Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Garry Wroe]

I realize Garry invented this mysterious telegram (he did say, "if memory serves", apparently not this time), but the actual fact is the written message was taken by special Detective.
So, anyone care to produce anything, by anyone, to support this fictional telegram?

Invented? Fictional? I don't take kindly to baseless attacks on my integrity, Jon. Continue and I'll report the issue.

I don't mind debating the written word with anyone, but when people resort to inventing a telegram, when the actual record states, "...it was forwarded to the headquarters of the H Division as soon as completed by a special detective." then someone has some explaining to do.

As ever, Jon, you take one unsubstantiated report from a newspaper which appears to support your argument and treat it as factual. Worse still, you then denigrate anyone who dares to question the said information. To call this approach unscholarly would be an understatement.

I first began researching Hutchinson and his part in the Ripper case in the mid-Eighties. I dare say that no-one has researched this man to anything like the length and depth as I have done over the decades. Perhaps this is something you ought to remember the next time you're tempted to demonstrate the extent of your Hutchinson-related knowledge. It would also help if you knew a little of the police procedures in place at the time of the Ripper murders. But then, given your track record involving the Gallaghers, Kennedy as a primary witness, nonexistent sightings by Sarah Lewis, unique inside knowledge of Anderson's innermost thoughts, claims of a completely honest Metropolitan Police Force, assertions regarding the admission policies of the Victoria Home and the fantastical proposition of Isaacs as Astrakhan, why should I expect any better?

[Wickerman]

Otherwise known as Leman Street police station, Jon.

Yes Ben.

Yes, it does.

The statement and the accompanying report provide all the answers to the questions you pose, and the press versions of his statement provide additional information, not immediately relevant to his credibility.

Oh dear, then I can trust you to fill in the answers:
- Precisely what time did you leave Dorset St.?
- When you left Dorset St., where did you go, who did you meet, and can anyone confirm this?
- What was the reason you stood outside Millers Court for so long?
- Why did you not come forward earlier?
- What exactly was your relationship with the deceased?

Please think about what you write.
Abberline cannot use the details in a press report, more especially as the damn thing only appeared two days later.

I wonder how many repetition wars certain people are willing to lose before they realise that blitz-posting certain esoteric areas of ripper interest will not avail them as a debating strategy?

If your memory is failing you again, I can remind you.
Feel the need to try again?

Nope, I just need a spot of evidence for the new and exciting theory that Hutchinson’s self-alleged presence on the streets that night was confirmed by some insomniac who wanted to make friends with people in the small hours, and an accompanying explanation for Abberline’s astonishing failure to make reference to this critical point of “conformation” in his report.

Remind me again, which type of evidence are you expecting to see, your home-grown version, or the conventional version?
What time of the morning was Ludwig at that coffee stall in Whitechapel Road?
Endless stalls up and down the High street, all through the night, manned by insomniacs?, well, it might help.

The comparison with Astrakhan man is flawed for obvious reasons. It is unlikely that an unremarkable working class man would attract attention on the streets at any time of the day or night, whereas a walking amalgamation of all the "spooky" press ripper attributes sauntering the most notorious streets in the ripper murder district, complete with gold “mug me” chain would have obvious problems.

But if the streets are empty, who is there to mug him?
And if they were not empty, and they weren't, then Abberline has another line of enquiry to pursue.

What are you talking about?

The police didn’t fob off a “reporter”. A specific constable on beat fobbed off a member of the public who wished to draw his intention to a blotchy-faced man, unaware that the man in question was known to the police as a “respectable citizen” working in concert with the police, and not a potential ripper suspect.

Please read the account more carefully, Gallowey was not given the identity of the blotchy character, all the constable told him was, "he was working with us".
It was the reporter who made enquiries to find out who this blotchy character was, it was the reporter who was told it was a "respectable citizen".
Please, you are making this too easy.

Not strange at all, considering that there was never any “confusion” or “misunderstanding”. They understood perfectly that Isaacs was initially suspected of possible involvement in the Kelly murder until he provided a prison alibi.

They understood perfectly, did they?
Strange that the Lloyds reporter interviewed Mary Cusins & Cornelius Oakes on or before the 8th Dec.

"From inquries made by a representative of Lloyds it appears that Isaacs, the latest suspect, has resided on various occasions at a lodging-house in Paternoster-row,..etc."

So they received their accounts in person from Cusins & Oakes, and published them on the 9th, then again on the 16th.
Yet it was not until the 23rd that Lloyds decide to change their story, with no quotes, no sources, no explanation.
If this revision had been obtained by a Lloyds reporter, wouldn't they have made the reader aware of that?
If there is no confusion, it certainly reads like a half-hearted attempt at a revision - caused by whom, what & why?

The bottom line though is, no such prison, or court record exists to confirm this story, hence, it is false - the reason why is the only remaining question.

Look, this is perfectly simple – can you name a single person, besides your good self, who believes that Isaacs was Astrakhan and was exonerated of the Kelly murder due to an alibi? I wouldn’t find it quite so irritating if you at least acknowledged that you were presenting a brand new, controversial theory of your own, but instead you pretend that this opinion represents mainstream rank-and-file thinking on the subject, which it clearly isn’t.

I can stand on my own two feet, unlike some who revel in patting each other on the back at every opportunity.
[a sign of insecurity]

No, you are telling me that 'everybody' is against the idea, which may or may not be true.
However, what is true, is, only those vocal minority who have so much invested in any number of "Hutchinson-the-liar" theories have voiced an opinion, predictably in the negative.

He was talking about a layman’s perspective. His point was that while your Average Joe might think it a clever idea to look for nervous ticks and shiftiness (and other such nonsense), and conclude that anyone not displaying those signs must be telling the truth, a competent investigator – from any century – ought to know otherwise.

You do know why the lie detector is not admissible in court, right?
Because it is a known fact that people can deceive a machine just as easily as a living, breathing, investigator.
The ability for a suspect to hide, or convey a false, emotion is an established fact. If Abberline did not observe these emotions, coupled with Hutchinson making no mistakes in re-telling his story, then he saw no indication to disbelieve him.

You must have read Garry's opinion, that Abberline spoke with Hutchinson and "believed him", based on nothing more than his face to face meeting.
So Garry is saying this was possible, that Abberline trusted his instincts and the physical & emotional responses of the witness, and you are saying it isn't?

Do you want to get your stories straight on this?

[Ben]

“We can be very safe in accepting that Hutchinson gave his story to Badham at Commercial St., at 6:00 pm, while Abberline was away at Central Office.”

Otherwise known as Leman Street police station, Jon.

I was worried that you were trying to squeeze in a “second meeting” with Abberline prior to the 12th November report, that’s all. Given the potential importance of Hutchinson’s evidence, it was always going to necessitate an audience with a senior “on the ground” detective. As long as we’re agreed that Abberline had only one meeting with Hutchinson before the submission of his report, I can sleep easy. There have been so many brand new “interesting” Hutchinson-related theories in recent months, I was worried another was on its way.

Please don’t scare me like that again!

“It was necessary to list those questions because the statement does not provide the answers”

Yes, it does.

The statement and the accompanying report provide all the answers to the questions you pose, and the press versions of his statement provide additional information, not immediately relevant to his credibility.

“Its just as well you do because that is where we are headed.”

Sorry, where are we “headed”?

In the direction of four duplicate Hutchinson debates?

Ooh goody, I do hope so.

I wonder how many repetition wars certain people are willing to lose before they realise that blitz-posting certain esoteric areas of ripper interest will not avail them as a debating strategy?

“I'm sure you need to believe that all the streets were totally desterted, that Hutchinson was the only one on the streets anywhere.”

Nope, I just need a spot of evidence for the new and exciting theory that Hutchinson’s self-alleged presence on the streets that night was confirmed by some insomniac who wanted to make friends with people in the small hours, and an accompanying explanation for Abberline’s astonishing failure to make reference to this critical point of “conformation” in his report. I’m afraid you simply don’t get to plonk a load of convenient no-evidence Hutch-spotters on the streets when you want them to have been there.

The comparison with Astrakhan man is flawed for obvious reasons. It is unlikely that an unremarkable working class man would attract attention on the streets at any time of the day or night, whereas a walking amalgamation of all the "spooky" press ripper attributes sauntering the most notorious streets in the ripper murder district, complete with gold “mug me” chain would have obvious problems.

“Just as stupid as the police fobbing a reporter off with an excuse that the Gallowey 'Blotchy' was “a respectable citizen” – in other words, bugger off.”

What are you talking about?

The police didn’t fob off a “reporter”. A specific constable on beat fobbed off a member of the public who wished to draw his intention to a blotchy-faced man, unaware that the man in question was known to the police as a “respectable citizen” working in concert with the police, and not a potential ripper suspect.

“Any Whitechapel murder suspect is considerably more than a casual news story.”

Until they stop being “suspected” due to the existence of an alibi, as obviously occurred with Isaacs.

“Strange that Lloyds never reported on that confusion, which likely explains why they misunderstood the association between the arrest of Isaacs and the attack on Annie Farmer.”

Not strange at all, considering that there was never any “confusion” or “misunderstanding”. They understood perfectly that Isaacs was initially suspected of possible involvement in the Kelly murder until he provided a prison alibi. Once cleared of that, he was again suspected, this time of committing the Farmer attack, but he was able to provide a separate prison alibi (separate offense) for that too, which then restricted any police interest in him to his culpability in the theft of a watch, for which he was guilty.

“I meant what I said.
Rejection only comes from those who have something to lose, who cannot allow the possibility that Hutchinson was being truthful.”

Look, this is perfectly simple – can you name a single person, besides your good self, who believes that Isaacs was Astrakhan and was exonerated of the Kelly murder due to an alibi? I wouldn’t find it quite so irritating if you at least acknowledged that you were presenting a brand new, controversial theory of your own, but instead you pretend that this opinion represents mainstream rank-and-file thinking on the subject, which it clearly isn’t.

“If what Canter wrote was common practice, he would not have written about it, there would have been no need.”

Eh?

He was talking about a layman’s perspective. His point was that while your Average Joe might think it a clever idea to look for nervous ticks and shiftiness (and other such nonsense), and conclude that anyone not displaying those signs must be telling the truth, a competent investigator – from any century – ought to know otherwise.

“Are you telling me that enticing you around these boards, stressing you out, raising your blood pressure, making you lose your cool, and correcting every ridiculous argument is not working?”

You keep telling yourself that’s what your achieving here, Jon.

Meanwhile, popularity for “Isaacstrakhan has an alibi” continues to soar…oh, wait.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

I realize Garry invented this mysterious telegram (he did say, "if memory serves", apparently not this time), but the actual fact is the written message was taken by special Detective.
So, anyone care to produce anything, by anyone, to support this fictional telegram?

Anybody.....

I don't mind debating the written word with anyone, but when people resort to inventing a telegram, when the actual record states, "...it was forwarded to the headquarters of the H Division as soon as completed by a special detective." then someone has some explaining to do.

[harry]

Jon,
Well what was received by Aberline, was not the witness statement by Badham. There is no record of who Hutchinson first spoke to on entering the police station.As Gary writes,the information was relayed by telegram,which seems not to have survived.It is extremely doubtfull that the full contents of the witness statement was included in the telegram,and who the special detective was,and what his message contained,can only be guessed.As much as you try Jon,you cannot substanciate a case of missing interrogation material.

[Wickerman]

Leman St. was the Headquarters for H Division, yes.
We have no statement that verifies which 'Headquarters' was intended in the article. The point being, he was not at Commercial St., and as such, the completed statement was sent to him.
I know Moore was also based at Central Office (with Abberline), but they could have been at Leman St. that night.

[Garry Wroe]

If memory serves me correctly, Jon, Abberline was at Leman Street when he learned about Hutchinson's story. He received a telegram and immediately travelled by cab to Commercial Street.

[Wickerman]

Harry.

Do you have cause to question this report?

"... and the importance they attached 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. Detectives Abberline, Nairn, and Moore were present when this message arrived, and an investigation was immediately set on foot."

Your move...

[harry]

Jon,
How do you know how Aberline was advised about Hutchinson?.You write the statement was first seen by Aberline at central office.Seems you are de claring there was already a written statement.On what information?,and how do you know it was given to Badham?
Seems it's you, not Ben,that lacks the basics.

[Wickerman]

Hello Ben.

I don’t know what you mean about a “next meeting”, though. Hutchinson had only introduced himself to the police at 6.00pm on the 12th November. I think we can be reasonably safe in assuming that the “interrogation” constituted the “first meeting”.

We can be very safe in accepting that Hutchinson gave his story to Badham at Commercial St., at 6:00 pm, while Abberline was away at Central Office.
The statement was first seen by Abberline at Central Office after being sent there by Badham, et.al., at which point he came down to Commercial Street to interrogate Hutchinson.
I apologize, I wasn't aware you lacked the basics.

And so Abberline submits a statement to his superiors that he knows was “not detailed enough”?

Abberline is the one who requires the detail, not his superiors, they are not investigating officers. All he is doing is making them aware that a new investigation is in the works. There will always be more reports to follow as the need arises, meanwhile his team are investigating.
The daily report is sufficient to make them aware, the attached statement is superflous to Abberline, and being mentioned first, is not the result of the interrogation but was the instrument used to conduct the interrogation, which followed his arrival.

Most of these are covered in the documents you try to trivialise

It was necessary to list those questions because the statement does not provide the answers – its no good contradicting what I said, that doesn't change anything.

Until that opinion was revised and discredited, in accordance with the views of more senior police officials (I do look forward to going round in circles on this point on three separate threads).

Its just as well you do because that is where we are headed.
To start this round off you can provide this document that came from the police which discredited Hutchinson.

Unless, of course, we accept the far more likely reality that Hutchinson didn’t speak to anyone out and about at 3.00am.

See anyone, or speak to anyone.
I'm sure you need to believe that all the streets were totally desterted, that Hutchinson was the only one on the streets anywhere.
Well, if that were the case these empty streets would be quite safe for “fancy” dressed Jews to flaunt their gold watch chains & jewelry.....
Ok, I'm glad we cleared that up.

Nah, that’s stupid.

Just as stupid as the police fobbing a reporter off with an excuse that the Gallowey 'Blotchy' was “a respectable citizen” – in other words, bugger off.
Are you aware of the instances when the police did lie to the press, just to get rid of them?

There was no reason for Lloyds to pester Isaacs in the first place. It wasn’t exactly the sensation you seem to want it to be – more of a casual inquiry: is there anything to this Isaacs business? No. Okay…

Any Whitechapel murder suspect is considerably more than a casual news story.

The “confused story” excuse is also very bad. The reported prison alibi for the Kelly murder would perfectly account for the loss of interest in Isaacs, and it would also explain why other newspapers reported that he was wanted as a possible suspect in the Alice Farmer attack, but not for the mutilation murders.

Strange that Lloyds never reported on that confusion, which likely explains why they misunderstood the association between the arrest of Isaacs and the attack on Annie Farmer.

So you think everyone else accepts that Astrakhan was Isaacs and had an alibi for the Kelly murder? You’re saying that whoever accepts that Hutchinson told the truth must also accept that Isaacs was Astrakhan – yes?

Wow.

I meant what I said.
Rejection only comes from those who have something to lose, who cannot allow the possibility that Hutchinson was being truthful.
I understand the partizanship and fully realize the need to defend a belief – I am not surprised, it was predictable.

What the blazes are you on about?

Which “officer a hundred years ago” had a different opinion to Canter on the issue?

Well, I think that first response proved my point. You apparently are not aware.
If what Canter wrote was common practice, he would not have written about it, there would have been no need.

You remain a very nice guy, Jon, but this level of nonsense just stresses one out.

I “remain” a very nice guy?
Are you telling me that enticing you around these boards, stressing you out, raising your blood pressure, making you lose your cool, and correcting every ridiculous argument is not working?
Dammitt!

I'll have to try harder...

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“The point of this next meeting will be to expand on that inconsistency by searching and specific questions, and the atmosphere could change to the point of being confrontational - this is an interrogation.”

And rightly so – Abberline wanted to ascertain that Hutchinson wasn’t a mere publicity-seeker of the type that had hampered the Whitechapel investigation for months. He also wanted to give the impression to his superiors that he was thorough in his methods, and the use of the word “interrogate” usually conveys that impression pretty successfully. I don’t know what you mean about a “next meeting”, though. Hutchinson had only introduced himself to the police at 6.00pm on the 12th November. I think we can be reasonably safe in assuming that the “interrogation” constituted the “first meeting”. I accept that the statement would have been in the witness’s “own words”, but that does not mean it was taken as a continuous narrative, as we learned last year from those well versed in police matters. It would still have followed the standard “question and answer” format.

“And, certainly, his statement was not detailed enough.”

And so Abberline submits a statement to his superiors that he knows was “not detailed enough”? No. He wasn’t a pillock. If he knew or suspected that the statement contained some grey areas, he would have clarified them during the interrogation, and then made reference to it in his report. I do hope you understand the necessity for Abberline to put the people with overall charge of the entire investigation sufficiently in the picture. At the moment, you still seem very stuck in the misconception that the buck stopped with Abberline, and that only his opinion mattered. If any detail emerged from the interrogation that was relevant to Hutchinson’s credibility but did not appear in the statement (for whatever odd reason), it would have appeared in the report. If it appeared in neither, it didn’t exist…or Abberline was obstinately withholding crucial information for no good reason.

“You don't know what Abberline's role was?”

Not the mind-reader that your theory requires him to be, at any rate.

“He also mentions the existence of the statement as a separate issue to the interrogation, which contrary to Garry's belief, indicates the statement was not as a result of the interrogation.”

It doesn’t “indicate” any such thing, and no, he doesn’t just “mention the existence of the statement”. He provides the original in accordance with his duty to put his superiors (they did exist, you know) sufficiently in the picture about the latest developments. I realise that your intention is to trivialise and dismiss the documents that do exist, while championing the hoped-for no-evidence existence of supposedly lost documents, but officially speaking, the statement was the most important document ever to exist in connection with Hutchinson.

“The need for it is self evident, much pertinent detail is not provided in the initial statement, such as:
- Precisely what time did you leave Dorset St.?
- When you left Dorset St., where did you go, who did you meet, and can anyone confirm this?
- What was the reason you stood outside Millers Court for so long?
- Why did you not come forward earlier?
- What exactly was your relationship with the deceased?”

Most of these are covered in the documents you try to trivialise – the witness statement and the accompanying report. He waited outside because of his fixation with the oddity of Astrakhan being in Kelly’s company; his relationship with the deceased was that of a casual acquaintance who occasionally gave her “a few shillings”; and he left the court at 3.00am (Abberline wouldn’t have asked for “precision”). The others are accounted for in the press; he only came forward on the recommendation of a fellow lodger, and he “walked about all night” after leaving the court, etc.

“We are told the establishment was closed for a couple of hours overnight.”

No, “we’re” not told any such thing.

The common rooms or kitchens were closed for a couple of hours each night, not the entire building. It didn’t affect access to the dormitories in the slightest.

“There was only one contemporary police opinion, and that opinion supported Hutchinson.”

Until that opinion was revised and discredited, in accordance with the views of more senior police officials (I do look forward to going round in circles on this point on three separate threads).

“Stalls up and down Whitechapel High St. were there all night, if he had met or spoke to anyone they might remember.”

“If”..

“Might”..

Great, I’m convinced.

Unless, of course, we accept the far more likely reality that Hutchinson didn’t speak to anyone out and about at 3.00am. I do hope we’re not constructing anymore fictional “alibis”. Isaacs’s was bad enough, and I doubt our collective stomachs can accommodate another. In the unlikely event that some poor insomniac sod fancied a 3.00am chinwag on the mean, cold, wet, largely deserted streets, this was obviously something for Abberline to make reference to in his report. It would have equated to crucial confirmation of his presence there that night that he had no business concealing from Swanson when time was of the essence.

“Or, alternately, in order to protect the witness from those pestering reporters, the police sold them a false line - so they would leave him alone.”

Nah, that’s stupid.

There was no reason for Lloyds to pester Isaacs in the first place. It wasn’t exactly the sensation you seem to want it to be – more of a casual inquiry: is there anything to this Isaacs business? No. Okay…

The “confused story” excuse is also very bad. The reported prison alibi for the Kelly murder would perfectly account for the loss of interest in Isaacs, and it would also explain why other newspapers reported that he was wanted as a possible suspect in the Alice Farmer attack, but not for the mutilation murders.

“The only rejection comes from those who cannot bare (sic) the thought of Hutchinson actually being truthful.”

So you think everyone else accepts that Astrakhan was Isaacs and had an alibi for the Kelly murder? You’re saying that whoever accepts that Hutchinson told the truth must also accept that Isaacs was Astrakhan – yes?

Wow.

“You are confusing Schwartz the witness with Schwartz the killer. As a witness he was not too early, as a killer he was far too early, by at least 10 minutes.”

But if Schwartz was the killer, what was to prevent him lying about the time at which he arrived on the scene?

“Violenia wouldn't have been interrogated if he had provided a sound story, and we do not know what suspicions the police had about him. Whatever they were, Violenia fell apart under the pressure.”

No, he didn’t.

He just gave an implausible account that wasn’t accepted by the police, and at no point was the implausibility of his account considered a good reason to warp him into a suspect. What exactly is this nonsense about him only being “interrogated if he had provided a sound story”? So it’s the thumbscrew treatment if you provide a “sound story”, but cushy cups of tea, a thin knowing smile, and an embarrassed roll of the eyes if you talk bollocks? A sure-fire way to deter potentially genuine witnesses from coming forward in the future, if ever I heard one.

“Did David Canter 'prove' this?, of course not, he gave his opinion, and like the proverbial sponge, you soak it up.”

Yes, I do, and considering that he has more insight into criminal psychology than any individual we’re discussing from 1888, I’ll cheerfully be that "proverbial sponge".

“It may surprise you to know that before Canter many experienced officers had their own opinions about that. Which do you think is most relevant in a century old murder case, the opinion of an officer a hundred years ago, or the opinion of a modern psychologist?”

What the blazes are you on about?

Which “officer a hundred years ago” had a different opinion to Canter on the issue? Do tell - I’d be uniquely fascinated to find the first plonker who thinks he can always discern from body language when a person is lying. I’d be enthralled to find the “genius” from yesteryear who doesn’t accept that some people can create a favourable impression in terms of demeanour, and still fib their arses off. Humanity hasn’t changed, shockingly enough, and Canter’s observations are still hugely relevant, unless you’re seriously suggesting that nobody in the late 19th century was capable of lying and projecting a favourable impression at the same time?

You remain a very nice guy, Jon, but this level of nonsense just stresses one out.

Have a go at some non-Hutchinson threads.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Thanks for the encouraging words, Abby.

Glad to hear you felt it makes sense. It would indeed be supreme folly to assume that "interrogation" equals "murder suspect".

Regards,
Ben

Right, you guys do need to stick together, for support if nothing else.
Even if you can't agree on what Hutchinson did wrong...

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

Hi Jon,
The fact that it would have been hideously infeasible, if not impossible, to record full inquest transcripts without a tape recorder.

Well obviously Ben, we are not talking about that then are we.
If you understood the point of an interrogation it might make this a little easier.

I’m pleased to see you finally acknowledge as much. This is in marked contrast to your earlier insistence that “back in the good old days” it was only appropriate to use the term “interview” in the context of witnesses, which is obviously not true.

I'll be pleased when you make more of an effort to understand the issue.

Every witness is interviewed, the soft and easy discourse between two people in an attempt to gain an understanding as to what they saw or heard.
When the witness statement was put in writing it is generally required to be in the witness's own words (Re: Hutchinson), any questions being limited to clarifying points made by the witness. No questions to be asked which distract the witness's train of thought.

If, said statement does not contain sufficient detail, or the contents conflict with other information obtained, or something in the statement is found to be untrue, or not possible, then a second meeting may be necessary.

The point of this next meeting will be to expand on that inconsistency by searching and specific questions, and the atmosphere could change to the point of being confrontational - this is an interrogation.

PACE has changed all that in today's police force.

“Interrogation” was a handy word for Abberline to use in order to convey an appearance of thoroughness to his superiors.

This kind of nonsense comes from someone unwilling to understand.

It was also necessary for an “interrogation” to occur for the purpose of separating genuine witnesses from the great many bogus publicity-seekers that had infected the case.

We are talking about Hutchinson here, right. We cannot say for certain why Hutchinson was interrogated, but it is quite reasonable to assume Abberline wanted to pose some very specific questions. And, certainly, his statement was not detailed enough.

But what job, specifically? On-the-spot deductions as to whether or not the witness or “criminal” was being truthful, without any time having elapsed post-interrogation to investigate the claims?

You don't know what Abberline's role was?

It is the report which accompanied the statement, in which Abberline was as free as a bird to include any additional information – pertinent to his opinion on Hutchinson’s truthfulness – that emerged from the interrogation.

This report describes what Abberline has been involved with on that day, the 12th, which is why it begins with the inquest - it is a daily report.
He also mentions the existence of the statement as a separate issue to the interrogation, which contrary to Garry's belief, indicates the statement was not as a result of the interrogation.
The interrogation came after.

You haven’t produced any evidence for the existence of such an “interrogation report”, nor have you explained how such a document could possibly be recorded.

The need for it is self evident, much pertinent detail is not provided in the initial statement, such as:
- Precisely what time did you leave Dorset St.?
- When you left Dorset St., where did you go, who did you meet, and can anyone confirm this?
- What was the reason you stood outside Millers Court for so long?
- Why did you not come forward earlier?
- What exactly was your relationship with the deceased?

An investigating officer is going to need the answers to those questions, and possibly a good deal more.
If you don't think it is a good idea to write those answers down, then maybe you have a better method of distributing these answers to his team, so they can check them out?

The larger establishments provided communal game rooms in addition to a kitchen. But even in the lodging houses where the common room doubled up as a kitchen, there was no earthly reason to shut down the entire building!

- We are told the establishment was closed for a couple of hours overnight.
- We know that these places closed for cleaning.
You interpret that however you choose.

According to you, but not according to contemporary police opinion which discredited Hutchinson’s evidence (copy and pastes at hand if you wish to be out-repeated on that subject again).

Here we go again, playing games - "contemporary police opinion". There was only one contemporary police opinion, and that opinion supported Hutchinson.

Door-to-door investigation reports? Good luck with that one.
.
.
What do you mean “police notebooks” – policeman who were stationed where and seeing what? It’s all nonsense. Abberline made it quite clear that his initial support for Hutchinson was entirely faith-based, which is why he expressed his mere “opinion” that he told the truth, rather than “we have confirmation that…”.

Wherever Hutchinson went after Millers court, those streets were patrolled by police.
Stalls up and down Whitechapel High St. were there all night, if he had met or spoke to anyone they might remember.
Residents of Dorset St. coming and going while Hutchinson was on the streets, all these, and more, are sources for Abberline to have checked, c/w Sarah Lewis's statement.

I’m not suggesting Lloyds “found it”. It’s far more likely that they made inquiries with the police who informed THEM that their loss of interest in Isaacs was due to a prison alibi for the Kelly murder.

Or, alternately, in order to protect the witness from those pestering reporters, the police sold them a false line - so they would leave him alone.
The confused story line is still the best bet, until we learn exactly what he was imprisoned for on the 12th - how much do you want to bet it was for stealing a coat?

But everyone else rejects your proposed “solution”, so it’s only you convincing yourself that you have come up with the right “answer”.

The only rejection comes from those who cannot bare the thought of Hutchinson actually being truthful.

You’re repeating factoids again with no evidence to support them. There is absolutely no reason to think that a voluntary witness in 1888 would be considered a potential Jack the Ripper himself walking into the station and requesting an interview.

Why not?
He could be the killer, or an accessory, or could have seen more than he admits to.

No, he was not “too early according to the medical evidence” (and take any objection you might have to this point onto a proper Stride thread), and unless the police were able to rule out the possibility of Mrs. Schwartz being wrong in her estimation of the time, asleep, or covering up for her husband, she would have been a pretty poor alibi-provider for Schwartz.

Still in the habit of ordering people around I see.
You are confusing Schwartz the witness with Schwartz the killer. As a witness he was not too early, as a killer he was far too early, by at least 10 minutes.

I love the idea that Harris, Levy, and Lawende providing alibis for each other. I wonder if Fred West ever provided an “alibi” for Rose? (No, I’m not suggesting any of these men were involved. I’m highlighting the senselessness of arguing that they “alibi” each other).

I had to wonder if you were suggesting all three took turns with the knife, or some other nonesense.

Violenia wouldn't have been interrogated if he had provided a sound story, and we do not know what suspicions the police had about him. Whatever they were, Violenia fell apart under the pressure.

But it is only a very stupid, very inexperienced officer who concludes that an absence of “nervous disposition, shifty character” etc means the witness must be telling the truth. Let’s not perpetuate the fallacy that one is always capable of judging from body language whether someone is lying or not.

Ah yes, your hero, the psychologist.
Did David Canter 'prove' this?, of course not, he gave his opinion, and like the proverbial sponge, you soak it up.

It may surprise you to know that before Canter many experienced officers had their own opinions about that. Which do you think is most relevant in a century old murder case, the opinion of an officer a hundred years ago, or the opinion of a modern psychologist?

What appears to have slipped your mind is, we are dealing with “what people think”, so ask yourself this. Did investigators ever believe they could tell when a person is lying by their physical reactions?
Well...?

Exactly....so Canter's modern opinions are not relevant in a century old murder case.

[Ben]

Thanks for the encouraging words, Abby.

Glad to hear you felt it makes sense. It would indeed be supreme folly to assume that "interrogation" equals "murder suspect".

Regards,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hi Ben
once again your astuteness in evaluating the evidence has enlightened me.

Admittedly, I had often struggled to understand why Abberline had used the word "interrogation" when describing his chat with hutch. That's usually a word you would associate with a suspect.But Now since you pointed it out why-it makes perfect sense.

Considering all the bogus witnesses they had previously dealt with, Abberline wanted to convey that he questioned the witness hard and felt he was a legit witness. Not a suspect-just not a bogus witness.