Choosing which witnesses to believe

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,

I'm pretty much in agreement with you on this, although Monty has pointed out that, even if he shone his Bullseye Lamp into the Square, it wouldn't have illuminated the corner where Eddowes was slain.

Forgive me, but I don't recall if you were back on the boards when it was up and running, but this was discussed at some length on the "City PC" thread in the Witnesses section. (Apologies if you already knew that).

Regards, Bridewell.

Im not sure he would need more than mere noise in an empty square to alert him, (the killer both cut and ripped her apron section free),...but if so, it would have startled the man into leaving quickly after Harvey left...and if he picks a different passageway than Harvey, he gets Watkins coming in.

Ergo.....he likely left via the Carriageway, so, not in the rough direction of Goulston. If so, then who is the first person to go to Goulston Street from that square that night?

Im suggesting that Harvey may not have been near sighted and/or deaf and other police at that scene may have been slightly mischievous. Perhaps the apron section didnt leave with the killer.

Best regards Bridewell,
Mike R

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Dave,

He's only lying if he consciously embellished his account, not if he genuinely, but mistakenly, believed he had seen more detail than he actually had.

Regards, Colin.

Hi Colin,

Im not sure that suggesting that GH deluded himself into believing his story is the more probable of the various possibilities. He swore he could recognize the man again, and the extravagant detail coupled with that assurance tilts the statement towards a lie. Not a misrepresentation, not an embellishment, not creative license, not a fib.

That someone is a friend of someone, (alledges GH), who is murdered horribly, and the someone sees the victim just before her murder with a "suspect", then does not tell the police for 4 days is bad...but to wait all that time and then lie...well, its worse.

It seems a useless exercise from an investigative standpoint..the man could have sailed for New York by that time. But it apparently was something GH thought he had to do.

Why? Is the suspect a plant by GH? By the way, the suspect with Mary in many ways resembles the best known description of General Frank Millen.

Best regards,

Mike R

[lynn cates]

Por que?

Hello Mike.

"Is the suspect a plant by GH? By the way, the suspect with Mary in many ways resembles the best known description of General Frank Millen."

Right, you are! And "Blotchy" is a ringer for Red Jim McDermott. In fact, both are so close that it seems to me incredible that they are mere coincidences.

Now, suppose that both Hutch and Cox have been given descriptions and a few quid and told to repeat the descriptions?

If so, why? And by whom?

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Still hypothetically speaking...

We seem to have developed a variety of levels of what lying means

.

Errrr No!

"the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"

Ring any faint bells?

Cut it whichever way you like, if he exagerated then he lied, if he embellished, then he lied, if he imagined, then he lied...the fact he never actually got to court makes no difference...he was asked to tell the truth and for whatever reason he didn't...therefore, he lied...hypothetically speaking of course...

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

.

Errrr No!

"the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"

Ring any faint bells?

Cut it whichever way you like, if he exagerated then he lied, if he embellished, then he lied, if he imagined, then he lied...the fact he never actually got to court makes no difference...he was asked to tell the truth and for whatever reason he didn't...therefore, he lied...hypothetically speaking of course...

All the best

Dave

We can all call him a liar, 124 years after the fact, the only point which means anything at all is that the police did not.
And, this crock of fiction is entirely based on the suggestion that they did.

That is the point being totally ignored.

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

Puzzled

Hi Jon

You asked for a purely hypothetical discussion, (on the basis Hutch embellished), and I gave you one...so with all respect, what exactly's your gripe?

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Mike.

"Is the suspect a plant by GH? By the way, the suspect with Mary in many ways resembles the best known description of General Frank Millen."

Right, you are! And "Blotchy" is a ringer for Red Jim McDermott. In fact, both are so close that it seems to me incredible that they are mere coincidences.

Now, suppose that both Hutch and Cox have been given descriptions and a few quid and told to repeat the descriptions?

If so, why? And by whom?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Interesting sidebar here...the blotchy complexion is also attributed to Millen.

I would imagine if someone wanted those individuals to be suspected in Marys murder they would be either...someone from the Fenian Brotherhood who knew of Millens double agent duties and sought to have him exposed.....someone not sympathetic to the Irish cause and looking to "frame" one or more of the key self rule Irish rebels, or it might be people who cooperated with Millen and some other dynamitards but now needed them to be silent.

Time that with the Parnell Commission, and to the Members of Parliament and Irish Royal Constabulary who visit the murder scene at the height of the crowds, and add a pinch of Fred Abberline and his small squad of men re-sieving the ashes in Mary's fireplace Saturday morning without the assistance of the met police....and you have a murder mystery that almost certainly involves the Irish cause in some fashion.

Now, is the immediate issuance of a pardon for accomplices more compelling? Saturday afternoon it was issued, Warrens last official signing, and he was fed up with Monro and the secrecy between his and Scotland Yards Intelligence departments. Did he issue that pardon with the hopes that the accomplice would have much more to talk about than just a murder?

All the best Lynn,

Mike R

[lynn cates]

yup

Hello Mike. Yes, all grist for the mill. Wish I could figure it all out.

Cheers.
LC

[towboydds]

The Value of Face

Hello Damaso. I think all witnesses should be taken at face value--unless and until a problem with the testimony comes up. I think this is what you are doing.

Notice that, it's perfectly acceptable to regard Schwartz's testimony at face value. Of course, in doing so, one must disregard/alter Brown's testimony.

Cheers.
LC

I believe a face value take on all witness statements is well enough supposed, and as each statement has merit of truth and fiction in it, it is then a matter of taking what each individual reading the statements perceives as the part of truth and the part of fiction. In all of it though one must keep in mind in any investigation the reports that the police receive from 'witnesses' 'persons of interest' and 'suspects' are all of a valued stretch of their own perception. Human nature does not allow one to keep to the exact truth because the exact truth in any situation puts the person reporting, in the position of seeing themselves as a victim or perpetrator in one respect or other.

So the witness statements can then be taken at face value, but how much value then becomes the "price" of each witness and their statement. Once this value has then been perceived or predicted one can then move on to the point of looking at other statements that may or may not further that idea born out of it, and see if there is a connection to another statement and witness.
However I may be a bit over opinionated in this respect after my 35 years of studying human nature and the ability to stretch and embellish the things that are actually known or are of constant truth.

The witnesses all seem to have a particular point that makes them relevant even if it is only in the fact that the majority of people that have seen and read or heard their statements think them to be of a fraudulent nature in any respect. It is in the fact that there are very particular, and to mention peculiar witnesses that would seem to be of more interest considering that many of the witnesses also appear on the suspect list pool listed on this site alone for that matter. This is the beginning to how suspects get regarded as someone of interest to the authorities, their statements have a flaw or flaws that make them interesting to the situation, but does not mean they have intimate knowledge of the situation.

Just a few thoughts...
Your Humble Servant DDS

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

You asked for a purely hypothetical discussion, (on the basis Hutch embellished), and I gave you one...so with all respect, what exactly's your gripe?

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave.
No gripe, not with you anyway.

Not a hypothetical discussion, I did say, lets all assume, hypothetically, that he embellished his story (description).

Rather than waste time & effort nitpicking about this or that, lets just assume hypothetically that he embellished the appearance of Astrachan in his story.
Lets leave the "intentional or not" aspect aside for the time being.

The police accepted his "description", also no other witnesses were found to confirm or contest the description of Astrachan. Therefore...... the police were in no position to accuse him of lying.

Therefore, the claim is false.

This accusation that he lied is what has fueled the "Hutchinson Discredited" debate. So, like I was pointing out, 124 years after the fact it is inconsequential whether "we" think he lied, the fact remains there is no evidence that the police ever did. Nor was there any means at their disposal with which to accuse him of lying.
Which is one of several points that demonstrate the fictional nature of the overall argument.

So no, no gripe with you, I was just labouring to make certain you understood the point at hand as opposed to, "what we think today", which is irrelevent.

Best Wishes, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

1) The police accepted his "description", also no other witnesses were found to confirm or contest the description of Astrachan. Therefore...... the police were in no position to accuse him of lying.

2) Therefore, the claim is false.

3)...I was just labouring to make certain you understood the point at hand as opposed to, "what we think today", which is irrelevent.

Best Wishes, Jon S.

Hi Jon,

I quoted the above sections of your post to point out that:

1) The witness was also discredited within 72hours. Believed for 3 days isnt a credibility stamp.
2) The claim wasnt stated to be false, he was discredited, and therefore, most importantly for the record, the story he told was of no use to investigators within 72hours.
3) "What most of us" think today is that based on Points 1 and 2, he either lied or just told a story the police believed was no use to them within 72 hours.

It was pointed out that the description he gave matches quite closely the description of Frank Millen of the Fenian Brotherhood, including Astrakan cuffs on his jacket and gold pins on his breast. If that was his intent, and the man wasnt and couldnt have been there at that time, he lied.

What we think today is far more relevant in many cases than what we can read of peoples thoughts back then, as stated earlier, nearly every senior police official involved with this case had things to hide.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Fisherman]

Michael:

"The witness was also discredited within 72hours. Believed for 3 days isnt a credibility stamp."

A discredited witness would not, at least to my mind, be called a man with the "best of intentions" and a guy that ought not be reflected upon, as per Dew. Letīs not give an assumption that can be totally wrong any fact status. All we can tell is that there was something in the STORY as such that meant that the testimony had to be discredited as belonging to the murder morning.

The only source of evaluation of Hutchinson we have that is post-ripper time is Dew, and he is adamant about the manīs honesty and good intentions. And if you look at all the verdicts given in the papers about Hutchinson, not a single one calls him a liar or a discredited man. His story is what there was problems with, and that presents a very widely opened door for an honest mistake on Hutchinsonīs behalf. In fact, an honest mistake is the only solution that tallies with all the sources. Once we call him a liar, we get problems with Dew and the contemporary sources that spoke of him as a man that could not be shaken, in spite of the interrogations. Once we say that he was never there, we find trouble with the papers that reported that some effort was still exercised to find Astrakhan man AFTER the so called discrediting.
But once we have him honestly mistaken, ALL the material falls in place.

Strange, is it not? Very, very strange!

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hi Mike.

Hi Jon,

I quoted the above sections of your post to point out that:

1) The witness was also discredited within 72hours. Believed for 3 days isnt a credibility stamp.

The course of the investigation was redirected within 24 hours of Hutchinson giving his statement, that is the fact of the matter. The duration of Hutchinson as principal witness was less than 24 hrs.

Why this occured is speculation at present, The Star blamed Hutchinson, The Echo did not.

In fact, The Echo supported the Hutchinson suspect as opposed to the Cox suspect.
Quote: (my emphasis)
"The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox. The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement. The descriptions of the dark foreign-looking man mentioned in connection with the previous crimes are, however, as we say, in the description of the man seen with the victim on the morning of the 9th."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18881113.html

Therefore, this does not suggest Hutchinson was at fault for the shift in focus of the investigation. The Echo who first broke the story on the 13th, then reported on the 14th, "..There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity".

Also, an important point is raised by that quote from The Echo.

One fact we know, both forces, the City & the Met. were working together. Their investigating officers were in constant liason. Anything surfacing as a result of enquiries is shared between the two forces.
IF, Hutchinson had been found to have lied, both forces would be aware of it. It is clear from this article that the City is not in aggreement with the Met.
And, The Echo also agree's with the City police, and does not agree that the Cox suspect is the one to follow. Which, all taken together makes it clear that the police have not accused Hutchinson of lying about anything.

That, is why this modern claim that the police "must have accused him of lying", is a fiction.

And Mike, it matters nothing how many people, whether it be 10 or a 110, believe in a fiction, ...it is still fiction.

2) The claim wasnt stated to be false, he was discredited, and therefore, most importantly for the record, the story he told was of no use to investigators within 72hours.

The suggestion he was discredited is not demonstrated by the evidence, in fact quite the opposite. The Star made an unsupported claim which as it turns out was wrong. The Echo stood by Hutchinson.

3) "What most of us" think today is that based on Points 1 and 2, he either lied or just told a story the police believed was no use to them within 72 hours.

On the contrary Mike, "we" must judge the actions of the police based on what they knew, not what we know.
So long as the police had no contrary evidence with which to contest the appearance of Astrachan, the police have no reason to accuse him of lying.

It was pointed out that the description he gave matches quite closely the description of Frank Millen of the Fenian Brotherhood, including Astrakan cuffs on his jacket and gold pins on his breast. If that was his intent, and the man wasnt and couldnt have been there at that time, he lied.

Are you assuming this "Astrachan look" was unique to Frank Millen? Once again, you would be mistaken. The Astrachan coat was far more popular than that which just happens to be captured as worn by Frank Millen.

What we think today is far more relevant in many cases than what we can read of peoples thoughts back then, as stated earlier, nearly every senior police official involved with this case had things to hide.

When we know the Met. police had no means with which to accuse Hutchinson of lying about this "description" (no other witnesses), then with respect to this particular issue, it matters nothing what we think.
Especially, when we know Abberline accepted it, all of it.

Best regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Jon,

Lets see if I can rebut some of the quotes below.....

"The course of the investigation was redirected within 24 hours of Hutchinson giving his statement, that is the fact of the matter. The duration of Hutchinson as principal witness was less than 24 hrs."

Hutchinson was never a "principal witness" at all Jon, he was someone who gave a late statement that for a brief time was considered a viable lead by the police.

In fact, The Echo supported the Hutchinson suspect as opposed to the Cox suspect.
Quote: (my emphasis)
"The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox. The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement. The descriptions of the dark foreign-looking man mentioned in connection with the previous crimes are, however, as we say, in the description of the man seen with the victim on the morning of the 9th."
http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881113.html

The quote above comes from the November 13th edition, the morning after Hutchinson came forward. No one can dispute they investigated his suspect description immediately after he gave it. Its after 2 days of searching for that man that they return to search for what they deemed was a legitimate witness sighting...Mary Ann Cox's Blotchy Face.

Therefore, this does not suggest Hutchinson was at fault for the shift in focus of the investigation. The Echo who first broke the story on the 13th, then reported on the 14th, "..There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity".

Im not questioning that his story was believed for 72hrs Jon....all youve done with the above is give me 2 press quotes from within the first 48 hours.

One fact we know, both forces, the City & the Met. were working together.

To what extent is unknown.

Their investigating officers were in constant liason. Anything surfacing as a result of enquiries is shared between the two forces.

That is patently wrong, any lead that concerned a suspect that was known by the CID and Home Office for crimes against HMG, would not be shared with anyone.

And, The Echo also agree's with the City police, and does not agree that the Cox suspect is the one to follow. Which, all taken together makes it clear that the police have not accused Hutchinson of lying about anything.

Its too bad we only have Echo copies up until the 13th isnt it? Who knows what the Echo press wrote later that same week.

That, is why this modern claim that the police "must have accused him of lying", is a fiction.

It is established that his statement was abandoned, I dont know why that seems unclear. Whether he lied or fabricated or embellished or fancified, is irrelevant.

The suggestion he was discredited is not demonstrated by the evidence, in fact quite the opposite. The Star made an unsupported claim which as it turns out was wrong. The Echo stood by Hutchinson.

Again, the Echo dated November 13th, the day after his statement, supports it. There are no later copies of the Echo here.

So long as the police had no contrary evidence with which to contest the appearance of Astrachan, the police have no reason to accuse him of lying.

People studying these crimes in modern times accuse him of lying, again, you are semantically backing your argument. He was discredited...historical fact.

When we know the Met. police had no means with which to accuse Hutchinson of lying about this "description" (no other witnesses), then with respect to this particular issue, it matters nothing what we think.
Especially, when we know Abberline accepted it, all of it.

We also know that Blotchy Face was stated as being the suspect they sought before the weekend following Marys murder. Abberline also backed Schwartz, someone who cannot be proven to have taken part in any formal investigation of Liz Strides murder.

You cannot prove that Hutchinsons suspect was considered viable for more than 1 day by the Echo of November 13th, and you cannot claim that by the weekend they werent looking for Blotchy Face evidenced by the fact that they were very interested in Mr Galloways sighting.

Best regards Jon,

Mike R

[Wickerman]

Hi Mike.
Lets see if we can establish some common ground.
Would you agree that in order to promote a theory, it is incumbent on the theorist to provide something beyond a sequence of "maybe's"?

The "Hutchinson Discredited" theory is nothing but a sequence of "maybe's" with no official facts to support it.

Hutchinson was never a "principal witness" at all Jon, he was someone who gave a late statement that for a brief time was considered a viable lead by the police.

Mike, at the close of the Inquest Scotland Yard had no firm direction with respect to an established Time of Death, therefore, Cox's suspect was not their sole focus.
Blotchy was only one possibility. Blotchy's appearance at midnight creates caution with respect to how he could have been the cause of the cry of "murder" heard "after 4:00 am".
Scotland Yard had no principal suspect.

The quote above comes from the November 13th edition, the morning after Hutchinson came forward.

Call this semantic if you like but, The Echo is an evening paper.

Hutchinson gave his statement at 6:00 pm on the 12th, by the time the evening edition of The Echo was released on the 13th, they had discovered the shift in the case. Obviously by mid afternoon, before going to press.
Now do you see why I say, "less than 24 hrs"?

Im not questioning that his story was believed for 72hrs Jon....

I'm sorry Mike, you are missing the point.
On the 13th The Echo had already discovered the shift in the case, and even the next day, the 14th, The Echo is still reporting that Hutchinson is in good stead.
The shift had nothing to do with him, or his story.

One fact we know, both forces, the City & the Met. were working together.

To what extent is unknown.

We know that McWilliams & Swanson met regularly, obviously we have no diary to follow. Had Hutchinson been found to have lied, and kept it from their City counterparts, well, I think, that proposal wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.

That is patently wrong, any lead that concerned a suspect that was known by the CID and Home Office for crimes against HMG, would not be shared with anyone.

I'm going to have to assume you have misunderstood the issue. The City & Met. worked together at the suspect level, and at the official level.
That much is known.

It is established that his statement was abandoned, I dont know why that seems unclear. Whether he lied or fabricated or embellished or fancified, is irrelevant.

Or, that the decision to shift focus came from above, which is where we do have a selection of facts to support the possibility.

People studying these crimes in modern times accuse him of lying, again, you are semantically backing your argument. He was discredited...historical fact.

I have been asking for this "fact" to surface, all I get is "one" unsubstantiated newspaper story, supplied from a dubious source, The Star.
The Echo does not agree, neither is there any official (police) source leaning towards such an interpretation.
Hence, it is fiction!, until demonstrated otherwise.

We also know that Blotchy Face was stated as being the suspect they sought before the weekend following Marys murder. Abberline also backed Schwartz, someone who cannot be proven to have taken part in any formal investigation of Liz Strides murder.

Once again, it does not matter what "we" think of Abberline, he was in charge as interviewing officer. His opinion of witness interviews was paramount to Scotland Yard.
So long as Abberline accepted a statement, "we" have NO basis for claiming the police did not believe a witness. Obviously, they did!

You cannot prove that Hutchinsons suspect was considered viable for more than 1 day by the Echo of November 13th,

Hold it!, who's talking about "proof" now?

Where's the "proof" that the police accused Hutchinson of lying?

I guess you just killed this "theory" dead by asking me for proof, yet proof is what you yourself cannot provide to support the theory. Remember my opening sentence?

(If you had read carefully Mike, I said "less than 24 hrs", to my mind, that is not more than one day)

and you cannot claim that by the weekend they werent looking for Blotchy Face evidenced by the fact that they were very interested in Mr Galloways sighting.

I never did make that claim.

The receipt by Anderson of Bond's estimated Time of Death was sufficient to shift the focus of the case. Scotland Yard are not about to abandon every suspect description they have on their books just because of this medical report, but it does give them a focus. As it happens, it led nowhere.

The Echo also make that clear on the 14th:
(note: "this document" refers to Hutchinson's statement)

"..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"

That Mike, does not sound like a "discredited" story, does it!

Best Wishes, Jon S.