Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[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]

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?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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]

Hi Jon,

Are you suggesting that Abberline recorded "word for word every syllable" of dialogue that was exchanged between himself and Hutchinson?

Hi Ben.
When you absorb what "police must not trust to their memories" implies, then you have your answer.

The fact Abberline refers to extra details in his daily report to Central Office indicates more was said between Abberline and Hutchinson.
Statements made by the witness must be signed by the witness. Clearly Hutchinson does not sign Abberline's daily report, because Abberline's daily report is not a witness statement.
So another document existed containing the outcome of the interrogation which included details not divulged to Badham. This document has not survived.

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.

We do not know what these documents contained, and at no point do I offer the contents. The issue here is that modern theorists cannot claim "Hutchinson never told the police this, etc, etc,....", due to the fact the interrogation document(s) have not survived.
"We" do not know all that was said by Hutchinson to Abberline. That is the point "we" need to remember.

I've personally never made such a claim, and I'm very confident that a trawl through my posts won't produce one either.

Ah, another contrary remark. It was only last year you attempted to rationalize your claim that (in your opinion), when you claim something is proven, it only needs to be proven to 'you' not regarded as proof in the conventional sense.
Now, why would someone chance such an outrageous explanation if this same person had not previously claimed proof did exist?

My dear Ben, you should take the advise of Lord Brampton, and "not trust in your memory".

[Ben]

The fact Abberline refers to extra details in his daily report to Central Office indicates more was said between Abberline and Hutchinson.

Exactly, Jon.

Any relevant details that did not appear in the statement but which did emerge from Abberline's "interrogation" of Hutchinson were duly referenced in the missive that accompanied the statement, hence the detail that Hutchinson had known Kelly for three years and occasionally gave her money. By "relevant" I mean information that impacted directly on the question of Hutchinson's credibility. If nothing fitting that description appeared in either the statement or the accompanying report, it didn't exist, or else Abberline was deliberately withholding crucial information from his superiors for some unfathomable reason.

The logical explanation, of course, is that whatever else Hutchinson might have related to Abberline, it was trivial in nature, irrelevant to the question of his story's credibility, and certainly of no "help" to any 2015 theorist wishing to defend his honour.

So another document existed containing the outcome of the interrogation which included details not divulged to Badham. This document has not survived.

No.

That document never existed.

Otherwise, Abberline would obviously have forwarded that "herewith" along with the statement and the report. He'd have said, "I have his signed statement and the transcript of the interrogation, both of which I forward herewith".

The conjuring up of mythical, patently non-existent "lost reports" is one of my pet hates in this area of study.

It was only last year you attempted to rationalize your claim that (in your opinion), when you claim something is proven, it only needs to be proven to 'you' not regarded as proof in the conventional sense.

No, I never said this either.

When I point out that something has been "proven", it's because it has, and it doesn't become any less so just because certain people insist on fruitlessly protesting otherwise. Despite your accusation, however, I have never claimed to be in possession of "proof" that Hutchinson lied. By all means have a hunt through the Hutchinson threads if you think I have.

There are only 14,000 posts to search through.

All the best,
Ben

[harry]

Jon,
'Statements made by the witness must be signed by the witness',as you wrote in your last post ,is not true.Certainly they should be asked if they are willing to sign,and probably most do, but statements of interview can be recorded without the knowledge or consent of a person making such statement.In the case of Hutchinson,as Ben has told you,there was a signed statement taken by Badham,and also a statement of interview by Aberline.Taken together,they cover all relevant elements.There was no third report.

[Abby Normal]

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'?

Hi Wick
thanks for explaining- I understand that part now.

What I still don't get is how does him staying at somewhere other than the Victoria house the night of the murder in any way "exonerate" him?

[Garry Wroe]

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.

Not so, I'm afraid, Jon. Several newspapers were dubious with regard to Hutchinson's Kelly-related claims. Some thought that the delay in his coming forward was strange. Others were sceptical that Hutchinson was seemingly the only person who saw the opulently dressed Astrakhan parading the East End on the night under scrutiny. A few more were openly incredulous with reference to the sheer weight of detail contained within Hutchinson's description of Astrakhan.

And this is to say nothing about the fact that Hutchinson ultimately became a discredited witness.

[caz]

Hutchinson made a claim to the papers that he was going to see the body/shown the body. Yet this is suspect... 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.

Hi Batman,

Abberline's words: Hutchinson is at present in no regular employment, and he has promised to go with an officer tomorrow morning at 11.30. am. to the Shoreditch mortuary to identify the deceased.

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.

Abberline interrogated Hutch and considered him truthful, which in itself shows he must have been actively on the lookout for any anomalies. It was his job to make sure that the woman Hutch claimed to see that night and know as Mary Kelly was in fact the deceased. 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. After all, there was a potential conflict with Mrs Cox's inquest testimony, which put her Blotchy suspect in with Kelly earlier that night.

Presumably Hutch did attend the identification as he promised, 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.

What I cannot fathom is why the police would have gone out of their way to inform the press that the reason Hutch's statement now had a much reduced importance attached to it was that they had basically screwed up, and had somehow only just appreciated the serious implications of a witness coming late to the party and not giving his account at the inquest. In fact that explanation has never made any sense to me. 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? The police are 'asking' why he didn't come forward earlier? Yeah, right. Like they would be volunteering that to the press, when Abberline should have asked and got the answer during his initial interrogation.

Much more likely that the press reached this nonsensical conclusion, which painted the police in a poor light, due to their frustration at having to guess what was going on. 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.

By the way, all this talk of Hutchinson's place of residence ('usual' or otherwise) gives me real fits. He told Abberline he was in no regular employment, and he claimed he had just come back from Romford on the Thursday night then walked about until morning, and we don't know what money he had around that time, if any, to pay for a bed whether his 'usual' place was open or closed. He had no fixed abode for the murder night yet his place of residence as at 12th November was recorded on his statement to Badham as the Victoria Home. So Abberline would surely have sought to establish during his interrogation what his sleeping arrangements had been over the past week or so, and to make sure they would be more stable now he was helping with police enquiries.

Love,

Caz
X