Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Abby Normal]

Let’s put to bed once and for all the erroneous argument made by a couple of posters on this thread that Abberline’s 1903 interview is somehow evidence that Hutchinson was discredited by the police in 1888.

Making this claim over and over in a series of short smug posts does not make it true.

Here is the relevant passage from the rather brief interview Abberline gave about Klosowski/Chapman to the PMG, 24 March 1903, quoted in its entirety:


“the height of the man [Klosowski aka Chapman] and the peaked cap he is said to have worn quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him. All agree, too, that he was a foreign looking man, but that, of course, helped us little in a district so full of foreigners as Whitechapel. One discrepancy only I have noted, and this is that the people who alleged they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man a man about thirty-five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it easy to misjudge age from a back view.”

That’s it, folks.

Yes, believe it or not, this brief general observation is what supposedly proves that Hutchinson was discredited by the police and dropped like a red-hot penny—even by Abberline himself.

This is also what one poster calls Abberline’s “extensive” interview about witnesses.

No, Abberline does not mention Hutchinson by name. He also doesn’t mention Schwartz, Elizabeth Long, Joseph Lawende or anyone else by name. Does that mean they were similarly discredited?

One poster likes to imply that by mentioning a “peaked cap” Abberline is plumping for Lawende, which (illogically) means that he must be dismissing Hutchinson.

This, I’m afraid, is not only a bad argument but also a complete misunderstanding of the background of the interview. The PMG interviewer states explicitly that Abberline was contacted in response to a story that had appeared the previous day (March 23rd) in the Daily Chronicle. That article stated:

“Moreover he, [Chapman] always carried a black bag and wore a ‘P. and O.’ cap. The man who was ‘wanted’ in connection with the Whitechapel murders always wore a ‘P. and O.’ cap and carried a black bag according to the tale of some of the women who escaped him.”

So, in mentioning the alleged peak cap of the Ripper, Abberline is merely alluding to the ‘P. and O.’ cap mentioned in the previous day’s edition of the Daily Chronicle, as well as depictions of Chapman published at the time of his 1903 trial for poisoning, that portrayed him wearing the peaked naval cap of the employees at the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

That’s all it refers to. It is not meant as a ‘dismissal’ of Hutchinson, who is not mentioned one way or the other. Nor is it even an endorsement of Lawende, as it refers to various WOMEN who supposedly saw the Ripper.

Note also that Abberline’s comment that the Ripper’s age was supposedly misjudged because witnesses only saw his back. This is a memory of Elizabeth Long, who described the Ripper as “over forty,” even though she had only seen his back as she passed through Hanbury Street. The Hutchinson theorists like to pretend that this must mean that Hutchinson was discredited, because he saw his suspect straight in the face. But if that were the case, they would have to similarly conclude that the police also dismissed Lawende, because Lawende also saw the Ripper straight in the face. But we know this is not true; Lawende was still being used as a witness well after 1888, ie., in his attempt to identify the suspect William Grainger. He is also one of the main male witnesses to describe the peaked cap alluded to earlier.

So, in other words, it’s another bad argument.

If anything, Abberline’s brief statement is an endorsement of Hutchinson as a witness. “All agree, too, that he was a foreign looking man” Abberline states. This certainly applies to Hutchinson, who was one of the main witnesses to describe the Ripper as a foreigner.

No; only a crazed “Ripperologist” would try to argue that these general remarks quoted by a newspaper man 15 years after the Whitechapel murders in direct response to the Daily Chronicle piece are more valuable than a direct statement by Abberline in an official report filed 12 November, 1888, where he directly states that Hutchinson is to be believed. It is a ridiculous line of reasoning, unworthy of someone using any recognized historical approach.

In other words, the PMG piece in no way is evidence that Hutchinson was discredited.

As late as 1930, Hargrave Lee Adam, describes Hutchinson as a valuable witness. Adam was not a member of the Metropolitan police, but he did know Macnaghten and Anderson, and, if he can be believed, seems to have discussed the Klosowski theory with Abberline. His acceptance of Hutchinson would be strange had any of these men dismissed Hutch as a proven liar. Indeed, one could even argue it is evidence that Abberline still endorsed Hutchinson years later, as Adam directly links Hutchinson’s suspect with Klosowski.

Contemporary image of Klosowski showing the peaked-cap

Hi RJ

So, in mentioning the alleged peak cap of the Ripper, Abberline is merely alluding to the ‘P. and O.’ cap mentioned in the previous day’s edition of the Daily Chronicle, as well as depictions of Chapman published at the time of his 1903 trial for poisoning, that portrayed him wearing the peaked naval cap of the employees at the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

oh he is ? but not all the witnesses who described a man wearing a peaked cap the night of the double event?

it refers to various WOMEN who supposedly saw the Ripper.

right and last time I checked hutch wasn't a man either.

Note also that Abberline’s comment that the Ripper’s age was supposedly misjudged because witnesses only saw his back.

but wait! I thought hutch got a great view of his face?

If anything, Abberline’s brief statement is an endorsement of Hutchinson as a witness. “All agree, too, that he was a foreign looking man” Abberline states. This certainly applies to Hutchinson, who was one of the main witnesses to describe the Ripper as a foreigner.

no. he said he had jewish appearance. nothing about being a foreigner.

“the height of the man [Klosowski aka Chapman] and the peaked cap he is said to have worn quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him. All agree, too, that he was a foreign looking man, but that, of course, helped us little in a district so full of foreigners as Whitechapel. One discrepancy only I have noted, and this is that the people who alleged they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man a man about thirty-five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it easy to misjudge age from a back view.”

so lets see how Aman tallies up:
peaked cap no. hutch does Not describe a peaked cap.
he was a foreign looking man nope-never says this either.
only saw his back wrong again-hutch got a great view of his face.

As late as 1930, Hargrave Lee Adam, describes Hutchinson as a valuable witness. Adam was not a member of the Metropolitan police, but he did know Macnaghten and Anderson, and, if he can be believed, seems to have discussed the Klosowski theory with Abberline. His acceptance of Hutchinson would be strange had any of these men dismissed Hutch as a proven liar. Indeed, one could even argue it is evidence that Abberline still endorsed Hutchinson years later, as Adam directly links Hutchinson’s suspect with Klosowski.

Whos Hargrave Lee Adam? LOL.

and how does "Adam directly links Hutchinson’s suspect with Klosowski" anyway?


so yes lets take some second hand nobody over Abberlines own words that the witnesses suspect he refers to dosnt match up with Aman.

If this is your

recognized historical approach

Ill pass.


Not only does abberlines references to the witness descriptions NOT match up with Hutchs Aman, his silence on hutch and his suposedly stellar suspect speaks volumes.

[Wickerman]

I do not think that Hutch or Aman are the Ripper. I am on the same thinking that Hutch made the story of Aman up to sound like a good samaritan. A man who walked 14 miles from Romford is not going to stand around for too long in the cold dark streets of Whitechaple.

So what if Mary did not come out her home on after saying goodnight to Blotchy? Her clothes were neatly placed on a chair and her boots beside the chair in front of the fire. I doubt she would have gone out without any boots or shoes on. Would the Killer having seen the neatly placed clothes on the chair, take of Mary's boots and put them were the Police found them, in order to look like she did not go out? It would have been easy for her just to throw a coat or a shawl over herself if she was only wearing her night clothes/under garments, but as she only seemed to be wearing a chemise when she was found on her bed, I now doubt that she never did go out. So it may mean the Ripper could have been known to her and made his own way into the room, or she was not killed by the Ripper, or thirdly the Ripper was exceptionally bold and walked up the Court and Mary Jane invited him in. Who is to say Blotchy didn't walk into the Ripper and tell him that there's pretty good girl up that court? After all Blotchy had a few and was in good spirits so to speak.

The wearing of the chemise appears to hold some significance for you in deciding whether Kelly returned to the street.

Were you aware that other victims also wore their chemise under their day clothes?
This was not a case of Kelly being dressed in her night clothes for bed. The bed & room were not warm & cosy. Both men and women of her class slept fully clothed.
It is just as likely Kelly undressed to entertain, not to sleep. She was then killed by her client.

[Sam Flynn]

"Whos Hargrave Lee Adam?"

A prolific early 20th century true crime writer. He wrote The Trial of George Chapman for the "Notable British Trials" series, published in 1930.

[Abby Normal]

"Whos Hargrave Lee Adam?"

A prolific early 20th century true crime writer. He wrote The Trial of George Chapman for the "Notable British Trials" series, published in 1930.

thanks Sam!

[rjpalmer]

The parcel also contained a brown kid glove, smeared with similar stains on both sides. Osborne found a constable, and together they searched for the mysterious individual, but without success. The parcel, says the paragraph, was handed to the City police authorities, "who, however, attach no importance to the matter." What on earth could be more important, after the statement made by the man Hutchinson and quoted above?"

I've often mused about Mr. Osborne. Obviously the City police would have attached GREAT importance to the story and would have investigated it thoroughly. Personally, I think this is precisely why blithe dismissals by the Echo and others about alleged police opinion can't be taken seriously without confirmation in the police files.

[Wickerman]

I’ve never understood this. She was a prostitute, he was a client, they were heading for the warmth of Mary’s room. Why did they stand talking in the street for three minutes? It makes little sense to me.

Aman might have hesitated to enter the passage.
Hutchinson did not hear what Aman said to Kelly, he may have been reluctant to enter the passage thinking she was only going to offer him a quick knee trembler in a dark alley.
Her reply seemed to be aimed at pacifying her client, she told him she will make him comfortable. Implying a bed we might assume.

[Leighton Young]

That sounds very reasonable... still would like to know why he was out and about and also why he was so interested in mary kelly.... do you remember the book the ripper and the royals... there was a lot of unsubstantiated claims in there but their was a good bit about hutchinson and i would like to know the varacity if that..

[Herlock Sholmes]

Surely most clients wouldn’t be expecting a bed for the night though. And if he was after more than just a knee-trembler why would Mary have waited until they’d got to Miller’s Court before she informed him of the fact that she had her own room? After all they’d been walking and talking for a while.

[Wickerman]

That sounds very reasonable... still would like to know why he was out and about and also why he was so interested in mary kelly.... do you remember the book the ripper and the royals... there was a lot of unsubstantiated claims in there but their was a good bit about hutchinson and i would like to know the varacity if that..

I have that book but it's years since I read it.
I don't recall what was written about Hutchinson, only that there is a photo of a man named Hutchinson, and he was known as "Toppin", supposedly this was thee George Hutchinson.
I don't contest that identification, I just don't think he got £5 for his troubles, from the police.

[Wickerman]

Surely most clients wouldn’t be expecting a bed for the night though.

I'm not sure where "a bed for the night" comes into it. I can't see her offer being anything more than an hour. Then she will be out for another client.

And if he was after more than just a knee-trembler why would Mary have waited until they’d got to Miller’s Court before she informed him of the fact that she had her own room? After all they’d been walking and talking for a while.

If this was her regular pitch, likely most of her clients knew what to expect due to her price?
So she assumed Aman also knew where they were going?

[Wickerman]

Good point Herlock,
However, if we accept your point as logical, then surely it is just as logical that a very drunk Mary entering the court with Blotchy would be extremely unlikely to venture out again.

Mary was very drunk.

She and Blotchy had a carry out and clearly intended to drink some more.

It was rainy that night.

Why on earth do people think that she was in any fit state to venture out again that night?

These details are easy to overplay, especially by theorists who do not want to accept that she could have gone out again.
Kelly wasn't that drunk that she couldn't reply to Cox clear enough to be understood.
Interestingly, those who want her to be "very drunk" never quote Cox's exchange with the coroner.

[Coroner] - You say she was drunk ?
[Cox] - I did not notice she was drunk until she said good night.

So Kelly was not so drunk that she couldn't walk straight - Cox followed behind her from Dorset street, and could not tell she was drunk by her staggering around, or bouncing off the walls of the passage.
So, not really as drunk as some try to make out, only apparent from her speech.

Then there's the pot of ale, which may not have been full, and Blotchy may not have shared it anyway.

As for the rain, these people were not soft like modern couch-potatoes who dare not leave the house without an umbrella.
Being out in the rain was just par for the course for these hardened East enders.

[Ben]

Hi RJ,

Unfortunately, Wickerman’s argument that Hutchinson’s lodgings were anywhere other than the Victoria Home fails very badly because it was that establishment, and no other, that was referenced in his police statement. All other witnesses connected with the case had their address recorded for the nights of their experiences. Hutchinson would certainly not have been any different.

Furthermore, the Victoria Home was the only lodging house to close its doors to those without a pass or bed ticket before Hutchinson’s alleged arrival time in Whitechapel, in accordance with his newspaper claims that you accept as accurate. If you want to plonk him anywhere other than the Victoria Home, good luck finding a lodging house near Dorset Street which closed its doors before 3.00am.

There is no evidence that the press interview took place at the Home. Indeed, it would have made precious little sense for the police to draw attention to any particular place of residence at such a time; a pub at least would have struck a neutral chord. That said, even if the interview was conducted at the Victoria Home, there is absolutely no reason why he can’t have described it as his “usual lodgings” while he was there.

Sorry, but this is not a theory that will ever receive mainstream traction, for very good reason.

As I’ve already mentioned, sheer numbers precluded any question of Hutchinson’s “goose” being “cooked” simply for arriving home in the small hours, in common with a great many others. The traffic both in and out of those doors would have been extensive throughout the night and morning, ensuring that scant attention was paid to any one of them.

It’s worth mentioning also Stephen Senise’s discovery of a reference to outdoor lavatories and washing facilities situated at the Home’s rear entrance, a stone’s throw from the Alice McKenzie murder scene. A more suitable and remote location for a clean-up would be difficult to envisage.

I don’t recall Anderson, whose knowledge of serial crime and its perpetrators was zero, ever dismissing common lodging houses as viable bolt-holes, but any such comments are worth considering in the context of his failure to catch the killer (or even be in the country at the relevant time).

Doss houses were ideal in a great many respects, not least because they enabled their inmates to become needles in haystacks. Why else did they enjoy such a notorious reputation for playing regular host to the “vicious, semi criminal” element within the district? Why did Sadler’s attackers bolt straight into a doss house after the offence?

Lodgers at these establishments would often eat offal in the absence of funds for choicer cuts; as such, any unpleasant looking meaty treats in a lodging house kitchen after hours would not have caused any great stir.

All the best,
Ben

[c.d.]

Surely most clients wouldn’t be expecting a bed for the night though. And if he was after more than just a knee-trembler why would Mary have waited until they’d got to Miller’s Court before she informed him of the fact that she had her own room? After all they’d been walking and talking for a while.

A couple of thoughts -- Mary might have offered a bed for the night but then surely her price would have been higher. Why not let the client make the choice? Wouldn't it have been better to have a client for the night at a higher price than to finish with one client and immediately have to go out and look for another?

According to Burnett, Mary was quite afraid of the Ripper. Perhaps she wanted to size the client up first before divulging she had a room.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

How else would Abberline confirm that Hutch's sighting was the early morning Kelly died except through the sighting of the woman? Tell me.You would not just ask the person "Was your sighting Friday" and if he said yes then you accept?

I don't disagree with the point you are making, but you are making it with the wrong statement.

Hutchinson did not mention Lewis in his initial police statement, because it was not necessary for him to establish his presence, he was merely reporting an incident.
Once his statement was received, we read what happened next...

"......it was forwarded to the headquarters of the H Division as soon as completed by a special detective. Detectives Abberline, Nairn, and Moore were present when this message arrived, and an investigation was immediately set on foot."

From the meagre details we have it is clear that Abberline came from Scotland Yard to Commercial street to interview Hutchinson.
If Hutch had to establish his presence beyond any reasonable doubt, it was with Abberline at this interrogation. No record of what was said at this interrogation has survived.

This, is where he will mention the woman who came down the street.

[Trevor Marriott]

Does anyone feel that the removal of victim’s body parts, and the subsequent need to ‘store’ them counts against the Ripper living in a communal dosshouse?

What "evidence" do you rely on to believe the killer removed the body parts ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk