The Red Handkerchief...

[caz]

Caz,
There is a danger in an interviewer suggesting or coaxing a witness,in that witnesses may adopt the suggestion as something that happened..

Yes I can see that. So Hutch made his statement, Badham wrote it down, then Abberline coaxed more details, or clarifications, from him during his interrogation, jotting down notes of the questions and answers before finally including anything directly relevant to the sighting and identification of Kelly in his report.

The discrepency between the police and newspaper reports may just be that a suggestion of entering the court was put by one or the other,and Hutchinson agreed simply because it made his story more convincing.

Yes, maybe, or he only then recalled doing so, as he had still not seen the couple there. Either way, not suspicious.

As to waiting for 45 minutes or so,it is reasonable to accept that he(Hutchinson) at first ,expected Kelly's companion to reappear in a reasonable time,but became convinced eventually he was staying the night.

Yes, an entirely reasonable explanation.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz
Thanks for the reply.
Hutch is already involved, He came forward. he spoke with the police and the press. hes in it, his name is known now in connection to the case so its not like hes trying to keep a low profile to begin with. And I submit to you that I don't know how many cases (a lot) Ive seen or read about where the person of interest/witnesss/suspect whatever has changed their story to an apparently more incriminating one, for what ever reason. And Im sure they would have known that in doing so the world and his wife (thanks for explaining-never heard that one before) would have known and yet they do it anyway, many because they have been spotted where they previously said they were not.

Okay, Abby. So if Hutch came forward as a result of realising that Sarah Lewis had seen him in a particular location, and therefore admitted to the police he had been in this location (while not mentioning Lewis in case they realised he had only come forward because of her), how did he then find out, between his police and press interviews, he had also been spotted right outside Kelly's window, prompting him to change his story and mention this more incriminating detail when talking to the reporter?

And even if something like this did happen, how could he be sure he had only been seen that close to the crime scene for the 'couple of minutes' he claimed to be there - unless it was the truth and he then returned to the Dorset St entrance just as he claimed, before finally walking away?

Love,

Caz
X

[harry]

Caz,
There is a danger in an interviewer suggesting or coaxing a witness,in that witnesses may adopt the suggestion as something that happened..The discrepency between the police and newspaper reports may just be that a suggestion of entering the court was put by one or the other,and Hutchinson agreed simply because it made his story more convincing.

Cox states that at 3am when she returned to the court it was raining heavily.Coincidently it must have been just prior to this that Hutchinson gave up his vigil,and walked the streets.In heavy rain? Interesting.

As to waiting for 45 minutes or so,it is reasonable to accept that he(Hutchinson) at first ,expected Kelly's companion to reappear in a reasonable time,but became convinced eventually he was staying the night.
It is not so much what Hutchinson states .it is what his story suggests that is important

[Ben]

“I'll settle for the police fobbing off the Echo with disinformation if you really prefer that to the paper indulging in unaided and illogical guesswork.”

A wise choice if I may say so, Caz, providing you accept that the “disinformation” at least hinted at the true reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting, i.e. doubts about the veracity of his account. Fobbing a newspaper off is one thing, but in this case we’re talking about a fob-off that made Hutchinson look decidedly dodgy. The police would not have embedded that idea in the minds of the Echo-reading public unless they thought he was decidedly dodgy, even if not specifically because he came forward three days late.

By "dodgy" I mean a potential fame-seeking liar, not a potential murderer.

I’m quite aware (and have stated several times) that Hutchinson’s late appearance cannot have been the primary reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting, or even a particularly important one, but that does not mean that it wasn’t considered a contributory factor. I’ve already explained why your comparison with Lawende is an exceptionally poor one, but since you didn’t address my comments (and merely repeated the comparison), I’ll have another go:

Lawende was merely a passer-by on the other side of the road, who evidently paid the couple scant attention. He didn’t see the woman’s face, and did not know the victim. The reverse is true for Hutchinson on almost every point. He had known Kelly for three years*, had seen her on the morning of her murder*, and took an unusually active and persistent interest in her movements*. He also lived a few hundred yards from the murder site, and would have learned of the murder very shortly after the discovery of the body, unlike Dalston-based Lawende who would have relied on press accounts. A “delay” in the presentation of Hutchinson’s evidence is therefore far more extraordinary then Lawende’s, given the hugely different circumstances.

(*According to the police acceptance of Hutchinson’s statement at that time, that is – just in case you ask me again how I “know” this to be true, which of course I don’t)

“If the police subsequently came to doubt his credibility, they didn't say a blessed word to the Echo or anyone else about what had changed between Abberline believing his statement to be true and the authorities in general doubting it.”

The police informed the Echo, rightly or wrongly, that Hutchinson’s statement had suffered a “very reduced importance” in light of later investigation, which had undermined his credibility. No, the police did not regale them with precise details, and nor should we expect them to have done, but the fact that the one “detail” they did provide related unambiguously to the issue of credibility should be sufficient to enervate all the other crap reasons submitted over the years for Hutchinson’s "diminished" importance, including “honest confusion” and “the trail went cold”. Don’t even contemplate reminding me yet again that the “delay” was probably a bogus reason. I acknowledge as much; the “delay” merely scratched the surface of the problems the police had with Hutchinson’s credibility, but the police would never have introduced the very theme of dishonesty unless that is what they suspected Hutchinson of.

“How did the police publicly 'malign' Hutch?”

By ensuring that it was published far and wide that they were all but ditching his account because he did not come forward for three days after the murder. It doesn’t matter if this reason was accurate or bogus; the point is that is made Hutchinson look bad.

“Right, so the police spotted that Hutch had omitted to tell them he had been right outside the victim's window that night, but they still never made any connection with Sarah Lewis's lurking man”

Since Sarah Lewis never mentioned seeing her lurking man in Miller’s Court (don’t start, Jon!), I’m uncertain of your point, but no, the police apparently never made the connection with Sarah Lewis’s man, and before you protest in horror over this observation, reflect that not a single journalist made the connection either. It just isn’t my problem, but rather a gripe you should take up with the police and press of 1888, who will probably explain that oversights of this nature are typical of major investigations. The seemingly innocuous wideawake man may well have received scant police attention in contrast to those actually seen in the company of women – Blotchy, Bethnal Green man etc.

and automatically presumed this sensational new detail meant he had been nowhere near the scene at all that night

It's a fact that the vast majority of bogus witnesses have nothing to do with the crimes they claim to be intimately associated with. It would have been a simple case of lumping Hutchinson with the vast majority of dud witnesses who turn out to be same-seekers, as opposed to the then-unheard-of category of offenders who come forward pretending to be witnesses.

“Er, it was a bogus reason, Ben. Keep up. Any "considerable lessening" was not due to Hutch's timing, for bleedin' obvious reasons, which Garry and I should not have needed to explain the first time, let alone the twentieth. Let's see if I can make it any simpler for you.”

No, let’s not.

Let’s put a little more effort into understanding my point instead.

I have explained – enough times now, with any luck – that I do not regard the “delay” as the most significant reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting; the police “fobbed” off the Echo by hinting at their general attitude towards Hutchinson, without going into specifics. Having said that, I don’t understand what trouble you appear to having with the idea that Hutchinson’s initial excuse for his delay, provided at the time of the “interrogation”, was later revealed to be bogus thanks to the "later investigations" alluded to in the Echo.

What’s this “Garry and I” nonsense I keep reading about, by the way? Garry is well aware of my position on the subject, understands that I do not regard the “delay” as the most damning point against Hutchinson in the minds of the police, and wholly shares my view that the police came to discredit Hutchinson after suspecting him of lying.

“First you have to prove the police did consider Hutch less important, before the trail could go cold, and you lack a valid reason, from an official police source, for this reduction in importance.”

I don’t “have to prove” any such thing.

It is quite sufficient for me to demonstrate the plentiful and compelling evidence in support of this conclusion.

“Hutchinson was no good to the police for identification purposes unless or until a suspect could be found who resembled the man he described with Kelly.”

Within reason, surely? As I think we discussed before, the chances of a hypothetically real Astrakhan man sporting the very same get-up again were fairly remote. The task would therefore have been one of finding someone who resembled Astrakhan in terms of height, build, facial features etc, and to that end, Hutchinson was arguably a far better bet to look over Jewish Kosminski than Lawende, whose ostensibly gentile sailor-like chap doesn’t sound much like He of the Solitary Vices at all. And yet Hutchinson was not used, and worse still (for fanciers of Hutchinson’s continued “importance”), Anderson observed that the only person to get a “good view” of the murderer was Jewish (and no, that wasn’t a lie craftily conjured up to conceal the fact that they lost track of star witness Hutchinson.)

“Also, many innocent witnesses only come forward after a deal of soul-searching, or not at all, especially if their own presence near a crime scene could compromise them in any way”

It just gets a bit interesting, though, when that period of “soul-searching” only comes to an end very shortly after the termination of the public inquest, where a lady reported seeing someone loitering near a crime scene.

“So there's nothing inherently suspicious about Hutchinson not initially thinking to mention his futile two-minute venture into the court, which produced no new info.”

It is frankly mind-boggling that should think so, but okay.

The police would certainly have been interested to hear that a couple who had entered the court a short time beforehand were later ensconced in darkness and silent, and however much soul-searching an innocent and truthful Hutchinson was likely to have engaged in prior to coming forward, he would surely have realised that such a crucial detail belonged firmly on the list of details to include in his narrative. It may have served as an important clue towards ascertaining a likely time of death (let alone a likely perpetrator).

“Either way, the police saw nothing suspicious about it.”

They undoubtedly recognised the contradiction when it was published in the press, shortly before he was non-coincidentally discredited.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Are you suggesting that Swanson did not share Anderson’s conviction that the only person to have gained a “good view of the murderer” was the Jewish witness who supposedly identified Kosminski?

That is exactly how I see it, and I am not alone in that either.

If so, don’t you consider it slightly odd that Swanson wrote those “marginal” notes in support of that conclusion;..

Swanson wrote those marginal notes in his copy in order to expand on his Boss's beliefs. That's how I read it.
Nowhere do we have a clue as to what Swanson believed.

....alluding to the fact that no ripper-like murder occurred again in London after the suspect’s incarceration?

After the identification, Ben.
Trouble is, we don't know when that identification took place.

But I’m afraid it just didn’t happen that way.

Then why waste your time with the theatrics?

Which is far more persuasive argument, Jon, and I agree with it entirely.

So this is one argument I don't expect to be raised again - good.

But I’m afraid you can’t then argue that it was only the statements that weren’t quite up to it in “olden times” whereas the interrogations conformed to “today’s standards”.

Where, have I ever said such a thing?

Maybe the latter were also “consistent with 19th century policing” but would be considered “deficient” today, just as you suggest occurred with written statements? If you agree with me, as you appear to, that Abberline did not recognise any deficiency with Badham’s statement-taking efforts, then you’ll accept that he had no cause to redress these non-existent deficiencies; which, in turn, neatly accounts for the absence of any juicy Hutch-exonerating bombshells from the report.

If you are alluding to those interrogation records/notes/jottings/responses/bullets, then no, there is no relationship between what Badham believed to be of consequence, and what Abberline believed to be of consequence.
Badham was not a Detective Officer, he was not expected to conduct the taking of the statement as if it were an interrogation.

The two are quite separate.

No, but he could have used the interrogation to clear up any grey areas or problematic issues with the statement had he detected any, and these “clarifications” would have appeared in the post-interrogation police report.

A Detective Officer can decide to conduct an interrogation regardless of what is contained in the witness statement. The Officer (Sergeant) taking the statement is not a mind reader, his duty is to take a statement which represents as faithfully as possible what the witness said.
The subsequent Detective Officer (Inspector) can, at his own will, explore any number of points that have only been lightly touched upon within the statement.
So your objection fails again.

Firstly, the missive sent by Abberline was not a “morning report” – it was a very late evening report. Secondly, the document in question was most assuredly not a list of “the particulars of all crimes within his territory during the preceding twenty four hours”, otherwise it would have been full of other crimes unrelated to the ripper murders: “cat got burgled, policeman got punched, Hutchinson made this statement, idiot got mugged for dressing too flashily etc”. That was clearly not the nature of the report, which was concerned exclusively with the Whitechapel murders investigation.

Learning as we go are we Ben?

No, that is not what is meant by a "morning report".
This was the time of day these report(s) were sent in to headquarters, it is not when they were written.

When a Superintendent is required to send in reports, in a morning (every morning), all the Inspectors under his charge are therefore required to submit their reports sometime prior, so the Superintendent can fulfill his duty.

All reports created by an Officer are to be handed in to his immediate superior, which means if Abberline created the report at Commercial St. then he submitted it to Arnold, and Supt. Arnold submits it to headquarters, which could have been the following morning.

Fair enough, just as long as we’re not using Abberline’s impression of Hutchinson’s demeanour as any sort gauge for assessing the latter’s honesty or otherwise. If Hutchinson performed convincingly during this interview/interrogation/chinwag, it was because he was either telling the truth or a half decent liar (as a minimum requirement).

Agreed, he 'could' have fooled Abberline.
Equally, just as equally, he 'could' have told the truth.
Abberline did have the means to check some of his story, not all of it, but sufficient to convince him this witness was being honest. Otherwise he wouldn't have written what he did.
On the other hand, to address your argument, there is no cause, no reason, and no substance to suggest Hutchinson lied about anything.

Your point being what, exactly? Mrs. Kennedy didn’t appear at the Kelly inquest at all, ...

As you well know, my point was to allay any fears you might have that Mrs Kennedy cannot have been believed or she would have been at the inquest.
History shows important testimony can wait for a second, third, or fourth sitting, so Mrs Kennedy just may well have been slated to appear, if the Inquest had run its intended course.

I’ve read your point again, very slowly, and I’m afraid it is very wrong.

The lies in question were very much “noticed a hundred years ago”, and evidently resulting in Hutchinson being discredited as a publicity or money-seeker; not a particularly unusual or noteworthy phenomenon during the investigation, believe it or not.

I think, if you had this evidence, you would have used it to impress your point.
As you have not thought to provide some details to prove your point, then we can accept you have none.

“Well-lighted” in comparison to other streets at night-time in Victorian London, perhaps, but it would not be considered so in isolation.

Says who?
The fact there was a lamp close to the passage indicates those who believe it was too dark to see, have not done their homework. Not a surprise given the source of the argument.

[Abby Normal]

Seems a bit harsh, Abby. (Another problem with British expressions I think.)



Even harsher. She passed out because he didn't wash it first, presumably.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Sorry-translation error-Blow off to me (in the US) means reject, ignore etc.

[Abby Normal]

Jon has kindly explained for me, Abby, but I would just add that if a cunning murderer had deliberately kept secret from the police that he had been right outside his victim's window the night she was killed, I submit that wild horses and journalists could not have dragged that detail from his lips for the world and his wife to read about over breakfast.



It's an expression - the world and his wife, meaning the world and the world's wife, as in everyone on the planet.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Thanks for the reply.
Hutch is already involved, He came forward. he spoke with the police and the press. hes in it, his name is known now in connection to the case so its not like hes trying to keep a low profile to begin with. And I submit to you that I don't know how many cases (a lot) Ive seen or read about where the person of interest/witnesss/suspect whatever has changed their story to an apparently more incriminating one, for what ever reason. And Im sure they would have known that in doing so the world and his wife (thanks for explaining-never heard that one before) would have known and yet they do it anyway, many because they have been spotted where they previously said they were not.

[caz]

Hi Jon,

...I’m sure you would much prefer Swanson to have written: “All this Kosminski nonsense is irrelevant, despite what my silly boss asserts, since the Jewish witness in question didn’t even see the real ripper, whereas star witness Hutchinson – who we’re mysteriously not using for identification purposes – did.”

Why would it be 'mysteriously' Ben? Hutch could only have been used to try and identify the person he described with Kelly. No good if the suspect they were seeking to charge or eliminate was clearly not that man. I do hope you can get your own 'noggin' round the idea that the police could investigate more than one witness sighting, involving different suspects, at the same time.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

3. Hutch again waits for Blotchy to leave, knocks on her door,but this time she blows him off and he attacks her...

Seems a bit harsh, Abby. (Another problem with British expressions I think.)

Or he is initially blown off by her, waits for her to pass out then sneaks in and kills her.

Even harsher. She passed out because he didn't wash it first, presumably.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It’s hardly an “if”, Caz.

The suggested alternative to the police providing the Echo with this information – whether as a “fob-off” or otherwise – is that Echo themselves invented the detail because they supposedly found it so unfathomable that two witness leads, Cox’s and Hutchinson’s, could be pursued simultaneously. The fatal flaw in this proposal, though, is that the police granted the same newspaper an interview at the Commercial Street police station the following day, i.e. after being made fully aware that the same journalists had brazenly falsified the police position regarding Hutchinson’s evidence. If we do the sensible thing and reject such a palpably absurd scenario, we’re obliged to accept that the police informed the Echo that Hutchinson’s discrediting was due to the late presentation of his evidence, even if it was "disinformation".

It's hardly an "if" here then, Ben. I'll settle for the police fobbing off the Echo with disinformation if you really prefer that to the paper indulging in unaided and illogical guesswork.

I don’t see how it can be suggested that a failure to come forward for three-days is not a “problem” that relates to the witness’s credibility. If an account suffers a “very reduced importance” for that very reason, as claimed by the police to the Echo, what other inference can there be besides the obvious one – that the lateness of the evidence invited suspicion that the story might be bogus?

Blimey Ben, how many more times? His account did not suffer for 'that very reason'. If it wasn't the Echo making it up as they went along, it was the police fobbing them off with a bogus reason - Garry's 'red herring' of a reason - that was self-evidently no reason at all. Hutch came late with his evidence, while Lawende, and Robert Paul before him, both stayed away until tracked down, yet all three gave what was initially considered to be important evidence, despite its lateness, so it's nonsense to believe this factor subsequently 'invited suspicion' that Hutch's story alone had been invented. If the police subsequently came to doubt his credibility, they didn't say a blessed word to the Echo or anyone else about what had changed between Abberline believing his statement to be true and the authorities in general doubting it.

Even if it was a fob-off – and I totally agree that the “delay” alone cannot have been anything like the most important reason for discarding Hutchinson – the true reason(s) must have been concerned with the witness’s credibility, or else they would not have maligned him publicly.

You're doing it again, Ben. How did the police publicly 'malign' Hutch? He was the one who came late to the party and that was no secret. If, as you prefer, it wasn't the Echo creating impressions of their own, the police merely gave them what everyone already knew. It was the paper's silly fault for thinking the lateness of his evidence would have reduced its initial value overnight from gold to dust.

The subterfuge tactics occasionally adopted by the police to lull the offender into a false sense of security would not have extended to making a genuine, honest witness appear as dodgy and worthless as possible, which is unquestionably the impression created by the Echo on 13th and 14th.

Ah, so it was an impression 'created by the Echo', that Hutch was 'dodgy and worthless'. As you were then.

He had known Kelly for three years, had seen her on the morning of her murder, and took an unusually active and persistent interest in her movements. He also lived a few hundred yards from the murder site, and would have learned of the murder very shortly after the discovery of the body...

And you know all this how?

...he could simply blame any embellishment or contradiction on the interviewing journalist. In the event, of course, the police did spot the contradictions, with the result being Hutchinson’s discrediting as a publicity-seeking witness, without being turned into a suspect.

Right, so the police spotted that Hutch had omitted to tell them he had been right outside the victim's window that night, but they still never made any connection with Sarah Lewis's lurking man, and automatically presumed this sensational new detail meant he had been nowhere near the scene at all that night, rather than thinking for one tiny second that they ought to investigate such an admission and reassess his claimed status as a mere witness? Do you really think this is a likely scenario, never mind the likeliest?

To the point of inventing a bogus reason for that “considerable lessening”?

Er, it was a bogus reason, Ben. Keep up. Any "considerable lessening" was not due to Hutch's timing, for bleedin' obvious reasons, which Garry and I should not have needed to explain the first time, let alone the twentieth. Let's see if I can make it any simpler for you. Hutch comes forward before the inquest but attends in filthy clothes and smells of rotten cabbages. His evidence is considered truthful and important and enquiries get under way. Not long afterwards the Echo reports that the authorities now consider his evidence to be much less important because he gave it while 'looking like a tramp and humming to high heaven'.

By the way, the “trail growing cold” is not a valid reason for considering any witness less “important”. If the police believed a witness to have seen the real killer, it hardly becomes that witness’s fault that the killer hasn’t been caught. The trail went cold for Lawende too, but that didn’t stop the police from using him to look over Sadler, Grainger and probably Kosminski, instead of Hutchinson, who alleged a far better view and description of the presumed killer than Lawende did.

First you have to prove the police did consider Hutch less important, before the trail could go cold, and you lack a valid reason, from an official police source, for this reduction in importance. Hutchinson was no good to the police for identification purposes unless or until a suspect could be found who resembled the man he described with Kelly. Clearly he wouldn't have been able to identify the man Lawende described, while Lawende would have been useless if faced with Hutch's suspect. Even if such a suspect had eventually come to their attention, the police could have done nothing if Hutch had been moving from place to place without keeping them informed. They would hardly have been able to keep tabs on him indefinitely.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

There is a deal of difference between a trained observer,such as a policeman,and a person of the labouring class.
There is no doubt that had a policeman been the witness,instead of Hutchinson, the witness statement,should and would have contained more detail.A policeman would have made notes at the earliest opportunity,on which to refresh his memory.A policeman would have been alerted at the first sighting of Kelly,and this alertness would have increased,when she met and walked back with AM.A policeman would have reported as soon as possible'
So Hutchinson's account can be expected to be inferior,and the exclusion of detail merely one of inexperience on his part.He may have been asked questions he was not able to answer.

Hi Harry,

Good observations there. Hutchinson was just a witness and, as Stewart similarly observed in his dissertation, witnesses - not being policemen - often need to be coaxed into providing details they didn't think to include unbidden. Also, many innocent witnesses only come forward after a deal of soul-searching, or not at all, especially if their own presence near a crime scene could compromise them in any way, Blotchy being a prime example if he was an innocent punter or companion of Kelly's.

So there's nothing inherently suspicious about Hutchinson not initially thinking to mention his futile two-minute venture into the court, which produced no new info. Whether Abberline coaxed this detail from him under interrogation, or he only thought to add it for the reporter's benefit, is anyone's guess. Either way, the police saw nothing suspicious about it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

hold on a second Caz

I thought you and wick have been arguing there was no contradiction between Hutchs police and press version?

Jon has kindly explained for me, Abby, but I would just add that if a cunning murderer had deliberately kept secret from the police that he had been right outside his victim's window the night she was killed, I submit that wild horses and journalists could not have dragged that detail from his lips for the world and his wife to read about over breakfast.

and whos his "wife"?

It's an expression - the world and his wife, meaning the world and the world's wife, as in everyone on the planet.

Love,

Caz
X

[Rosella]

But Ben, Hutchinson doesn't claim to have been standing at the corner of Dorset St. In his statement he says 'They both went into Dorset St. I followed them. They both stood at the corner of the court for about 3 minutes'.

Then comes the exchange which Hutchinson claimed to have observed and overheard of Mary assuring her client that he would be comfortable, him kissing her and, afterwards giving her his red hanky.

We don't know where Hutchinson was during this exchange. He may have been on the corner, he may have been lurking much nearer, though he probably tried to be inconspicuous, he might have been over the other side of the street. We just don't know.

However, if Hutchinson is to be believed, he must have standing within eye and earshot. After they disappear up Millers Court he says he went to the court to see if he could see them but could not, so he must have been nearby but not in the immediate vicinity if Mary had time to whisk Astrakhan Man indoors.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Are you suggesting that Swanson did not share Anderson’s conviction that the only person to have gained a “good view of the murderer” was the Jewish witness who supposedly identified Kosminski? If so, don’t you consider it slightly odd that Swanson wrote those “marginal” notes in support of that conclusion; alluding to the fact that no ripper-like murder occurred again in London after the suspect’s incarceration? I’m sure you would much prefer Swanson to have written: “All this Kosminski nonsense is irrelevant, despite what my silly boss asserts, since the Jewish witness in question didn’t even see the real ripper, whereas star witness Hutchinson – who we’re mysteriously not using for identification purposes – did.”

But I’m afraid it just didn’t happen that way.

“If you had bothered to read my argument, you would know that the statement was deficient compared with today's standards, it may well have been consistent with 19th century policing.”

Which is far more persuasive argument, Jon, and I agree with it entirely.

But I’m afraid you can’t then argue that it was only the statements that weren’t quite up to it in “olden times” whereas the interrogations conformed to “today’s standards”. Maybe the latter were also “consistent with 19th century policing” but would be considered “deficient” today, just as you suggest occurred with written statements? If you agree with me, as you appear to, that Abberline did not recognise any deficiency with Badham’s statement-taking efforts, then you’ll accept that he had no cause to redress these non-existent deficiencies; which, in turn, neatly accounts for the absence of any juicy Hutch-exonerating bombshells from the report.

“He can't alter it”

No, but he could have used the interrogation to clear up any grey areas or problematic issues with the statement had he detected any, and these “clarifications” would have appeared in the post-interrogation police report.

“Daily Reports were a requirement.
"Every morning at ten o'clock a "morning report" is sent in to Scotland yard by each divisional superintendent, stating the particulars of all crimes within his territory during the preceding twenty four hours. These reports - representing perhaps from sixty to a hundred crimes every morning - are laid before the Assistant Commissioner who has now taken control of the Criminal Department instead of the "Director." "
(This was from early September, pre-Swanson)”

Firstly, the missive sent by Abberline was not a “morning report” – it was a very late evening report. Secondly, the document in question was most assuredly not a list of “the particulars of all crimes within his territory during the preceding twenty four hours”, otherwise it would have been full of other crimes unrelated to the ripper murders: “cat got burgled, policeman got punched, Hutchinson made this statement, idiot got mugged for dressing too flashily etc”. That was clearly not the nature of the report, which was concerned exclusively with the Whitechapel murders investigation.

“So you are coming around to accepting this interrogation?
Earlier you told me he only used the term to impress his superiors, now you tell me he was required to interrogate the witness.”

I use “interview” and “interrogate” interchangeably, and only selected the latter in this context because it was the word Abberline used. Yes, I continue to suspect that his choice of expression was governed by a desire to convey a strong impression to his superiors, and not because he treated Hutchinson’s statement with any more scepticism than previous witnesses.

“No-one said anything about proving it, all we have is Abberline believing him.
So, an impression is sufficient for him to draw that conclusion, true or false.”

Fair enough, just as long as we’re not using Abberline’s impression of Hutchinson’s demeanour as any sort gauge for assessing the latter’s honesty or otherwise. If Hutchinson performed convincingly during this interview/interrogation/chinwag, it was because he was either telling the truth or a half decent liar (as a minimum requirement).

“Good grief Ben, Abberline DID listen to Hutchinson, but YOU do not accept that Abberline could have drawn his conclusion from words alone - now you say it the best way???

Previously, you have insisted the story had to be proven, which he had no time to do on Monday night.”

Drawing a conclusion is not the same as procuring proof, Jon. Abberline may have concluded, initially, that Hutchinson was telling the truth - ideally on the basis of what Hutchinson said, not how he said it – but he was still a very long way off from proving it accurate. I conclude, on the basis of the evidence, that Hutchinson lied to the police out of self-preservation after he realised he had been seen by Sarah Lewis, but I’m not claiming to have proved it.

“How important is testimony bearing on time of death?
Both Mrs Long and Albert Cadosch only appeared on day 4 of the Chapman inquest - DAY 4 Ben!
Oh, and Lawende & Levy, the only ones to presumably see Eddowes - DAY 2!

Be honest, you did not check, did you.
Point proven, I take it.”

Your point being what, exactly? Mrs. Kennedy didn’t appear at the Kelly inquest at all, despite the certainty that hers would have been by far the most important eyewitness testimony had it been treated as truthful and accurate. So important would her evidence have been that even if it didn’t appear at the first “sitting”, for whatever reason, the authorities would have ensured that a second “sitting” occurred if only to facilitate the taking of her statement on oath. If they decided to truncate the Eddowes inquest (again, for whatever reason) – as opposed to stretching it out over more than on session – do you think the authorities would have permitted a situation in which Lawende’s evidence did not appear at all? The answer is very obviously no.

“If you read my point again, slowly this time:

"Ben thinks he has found "lies" told by Hutchinson that no-one else was able to find a hundred or so years ago".

Lies no-one else noticed a hundred years ago!”

I’ve read your point again, very slowly, and I’m afraid it is very wrong.

The lies in question were very much “noticed a hundred years ago”, and evidently resulting in Hutchinson being discredited as a publicity or money-seeker; not a particularly unusual or noteworthy phenomenon during the investigation, believe it or not.

“The handkerchief was no doubt easily seen due to the lamp on the wall directly adjacent to Millers Court passage.”

Um, well, I doubt it very much, actually.

“Well-lighted” in comparison to other streets at night-time in Victorian London, perhaps, but it would not be considered so in isolation. Hutchinson claimed to have been standing at the corner of Dorset Street at the time of the alleged hanky sighting; too far away to register the colour red on such a small surface area, in poor lighting conditions, and for such a fleeting moment.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

The handkerchief was no doubt easily seen due to the lamp on the wall directly adjacent to Millers Court passage.

"Dorset street is a fairly wide thoroughfare, and at night, owing to the lamps in the windows and over the doors of the numerous lodging-houses, it may be described as well-lighted. Miller court is approached by an arched passage not more than three feet wide, which is unlighted, and from this passage open two doors leading into the houses on each side. The house on the left hand side is kept as a chandler's shop by a respectable man named M'Carthy, to whom also belongs the house in the court in which the crime was committed. The court is a very small one, about 30 feet long by 10 broad. On both sides are three or four small houses, cleanly whitewashed up to the first floor windows. The ground floor of the house to the right of this court is used as a store, with a gate entrance, and the upper floors are let off in tenements, as is the case also with M'Carthy's house. Opposite the court is a very large lodging-house, of a somewhat inferior character. This house is well lighted and people hang about it nearly all night. There is another well frequented lodging-house next door to M'Carthy's, and within a yard or two to the entrance to the court is a wall lamp, the light from which is thrown nearly on to the passage."
Irish Times, 10 Nov. 1888.