Choosing which witnesses to believe

[Wickerman]

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.

Fringe thinking is extremist. Something which is extremist includes that which has no supporting evidence.
Conclusions arrived at from speculation certainly is fringe thinking no matter how many are involved.

Lewis never described her man as well-dressed,

Really?
If you care to look this up, with respect to the Wednesday sighting Lewis actually said, "a Gentleman passed us..". Interestingly Lewis does not describe "Widewake" as a Gentleman, just a man.
Lewis said this was the same man she saw on Friday, " I met the same man with a female". Therefore it appears to be the man's appearance which caused her to assume he was a "Gentleman". That is to say "well-dressed" for this part of town.

With respect to Mrs Kennedy, you write..

No, she didn’t, because she was a liar and exposed as such.

Nothing of the sort (and you know it).
Your own Star actually tells you what I have been telling you for months, Mrs Kennedy was an original source.

You will recall the 10th Nov. issue where we read:
"One woman (as reported below) who lives in the court stated that at about two o'clock she heard a cry of "Murder." This story soon became popular, until at last half a dozen women were retailing it as their own personal experience."
(More sloppy reporting, 2:00 o'clock?)

So this "one woman, reported below" is one of two women mentioned, either Mrs Prater or Mrs Kennedy, as they are the only two witnesses from Millers Court mentioned in the article.

The paragraph concerning Mrs Prater makes no mention of a cry of "murder", so this rules her out.

The paragraph concerning Mrs Kennedy is where we read of the cry of "murder", and this story, as we read above was repeated by "at last half a dozen women", illustrating to anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the English language that Mrs Kennedy is the source, and not one of the "half dozen women".
Nowhere is Sarah Lewis mentioned in this article.
Which also serves to illustrate how inaccurate your next line is.

The author of the account Mrs. Kennedy plagiarized – Sarah Lewis –

Sarah Lewis is an original witness, Mrs Kennedy is also an original witness.
They were either the same woman, or they were together when they witnessed events.

Interestingly, George Sims knew of them as sisters, in an article dated one week after Millers Court (18th Nov.) he refers to these witnesses as "the Kennedy's". Given Sims's deep interest in the Whitechapel murders his understanding could easily be the truth of the matter.

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

Based on the above post, then how do you reconcile these remarks;

"They both then came past me and the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern........"Description age about 34 or 35. height 5ft6 complexion pale, dark eyes and eye lashes slight moustache, curled up each end, and hair dark, very surley looking dress long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed astracan. And a dark jacket under. Light waistcoat dark trousers dark felt hat turned down in the middle. Button boots and gaiters with white buttons. Wore a very thick gold chain white linen collar. Black tie with horse shoe pin. Respectable appearance walked very sharp. Jewish appearance."

It would seem that Mr Hutchinson claimed to have looked into the mans face closely based on his detail, and he obviously noticed the "bling" in some detail as well.

Since the above was based on views that were brief and after 2am on a poorly lit street, and of a man that seemingly intended to not be seen clearly as he passed George, does he fall into the 40% that make mistakes or the 60% that apparently do not. Maybe George was afraid of Jews.

My best regards,

Mike R

I think he made it up. There is too much detail involved for such an ordinary event. He specifically remarks on how the man was trying to hide his face, and he ducked down specifically to look at him. Had this actually occurred, he would not have included that in the statement. He simply would have described the man, not how it was he managed to get a look at his face. It has nothing to do with the way eyewitnesses fool themselves, and everything to do with how people lie. When a person is asked a "what" question and in their answer start explaining all kids of whys and hows, it is a classic sign of deceit. He came forward and said that he saw her with a man. His description of events should have been pretty straightforward. "We talked for a minute, then a man called her over, and he looked like this, and they talked a couple of minutes and then left via this route." But he goes into all of this extra detail, like how he had to duck to see the man's face, and how he followed them, waited for 45 minutes, etc.

And he does "remember" a ridiculous amount of detail he never should have noticed. If he noticed the jewelry, he shouldn't have noticed the shoes. If he noticed the hat, he shouldn't have noticed the waistcoat. And while he had three minutes to absorb it all, he still should have been paying more attention to her than he did to this mystery man. Heterosexual men watch women, not men. Even if he was tagging the guy as a potential mark, all he needed to see was the jewelry and if the guy could potentially beat the crap out of him. That takes ten seconds. Hutch is describing himself very aggressively. He ducks down to see the man's face, which is actually a terribly alpha male thing to do. It's a challenge. He's telling this strange man that he doesn't respect his privacy or his boundaries. But he waits three days before coming in with a statement. That doesn't jive at all. If he is alpha enough to bump chests with some random rich guy, he should have been alpha enough to resent the hell out of someone hurting "his" woman in "his" neighborhood. None of it really fits.

And plenty of people are afraid of Jews. It's why they get the snot kicked out of them all the time.

[Sally]

I would assume everybody knows this, so why go down that road?

I was responding to you, Jon, because you appeared to be viewing both sources on an equal footing; and to think that the inquest transcripts had been edited. All I was doing was highlighting the signficant differences between the two.

Most of these accounts, again using Paumier, Ronay & Kennedy as examples, tend to be duplicated across different papers, suggesting the stories were bought from an agency. In some cases a paper has claimed to have interviewed the witness themselves yet the story provided is a duplicate. Therefore, you appear to be suggesting a reporter at an agency has invented "witnesses", why would you think this, is it something you would do if you were in a similar position?

I think this because journalists notoriously invent stories, tailor stories, embroider stories, and generally resort to whatever means available to create a story that will sell. It is, and was, about money - not the truth. Aside from Kennedy, who possibly existed, the witnesses you cite may well be pure invention, telling stories based on what was already going around at the time. I don't see what the problem is with this - surely you don't think that every news story was true?

Let me ask you this, how many witnesses across the ripper case do you think were press inventions?

I don't know, Jon, I'd have to give it some thought - but I bet there were some.

The way I look at it is this. When a particular witness is suggested to be an invention, it is always always because this particular witness has said or witnessed something that the accusor does not like. The "accusor" being someone here on Casebook who is desperate to defend their hypothesis and any witness that is an embarrassment to their case needs to be removed with claims of "invented" without any justification, indication or evidence whatsoever.

Oh, that's a cop-out I'm afraid. It neatly bypasses the issue of invented witnesses by claiming that the only reason for suggesting them to begin with is 'agenda'. There is no evidence that witnesses such as Paumier e.g. ever existed. Can you tell me who they were? Where they lived? What became of them after their 'testimony'? No?

There are people here who intend to re-write history by "cleansing" the case of certain witnesses just so they can have their way.

Goodness, how very conspiratorial. As far as I'm concerned, Jon, its less a case of 'cleansing' than of drawing a distinction between what we can verify and what we can't. Once again, there is no evidence that some of these press 'witnesses' ever existed. That doesn't must mean no evidence in the now lost police files; it means no evidence at all.. Most people can be traced in the historic record, with enough persistence. When they simply can't, something is amiss.

I'm well aware of the variety of arguments, I'm amused that there is no consensus. No-one can agree on whether to accuse him of lying about Romford, about walking around all night, about the detailed description of a real man, or about inventing the man altogether.

Yes, but there is no consensus about a great many aspects of the case - Hutchinson is only one example. We all have different views, based on less than complete information - consensus in the circumstances is a fantasy.

Since you mention it, I'm sure he had been to Romford - whether on that particular night or not, who knows? Actually, I think that there's only so far we can go with his account of Astroman - of course he was lying - in the sense that he didn't see what he claimed to have done - he couldn't have done, realistically, in the circumstances. Then again, that's hardly surprising; he'd had three days to prepare his account - it was hardly spontaneous. Whether you think the details had been 'remembered' in that time and he believed that they were real; or that he made them up for some other reason is a matter of opinion - and it can't be anything else.

You seem constantly baffled by any suspicion levelled at Hutchinson, Jon - I'm not sure why. People doubt him because his account is too detailed and his story doesn't add up. It's simple. Beyond that point, not so simple - even if you knew who Hutchinson was for certain, his motivations might still be a mystery. I've more or less come to the conclusion that the whole thing is beyond reconstruction and we might as well guess as anything.

[curious]

I think this because journalists notoriously invent stories, tailor stories, embroider stories, and generally resort to whatever means available to create a story that will sell. It is, and was, about money - not the truth. Aside from Kennedy, who possibly existed, the witnesses you cite may well be pure invention, telling stories based on what was already going around at the time. I don't see what the problem is with this - surely you don't think that every news story was true?
Oh, that's a cop-out I'm afraid. It neatly bypasses the issue of invented witnesses by claiming that the only reason for suggesting them to begin with is 'agenda'. There is no evidence that witnesses such as Paumier e.g. ever existed. Can you tell me who they were? Where they lived? What became of them after their 'testimony'? No?

Hi, Sally,
Interesting post, but as a "journalist" (I actually mainly think of myself as a writer), I want to mention that not every paper or writer believes in inventing stories.

I recognize that our executive editor is very idealistic (and very highly educated at Ivy League schools). While he has others pushing him on the money side, he still wants to get it right "for the record."

I do recall famous cases of journalists inventing witnesses, even a famous Pulitzer-prize winning woman that caused a horrible scandal. However, there is another explanation for not being able to find people in the historic record after they appear in a newspaper story.

In the spring of 2011, tornadoes tore through our county, setting down in 4 or 5 different places. We were all dispatched (even our lifestyles and feature writers) to various areas of the county to talk to people. (And yes, we just won a state-wide first place for our coverage of that night and the follow-up.)

As we approached people out in the devastated areas, we identified ourselves and got people's names and where they lived, just the community or area of the county. We took what they told us and wrote it down. We did not get driver's license identifications nor did we later go to their homes to verify their residence information, so frankly, if someone had chosen to give us a fake name for whatever reason, as reporters we would not have known it. And researchers 100 years from now will not likely find that person in any records. In one instance, names did later show up because I was at a country story that was being used as headquarters by the emergency crews and law enforcement. I spoke with a young woman whose grandfather was missing. Later a family member came up to me and told me his body had been found. Their names did later show up in obituaries. But everyone else I interviewed -- frankly, I don't know that they gave me their correct names. They were not people I knew or know that I have met since.

If they had given me an alias, I'm not sure that what they told me was a lie. It may just have been they did not want their names in the paper for a fairly wide variety of reasons that I could only guess at.

The point is, even though someone gives an alias to a newspaper reporter digging around for information, you can not be positive their experience itself is a lie -- or at least I don't think so.

And the witness would not have been invented by the reporter.

just my two cents . . .

curious

[Sally]

Hi Curious

Thanks for your interesting post.

..as a "journalist" (I actually mainly think of myself as a writer), I want to mention that not every paper or writer believes in inventing stories.

I'm sure that's true, Curious. I was generalising, and didn't mean to imply that all journalists habitually resort to invention to sell papers - I'm sure that many maintain a high degree of integrity. It's like any other profession though, populated with many different attitudes and standards. I maintain that there very likely was witness invention during the the autumn of 1888. I take your point below, however -

The point is, even though someone gives an alias to a newspaper reporter digging around for information, you can not be positive their experience itself is a lie -- or at least I don't think so.

And the witness would not have been invented by the reporter.

I don't rule out aliases - its quite plausible. However, whether it is now impossible to locate some of the 'witnesses' in the Ripper case because they gave an alias, or because they were a press invention is moot in the context of the present discussion, I think, because we can't know either way - and as such their testimony (if such it was) should be taken with a large dose of caution in my view.

Mileage will vary, of course, but so far as 'which witnesses to believe' goes; I would not personally place a lot of weight on the reported testimony of press witnesses. If those press witnesses can be identified in the historic record, perhaps slightly more so.

Most people can be traced in the record one way or another in the end if they haven't used an alias - I mean historically - because people had lives. They married, were sometimes ill, died, appeared in census returns, and generally left their mark in various ways. Yes, it can be difficult to trace a person in the historic record, but f there is no trace at all, then it is fair to assume that they may not have existed to begin with.

[curious]

f there is no trace at all, then it is fair to assume that they may not have existed to begin with.

Hi, Sally,
I think we're basically on the same page. Each tidbit has to be weighed and meshed together with everything else.

For our purposes at this date, it is probably safest to believe they did not exist while realizing they could very well have and were simply people who valued their privacy for whatever reason.

At this point, I suspect we all know each person here puts things together differently and has a unique picture of the events of 1888 and beyond.

curious

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

Good post Errata. I think the crux with George Hutchinson is why. Why come in at all if only to fabricate details? If he was afraid of repercussions from Jews then why come in at all? If he was Wideawake no-one recognized him as George H.

Why the wait until after the Inquest?

I think if you look at these questions hard it becomes clear that he was likely serving some kind of self interest by doing what he did, and if he had come forward to the police before or during the Inquest he risked being recognized by other witnesses.

But wait...if he wants to come forward to place himself in the shoes of Wideawake with a story of friendly concern and to cast out any idea that he was a killer lurking there.....then why not take advantage of the witness who saw the lurking man watching the courtyard entrance? Perhaps she could ID him as Wideawake.

Maybe he just wanted people to assume he was Wideawake..and he knew Sarah couldnt ID him as the man she saw. He became her suspicious man without her seeing him to confirm that.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Errata]

Hi all,

Good post Errata. I think the crux with George Hutchinson is why. Why come in at all if only to fabricate details? If he was afraid of repercussions from Jews then why come in at all? If he was Wideawake no-one recognized him as George H.

Why the wait until after the Inquest?

I think if you look at these questions hard it becomes clear that he was likely serving some kind of self interest by doing what he did, and if he had come forward to the police before or during the Inquest he risked being recognized by other witnesses.

But wait...if he wants to come forward to place himself in the shoes of Wideawake with a story of friendly concern and to cast out any idea that he was a killer lurking there.....then why not take advantage of the witness who saw the lurking man watching the courtyard entrance? Perhaps she could ID him as Wideawake.

Maybe he just wanted people to assume he was Wideawake..and he knew Sarah couldnt ID him as the man she saw. He became her suspicious man without her seeing him to confirm that.

Best regards,

Mike R

Well, the why is always the complicated part. I don't know that we can assume he knew what other witnesses saw, or testified to. Or if he did that he put it together in his head how that would interact with own tale. And it's entirely possible that parts of his story were true. It's possible that he did see her, and did see her go off with some guy. It's also possible that he paid no attention to this man whatsoever, and then when he learned what had happened to her, felt guilty about not paying attention or not getting a look at this guy. So he invented this whole aggressive/protective story to cover up his failure.

In his testimony, he goes out of his way to look at this guys face, catalog every detail, and then follows them. He waits 45 minutes, and when neither comes out again he feels safe in assuming that she knows this man, and that she is safe with him, so he leaves. In his story he does everything he could do to ensure her safety barring breaking down the door to check on her. He also says he goes searching for the man until all hours a few days later. This behavior doesn't make sense, even with a killer on the loose. If he had in fact been this concerned with Mary Kelly's safety, he would have been giving her this amount of protection for at least a month. But he doesn't mention it. Nor does he mention anyone else he saw her with that night. It's classic compensation. It's like he can't bear the idea that people might think that he could have saved her, but didn't. And he knows that people would have seen him around that night. So he invents a story where he was vigilant and protective. It's either self soothing or designed to cover up his perceived failure.

[Wickerman]

I was responding to you, Jon, because you appeared to be viewing both sources on an equal footing; and to think that the inquest transcripts had been edited.

I was explaining to you that all the transcripts are edited, or incomplete, even the official documents.
The best way to make yourself aware of every detail is to compare the Coroner's version with every reporters version. Whether it be the complete publications published in the Times, or Daily Telegraph, and even the extracted version in any number of the smaller papers who might only print the highlites from a selection of witnesses. They are all important.

Here's something simple to clarify what I mean. In the Coroner's version of the Eddowes Inquest, during Lawende's testimony Mr Crawford interjects with:

Mr. Crawford: Unless the jury wish it, I do not think further particulars should be given as to the appearance of this man.
The Foreman: The jury do not desire it.

This only appears in the press versions, the words of Crawford & the Foreman are omitted in the Coroners original version.

All the questions posed by Mr Crawford to the witnesses are also omitted in the original version. We do have instances where the press provide considerably more detail than was recorded in the Coroner's version.
One example of this is with the testimony of PC Long. In the Coroner's version we only read: "there was a difference in the spelling"

What was actually said appears to have been:

Mr. Crawford. - Have you not put the word "not" in the wrong place? Is it not, "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing"? Witness repeated the words as he had previously read them.
Mr. Crawford. - How do you spell "Jews"? Witness. - J-e-w-s.
Mr. Crawford. - Now, was it not on the wall J-u-w-e-s? Is it not possible you are wrong? - It may be as to the spelling?
Mr. Crawford. - And as to the place where the word "not" was put? Witness again read the words as before.

In order to appreciate the whole story it is necessary to compare every Inquest record, official & unnofficial.

I think this because journalists notoriously invent stories, tailor stories, embroider stories, and generally resort to whatever means available to create a story that will sell. It is, and was, about money - not the truth. Aside from Kennedy, who possibly existed, the witnesses you cite may well be pure invention, telling stories based on what was already going around at the time. I don't see what the problem is with this - surely you don't think that every news story was true?

Reporters certainly dress-up stories (thankyou Curious, for those examples), but Sally, surely if a reporter is going to invent a witness in a murder investigation there must be a substantial reason for doing so.

I'm glad you are inclined to allow that Mrs Kennedy may have existed, so lets take Mrs Paumier.
What possible financial gain was there to be had by inventing the story of a chestnut seller meeting up with a Lord Fauntleroy who claimed to know more about the murders?

Lets be honest, do you see them lining up around the block to buy papers containing this major revelation?
If you are going to invest in subterfuge then invent a witness like Schwartz, who at least saw an assault on the victim within minutes of her death!

However, inventing an important witness will also have its complications. No detective will be satisfied with a feeble excuse like "I met him in a pub, know nothing about him". Any reporter worth their salt will get name, address, place of work, even follow the witness to find where he goes. A detective will know this.
Such an important witness may need to be re-interviewed in the future so no, they will not just let this unnamed witness walk away.

Inventing Mrs Paumier provides no practical gain whatsoever. The Ronay girl even less, she was only confirming a similar accosting like Sarah Lewis was involved in.

To invent a witness you need a special reason and the story needs to be of value. Neither is the case with Paumier & Ronay.

Oh, that's a cop-out I'm afraid. It neatly bypasses the issue of invented witnesses by claiming that the only reason for suggesting them to begin with is 'agenda'.

If it was not so obviously the case I wouldn't even mention it.

There is no evidence that witnesses such as Paumier e.g. ever existed. Can you tell me who they were? Where they lived? What became of them after their 'testimony'? No?

If thats the extent of your reasoning then you've just eliminted 99% of the characters across the entire Whitechapel murders - congratulations!
Do you seriously think there are no other reason's for these witnesses (anyone alive at the time actually) being untraceable in subsequent years?
I tend to think you know very well, which raises the question, why did you ask this....

You seem constantly baffled by any suspicion levelled at Hutchinson, Jon - I'm not sure why.

I can accept he might have embellished this man to make him appear more Jewish. That consideration does not allow me to then go out and brand him a liar about everything he claimed in his statement. Especially when we know nothing about him.
There may well have been reasonable answers for everything. He is being accused without the slightest shread of evidence. Thats what I find disconcerting to the point of ludicrous.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Ok, with respect to, Choosing which witness to believe, the question may be applicable to the contradictions between Mary Ann Cox and Elizabeth Prater.

In their pre-inquest statements, Mary Ann Cox said, "I returned at one o'clock and she was still singng in her room. I went out again shortly after one o'clock..."

Elizabeth Prater said she returned to Millers Court at 1:00 am and "stood at the bottom of the court until about 1:30". And then declared, "From 1 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. no one passed up the court, if they did I should have seen them".

Cox repeated much the same story at the Inquest but Prater changed her story to, "I returned about 1 on Friday morning, I stood at the corner by Mr McCarthy's shop till about 20 minutes past 1, I spoke to no-one".

Then subsequently she said:
"I went to bed at half past one - I did not hear any singing - I should have heard any one if singing in the deceaseds room at 1 o'clock, there was no-one singing"

So did Cox enter the Court at 1:00 am & leave a few minutes later without Prater seeing her both times?
And, was Mary really signing at 1:00 am?, according to Cox she was, but according to Prater she was not.

Did either of these women tells lies?, just mistaken, or is the truth more like neither of these women knew what the real time was?

Regards, Jon S.

[Abby Normal]

The mere fact that hutch presented his descriptions of the interactions between himself,mary and A-man in "script" form,i.e. as direct quotes, complete with stage direction- indicates a fabrication. Who remembers exact things that were said three days later and presents them to police like that. Why would he even take note of such innocuous details?

I guess with his omnipotent perception, see in the dark vision, and photographic memory, we need to add tape recorder memory.


And yet this paragon of perception is not aware of Mary's death until 3 days later.

[Ben]

Another good example there, Bridewell. Thanks for that.

Hi Jon,

Your approach to press sources is decidedly inconsistent. You’re bezzie mates with them whenever they feature an article implicating your favourite “well-dressed” man, despite the articles in question being bogus and almost universally rejected as such, and you’re quite happy to champion as accurate an erroneous detail that everyone else in the world knows was misreported in the Daily News. But then when it suits your case, the pressman all seem to wear the black hats again, and they're suddenly the bad guys in the equation.

I see you’re still trying unsuccessfully – always so terribly unsuccessfully – to suggest that Bond’s time of death was the reason behind Hutchinson’s discrediting, which it provably wasn’t. There is nothing remotely wrong with the Star’s reporting. They didn’t lie for the sheer, deeply illogical thrill of it. They obtained their information from the police, who clearly believed – as the vast majority of modern commentators believe (including you, ironically!) – that Kelly was murdered later than Bond’s estimate. It’s been drummed into you enough times now that the police are not duty-bound to accept and endorse a doctor’s opinion purely as a goodwill gesture to a fellow professional. The evidence of Prater and Lewis is mutually supportive of a later time of death, if the cry of murder is anything to go on, and realistically speaking, it is.

Do you believe the murder was committed at 1.00am? My guess is that you don’t. My guess is that you’ve reasoned out that the best evidence supports a later time of death. What, then, is so unusual about the contemporary police arriving at precisely the same conclusion that the vast majority of “ripperologists” have arrived at since, and the Star simply finding out about this and commenting on it at the time? Unless you can provide satisfactory answer to that question, I very much fear that you are once again out of luck with this particular topic.

The fact that the Star specified "shortly after 3.00 o'clock" is irrelevant. It demonstrates at the very least that they did NOT support the 1.00am-2.00am suggested by Bond. Anyway, "shortly after 3.00 o'clock" isn't remotely inconsistent with Cox's evidence. She passed the house at 3.00am before returning home, at which point she was in no position to determine whether or not a murder was being committed "shortly" thereafter. The fact that she didn't hear a cry is only evidence that it wasn't loud enough to travel further than her nearest neighbours above (Prater) and Lewis (opposite). Cox lived at the opposite end of the court.

“If both Dr.'s Bond & Phillips contributed to the report the estimated time of death may also have been agreed on by both.”

But we know they didn’t agree on the time of death, so…

Ben

[Ben]

“Fringe thinking is extremist. Something which is extremist includes that which has no supporting evidence.”

In which case, and with respect, your views on what has and does not have “supporting evidence” seem distinctly fringey to me.

“If you care to look this up, with respect to the Wednesday sighting Lewis actually said, "a Gentleman passed us..". Interestingly Lewis does not describe "Widewake" as a Gentleman, just a man.”

That’s because Lewis did not have any conversation with the wideawake man and was not, therefore, in a position to know whether or not he was “gentlemanly” in speech or manner. Not that Bethnal Green man needed to be, of course. I recall doing jury service several years ago and listening to a policeman giving evidence on the arrest of the suspect – “I arrested the gentleman”. Naturally, the defendant was anything but. Lewis said nothing about the suspect that particularly announced the “gentleman”, which isn’t to say he wasn’t one, but he certainly wasn’t the Astrakhan man, and it is fairly obvious that he had nothing to do with the murders.

“Nothing of the sort (and you know it).
Your own Star actually tells you what I have been telling you for months, Mrs Kennedy was an original source.”

Don’t tell me what I know and don’t know please, Jon. Mrs. Kennedy was one of the “half a dozen” women discovered by the Star newspaper to have parroted Lewis’ account. It doesn’t matter if there was confusion on 10th November as to who was the originator of the story. It quickly emerged that it was Sarah Lewis, thanks to the inquest. That’s a given, and so anyone whose “eyewitness account” was both suspiciously similar in content to Lewis’ AND discarded before the inquest MUST have been one of the plagiarizing woman referred to in the Star. There is absolutely no other explanation. Any doubt as to who was the parroter and who was the parrotee was quickly dispelled by Lewis’ appearance at the inquest and Kennedy’s non-appearance.

Kennedy sank blissfully without trace, and has largely remained that way in the mainstream. Philip Sugden’s explanation for the Kennedy/Lewis “similarity” ought to put the matter beyond dispute, and it can be found (for any interested parties) in the first few pages of his book.

“They were either the same woman, or they were together when they witnessed events.”

No. Most emphatically no.

If they were the same woman, her 10th November press disclosures, false claims, alias and contradictions would have injured her credibility to the extent that she could not have been called to the inquest as a credible witness, and the idea that they were two separate people with identical experiences is so unutterably improbable that it isn’t worth going into.

Mrs. Kennedy was a false witness who copied Lewis’ genuine account – there is no realistic alternative. Sorry.

Regards,
Ben

[Sally]

I was explaining to you that all the transcripts are edited, or incomplete, even the official documents.
The best way to make yourself aware of every detail is to compare the Coroner's version with every reporters version. Whether it be the complete publications published in the Times, or Daily Telegraph, and even the extracted version in any number of the smaller papers who might only print the highlites from a selection of witnesses. They are all important.

Yes, I am quite familiar with all of this, thanks Jon. And you are right in that one may obtain a 'fuller' picture from reading the press reports (which are not inquest records, by the way) as well as the inquiry transcript if both are available. Whether that's a better picture depends on your perspective. The difference is that we may be reasonably sure that the transcript is correct; the reported speech appearing in the papers may, or may not be.

Reporters certainly dress-up stories (thankyou Curious, for those examples), but Sally, surely if a reporter is going to invent a witness in a murder investigation there must be a substantial reason for doing so.

Yes, I see that you insist that the press would not, could not have invented witnesses to sell papers, but I'm afraid I don't see why not. Of course they could. And what special reason would they need? You think the Paumier story trivial, and so don't think it can have been invented? It feeds the public imagination, hints at all sorts of dark secrets, and leaves the readership wanting more. Sorry, but if you think a story like that wouldn't intrigue the reading public, you underestimate the human taste for gossip. At the same time, the story is just vague enough to provide a way out if the press were required to verify it later on.

I'm glad you are inclined to allow that Mrs Kennedy may have existed

Only because I know that Sarah Lewis had Kennedy neighbours at one point in her life - it could of course be pure coincidence, but it may at least be an indication that this witness, at least, had a basis in reality.

However, inventing an important witness will also have its complications. No detective will be satisfied with a feeble excuse like "I met him in a pub, know nothing about him". Any reporter worth their salt will get name, address, place of work, even follow the witness to find where he goes. A detective will know this.

Splendid. But what happens if said witness was allegedly disinclined to provide such details? What's this detective going to do about that? Nothing? Right. It would be easy to get out of it if you were a reporter who had made up a witness. The detective might think you were a time-waster perhaps, or perhaps he'd accept that the 'witness' simply hadn't given those details that allowed them to be followed up.

Curious is right in suggesting that some of these press witnesses may have been real people who gave an alias - I accept that. But we cannot know that - so they have to be taken with a pinch of salt in my view.

If thats the extent of your reasoning then you've just eliminted 99% of the characters across the entire Whitechapel murders - congratulations!
Do you seriously think there are no other reason's for these witnesses (anyone alive at the time actually) being untraceable in subsequent years?
I tend to think you know very well, which raises the question, why did you ask this....

Don't be silly Jon - of course my reasoning doesn't eliminate 99% of 'the characters across the entire Whitechapel murders'. Very many of them can be independently verified in the record. As I say, most people leave a trace, if you know where to look. I am quite aware of all the issues, pitfalls, and problems in tracing individuals in the historic record. It can be difficult - and I still say that if there is not a single scrap of a trace at all, then there's a problem.

And speakiing of unreliable witnesses...

I can accept he might have embellished this man to make him appear more Jewish. That consideration does not allow me to then go out and brand him a liar about everything he claimed in his statement.

Ok, so Hutchinson might have 'embellished' Astroman. That makes his account unreliable. Straight off. And that is one of the reasons why people doubt the rest of his statement.

You are correct in that his embellishment of his 'Jewish appearance' man does not automatically make everything he said a lie. Quite right. But it does make people suspect that to be the case.

And it isn't just that. It's the apparent inconsistency between what he says and what he does that causes the problem. Those things are a matter of record, not opinion. As we have no official explanation for his behaviour, of course we must theorise.

There may well have been reasonable answers for everything. He is being accused without the slightest shread of evidence. Thats what I find disconcerting to the point of ludicrous.

And what would those answers be? In your opinion you may be able to explain away his curious behaviour; but it doesn't mean that you are correct. You say that there is not evidence for accusing him - of what? If you mean murder, then of course not. There is no hard evidence for accusing anybody of murder in this case, that's why it remains unsolved. If you mean for being untruthful, I'm afraid I must disagree. No, it doesn't make him a killer. It does make him a suspicious character whose motives are unknown to us. As such, of course he is going to be of interest to people who study the case.

Especially when we know nothing about him.

Ah, but that's not true, is it? We know that he called himself George Hutchinson, claimed to be a single, former groom who walked from Romford to Whitechapel, and was staying at the Victoria Home at the time of Kelly's Murder. Some people of course think that we do know who he was. But if you don't, ask yourself why he hasn't been identified? Maybe he had an alias? Maybe he never existed to begin with?

I think we've come full circle - so to return to the purpose of the thread, I think the reliable witnesses are the ones we have no obvious reason to doubt at our current state of knowledge

I say that because I didn't have reason to doubt Cadosche until recently - now I confess, I do wonder...

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, I am quite familiar with all of this, thanks Jon. And you are right in that one may obtain a 'fuller' picture from reading the press reports (which are not inquest records, by the way) as well as the inquiry transcript if both are available. Whether that's a better picture depends on your perspective. The difference is that we may be reasonably sure that the transcript is correct; the reported speech appearing in the papers may, or may not be.



Yes, I see that you insist that the press would not, could not have invented witnesses to sell papers, but I'm afraid I don't see why not. Of course they could. And what special reason would they need? You think the Paumier story trivial, and so don't think it can have been invented? It feeds the public imagination, hints at all sorts of dark secrets, and leaves the readership wanting more. Sorry, but if you think a story like that wouldn't intrigue the reading public, you underestimate the human taste for gossip. At the same time, the story is just vague enough to provide a way out if the press were required to verify it later on.



Only because I know that Sarah Lewis had Kennedy neighbours at one point in her life - it could of course be pure coincidence, but it may at least be an indication that this witness, at least, had a basis in reality.



Splendid. But what happens if said witness was allegedly disinclined to provide such details? What's this detective going to do about that? Nothing? Right. It would be easy to get out of it if you were a reporter who had made up a witness. The detective might think you were a time-waster perhaps, or perhaps he'd accept that the 'witness' simply hadn't given those details that allowed them to be followed up.

Curious is right in suggesting that some of these press witnesses may have been real people who gave an alias - I accept that. But we cannot know that - so they have to be taken with a pinch of salt in my view.



Don't be silly Jon - of course my reasoning doesn't eliminate 99% of 'the characters across the entire Whitechapel murders'. Very many of them can be independently verified in the record. As I say, most people leave a trace, if you know where to look. I am quite aware of all the issues, pitfalls, and problems in tracing individuals in the historic record. It can be difficult - and I still say that if there is not a single scrap of a trace at all, then there's a problem.

And speakiing of unreliable witnesses...



Ok, so Hutchinson might have 'embellished' Astroman. That makes his account unreliable. Straight off. And that is one of the reasons why people doubt the rest of his statement.

You are correct in that his embellishment of his 'Jewish appearance' man does not automatically make everything he said a lie. Quite right. But it does make people suspect that to be the case.

And it isn't just that. It's the apparent inconsistency between what he says and what he does that causes the problem. Those things are a matter of record, not opinion. As we have no official explanation for his behaviour, of course we must theorise.



And what would those answers be? In your opinion you may be able to explain away his curious behaviour; but it doesn't mean that you are correct. You say that there is not evidence for accusing him - of what? If you mean murder, then of course not. There is no hard evidence for accusing anybody of murder in this case, that's why it remains unsolved. If you mean for being untruthful, I'm afraid I must disagree. No, it doesn't make him a killer. It does make him a suspicious character whose motives are unknown to us. As such, of course he is going to be of interest to people who study the case.



Ah, but that's not true, is it? We know that he called himself George Hutchinson, claimed to be a single, former groom who walked from Romford to Whitechapel, and was staying at the Victoria Home at the time of Kelly's Murder. Some people of course think that we do know who he was. But if you don't, ask yourself why he hasn't been identified? Maybe he had an alias? Maybe he never existed to begin with?

I think we've come full circle - so to return to the purpose of the thread, I think the reliable witnesses are the ones we have no obvious reason to doubt at our current state of knowledge

I say that because I didn't have reason to doubt Cadosche until recently - now I confess, I do wonder...

In Swansons report on the Chapman murder he as good as rules out the evidence of Cadosch and the witness who apparently saw Chapman talking to a man. Swanson relies on the doctors evidence which suggests she was killed up to two hours before these witnesses came into the picture.