Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[Malcolm X]

Hello Malcolm.

.
What did "JTR" look like?


LC

Not sure, because nobody knows what GH looled like.

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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 !

[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.

[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

[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.

[DVV]

Jon, Neil, any evidence Hutch told Abberline that he had seen the man again in Petticoat Lane ?
It's pretty clear he did not.

[Wickerman]

Walter Dew, an officer who was actively engaged on the case, not only rejected Hutchinson’s account, .......

Walter Dew does not at all support your flawed hypothesis.
Dew makes it abundantly clear he thinks Hutchinson made a mistake, "not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time".

Does that sound like he is calling Hutchinson a liar?

Also:
"And if Mrs Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchinson erred also? This, without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view"

Does that sound like he is calling Hutchinson a liar?

......he went further and stated it as his belief that Blotchy was the killer.

Which supports what I wrote recently, Bond's medical report to Anderson caused the change in focus for the Met. Swanson had to shift gears and relegate the Hutchinson investigation in favour of the Blotchy investigation.
The police do not drop anything, they merely changed priorities, that is all.
Dew's opinion only supports such a conclusion.

Anderson, too, undermined Hutchinson’s credibility when asserting that the Jewish witness used to make the Seaside Home identification was ‘the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’.

Correct, as the investigation wound down, over the years, Anderson realized that Bond may have erred. That Kelly had actually died later around 4:00 am, and Hutchinson left the scene one full hour before she was killed. Therefore Hutchinson's suspect was not necessarily the killer.
If Anderson still thought Blotchy was the killer, Cox would have been his "witness".

Agreed, Jon. And this selectivity of ‘evidence’ explains why your arguments continually fall on deaf ears.

I am not looking for support. I merely demonstrate where these flawed theories come undone.

Would you care to substantiate this statement?

Ok, maybe I was wrong there. Maybe Jack the Ripper just stood over the bodies waiting for the police to arrive.

Given that Lawende openly admitted that he would be unlikely to recognize Eddowes’ companion again, the description he provided was almost certainly inaccurate. The killer thus had little to fear from Lawende.

If Hutchinson fit the description he wouldn't just walk into a police station and pretend to be the last man to see the murdered woman alive. He is an automatic suspect, and he looks like the previous killer?

You're joking of course.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

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.
Regards, Jon S.

No, Jon. There is nothing missing here.

Abberline interrogated Hutch, took notes, and from these notes wrote the report we all know, and that we all can read and re-read (Sourcebook pp 377-378).

Read it again, then, and you'll see it was the perfect place to refer to the Sunday sighting.

Again, it wouldn't have been completely off-topic in the statement either...

Nuff said. It's up to you to believe Hutch had met the Ripper twice within three days - and still, without coming forward.

But you cannot suspect Abberline of being so gullible without evidence, can you ?

[Wickerman]

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.

He practically rubbed noses with the guy, he didn't need to make further claims. If he appears too confident the reporter will simply say, "come on then lets find him, and you'll never need to work again" .

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

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 !

Hutchinson was never dismissed as unreliable.
Read Bond's murder analysis, you'll see the most likely reason for the shift in the investigation. It had nothing to do with Hutchinson's veracity. Anderson would believe the sky was red if Bond told him so.
One dead body and one firm medical conclusion as to time of death and any singular contrary witness testimony is left in the dust.

Regards, Jon S.