Choosing which witnesses to believe

[Sally]

Philip Sugden’s advice to those who seek an accurate sequence of events in relation to the Kelly murder was that they “must discount” the tittle-tattle of the Victorian press, especially the nonsense that appeared around the 10th November. I've little doubt that they were real woman, just not genuine witnesses.

Ben - succinct and to the point (saves me waffling on any further)

The press exists for profit, not to act as a paragon of truth and virtue. Personally I think that should always be borne in mind when resorting to press accounts for evidence.

Colin - yes, one of a small handful of possible Paumiers - although its worth remembering that she was also called 'Mrs Pannier' in some press versions of the story. My money is on Rose Emily Paumier - if on anyone at all.

[Rubyretro]

Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere..................
...........
I can understand only too well why you want at any price to boot Hutchinson out of the 'suspect' camp since, to date, Hutch has been the only real contender to your pet suspect, Lechmere/Cross.

Personally, I prefer to be more objective, and can accept both of them as suspects -it is actually more interesting to me to consider who the man who has become known as 'Jack the Ripper' was, rather than to 'win' the debate, on dubious points...and still be fundamentally wrong anyway.

When we are discussing whether Hutch & Toppy were one and the same, we cannot accept Reg's utterings as pertaining to truth. I'm not going back over it here for the n-iem time, but Reg has more holes than 'Blackburn, Lancashire'
(to paraphrase an idol).

Stop looking at it through Lechmere/Cross googles and be a bit further removed.

Yes, you did some really valuable and fascinating work on Toppy's family BUT
sad to say you couldn't make one crucial join...you didn't manage to make Toppy a groom, or put him in the Victoria Home, or show that he frequented prostitutes..

Not one join to Hutch the witness.

Of course Dew is interesting....as are absolutely any voices from the past (and in this case a period that interests us particularly).

But Dew's holes 'could fill the Albert Hall '.

Your loyalty to Fishy is touching (wrong night ?), but -nah- it doesn't hold even murky water.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"wrong night ... doesn't hold even murky water."

Exactly why? So far, the best suggestion I have had to that question is "because people don´t misremember things like these".

And that´s not murky - it´s totally transparent.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Michael:

"a witness we know for a fact is discredited is not a good horse to back."

Aha, Michael - but why would we accept that George Hutchinson WAS discredited? I don´t see that in any way proven, you see.

One of these days Christer we should open up two specifc threads under "Hutchinson"

1) List ONE fact used in the "discredit Hutchinson" argument.

2) List ONE Lie known to have been uttered by Hutchinson.

I predict they'll get little to no use.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hi Sally.
Hope you enjoyed your weekend.

..... There is one reason for that - its to sell papers. Why do you think that reason would be any less valid in the past than it is today?

I think my point is that as a relatively non-descript-type story, Paumier's contribution (or, that ascribed to Paumier) is inconsequential with respect to profit margins.
An invented witness needs to make a significant mark, not just be another puff of wind in a gale.

An ideal response might be to provide a 'near contemporary' example of witness-fixing, yes - but given the context, how likely is that? It's not as though the press would've been upfront about the practice, now is it?

Which should be a red flag as to the worthyness of the suggestion.

Well yes, and no. 'My proposal' is supported by a lack of evidence for some of these 'witnesses'.

What type of evidence do you think you need?
Am I to assume that you have searched for witnesses and found that some are difficult to locate?
So, once you have allowed for the fact that some witnesses were cautious about their privacy so might give a false name to the press (we have examples), and;
- That some females may have changed their name through marriage.
- That some may have moved out of the area.
- That some may even have taken ill and died.

How thorough have the searches been down all those mainstream avenue's before "we" jump to a rash conclusion involving subterfuge by the press?

That leads me in turn to conclude that they were probably invented to sell papers; a practice which I know occurs in the press today and which I see no reason to doubt occurred in the past as well. Its a reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence.

Given the alternatives it is the least reasonable, not impossible, but definitely close to the bottom, if not at the bottom of the list.

That doesn't mean that it is a fact that they never existed; nor would I suggest such - but it does lend weight to the theory that they didn't.

The point is, no such theory should be entertained until all other avenue's have been explored.

I was wondering with regard to this discussion how journalists were paid - many of them must have operated on a freelance basis, even if allied to a specific paper; which would mean that they were paid for copy.

You should recall that all those stories were close to identical in content, structure & presentation. It is likely therefore that those witness account stories were bought from an agency, of which I know about five existed, perhaps more.
These agencies often received press releases via wire from police stations.
We do know reporters were often stationed (think "embedded") at the local police station, hanging around like vultures for the latest whispers.

What I do not think incidentally is that Kennedy was Sarah Lewis in disguise; it would be entirely out of character.

Kennedy & Lewis being the same is only one possible interpretation, the other is that they were actually together, separate women giving essentially the same evidence. Not exactly, no two people ever see the same thing.
The Sarah Lewis we are looking for is married, or at least without changing her story beforehand, we should accept her claim to a husband. Lewis as a maiden name is not what we're looking for.

It is. I'm a bit bored with repetitive, cyclical Hutchinson discussions to be honest, Jon; but kudos to you for your fairness

If truth be known, so am I Sally. I'm just more "bored" with the same old unjustified claims being thrown at him.
I'll guarantee you that the same is likely to happen with Lechmere/Cross suspect, but thats another thread...

... When you can show me who these press 'witnesses' were, I'll be inclined to take their accounts more seriously.

Like I said, alternate considerations are: pseudonym, married, moved, died.
Only then should we get into the deception argument.

All the best, Jon S.

[Ben]

It also has to be said that George Hutchinson was almost certainly identical with George William Topping Hutchinson

No, it doesn't have to be said, Lechmere.

It really, really doesn't.

In fact, considering its total wrongness, it really ought not to be.

As Lesley points out, it's perfectly commendable to research a given subject - "Toppy" in this particular case - but it's just not worth the bother (and money spent on train fares to Colindale or whatever archival institution!) if you're only going to claim falsely that the result of that research was additional support for the conclusion that you jumped to before the research was even conducted. Your:

"as shown by his known movements to almost exactly fit into the George Hutchinson story as known from the Ripper tale"

...is not only very wrong and very misleading, it is not remotely borne out by any of the research you provided. Last year I drafted a very long post that explains why in detail, but we'll just have to see if the Toppyism persists before I contemplate posting it. Suffice to say that in my opinion, mainstream popular perception is entirely correct to reject Toppy as the real George Hutchinson.

I'm afraid I rather share Lesley's suspicion that you're only wheeling this Toppy business out again in an effort to do away with the perceived rival ripper candidate to Cross, but it just won't work. It is no more your fault than it's Fisherman's or Michael Connor's, but the simple reality is that the Cross theory is a poor man's Hutchinson theory; a distinctly B-Team version of it that uses the same historical knowledge of serial offenders coming forward as witnesses, but applies is to a far less deserving individual; someone whose evidence wasn't questioned, wasn't discredited, and who didn't come forward after the inquest and as soon as he realised he'd been seen etc etc.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

And in the spirit of not criticising those who dredge up arguments from the past, as sensibly and fairly advocated by Bridewell, I am loathe to give Fisherman a hard time for once again bringing up his Dew Sp..Sp..Sp...Spiel (I'll play nice!). I refer of course to his brand new, very interesting, highly controversial idea that Hutchinson "got the night wrong". It still doesn't work. Short of outlandish "coincidence", it is satisfactorily established that Hutchinson was the man seen by Sarah Lewis on the morning of the 9th November. Two separate lone men fixating on the Miller's Court entrance as though "waiting for someone to come out" - one at 2:30am on Thursday morning and the other at 2:30am on Friday morning - is just too much for any rational person to accept as plausible. Equally, it stretches credibility to claim that Hutchinson could have "confused" such a memorable day for him - one that involved the brutal murder of a three-year acquaintance, the Lord Mayor's Show, and the oh-so-plausible many-mile trek from Romford in the small hours.

Walter Dew was offering his own personal speculations as to why Hutchinson's account was discredited, and they evidently had nothing to do with the real reasons his superiors had for discrediting Hutchinson in 1888.

1) List ONE fact used in the "discredit Hutchinson" argument.

Just one? Ok. The Echo sought from the police the truth about their perception of Hutchinson's account. Boom.

2) List ONE Lie known to have been uttered by Hutchinson.

Are we supposed to pick our favourite, the most obvious, the "top answer" or what? "We asked a hundred people to list ONE lie known to have been uttered by Hutchinson. You said Sunday Policeman, our survey said....DING! Dark eyelashes...DING! Loitering opposite the crime scene at 2:30am....Uh-Ughr. Oh no! That last one wasn't a lie, which means you go home empty-handed. Thanks for being on the show. You could have won a Daewoo."

Where's Les Dennis when you need him?

[Tom_Wescott]

but the simple reality is that the Cross theory is a poor man's Hutchinson theory

I'm surprised to see you of all people endorsing the comparison of Hutch and Cross. Other than the fact that they were introduced into the case as witnesses, and as suspects a century later, there's little else worthy of comparison.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

I tend to agree. I only noted the "comparison" because of the interesting coincidence that the most vocal Cross-promoters just happen to be the most vocally opposed to the idea of Hutchinson as a liar or a killer. As far as the comparison goes, I still think Dan Norder nailed it some years ago:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=9672&postcount=16

All the best,
Ben

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I posted this on another thread, but thought it might also be of interest here.

In the US versions of the story of the aristocrat arrested in Whitechapel, Sir George Arthur was wearing an old shooting coat.

Here's a UK version. Note his intriguing change of clothing.

Echo, 26th November 1888—

"Sir George Arthur will hesitate ere he reconnoitres in Whitechapel again. An Astrakhan overcoat would, he thought, be useful in protecting him from the cold. It was, but it incomprehensibly created suspicion. Soon this led to his arrest; to his conveyance to the nearest police station. There he had to give a faithful and particular account of his recent movements before he was released. Aristocratic detectives had better label themselves if they wish to escape this inconvenience."

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"One of these days Christer we should open up two specifc threads under "Hutchinson"

1) List ONE fact used in the "discredit Hutchinson" argument.

2) List ONE Lie known to have been uttered by Hutchinson.

I predict they'll get little to no use."

Good idea, Jon. And since I am sometimes criticized for writing too long posts in the Hutch business, it would be useful with such a minimalistic thread as this!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom:

"I'm surprised to see you of all people endorsing the comparison of Hutch and Cross. Other than the fact that they were introduced into the case as witnesses, and as suspects a century later, there's little else worthy of comparison. "

I very much agree, Tom, just like Ben does!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

The identity of 'George Hutchinson' has no bearing on whether he was a reliable witness or not. It is a separate issue which does not belong on this thread.

I think it would be better if discussion was confined to the topic under consideration

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Repetiton is not corroboration."

And this you repeat in every post you make ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Since Ben has presented a four-year old post by Dan Norder as a useful guide of how to compare Lechmere to Hutchinson, I thought I needed to answer the points raised by Dan Norder back then. Way back then, in fact.


"1) Cross' testimony was never doubted and/or later ignored by police. (While we don't know that they disagreed with his testimony as compare to deciding it was not relevant or helpful, certainly the possibility that they found errors in it is a key reason people have for suspecting Hutchison.)"

If the police had known he used an alias, they may have taken a greater interest in the testimony. That´s what happens when these things are revealed. Alas, Dan Norder did not know, or did not make use of his knowledge, that this was the case. And since when is there a law saying that killers may not produce credible lies?

"2) Cross' statement sounds very matter of fact and plausible, while Hutchinson's features some details that don't ring true."

"Matter of fact" and "plausible"? Not when you compare it to what Mizen had to say! "You are wanted in Buck´s Row - another policeman wants you there!"
How "matter of fact" was that? But Dan Norder, back in 2008, had not seen the relevance of this. To him, and to the rest of Ripperology, me included, it was just an unexplicable mistake on Mizen´s behalf back then.
And once again, since when is there a law saying that killers may not produce credible lies? Must they be clumsy and incoherent, giving away that stupid people always become serial killers, sooner or later?

"3) Cross had somewhere to go within the next few minutes (in this murder and theoretically in others if he were involved) and would be far less likely to cover up any blood, etc."

What blood? There must have been blood on the killer, I´m told, but why is that? And even if there were some spots, why would they stand out among all the other specks and spots of a carmans clothes? Plus it was pitch dark and nobody searched Lechmere!

"4) Hutchinson by his own account was hanging around spying on someone who became a Ripper victim."

Lechmere by his own account was alone with the murdered woman, having access to physical contact with her. No ten yards and a shut door inbetween suspect and victim in that case! But still Hutchinson is the better bet ...? How does that work in this matter?

"5) Hutchinson only came forward after another witness testified to seeing a mysterious man hanging around the scene of the crime."

Lechmere only came forward after Paul in a paper interview had placed him alone in the middle of the night, standing where the body was.

"6) Hutchinson's account featured a lot of details that could have easily come from previous newspaper reports, while Cross of course did not."

Lechmere in all probability shaped his testimony according to the paper interview given by Paul.

"7) Cross was introduced to the police early in the investigation and the murders continued without any sort of interruption afterward."

Ridgway. Pickton. Carpenter. All guys who were suspected by and interviewed by the police during their sprees. Carpenter even killed inbetween meetings with his probation officer!
Compare that to Lechmere, who was never even under suspicion.
If the three I mention (and there are more!) could kill under much heavier surveillance, applied by a police force with superior technical aid, then why in the world would we suspect that Lechmere could and would NOT do so? Because it was immoral?Because he, a man that would kill in the open streets by the looks of things, was too scared and intimidated by his knowledge that he had taken the decision to fool the police, and gotten away with it?

Dan Norder wrote his piece four years ago, he apparently did not know about the name swop, he did not know about the find that Lechmere can potentially be tied to the Stride murder spot and time, he did not know that Charles Allen Lechmere would be proven to have lied to the police in order to get past them on the murder night. His post is stone age by now, and should be regarded as such. Uninformed, not up to date, largely irrelevant.

Christie was once a good guy and a stand-up citizen too. That impression lasted long enough to have Timoty Evans swing from a rope. The less intelligent man thus fell prey to the smarter guy, who told the better lies and who was never suspected until it was too late.

History teaches us things. Cases move forward. Make of that what you want.

Please note that I am in no way criticizing Dan Norder for his post. He did not have the full picture as he wrote it, and his views were à la mode at that stage. My criticism is directed against using uniformed material to try and draw informed deductions. It doesn´t work.

The best,
Fisherman