Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[babybird67]

Let's get this old chestnut into context shall we?

I have been reading about, and later researching, the Whitechapel crimes for fifty years. Over those years, obviously, I have had 'preferred' suspects and have changed or modified my views many times, especially as new evidence emerged. Amongst my own 'preferred' suspects have been Druitt and Kosminski. An open mind, I have found, has always been the best way forward.

What chestnut are you talking about Stewart? I really don't comprehend your point. At the time you wrote your book about Tumblety you presumably were as convinced as you could be by the evidence that he was the best suspect available, or you wouldn't have put your book out there suggesting so. Tumblety remains unconvincing as a suspect to many people, nevertheless, and as you yourself state, different suspects appear more convincing to you at different times. I don't understand what the problem is. If you reserve the right to be convinced by different suspects/evidence at different periods of your research, why are you so surprised and/or indignant when I would like the same freedom of choice?

What do I do, do I give the name of this 'new' suspect to some author or other, do I merely get it quickly into print for everyone to research, or do I research it and write a book myself? I chose the latter option, despite the fact I had never envisaged writing a book about the subject. I was not naive enough to think that everyone in Ripperworld would agree that Tumblety was the Ripper, or even likely to be the Ripper.

Good for you! I have no criticism of your choice to write a book on it. I read your book and found it interesting, but, like many I am sure, remain unconvinced that the Ripper was Tumblety. My point is, why do you go on the offensive when others suggest Hutchinson as a viable candidate when there is the same amount of factual evidence to suggest that either man was the Ripper?

If I had had a choice I would certainly preferred to write a reference work on the Ripper (which I didn't think I was capable of anyway) but given my material I obviously could write a suspect book and one that was based on a genuine contemporary suspect and not a fantasy suspect like most of the others. And it was not a suspect thought up by me, but one named by a contemporary police official.

If you're arguing that any suspect not named in incomplete Police files is a fantasy suspect then I have to disagree. At least Hutchinson can be placed in a time and place crucially germane to a Ripper murder. That makes his suspecthood real and convincing to me.

You are repeating what I have said for many years, a suspect book must, of its nature, contain suppostition and conjecture; hypothesis and opinion. No hard evidence exists against any suspect.

So why are you taking particular exception to Hutchinson? Some of us are interested in his as a suspect. If you are not, that's fine. But why berate those of us that are, as if we don't have the right to be? I wouldn't dream of berating you for believing Druitt a viable candidate, even though I feel sorry for the man whose only link to the murders appears to me to be his untimely death!

I don't know why you make the comment about 'being entitled' to put forward Tumblety's name. Anyone can (and they often do) put forward any name as Jack the Ripper. But in my case I was publishing a valid suspect's name put forward by a man in a position to know. I can't fully agree that people can justify the naming of a suspect 'plucked out of a hat' as it were, with not a jot of justification for naming that person as a murder suspect.

Hutchinson wasn't plucked out of a hat. He was there on the night of Kelly's murder shortly before the medical evidence suggests she died. That is compelling information. Much more compelling than someone committing suicide just after Kelly's murder. I use the word entitled because you have yourself written suspect books yet are taking umbrage at anybody else wishing to suggest it might have been Hutchinson.

But, as is obvious, anyone writing a suspect-based book is obliged to be selective and look at anything they feel is relevant in building a hypothetical case against a suspect. But what has that to do with what I have been arguing on this thread? Hutchinson as a suspect is a modern interpretation and he does not appear as a serious contemporary suspect, but as a witness.

I disagree with the opinion that because he was overlooked as a suspect at the time he should automatically be ruled out as a suspect forever. We already know the Police did not have a clue as to the identity of the Ripper and I can see very little rhyme or reason to some of the contemporary suggestions that were forthcoming, Druitt being a prime example. The Police were not infallible. They did not know who the Ripper was, despite their lists of suspects etc. I think it would be foolish NOT to keep an open mind and be prepared to rule people in to the investigation that weren't considered viable suspects at the time.

As for profiling, again, you're entitled to your opinion, but I find some of the instances of notable behaviour of serial killers, such as injecting themselves into investigations, to be pretty convincing. We're learned from history that some of them do it. It would be closing our minds to deny it couldn't have happened in this case.

Your attitude to profiling doesn't seem to be shared by all the Police either.

There is no question that psychological profiling of offenders has made a significant contribution to policing and it is because of this that the Metropolitan Police Service invested significant funding in the Interactive Offender Profiling System to try and develop the use of this capability and apply it to volume crime types such as burglary.

Maxine de Brunner

Commander, Serious Acquisitive Crime, Metropolitan Police Service

[Heinrich]

Profiling is more of an art than a science although it is based largely on statistical analysis gathered from a data base over the years, working on a type of actuary table. As a rule, a good profiler is right on the mark when it comes to advising police what to look for in a suspect and this can aid investigation.
If the canonical five were not victims of the same criminal, then such profiling would be of much less reliability. It would be safer to confine oneself to one murder at a time, in the case of Mary Jane Kelly for example, where the profile would clearly identify Joseph Barnett.

[Stewart P Evans]

Profiling

...
Again, I am not telling you about it. I am expressing my thoughts, and giving examples of why I think that way. Experienced police officers such as yourself obviously have more experience of real crime than me. I wouldn't presume to say otherwise. I would, however, take issue with the argument against placing modern interpretations on things...psychological profiling and the historical study of crime can bring a lot of wisdom which we can then take back with us in time so to speak to reassess things. Of course the Police force now will have much more experience of serial killers, why shouldn't we use that experience to throw light on previous crimes where they did not have the benefit of that knowledge?
...

I have to respond to this one.

Most experienced police officers of my acquaintance, and many others, have no time for 'psycho-babble' and criminal 'profiling'. As is well known, I don't. And it has to be difficult to apply modern 'profiling' methods to an unknown Victorian killer about whom we have very little information other than the results of his murders, and even there we are not certain with reagard to his actual victims.

But I have discussed this with several psychologists, criminal psychiatrists and others involved in these aspects. Indeed, the ex-chief of the FBI Child Abduction and Serial Murder Unit at Quantico spent a weekend here with me and we discussed the subject at great length, especially in relation to the Whitechapel murders.

I'm afraid, in my opinion, you set too much store in the value of such 'profiling'.

[Stewart P Evans]

What?

I am trying to say that we all have to make our own minds up from a very limited selection of evidence. I am sure there are lots of Ripperologists who disagreed with the Tumblety as Ripper scenario. That doesn't mean you weren't entitled to put that hypothesis forward. All suspect-based books have to deal in the realm of supposition and conjecture because there is no evidence which implicates anybody in the crimes themselves.
Just as you were entitled to fill in the blanks and put forward the name of Tumblety, those who suspect Hutchinson are entitled to do the same, are we not? At least George Hutchinson was in a place and time germane to a Ripper murder (on his own evidence and that of Sarah Lewis).
The whole field of Ripperology is full of blanks. It was not a criticism of you Stewart. I read your book and found it very interesting. It was an example however of people taking evidence and building a case around a suspect for whom there is no direct evidence.

Let's get this old chestnut into context shall we?

I have been reading about, and later researching, the Whitechapel crimes for fifty years. Over those years, obviously, I have had 'preferred' suspects and have changed or modified my views many times, especially as new evidence emerged. Amongst my own 'preferred' suspects have been Druitt and Kosminski. An open mind, I have found, has always been the best way forward.

Thus I had more than thirty years of Ripper research and reading before I ever chanced upon the name of Tumblety. It is now eighteen years since I 'discovered' Tumblety. I remain convinced that we shall never know the identity of 'Jack the Ripper'.

So, imagine, here I am in 1993, an avid 'Ripperologist' with over thirty years of interest in the subject, when I chance upon a letter written by an ex-chief inspector of the Special Branch who was at Scotland Yard from 1883 to 1893. And in this letter he names a 'very likely' Ripper suspect who I had never heard of before, and he names the journalist(s) believed responsible for the 'Jack the Ripper' letter.

What do I do, do I give the name of this 'new' suspect to some author or other, do I merely get it quickly into print for everyone to research, or do I research it and write a book myself? I chose the latter option, despite the fact I had never envisaged writing a book about the subject. I was not naive enough to think that everyone in Ripperworld would agree that Tumblety was the Ripper, or even likely to be the Ripper.

If I had had a choice I would certainly preferred to write a reference work on the Ripper (which I didn't think I was capable of anyway) but given my material I obviously could write a suspect book and one that was based on a genuine contemporary suspect and not a fantasy suspect like most of the others. And it was not a suspect thought up by me, but one named by a contemporary police official.

You are repeating what I have said for many years, a suspect book must, of its nature, contain suppostition and conjecture; hypothesis and opinion. No hard evidence exists against any suspect. That said my book presented many new facts and was strongly based on the official files and factual reports. Also I had met Phil Sugden before I wrote the book and depended on his sage advice.

I don't know why you make the comment about 'being entitled' to put forward Tumblety's name. Anyone can (and they often do) put forward any name as Jack the Ripper. But in my case I was publishing a valid suspect's name put forward by a man in a position to know. I can't fully agree that people can justify the naming of a suspect 'plucked out of a hat' as it were, with not a jot of justification for naming that person as a murder suspect.

But, as is obvious, anyone writing a suspect-based book is obliged to be selective and look at anything they feel is relevant in building a hypothetical case against a suspect. But what has that to do with what I have been arguing on this thread? Hutchinson as a suspect is a modern interpretation and he does not appear as a serious contemporary suspect, but as a witness.

[babybird67]

That is an extremely naive comment, and says more about you than it does me.

It shows a total lack of understanding of the nature of Ripperology, Ripper writing and authors and publishing. More to the point, exactly what are you trying to say here?

I am trying to say that we all have to make our own minds up from a very limited selection of evidence. I am sure there are lots of Ripperologists who disagreed with the Tumblety as Ripper scenario. That doesn't mean you weren't entitled to put that hypothesis forward. All suspect-based books have to deal in the realm of supposition and conjecture because there is no evidence which implicates anybody in the crimes themselves.

Just as you were entitled to fill in the blanks and put forward the name of Tumblety, those who suspect Hutchinson are entitled to do the same, are we not? At least George Hutchinson was in a place and time germane to a Ripper murder (on his own evidence and that of Sarah Lewis).

The whole field of Ripperology is full of blanks. It was not a criticism of you Stewart. I read your book and found it very interesting. It was an example however of people taking evidence and building a case around a suspect for whom there is no direct evidence.

[babybird67]

If I am taking anything personally it may be that certain people try to tell me about things of which I know more than they ever will.

I have not 'tried to tell you' anything Stewart. I have expressed my views as honestly and respectfully as I can. If you consider me having a different opinion to yourself on the Hutchinson issue as me trying to tell you something, then you are mistaken. You can believe what you want. It makes no difference to me. I have not tried to tell you you aren't entitled to express your view on it, nor would I presume to do so.

Also many take the evidence we have out of context, place modern interpretations on it, and do not have a clue about real evidence, let alone police procedure and protocol. Again I do not know your own life experience, experience of real crime and criminals or of questioning offenders and getting to the truth. But you are telling me all about it.

Again, I am not telling you about it. I am expressing my thoughts, and giving examples of why I think that way. Experienced police officers such as yourself obviously have more experience of real crime than me. I wouldn't presume to say otherwise. I would, however, take issue with the argument against placing modern interpretations on things...psychological profiling and the historical study of crime can bring a lot of wisdom which we can then take back with us in time so to speak to reassess things. Of course the Police force now will have much more experience of serial killers, why shouldn't we use that experience to throw light on previous crimes where they did not have the benefit of that knowledge?

The examples you give, I presume, are examples you have read about in media such as press and books and not from personal experience. Of course policemen make mistakes, of course I have made mistakes, but that is not the point here.

Yes they are. I am not a police officer. And it is the point, if you are arguing we must accept Abberline's judgement because he was a police officer and was there, which i disagree with.

I am very happy with people commenting on, and having opinion on, the police both modern and past. The trouble is, some that do this in a self righteous, I cannot be wrong, know it all way and talk as if they themselves are immune to error or from being totally wrong. They also, often, do not appear to be able to properly assess context and evidence.

On the contrary, as I have stated numerous times, ALL human being are fallible and open to errors of judgements. I never have and never would exempt myself from that. So I am still at a loss to why you are taking particular and personal exception to some of the points I am making. I am quite able to assess context and evidence, I have had work published before.

So you believe and say what you like but do it with some humility and allowance for the fact that you might be wrong yourself

I do, and have.

[Stewart P Evans]

Naive

...
Didn't you write a book which 'presumed' Tumblety was the Ripper at one point?
...

That is an extremely naive comment, and says more about you than it does me.

It shows a total lack of understanding of the nature of Ripperology, Ripper writing and authors and publishing. More to the point, exactly what are you trying to say here?

[Stewart P Evans]

Evidence

WHy are you taking this so personally Stewart?
I am not 'telling {you} about lying.' I am providing factual examples of serving officers getting things wrong, to support my contention that Abberline was not divinely exempted from getting things wrong. If you continue to choose to take my points as personal affronts, for whatever reason, there's nothing I can do about that, I'm afraid.
Are you suggesting you never made mistakes in your career? Are you suggesting the examples I have given of serving Officers making mistakes in investigations are factually incorrect? Are you suggesting we, the public, who don't have the experience of being serving police officers, have no right to be involved in the case, or to question things that police officers either now or in 1888 do or say?
I really am trying hard to get an angle on your objections to people making up their own mind about this case, but am struggling at the moment.

If I am taking anything personally it may be that certain people try to tell me about things of which I know more than they ever will.

Also many take the evidence we have out of context, place modern interpretations on it, and do not have a clue about real evidence, let alone police procedure and protocol. Again I do not know your own life experience, experience of real crime and criminals or of questioning offenders and getting to the truth. But you are telling me all about it.

The examples you give, I presume, are examples you have read about in media such as press and books and not from personal experience. Of course policemen make mistakes, of course I have made mistakes, but that is not the point here.

I am very happy with people commenting on, and having opinion on, the police both modern and past. The trouble is, some that do this in a self righteous, I cannot be wrong, know it all way and talk as if they themselves are immune to error or from being totally wrong. They also, often, do not appear to be able to properly assess context and evidence.

So you believe and say what you like but do it with some humility and allowance for the fact that you might be wrong yourself - unless, of course, you enjoy some of the acrimonious exchanges that have taken place on these boards. But I am sure that you don't.

[babybird67]

Have I said that? I don't think that I have.

Which is why I specifically asked if that was your point or not, because that is what you seem to be saying, Stewart.

What I have been doing (and you have obviously missed the point) is playing Devil's Advocate and trying to say that we simply cannot explain exactly what happened, nor can we presume anything (as some do).

Didn't you write a book which 'presumed' Tumblety was the Ripper at one point?

The best evidence that exists are the police reports and the newspaper reports can often be very untrustworthy or inaccurate. I'm sure that Abberline, like all of us, did make mistakes.

I agree.

But, of course, if you choose dismiss all the official reports that do not fit your own theorising, and use press reports as and when they suit you, then you might as well enter a world of total fantasy and give up on serious research.

I don't and never have dismissed any reports. I try to contextualise them. I fully accept that Abberline believed Hutchinson on the day that he interviewed him. I don't accept that he wouldn't have changed his mind after reflecting on Hutchinson's outlandish motive for setting up a lengthy vigil outside the Court, along with his suspicions/non-suspicions of Astrakhan.

I'm not preaching to you or anyone Stewart. I am here expressing my opinion like anybody else.

Some seasoned researchers encourage newbies by stating that there are no right and wrong answers in this case because we don't know who the Ripper is and probably never will. Others take a different tactic, sadly.

I'd like everyone to feel they have a voice and are entitled to use it.

If you don't agree with that, that's fine.

[Stewart P Evans]

Fantasy

I think it is the point. 'Abberline believed Hutchinson was telling the truth, ergo he must have been, because Abberline never made mistakes or errors of judgements'. If that isn't your point, pray tell me what it is, because that is the message I am getting.
...

Have I said that? I don't think that I have.

What I have been doing (and you have obviously missed the point) is playing Devil's Advocate and trying to say that we simply cannot explain exactly what happened, nor can we presume anything (as some do). The best evidence that exists are the police reports and the newspaper reports can often be very untrustworthy or inaccurate. I'm sure that Abberline, like all of us, did make mistakes. But, of course, if you choose dismiss all the official reports that do not fit your own theorising, and use press reports as and when they suit you, then you might as well enter a world of total fantasy and give up on serious research. Some appear to be already occupying such a world of fantasy.

[babybird67]

Hello Benz and Beebs,

HI Hatchett

Benz and Beebs are names myself and Ben use for eachother as friends. You may call me Jen or babybird/bb, I don't mind either. But not Beebs because that's Ben's name for me. Thanks.

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

How do you know that?

Because I don't believe Chapman was the Ripper, therefore if Abberline did believe that that is enough to bring his judgement into question for me. If you wish to argue he was right, and Chapman was the Ripper, by all means go ahead.

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.

There is no evidence that he was, and I can make a rational decision that Abberline's judgements regarding Chapman 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.

And this has been conceded time after time. I am looking at entire context, not merely basing what I believe on there being an official report to back it up.

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.

I'm not asking anyone to. Unlike some, I believe everyone can make up their own minds, and don't seem to go into meltdown when someone disagrees with me.

[Stewart P Evans]

Opinion

...
Belief and opinions are individual to all of us Stewart. Even what Abberline thought was only his opinion. He never caught the Ripper after all.
Of course accounts vary as details are remembered and forgotten. It is not merely that details vary in Hutchinson's case...it is the plausibility of the whole...the ability to see what he reports he saw, the following the couple yet denying he was suspicious, the failure to come forward until the inquest was over, yet the claim he tried to alert a Policeman on Sunday...to what exactly, if he hadn't realised until Monday evening he had seen anything germane to the case? Everything Hutchinson says has a ring of untruth about it.
I am not presuming to 'tell' you anything Stewart. I am merely expressing my opinion here as so many others are. Please allow me the freedom to do so.

But Abberline's opinion must be weighed against the fact that he was actually there at the time, he was a vastly experienced police officer and was recognised as such by his peers.

Don't preach to me about how accounts can vary, nor what is believable or unbelievable. Abberline obviously thought Hutchinson to be believable and I cannot begin to comprehend how you may think yourself a better judge in this case than Abberline. But I guess that's our problem here, too many modern 'experts' who think they know better.

Also do not start pleading that I'm not 'allowing' you to do anything. I'm not preventing your freedom in saying whatever you like. I'm all for everyone having their own opinions and voicing them. But don't expect me not to comment on those opinions in an open debate such as this, if I choose so to do.

[babybird67]

This is becoming quite incredible. I have arrested and interviewed hundreds of criminals, been lied to by more people than you could shake a stick at, and you are telling me about lying?

I also trained around sixty officers to do the job, have heard just about any criticism of the police that you care to mention, attended real murders and other violent crimes, all the time thinking that I was some sort of superman wearing a uniform that bestowed the gift of infallibility on me working alongside other supermen of the same ilk. Many thanks for putting me straight. By the way, what is your own personal experience of all these things?

WHy are you taking this so personally Stewart?

I am not 'telling {you} about lying.' I am providing factual examples of serving officers getting things wrong, to support my contention that Abberline was not divinely exempted from getting things wrong. If you continue to choose to take my points as personal affronts, for whatever reason, there's nothing I can do about that, I'm afraid.

Are you suggesting you never made mistakes in your career? Are you suggesting the examples I have given of serving Officers making mistakes in investigations are factually incorrect? Are you suggesting we, the public, who don't have the experience of being serving police officers, have no right to be involved in the case, or to question things that police officers either now or in 1888 do or say?

I really am trying hard to get an angle on your objections to people making up their own mind about this case, but am struggling at the moment.

[Stewart P Evans]

Incredible

...
Yes and I fully accept he initially believed him. Liars are convincing. Liars are capable of convincing seasoned Police officers that they are telling the truth. Peter Sutcliffe, for example, came under the Police radar many times before being caught for the Ripper murders. One particularly horrific case is that of Jeffrey Dahmer...two seasoned experienced Police officers took one of his victims back to his flat for him, because they BELIEVED it was a domestic dispute between a couple, not that a 14 year old had been abducted and drugged and was going to be murdered. They failed to run even a basic background check on either Dahmer or his victim, either of which may have saved the life of a young boy. Like it or not, Police officials are as fallible as the next person: a uniform is not a cloak of infallibility.
...

This is becoming quite incredible. I have arrested and interviewed hundreds of criminals, been lied to by more people than you could shake a stick at, and you are telling me about lying?

I also trained around sixty officers to do the job, have heard just about any criticism of the police that you care to mention, attended real murders and other violent crimes, all the time thinking that I was some sort of superman wearing a uniform that bestowed the gift of infallibility on me working alongside other supermen of the same ilk. Many thanks for putting me straight. By the way, what is your own personal experience of all these things?

[babybird67]

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.

I think it is the point. 'Abberline believed Hutchinson was telling the truth, ergo he must have been, because Abberline never made mistakes or errors of judgements'. If that isn't your point, pray tell me what it is, because that is the message I am getting.

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.

The following paragraph is not addressed to your Stewart.

Anyone can join in if they have an interest. What i do not understand is the constant complaining about the discussion of Hutchinson by those who have no interest in discussing him, and yet still come here to pour scorn and derision on those of us who do enjoy discussing him and the implications of his statement. I find THAT offensive. I would not contribute to threads I had no interest in merely to belittle the contributors, as Wickerman's MO seems to be for example.

There is no compulsion to open threads devoted to Hutchinson, let alone bother to waste one's time typing out responses to them.

If we are a misguided and ill informed little clique, leave us to our childish imaginings...it keeps us happy.