Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Latest photofit of JtR

At least this one painstakingly using eyewitness accounts doesn't look like Freddy Mercury.
But will it help solve the case?

Best,
Siobhán

[FrankO]

Grand work this last job, Siobhán!

But will it help solve the case?

Hmm... ... probably not.

[packers stem]

Oh I don't know,if his left leg's 7" shorter than his right we've got a chance

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
When weighing up witnesses in this case, I try to look for plausibility in their statements either to the press or police.
Remarks like' you will say anything but your prayers'
Elizabeth Prater...she [ kelly] was wearing her jacket and bonnet, I do not own any.
Hutchinson... She [ Kelly[ said' Oh I have lost my hankerchief.'
Maxwell... she [ Kelly] said 'I have the horrors of drink , as I have been drinking some days past.'
Maurice Lewis...I was playing pitch in the court, when someone shouted 'Copper'.
Why do I place significance on those for instance?
The 'prayers' incident may be a reference to stride being a regular at the Swedish church.
The Prater remark I find fascinating, according to her, she encountered Mary at the end of the passage at 9pm on the 8th, they had a brief conversation before departing, but noticed her clothing of a jacket and bonnet.[ which she remarked she did not own].
My point being if Prater was being honest, then Blotchy face may have been made up by Cox, simply because Kelly arrived home without the bonnet and jacket on.
The Hutchinson remark...Very intresting ... was GH incorperating that into his statement as he believed the hanky would still be in the room, and if so Why?
but lets assume Mary required the use of a hanky to wipe/blow her nose, then it would fit in veyr nicely with Maxwell stating'Her eyes looked queer , as if suffering from a heavy cold',
That is part of Maxwells statement which has gone missing, but I read that quote in the early 70s, and McCormack uses the term' All muffled up with cold'
Infact that observation would suggest that both Hutchinson , and Maxwell were being truthful , as if medical reports are correct, how would her account be possible.? Did Mjk, have a cold.?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Sorry my PC went haywire before I had finished,
Maurice Lewis... freeely admits to playing an illegal game, why?
Regards Richard.

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Grand work ...

Cheers, and it only took a minute to do up. Wonder what kept the London police from doing same in 1888.
Best,
Siobhán

[JackDaw]

Siobhan,

I know that man in your image.

He used to be on 'Pat's Chat' on RTE years ago.

He's selling poetry books outside the old Bewleys in Dublin nowadays.
I knew there was something suspicious about a man wearing that many hats.....



On the topic of witnesses: there only of use when the killer is caught and you look back and sort through their statements.

Remember all the Washington Sniper witnesses who swore they saw a white man in a white van with blacked out windows driving away from the crime scenes?
Should've gone to Specsavers.........

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

I know that man in your image.

He's selling poetry books outside the old Bewleys in Dublin nowadays.
I knew there was something suspicious about a man wearing that many hats.....
On the topic of witnesses: there only of use when the killer is caught and you look back and sort through their statements.

Thanks JacDaw,
I'm glad someone finally agrees with me about the topic of witnesses! Amazing that a mirror image of JtR is thriving in Dublin.
Someone who has the time could do up a list of all the killers who got away...or those the police arrested and let off to kill again. I'm sure JtR is not unique.
Siobhán

[Bridewell]

I agree that Hutchinson's description of Astrakhan man is suspect, simply because he claimed to have seen an impossible amount of detail. I think it's a leap of logic, though, to conclude, from this, that Hutchinson himself is the murderer. Inspector Abberline interviewed him and documented his belief that Hutchinson was a reliable witness. He doesn't give reasons unfortunately but, as Abberline was a very experienced detective who had spent much of his career in the Whitechapel area, he will undoubtedly have had a number of informants. I'm of the opinion that Hutchinson was Abberline's 'snout' and provided a detailed description of a man he possibly hadn't seen at all, in the hope of receiving payment, all the more likely as he was unemployed at the time.

[Bridewell]

On the subject of hats. The fact that several witnesses describe what appear to be different hats does not mean that the witnesses are wrong or that they have seen different people. If there is a common thread in the JtR descriptions it is that the person seen was 'shabby genteel'. He had either seen better days or was trying to appear better off than he really was. The killer almost certainly tried to entice his victims by posing as a client with the potential to pay well. A different hat does not mean a different person or a 'wrong' description. It can simply be the same person in a different hat, or even the same hat described differently. If you see a man wearing a deerstalker only from the front, what you perceive may simply be the 'round cap with a peak of the same colour' described by some witnesses. There is also the possibility that the offender did something which would have seemed very strange at the time and put his hat on back to front. A witness seeing such a man only from the rear, would see a rear peak and might assume the presence of a peak at the front also and therefore describe a deerstalker. Perception is everything. Honest witnesses can give differing accounts of the same incident and still be considered reliable. They may simply have been standing in different places. The 'best evidence' principle should be applied. Where witnesses are concerned, the question I would focus on is how soon after the incident the description was given. In my view, based on 30 years as a police officer, if a witness admits uncertainty in some areas, it adds greater credibility to the detail of which they say they are sure. Mrs Long was unsure of some of the detail of the man she saw with Annie Chapman, but told the coroner she was certain the woman she had seen was the one whose body she viewed in the mortuary. That is significant in my view, although her view was impaired, as she conceded herself, by the fact that she only saw the man from behind.

[Phil H]

The killer almost certainly tried to entice his victims by posing as a client with the potential to pay well.

I'd question that, certainly in the case of Polly Nichols 9who was too drunk and desperate to care) and Chapman who was too sick and tired. They wanted a few pence that's all, and neither would - in all probability - have turned their nose up at anyone who was no so obviously dangerous (in a health or murderous sense) who would go with them and pay.

Neither were in any position to be choosy about their clients -thankful to get any man I'd guess - or with the strength to fend off any man who got forceful. Indeed, they might well have been more suspicious of someone offering over the odds for a quick one.

Phil

[Monty]

Indeed Phil,

Robert Spicer springs to mind.

Monty

[Ben]

I think it's a leap of logic, though, to conclude, from this, that Hutchinson himself is the murderer.

It's obviously advisable to avoid any hard and fast conclusions, Bridewell, but the above is a possible explanation for his behaviour, and certainly not an unlikely one. He probably did invent the description, but money was unlikely to have been his chief incentive for doing so, as it clear from the evidence of Sarah Lewis that he was truthful, at least, about having loitered outside the entrance to Miller's Court on the night of the murder.

All the best,
Ben

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

On the subject of hats...

On the subject of hats. The fact that several witnesses describe what appear to be different hats does not mean that the witnesses are wrong or that they have seen different people. If there is a common thread in the JtR descriptions it is that the person seen was 'shabby genteel'. It can simply be the same person in a different hat, or even the same hat described differently. If you see a man wearing a deerstalker only from the front, what you perceive may simply be the 'round cap with a peak of the same colour' described by some witnesses. There is also the possibility that the offender did something which would have seemed very strange at the time and put his hat on back to front. They may simply have been standing in different places. The 'best evidence' principle should be applied. Where witnesses are concerned, the question I would focus on is how soon after the incident the description was given. In my view, based on 30 years as a police officer, if a witness admits uncertainty in some areas, it adds greater credibility to the detail of which they say they are sure.

Bridewell,
I respect the fact that you have 30 years experience in the police but you seem to be saying that JtR had time to go home and change his hat in between killing. He slaughtered two women in close proximity (timewise and location wise) on the same evening so he wouldn't have had much time to go home to put on a more fetching hat in between the two slayings. Also, eyewitnesses couldn't agree on whether it was a sailor, slouch or deerstalker hat. These hats surely don't look similar even under failing gas light. Would a killer have had that many hats in his wardrobe to choose from? Doubtful, especially if he was "shabby genteel" (see below). I will give you this much, the idea that he put one of the hats on back to front in a hurry perhaps? is possible if one of the hats fell off his head during one of the murders and he didn't have time to put it back on properly before he fled.
The talk of hats doesn't account for the fact that witnesses couldn't even agree on the height of the villain. The height ranges from 5'0" to 5'7" in most reports. They only agree (some of them) that he was dressed "shabby genteel" - not a lot for the police to go on. That's why I believe the witness accounts are no use in trying to find the true identity of JtR.

They should have gone to Specsavers to get a free pair of glasses - the lot of them. They would have been more useful to the police if they had done.

[Heinrich]

Nowadays, eye witness testimony is all but useless for identifying a stranger.