like you, that they might be the same man, but I'm not convinced.

Witness Kennedy was quite sure the bare-headed woman was Kelly, and that the BG-man was talking with her. So if Astrachan also spoke with Kelly (per Hutch), that means Kelly talked with two well-dressed men at the Commercial St. end of Dorset St.
This apparent coincidence concerning Kelly & two well-dressed men leaves me suspicious that the BG-man & Astrachan were the same man, but it is by no means certain.

However the weight of most valid witness evidence seems to be of the type of suspect that is not so respectively dressed.

There are problems with most of the common suspect descriptions. We almost have an Agatha Christie-type plot where every victim was killed by somebody different, yet all posing as Jack the Ripper.

But Wickerman, with all due respect, are you not doing the same when vehemently debate folks who think Hutch is suspect, when you yourself have just admitted your own theory about the mysterious well dressed man?
Could not we view your passionate defense of Hutch as being because his story backs up your theory/ idea/suspect?

Thats a well made point. If you notice in my previous post I did add, "and perhaps Hutchinson", as opposed to, "and obviously Hutchinson", which simply betrays the fact that I am not wholly convinced that Hutchinson' Astrachan was the same as the others.

I do think of Hutchinson's innocence as a bonafide witness as distinctly different from the above argument we have been considering (BG-man = Astrachan). I can see how you (anyone) might merge them together so it can be suggested that I have an agenda to play out.
In truth though, Hutchinson's 'veracity' only supports the existence of Astrachan, it does not make BG-man & Astrachan into the same individual.

We know witnesses sometime lie, embellish, forget for any number of reasons

Of course, it's human nature.
Lewis may have given her name as Kennedy so her husband didn't find out where she went that night. Certainly we must be alert to witnesses telling little lies. The issue I have is these accusations of lying are all for the same purpose. Not the little lies that innocent witnesses might tell, no, the lies we are expected to entertain are big lies, always about concealing murderous intent. And that is too much to expect, for me at least.

-Can you at least admit Hutch's story (and his behaviour) throws up a red flag, for at the very least (and not even considering he was a murderer), being less than truthful?

Because there is so much we do not know about Hutchinson's story, I don't think anything he said is suspicious, because, we have nothing to judge his story against.
If Hutch had been seen before midnight somewhere in Whitechapel, then we would have something with which to challenge his Romford story.
Likewise, if Hutch had been seen later Friday morning in a local pub, when he had told police he had no money, then we could challenge his story.
If we knew why he went to Romford we might be able to challenge his reason.
As it is we have nothing but unfounded accusations.

What basis is there for pursuing a Salem-type witch hunt against a man who only appears to have gone out of his way to help the authorities?

All the best, Jon S.

[Ben]

Lewis and Kennedy were most assuredly not the same woman.

We know this for certain because a reporter from the Star observed that several women were parrotting off an account that included an "Oh murder" cry, as though it were their own experience. The author of the original account in question can only have been Sarah Lewis. It is clear that while Lewis herself observed the strict reticence that was requested of her by the police, and avoided direct communication with the press, she clearly did discuss her experiences with other women, Kennedy apparently amongst them. Fortunately, Kennedy's game was apparently cottoned onto, and she did not appear at the inquest.

If people are genuinely interested in assessing the eyewitness testimony from the Kelly murder, their first and only port of call must be the inquest transcriptions. These were the witnesses who were vetted by the police, and who passed that vetting process. Kennedy, Paumier, Roney and all those other witnesses who described spooky-looking men with shiny black bags were dismissed in advance of the inquest, and it shouldn't take a deductive genius to figure out why. Anyone relying on two or more non-inquest Kelly witnesses to construct a case for a "well-dressed" suspect with a black bag out to re-think their approach.

Hutchinson did not "go out of his way" to help the authorities. Anyone who thinks so is naive in the depressing extreme. Going out of his way would have necessitated, at the very least, coming forward at the earliest opportunity rather that allowing three days to elapse and waiting for the inquest to finish. Similarly, it is a fallacy to suggest that because we lack proof that Hutchinson lied, we are compelled to trust and even admire his testimony. This is a defense of an uncritical approach, which when applied to other patently bogus witnesses, would result in all sorts of nonsensical assertions being revived as accurate, such as those that emanated from Packer and Violenia.

[Abby Normal]

Thankyou Abby.
There are similarities, but there are also differences. I'm intrigued, like you, that they might be the same man, but I'm not convinced.

Witness Kennedy was quite sure the bare-headed woman was Kelly, and that the BG-man was talking with her. So if Astrachan also spoke with Kelly (per Hutch), that means Kelly talked with two well-dressed men at the Commercial St. end of Dorset St.
This apparent coincidence concerning Kelly & two well-dressed men leaves me suspicious that the BG-man & Astrachan were the same man, but it is by no means certain.



There are problems with most of the common suspect descriptions. We almost have an Agatha Christie-type plot where every victim was killed by somebody different, yet all posing as Jack the Ripper.



Thats a well made point. If you notice in my previous post I did add, "and perhaps Hutchinson", as opposed to, "and obviously Hutchinson", which simply betrays the fact that I am not wholly convinced that Hutchinson' Astrachan was the same as the others.

I do think of Hutchinson's innocence as a bonafide witness as distinctly different from the above argument we have been considering (BG-man = Astrachan). I can see how you (anyone) might merge them together so it can be suggested that I have an agenda to play out.
In truth though, Hutchinson's 'veracity' only supports the existence of Astrachan, it does not make BG-man & Astrachan into the same individual.



Of course, it's human nature.
Lewis may have given her name as Kennedy so her husband didn't find out where she went that night. Certainly we must be alert to witnesses telling little lies. The issue I have is these accusations of lying are all for the same purpose. Not the little lies that innocent witnesses might tell, no, the lies we are expected to entertain are big lies, always about concealing murderous intent. And that is too much to expect, for me at least.



Because there is so much we do not know about Hutchinson's story, I don't think anything he said is suspicious, because, we have nothing to judge his story against.
If Hutch had been seen before midnight somewhere in Whitechapel, then we would have something with which to challenge his Romford story.
Likewise, if Hutch had been seen later Friday morning in a local pub, when he had told police he had no money, then we could challenge his story.
If we knew why he went to Romford we might be able to challenge his reason.
As it is we have nothing but unfounded accusations.

What basis is there for pursuing a Salem-type witch hunt against a man who only appears to have gone out of his way to help the authorities?

All the best, Jon S.

Hi Wickerman
Thanks for the reply-I more clearly understand your views.
I don't neccessarily agree with everything you say but appreciate your response and respect your opinion.

[Wickerman]

Lewis and Kennedy were most assuredly not the same woman.

Who has the authority to give such an assurance, ..wait, let me guess...

We know this for certain because a reporter from the Star...

Oh right, your buddy 'the Star reporter'. One of those who admitted to getting nothing from the police so they have to make it up as they go. That must be where you derived your deductive skills from Ben, thats precisely what you do!
The Star Reporters Academy for Speculative Journalism, 101.

Ok, back to the topic at hand...

(reporter from the Star)...observed that several women were parrotting off an account that included an "Oh murder" cry, as though it were their own experience...

Well, we covered this 'way back when', when I also pointed out to you that Mrs Prater has initially said, on the Friday, that she heard nothing in the night.
Then, we hear Prater suddenly remembered hearing a cry of "Murder".
So certainly we can identify one 'parroter'. And thats not my opinion, that's a matter of public record.

The author of the original account in question can only have been Sarah Lewis. It is clear that while Lewis herself observed the strict reticence that was requested of her by the police,

What is 'clear'? and what was requested, when and by whom?

...and avoided direct communication with the press, she clearly did discuss her experiences with other women, Kennedy apparently amongst them. Fortunately, Kennedy's game was apparently cottoned onto, and she did not appear at the inquest.

Fortunately for us, the Evening News ran a story about the Gallaghers:

"Immediately opposite the house in which Mary Jane Kelly was murdered is a tenement occupied by an Irishman, named Gallagher, and his family. On Thursday night Gallagher and his wife retired to rest at a fairly early hour. Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy, came home, however, at a late hour. Passing the Britannia, commonly known as Ringer's, at the top of Dorset street, at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man, whom she identified as having accosted her a night or two before."

So now the Gallagher family are in on this 'parroting' conspiracy, is there no end to this subterfuge? The whole Court may have been in on this masterly deception, my god, no wonder Warren resigned!
Honestly Ben, you do come up some some waffle!

If people are genuinely interested in assessing the eyewitness testimony from the Kelly murder, their first and only port of call must be the inquest transcriptions. These were the witnesses who were vetted by the police, and who passed that vetting process...

Another Straw Man argument in the works?
Vetted were they?, did a good job vetting Caroline Maxwell didn't they?
No Ben, witnesses are not vetted for an Inquest. Their testimony is sworn to before being given. All the police do is take pertinent particulars in a pre-inquest interview so they can decide who has relevent information and who does not. This was not a murder inquiry, the witnesses did not need to prove their statements in advance.

...Kennedy, Paumier, Roney and all those other witnesses who described spooky-looking men with shiny black bags were dismissed in advance of the inquest, and it shouldn't take a deductive genius to figure out why.

Sarah Lewis saw this spooky-looking man with a black bag, so he must exist, yes? It doesn't matter how many people repeat a true story, the story still remains true. Sarah Lewis saw him, ergo, by your own standards we must accept this spooky-looking man. There you see, that wasn't so difficult.

Anyone relying on two or more non-inquest Kelly witnesses to construct a case for a "well-dressed" suspect with a black bag out to re-think their approach.

What seems to have escaped your attention is that these 'press' statements are only confirming the 'inquest' testimony, they do not stand as separate issues. They are part of the whole.

Hutchinson did not "go out of his way" to help the authorities.

Abberline himself said Hutchinson accompanied two officers that same night (12th), to look for the man. He also promised to go identify the deceased. This, besides his own claim to the press that he has been looking for this man most of the day. This passes the test as far as going out of your way is concerned.

This is a defense of an uncritical approach, which when applied to other patently bogus witnesses, would result in all sorts of nonsensical assertions being revived as accurate, such as those that emanated from Packer and Violenia.

You are easily confused Ben. Hutchinson was interviewed by the police and passed their scrutiny, Packer & Violenia were checked out and failed.
I am talking about 'us', not the police.

I said 'we' need to take his story as given because 'we' are in no position to criticize a witnesses statement when 'we' have no evidence to the contrary. And, especially when the police have already passed judgement on his claims.
Hutch received their stamp of approval and you have no evidence to the contrary to dispute his story, just a load of huffing and puffing about "maybe this" or "maybe that".

Just a load of misdirected wind, Ben. You create your own set of suspicions, then use your own defective (Star inspired?) reasoning to solve them.

Like I said, entertainment value.

Regards, Jon S.