Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Ben]

Edit to the above:

Hutchinson, of course, alleged a far better “view” of Astrakhan man than both of the Jewish witnesses.


Hi Jon,

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.

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. Back in the really really good old days of 1888, I rather suspect Abberline wanted to convey a good impression to his bosses, which is why he opted for “interrogate”. Sounds rather better than “had a cosy cuppa with…”.

“An Interrogation is not something to mail around, it will stay with Abberline, he is still working with it”

How? Doing what? And why - if the above was truly the case - was it not equally necessary to retain the statement, if not more so considering that the latter contained the most important information, i.e. the suspect description? 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. One can only blame Hollywood so much for the extraordinary over-inflation of Abberline’s influence. It fell to his superior, Donald Swanson (in overall charge of the case), to collect and assess the paperwork associated with the case. 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.

“It is quite sufficient to make brief mention of his conversation in a daily report, along with the fact he attended the Inquiry, and that all those detained that day have been released.”

…And along with any information that pertained to Hutchinson’s credibility.

“Considering most of the official paperwork is lost, perhaps this is not the best interest for you to involve yourself with?”

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 asked what the basis was for this belief, then I pointed out that he had referred to his "usual place being closed" - therefore the Victoria Home was not his "usual place", at least up until the night of the murder.”

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.

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. 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 (based as they are on a proven communication with the police), along with numerous police memoirs attesting to the same reality. No nonsense please about the Echo “inventing” the detail to “spice up a story” – that would be illogical in every way. A less “spicy” and sensational report would be difficult to encounter.

“The fact is, Hutchinson claims to be the last person to see Kelly alive moments before her death.
This makes him an automatic suspect”

No, it doesn’t.

No, it definitely and provably doesn’t.

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? 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 (and the police had been deluged with the latter). Those were the options the police were likely to entertain when faced with a voluntary witness in 1888, not “is this Jack the Ripper waltzing into the police station requesting an interview?”.

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

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“How does an important and truthful witness suddenly become much less important or much less credible without any more information than they had to begin with?”

But “more information” was precisely what they did have, as we learn from the Echo, who obtained their information directly from Commercial Street police station:

“From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder.”

Whatever this “later investigation” turned up, it evidently undermined Hutchinson’s credibility to the extent that it suffered a “very reduced importance”. Perhaps it was revealed that Hutchinson’s explanation for his delay in coming forward (whatever it was) cannot have been true, or perhaps Abberline’s endorsement of Hutchinson’s statement didn’t sit well with his superiors? Alternatively, Hutchinson’s press disclosures might have been undoing, given their embellishments and flat-out contradictions (as well as a claim to have contacted a policeman, which could easily have been checked out and proved false). Or did he slip up somehow on his walkabout with police one night, as Garry once suggested?

“If their enquiries revealed that the police's latest enquiries still included trying to track down Mrs Cox's blotchy-faced suspect, for example, their rather black-and-white mindset might well have assumed that Hutch must have rapidly lost credibility, since his belated account conflicted directly with her timely one.”

They didn’t have a “black and white mindset”, and they certainly didn’t need to “assume” anything.

They obtained their information directly from the police, and no, they didn’t lie about doing so. They had already approached the police station to extract other information of the type that could only be obtained from police sources, indicating some sort of relationship of communication with the police that was denied to other, more obviously anti-police newspapers. The Echo certainly would not have reported genuine police on one occasion, only to blow that good relationship to smithereens on another by printing falsehoods that the police could easily read about. The Echo could forget about any further info-seeking trips to Commercial Street Police Station if the police caught them telling porkies about their treatment of a witness.

They also obtained accurate information from the police after the publication of the 13th November claims. Why on earth would the police have given them anything if they already knew that the same people were printing lies about them the previous day?

It does not paint the police “in a poor light” in any case. If anything, it demonstrates their thoroughness in continuing to investigate whatever leads they had.

“So Abberline would surely have sought to establish during his interrogation what his sleeping arrangements had been over the past week or so”.

Yes, and that’s evidently what he did, and he got his answer – the Victoria Home, the place where he “usually” slept. This admission disclosed the fact that however “irregular” his work was, it was obviously sufficient to enable him to (“usually”) pay fourpence a night for his doss. I wasn’t aware this was under dispute. What exactly is giving you “real fits”?

“He would hardly have arranged the identification without first asking Hutch to describe the woman and what she was wearing, so he could satisfy himself that this was basically consistent with the known facts.”

You do realise how completely useless this question would have been as a means of assessing Hutchinson’s truthfulness or otherwise? All Hutchinson had to do was read Mary Cox's description of Kelly’s clothes and then claim, falsely, that he had seen her wearing the same items.

“but it's at least theoretically possible that it didn't go quite as planned, or even threw into doubt that the woman he had seen a couple of hours after Cox's sighting was actually the murder victim.”

It’s also very improbable, considering that the known reasons for Hutchinson’s statement receiving a “very reduced importance” had nothing to do with any suggestion that he had got the wrong person (or the wrong night, or similar nonsense).

Abby has dealt with the Cox-Hutchinson comparison admirably. I would only add that Cox did receive a mention in a police memoir - a favourable one. Nothing about her being discredited or lying or confused. If she wasn’t considered as important as Lawende and/or Schwartz, it may have been because she seemed to have followed Kelly and Blotchy from behind, and didn’t have as good a vantage point with which to view her suspect than the other two did. Additionally, her sighting occurred significantly earlier than Kelly’s generally accepted time of death, unlike Lawende’s, for instance, which occurred ten minutes prior to the discovery of Eddowes’ body.

We can forget the idea that senior police officials only omitted Hutchinson from their interviews and memoirs because they had foolishly lost track of Hutchinson (everyone else must be depicted as crap, of course, for Hutchinson to come out smelling of roses – the police included, apparently). Even if the police had behaved that incompetently, that would not explain the complete absence of any mention of Hutchinson from subsequent reports and memoirs.

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. Similarly, Abberline had the opportunity to infer a link between dark-haired, moustachioed foreign Astrakhan man and dark-haired, moustachioed foreign Severin Klosowski, but he never made one – electing instead to infer tenuous parallels with witnesses who only saw their suspects’ backs, and men wearing “P&O” caps. This quite simply does not make sense unless Hutchinson was discredited, as contemporary records indicate. 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).

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Jon,
Lets not get away from the fact of what you claimed.That there w as additional information submitted,that is now lost.It is not arguementative to repeat that.There is no provenence for what you wrote.That there might have been or should have been, is beyond the point.That is not what you originally wrote,and I am tired of posters like you who make claims of that nature,untrue claims,and then deny you made them.And less of the personnel snide remarks

It would help if you would provide a quote, but if you do not know how to use the quote feature, give me the post number.

Lets sort this out once and for all.

[harry]

Jon,
Lets not get away from the fact of what you claimed.That there w as additional information submitted,that is now lost.It is not arguementative to repeat that.There is no provenence for what you wrote.That there might have been or should have been, is beyond the point.That is not what you originally wrote,and I am tired of posters like you who make claims of that nature,untrue claims,and then deny you made them.And less of the personnel snide remarks

[Wickerman]

Jon,
No need to humour you.youré humourous enough and getting more so by your continuous postings.
You now say 'must have been made'.A significant change from the previous'was made and is now lost'.
Common sense dictates that the result of Aberlines interrogation was contained in the witness statement taken by Badham.

It is not a significant change.
I sometime wonder if your only interest is to argue, it doesn't matter if your arguments make any sense.
Abberline knows nothing about Hutchinson before they meet, all he has is one side of a story where he claims to be a witness.
The fact is, Hutchinson claims to be the last person to see Kelly alive moments before her death.
This makes him an automatic suspect - and YOU should know that.

The statement given to Badham does not provide any information to clear Hutchinson of murder. Questions, very pointed questions MUST be asked, ie; he must be interrogated. The result of which, by police code of practice, MUST be committed to writing.
The possibility exists that he COULD say something to incriminate himself, so his responses must be recorded.

What part of that do you not understand.

You now say you have no proof.Good.So this is a first time you have made a definite claim of something existing of which you cannot submit provenence.
I hope then,you w ill be less critical of others for doing the same thing.

Paying a little more attention to what is written would go along way Harry.

Critics of Hutchinson have commonly claimed it was proven that he was discredited, no such proof exists.
I have never claimed to have proof of any interrogation report, as you well know, so lets not play silly buggers Harry.

[harry]

Jon,
No need to humour you.youré humourous enough and getting more so by your continuous postings.
You now say 'must have been made'.A significant change from the previous'was made and is now lost'.
Common sense dictates that the result of Aberlines interrogation was contained in the witness statement taken by Badham.There is no rigid protocol requirement preventing that.Perfectly acceptable in 1888,and in my time even.Enough ,by far,information to place Hutchinson on the stand should it be required.
You now say you have no proof.Good.So this is a first time you have made a definite claim of something existing of which you cannot submit provenence.
I hope then,you w ill be less critical of others for doing the same thing.

[Batman]

Cox was able to describe Mary Kelly which Hutchinson failed to do. Cox lives at Miller's court and her testimony included the singing which was corroborated by her neighbours. Hutchinson doesn't even seem to know which room Mary Kelly was even in. Cox is at the inquest. Hutchinson isn't. Hutchinson's only self-claimed reason for being there was MJK. Cox is there because she lives there. Two totally different witness types. One's immediately local. The other is a complete stranger.

[Wickerman]

Hutchs sighing was questioned by the press, not cox.

Hi Abby.

Quote:
(City Police suspect) "... they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox.
The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement.
The descriptions of the dark foreign-looking man mentioned in connection with the previous crimes are, however, as we say, in the description of the man seen with the victim on the morning of the 9th."

The City Police did not believe Cox's 'man' was the one they were looking for.
So either they did not believe her or, they implied another killer on the loose.
The Met. police have been "induced" (read: persuaded) to look for the Cox suspect, but the Echo believe Hutchinson.

Are we ignoring the fact various aspects of Cox's story, ie:
- the times that she came and left;
- the walk down the passage;
- the light in the room;
- anyone seeing Kelly with Blotchy;
- Blotchy being seen in a pub, etc.
were ALL uncorroborated claims by Cox.
Yes, Mary was heard singing by another resident, but was Mary entertaining at that time, or not?

Hearing Mary singing does not corroborate whether Blotchy was present, he may have left before the singing started - Kelly did sing to herself at times.
McCarthy said he heard Mary singing sometimes, Venturney knew that she sang Irish songs, so the only one item you have - her singing - does not actually help corroborate Cox.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
I am well versed in the power of police officers,and the rights of individuals.My questions to you concern your claim that a report you say is now lost,did once exist,and that it contained material relating to a interrogation of Hutchinson by Aberline.You have been asked to substanciate that claim.You avoid doing so.I believe it is because you know no such document was ever written by Aberline.You have been caught in an untruth.

Harry.
That accusation does not make any sense.

I have been saying all along that a written record of Abberline's interrogation must have been made, common sense and rigid protocol require that.
I have yet to hear you justify why an interrogation would not be put in writing for such a high profile murder case as this.
Care to humor me on that point?

So, in no case do I claim to have proof it was written down so please spell out this "so-called" untruth you accuse me of.
Trust me Harry, it will be a first.

[Abby Normal]

They'd have had to find him first, Batman.

If and when he was no longer at the VH, and if he told nobody where he was going, what then? His real name might not even have been Hutchinson. Just like Lechmere he could have used that name solely in connection with a ripper murder.

The argument for several long years has been that they never used Hutch again, therefore his account must have been totally discredited. But can't exactly the same be said about Mrs Cox, and her unidentified blotchy-faced man with red whiskers? At least she might still have been living in Miller's Court, but did they ever try to recall her?

You can't have one discredited without t'other. Neither suspect appears to feature among those favoured in the most senior policemen's memoirs and whatnot. My guess is the trail simply went cold for many witness sightings, and if those witnesses couldn't be found again (unlike Lawende) the police were pretty much buggered. The ripper could have been any one of those lost, unnamed suspects, but it's not nearly as sexy or satisfying to admit that, as to claim case closed with a specific suspect in mind.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
I disagree with the comparison of Hutchs and Coxs suspect sightings.

Hutchs sighing was questioned by the press, not cox.

Hutch went to the press, with a MAJOR change in his story, Cox did not.

Hutch had a Uniquely descriptive and can ID again story- the only one among the (credible) witnesses, whereas Cox story was like all the other witnesses-bland and normal.

Hutchs sighting is uncorroborated by anyone else, cox's was (marys singing).

Hutch did not attend the inquest, Cox did.


I would venture the police never used cox again because something more along the lines of her being a woman, poor and perhaps a prostitute (pearly poll experience being a negative for the police in this regard). And because Hutchs sighting muddied the waters.

Sure it could have been that they never used him again, because they couldn't find him, but I doubt they even tried. IMHO its pretty clear they had dropped him from their good witness list long before that.

Abberline, who interviewed hutch directly and received his description of A-man first hand, never mentions him again, DESPITE the fact that Abberlines favored suspect Chapman was a dead ringer for A-man.

But I agree with you on the last sentence wholeheartedly! In my mind if the ripper was any of the unnamed (or named) suspects, it was more than likely Coxs suspect, Mr Blotchy.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
After all these years. George William Topping Hutchinson, is still being discredited ..Oh sorry wrong name...
Regards Richard..

[caz]

I don't think anyone doubts that Abberline interrogated Hutchinson. I'm glad to see though that Abberline at least gives some credability to Hutchinson's claim of viewing the body.

The thing is this...

What happened to the witness who got up and close into JtRs face for the remainder of the investigation when it came to 'police lineups' which they had plenty of?

The answer is ... they stopped using him shortly after the murder of MJK and Abberline faded out of the investigation. Abberline went all in with this witness and it went nowhere. Absolutely nowhere at all.

I would like to see any account of this witness being active within the investigation shortly after he was asked to roam the streets to ID JtR.

Swanson didn't use him at a witness. Neither did the city police.

They'd have had to find him first, Batman.

If and when he was no longer at the VH, and if he told nobody where he was going, what then? His real name might not even have been Hutchinson. Just like Lechmere he could have used that name solely in connection with a ripper murder.

The argument for several long years has been that they never used Hutch again, therefore his account must have been totally discredited. But can't exactly the same be said about Mrs Cox, and her unidentified blotchy-faced man with red whiskers? At least she might still have been living in Miller's Court, but did they ever try to recall her?

You can't have one discredited without t'other. Neither suspect appears to feature among those favoured in the most senior policemen's memoirs and whatnot. My guess is the trail simply went cold for many witness sightings, and if those witnesses couldn't be found again (unlike Lawende) the police were pretty much buggered. The ripper could have been any one of those lost, unnamed suspects, but it's not nearly as sexy or satisfying to admit that, as to claim case closed with a specific suspect in mind.

Love,

Caz
X

[harry]

Jon,
I am well versed in the power of police officers,and the rights of individuals.My questions to you concern your claim that a report you say is now lost,did once exist,and that it contained material relating to a interrogation of Hutchinson by Aberline.You have been asked to substanciate that claim.You avoid doing so.I believe it is because you know no such document was ever written by Aberline.You have been caught in an untruth.

[Wickerman]

No-one, to the best of my knowledge, Jon, ever stated that Hutchinson must have been lying.

Agreed, so for anyone today to promote the idea that a man would not dress in such attire at that time has nothing to substantiate it.
More wishful thinking.

Eyebrows were raised in several quarters regarding certain elements of the Astrakhan story. If you are now saying that no-one ever raised doubts with respect to Astrakhan's attire, one journalist certainly thought it strange that such an opulently presented individual could have gone completely unnoticed by everyone other than Hutchinson.

Every journalist thought it strange that a killer could remain unseen after each murder, which doesn't mean he didn't exist. We must remember, the published opinions of a journalist are often used to spice up a story.

I'm not shy, Jon. Far from it. But I do draw the line at repeatedly stating the blindingly obvious.

You of all people know the difference between conjecture and fact. Yet you do repeat a conjecture as if it is a fact. You know very well no evidence exists to suggest Hutchinson was discredited by the police, all you have is one unsubstantiated press report, not repeated by anyone.
More journalistic opinion, intended, as usual, to spice up a story.

Or are you suggesting that Hutchinson was Anderson's stellar mystery Jewish witness?

Not at all. Do not put your faith in memoirs Garry.

[Wickerman]

Harry.
I have already gone further than most by quoting sections of the Police Code.
The fact you choose to disbelieve the guidelines of police conduct is of no consequence, naturally you are entitled to your opinion.
However, the Police Code is not an opinion.