Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[Wickerman]

Hi there,
My original post on this thread was to ascertain whether witnesses are any use in the JtR case.

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.

[Heinrich]

....
We're talking about a man who pulled his hat down over his eyes

A man who did not exist; a man who was but a dream.

[Ben]

So, if he had for one second averted his gaze from Astrakhan manīs eyes, he would not have been able to notice the manīs eyelashes?

Pretty much, Fisherman.

We're talking about a man who pulled his hat down over his eyes - how could this action have failed to obscure his eyelashes? Had Hutchinson gazed directly upwards into the man's face from under the latter's hat brim using a torch, he might have had some luck with his eyelash-spotting mission, but as the claim stands, it remains hopelessly implausible. In other words, in order to get anywhere even remotely close to registering the shade of the man's eyelashes, 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. Too bad for those linen collars, horseshoe-tie-pins, red stone seals, light buttons over button boots, dark American-cloth etc.

One wonders why Hutchinson described the man as Jewish-looking, since he only saw the eyelashes as they met?

Probably because he was well aware of the widespread suspicions of a Jewish involvement in the murders, and sought to deflect suspicion in this false direction by incorporating this element into his pantomime villain, bogeyman suspect, along with many others.

And we all know that the light was so terribly dim that Hutchinson only got one quality look (well, decent quality look - well, then, half-decent quality look - well, then, ALMOST half-decent quality look), of, at the very longest, a fraction of five seconds - and he could not have seen the chain, the tie and pin, the coat, the astrakhan trimmings, the collar, the moustache or the gaiters at that occasion. Leastways, he could never have seen the stern look at that time, for he himself admits that Astrakhan man had his hat drawn down over his eyes. So the only thing he could see was the eyela ... now, wait a minute; the hatbrim was down over the eyes, and he could not ...hmmm...

I think you're slowing getting there, Fish. Progress.

I don't know where I ever described YOUR theories as "poo", by the way.

But anyway, it really is best if we accede to Siobhan's request to steer this particular thread back on track.

Regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Or to hear your views on why there are so many conflicting accounts/ descriptions of JtR. I think we've covered poor lighting, trauma/ stressed reactions to what was seen, being too far distant to have a crystal clear view, pandering to the police (or just making something up) to get off more lightly for the witness's own crimes.... Perhaps you have your own ideas to add to the list? Thanks again.

I'll say this: I don't see possible suspect sightings as being so very different from each other. Heights were all pretty close, but they are always judged from the witness' height in comparison. Dark and black seem to me to be very similar, whereas gray and light are also similar. The only things of real substance to me are the statements regading facial hair. I also look at what the witnesses were doing and put people who weren't obviously driniking or drunk above others for obvious reasons. I think putting everything together we are looking for an average man about 5'7" and between 28 and 35 who had a mustache, and I think that's as far as we, or I can go.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben:

" He cannot have averted his gaze from the man’s eyes, or else there is no possibility of noticing the man’s eyelashes"

A-ha? So, if he had for one second averted his gaze from Astrakhan manīs eyes, he would not have been able to notice the manīs eyelashes?

The ones who see the eyelashes of another man, and remembers them afterwards, cannot have seen anything BUT the eyelashes? Oki-doki!

This must be a special quality of the eyelashes of people who have never existed, but are just figments of a killerīs imagination - they (the eyelashes) spellbind the ones who observe them, effectively hindering any other observation.

One wonders why Hutchinson described the man as Jewish-looking, since he only saw the eyelashes as they met?
In Dorset Street, all he could see was a dark overcoat and a hat, so the particular observation of a probable Jewish heritage could not emanate from that street. And we all know that the light was so terribly dim that Hutchinson only got one quality look (well, decent quality look - well, then, half-decent quality look - well, then, ALMOST half-decent quality look), of, at the very longest, a fraction of five seconds - and he could not have seen the chain, the tie and pin, the coat, the astrakhan trimmings, the collar, the moustache or the gaiters at that occasion. Leastways, he could never have seen the stern look at that time, for he himself admits that Astrakhan man had his hat drawn down over his eyes. So the only thing he could see was the eyela ... now, wait a minute; the hatbrim was down over the eyes, and he could not ...hmmm...

Good going, Ben. Really. I mean it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Siobhan,

I will post on topic. Witnesses have incredible value if they can be seen as people who made mistakes and couldn't be relied on 100%. ......So, by all means let's use witnesses to compare details and look for middle ground, but let's not crucify them because we have a Hutch, er, a hunch that we want to make into truth.

Mike

Hi Mike,
Thanks for that. I would be interested to hear your views on who the best or most credible witnesses are in the case so I can come back to you and say they're useless... (only kidding)
Or to hear your views on why there are so many conflicting accounts/ descriptions of JtR. I think we've covered poor lighting, trauma/ stressed reactions to what was seen, being too far distant to have a crystal clear view, pandering to the police (or just making something up) to get off more lightly for the witness's own crimes.... Perhaps you have your own ideas to add to the list? Thanks again.

[The Good Michael]

Hi there,
My original post on this thread was to ascertain whether witnesses are any use in the JtR case. The last few posts have gone way off message.
Is there any chance you guys could post here in a spirit of friendship and debate which is on message? A few of the earlier post-ers had very relevant points to help develop the topic but no-one recently.
Just a thought. Thanks.

Siobhan,

I will post on topic. Witnesses have incredible value if they can be seen as people who made mistakes and couldn't be relied on 100%. Where everyone loses it is when they have an agenda that forces them to take a suspect or suspects and create doubt about everything they said in order to bolster their theories. So, by all means let's use witnesses to compare details and look for middle ground, but let's not crucify them because we have a Hutch, er, a hunch that we want to make into truth.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Your name was mentioned several times, most probably in an effort to recruit your participation in the ongoing fight against Ben and his naughty Hutchinson agenda, which seems to be a cherished pursuit for some. I never start these repetitive debates, but for some reason, others delight in dredging them all up again."

Well, thank you very much for this - most eloquent and nice of you. And - as usual - you jump to faulty conclusions as fast as you can.

Stewart Evans is an authority on the Ripper case, with many books on the subject. So is Don Rumbelow.

You have a reoccuring habit of claiming things you believe to be true, or bordering on truth, with no or very little support at all, evidencewise, whereas you speak of other peopleīs theories - like for example mine - as "utter filth", "unpopular" and "poo".

Last time over, you tried to sell the view that Hutchinson could not possibly have seen what he claimed to have seen, and implicated that peole who were opposed to this view of yours were not up to standards intellectually.

I pointed out to you that some of the most recognized authorities in the field actually agreed with me on this point.

...and now this all suddenly adds up to - in your view - an effort on my behalf to engage any of these authorities to battle it out with you ...?

Apart from this all being a bit silly, I also fail to see why I should not be allowed top point out that an authority - ANY authority that I choose - has made a point or voiced a view that I find useful, without being compared to somebody who yells for his older brother while in a fight.

You see, I can take care of myself eminently. But one of the cornerstones in this defense of mine, is that I am to a reasonable extent read up on things. Therefore, I am always ready to point to other peoples work in support, if I think the need is there. And that need arises when you try to point me out as being pityfuly alone about the view that there was not necessarily anything much out of the ordinary in Hutchinsonīs description of Astrakhan man.

If you treat me with respect in this context, I will do the same for you.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Do try to make an effort to keep track of the thread’s progression, Fisherman. We’ve done this silly business about staring contests and eyelash-shade recognition pages ago, and we’ve moved on since then.

“Oh! And this you know exactly how? How many were the seconds, why did they "fleet" and how do we know that he only looked at the manīs face during them?”

You need to use your imagination and reject the patently absurd accordingly. The patently absurd in this case would involve Hutchinson and the Astrakhan man gazing at each other like two cowboys about to draw their pistols. It is irresponsible to accept that such a scenario must have occurred purely on the basis that there was no other way Hutchinson could have recorded all he did. This is backing up Hutchinson with Hutchinson, and is circular reasoning. You have to consider just how lengthy a stare-out would have been required to notice and record all those details, and ask yourself if you really think it’s plausible.

“You can take in MORE than a face as you stoop down to look at a person”

It depends. If you’re deliberately attempting to gaze at a person’s face from under his pulled-down hat, then that is where you’re concentration lies and nowhere else, and since it would have taken a few seconds for the Astrakhan man to pass in close proximity to the Queen’s Head lamp, there was no window of opportunity for Hutchinson to move on to other interesting details of the man’s appearance. If Hutchinson hadn’t claimed specifically to have stooped down in order to scrutinize the man’s face, I would have less trouble accepting all the other goodies he allegedly recorded.

I realise you love a long-winded acrimonious exchange with me, but don’t accuse me of lying, Fisherman. This will irritate me, and I will get extremely cranky. I’m posting what I post because I believe it wholeheartedly.

“Also consider, Ben, that often when there is a staring contest, or when somebody gives somebody else a stern stare, it would not be a strange thing to do to fix your gaze elsewhere than on the other personīs eyes.”

But Hutchinson DIDN’T.

That’s the whole point. He cannot have averted his gaze from the man’s eyes, or else there is no possibility of noticing the man’s eyelashes, which is what he claimed to have achieved despite the man pulling his hat over his eyes.

“So why do we get entrenched in these silly exchanges?”

Probably because you keep picking these fights out of the blue, despite the topics concerned having been done to death already. If you think they’re silly, you’re not obliged to stick around, but from extensive experience, the people who moan most about my contributions are the same people whose undivided attention I can completely rely on.

So I’ll see you on the 1000th page I guess.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

" The Astrakhan man passed the Queens's Head in a few fleeting seconds, and Hutchinson SPENT those few fleeting seconds paying particular attention to the man's face."

Oh! And this you know exactly how? How many were the seconds, why did they "fleet" and how do we know that he only looked at the manīs face during them?

This is all guesswork, is it not? Of course, you will try to sell in the view that it is "logical" guesswork (or even "bloody obvious), but anybody who considers the meagerness of the evidence existing, relating to the observations Hutchinson made, will immediately realize that it is nothing of the sort.

You often have me wondering, Ben, if you really believe in these readymade scenarios yourself, or if you are just presenting them because you cannot stomach admitting that your reasoning is as premature as it is potentially flawed.

You can take in MORE than a face as you stoop down to look at a person. Such a thing ought not need to be said. It should be totally obvious to anybody. And still, the quality of the arguments presented calls for it.

People who look at other people for a timewise unestablished period of some seconds, are not restiricted as to what they may or can look at. You MAY spend the whole time looking at the personīs face, you may may also look at any other thing on this person. You may study the kneejoints, the shoepolish, the tie, the watch-chain, the belly, the quality of the trousers - anything that comes into your field of sight can and may be studied.

If it were the other way around, and if it would be completely astounding if Hutchinson looked at MORE than the face, than we should expect to see people thrown out of courtrooms for claiming that they had noticed more than the face of somebody they took a close look at.

"He had crocodile skin shoes, your honour!"

"Get out of my court, liar!"

Doesnīt work, does it?

Also consider, Ben, that often when there is a staring contest, or when somebody gives somebody else a stern stare, it would not be a strange thing to do to fix your gaze elsewhere than on the other personīs eyes. How long does it take for us to give in during such a staring contest? I will tell you: it varies - from a fraction of a second to many, many seconds.

So why do we get entrenched in these silly exchanges? And donīt try and come up with a clever answer making me look silly. Instead try and realize what it is you are - under either a misconception or a pretension - claiming as truth here.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“That is all Ben,Garry,Judy and others have done,and while their arguements might at times be considered as forceful,they have never,in my opinion,been conceited,or offens ive.”

Many thanks for the support, Harry. Much appreciated.

“However, I do regard his observations on Hutchinson as valid and of more value than the ruminations of some modern self-styled expert who has convinced himself that Hutchinson was the Ripper and proceeds”

Oh whinge, whinge, whinge.

Is this really the best you can achieve at the moment? Focussing squarely on the personalities associated with Hutchinson discussions, and never the content? I couldn’t give a rat’s behind what “gets up your nostrils”. If you’ve got that much of a problem, go away and find something more congenial to discuss with more congenial people. But repeating your personal gripe with the individuals associated with the “pro-Hutchinson” group (as you describe it) is a colossal waste of your own time. I’m not changing. I’m not saddened by your view of me, nor do I embrace it. I’m consistently thorough in my responses to others, and never dismiss the opinions of others “out of hand”.

“You really are arrogant, aren't you?”

You really are hypocritical, aren’t you?

You call people “know it all” and “pompous” for disagreeing with Abberline’s initial opinion of Hutchinson, and yet you do precisely the same thing in Barnett’s case by arguing that Abberline was wrong to dismiss him as the possible killer of Kelly. For some reason, you consider this a legitimate argument and are quite happy to disagree with Abberline in that particular case, but the rules change when it comes to Hutchinson, and it’s suddenly an offensive thing to do to challenge the detective.

Anyway, sorry Siobhan, we have rather hijacked your topic, so I agree we should revert back to it.

All the best,
Ben