The Red Handkerchief...

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“Okay, Ben, so an innocent Hutch might also have had reason to give evasive answers to Abberline about his own movements and motivations, but you are still presuming his answers were evasive, and there is no evidence for that.”

But more conspicuously, nor is there any evidence that the police even asked the questions that some of us today insist must have been asked, and which Hutchinson must have provided convincing answers to. The idea that it was all neatly cleared up “off-record” doesn’t bear scrutiny, since Abberline was obliged to reveal such details to his superiors (as opposed to keeping them to himself for no good reason). As it stands, the official “reason” for Hutchinson’s 45-minute vigil on Dorset Street was his alleged preoccupation with a man of such an appearance associating with Kelly, and before we’re tempted to reject the idea on the grounds that a detective as brilliant as Abberline “couldn’t possibly” have fallen for such a thin excuse, reflect that other witnesses had previously admitted to loitering on the street at the time of their sightings, with no good reason for being there, and apparently without being quizzed or censured about it – William Marshall of Berner Street being a notable example.

“On the other hand, if Hutch gave clear, detailed explanations to those questions, in line with his clear and detailed witness account, it would make perfect sense of Abberline's brief report, concentrating on the latter after stating his opinion that it was truthful.”

But they could still have been bogus explanations, despite how “clear” and “detailed” they may have been – the point being that Abberline could only accept these explanations on faith. It’s one thing to provide superficially convincing excuses for loitering outside a murder scene shortly before that murder was committed, but quite another to demonstrate the truthfulness of those excuses. Unfortunately, Abberline sent his thumbs-up message to his bosses before any time had elapsed in which to investigate them.

Once those investigations had been conducted, the result was a “very reduced importance” attached to Hutchinson’s account, which according to the Echo was prompted by his failure to come forward earlier. This cannot have been the only reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting, for reasons Garry has pointed out, and it may even have been a minor contributory factor designed to conceal more important grounds for doubt over Hutchinson’s truthfulness. What the Echo articles do reveal, however, is that the diminished importance was due to doubts about his credibility. If a failure to come forward in time for the inquest is cited as a reason for according a witness a “very reduced importance”, I fail to see how it cannot concern the issue of credibility.

Of one thing we may be certain, and that is that the police informed the Echo – rightly or wrongly - that it was Hutchinson’s late presentation of his evidence that resulted in the reduced importance alluded to. It wasn’t the Echo rushing to their own erroneous assumptions and passing them off as accepted police wisdom, as you’ve recently suggested, or else there wasn’t a hope in hell of the police receiving them the following day at Commercial Street police station, (after they brazenly lied about the opinions of, and actions taken by, the “authorities”), and supplying them with accurate information. It would also be decidedly odd if the Echo extrapolated from the ongoing Blotchy-hunt that Hutchinson had been ditched, unless they couldn’t get their noggins around the idea of more than one eyewitness account being treated as important, which is extremely unlikely.

“If they were furious with Hutch for spilling the beans they might well have wanted the press to think it was all a flash in the pan, while quietly carrying on their enquiries.”

Well no, because the 13th November Echo article pre-dated any knowledge on the part of the police that Hutchinson had “spilt the beans” to the press. The “bean-spilling” article was published in the morning papers on the 14th, and may account for the less equivocal language we see in that evening’s edition of the Echo. Gone are the “seems” and “it appears” from 24 hours earlier, to be supplanted with “considerably discounted”, downgrading further to “now discredited” in the next morning’s edition of the Star. Evidently, the embellishments and contradictions that appeared in his unsanctioned press account had undermined his credibility further, i.e. after the initial seeds of doubt were sewn during Hutchinson’s walkabout with the police.

Even though you might have considered it a prudent move on the part of the police to keep press, public and killer in the dark about which witness accounts were being taken seriously, such an approach was evidently not adopted in practice. They made no particular secret about the fact that Packer and Violenia had been ditched as unreliable, so why they change tactics and resort to subterfuge with Hutchinson? I accept your point regarding the use of “disinformation” to mislead the killer, but that surely would not have extended to the police pretending that every bit of rubbish purporting to be eyewitness evidence was being treated as genuine and accurate?

If they secretly considered Hutchinson the star witness but wished to conceal that information for whatever reason, there were surely better ways of going about it than character assassination; inventing a “problem” with Hutchinson’s late evidence and then allowing a newspaper to publish that fictional gripe at the expense of Hutchinson’s credibility. If I was innocent old Hutch in that situation, I’d be ruing my decision to help the police!

No, the modern rejection of the Echo reports seems to rely on the idea of the police resorting to highly irrational smoke-and-mirrors tactics (when the discrediting of yet another bogus witness was no biggie in the grander scheme of things), or the press lying about the decisions taken by the “authorities” and then being inexplicably invited back for another audience with the police. Neither explanation works for me.

“Abberline did not need to judge that statement truthful, and would have looked a right twit to do so, if his colleagues or superiors at the time would have found it so hellishly unlikely that anyone of that description could exist, or would have chosen to kill prossies in the East End dressed like a cheap Del Boy or Joey Essex - very possibly from the Old Clothes Market, Petticoat Lane. This was not toff gear.”

It exuded opulence, and was about the last impression anyone sauntering those streets would have wished to convey, least of all the most wanted man in London. It doesn’t matter how phoney that watch chain may have been in reality, it was the real deal from the perspective of an ostensibly average local Joe like Hutchinson, and it is doubtful that any mugger in the locality would have thought differently. It is "hellishly unlikely", irrefutably so, but then so were mutilating, eviscerating serial killers to the police of 1888. The sheer novelty of the phenomenon may have made the police allow for the extraordinary in other aspects of areas of the man’s existence beyond his murderous activity, such as his appearance.

If we’re worried about the supposed unlikelihood of Abberline falling for such a whopper, reflect that his Klosowski-the-ripper theory is no less whacky than the image of an ostentatious toff or toff-wannabe ripper allowing a witness to stoop down and peer at his mug before allowing that witness (potentially a plain clothes copper or vigilance committee member) to follow him to his intended murder destination…with its single entrance/exit.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Roy,

Well, there's another thing he knew, too. He knew the inquest was over, that it concluded in one day.

Knowing that, he felt more confident coming forward. Because the inquest was over and done. If the Mary Kelly inquest were to continue more sessions, such as the other inquests into his murders, some of which ran several days, then he might be required to attend the inquest as a witness.

He wouldn't want that.

Indeed not. I will be accused of horrible bias, but yours strikes me a very sensible "thought", and certainly one I hadn't before considered.

Hi Jon,

Well, I cheerfully admit defeat on one point at least. It appears that the 14th November press version of Hutchinson’s account had indeed copy and pasted, so to speak, from the police-circulated description that appeared in the papers the previous day. With the exception of “gaiters” being substituted for “spats”, it does appear to be a verbatim quote, and I chastise myself severely for having failed to notice it until now.

You realise what this means, of course?

Yep, that’s right, it means that all those claims about Hutchinson being so consistent with his evidence and relaying “at least forty” points of corroboration can now be dismissed as false, especially if we accept your argument that it was the police who engineered the publication of his description on the 13th. In which case, the similarity between the original statement and the press version was not the result of Hutchinson himself providing “points of corroboration” on two separate occasions (JohnG’s words), but rather an entire description pilfered from a publicly available source that the police had circulated.

Whoops.

What also emerges from your eagle-eyed discovery is that the only parts of the description that weren’t copy-and-pasted were pure embellishments – details that did not appear in either the original statement or the 13th November description.

“Certainly I think the killer was a "respectably dressed" male, middle-aged, well educated, local, living by himself.
You trying to say I am keeping it a secret?”

Heavens no, Jon. On the contrary, you allow your fixation with this suspect-type to creep into most, if not all your posts to Casebook, specifically with regard to eyewitnesses and the Kelly murder, and an unfortunate by-product of this is a tendency to trivialise genuine sightings of the likely ripper; Lawende’s in particular is pooh-poohed by you all-too-frequently, owing to the not-so-“respectable” appearance of the man he described.

“And no, I don't suspect Druitt, nor do I suspect Thompson, but I believe they are nearer to the class of the actual killer than Blotchy.”

And you’re more than welcome to that belief. Most people would disagree, though, and for good reason.

“Ah, so when Hutchinson adds detail, it's because he's lying, yet when Sarah Lewis does it, it's because she was tired”

No, I’m simply observing that the circumstances under which Sarah Lewis was compelled to provide evidence (i.e. confined within the same court in which the brutal murder of her near neighbour had been committed hour earlier) were not present when Hutchinson came forward, and the latter’s embellishments in no way compare to Lewis’s in terms of detail and quantity. Oh, and Lewis attended the inquest and was never discredited, at least not as far as anyone is aware, unlike Hutchinson.

“Yes, the reporter obtained the extra information because he asked questions, not asked by Badham.”

Which would make the latter desperately incompetent, and Abberline equally so for forwarding an incomplete and largely worthless document to his superiors. Interesting theory. Badham has become your convenient whipping boy, I notice.

"Appears", "seems?, you mean they are not sure?
Didn't the police give them a firm statement, what kind of source was this that shares vague opinion?”

They couldn’t provide a “firm statement” in the absence of proof that Hutchinson fabricated his story, as I’ve explained a great many times. But if the necessary caution exhibited on 13th doesn’t quite do it for you, there is always the much “firmer” statement that appeared in the same newspaper the following day, presumably in light of even later “investigation”, which observed that Hutchinson had been:

"...considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest in a more official manner"

It is a fact that the Echo received accurate case-related information from the police at Commercial Street police station on the 14th November, as proven on numerous occasions,...

That was public knowledge, as has been demonstrated many times.

No it wasn’t, and no, it hasn’t been “demonstrated”, let alone “many times”.

“No-one alive today knows what the procedure was in 1888, the opinion previously given reflects the method used today.”

No, it doesn’t.

It reflects that particular poster’s valuable and knowledgeable opinion with regard to the likely “methods” adopted in 1888, and you do him a great disservice by implying that he offered an entirely irrelevant, non-applicable piece of information. He related his experience because he considered it applicable to Hutchinson in 1888. His opinion was very obviously that Hutchinson's information was elicited using a "question and answer" format, which was then transcribed into statement form, and not, as you appear to envisage, by Hutchinson delivering a lengthy monologue which some poor policeman had to scribble down at furious speed. In fact, I'd venture a guess that "your” method of obtaining eyewitness testimony has never happened at any point in police history, given how hopelessly and comically impractical it would be to implement.

Nor will he be impressed by your rejection of his expertise on the grounds that he is not a “police historian”. I can only wonder at what excuses you might come up with should a “police historian” support the conventional (i.e. contrary to your own) understanding of the means by which interrogators extract information from witnesses.

“Daily Reports have nothing to do with suspect interrogations, anything contained in the Daily Reports is superficial at best.”

And this obviously wrong assertion is based on what knowledge, Jon? You continue to trivialise the role of Donald Swanson, which involved the collation of all paperwork associated with the case. It really wasn’t a case of “You boys on the ground solve the case, and drip-feed us superficial fag-ends of information if and when you decide they are important enough to warrant our scrutiny”, despite what you appear to envisage. If the sole purpose of Abberline’s report was to “account for his time”, as per your hilarious suggestion, then why would he forward an original document such as the actual statement of George Hutchinson? Please think about it. All paperwork was fed up the hierarchal chain which, shockingly enough, did not stop at Abberline.

"I went to the court" does the same, Sgt Badham had no idea someone a hundred years later would misinterpret what he wrote.”

The misinterpretation is all yours, and yours (reassuringly, and as-per-usual) alone, if you think going “to the court” meant he actually went through the Miller’s Court passage. As others have sought to impress upon you, Hutchinson made a clear distinction between “to the court” (outside the entrance on Dorset Street) and “up the court” (entering the court itself). Just read the original statement again:

“I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away”

Are you suggesting that Hutchinson stood inside the court for three quarters of an hour? And what do you mean the press “cleared that up”? Cleared what up? According to press versions of his account, Hutchinson went “up” the court and stood there for “a couple of minutes”. To almost everyone else, this is a blatant contradiction, but do explain why you think the two accounts correlate.

“Abberline added a footnote to the end of Sarah Lewis's statement, alluding to the fact she did offer other observations not included in the above statement.”

Whereas no such footnote was appended to Hutchinson’s statement; only a few extra details that did not affect his credibility one way or the other.

“The fact Abberline said he had to interrogate Hutchinson tells us that he held suspicions about him, or his story. We do not know what those suspicions were, that is all.
What ever they were, Abberline's suspicions were satisfied.”

The use of the word “interrogate” does NOT imply that he “held suspicions”. It was necessary to interrogate anyone presenting themselves as a witness in order to separate genuine informants from fame-seekers, and since the latter had been particularly prevalent throughout the investigation, it was all the more essential to ensure that Hutchinson did not belong in that category. In addition to which, it might be remembered that Abberline was communicating with his superiors, and “interrogate” reads slightly better than "had a chinwag over tea and hobnobs with...". But even if Abberline did have suspicions, he cannot possibly have resolved them as a result of an interrogation. In the absence of any time to conduct an investigation (at that stage), Hutchinson’s claims could only have been accepted on faith.

“That being the case, there are a number of unknown witnesses out there who were slated to appear.”

Says you without any evidence, but even if you were right, the idea that the most important witness would have been withheld from the first “sitting” is quite clearly nonsense. Make no mistake, if Kennedy really was believed by police to have last seen Kelly herself at 3.00am on the morning of her murder, she would have been the last witness to have seen the victim alive, and would piddle all over Cox and Lewis in terms of “importance”. And yet, according to you (and only you), her evidence was not considered valuable enough to merit an appearance at the “first” inquest and then wasn’t used altogether. Unless we’re happy with the idea of a particularly cretinous police force and coroner, I think we can safely ditch that theory.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Yes, actual EVIDENCE, as opposed to opinion.

Oh, that's funny Jon. I might have to bookmark that one.

I'm starting to wonder if you're entirely serious....

[Garry Wroe]

Now that you have received your mistake served up on a silver platter, I don't see any way you can.

My mistake?

My mistake?

This just keeps getting better and better.

Should you ever decide to resume this line of argument, it may be advisable that you FIRST locate something tangible that actually places Abberline AT Commercial Street Station at 6:00 pm on 12th Nov.

Ah, that’s it. When you’ve lost the argument, and your dignity to boot, simply respond by attributing to other posters views which they neither hold nor have expressed.

Go on, then, produce the quote in which I stated that Abberline was at Commercial Street at six o’clock.

Yes, actual EVIDENCE, as opposed to opinion.

You might care to remember that sentence when you next resort to an argument based upon fantasy and wishful thinking.

[Roy Corduroy]

This being a George Hutchinson suspect thread and all, a thought occurred to me:

His suspect status is based on that after murdering the other victims, George Hutchinson lurked on Dorset Street and murdered Mary Kelly. Then the day of the inquest he walked up to Shoreditch Town Hall, where he spotted the woman (Sarah Lewis) who had seen him on Dorset Street that night, and he feared she had testified about the lurking man. Him.

So immediately Hutch came forward to give a cover story to the police. And fooled the police doing that.

Well, there's another thing he knew, too. He knew the inquest was over, that it concluded in one day.

Knowing that, he felt more confident coming forward. Because the inquest was over and done. If the Mary Kelly inquest were to continue more sessions, such as the other inquests into his murders, some of which ran several days, then he might be required to attend the inquest as a witness.

He wouldn't want that.

Roy

[Wickerman]

You don't seriously think I'm going to continue with this nonsense, do you?
.

Now that you have received your mistake served up on a silver platter, I don't see any way you can.

Should you ever decide to resume this line of argument, it may be advisable that you FIRST locate something tangible that actually places Abberline AT Commercial Street Station at 6:00 pm on 12th Nov.

Yes, actual EVIDENCE, as opposed to opinion.

[Garry Wroe]

You don't seriously think I'm going to continue with this nonsense, do you?

Anyone with an atom of moral fibre would concede that they'd been in error, apologize to those they'd maligned, and show a little more humility when entering into similar debates in the future.

Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath.

[Wickerman]

Ah, the distraction tactics once again.

If I contact Stewart it will be to elicit his opinion on your insistence that witnesses determined the structure and content of police statements.

Don't be surprised if Stewart doesn't ask you, "what did Jon actually say?".

The problem is that your ‘evidence’ was nothing of the kind. It was an incomplete newspaper report. The part that you’d neglected to include clearly stated that it was the description of Astrakhan that had been issued from Commercial Street, not the witness statement. This was described as a message, and it was sent to Leman Street rather than Central Office as you maintained.

Ok, lets play it your way, though I fail to see how this helps your argument.
Forget the Statement, lets just agree it was the "description" that was sent to HQ.

Hutchinson's statement, including the description, covered two and a half pages. The description was written on the lower half of page two, following the statement. Written above the description are the words: "Circulated to A. S." (All Stations).

So, the statement was already committed to writing at Commercial St. while Abberline, Nairn & Moore were away at H.Q.
Then, the description was circulated, no doubt to HQ as well as all other stations.

So, we read:
"This description, which substantiates that given by others of the person seen in company with the deceased on the morning she was killed, is much fuller in detail than that hitherto in the possession of the police, and the importance they attach to this man's story may be imagined when it is mentioned that it was forwarded to the headquarters of the H Division as soon as completed by a special detective. Detective Abberline, Nairn, and Moore were present when this message arrived, and an investigation was immediately set on foot.".

We'll forget the mention of "this man's story", and that "it was forwarded to HQ", and, whether the "message" refers to the "description" or the "statement", just for the sake of this argument. Acknowledging the "description" achieves the same goal.

This "description", which was written after the "statement", (on pg. 2.), was then sent to All Stations, in the absence of Abberline, while he was away at H. Q.

Are we done?

[Wickerman]

Hey Jon

So... First you assert that Hutchinson was thoroughly questioned; and now you assert that he was inadequately questioned.

That's some U-turn - Spectacular!

Poor old Badham, demoted from competent to idiot on a whim.

Which is it going to be? Make your mind up.

I've suggested before that you quit guessing, just re-read the relevant post.

[Garry Wroe]

Hey Jon
So... First you assert that Hutchinson was thoroughly questioned; and now you assert that he was inadequately questioned.

In addition to which he wouldn’t have been questioned at all under the rules of interview. It was the witnesses, see, that determined the structure and content of the witness statement.

That's some U-turn - Spectacular!

As I said a few weeks ago:-

Your problem is that your arguments are often so illogical and at odds with the evidence that you have a tendency to change horses mid-race whilst hoping that no-one has noticed. Sometimes you even attempt to ride both horses …

Yep. That just about sums it up.

[Sally]

There is another point that nobody appears to consider. Sgt Badham was an experienced officer, he would have known the Witness Description form off by heart. This form is very detailed, here is a portion of it.



An experienced officer can ask the witness about those details; eyes, nose, hair, moustache, etc. and the end result will be a very detailed description.
The content is provided by Hutchinson, certainly, but the attention to detail of the list is mostly due to the experience of the interviewing Sergeant, who knows his job.

Hey Jon

So... First you assert that Hutchinson was thoroughly questioned; and now you assert that he was inadequately questioned.

That's some U-turn - Spectacular!

Poor old Badham, demoted from competent to idiot on a whim.

Which is it going to be? Make your mind up.

[Wickerman]

It is probably as well to point out that Stewart has already shared his opinion on the quality of the content in the statement given by Hutchinson. It is found to be inadequate for several reasons.
Neil Bell, in his recent book, Capturing Jack the Ripper, includes some of Stewarts opinions between pages 208-210.

Assuming Hutchinson was adequately questioned Stewart has observed 'poor practices' which resulted in Hutchinson not being asked to provide distances between himself and the couple, or other fixed locations which would help the police better appreciate what he saw & heard.

Also, the parcel held by the suspect is not given any dimensions, which should be important to an investigating officer due to the fact this parcel could have contained a weapon.
[Ripper Notes: Suspect and Witness - The Police Viewpoint, Evans, 2005.]

Recently, we have debated the meaning of Hutchinson's words, "I then went to the Court", which by itself is ambiguous. Badham should have asked him to clarify that.
Also, we notice Hutchinson does give the time this event began, "About 2 a.m.", but the investigating officer should have asked him when did he leave, and where did he go after that.
Simply terminating the statement with, "...I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away." is not acceptable for an investigating officer.
A statement cannot be left open ended like that.

The investigator will realize that this man could be making some of this up to give himself an alibi, he may have had a bigger role to play in this murder than he is letting on.

The investigator, fully aware that the cry of "murder" was heard between 3:30-4:00, roughly, needs to know exactly what time Hutchinson left the scene, and where did he go afterwards, who he may have seen or spoken to, anything to validate his story so the police can know his whereabouts at the time the cry of murder was heard.

Hutchinson's statement is wholly inadequate for the above reason's. Which then raises a valid question, "was he questioned at all, or just not adequately enough?".
The question is a valid one to any person who agrees with the above noted deficiencies.

[Garry Wroe]

But surely police procedures for taking witness statements may have been fundamentally different, and less formal, in Victorian England than today.

As far as I’m aware, John, the taking of witness statements remained pretty much unchanged until the relatively recent introduction of PACE. But if, as you suggest, the process was less formal in the Victorian era, this would introduce the likelihood of there having been more interaction between the interviewing officer and witness, rather than less as has been contended elsewhere.

There has been a great deal of nonsense generated on this thread of late, much of it introduced to distract from a fundamentally flawed argument supported neither by common sense nor the available evidence. This is the kind of rubbish that deters many from participating on the Hutchinson threads and even drives people from the Casebook site altogether.

I wouldn’t dwell on it too much if I were you. There are more intelligent and interesting debates to be had elsewhere.

[John G]

Hello Garry,

But surely police procedures for taking witness statements may have been fundamentally different, and less formal, in Victorian England than today. I mean, were there even any codified rules determined by legislation or codes of practice?

Even in more recent times there have been significant legislative changes in this area: see for example Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984.

[Garry Wroe]

What is up with you guy on this thread? Can't you just post without throwing in some snarky comment as well? Seriously, try to come across as adults.

I take exception to being accused of lying on the basis of zero evidence, CD. If you think that refuting such an allegation is childish, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But please don't expect me to concur.