Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[Fisherman]

[Ben:

"I say, Fisherman, I’m really in the mood going round in relentless repetitive circles on the subject of Hutchinson.
Care to join me?"

Already have!


"Why would either of them have a problem with my observation that Bob Hinton probably spoke to more than two policemen? Are you sure you’re not trying to encourage yet more people to pick a fight with me?"

I was more hinting at YOUR hinting at the twine being Ripperologists, thus making that a potential reason for their stance.

"You just have to use your imagination and come up with a realistic picture"

I do just that. Thing is, your imagination and mine seemingly differ. A lot

"I don’t know why you’re finding my observation so difficult to compute. The extent to which PC Smith noticed the man was evidently sufficient for him to have recorded the non-outlandish extent of detail he divulged at the inquest, which wasn’t much by any means, but not unimpressive considering the brief nature of the sighting. Had Smith been scrutinising the man specifically, there was still only so much he could notice and then commit to memory, i.e. nowhere near as much as discredited Hutchinson implausibly claimed."

If you are correct, it would all hinge on the sparsity of the man´s attire. Otherwise, I find it hard to defend a line where a casual observation would yeld nearly as much as an intense ditto would. Such a suggestion is completely unviable, if that is your meaning.

And everybody knows that, so perhaps I am misreading you.

"Hutchinson only SAID he was interested, Fisherman."

Not "only", Ben. Such a thing would imply that he lied. Hutchinson said that the man was interested, and that may be true or untrue.

Besides, it was NOT the "only" thing he did. He also added that he stooped down to see the man better, and that he followed him intently all over the place. Taken together, it points not AWAY from an interest, but TOWARDS such a thing.

"What if he simply lied about this in the hope that the extent of detail would appear less ridiculous and outlandish?

Then he would have been a fool, Abberline would have been gullible and I would be wrong. None of the suggestions work for me.

"Clearly the lie didn’t work, as the “interest” factor doesn’t prevent the description being outlandish and ridiculous."

I ascribe to the exact same view here as Stewart Evans.

"I see you revert back to this “well lit” business. This description applied to Dorset Street only, and there was no opportunity to register horseshoe silly tie-pins and silly dark eyelashes as he followed the couple from a distance."

... which is why we should work from the assumption that he noticed the facial features when he took a look at them, and realize that he may have taken in the horse-shoe pin, positioned a few inches away from the face at the same stage. If this was not when it happened, then we must accept that it happened at some other stage of his following the man and observing him. How hard can it be?

"Hutchinson only SAID the man had elaborate clothing."

Not "only", Ben. Such a thing would imply that he lied. Hutchinson said that the man had elaborate clothing - and that may be true or untrue.

"What if he simply lied about it to vindicate his interest in the man’s appearance?"

Then he would have been a fool, Abberline would have been gullible and I would be wrong. None of the suggestions work for me.

"What if he lied about it because he wanted to deflect suspicion in a false direction, and realised that the stereotypical bogeyman would be ideally suited to that purpose?"

Same answer.

"Backing up Hutchinson’s claims with Hutchinson’s claims is very circular reasoning."

Backing up a conjured-up wish that he was the killer with all the things he did NEVER say remains a lot worse, I´m afraid. And normally, when people testify and are believed, it is not called "circular reasoning", Ben. If we are to go down that alley, then why did you try to paint me out as heartless for not believing in Lewis second version of the truth, differing totally from the first? Would that not make your totally uncritical belief in her story "circular reasoning"?

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

But another point has to be taken into account when you compare the description that Hutchinson makes to Abberline and the description he gives to the press.

And the reason's you offer are quite sound. What has not been debated beyond passing comments is to query the differences between Hutchinson's initial statement at Commercial St. and the official description published in the press release on the 13th.
The differences are also minor but they exists and some are not even similar. Hutchinson gave his complexion as "pale", yet the police published "dark". The moustache was originally described as "slight", but was also published as "dark".

The differences between the two published descriptions, to which you refer, are not a big issue. Neither are the minor differences between the unpublished version on the night of the 12th, and it's published version on the morning of the 13th.

The principal issue here is the depth of detail given in any of these accounts.
The description is not that of a "West-end Toff", just a reasonably well-to-do Jewish male, of which this mode of dress in the East End is not unusual. Jewish males who had means took pride in their appearance. This is what we see in Hutchinson's description. And, there were a good number of Jewish businesses in the immediate area. This male was not dressed unusual and he was not out of place.

Both of the statements of Hutchinson, although perhaps different in the degree of detail could both have been honest descriptions in Hutchinson's own mind.

Yes, and that is key, "honest", with no justifiable reason to think otherwise.

And don’t worry about Jon. He’s a supercilious, disagreeable bloke who delights in .......

Winding people up?

But only those who make naughty claims that are not true

Regards, Jon S.

[Hatchett]

Hello Benz and Beebs,

The point has been made that Abberline suspected Chapman and that makes his judgement questionable!

How do you know that?

Certainly there is an amount of circumstantial evidence that Chapman perhaps could have been the ripper.

I am not saying that he was. I am saying that you cannot prove that he wasnt, so you cannot make a rational decision that because of that Abberline's judgements were questionable.

As I have asked and pointed out time after time no official evidence from the police in any form what so ever has been produced that Hutchinson's statement was discredited.

You can huff and puff as much as you like. But until you do that and stop relying on two press reports then no one is going to take it seriously.

Best wishes.

[Ben]

Already have!

So you do fancy a nice, long-winded repetetive Hutchinson debate?

It's so reassuring that some people can always be relied upon.

Otherwise, I find it hard to defend a line where a casual observation would yeld nearly as much as an intense ditto would.

Obviously if you deliberately set out to scrutinise and memorize something, yor description is likely to be fuller, albeit not to a ridiculously implausible (i.e. Hutchinsonian) extent. Unfortunately in Hutchinson's case, we only have it on his dubious, discredited say-so that he did take a particular interest in the man. And what was his reason? Oh yes. Because he stood out like s sore thumb. Unfortunately, we only have Hutchinson's word for that too.

"Besides, it was NOT the "only" thing he did. He also added that he stooped down to see the man better, and that he followed him intently all over the place."

You misunderstand. I meant that we have Hutchinson's word "only" that he was interested in the man. In other words, there is no corroboration to this three-day late claim that appeared in his soon-to be-discredited account.

Then he would have been a fool, Abberline would have been gullible and I would be wrong.

No, he would have been a liar, Abberline would have been correct to discredit him as such, and...yes, you would be wrong - shockingly enough.

which is why we should work from the assumption that he noticed the facial features when he took a look at them, and realize that he may have taken in the horse-shoe pin, positioned a few inches away from the face at the same stage.

Hardly possible, Fisherman. There just wasn't the time available, to say nothing of the visibility, which was very poor. 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. He couldn't have paid equal attention to the man's glittering midriff section at the same time. This is the point I tried to make the last hundred or so times we had this identical argument.

Then he would have been a fool, Abberline would have been gullible and I would be wrong. None of the suggestions work for me.

No, he would have been a liar, Abberline would have been correct to discredit him as such, and...yes, you would be wrong - shockingly enough.

But please let's play this endless repetition game some more. I've got decades if necessary.

Backing up a conjured-up wish that he was the killer with all the things he did NEVER say remains a lot worse, I´m afraid.

Oh, but of course, how I "wish" that the killer was a non-descript labourer! Just think of all the money I'd make if that turned out to be true...! Meanwhile, back on our planet, I think you've missed the point. "Circular reasoning" happens when you back up Hutchinson's claims WITH Hutchinson's claims, and you've done this a number of times on this thread.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Winding people up?

Yeah, I guessed this must be at the root of your agenda.

If that's the sort of poster you want to be, you should feel rather despressed with yourself.

Those summer evenings in Canada must just fly by...

It is most assuredly not "minor" to register polar opposte descriptions in any eyewitness description. Deviations of a particular theme are understandable in some cases, but changing a dark complexion into a pale one is rather more significant, and usually and indication of fabrication, which astonishingly enough occurs quite frequency in high profile police investigations. A "heavy" moustache being converted from a "slight" one is another example. The press account also contained signficant embellishements (i.e. on his police statement) that don't relate immediately to the suspect description. The nonsense about a mysterious negligent policeman, the act of approaching Kelly's room, the Petticoat Lane sighting are all absent from the initial police interview. "Coindentally", it was announced that Hutchinson's statement had been discredited just after these press accounts did the rounds, suggesting very strongly that played a strong supporting role in his discrediting.

just a reasonably well-to-do Jewish male, of which this mode of dress in the East End is not unusual.

Says who?

Just you by the sound of things. You do a disservice to the 1888 Jewish community by suggesting that they took ostentation and idiocy to such an extreme that some of them ventured into the heart of the murder district dressed not only in the most muggable fashion imaginable, but in a manner that incorporated popular perceptions as to the ripper's likely appearance. Totally unusual. Totally out of place. Totally bogus. We either accept that this happened or we accept that Hutchinson lied about it.

[Ben]

The point has been made that Abberline suspected Chapman and that makes his judgement questionable!

Whoops!

Point massively missed, Hatchett.

I never suggested that mere suspicions of Klosowski call Abberline's judgment into question, and nor did Beebs. It was observed that his actual theory involving Klosowski is rather extreme, in addition to being predicated on several erros and misconceptions. This observation was aimed primarily at the "Abberline believed him, so up yours, nasty Ben!" brigade, who ought to digest two things before repeating that particular mantra:

1) Abberline was a member of the same police force who discredited Hutchinson. As such, I neither criticise nor disagree with his ultimate decision.

2) He was not incapbale or errors of judgment.

On a related note, I do feel that people go slightly silly about Abberline at times. Quite apart from the Hutchinson threads, there seems to be a general tendancy to be critical about other policeman of seniority, such as Macnaghten and Anderson, but an insistence on only positive things being written about Abberline.

As I have asked and pointed out time after time no official evidence from the police in any form what so ever has been produced that Hutchinson's statement was discredited.

But we know for certain that the police imparted this detail to the Echo, along with other information that we know to be true.

no one is going to take it seriously.

You wouldn't think so, considering the hardened keyboard warriors eager to do battle with me on this issue.

[Wickerman]

1) Abberline was a member of the same police force who discredited Hutchinson.

Ok, lets call this, Put-up or Shut-up.
And that police document lies where?

On a related note, I do feel that people go slightly silly about Abberline at times. Quite apart from the Hutchinson threads, there seems to be a general tendancy to be critical about other policeman of seniority, such as Macnaghten and Anderson, but an insistence on only positive things being written about Abberline.

Memoirs Ben, all memoirs, recollections, all written after the fact, no matter who wrote them. Please pay attention!
What Anderson, Macnaghten, Swanson, & Abberline wrote AT the time is of value, recollections written after the fact are so full of errors & exagerations as to make them unreliable on specific details. Quit confusing apples with oranges just to promote a lame argument.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Ok, lets call this, Put-up or Shut-up.

Okay, I'll take the "Put-up" option, and leave you to...

And that police document lies where?

As I've just explained to Hatchett:

We know for certain that the police imparted this detail to the Echo, along with other information that we know to be true

If you like, we can repeat the entire argument where this was discussed in detail.

Memoirs Ben, all memoirs, recollections, all written after the fact, no matter who wrote them. Please pay attention!

So we should ignore them all?

Gosh, the Druittists and the Kosminskites are going to love you.

Naturally, you fail to make clear what "lame argument" you're accusing me of.

[Stewart P Evans]

Official Report

That is what Abberline said on that date. It doesn't mean he could not have changed his mind. There is evidence that Hutchinson was discredited, that has been gone over many times. But how likely is it that a police official is going to come forward and say directly, ok, I was wrong a few days ago, that guy I believed got one over on me?
Not very likely.
...

It is what Abberline said, in an official report, on the very day that Hutchinson made the statement, 12 November 1888.

Everyone is fallible and anyone can change their mind. However, Abberline was there, and actually interrogated Hutchinson on his statement. Abberline was a very experienced, successful, senior police officer and a veteran of many big cases. He would have known and interviewed many criminals, would have taken hundreds of witness statements, intimately knew the area, and was very reliable.

It is not a question of whether he later admitted he was wrong or not as we do not have any subsequent police reports on this subject and theefore do not know what he did say. All we have are unspecific press reports that Hutchinson may have been discredited and press reports are very often mistaken anyway.

For those who may not have seen it here is the relevant section of Abberline's handwritten 12 November 1888 report.

[Stewart P Evans]

Entitled

...
I have the utmost respect for the Police at the time. I believe they did their best under very difficult conditions and circumstances. I don't believe they covered anything up or there were any conspiracies. I merely believe they were fallible human beings, like the rest of us, 'expert' and hobbyist alike, and can get things wrong.
...

Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. Those opinions may or may not be well informed or based on relative personal life experience. So what we may each believe or not believe is a very subjective thing but belief is an acceptance of a particular statement and more than a mere personal opinion.

Unfortunately all we have in this case is supplied in what official documents have survived and what was written in (often conflicting) press reports. It should be no surprise that the press version of Hutchinson's statement varied from the actual statement he made to the police. We often see this in press accounts of what witnesses have said.

I am no expert, but I tell you this, I was a police officer for nearly thirty years, 1969 to 1997, and I have interviewed hundreds of witnesses and taken their written statements. Please do not tell me about the police, witnesses and fallibility.

[Stewart P Evans]

Interview

...
Abberline stated at one time he believed Klosowski was the Ripper. I don't think that is true. Therefore his judgement was not infallible. Therefore people are entitled to question it and make up their own minds on this aspect of the case as well as any other, and if other contributors find the subject of Hutchinson tiresome there is no obligation for them to get involved in the debate.

Exactly what Abberline may have thought and may have said in a press interview some fifteen years later can hardly be held to reflect upon what he wrote in an official report whilst an important murder investigation was still unfolding in 1888. It also cannot be held to prove that he was not infallible (other theorists will tell you that Chapman was the Ripper). No human being is infallible and that, of course, is not the point here.

As for the statement that '...if other contributors find the subject of Hutchinson tiresome [i.e. me] there is no obligation for them to get involved in the debate', I find this a tad offensive. I normally would not get involved (after all it is rather pointless) but I seem to recall that my name had been mentioned here more than once before I joined in. Or am I not wanted here? I shall soon be exiting this thread anyway, I have better things to do.

[Stewart P Evans]

Like it or not...

...
As far as Abberline is concerned, I agree - I don't understand why he should be considered a "sticking point" at all. The whole point about the evident discrediting of Hutchinson is that in spite of Abberline's initial endorsement of the statement, the result of later investigations was the revision of this opinion. So whenever people stress Abberline’s abilities and experiences, I simply nod in acquiescence and observe that they may eventually have played a role in the discrediting of Hutchinson. Notice also that this has nothing whatsoever with any insinuation that the police were “lying, covering up, saving face” or anything of that nature. The recognition that Hutchinson was ultimately discredited and probably lied therefore carries no implied criticism of Abberline.
Having said that, you raise the crucial observation that his judgement was not infallible. He thought the ripper was an “expert surgeon” and his ideas about Kloswoski’s involvement and motivation were some of the most outlandish touted by any police official, and yet for some reason, it is fashionable to criticise any police official except Abberline.
...

Like it or not Abberline's report is a sticking point for those who would cloak Hutchinson with the Ripper's mantle. The mere weight of debate about it alone indicates this.

Say words like 'evident' as much as you like, there is nothing concrete whatsoever to show whether Hutchinson was right, wrong, mistaken, lying or even attention seeking. There are only vague press reports and nothing official on this point whatsoever. It is wrong to make the specific statement that 'the result of later investigations was the revision of this opinion'. That is an assumption. Show me that in a police report and I shall agree with you. And, of course, it might be right (I've said it myself in the past - but only as an opinion and not as a conviction).

Again I stress that what we find in a contemporary police report must be credited with more veracity than opinion quoted in popular press reports many years later.

I find the statement that 'it is fashionable to criticise any police official except Abberline' both wrong and misleading. Abberline did not go on to write popular memoirs as others did, most notably in 1910, some twenty plus years after the event. Those officers have been criticised on what they wrote many years later.

[Stewart P Evans]

Silly

...
On a related note, I do feel that people go slightly silly about Abberline at times. Quite apart from the Hutchinson threads, there seems to be a general tendancy to be critical about other policeman of seniority, such as Macnaghten and Anderson, but an insistence on only positive things being written about Abberline.
But we know for certain that the police imparted this detail to the Echo, along with other information that we know to be true.
...

Really, people go silly about Abberline, do they?

I have already covered this point but as the names of Macnaghten and Anderson have been raised here one or two observations may be in order. Abberline was an experienced career police officer who dirtied his hands with practical investigation and arrests. Anderson and Macnaghten were not police officers. Anderson was a qualified barrister and civil servant. Macnaghten was a rich ex-tea plantation overseer. Both entered the Metropolitan Police, in 1888 and 1889, as gentlemen 'officer corps' supervisors. Both later (in 1910 and 1914) wrote popular memoirs of their exploits.

Macnaghten also wrote his noted, suspect-naming, report in 1894 and thus both tend to be criticised on these writings. Abberline, of course, published no such memoirs but he has, in the past, been the subject of negative commentary over the interviews about Chapman published in the press in 1903. Personally I have never insisted that only positive things should be written about him. I have, however, have insisted that we should strive for accuracy, objectivity and an even-handed assessment of the facts.

To say 'we know for certain that the police imparted this detail to the Echo, along with other information we know to be true' is, again, misleading and lacking in substance.

First what is meant by 'the police'? Does this mean an official police press release? Does it mean overheard gossip at some police station? Does it mean the information was disclosed to some well-connected reporter having dinner with a senior police officer? No, none of these, it means a convenient blanket term for information allegedly obtained from an official police source. As we know information obtained from 'the police' by the press comes in many forms and is often flawed - a mixture of some fact and some fiction, as witness the press reports on Schwartz.

The other relevant point to remember is that various police officers had different and opposing views and theories. So a single police source cannot be held to be the official police view. We have an example of this with Inspector Race and his embedded belief that Cutbush was the Ripper.

[Ben]

“Like it or not Abberline's report is a sticking point for those who would cloak Hutchinson with the Ripper's mantle.”

I really don’t see how it would be. Even if Hutchinson wasn’t discredited, and Abberline upheld him for decades as the star witness of the ripper case, there still wouldn’t be any “sticking point” because he would still have been voicing his opinion in an unenlightened era when it came to the investigation into serial crime and its perpetrators. Some people seem to think that because Abberline had experience with East End criminals, he would have spotted the killer easily if and when confronted with him, which is obviously not the case.

I mention this only because you introduced the subject of Hutchinson’s potential culpability. If the argument is that Abberline’s missive somehow renders this less likely, I’m afraid I disagree very strongly/

“Say words like 'evident' as much as you like, there is nothing concrete whatsoever to show whether Hutchinson was right, wrong, mistaken, lying or even attention seeking.”

There is no proof in the form of any official document, no, but the same may be said of other case-related “witnesses” who are generally acknowledged to be bogus. However, it ought to be clear just from the content of Hutchinson’s account that he was dishonest, and we shouldn’t be require any official police document to validate such an opinion.

These “Was Hutchinson discredited?” threads seem to pop up with alarming frequency – one dies and another is instantly resurrected. But yes, in my opinion, it is very clear that Hutchinson’s statement came to be doubted owing to doubts about his credibility and the late arrival of his evidence. The Echo stated that they approached Commercial Street police station in order to ascertain the truth about the origin of Hutchinson’s statement, and were informed that the fuller description that appeared on the 14th proceeded from the same source as the briefer account that appeared a day earlier. Some of their press contemporaries formed the mistaken impression that they were two independently supportive accounts, and the Echo were assured by the police that this was not the case. They were also informed that the statement had been “considerably discounted”.

The chances of this being invented or inaccurate are obviously very remote, since it contained information that we know for certain to be correct.

“Really, people go silly about Abberline, do they?”

Only insofar as any criticisms of him tend to be challenged with some indignation, which never seems to happen with some of his senior colleagues. I’m not suggesting that this is happening here, but it’s certainly a trait I’ve noticed. The only observation that I would object to with vehemence is that Abberline would easily have seen through Hutchinson, had the latter been a liar or a killer. Many experienced police officers have been duped by both over the decades since 1888.

“I normally would not get involved (after all it is rather pointless) but I seem to recall that my name had been mentioned here more than once before I joined in. Or am I not wanted here?”

I wouldn’t say that at all. 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.

All the best,
Ben

[Jonathan H]

To Wickerman

The theory that all the police memoirs, interviews, and in Mac's case sources-by-proxy (Griffiths, Sims) are equally riddled with errors, and thus all equally unreliable is, arguably, both shallow and redundant.

Abberline was proposing a theory in 1903, and was not trying to backdate his 'revelation' to 1888, he was just sure -- as he could be -- that this proven murderer of women was also the fiend.

Macnaghten in 1914 admitted, in the one Ripper document under his name for public consumption, that though Scotland Yard was beaten by the Ripper, this 'protean' maniac, at least they identified -- or rather Mac identified -- him posthumously, and thus laid his ghost to rest (eg. 'certain facts' led to a 'conclusion' but only 'some years after' he killed himself).

This concession puts Managhten as a source head and shoulders above any other police figure of that era, to say the least.

In those memoirs Macnaghten makes only one error about Druitt and that is the timing of his suicide, but on closer inspection he hedges his bets with 'on or about ...', and says that he is relying on memory alone and therefore pre-emptively apologises for any errors.

It is very interesting what Mac does with Lawende's sighting.

In the unofficial version off his 'Report', the version projected into the public arena via pals, Mac turns a Jewish witness into a beat cop, and the Gentilish, Sailorish suspect into a Polish Jew -- whom the cop allegedly later saw and thought there was a superficial resemblance (Sims, 1907).

In his own memoirs, this sighting is downgraded to nothing, to unsatisfying, as the Polish Jew suspect is eliminated altogether (along with Ostrog).

It suggests to me, all this toing and froing, and fictionalising of Lawende and his young sailor-like figure, that this was a sighting of Druitt -- which it generically matches -- or at least Macnaghten thought, or presumed it was a sighting of Druitt, and so it had to go.