Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[harry]

I guess I must be included as one of the arrogant,self righteous and pompous posters who support Hutchinson as a suspect.I post enough in that contex.Better that the points I raise be examined one by one and demolished,than use character traits as a rebutall.Not that I mind,it elevates me above the usual dowdy,misguided,non opinionated,dull individual I usually am.One thing though I will claim,is that when talking of walking distances,I might be one step ahead of Aberline

[Stewart P Evans]

To be honest...

I guess I must be included as one of the arrogant,self righteous and pompous posters who support Hutchinson as a suspect.I post enough in that contex.Better that the points I raise be examined one by one and demolished,than use character traits as a rebutall.Not that I mind,it elevates me above the usual dowdy,misguided,non opinionated,dull individual I usually am.One thing though I will claim,is that when talking of walking distances,I might be one step ahead of Aberline

To be honest I hadn't even thought about you. In fact I don't recall, specifically, any of your comments. Are you self righteous and pompous? I'm sure that I don't know.

I also hadn't noticed that I was 'using character traits as a rebuttal.' I thought that I was using character traits to explain what I found offensive. However, I did state that assuming certain opinions to be facts was wrong.

So, I'm afraid, I was not thinking of you at all and I wouldn't have a clue if you are dowdy, misguided, opinionated or dull.

[Ausgirl]

What was this thread about, again?

Witnesses being of no use. Not true. Clearly, they are an excellent spur to internet fisticuffs.

How much has the press interfered with the accuracy of witness records, do you think? Both, I mean, in their reportage being taken as entirely factual, and as an influence on the witnesses themselves.

[Stewart P Evans]

Actually...

What was this thread about, again?
Witnesses being of no use. Not true. Clearly, they are an excellent spur to internet fisticuffs.
How much has the press interfered with the accuracy of witness records, do you think? Both, I mean, in their reportage being taken as entirely factual, and as an influence on the witnesses themselves.

Actually, if you read the posts you will see that there is quite a bit about witnesses and interpreting what they say. I don't think that sparring on these boards requires any particular 'spur', the attitude of some posters prompting acrimonious exchanges. Needless to say, I am not entirely blameless myself.

[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 ...?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[Heinrich]

This is the sort of mentality that haunts these boards.

In that case, "BOO!"

[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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Don't...

In that case, "BOO!"

Don't do that! You made me jump.

[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.

[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.