Choosing which witnesses to believe

[Bridewell]

Further to my last, in the 1901 census there is an Emily Paumier, aged 31 living in Bethnal Green and born in Aldgate. She would have been about 18 in 1888. Young? Certainly. Chestnut vendor? Who knows?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Mrs Paumier

With regard to Mrs Paumier, whether or not her account was a journalist's invention, there were people of that name living in both St Lukes & Mile End at the relevant time. It's not an obvious surname to invent which suggests, to me anyway, that whoever wrote the piece at least knew of someone who went by that name.

Regards, Bridewell.

[The Good Michael]

It also has to be said that George Hutchinson was almost certainly identical with George William Topping Hutchinson - as identified by his son and as shown by his known movements to almost exactly fit into the George Hutchinson story as known from the Ripper tale.

Uh, what Lechmere is trying to say is, er, some people believe this and others don't. No need for Hutchinsonian response here. (Whew! I think I nipped that one in the bud.)

Mike

[Sally]

Hi Jon

Apologies for the late response, the weekend got in the way

The Falklands War occured in a time (today) when it is common to have person's "act" roles in order to get a point across. That is what advertising is, put a script together and have someone read it, or ask a legitimate question and provide a false name for the responder.

I accept it may be asking too much but a correct (IMO) response would have been for you to offer a near contemporary (1860-1900) criminal case where it is known that the press invented witnesses.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, or how what you say supports your argument. If what you mean is that advertising is responsible for the creation of false witnesses in the media today in contrast to 'yesterday' then I'm not sure I follow. That isn't a reason for inventing bogus witnesses. 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?

As for a 'correct' response; I'm not sure that's the right term. 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?

Such a response would at least legitimise your proposal. However, all that means is that any one of the Whitechapel murder cases could have included witnesses which never really existed. You would still be left to rationalize, why Paumier?

Well yes, and no. 'My proposal' is supported by a lack of evidence for some of these 'witnesses'. 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. 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. It represents the current state of knowledge, which is not definite, and may alter. If and when it does - if further evidence which tends either to confirm or negate their existence emerges - then I will revise my view accordingly.

I readily admit to not looking for a "Paumier" when I last went through the 1891 census for the area, so I couldn't say whether the name exists or not.
If she was invented, the purpose for her "appearance" lacks justification, her story is not headline grabbing.

Once again, if it wasn't newsworthy it wouldn't be in the paper to begin with. You say her invention 'lacks justification' - but it doesn't, because it appears in the press and so was deemed to be newsworthy. 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. I should think that would represent a good personal motive for coming up with the goods, real or invented.

Let me just remind you, this line from The Echo:
"As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin."

No doubt the handfull who appeared at the Inquest are among the 53 person's. So who else did this 53 include, Kennedy, Paumier, Ronay?, they all told stories about a "suspicious man". For all we/you know the best of the bunch, or at least the only ones the press were able to locate, were these three, Kennedy, Paumier & Ronay.

If the '53' is an accurate tally, we have no way of knowing who was included, since the names of the witnesses are not given. It has absolutely no bearing at all on whether Kennedy, Paumier or Ronay were invented witnesses. I concede that you may be correct, giving the press the benefit of the doubt; but there still ought to be some independent evidence for their existence - as I said to you a few posts back, perhaps in the case of 'Kennedy' there is, but that remains only a possibility which of course cannot be substantiated. What I do not think incidentally is that Kennedy was Sarah Lewis in disguise; it would be entirely out of character.

In all fairness the article does admit that none of the descriptions given in these fifty-three witness stories tally with that given by Hutchinson, but thats a whole other subject.

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

So, there were 53 witnesses who describe a "suspicious man", why invent more?

Because the '53 witnesses' are not named witnesses. An anonymous group of witnesses giving accounts of suspicious men does not represent a story - it's an aside. A named witness, real or invented, is much more use to a newspaper, which exists to make a profit.

These "well-dressed men" have been sidelined for decades. Some of them we have known about since the late 90's but have been flippantly overlooked.
Are they different men, or the same man? - I don't claim to know one way or the other. What I do think though is, that if anyone in this series of murders is to be considered a "Person of Interest", it is him/them.

Fair enough, you favour 'well-dressed' man. That shouldn't prevent you from discriminating between the accounts of witnesses though. When you can show me who these press 'witnesses' were, I'll be inclined to take their accounts more seriously.

I don't regard dismissing witnesses as good scholarship without some acknowledged reason to do so.
I mean a reason, not an idea. The suggestion on Casebook is an "idea" nothing more. There is no reason behind it, except that some find it a convenient argument to try to dismiss the statement of this witness.

I have given you reasons, more than once. My reasoning is sound, and is not an unsupported 'idea'. I'm afraid that if anybody has a 'convenient argument' here, it appears to be you, in suggesting that these unsubstantiated 'witnesses' are only subject to doubt because of some private agenda held by your fellow posters. It is not the case.

If you believe that they existed, then by all means, demonstrate their existence. I am quite happy to be wrong.

[Lechmere]

It also has to be said that George Hutchinson was almost certainly identical with George William Topping Hutchinson - as identified by his son and as shown by his known movements to almost exactly fit into the George Hutchinson story as known from the Ripper tale.

[Lechmere]

To be fair, his story being discounted because he got his days mixed up means that Hutchinson's story was discredited.
I am unsure whether he genuinely got his days mixed up or whether he did it with deliberation in order to get some petty fame and a bit of a pay out from the police as a roving witness and maybe from the press for interviews.
Dew's memoir is an invaluable source- even if he quite understandably gets little detals slightly wromg - in fact, ironically, those little eroneous details give his account authenticity.
For example he thinks Robert Paul was searched for but not traced which is a memory of the hoo-ha over tracking Paul down.
Paul incidentally is a very interesting witness and one who we can split away which bits of his various statements are believable and which aren't quite easily, and which in turn gives us an insight into his mentality.

[Bridewell]

Agreed

Thanks. On your last bit here, being certain in one's mind does not make a statement reliable, but it isn't a lie either. I do believe that many people misremember. I have a family full of such people, or at least a brother or two, that recall things incorrectly, but believe it's gospel until I show proof.
I look at Hutchinson in that same category, and so, somewhat unreliable, but not a fraud except by memory.

Mike

Hi Mike,

That's pretty much where I stand with GH.

I find it strange when he's dismissed as a liar, by some, because he claimed to recall such great detail. The irony is that if he'd said that the man was well-dressed and his coat trimmed with what looked like astrakhan, but that he couldn't really remember more than that, he'd be hailed as a vital witness. I wonder if people would then express frustration that he hadn't been able to remember more than he did?!

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fisherman]

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. The only discredited object I can see is his story itself, or, to be more exact - something IN that story.

All the papers have him down as an unshakable man, and Dew, in his memoirs, asserts that he would not reflect on Hutchinson, speaking instead about people with "the best of intentions".

Does that sound to you like Dew was describing a man whom the police had discredited? It does not to me, not by any strech of the imagination. To me, it sounds very much like he is describing a man who was honestly mistaken.

Dew also tells us that he is of the opinion that George Hutchinson simply misremembered the time; he mistook the day. And if you look upon it from that angle, then it all comes together logically:

His story was true, but it belonged to the night before. This means that the police would not couple his sighting with the killing, but they would still be interested in speaking to Astrakhan man. And we have a report that tells us that Hutchinson´s sighting was still followed up on AFTER the police would have found out about the mistaken date; some men were still looking for Astrakhan man after that, which only makes sense if the police had accepted his exstance.

We can also explain why Hutchinson describes a scenario that seemingly is played out in nice enough weather, with the couple stopping leisurely outside Millers Court to make small talk for a number of minutes - the night before the murder night was a good one, weatherwise.

We realize why Hutchinson never mentions Lewis, who he MUST have seen, keeping watch over the entrance to the court.

There are a good deal of other small details that are answered too by accepting that Hutchinson had mistaken the day, just like Dew suggests. And when you suggest such a thing, what do you base it on? A hunch? No you base it on some detail not tallying with the date it is supposed to represent - but instead with ANOTHER date.

Ergo, Michael we do NOT know for a fact that Hutchinson was discredited. The notion that he was has been a common one for far too long.

The best,
Fisherman

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Richard,

Nice to be talking with you again.

Here are 10 reasons why we should and must question him and the story;

1) No-one has positively identified this man historically. The name could have been assumed by the man who identified himself as GH.
2) No-one corroborates his alleged knowledge of who Mary Kelly is, let alone a friendly relationship. This is likely due to the fact he avoided all those witness with his report timing.
3) His detail in the description is almost certainly embellishment.
4) He does not, or is not identified as Wideawake man. He may not have been there at all.
5) No-one sees Mary leave her room after arriving home very drunk before midnight.
6) He was likely aware that a witness stated she had seen a man watching the courtyard long before Monday.
7) His story paints a portrait of a stalker, not a concerned friend, and one wonders if this portrait was preferable to one that suggests the man watching the court is the killer or accomplice.
8) We do not know if he identified Kelly in the morgue.
9) We cannot confirm at this time his stated address.
10) His delay in coming forward, if a true story, almost guarantees that the killer would then be impossible to find. In fact, he does nothing to help a so called friend by coming forward.

Ive always admired the consistency Richard, but for many like me, a witness we know for a fact is discredited is not a good horse to back.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Wickerman]

Hi Richard.

Many of us have disputed the elaborate description which included the infamous ''red hanky'' and remarked on how he managed to describe such detail in the dark?

All the while we know it was customary for a man to wear a handky protruding from a top pocket. Whether top waistcoat pocket or top coat pocket, it does not matter. Which would have been previously visible as he walked past under the lamp.

We have comments surrounding the opening of Mr A top coat, suggesting that it would have been unlikely in damp conditions,

Here in Canada we can have the worst of winters, never, repeat - never, do I ever fasten my outer coat. I cannot tollerate that trust-up feeling regardless of the weather.

and the sighting of fine jewellery, was that a fabrication , or a deliberate ploy by the mystery man to display his assets to the approaching female.?

There are any number of contemporary street scene's of the East end showing ordinary working(?) class men sporting a chain across their jacket/waistcoat. Whether this particular watch/chain was as fancy as described is a debatable point, but not the fact that such common items were worn and worn openly.

Yet despite all of this, we find it all so dodgy....why?
Regards Richard.

Not everyone Richard, not everyone.

Regards, Jon S.

[The Good Michael]

We are doubting a man who reported an incident to the police , which placed him at the scene, who admitted he had talked to Mary at 2am, and followed her, and attempted to assist the police by going on patrol with officers.
Yet despite all of this, we find it all so dodgy....why?

Not me. Mistakes, maybe, but not fraud. Yet, it is still a possibility.

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hello Mike,
Agreed..exaggeration may have reared its head, but to what degree we are still uncertain.
Hutchinson stated that he took notice , because he was curious, he found it odd that a person in that attire, would associate himself with Mary Kelly, and followed them because of that.
Many of us have disputed the elaborate description which included the infamous ''red hanky'' and remarked on how he managed to describe such detail in the dark?
We should remember back in that period, people would have voiced opinions about colours in bad light, even if we would today dispute its accuracy, Hutchinson would have simply voiced his opinion.. that it was red.
We have comments surrounding the opening of Mr A top coat, suggesting that it would have been unlikely in damp conditions, and the sighting of fine jewellery, was that a fabrication , or a deliberate ploy by the mystery man to display his assets to the approaching female.?
None of this rejects George Hutchinson's claim, he explained .
Why he was in Commercial street
where he first noticed the man.
Where he met Kelly, and when, and details of conversation.
Where she was accosted by Mr A.
Details of the couple passing him, and his following, and his concerns.
Details of conversation heard , which included kissing.
Also revealing the length of time he loitered opposite the court, expressing he didn't feel concern for her safety ..just curious.
Admitted that his delay was selfish, in being worried initially, about getting involved.
We are doubting a man who reported an incident to the police , which placed him at the scene, who admitted he had talked to Mary at 2am, and followed her, and attempted to assist the police by going on patrol with officers.
Yet despite all of this, we find it all so dodgy....why?
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Richard,

I absolutely agree with you, but I do take into consideration that some of his details were wrong or exaggerated, and that makes him human and nothing more. It of course adds him to the list of witnesses that can be problematic, of which every witness ever discussed is a member of.

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Just have to say that, I have always wholeheartedly believed Hutchinson's account, simply because I had knowledge of it some 18-20 years prior to the Ripper and the Royals, when it appears the ''entire'' membership of Casebook first became aware of the tale.
It was not invented for the books benefit..[ just a small asset]
You are all aware where I heard it, so I will not annoy anyone by repeating.
The Hutchinson family are aware of the Topping account, but will never oblige us with clarification, for obvious reasons ..fear of ridicule springs to mind.
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with Hutchinson's statement, he simply relayed what he saw, and when he saw it.
He explained why he hesitated in coming forward to the police, a report does indicate that the explanation is best not said ''at this time'' [ we can speculate what that entailed..maybe lack of enthusiasm by a local bobby on the Sunday]
The detailed description given of 'A man' has been explained by Reg's account, his fathers desire to assist the police, and the regret that nothing''came of it'' was expressed in the 1970s..by the former relaying his fathers thoughts.
It is because I know, that the account written in The Ripper and the Royals, was not invented for that publication, and was available many years previous,I am inclined to believe its content.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

On the reliability of GH: I suspect that he didn't see the detail that he claimed to have seen, but he may well have been certain in his own mind that he did. If he wasn't a complete fraud, he will have felt under enormous pressure to remember as much as possible.

Thanks. On your last bit here, being certain in one's mind does not make a statement reliable, but it isn't a lie either. I do believe that many people misremember. I have a family full of such people, or at least a brother or two, that recall things incorrectly, but believe it's gospel until I show proof.
I look at Hutchinson in that same category, and so, somewhat unreliable, but not a fraud except by memory.

Mike