Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[Heinrich]

....
you know Barnett lived with Kelly in No.13, so where was their wardrobe? Where in room 13 did Kelly and Barnett keep all their change of clothes?

Neatly folded clothes are mentioned on one of the chairs.

As most people suspect the killer was from the lower-classes, how many changes of clothes do you think these lower-classes had?, it may shock you to learn that in most cases what they wore was all they had.

No, I already know this. Do bear in mind that Mary Kelly was friends with Maria Harvey who left her "two men's dirty shirts, a little boy's shirt, a black overcoat," and other items of clothing on the week of the murder according to her testimony at the inquest. Mary Kelly, then, as well as Joseph Barnett who was known to Maria Harvey, was in the way of coming across some extra pieces of clothing from time to time. We do not know what Joseph Barnett had to wear but we can be sure he would not have kept bloody evidence having just left the place where he had lived until 10 days previously and where the murder was done.

Quite true, how silly of the prostitues to object to having a PC follow them around the streets every night.

Since when did it become police policy to neglect their duty because members of the public did not universally hold them in high regard?

The City police did try some restriction along those lines, predictably it did not work. Do you wonder why?

The more I learn about the London police of 1888, the less surprised I am.

That said, there isn't a whole lot you can do or say with no evidence and no witness to place him at the scene at the hour in question.

Joseph Barnett placed himself at 13 Miller's Court on the night of the murder according to his own testimony and an eyewitness, the same Maria Harvey.

Yes, some of the aspects of the Kelly murder do suggest she may have known her killer, but how long is that list? 5 men, 10? - you only focus on Barnett, but there were others, and at least one who was known to do her harm.

No one knew Mary Kelly better than Joseph Barnett.

[babybird67]

That said, any objective investigator of a series of unsolved murders, where no offender has been brought to book, should keep an open mind and not convince himself that a certain specific group were all the work of one culprit. Unsolved means unsolved, and it also means that we do not know who the actual killer was.

My emphases.

Precisely, Stewart. So why do you deem it necessary to demean and belittle those of us who wish to discuss Hutchinson's candidacy? For all you know, he could well have been the killer.

By the way, I mentioned Tumblety precisely because you have been involved in naming someone who you believe is a good suspect yet wish to deny that freedom of intellect to other people, which does not strike me as very fair.

I am answerable to one person and one person alone for my thoughts and that's me. I don't give control of my thoughts to you or any other lauded or non-lauded Ripperologist because my thoughts belong to me, and while Stephen kindly provides forums in which Hutchinson is listed as a suspect, not to mention one in which he has published Garry's excellent book on Hutchinson's possible candidacy, I do not need yourself or anyone else telling me what I can and cannot think or can and cannot discuss. As long as I am obeying the site rules, that's my business alone.

And as for thinking I know better than people involved in the case...let me remind you that nobody here was involved in this case because that would be impossible, so ANYBODY passing any comment or judgement on any aspect of the case is in the same position as everyone else, and if that is contrued by yourself as putting themselves above the people who were actually there, then that is exactly what you are doing too.

As I have said before, if you find the discussion of Hutchinson offensive there is absolutely no compulsion to discuss him. I enjoy discussing him and the aspects of his statement which interest me and will continue to do so, without your permission or approval.

[Wickerman]

I am not a detective, Jon, but not even Tin Tin with his dog Snowy would expect a killer to be going to bed and then wearing tell-tale bloody clothes the day after a night of murder.

I understand that Heinrich, and any answer will depend on who you think the killer was. That said, you know Barnett lived with Kelly in No.13, so where was their wardrobe? Where in room 13 did Kelly and Barnett keep all their change of clothes?
As most people suspect the killer was from the lower-classes, how many changes of clothes do you think these lower-classes had?, it may shock you to learn that in most cases what they wore was all they had.

Nonetheless, they failed to protect the victims which was their duty.

Quite true, how silly of the prostitues to object to having a PC follow them around the streets every night.
The City police did try some restriction along those lines, predictably it did not work. Do you wonder why?

I question their skill in interrogation believing, as I do, that they at some time did interview a killer only to release him upon failing to piece together the evidence against him.

To be fair, we do not have a verbatim exchange between officer & suspect, simply a bland "he proved his identity and was discharged", or something similar.
Even the press were not present in any interviews so we only get a brief mention by them. Therefore, in truth, we have no way of knowing the extent or depth of their interrogation techniques.
That said, there isn't a whole lot you can do or say with no evidence and no witness to place him at the scene at the hour in question.

Do not assume the killer was a stranger.
You ask for my suggestion. Well, I would have arrested Joseph Barnett for the murder of Mary Kelly on the grounds of motive, means, and opportunity and a compelling case for the prosecution could have been made, sufficient to convince a jury.

I know, but different people here have different opinions, so it helps if we take the broad approach.
Yes, some of the aspects of the Kelly murder do suggest she may have known her killer, but how long is that list? 5 men, 10? - you only focus on Barnett, but there were others, and at least one who was known to do her harm.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

It’s interesting that when some people threaten to leave the thread after tossing out a whole load of unwarranted personal insults, it very quickly emerges they don’t actually have any intention of following through with that swan-song. And really, if people want to have lovely acrimonious and frosty-spirited, please keep calling me a “know-it-all”, and we’ll see what transpires.

I see we’re still hearing this nonsense about Abberline, as though his thoughts represented the final police stance on Hutchinson’s statement, which they most assuredly did not, and are not. As I’m prepared to reiterate whenever the subject it broached (which could be an eternity depending on the willingness of some people to keep picking this particular fight), it is very clear that this opinion came to be revised. The Echo approached the police directly. We know this to be true because they reported information relevant to Hutchinson’s statement that we now know to be true and could only have been obtained from the police. They also divulged that the statement had been “considerably discounted” because of the witness’ tardy arrival in presenting his evidence.

We can thus dispense utterly with the suggestion that discrediting of Hutchinson did not originate with the police. It can be argued that the police could still have wrong to discredit Hutchinson, and we can speculate for years on end as to why, but it is pointless to argue that it didn’t happen at all.

I am also noticing a familiar old fallacy creeping into the threads – the one that asserts that the suspects that were viewed as such by the contemporary police stand a greater likelihood of having been the ripper than those put forward more recently. As Babybird has sensibly pointed out, the police had no experience whatsoever of serial offenders, and if Hutchinson was indeed the culprit, the fact that his potential culpability may have been overlooked should certainly not be considered a “con” in his case, as opposed to a “pro”. Even today, modern investigations are littered with examples of senior police officials being duped by both liars and killers (Sutcliffe was interviewed a great many times but was dismissed on each occasion), and there have been several examples of serial killers inserting themselves into their own investigations.

In short, Hutchinson could easily have been one of them, and I have always thought be stands out particularly because of his apparently proximity to, and interest in, the Miller's Court crime scene on the night in question. As soon as he the inquest closed, he made himself known and provided a highly questionable and soon-to-be-discredited account, suggesting very strongly that he realised he’d been seen and sought to legitimize his presence accordingly, using the transparently fictional “Astrakhan man” as a vehicle for this. It is generally considered more likely than not, and for exceptionally good reason, that the killer was a working class local man. I would only submit that Hutchinson is the “best” unknown local man we know something about.

When viewed from a criminogical perspective, this qualifies him as a suspect light-years ahead of Druitt (who has also been brought up here), who did not live in the East End and as far as I know can’t even be placed there at any point in time, let alone loitering outside a crime scene of the night of a murder. Abberline did not think there was anything beyond the time of his suicide to incriminate him, and it is unlikely in the extreme that Macnaghten should have withheld information from Abberline.

“Normally I wouldn't get involved in these tedious debates, but, as I say, my name was mentioned.”

Yes, but not by me, Stewart, and by any of the other people you’ve insulted. Your name was referenced by the people who would undoubtedly team up with you in criticising and insulting me, probably in effort to get you to join in. Obviously and misguidedly, you swallowed the bait.

As to dismissing profiling as “pshyco-bable” I doubt very much that this is the general view amongst the police today. My impression is that there is no “us against them” mentality, and the interests of investigative progress would be significantly retarded if there were such an attitude. Not that any of the arguments that relate to Hutchinson have a great deal to do with profiling. Rather, they relate to experience and hard facts garnered from other cases – the type that you make reference to in your Tumblety book.

In reference to the theory than Barnett was responsible, you state:

“Mind you it is an idea that holds much merit and should at the very least be borne in mind when weighing up the evidence”

But it would mean that Abberline was WRONG about Barnett (you keep going complaining about people claiming to know more than Abberline), and would make Barnett one of your “non-contemporary” suspects, so why does this suspect theory hold “much merit” and not Hutchinson, who meets both these criteria? Like it or not, by suggesting that the Barnett theory "holds much merit", you are clearly defending the adoption of a position not shared by Abberline, i.e. that he had no involvement in the crime. Double-standards are clearly being employed for some annoying reason. To make matters worse, there is no evidence that Hutchinson was even considered a suspect (unlike Barnett), and you can't a dismiss a suspect without first considering him as such.

[Heinrich]

....
Given that no-one was ever seen standing over a body, that no potential suspect had blood on their clothes or a suitable weapon in their possession, what do you suggest they do?

I am not a detective, Jon, but not even Tin Tin with his dog Snowy would expect a killer to be going to bed and then wearing tell-tale bloody clothes the day after a night of murder.

The best effort the 19th century police could do was to flood the streets with police, both in uniform and plain clothes, which they did.

Nonetheless, they failed to protect the victims which was their duty.

Pulling dozens if not hundreds of potential suspects in for questioning, which they did.

I question their skill in interrogation believing, as I do, that they at some time did interview a killer only to release him upon failing to piece together the evidence against him.

Discovering the murderer of strangers, is still difficult today, it was almost impossible a hundred years ago.

Do not assume the killer was a stranger.
You ask for my suggestion. Well, I would have arrested Joseph Barnett for the murder of Mary Kelly on the grounds of motive, means, and opportunity and a compelling case for the prosecution could have been made, sufficient to convince a jury.

[Wickerman]

Shocking as it seems, it does not take much to know more than the police of 1888 since they knew nothing, failing to find the murderer of any of the five canonical victims. It is likely they had interviewed at least one killer and, failing to piece together the evidence, let him go free.

Heinrich.
Remember the bloody shirt episode after the Berner St. murder, or the suggestion they looked for blood on Barnett's clothes?
Remember all the referenes to knives found in the street, in little black bags, in peoples pockets?
Given that no-one was ever seen standing over a body, that no potential suspect had blood on their clothes or a suitable weapon in their possession, what do you suggest they do?

These police did not have CSI scriptwriters to conjure up a vital clue from nothing at all. The best effort the 19th century police could do was to flood the streets with police, both in uniform and plain clothes, which they did.
Pulling dozens if not hundreds of potential suspects in for questioning, which they did.
Following likely candidates for days on end, which they did.

Discovering the perpetrator of a spousal homicide is relatively easy, likewise solving criminal cases like fraud where there is a paper trail, or homosexual crimes where a number of consenting adults, or victimised children are involved are comparatively easy.
Discovering the murderer of strangers, is still difficult today, it was almost impossible a hundred years ago.

To put it in context, the British police were world leaders in the very new social science of criminal detection of the 19th century.
However, without the advantage of a suspect with bloodstains, with a murder weapon, or been seen in the act, all the police could do is what they did do!, no doubt within certain political constraints.

Regards, Jon S.

[Stewart P Evans]

Don't...

In that case, "BOO!"

Don't do that! You made me jump.

[Stewart P Evans]

Personal

...
And since you have been at pains to highlight your credentials as a former police officer, Stewart, I'd be interested to know precisely how many serious crime suspects (murderers and rapists, for example) you interrogated during your thirty or so years as a uniformed constable, especially in view of the fact that such interviews are normally conducted by CID personnel.
I would suggest that you review your own recent posts whilst bearing those words in mind.

Now we get to the personal bit. My own fault I guess.

During my police service I performed many and varied duties. I was involved in the investigation of many crimes, many of them serious and which included a few murders. I have taken witness statements in connection with rape and murder investigations. I was a tutor constable and trained around sixty police officers, many who went on to become CID officers and still accepted my judgement. I did detective duties on CID attachment but did not want to become, by choice, a detective officer. I took a long and detailed witness statement for a rape on one occasion. In provincial forces uniformed officers dealt fully with their own crime investigations from theft to serious assaults. In fact when I had a prisoner under arrest for a serious burglary, and had to interview him, a CID officer was sent down to assist with the interview. The detective arrived, he was an officer I had trained, and taught how to do interviews, years before. He said, "Oh it's you Stewart you don't need me!" and he left. I was also, in the main, acting sergeant, running the whole team covering the town and acting as custody officer. I was also a firearms officer for a few years.

Many years of policing 'at the sharp end' are difficult to sum up in a few words and I shan't bore you any longer. My point was, however, that I know more about police procedures, evidence, interviewing prisoners and taking witness statements than most who set themselves up as 'experts' here. Anyway, it's nice to know that there are other experts on police procedures and evidence etc., such as yourself here.

[Heinrich]

This is the sort of mentality that haunts these boards.

In that case, "BOO!"

[Stewart P Evans]

This...

Shocking as it seems, it does not take much to know more than the police of 1888 since they knew nothing, failing to find the murderer of any of the five canonical victims. It is likely they had interviewed at least one killer and, failing to piece together the evidence, let him go free.

This is the sort of mentality that haunts these boards.

[Stewart P Evans]

Barnett

...
As for the vituperations levelled at those who have questioned Abberline's alleged professional infallability, isn't that precisely what you yourself were doing ten or so years ago when attempting to put Barnett in the frame for the murder of Mary Kelly? Didn't Abberline conduct a lengthy interrogation of Barnett and conclude that he had no involvement in the crime? But that didn't prevent you from disregarding Abberline's professional judgement. On the contrary. And you did so in the absence of any evidence to support your Barnett-related allegations.
...

I did not 'attempt to put Barnett in the frame for the murder of Mary Kelly'. What I did do was present a suggestion of Alex Chisholm's as to Barnett being responsible for the Kelly murder. Mind you it is an idea that holds much merit and should at the very least be borne in mind when weighing up the evidence. Statistically he would be the likeliest culprit and, according to Bernard Davies whose grandfather was a police officer involved in the Kelly investigation, there were some CID officers investigating the murder who thought it was by a different hand to the earlier crimes.

That said, any objective investigator of a series of unsolved murders, where no offender has been brought to book, should keep an open mind and not convince himself that a certain specific group were all the work of one culprit. Unsolved means unsolved, and it also means that we do not know who the actual killer was. Over the years of study of these crimes I came to the conclusion that there was a possibility (note possibility) that Kelly was not a Ripper victim and that if she was not then Barnett would make a likely suspect. And that is how it is presented in my book. Not in the way you have (deviously?) portrayed it. I have always acknowledged that there it is just as likely she was a Ripper victim. We simply do not know.

We do not know the details of just how seriously Abberline regarded Barnett as a possible suspect (certainly, initially, he would have done). We also do not know what evidence he looked at with regard to Barnett's alibi. But that is all beside the point.

You have stated that I have 'questioned Abberline's alleged professional infallibility', which is not the case at all. What I did do was present an alternative scenario, written by Alex Chisholm a qualified historian, for the Kelly murder, making no claim that I was certain he had killed her, and without disparaging the police without evidence. Unlike the Hutchinson theorists who are happy to discredit any police evidence that might contradict their precious, and sacrosanct, theories.

[Heinrich]

.... And, of course, that they know better than Abberline and the police of 1888.

Shocking as it seems, it does not take much to know more than the police of 1888 since they knew nothing, failing to find the murderer of any of the five canonical victims. It is likely they had interviewed at least one killer and, failing to piece together the evidence, let him go free.

[Stewart P Evans]

Typical

Perhaps, Stewart. But I rather suspect that Jen alluded to Tumblety in order to highlight the breathtaking hypocrisy of your 'do as I say and not as I do' attitude. Thus it is perfectly legitimate for you to promulgate Tumblety as a likely killer, but wholly unacceptable for others to do likewise with Hutchinson...
As for the vituperations levelled at those who have questioned Abberline's alleged professional infallability,...

This is a typical misguided and ill-informed response that seems to be somewhat peculiar to those who have convinced themselves that Hutchinson was the Ripper. And, of course, that they know better than Abberline and the police of 1888.

I have not, and do not, say 'do as I say and not as I do', indeed quite the opposite, I am well aware of my own faults. Yes, it was perfectly legitimate for me to propose Tumblety as a likely suspect for Jack the Ripper, I was building a theory around the words of a Chief Inspector of the time. Tumblety was, and is, a legitimate suspect. But since writing the book I haven't 'promulgated' it, as you put it, unlike some Hutchinson supporters who seem to do so endlessly with regard to their theories. But that's fine, whatever floats your boat. Normally I wouldn't get involved in these tedious debates, but, as I say, my name was mentioned.

If what I have written can be interpreted as 'vituperations' okay, Hutchinson supporters always seem to have colourful and over the top ways of describing things. Especially in relation to their precious suspect. Who has alleged that Abberline was infallible? I never have. And I don't, and haven't here. What I did do was say that I preferred to take what the official reports show was concluded (Phil Sugden gives a very good assessment of this in relation to Hutchinson) rather than take the unproven views of Hutchinson theorists, which they use to bolster their extreme ideas.

[Garry Wroe]

The 'Old Chestnut' of which I speak is the tendency of any who get into a debate with me raising what they see as a weakness in my objectivity in proposing Tumblety as the Ripper in my first book. There was, actually, no need to raise Tumblety, but you are apparently doing so in order to address or weaken my arguments.

Perhaps, Stewart. But I rather suspect that Jen alluded to Tumblety in order to highlight the breathtaking hypocrisy of your 'do as I say and not as I do' attitude. Thus it is perfectly legitimate for you to promulgate Tumblety as a likely killer, but wholly unacceptable for others to do likewise with Hutchinson.

As for the vituperations levelled at those who have questioned Abberline's alleged professional infallability, isn't that precisely what you yourself were doing ten or so years ago when attempting to put Barnett in the frame for the murder of Mary Kelly? Didn't Abberline conduct a lengthy interrogation of Barnett and conclude that he had no involvement in the crime? But that didn't prevent you from disregarding Abberline's professional judgement. On the contrary. And you did so in the absence of any evidence to support your Barnett-related allegations.

And since you have been at pains to highlight your credentials as a former police officer, Stewart, I'd be interested to know precisely how many serious crime suspects (murderers and rapists, for example) you interrogated during your thirty or so years as a uniformed constable, especially in view of the fact that such interviews are normally conducted by CID personnel.

What I am berating is the overwhelming know it all, dismissive of others, arrogant, self-righteous and pompous attitude of certain people ...

I would suggest that you review your own recent posts whilst bearing those words in mind.

[Jonathan H]

It is not so much how important the witnesses are to us, as how important they were to the police officials of the time.

For example in the official version of Macnaghten's 'Report' Mac writes that 'nobody saw the Whitechapel murderer'.

Imagine what Joseph Lawende would have thought of that, of his time being wasted in 'confrontations' with Sadler in 1891 (a no), before the writing of the 'Report', and Grant in 1895 (a yes?) after it was composed and apparently seen by nobody.

In the unofficial version, which Mac propagated to the public via Griffiths and Sims, he wrote that a City PC may have seen him in the form of a Polish Jew?

Imagine what Lawende would have thought of that version of what supposedly happened ...?