Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Are you suggesting that Abberline recorded "word for word every syllable" of dialogue that was exchanged between himself and Hutchinson? I can't think why else you would highlight that particular sentence in bold. That's ludicrous, of course, and very obviously didn't happen. But if all you meant was that Abberline may have made a few notes in a pocket book, that's a lot more plausible and you should have clarified as much earlier.

If anything of significance did not appear in the body of the statement itself (for whatever reason), it would have appeared in the accompanying report - the one where he referred to Hutchinson having known the deceased and occasionally lent her money. If it appeared in neither document, it obviously never existed, or else Abberline was negligent in failing to record critical information at a critical stage of the investigation.

The fact it was deemed necessary to place Swanson in the position of handling, "every paper, every document, every report, every telegram", should indicate to even the most reluctant observer that the vast majority of paperwork covering the murder investigation has vanished

But before these documents conveniently (for you) "vanished", they would have said precisely what you want them to have said - yes? This is my long-standing objection to the constant appeals to mythical "lost reports". Since they no longer exist - and may not have existed at all - we can make them say anything we want providing they help our arguments.

Oh, so now you claim to have never insisted that proof exists in support of your beliefs?

Nope, that wasn't what I claimed at all.

I have some "beliefs" that I very much "insist that proof exists" for.

But on this occasion, I was responding specifically to your accusation against "people" who have supposedly claimed to be in possession of "proof" that Hutchinson lied. I've personally never made such a claim, and I'm very confident that a trawl through my posts won't produce one either.

It's "your" decision, the theory is "yours" to decide how you choose to align it with what is known.

It's so much simpler than that, Jon.

Do we have any evidence as to where the Hutchinson press interview might have taken place? No, we don't, so it would be wholly inappropriate to "decide" either way. For your theory to work (which it doesn't anyway, for other reasons), the location would have to be the Victoria Home.

The fact is "you" and your associates have no idea where Hutchinson resided prior to the 12th November.

Yes, we do.

The Victoria Home.

End of, really.

Cheers,
Ben

[Wickerman]

But how were these "pertinent" questions and answers recorded? By some poor bugger having to scribble it all down at furious speed, or as a result of a tape-recorder being hastily invented for the purpose?

Abberline, the poor bugger, made his own notes.
Under the section entitled Memory, in the Police Code, the paragraph begins:
(my emphasis)

"Extreme accuracy is of such importance in criminal cases that police must not trust to their memories, but enter at once in their pocket-books and diaries the particulars of all inquiries made, and the circumstances attendant upon each occurrence."

In the Introduction of this Code Lord Brampton provides an address lightly touching on pertinent requirements of the Constable, one example covering the issue of 'memory' is given..

"I cannot too strongly recommend every Constable, however good he may fancy his memory to be, to write down word for word every syllable of every conversation in which an accused has taken part, and of every statement made to him by an accused person, and to have that written memorandum with him at the trial."

Broadly speaking the rule is applicable to suspects and witnesses alike, anyone offering information in a criminal case due to the necessity of accuracy of detail in the courtroom, and the potential for cross-examination of the witness, or accused, as the case maybe.

And your opinion is what, the police could not comply with these basic and obvious requirements?
What is your source that an interrogation of important witnesses/suspects in a murder inquiry could not be written down?

And why is it that not a single "interrogation" transcript has survived for any witness connected to the case? Was it that particular filing cabinet that took a direct hit during the blitz?

The fact it was deemed necessary to place Swanson in the position of handling, "every paper, every document, every report, every telegram", should indicate to even the most reluctant observer that the vast majority of paperwork covering the murder investigation has vanished.

That's not so much a "challenge", but more an unreasonable request for "proof" from those who never claimed to be in possession of same.

Oh, so now you claim to have never insisted that proof exists in support of your beliefs? Your Casebook posts 'prove' the untruthfulness of that statement.

Can you "prove" that Astrakhan was Isaacs? No?

I have never said I could, that, is the significant difference.
I am very careful not to make claims of 'proof', unlike yourself.

What do you mean "if it is decided"? Who makes these "decisions", and according to what evidence? There is certainly none that would indicate that Hutchinson spoke to the press at the Victoria Home.

It's "your" decision, the theory is "yours" to decide how you choose to align it with what is known.
The fact is "you" and your associates have no idea where Hutchinson resided prior to the 12th November.

[Ben]

Abberline took police statements all the time, he doesn't need his life story, just the answers to pertinent questions.

But how were these "pertinent" questions and answers recorded? By some poor bugger having to scribble it all down at furious speed, or as a result of a tape-recorder being hastily invented for the purpose? And why is it that not a single "interrogation" transcript has survived for any witness connected to the case? Was it that particular filing cabinet that took a direct hit during the blitz?

My point what quite clear, if you can't help our comic book hero then why involve yourself?

Because you tried to undermine his observation by claiming that ostentatiously dressed man could be found wandering the streets of Whitechapel at that time. Minus any evidence, of course.

A handful of people choose to believe he lied about something for a variety of reason's

No, not just a "handful of people" - a great many people; most people. Nobody said anything about "proof"; it has simply been observed that the evidence points in that direction.

I did challenge any of our 'supporters' to step up and show this proof if it exists, predictably a distinct silence fell on the issue.

Probably because they all recognised you were appealing to the fallacy that an opinion regarding the evidence can only be valid if it is "proved" correct. That's not so much a "challenge", but more an unreasonable request for "proof" from those who never claimed to be in possession of same. Can you "prove" that Astrakhan was Isaacs? No? Well, in that case we can dispense with that one, according to your odd and unique reasoning (in fact, we can dispense with it for a whole host of reasons that have nothing to do with a lack of "proof").

What I was getting at is, the conviction adopted by both Garry and yourself that "here" was the Victoria Home

No, not just Garry and myself - everyone apart from you and a couple of Crossmere supporters. Did this brand new, controversial, revisionist theory make waves or blaze trails? Nope, it got exposed as nonsense and successfully shouted down. Nobody was "guided" by it.

We can only reasonably believe he was a resident of the Vic. on Nov 12th. Prior to that we have no idea where he resided - that is the truth of the matter.

No.

It isn't.

The truth of the matter is that Hutchinson intended to lodge (or claimed to have intended to lodge) at the Victoria Home on the night of the murder, and that this was where he "usually" slept. Had it been otherwise, we would be compelled to accept that the police were profanely incompetent for failing to record such a crucial detail as his lodgings for the night of the murder, and that the press made the same inexplicable failing when it came to their interview with Hutchinson.

And, if it is decided that "here" does refer to the Vic., and while at the Vic. he then remarks, "my usual place was closed", we have a clear reference to another place.

What do you mean "if it is decided"? Who makes these "decisions", and according to what evidence? There is certainly none that would indicate that Hutchinson spoke to the press at the Victoria Home.

All the best,
Ben

[Batman]

Faith based and nothing else...

Where is there a shred of corroboration in anything that Hutchinson claimed about seeing MJK's body? If Hutchinson is the source for that and that alone... maybe its an explanation for the fade away of Abberline into the detective agency and Hutchinson become naught but a suspect for his post-inquest faux witness claim like any other publicity seejer that came before him.

JtR got away because of that guy. Don't forget that.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
Is it your sincerely-held opinion that a full transcript was made of the entire Abberline-Hutchinson "interrogation"? If so, could you please explain how you think this would have been achieved in 1888 without the aid of a tape recorder?

No different to a statement given at an inquest, or a trial.
Abberline took police statements all the time, he doesn't need his life story, just the answers to pertinent questions. Why are you pretending that this interview should be impossible? It was, after all, part of his job.

Pursuant to your debate with Batman, do you have any evidence of opulently-dressed men walking the streets of Whitechapel during the "autumn of terror" who didn't get accosted/arrested for parading their finery at such a time and place?

Why the obfuscation?
My point what quite clear, if you can't help our comic book hero then why involve yourself?

The argument that Hutchinson lied and may have been the killer is well supported - immeasurably more so than your unique suggestion that Isaacs was Astrakhan, or that Hutchinson "usually" lodged at some premises other than the Victoria Home.

That is a rather vague remark, supported by what?
A handful of people choose to believe he lied about something for a variety of reason's. Not one of these 'believers' can produce anything to prove their belief. I did challenge any of our 'supporters' to step up and show this proof if it exists, predictably a distinct silence fell on the issue.

And, to date, none of them, including yourself, can agree on exactly what he is supposed to have lied about. So, expecting you to prove that he lied about anything is a waste of time. It's not like you haven't had ample opportunity.
So much for "well supported".

I am not particularly concerned about thoughts that he was the killer.
Everybody knows that will never be anything more than conjecture.

Oh, and previously, I quoted you...

Trouble is, we have no evidence for any of these things being true, which leaves us with a pretty poor case for the "usual" place being anywhere other than the one named in the official record - the Victoria Home.

What I was getting at is, the conviction adopted by both Garry and yourself that "here" was the Victoria Home, yet now you have been guided to see that this conviction or yours is another example of belief being dressed up as fact.
Yet in order to defend this belief you request evidence from me that you are wrong, when neither of you have provided any evidence to indicate you were correct to begin with.

We can only reasonably believe he was a resident of the Vic. on Nov 12th. Prior to that we have no idea where he resided - that is the truth of the matter.
And, if it is decided that "here" does refer to the Vic., and while at the Vic. he then remarks, "my usual place was closed", we have a clear reference to another place.

Your choice.

[harry]

Jon,
The witness statement of Hutchinson exists.It contains all the necessary information needed to place Hutchinson on the stand as a witness had that been needed.It was taken by Badham.The additionall information supplied in Aberlines report relates mainly to Hutchinson himself.There was no need for a further document,and there is not a shred of evidence any other document ever existed.If Aberline had ceased to exist the next day,it would have made no difference.The necessary documentation would have survived.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Is it your sincerely-held opinion that a full transcript was made of the entire Abberline-Hutchinson "interrogation"? If so, could you please explain how you think this would have been achieved in 1888 without the aid of a tape recorder?

Pursuant to your debate with Batman, do you have any evidence of opulently-dressed men walking the streets of Whitechapel during the "autumn of terror" who didn't get accosted/arrested for parading their finery at such a time and place?

Strange that you now cry about lack of evidence when your entire argument against Hutchinson lacks any evidence whatsoever, as has been pointed out by many, for years.

Not the case, Jon.

The argument that Hutchinson lied and may have been the killer is well supported - immeasurably more so than your unique suggestion that Isaacs was Astrakhan, or that Hutchinson "usually" lodged at some premises other than the Victoria Home.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Trouble is, we have no evidence for any of these things being true, which leaves us with a pretty poor case for the "usual" place being anywhere other than the one named in the official record - the Victoria Home.

Strange that you now cry about lack of evidence when your entire argument against Hutchinson lacks any evidence whatsoever, as has been pointed out by many, for years.
But now, all of a sudden, ...evidence is important?

In other words, the opinions of those who discredited the account shortly after it was first made public because of doubts about its credibility,...

Ironic that you complain about lack of evidence in one sentence, only to resort to repeating the unfounded charge that the police discredited him.
Janus raising his head again, Ben?

[Wickerman]

Actually having said that, it must have been completely ridiculous for JtR to have dressed up like that Pantomime Jew in Dorset St., at that hour.

If I recall correctly you still have not produced a shred of evidence that "no-one would dress like that".
Who says so, and where do we read this?

The very fact that cases exist (in the press & the courts) of "well-dressed" men and women being subject to mugging in these streets, (eg; watch stealing), is sufficient evidence that your belief is misguided.
Why don't you look for evidence first, the reports are there, it is demonstrably untrue for you to state otherwise.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
Where do you substanciate that a written record of interrogation was submitted.Badham records in writing the witness statement.Aberline further details additional information given by Hutchinson ,in a personnel report to superiors.Neither is lost.Where is this further lost written record that you hint at?Who wrote it,signed it and submitted it?

Because neither of these documents are suitable for use at a trial.

Sure Aberline speaks of an interrogation.No one states it was recorded in writing,and was different in content,than the two reports I have mentioned.There is no lost content.

How long would you expect to last as an Inspector if your interrogation was not committed to writing?
Abberline gets creamed by a carriage the next day, so now what happens to the information in his head?

Interrogations are committed to writing - that's a 101 in, Interrogations for Dummies.

[Ben]

If this interview was being conducted at the Victoria Home, then this is a strange reply, he would naturally say "because this place was closed", but he did not, his reference is clearly to some other location.

But if the interview wasn't conducted at the Victoria Home - and we have absolutely no evidence that it was - then your problem goes away, doesn't it Jon? It is only your problem, as you'll no doubt have noticed. As Sally points out, there is no mutual exclusivity between "here" and "the place where I usually sleep". It would have required Hutchinson to clarify that they referred to the same place, of course, but the indifferently educated part-time labourer might not have bothered with "the place where I usually sleep; that is to say, here". In essence, your argument that Hutchinson "usually" slept at a different lodging house to the Victoria is dependent on the following conditions being met:

1) The police were hideously incompetent in failing to record the name and location of the place Hutchinson intended to stay that night (with the direct bearing it had on his alleged "story").

2) The press interview must have occurred at the Victoria Home.

3) Hutchinson must have expressed himself in a way that Jon considers correct and appropriate.

Trouble is, we have no evidence for any of these things being true, which leaves us with a pretty poor case for the "usual" place being anywhere other than the one named in the official record - the Victoria Home.

Not by those who actually met him, and these are the opinions that matter

In other words, the opinions of those who discredited the account shortly after it was first made public because of doubts about its credibility, and doubts about the author's motivation for coming forward so long after the murder. Yes, those opinions matter alright.

Regards,
Ben

[Batman]

Hutchinson made a claim to the papers that he was going to see the body/shown the body. Yet this is suspect because we know she wasn't in any recognizable state to strangers with precise ID involving eyes and an ear (note: ear singular not plural, hence why it wasn't some sort of court error which would have written eyes and 'ears' not eyes and ear). The reason why some people push for a hair identification is to support some sort of position that it would have been recognizable because she wasn't wearing a hat. She was naked except for a chemise. What did they do after stiching her up? Dress her up also? Its suspect that Hutchinson made this claim and as far as I can tell, once again, its faith in Hutchinson that he viewed the body. There appears to be no investigative corroboration in the accounts. Not surprising for someone who never once describes MJK in his post-inquest witness testimony. Not one single quantum of anything that tells us he even knew her. All this information about viewing bodies and seeing MJK only comes from one person - Hutchinson, no one else.

I also agree with the criticism that attributing anamolies in Hutchinson's statements to 'missing files' isn't very plausable given that the explanation he was a faux witness is warrented.

1. He never described MJK, has nobody else to witness his knowing her either.
2. He didn't describe where she lived exactly, only that she went down a passage with the man he saw.
3. He didn't describe seeing Lewis who claims she saw a man standing there.
4. There is an omission of what Hutchinson even looks like. We don't even know if he matches her description.
5. Even though he claimed a face to face encounter with JtR after the hysteria has died down in the coming weeks, he is longer used as a witness at all. Nowhere do we see mention of him by the investigators and instead they use Lawende (city) and quite likely Schwartz too (metro).

The most parsimonous solution is that we have a faux witness. Abberline bought into it for the weeks that followed and then like Hutchinson, Abberline faded away. Swanson stayed the course and had absolutely no use for Hutchinson at all by his investigative team when doing witness identification parades.

If we want to put this down to missing files, that Hutchinson was still valid and Abberline was on the right track, then the investigation must have blundered because the sort of character Hutchinson described would stick out like a sore thumb in such an area.

Are we really to believe in the hypothesis that JtR was this pantomime-like Jewish badguy? Its theatrical and nothing more than the invention of an anti-semitic wave that had proposed the mad jew connection since Pizer.

Actually having said that, it must have been completely ridiculous for JtR to have dressed up like that Pantomime Jew in Dorset St., at that hour. I doubt even MJK in her intoxicated state would have 'serviced' such a client looking like that. Probably scream JtR instead!

[Sally]

The issue is, that Hutchinson told the Central News reporter that, " I told one of the lodgers here about it on Monday,.."

The question then arises, where is here?
To date, the location has been certainly promoted by 'some' that "here", was the Victoria Home, due to the fact this address was given by Hutchinson to Badham on the night of the 12th.

If that is the case, then where was his 'usual place'?

In that same interview with the Central News reporter Hutchinson goes on to explain that, " After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed."

If this interview was being conducted at the Victoria Home, then this is a strange reply, he would naturally say "because this place was closed", but he did not, his reference is clearly to some other location.

Hutchinson makes a clear reference to 'his usual place' being at another location on the night of the murder, and, that this 'usual place' was also closed, but the Victoria Home did not close, so it was not the Victoria Home.
So, where was his 'usual place'?

Ah! Fantasy Ripperology at it's best!

So just to be clear, the entire 'argument' that you're endorsing here rests on your personal interpretation of what Hutchinson is reported to have said? You think that because he didn't say what you think he ought to have said, this must mean that he was staying somewhere else on the 9th?

You persist in this idea that the Victoria Home didn't close - although it's been pointed out to you that it did, if one wasn't in posession of a weekly pass. Maybe as a 'regular' Hutchinson assumed that he could get in but found on arrival - Oh No! no weekly pass! He was refused entry! Or perhaps he lost it on the long walk back from Romford? Who knows?

This is another of your pet theories, I think - you know, like the one in which the alleged Joseph Isaacs is really Astrakhan Man? Even if you feel the need to keep hold of that one, let this one go. There's no tangible evidence that Hutchinson was living anywhere else other than the Victoria Home on the 9th November.

Incidently, I know what the 'debate' is about - but as I said to Abby, it's a non-starter in my view. I don't see the point of pursuing it - there's nothing there.

[harry]

Jon,
Where do you substanciate that a written record of interrogation was submitted.Badham records in writing the witness statement.Aberline further details additional information given by Hutchinson ,in a personnel report to superiors.Neither is lost.Where is this further lost written record that you hint at?Who wrote it,signed it and submitted it?
Sure Aberline speaks of an interrogation.No one states it was recorded in writing,and was different in content,than the two reports I have mentioned.There is no lost content.

[Wickerman]

Let's not first forget that Hutchinson's statement which requires heaps of faith in Hutchinson to accept,...

Not by those who actually met him, and these are the opinions that matter.
There isn't anything in his statement that requires "heaps of faith" to someone who lived at the time.
I can easy understand modern theorists raising questions, but these stem more from ignorance than any suitable knowledge of the times or the place. Abberline had both, we today have neither.

...completely omits any description of Mary Jane Kelly and he doesn't offer a shred of evidence that he knew her, where exactly she live, etc.

No-one knows what he told Abberline, the interrogation record has not survived, so how can you say "what he didn't say", you have no idea what he said.

Where are you getting that from?

Evans and Rumbelow, p. 177 - Identified by Barnett recognised her by "the ear and the eyes" Okay, so its ear singular and not plural but it doesn't say hair.

Her hair was her most distinguishing feature, not her ear.
True, the court record does read 'ear', but the court record is not always correct. Half the press wrote "ear", and half wrote "hair".
In the same court record we read of Kelly wearing a velvet "body", when the actual word should be "bodice".
We also read of Sarah Lewis living at "Great Powell" St., when the correct address is Great Pearl St.
The errors are all phonetic errors, simply mishearing words that's all, 'ear' and 'hair' are phonetically similar especially when spoken with a Cockney accent.
So, don't tell me if it is written in the court record then it must be correct, we have proof otherwise.

McCarthy was pretty sure it was her, but then he was doing business with her as her landlord and we can only guess what else. Barnett had an intimate relationship with MJK....

Precisely, so Abberline did not need Hutchinson to identify the body as Mary Kelly, they already knew that.
He wanted Hutchinson to confirm that the body was the woman he saw that morning, regardless what her name was.