Choosing which witnesses to believe

[Errata]

Hi all,

Just to address a point Errata was making.....for context, I think the area and the immediate history made people on the street much more cautious and curious than we allow for. Also, in a nest of thieves for example...as much of the East end was at that time and most certainly Dorset Street, cufflinks might be noticed just under the jacket sleeve, or a pin or trinket that looks to have some value might be noticed. A chain or necklace...things most people wouldnt notice in a pass-by situation. It might be what happened in Annie's case re: her rings. Perceived value...in that case it would have been inaccurate, but I feel people definitely "checked out" others they passed at night.

I agree that unusual circumstances might trigger a need for a more in depth look, but in those Fall evenings almost everyone on the street was either a potential target or victim, both would be cautious and perhaps viewing things with a keener eye.

Best regards,

Mike R

Ironically, it doesn't matter how cautious or curious people were. It seems absolutely insane that it doesn't, but it really doesn't.

We determine threat based on body language, or sometimes skin color. And we still have enough rogue animal DNA that we react to potential threat in a very predictable way. We don't look it in the eye. It is predator/prey instinct. When we sense a predator, which we typically do by assessing body language and it's perceived interest in us, we tuck out chins. We don't look in their face, we don't catch their eye. We above all avoid trying to draw any additional interest to ourselves. We hunch over, we keep walking, we keep our ears peeled to hear if we are being followed. And after we are safe, we can't describe the person we thought was threat. We can say what they were doing, their general build, we can describe what scared us. But we can't describe their face. Because we never focused on it. There was a study a while ago in which the subjects walked past a group of men, and one of the men separated from the rest and followed to subject halfway across the campus. They discovered that 40% of test subjects described the person they thought was following them as black. The guy was white. He was wearing a black jacket. But these 40% of people found black people threatening, and they felt threatened. Ergo the man was black. Which is a hell of a detail to get wrong.

And thief or not, it is perfectly normal to focus on an odd detail. But when we focus on something, we get tunnel vision. There was a perfect example a while ago, where there was an ad campaign called "Test Your Awareness" was put out by the UK to tell people to watch out for cyclists. It's on YouTube if you're interested. We focus on one thing, we miss just about everything else. Which is fine for a thief. He focuses on what he wants to steal. He doesn't care what his victim looks like, or what he is wearing, or even what he is carrying. That doesn't affect the outcome of his goal. And while someone who focused on a man's cufflinks would be able to describe the cufflinks in detail, he wouldn't be able to describe the man's face unless he knew the guy.

[Sally]

We have compared them with press accounts, and we already know the questions were edited out, or just never written in, even in the Official versions.

No, the questions weren't 'edited out' - just not transcribed. There is often an indication of dialogue in the inquest transcript, nonetheless. The reason for the difference between the inquest transcript and the press reports of the inquest is one of prioritisation: the inquest transcript prioritises the testimony of the witness; the press report recounts the conversation; more or less. Unless the press could transcribe verbatim every word as it was spoken - as the clerk at the inquest would have done - discrepancies between the two sources are inevitable. The inquiry transcript where available is the primary source, not the press account.

The press watched each other. To be caught out by your competition "inventing" a witness in a murder case is not so frivolous an issue as you appear to think. The Star narrowly avoided a major slander suit brought by Pizer because they printed a bunch of untruth's about him.

I don't think it a 'frivolous' issue at all - but I still think it happened, I'm afraid. The Star may well have 'narrowly avoided a major slander suit' over Pizer, but in this context that is irrelevant. It's impossible to slander a person who doesn't exist in the first place.

The police would come down hard on a publisher who invented a witness as the police did use press reports as a guide in their investigations, for the simple reason there were more reporters in London than Detectives.
The Star promoted such a negative campaign against the Police that they suffered by being refused interviews with police officials.
A handful of other media who held their tongue were treated better.

Right. And how exactly would the police be able to demonstrate that the press had invented a witness? All the press would have to say is that the witness was interviewed in the pub (e.g.); gave their name but no address - and the press could not be held accountable. There would be little if any, accountability for the invention of a witness. Once again, the press did not (and does not) exist to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - they exist to make a profit. The press is not and has never been a paragon of virtue - surely you know this?

All that said, I take it "we" all agree that a witness who was found by the press should be treated with more caution than one who has been sworn in a court.

Well yes - since a witness found by the press may not actually exist.

On the other hand, we know from one report that over 50 witnesses were interviewed by police in the Kelly enquiry, yet only a dozen or so were called at the Inquest.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the witnesses not called to the inquest were unreliable - more likely that their evidence was not considered to be as materially relevant to the inquiry as the evidence of witnesses who were.

How sure do you feel that Paumier, Ronay, and other 'press' witnesses were never interviewed by police? Seeing as all the police files are long gone, how sure can you be?
I think it is more than likely, because the police used press reports.

Obviously nobody can know for certain - it's impossible in the circumstances. As you point out, the police files no longer exist - as we cannot know if files pertaining to Paumier, Ronay, and of course, Kennedy ever existed to begin with, it seems a little redundant to speculate. I think the balance of probability suggests that these witnesses were probably press inventions. If in fact they did exist, and were interviewed by the police, one has to wonder why there is no report in the press of such an occurrence.

Absolutely we tread with caution with all witnesses, but I would always refrain from calling any witness a liar unless we come up with directly contrary evidence. I don't know that such a situation has transpired in this Kelly case.

If you are alluding to Hutchinson, then I'm sure you know as well as anybody the arguments forwarded for his alleged dishonesty. Of course, if Kelly was dead by 2.00am then it goes without saying that Hutchinson was at the very least, 'mistaken'.






Regards, Jon S.[/QUOTE]

[Wickerman]

Here is the extract from the Star, 13th November:

"As to the time of the murder, it is now generally admitted that Kelly could not, as some have stated, have been alive on Friday morning. The police have come to the conclusion that the woman who made the most positive statement to this effect must have been mistaken as to the day. Dr. Phillips's evidence, together with that of Mary Ann Cox, Elizabeth Prater, and others, proves that the murder was committed SHORTLY AFTER THREE O'CLOCK- a fact which brings into startling relief the murderer's coolness, caution, and tenacity of purpose."

You have used this quote before, at the time I had to demonstrate to you why this is nothing but press opinion and not taken from an official source.

First of all, if you look further up the page you will read this:

"The inquest on Mary Janet Kelly has closed, like its predecessors, without throwing any useful light on the crime. Light of a certain sort there is, but it is so confused and shifting as to be almost worse than useless."

Nothing usefull came out of the inquest, certainly no estimate as to her time of death.

Now to your quote. It begins by excluding Maxwell's testimony, in which police opinion is only expressed on Maxwell.

"As to the time of the murder, it is now generally admitted that Kelly could not, as some have stated, have been alive on Friday morning. The police have come to the conclusion that the woman who made the most positive statement to this effect must have been mistaken as to the day.

And concludes with media speculation (Echo & Star ran the same paragraph).

Dr. Phillips's evidence, together with that of Mary Ann Cox, Elizabeth Prater, and others, proves that the murder was committed SHORTLY AFTER THREE O'CLOCK- a fact which brings into startling relief the murderer's coolness, caution, and tenacity of purpose."

We know it is speculation because Dr. Phillips was not permitted to offer an opinion due to MacDonald terminating the Inquest.

So, no evidence from Dr. Phillips.
Nothing to contest Dr. Bond's estimate.


Mary Ann Cox:
Her testimony suggests MJK was still alive at 1:00 when Cox left the court. At 3:00 am when she returned the lights were out.
Therefore MJK, at 3:00 am, could have been asleep, out, or dead.

Nothing in Cox's testimony to contest Dr. Bond's estimate.


Mrs Prater:
Lets see her testimony verbatim.
"...I slept soundly till a kitten disturbed me about 3:30 to 4. I noticed the lodging house light was out, so it was after 4 probably - I heard a cry of oh! Murder! ..."

Prater then admits to returning to sleep. So her estimate on the time of the cry is based soley on the light across the road at Crossinghams? or McCarthy's?

After 4:00? what happened to SHORTLY AFTER THREE O'CLOCK ?

What proof did we see here Ben?

Nothing!

Press opinion creating news where none exists, why?, to create interest.

Don't just believe press opinions, do a little research yourself.


Incidently, Bonds report, apparently, was not only Bond's opinion.

“..Dr. Phillips has only vaguely indicated to the local police the result of his investigations, but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly made by him and Dr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Charles Warren."The Echo, 10 Nov. 1888.

Jointly made by Dr. Phillips and Dr. Bond.

We might choose to ridicule Dr. Bond yet professional etiquette requires consent from Dr. Phillips as the case was under his purview.
If both Dr.'s Bond & Phillips contributed to the report the estimated time of death may also have been agreed on by both. That we may never know.

As a footnote, both the Echo & Star carry another detail in the same paragraph.
".... it is now known that the light was not extinguished until about two o'clock."
Presumably, this is the light in her room?

If the room was dark at 2:00 and also dark at 3:00 am when Cox returned, how would this killer function in the dark?, unless she was dead by 2:00, thats why the light was out.
I don't see this statement appear anywhere else, it may be another accurate statement by the press.

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

Just to address a point Errata was making.....for context, I think the area and the immediate history made people on the street much more cautious and curious than we allow for. Also, in a nest of thieves for example...as much of the East end was at that time and most certainly Dorset Street, cufflinks might be noticed just under the jacket sleeve, or a pin or trinket that looks to have some value might be noticed. A chain or necklace...things most people wouldnt notice in a pass-by situation. It might be what happened in Annie's case re: her rings. Perceived value...in that case it would have been inaccurate, but I feel people definitely "checked out" others they passed at night.

I agree that unusual circumstances might trigger a need for a more in depth look, but in those Fall evenings almost everyone on the street was either a potential target or victim, both would be cautious and perhaps viewing things with a keener eye.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Wickerman]

Incidentally, how do you know that 'all inquesst testimony has been edited'? And edited by whom?

We have compared them with press accounts, and we already know the questions were edited out, or just never written in, even in the Official versions.

There is a distinction to be drawn between the reported inquest testimony found in the press (even the Times) and the official inquiry proceedings - is this what you mean by the 'official' version?

Quite so.

Fascinating as contemporary press reports are, I think it must be borne in mind that the prime motivator for the press was not accuracy or truth-telling - it was profit.

Absolutely, which is why we should not put so much reliance on them, especially The Star, as some are prone to do.

Incidentally, a witness who only appears in the press should be given the least credibility of all - particularly mysterious anonymous witnesses. What's to say that such a witness isn't simply an invention of the press?

The press watched each other. To be caught out by your competition "inventing" a witness in a murder case is not so frivolous an issue as you appear to think. The Star narrowly avoided a major slander suit brought by Pizer because they printed a bunch of untruth's about him.

The police would come down hard on a publisher who invented a witness as the police did use press reports as a guide in their investigations, for the simple reason there were more reporters in London than Detectives.
The Star promoted such a negative campaign against the Police that they suffered by being refused interviews with police officials.
A handful of other media who held their tongue were treated better.

All that said, I take it "we" all agree that a witness who was found by the press should be treated with more caution than one who has been sworn in a court.
On the other hand, we know from one report that over 50 witnesses were interviewed by police in the Kelly enquiry, yet only a dozen or so were called at the Inquest.
How sure do you feel that Paumier, Ronay, and other 'press' witnesses were never interviewed by police? Seeing as all the police files are long gone, how sure can you be?
I think it is more than likely, because the police used press reports.

Absolutely we tread with caution with all witnesses, but I would always refrain from calling any witness a liar unless we come up with directly contrary evidence. I don't know that such a situation has transpired in this Kelly case.

So on what basis should anyone here brand any witness a liar?

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

And your view that officialdom didn't simply endorse the opinion of the police surgeon as to TOD, where other evidence is in conflict, is confirmed by Wynne Baxter's closing remarks at the Chapman inquest:

Bridewell, you would do better to compare Baxter with Macdonald, not Robert Anderson. Because Anderson himself had to get involved we can be sure the outcome would be significant and he carries considerably more clout than Wynne Baxter.

Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

Let me just sort this Bond-related nonsense yet again. The evidence is that the police DID NOT ultimately support the time of death offered by Bond. It therefore had nothing whatsoever to do with Hutchinson's discrediting. The Star reported the police opinion that the murder occurred later than the TOD offered by Bond, and accurately at that. They didn't just make it up for some bizarre, illogical reason, and the police were far from compelled to accept Bond's opinion. The police, then and now, use all evidence at their disposal, and if compelling eyewitness evidence points to a conclusion other than that suggested by medical opinion, it would be reckless and irresponsible to champion the latter purely as a courteous "salute" to a fellow professional. There is absolutely no evidence that the police supported the 1.00am-2.00am time of death, and compelling indications to the contrary.

And your view that officialdom didn't simply endorse the opinion of the police surgeon as to TOD, where other evidence is in conflict, is confirmed by Wynne Baxter's closing remarks at the Chapman inquest:
"It was true that Dr Phillips thought that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admitted that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood might affect his opinion, and if the evidence of the other witnesses was correct, Dr Phillips had miscalculated the effect of those forces. But many minutes after Mrs Long passed them could not have elapsed before the deceased became a mutilated corpse in the yard of No.29 Hanbury-street close by where she was last seen by any witness."

Regards, Bridewell.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ben,

Thank you. A very informative post.

The Echo's confirmation that the enhanced GH description was from the same source as the original has dispelled a few nagging feelings I was having.

Regards,

Simon

[Ben]

Hutchinson was discredited because of doubts surrounding his credibility, as is made clear in the Echo and the Star, and we know for a certainty that the former obtained their information from police sources. Here is what the Echo said as early as the 13th:

"From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?"

These questions, asked by "the authorities" are inextricably, linked to the question of honesty and motivation for coming forward. This is further underscored the next day, when the same paper reported that the statement had been:

“considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest in a more official manner"

No sane person cites failure to attend the public inquest as a reason for discounting a statement whilst still upholding the witness who made it as a purveyor of truth. If anyone should still protest that the Echo were just peddling lies of their own (for what possible reason?), consider the following extract, also from the 14th:

“Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contemporaries, we learned on inquiry at the Commercial-street Police-station to-day that the elaborate description given above is virtually the same as that previously published. It is a little fuller, that is all. But it proceeds from the same source”.

This was in reference to the fact that Hutchinson’s 14th November account, as supplied to a reporter, was obviously a more detailed and elaborate version of the account that appeared the previous morning without Hutchinson’s name attached. Some newspapers thought that they were two independent, mutually supportive accounts, but the Echo approached the police directly in order to ascertain what we now know to be the truth of the matter.

In other words, the Echo clearly did visit the police and did extract the truth from them.

For some reason Jon missed out on all of this when quoting from the Echo and Star, deliberately omitted anything that might cast a less than favourable impression of Hutchinson and his account. Of course, the fact that the statement was suspected then of being bogus does not abrogate the necessity to make it the subject of "careful inquiry" just in case there was some truth in it. They could only forgo the "careful inquiry" if they were in a position to prove Hutchinson a liar, which was obviously never the case.

The Star would have its readers believe that the police have dropped Hutchinson's suspect altogether, and yet only 4 (four) days later they cover the infamous "Birmingham" suspect by reporting:

"The suspected man was of gentlemanly appearance and manners, and somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been seen in company with Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered."
The Star, 19 Nov. 1888.

This was NOT in reference to Hutchinson. You can see it isn't. Did Hutchinson attend the inquest? No. Did the Star know full well that he hadn't? Yes. So how can this possibly be a reference to Hutchinson's account? The only witness it could possibly apply to is Sarah Lewis, who did attend the inquest, and was the only witness in attendance who described her suspect as a "gentleman". So no, there is no contradiction whatsoever between the Star's correct declaration that Hutchinson's account was "now discredited" and this later report on a Birmingham suspect, which so obviously related to the witness description provided by LEWIS, not Hutchinson.

Jon, you condemn the Star on the basis of your own confusion. They had NOT forgotten than Hutchinson hadn't attended the inquest. They were talking about Sarah Lewis, who had attended it.

The Daily News erroneously reported that Lewis had seen a couple pass up the court. It is provably false, since the detail contradicted all other accounts of her testimony, including her original police statement.

Sarah Lewis DID NOT see anyone "pass up the court" on the morning of 9th November.

Regards,
Ben

[Sally]

As a footnote in keeping with the spirit of the thread, when we "choose which witness to believe" we must be sure, a) their statements have been accurately recorded, and b) that their statements may have been edited.
Alas, all Inquest testimony has been edited, even the Official version.

Hi Jon

Can you explain how we can be sure of either of the above?

Unless you think that the police officer taking the statements of witnesses might be considered unreliable, surely such witness statements can be considered accurate - in terms of recording, that is? Certainly contemporary witness statements given to the police/at an inquest are the most accurate source of information available to us in this context - far more so than any press report, I would think.

Of course, an accurately recorded police statement or transcribed inquest statement doesn't tell us whether the witness was accurate in their account, but that's another matter.

Incidentally, how do you know that 'all inquesst testimony has been edited'? And edited by whom?

There is a distinction to be drawn between the reported inquest testimony found in the press (even the Times) and the official inquiry proceedings - is this what you mean by the 'official' version?

Fascinating as contemporary press reports are, I think it must be borne in mind that the prime motivator for the press was not accuracy or truth-telling - it was profit. Yes, press reports are a contemporary source of information, and useful up to a point; but obviously less so than the documentary evidence arising from the mechanisms of the state.

Incidentally, a witness who only appears in the press should be given the least credibility of all - particularly mysterious anonymous witnesses. What's to say that such a witness isn't simply an invention of the press?

[The Good Michael]

If we go by newspaper accounts only, because they vary from paper to paper, no witnesses are truly credible. If we can debate their validity in a reasoned manner, they aren't credible. If we have actual documentation that we can read, and were signed and taken seriously by police officers; or if we possess facsimiles thereof, perhaps we can count these as more reliable and the witnesses as useful. Yet, how many of these documents do we actually have? Maybe Hutchinson's?

Mike

[Wickerman]

Another one of those topsy-turvy aspects of this case is the conduct of The Star newspaper.

The Echo (below) quite rightly, as it turns out, reports that the witness Hutchinson's story is now being viewed as less important than previously thought. Not that his story has been discarded by the police, certainly not, but that as circumstances have unfolded it appears the Met. have now been "induced" to re-align their investigation.

From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder.
Echo, 13 Nov.

But on the same evening The Star are still promoting Hutchinson's story, they say that Astrachan was one of three suspects now entertained by police.
- Cox's, "Blotchy".
- Sarah Lewis's, "well-dressed man".
- Hutchinson's "Astrachan".

The inquest on Mary Janet Kelly has closed, like its predecessors, without throwing any useful light on the crime. Light of a certain sort there is, but it is so confused and shifting as to be almost worse than useless. We have at least three descriptions of an individual who may be the man wanted. There is Mrs. Cox's account of a man who went with the deceased into her room about midnight on Thursday - "a short stout man, shabbily dressed," with "a blotchy face and a full carrotty moustache." There is Sarah Lewis's description of the man who accosted her on Wednesday in Bethnal-green-road, which varies slightly from the preceding, but might fit the same man. Finally, we have the statement by an anonymous witness which has found its way into the morning papers, and which makes the suspected individual an elegantly-dressed gentleman about 5ft. 6in. in height, "with a dark complexion, and a dark moustache curled up at the ends." Why this statement has been made public at this particular juncture is one of those mysteries in the police management of the case which no one out of Scotland-yard can understand. Star, 13 Nov.


The very next day, The Echo, provide another comment consistent with their previous article, concerning Hutchinson's statement (ie; document):

The police do not attach so much importance to this document as some of our contemporaries do; but they think it sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry.
Echo, 14 Nov.

The position is clear in the eyes of The Echo, Hutchinson's story although suffering a setback is still of value to the police.

However The Star are not even aware of the change of heart in favour of Cox's suspect, their current evening edition begins with;

This morning we have a fuller statement respecting the well-dressed man said to have been seen with Kelly early on Friday morning.

The very next morning however, they finally catch up with what has become the infamous line of condemnation:

Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson,
Star, 15 Nov.

The Star would have its readers believe that the police have dropped Hutchinson's suspect altogether, and yet only 4 (four) days later they cover the infamous "Birmingham" suspect by reporting:

"The suspected man was of gentlemanly appearance and manners, and somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been seen in company with Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered."
The Star, 19 Nov. 1888.

Clearly, the Star was more interested in seizing public attention rather than reporting sober facts, still it sold copy, so the end justifies the means.

Which demonstrates how cautious "we" have to be if we adopt a theory where opinions from The Star are used as the principle thrust of the argument.


On a side note, who were these "witnesses at the inquest" who saw Kelly with a man of gentlemanly appearance" early on Friday morning?

Sarah Lewis saw a man of "gentlemanly appearance" outside the Britannia, the Daily News also included a portion of her testimony not included by anyone else;

"I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

As this activity is what Hutchinson claimed to have also witnessed, Lewis could be one of the witnesses The Star was referring to. Was the other witness Hutchinson?

In the seven days since Hutchinson first appeared, and only four days since The Star had attempted to trash his story altogether, have The Star now completely forgotten that Mr Hutchinson had not appeared at the inquest?

Perhaps, it is once again another example of sloppy reporting by this particular newspaper.

As a footnote in keeping with the spirit of the thread, when we "choose which witness to believe" we must be sure, a) their statements have been accurately recorded, and b) that their statements may have been edited.
Alas, all Inquest testimony has been edited, even the Official version.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

“It is not necessary to back his entire story in order to oppose the fringe hypotheses which spring up around him.”

If you’re seriously suggesting that the “hypothesis” that Hutchinson might have been lying is in any way “fringe” or minority-endorsed, I’m afraid your embracing a very pointless delusion that you ought really to rid yourself of.

“1) A well-dressed man existed, standing outside the Britannia at the end of Dorset St., at the time stated (roughly 2:00-3:00 am).”

No.

Lewis never described her man as well-dressed, and Hutchinson never described his man as having stood talking outside the Britannia. Even if Hutchinson wasn’t lying, his man cannot be the same individual described by Lewis, since the timings in relation to locations (in both accounts) renders it impossible.

“2) Kennedy saw Kelly in the vicinity of this man, outside the Britannia.”

No, she didn’t, because she was a liar and exposed as such. Had there been any genuine witness who claimed to have seen the actual victim with a man at that time, she would certainly have appeared at the inquest. The author of the account Mrs. Kennedy plagiarized – Sarah Lewis – made it quite clear that she did NOT know the deceased.

“3) Lewis saw Kelly & a man pass up Millers Court while a man stood opposite apparently watching the same couple.”

Oh, for f...

No she didn’t – FACT.

She did NOT see anyone “pass up” Miller’s Court. She said there was no-one in the court. She saw an unidentified couple pass along Dorset Street. It was the Daily News only who misreported this detail and had the couple passing up the court, quite erroneously and quite contrary to her police statement and all other press versions of her testimony. She did not say that “Kelly” went anywhere because she did not know her.

“5) Sarah Lewis confirms this portion of Hutchinson's story. Therefore, the man existed.”

No. Again no. This really is such exhausting nonsense to have to wade through and correct all the time. Sarah Lewis only confirms Hutchinson’s presence opposite the crime scene at that particular moment in time. Her evidence does not, in any shape or form, support the existence of the risible “Astrakhan man” or any reason Hutchinson gave for why he was loitering there.

“When someone on here tries to argue that such attention to detail is/was not possible, that is pure rubbish. And, we have Abberline's acceptance of the story to substantiate the fact.”

It isn’t a matter of pure “detail”. Hutchinson claimed to have memorized items that he couldn’t realistically have noticed. That’s not “rubbish”, and Abberline’s acceptance of Hutchinson’s story was evidently extremely short-lived.

Let me just sort this Bond-related nonsense yet again. The evidence is that the police DID NOT ultimately support the time of death offered by Bond. It therefore had nothing whatsoever to do with Hutchinson's discrediting. The Star reported the police opinion that the murder occurred later than the TOD offered by Bond, and accurately at that. They didn't just make it up for some bizarre, illogical reason, and the police were far from compelled to accept Bond's opinion. The police, then and now, use all evidence at their disposal, and if compelling eyewitness evidence points to a conclusion other than that suggested by medical opinion, it would be reckless and irresponsible to champion the latter purely as a courteous "salute" to a fellow professional. There is absolutely no evidence that the police supported the 1.00am-2.00am time of death, and compelling indications to the contrary.

Yes, the police supported Cox’s evidence over Hutchinson’s, but that is almost certainly because they found Cox’s evidence to be trustworthy and Hutchinson’s not so. Bond’s suggested time of death had absolutely nothing to do with it. Here is the extract from the Star, 13th November:

"As to the time of the murder, it is now generally admitted that Kelly could not, as some have stated, have been alive on Friday morning. The police have come to the conclusion that the woman who made the most positive statement to this effect must have been mistaken as to the day. Dr. Phillips's evidence, together with that of Mary Ann Cox, Elizabeth Prater, and others, proves that the murder was committed SHORTLY AFTER THREE O'CLOCK- a fact which brings into startling relief the murderer's coolness, caution, and tenacity of purpose."

The idea that Hutchinson was discredited because “he was the victim of a political move among government officials” is to be rejected as hopelessly incorrect for all time.

[Ben]

Sensible post thoroughly appreciated, Errata! Agreed entirely.

Hi Jon,

Why are you repeating entire arguments as though they were never addressed? Why the sudden urge for yet another Hutchinson debate? Were you annoyed that you didn’t get the “last word” during previous debates, and are now determined to make amends? I’m afraid it just won’t work, since repetition will be met with counter-repetition.

“if Hutch had said he saw anything which could not possibly be seen by contemporary street lighting, objections would have been raised”

But objections were raised insofar as Hutchinson’s account was discredited very shortly after it appeared. The fact that Abberline initially bought into it is neither here nor there. Abberline also believed that Klosowski the Ripper committed the murders at the behest of an organ-collecting doctor from America. He was not, therefore, infallible, and he was certainly not incapable of arriving at faulty conclusions. Unfortunately, a short-lived endorsement from Abberline (and it WAS short-lived) does not bestow on Hutchinson the superhuman powers required to make his “sighting” anything other than wildly implausible. That’s reality, not guesswork.

As James Tully notes in his book, Abberline’s initial belief in Hutchinson is indicative only that the police were obliged to “clutch at any straw” at that stage, given the paucity of good leads.

“Hutchinson walked passed Astrakhan as he was standing on the corner of Thrawl St.”

In the press versions only. There was no mention of him “standing on the corner of the Thrawl Street” in the police statement. It’s all very well to pick and choose which bits you want to be true from the police and press versions, but you'll eventually come unstuck in so doing, because they are so contradictory in places that they contain polar opposites. If Hutchinson really did see Astrakhan man at this juncture, he’d notice little more than a well-dressed dark figure in an overcoat and a hat.

“As Hutch walked on and approached Flower & Dean St. he met up with MJK”

There is no evidence that Hutchinson was looking at the man at this point as he was preoccupied with talking to Kelly at that time, according to his account. Even if he was glancing behind him, he was in no position to notice any detail beyond the very broad basics I’ve already outlined.

MJK walked on south towards Thrawl where she was stopped by Astrakhan, Hutch watched them both meet up. The distance between Flower & Dean St. and Thrawl St. was roughly 175 feet. Hutchinson watched them walk towards him, so he turned and walked ahead of them to stand under the lamp outside the Queens Head PH to get a clearer view as they walked passed.

Really? Well if he said it, of course it must be true…! If you accept that the distance was “roughly 175 feet”, what realistic expectations do you have for the observation and recollection of tiny details at night time…in Victorian London.. in the middle of November…in bad weather…from that distance? I think that just about rules out the “American cloth” for starters. I repeat (because that’s what you seem to doing a lot of for some unfathomable reason) that the only opportunity Hutchinson had to notice anything beyond a dark, overcoat-clad figure with a moustache, hat and parcel, occurred fleetingly as the couple allegedly passed in close proximity to a gas lamp, which would have been a naked flame that emitted a negligible degree of light. Altogether, the conditions were woefully insufficient for Hutchinson to even notice, let alone memorize, all that he alleged.

But then, oh dear, that fleeting window of opportunity was taken up with peering into the man’s face. Too bad for the myriad other accessories, which he superadded to when he came to be interviewed by the press, shortly before he and his account were discredited.

“The first time Hutchinson saw him was as he walked passed Astrakhan standing on the corner of Thrawl St.

The second time was as both Astrakhan & MJK walk slowly towards Hutchinson as he stood just about 100-150 ft away almost near to Flower & Dean St.

The third time was as he stood under the lamp at the Queens Head while they both walked passed.”

No, no, and thrice no. You cannot notice horseshoe tie-pins and linen collars from 150 yards away, Jon. It just can’t be done, especially not when there is no light to illuminate the scene. The first and second times would have enabled Hutchinson to record only the absolute barebones of the man’s appearance (little more than a bloke in a dark coat and hat), and the third time, while better illuminated, occurred too quickly for Hutchinson to have recorded all he alleged in terms of accessorial detail. In any case, he wasted it in gawping into the man’s mug.

“The fourth time was on Sunday morning at the market”

No it wasn’t.

Nooooooooo, it wasn’t.

I’ve already dealt with this. This “Sunday morning” detail appeared in press versions of his account only. It was conspicuously, and suspiciously, absent from his police statement. Hutchinson cannot logically have recognised the same fiddly details of the man's appearance the following Sunday and still harboured uncertainty that it was the same man from Friday morning. That makes no sense at all. Obviously.

“We don't know if he walked there, but obviously he could not afford transportation for the return journey.”

But even more obviously, it was futile and senseless to embark on that “return journey” at that time, knowing full well that he’d arrive on the small hours and have nowhere to stay at end of it.

“But, until or unless we find some sound evidence against his story about a trip to Romford then you are doing nothing but conducting a Witch-hunt”

I’m afraid this is your unique and very eccentric approach yet again. It constantly asserts that everything must be accepted as factually correct until it can be proven false. That’s not how source assessment works, and it certainly isn’t the way the police go about the business of determining witness credibility or lack thereof. Reasonable people are perfectly capable of applying their reason, common sense and analytical skills to separate the wheat from the chaff, and fact from fiction.

“Ben, it is 5 weeks since the "sailor" suspect was seen. It is also 5 weeks since the "deerstalker" suspect was seen, so for goodness sakes Hutchinson is free & clear (if it was him).”

Exactly, so not a bad idea to ensure that a focus in the wrong direction (the generic Jewish bogeyman) is sustained, and that the image of the killer as a local gentile Joe Average is set aside, leaving Hutchinson or anyone like him in the clear. I’m perfectly aware that Lewis’ description was not substantial enough to implicate any particular individual, but as I’ve explained many, many times during the course of these many, many debates, a person may be able to recognise a person again (i.e. Lewis could recognise Hutchinson) without being able to describe them very well. This, again, is pure common sense. If Lewis recognised Hutchinson again, it could potentially have led to an identity parade (or the 1888 equivalent) with Lawende and previous witnesses, and if this had happened before Hutchinson had nailed his colours to the “cooperative witness” mast, it would have resulted in serious questions being asked.

“The sighting by Lawende was far more detailed than that given by Sarah Lewis, so apparently this did not concern Hutchinson when he was seen 5 weeks ago in Duke St. No need to come forward with a bogus "suspect-Jew" story then, so even less reason now. The basis for your argument is worthless”

According to who – you? Well that’s my self esteem in tatters. Such irritating and ill-thought-out condemnations only antagonise. How could Hutchinson possibly have come forward and claimed to be Lawende’s suspect whilst still maintaining his status as an innocent witness? “Yes, that was me talking with the victim ten minutes before the discovery of her body, but Mr. Scary Bollocks must have squeezed in ever so briefly after I left the scene”.

I mean, really. Think.

“I said no-one contested their statements, meaning "at the time".”

Which is even more disastrously wrong. The statements and their authors were discredited before the inquest. In many cases, the statements amounted to second or third-hand hearsay that almost certainty never came into contact with the police. The last we hear of Roney, Paumier and chums was before the inquest; before their evidence was discarded. Mrs. Kennedy was a fraud who parroted the genuine evidence of Sarah Lewis – feck only knows why, publicity most likely. She too was exposed as such, as reported in the Star and as recognised by Philip Sugden, and accordingly discarded. She was certainly - beyond the slightest fart of a doubt - one of the woman referred to in the Star who was discovered to have borrowed material from a genuine witness – Sarah Lewis.

Regards,
Ben

[Errata]

Eyewitness testimony can be true, false, a lie, primed, or irrelevant. Or any and all combinations of the above. We don't pay nearly as much attention to our surroundings as we think we do. Change Blindness is a perfect and often hilarious example. We are also incredibly susceptible to subtle differences in language. If a person is asked "Did you see a man hanging around?" he will feel free to answer yes or no, based on his memory of the event. If he is asked "Did you see THE man hanging around?" it implies that there was in fact a man there, and the witness will most likely fabricate a memory of a man at the scene if he did not see one. Typically someone they saw earlier. A majority of witnesses can be completely turned around in their statement by the simple phrase "Are you sure?"

Eyewitnesses don't tell us what they saw. They tell us what they remember. Unfortunately sight is one of the weakest senses in terms of formulating memory. Smell triggers memory more than any other sense. And touch is the sense we are least likely to forget. Sight is a funny thing. We see everything. We notice very little. Typically we store even less than that. Some people who have very good memories are able to store an image, and are then able to interpret the data at a later time. Somewhat akin to walking into a room, taking a polaroid, and then two weeks later examining the photo to see if the cat was in there at the time. But as soon as that person walked out of the room with the picture, they wouldn't be able to answer that question. Their memory is such that they can call up the complete picture and notice things later, but they didn't notice it at the time. For that to happen we need a reason to essentially tag an image for later recall. A guy running down the street on fire, we would remember. If we bumped into someone, or had a strong emotional reaction to someone's presence, we remember them.

When people lie, they include far more detail than someone who is telling the truth. It's a compensation method, they think that the more detailed they are the more likely they are to be believed. Unless something extraordinary happened, the less detailed the description the more likely it is to be the truth. Anyone who can give a detailed description of a couple sitting three tables away from them at a restaurant a few night previous either has a photographic memory, or is lying. Now if the couple was fighting, or they had a screaming kid, or the waiter dropped food all over them, then you would be able to describe them. You had reason to notice them. If someone describes a man she saw, who wasn't outstanding in any way, did nothing to provoke and emotional response, and cannot describe why she remembers that person, odds are it isn't true. Two days ago I passed a man I remember quite clearly. He was just sitting on some steps smoking a cigarette. He had a really bad tattoo on his forehead that said "Hile hItleR". Which just offended me on about five different levels. So I remember him. But I also know why I remember him.

Any JTR witness who had a passive encounter, a just happened to walk past him kind of encounter should also be able to describe a couple of other people they encountered who they do not know. If they can't, they are confabulating. Shwartz had a good reason to remember his encounter, he just doesn't have a good reason to remember the woman involved with any detail. Hutch's testimony, in my opinion is too detailed for too routine an encounter, and I think he's lying. Lawende and co. also had a good reason to remember their encounter. It spawned a conversation, which we remember better than simple sightings. Suddenly remembering certain details is suspicious. We assimilate shapes better than colors. A witness who can't really remember what a guy looked like can be prompted to remember shape. Tall, short, thin, stout, hat, no hat, umbrella, all shape related. A witness who suddenly remembers hair color is suspect, unless they remember context.

It isn't about whether or not their story makes sense or not. It's whether or not it makes sense to store that information. I have no reason to remember what color car I am parked next to. If I remember that information, it has to either be because something remarkable happened, or I store that level of detail all the time. To be frank, if there were people in Whitechapel who stored that level of detail all the time, they had to be severely damaged people. Perfect recall is an amazingly useful skill, and people who have it do well in life. And in a lot of these witness statements, there is no reason for them to have noticed the people they say they noticed.

Give me forensics any day.