Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[Malcolm X]

According to himself, Hutchinson was not the last person to see Kelly alive, Mr Astroman was. That, surely, is the whole point.

The term 'interrogation' does not indicate, suggest, nor imply that Hutchinson was considered a suspect by anybody. The term 'interrogation' simply means a formal or official questioning - what might be expected of a police officer interviewing a witness.

Simple.

i'm not sure about that, if the police question you informally you still have to be very careful, just in case you suddenly become a suspect, they're pretty damned good at catching you out, they can tell if you're guilty with just one very careful well disguised question, it's when they're being nice and friendly that you have to watch out

Wickerman has a point here, because for GH to not become a suspect, (if he was JTR), he'd need to be extremely careful that Abberline didn't trip him up.

but it's not just Abberline catching him out, he also has to make sure that he doesn't make Abberline suspicious either, and this isn't the same thing.

[Monty]

They only had Hutchinsons word on Astrakhan Sally,

Therefore Hutchinson by his own admission was the last to see Kelly alive.

True, Abberlines interrogation of Hutchinson may not be as a supstect however the fact Abberline himself spoke to Hutchinson is an indication he felt a need to do that. Its a natural course.

I'm not stating Abberline felt Hutchinson was Kellys killer, I'm stating that he would be treated as a key witness and, due to circumstance, a degree of suspicion would have been attributed to him.

Monty

[Sally]

According to himself, Hutchinson was not the last person to see Kelly alive, Mr Astroman was. That, surely, is the whole point.

The term 'interrogation' does not indicate, suggest, nor imply that Hutchinson was considered a suspect by anybody. The term 'interrogation' simply means a formal or official questioning - what might be expected of a police officer interviewing a witness.

Simple.

[Malcolm X]

ok lets say Abberline interrogated him at length, what does this tell you about the rediculous description of LA DE DA, because this looks totally wrong regardless, if he interrogated him ``so well`` in the first place, why did he dismiss him as unreliable later on.

no sorry, none of this makes sense !

[Wickerman]

Bang on Jon,

And as Hutchinson places himself, at that monment in time, as the last person to see Kelly alive means he would have been interviewed as a suspect, hence Abberlines 'interrogation'.

It would seem Abberline could find no discrepncies during this interview which, alas, is missing.

I feel if this report had survived, there wouldn't be this intense posting on Hutchinson.

Monty

Yes, and because someone threw the damn thing out I am the only one standing in his corner....
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Yes, and thanks for the interrogation=suspect, missed that little gem.

Regards, Jon S.

[Monty]

Bang on Jon,

And as Hutchinson places himself, at that monment in time, as the last person to see Kelly alive means he would have been interviewed as a suspect, hence Abberlines 'interrogation'.

It would seem Abberline could find no discrepncies during this interview which, alas, is missing.

I feel if this report had survived, there wouldn't be this intense posting on Hutchinson.

Monty

[Wickerman]

....We were talking of Abberline report, which is all about identification,

Dave.
The statement we concern ourselves with is a voluntary statement made by Hutchinson at Commercial St. You may refer to this as Abberline's report, but it is not. Abberline had no role in making this statement.

Voluntary statements are not influenced by the police. They do not question and do not interrogate the witness. Hutchinson used his own words with no prompting, as a result only the details he thought relevant were included.
This voluntary statement was signed by Badham, witnessed by Ellisdon and authorized by Arnold.
Abberline had nothing to do with it.

A detective was dispatched with this statement from Commercial St. to Scotland Yard. Abberline, Moore & Nairn were present when it arrived.
Abberline likely returned to Commercial St. to conduct the interview.

Abberline interrogated (his words) Hutchinson but the record of this interrogation does not exist, it has not survived. You have been telling me that Abberline was not told about the Sunday morning, yet the document which would include this issue does not exist.

Voluntary statements typically do not contain all the details an investigating officer requires, hence the need for the interview (interrogation).
Abberline will sit down with Hutchinson's voluntary statement and use this as a guide to the interrogation. He will read it back line by line and ask Hutchinson to expand on specific details the police need to be expanded.

Take a look at those pre-inquest "voluntary" statements to the police, prior to the Inquest. They are naturally short on detail. It is the Coroner's duty to interrogate the witness to expand on anything he thinks relevent, no different with Abberline.

So the report which Abberline now writes, and in greater depth and more detail will certainly contain information on what Hutchinson did after he left Millers Court, and the Sunday morning sighting, if it happened.

But, as I said earlier, we do not know what was said between Abberline and Hutchinson, the interrogation file no longer exists.

What we have is only the initial voluntary statement made by Hutchinson, before his interrogation. The fact he did not think to include other details which the police would deem relevant is not evidence that he lied. In fact that merely demonstrates why a subsequent interrogation is required.
All a voluntary statement is, is a document which captures the immediate point of concern. It is up to the investigator to either discard it if they have no interest, or pursue it via a detailed interview.

All Hutchinson was concerned about was telling what he saw that night, it is the duty of the police to expand on that in a later interview/interrogation.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

analogy

Hello Caroline. Sorry for the slow response, but my fingers were in my ears whilst articulating a certain phrase.

If we see a lad in a trench coat today and there is an uneven contour around his waist, we begin to think he has a gun or bomb. Not a bad assumption--may or may not be correct.

If we saw the saw figure transported back through time, say, 150 years, the assumption may have less force, but possibly greater farce.

See where I'm heading?

Cheers.
LC

[Malcolm X]

.
Let's stick our fingers in our ears and repeat: There were no serial murders on the streets of Whitechapel in 1888

Love,

Caz
X

if anything is crazy then this definitely is, let alone GH

[Malcolm X]

Hello Malcolm.

.
What did "JTR" look like?


LC

Not sure, because nobody knows what GH looled like.

[DVV]

Well, Caroline, I find equally ironic that you have yourself written Hutch-related posts on this very thread.
Extremist views prevent to "narrow down Ripper-facts", I agree, but then the Sunday sighting believers are extremists, imo.
Countering a theory make some more biased than any theorist, sometimes.

Anyway, when people doubt there was a serial killer, when they say Stride isn't a Ripper victim, or that the GSG has nothing to do with the murders, there seems to be no fact we can narrow down.

[caz]

I find it ironic that on a thread concerned with narrowing down some Ripper 'facts' we have the Hutch fanciers again indulging in baseless speculation about a witness they know virtually nothing about, beyond what he claimed in his statement, and what Abberline claimed to find believable. We even have someone at t'other extreme, stating as fact that there was no serial killer: "if one buys into the lone serial killer rot..."

For those of you who appear to have completely lost the plot, may I suggest you open your own new threads, respectively:

Let's hang Hutchinson and bugger the facts

Let's stick our fingers in our ears and repeat: There were no serial murders on the streets of Whitechapel in 1888

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

no problem

Hello David. Sorry, no methodological problem here.

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

The statement is all about what Hutchinson saw that night, from begining to end. Not where he was before, nor where he went after. Certainly not an unsure sighting on Sunday. You do recall he did say he was not sure. Abberline is only concerned with what a witness is sure about.



Walking around all night, and not being able to enter the Victoria Home is also not part of the police statement, and only appears in the press. Yet both points are used against him in constructing this 'liar' hypothesis.

If it suits 'the purpose' press stories are accepted, if something appears in the press which contests 'the purpose', it is rejected.
What do you think Hutchinson had to gain by suggesting he saw this character on Sunday morning? - that needs considering.



The alternative is to believe the police were naive beyond belief.
Lewis describes a man loitering opposite the court just before her murder and Hutch comes forward to admit it was him, ....and they treat him as a star witness?
In such circumstances what Hutch claimed to do and where he went after 3:00 am is of prime importance, yet nothing of that nature appears in his statement, why?

They had to have a good reason not to throw him in the slammer. If Hutch truely was JtR, he would leave the area and lay low like he did every other time. The police had the best description yet of JtR (by Lawende), so coming forward (if Hutch looked like Lawende's suspect) was unbelievably stupid, and that means the police not to recognise him also had to be unbelievably stupid.
The scenario just does not hold water.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Wicker

What do you think Hutchinson had to gain by suggesting he saw this character on Sunday morning? - that needs considering.

To bolster his claims that he could identify what he looked like and where he lived and increase his chances of being seen as an important witness and increase his chances of being paid by the newspapers and police.

[DVV]

Hi Lynn

"What is totally ridiculous is, LA DE DA leaving a crime scene dressed like that at 5 to 6am"

How do we know he left then?

Because he didn't feel like spending the whole day in the room, I presume.

My guy? Well, no one who is supposed to be "Jack the Ripper is my guy." But if one buys into the lone serial killer rot, Levy is one of the least bad suspects I've seen.

Your old methodological problem again.