Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[The Grave Maurice]

I have no expressed experience in linguistics but I have had much exposure to linguistical argument in academic forums. Therefore, I can tell you without the slightest reservation that the name Gallagher is distinctly Irish, and that in the colloquial Irish accent the phonetic rendering of Gallagher comes across as Keyler, the 'gh' being almost silent.

Rather than commit yourself to another erroneous argument I would urge you to seek a more informed opinion from someone with linguistic training.

Keyler, to an English ear, could very probably come from Gallagher, spoken with an Irish accent. It's not like we are comparing a Lieberwitz with a Jones, this Gallagher & Keyler are too close to be dismissed.

Do you actually read some parts of your posts before you hit "Submit Reply"?

[Garry Wroe]

It always helps when we research a particular subject if we have experience in other fields. I have no expressed experience in linguistics but I have had much exposure to linguistical argument in academic forums. Therefore, I can tell you without the slightest reservation that the name Gallagher is distinctly Irish, and that in the colloquial Irish accent the phonetic rendering of Gallagher comes across as Keyler, the 'gh' being almost silent.

Yep. And if you play Love Me Do in reverse it predicts the destruction of the Twin Towers.

[Wickerman]

Yep, you guessed it – the journalists who actually interviewed the women concerned. Shoot the messenger if you like, but the messenger in this case will just shoot you back.

So you are saying the journalists who interviewed both Lewis & Kennedy have assured their readers that the two witnesses were not the same woman?
Using the Casebook Press Reports, we find..

The first opinions given by Kennedy to reporters were published by at least four evening papers on Saturday 10th; St. James Gazette, Echo, Star, & Evening News.

There is no published opinion prior to the 12th by Lewis with which to make a comparison. All we have from Lewis is a pre-inquest statement to police dated 9 Nov. This statement is then supplemented by Inquest testimony given on the 12th and reported by the daily's – Daily News, Daily Telegraph, Morning Advertiser, The Irish Times, and Echo.

Other papers may have run stories which we have no copies of to judge.

So, getting back to what you claim, that the public have been assured by the journalists who interviewed both women, that these women were quite different.

Wrong on the first count!
The first problem with your argument is that Sarah Lewis did not speak to any journalists.
What we read in the press is what all the reporters heard who were present at the inquest.

In fact, it could be argued that Sarah Lewis only repeated at the inquest what had been published in the papers the previous Saturday under the name Kennedy.
That, in fact Kennedy may have been the original source - not Lewis.

What we may be allowed to accept is that the police were very aware of this/these witness/es, because on the one hand we know Lewis spoke to the police (Abberline?) on the Friday, and according to The Times, 12th Nov.
“..Detective-Inspector Abberline has interviewed a girl named Kennedy,..”

So, both witnesses spoke with the police, both gave the same story about Friday morning, and both gave the same story about Wednesday night.
As they both were visiting the same address at roughly the same time it is quite reasonable to suppose they are one and the same person.
She only gave the name Kennedy to the press, but Lewis to the police.



Now, getting to your second point.
We (you & I) are quite fortunate in that in order to test your assertion we have four newspapers who published the words of both Lewis and Kennedy, so plenty of reporters who are able to assure the general public that these two women were not the same.
Why then is it we find no such assurance?

These papers; Echo, Morning Advertiser, Daily News & Irish Times all reported Lewis's inquest testimony, and each ran stories which resulted from an interview with Kennedy.
Not one of these papers offered any kind of assurance that these witnesses were different people, or the same for that matter. The subject simply does not come up. Therefore, you are also wrong on your second point.

Oh, the “Gallaghers”.

Look, you really are tragically ill-informed as well as bumptious and ponderous. If you look at the inquest testimony and police records, you will discover that the people who lived at #2 Miller’s Court were the Keylers, according to Sarah Lewis, not the "Gallaghers". You are once again resorting to your favourite, shameful tactic of relying on the 10th November press reports to inform your judgement - a preference unique to you. As far as I’m concerned, the Gallagher family didn’t even exist, at least not in Miller’s Court.

I gave your quotation in full because I want to make sure there is no misunderstanding when I explain where you are going wrong.

It always helps when we research a particular subject if we have experience in other fields. I have no expressed experience in linguistics but I have had much exposure to linguistical argument in academic forums. Therefore, I can tell you without the slightest reservation that the name Gallagher is distinctly Irish, and that in the colloquial Irish accent the phonetic rendering of Gallagher comes across as Keyler, the 'gh' being almost silent.

Rather than commit yourself to another erroneous argument I would urge you to seek a more informed opinion from someone with linguistic training.

Keyler, to an English ear, could very probably come from Gallagher, spoken with an Irish accent. It's not like we are comparing a Lieberwitz with a Jones, this Gallagher & Keyler are too close to be dismissed.

What are you suggesting – that because Maxwell claimed to have seen Kelly later in the morning she did not belong on the inquest?

No, I'm saying the police did not 'vet' their witnesses as this sighting would have been verified before hand and judged either relevent or irrelevent, rather than leaving the Coroner confused with no easy resolution.

Signed, the Shoddy Defender.

[Ben]

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

Yep, you guessed it – the journalists who actually interviewed the women concerned. Shoot the messenger if you like, but the messenger in this case will just shoot you back. It’s your time to waste denying the obvious. I don’t particularly envy your task of attempting to prove the journalist wrong, since their observations just so happen to have tied in precisely with the police decision not include your favourite witness “Mrs. Kennedy” in the inquest proceedings. Bad news for your “well-dressed” silly suspect that you keep trying to shove in everyone’s faces, but very fortunate for the truth.

“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.”

She stated this to the press, almost certainly in adherence to a specific police request not to divulge key particulars of her account to the journalists. This does not mean that she gave divergent accounts to the police at all. If you think that it is a matter of public record that Mrs. Prater had parroted Lewis’ account, then you are either delusional, lying or both.

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

Oh, the “Gallaghers”.

Look, you really are tragically ill-informed as well as bumptious and ponderous. If you look at the inquest testimony and police records, you will discover that the people who lived at #2 Miller’s Court were the Keylers, according to Sarah Lewis, not the "Gallaghers". You are once again resorting to your favourite, shameful tactic of relying on the 10th November press reports to inform your judgement - a preference unique to you. As far as I’m concerned, the Gallagher family didn’t even exist, at least not in Miller’s Court.

“Vetted were they?, did a good job vetting Caroline Maxwell didn't they?”

Yes, I think they did.

What are you suggesting – that because Maxwell claimed to have seen Kelly later in the morning she did not belong on the inquest? Who raises people who think along these preposterous lines? They were obviously vetted for superficial impressions of credibility, and equally obviously, the ghastly press diarrhoea that you cling to in desperation to support your silly well-dressed, black bag carrying suspect did not pass that vetting process, - Kelly, Paumier and other false leads amongst them.

“Sarah Lewis saw this spooky-looking man with a black bag, so he must exist, yes?”

He wasn’t “spooky-looking”. Lewis found his behaviour “spooky” (which could have been a simply act of attempting to procure a prostitute), most probably in light of the recent ripper murders.

“Abberline himself said Hutchinson accompanied two officers that same night (12th), to look for the man. He also promised to go identify the deceased.”

I think you’re being rather naďve if you think that Hutchinson realistically had a choice in the matter. “Would you accompany us to identify the deceased tomorrow?” “No, can’t be arsed!”. Can’t see that one working out somehow.

“Hutchinson was interviewed by the police and passed their scrutiny, Packer & Violenia were checked out and failed.”

Nonsense. Packer and Violenia were initially accepted, i.e. a few hours after they first made their statements. It was only later that they were discredited, just like Hutchinson. He was discredited, and his statement promptly sank like trace afterwards. This information came from the Commercial Street police station via the Echo, who we know for certain did establish communication with the police. Nothing whatsoever to do with “maybe this” or “maybe that”.

“Just a load of misdirected wind, Ben.”

And your “defense” of Hutchinson is shoddy and embarrassing to behold.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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...

[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]

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]

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]

...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.

[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!