Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Wickerman]

In fairness, Mike, Anderson's assertions regarding his mystery witness are to a certain extent corroborated by Swanson. Where some draw the line is in the acceptance that Anderson's suspect was identified as Jack the Ripper. The two positions are by no means mutually exclusive.

Yes but Garry, it could just as easily be claimed that Anderson knew of Isaacs being cleared, why wouldn't he?
All Abberline's reports go through Swanson, and Swanson reports to Anderson, not forgetting they are close on a personal level.
Abberline specifically investigated Isaacs, and cleared him. We learn this in the press:

"....it was said by the police that they wished the fullest inquiry as to the prisoner's movements on the night of Nov. 8. For that purpose he was remanded, but Detective Sergeant Record, H Division, said that so far there was no further charge against the prisoner. The prisoner was then asked if he wished to go to trial, but he pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to three months' hard labour."

This is why Anderson maintained his belief in a Jewish witness (Lawende?), and not Hutchinson - who had not seen the killer afterall.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman,
For something to be lost,it must have once existed.Tell us how you know of it's existence,the nature of the information contained,and under what circumstances it was lost.Also this police code you keep harping on.What is/was it ,and how did it affect the interrogation by Aberline of Hutchinson.Do not ask me,I am just the amatuer,youré the professional.
Garry is certainly correct in his assessment.Untill after Aberline questioned Hutchinson,all exchanges would have been verbal,except maybe that Hutchinson's name and address w as noted in an incident report.Police code?

And there was me assuming you knew what the Police Code was. Now I understand your resistance to the point I was making.
I am told this book is to be published shortly, this year, you might get yourself a copy, then we will be on the same level.

[Wickerman]

Highly unlikely, Jon. But if you'd care to supply confirmatory evidence for such I'd be pleased to see it.

Actually, it is written on the document itself.
The initiator of a memo/report always signs his name in the bottom right.
The name of the recipient, to whom it is being sent, is written at bottom left.
It was submitted to Abberline, his name is at the bottom left.

In support of this is the brief mention in the Echo of the sequence of events.
Reporters always being on hand at the police station will see the activity unfold, and we read:
"...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,..."
Echo, 13 Nov. 1888.

There is no cause for dispute on this.

If Hutchinson had incriminated himself in any way, shape or form he'd have been detained and subjected to further interview.

Well, like I keep saying, whether he is going to incriminate himself will be up to Abberline to determine in the subsequent interrogation.
Which is why it is necessary to ask some very specific questions, the answers to which are not provided in his initial statement to Badham.
And, to get it in writing is imperative.

I had to wonder why you offered the background of that 70's documentary. I think we are all old enough to know about different levels of interrogation, and what would be written down, and what officially "never happened", so to speak.
Hutchinson's case was not at all similar, no-one is entertaining the idea that Abberline tied him up by his thumbs, and put match sticks under his toe nails.
There were some very serious questions he had to answer, information not contained in that initial statement, information that would need to be checked out, hence, written down.

[Garry Wroe]

In fairness, Mike, Anderson's assertions regarding his mystery witness are to a certain extent corroborated by Swanson. Where some draw the line is in the acceptance that Anderson's suspect was identified as Jack the Ripper. The two positions are by no means mutually exclusive.

[The Good Michael]

A point here: I don't like that people use Anderson to support arguments, but then throw out the idea of Kosminski being the Ripper. The justification for picking and choosing is all agenda-based stuff. Anderson supports the idea of Hutchinson not being a candidate for the murders and that of course diminishes Hutchinson's importance (way after the fact)...unless one just wants to assume Kelly was a Hutchinson one-off.

Mike

[harry]

Wickerman,
For something to be lost,it must have once existed.Tell us how you know of it's existence,the nature of the information contained,and under what circumstances it was lost.Also this police code you keep harping on.What is/was it ,and how did it affect the interrogation by Aberline of Hutchinson.Do not ask me,I am just the amatuer,youré the professional.
Garry is certainly correct in his assessment.Untill after Aberline questioned Hutchinson,all exchanges would have been verbal,except maybe that Hutchinson's name and address w as noted in an incident report.Police code?

[Garry Wroe]

Abberline met Hutchinson after his statement was committed to paper, not before.

Highly unlikely, Jon. But if you'd care to supply confirmatory evidence for such I'd be pleased to see it.

But listening to you (metaphorically speaking) it wouldn't matter whether Hutchinson provided extra confirmation of his nightly adventure, or even said something to incriminate himself, the police didn't bother to write it down anyway.
Amazing.

If Hutchinson had incriminated himself in any way, shape or form he'd have been detained and subjected to further interview.

[Wickerman]

The only person to get a “good view” of the murderer was Jewish, according to Anderson (with Swanson’s agreement). Hutchinson, of course, alleged a far better “view” at Astrakhan man either of the Jewish witnesses, and his disappearing act (as per your suggestion) would not have changed that. The non-mention of Hutchinson as witness with an even better "view" therefore begs an alternative explanation, such as the one with evidence supporting it - that he was discredited, and thus got no "view" at all.
.
.
The other option is to join Jon and argue that Astrakhan was identified and then exonerated (which, quirky theories about Joseph Isaacs aside, is not even a possibility).

That's it Ben, just dismiss anything that answers the mystery, then pretend the mystery still exists. After all, the mystery must be upheld in order to defend the theory.

[Wickerman]

Oh don't worry, Jon, I never touch the stuff – “lost reports” that is. It’s just too convenient to one’s argument to say “yes, everything I say is correct, and it was all recorded once upon a time…in that report that got lost”. A bit of a cop out if you ask me.

I've warned you before about that memory of yours

I recall telling you that there is no official record of Isaacs being imprisoned on Nov. 9th. (no proof).
Your reply to me was to the effect that, "likely because the records are not complete".

Bit of a cop out you say?

[Wickerman]

What some here fail to understand is that the Victorian police utilized a similar methodology when interviewing witnesses during the Ripper investigation. Major Smith later wrote of his attempt to trip-up Lawende, for example. We also know that an extensive and rigorous period of questioning led to the collapse of Violenia's Chapman-related claims and thus his rejection as a genuine witness. We have no written record of such interrogations, merely the official witness statement of those who were deemed to be truthful.

In the "Ultimate", first ed. page 130, is a document written by A.C.B., summarizing the story given by Packer.
There are details within this document that exist nowhere else, not in a police report, nor in any news article.
Details copied from another document containing the words of Mathew Packer - that no longer survives.

Hutchinson was no different. He was interrogated by Abberline and held firm. No obvious holes in his story were exposed and so his statement was committed to paper.

How do you mean "and so his statement was committed to paper"?
Abberline met Hutchinson after his statement was committed to paper, not before.

But listening to you (metaphorically speaking) it wouldn't matter whether Hutchinson provided extra confirmation of his nightly adventure, or even said something to incriminate himself, the police didn't bother to write it down anyway.
Amazing.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman,
Your posts which claim details once existed and are now lost,and referred to the Aberline interrogation of Hutchinson are,627,636,640,655,and do not tell me how to post.I'll post in my own fashion.

Harry.
It is reassuring to see you have not walked away from the accusation you made, and I do hope you re-read those sentences where I mentioned the missing interrogation report.
So, when I later told you no proof exists of this document, you tried to make an issue out of it. Yet at no point in this discussion had I ever claimed proof did exist.
Unlike 'some' who use the words 'proof' and 'fact' all too liberally.

After repeatedly pointing out that the Police Code covered the issue of recording the words of the witness/suspect - and the reason's why, should be sufficient. Though you are not alone in your belief that your personal opinion should supersede any written code of conduct available at the time.

I have already given sufficient reason why the statement he gave to Badham was not detailed enough. But, you have not provided a reason why the answers to important questions, not provided in the statement already, would not have been recorded by Abberline.

[harry]

Wickerman,
Your posts which claim details once existed and are now lost,and referred to the Aberline interrogation of Hutchinson are,627,636,640,655,and do not tell me how to post.I'll post in my own fashion.

[Batman]

Hutchinson was no different. He was interrogated by Abberline and held firm. No obvious holes in his story were exposed and so his statement was committed to paper.

The paper it was committed too contains a strike-throughs of the name of pub which is replaced by another.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/ripperoo-hutch.html

Hutchinson was obviously only used for a very short time. After that Swanson uses Schwartz and the city police use Lawende. No sign of this face to face witness ever showing his own again after a few weeks.

[Garry Wroe]

Harry is absolutely right. Abberline most assuredly did not transcribe the full interrogation, and nor was he duty-bound to, or else it would have been submitted to his superiors along with the statement. That’s just obvious, and it seems to be only you who won’t accept that. A few personal notes in his pocket book, yes, maybe; but not full transcripts containing crucial information that he inexplicably kept to himself.

Back in the Seventies, Ben, a documentary film crew was accorded what was then unprecedented behind-the-scenes access to a police force. Once broadcast the film created uproar in the press and even generated questions in Parliament. One section which attracted particular criticism involved the treatment of a young woman who had visited a police station with an allegation of rape. Far from being treated with sympathy this woman was subjected to an aggressive period of questioning followed by insistent and persistent accusations that she had made up the whole thing. This made for difficult viewing, not least because the already tearful young woman became visibly more traumatized as the 'interview' progressed.

It emerged that this was fairly standard procedure at the time, an approach intended to weed out those making malicious allegations. Moreover, it was a form of interrogation that was never recorded by police officers, hence the shock and public outrage when finally exposed.

What some here fail to understand is that the Victorian police utilized a similar methodology when interviewing witnesses during the Ripper investigation. Major Smith later wrote of his attempt to trip-up Lawende, for example. We also know that an extensive and rigorous period of questioning led to the collapse of Violenia's Chapman-related claims and thus his rejection as a genuine witness. We have no written record of such interrogations, merely the official witness statement of those who were deemed to be truthful.

Hutchinson was no different. He was interrogated by Abberline and held firm. No obvious holes in his story were exposed and so his statement was committed to paper. On this basis Abberline expressed his opinion that Hutchinson was a truthful witness. And that's all it was - an opinion.

So Harry is correct. These pre-statement interrogations were part of an interview process which went unrecorded. The simple fact of the matter is that they went unrecorded until the relatively recent introduction of PACE put paid to such practises.

I fear that I'm far from alone in my belief that standards on this once sublime site have slipped to an all-time low.

[Wickerman]

.... Abberline most assuredly did not transcribe the full interrogation, and nor was he duty-bound to, or else it would have been submitted to his superiors along with the statement.

The interrogation officer keeps the interrogation file, there is no need to send it away to Central Office when his team are the ones working with it.

Where is your evidence, please, that “we” were restricted to using only the term “interview” to apply to witnesses?
I evidently missed the “good old days” where that rule rigidly applied.

Yes, I guess we are from different generations.

Not picking on you in particular, Jon, but I’ve noticed that a common denominator to the “defence” of Hutchinson is this rather weird perception that Abberline was the only detective of any note working the case.

Then you have an erroneous perception Ben.
Abberline had a reputation for working with and among the local criminals in Whitechapel. He had a rapport with the criminal element and as such was the best detective to head the interrogation of suspects.

If Abberline was duty-bound to submit a witness statement to Swanson, he was certainly obliged to submit his mysteriously and unfeasibly transcribed “interrogation” along with it.

No-one has said he didn't. The initial statement was not complete enough, as such it was surplus to Abberline after he had sat with Hutchinson and obtained a more comprehensive account of his activity that night.
That seems to me to be a good enough reason to forward the initial statement, he didn't need it any more.

Oh don't worry, Jon, I never touch the stuff – “lost reports” that is. It’s just too convenient to one’s argument to say “yes, everything I say is correct, and it was all recorded once upon a time…in that report that got lost”. A bit of a cop out if you ask me.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, ol' boy.
What this issue is meant to address is the repeated assertion by your brethren that "Hutchinson never told the police this,...or that,....or the other".
I am pointing out that this suggestion is bogus seeing as no account exists to indicate to us what Hutchinson told Abberline during the interrogation, verbally or in writing.

That’s still not remotely the case, although I’m still waiting for an example of a lodging house in the area that closed at 2.00am.

Why 2:00 am?
Fred Wilkinson, the deputy of the lodging-house in Flower & Dean St. said they closed at night.
"They generally closed at 2:30 or 3. He had no means of remembering any person coming in."
Times, 5 Oct. 1888.
We've covered this before, lodging houses closed at night, for the most part to clean the kitchens, have you forgotten?

On another oft-debated (needlessly so, in my opinion) topic, you’ll note that nobody ever declared it impossible that anyone would dress “Astrakhan man” style and wander Whitechapel at that hour; it is just been considered wildly implausible, and rightly so.

Not by anyone who knows anything about it.

The same applies to the issue of Hutchinson’s discrediting. It happened, the evidence is there, and it appeared in several fully “substantiated” press reports

Ha!, that's rubbish, and you know it.
ONE, controversial 'tabloid' trying to stir the pot by making ill-informed claims - why?, because the police continued to tell them nothing!
The Star resort to making their own news.

The Echo speculate nearer the truth, that Hutchinson's story appears to have suffered in importance, and there is a perfectly justified reason for this. The Echo in no way suggested the story was thrown out altogether, as continued press accounts of police working on the story bare witness.

No, it doesn’t.

No, it definitely and provably doesn’t.

Careful Ben, this is only an opinion, try to refrain from asserting what is not proven.

Were Schwartz, Lawende, Harris and Levy treated as suspects at any point? Was Emanuel Violenia, who claimed to have been the last to see Annie Chapman alive, despite the fact that he was thought to have been telling porkies?

You have had this explained to you before. Think about "numbers of witnesses", and "failing interrogation", just to give you a hint.
Your examples are not in the same league.

The key word here is “claim” – Hutchinson “claimed” to have been the last person to see her alive, with the exception of the presumed murderer, and it was the job of the investigating officer to “interrogate” the witness for the purpose of determining whether that “claim” was truthful or the work of a publicity-seeker....

It seems we are getting somewhere at last.
Yes, and how does Abberline begin to address this "claim"?, by interrogating Hutchinson.
Only when he is satisfied Hutchinson is being sincere will Abberline address the story he has been told about this fancily dressed Jew.
Hutchinson's viability comes first, then the details about this man in an Astrachan coat.

You even suggest that the interrogation could have “cleared” him of murder? Do tell!

Can you provide a quote on that question?