Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Wickerman]

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.

Harry.
Before we go any further into your post, would you care to explain what makes you think this?
A policeman can overhear a conversation and record what was said, yes, because there is no convenient way of obtaining a signature, but this is not the case here.
Abberline sat with Hutchinson and it was his duty, as with all serving policemen, to record - in writing - the statement given by a witness under interrogation.

Also, I am not sure by your use of the term 'interview'. In the good old days when we called a spade - a spade, the term Interview was used for witnesses. You Interview a witness, but you Interrogate a suspect.
Abberline said he Interrogated Hutchinson.

Today Interview is used in reference to both witness & suspect, perhaps evidence of political correctness infiltrating the police department.

An unsigned statement by a witness/suspect is of no use legally speaking, anyone could have written it.
Each page of Hutchinson's initial statement had to bare his signature. Every statement by the witnesses in the Coroner's inquests bare the signature of the witness, or mark if the witness is illiterate, it is a requirement.

Why you cannot accept the police would do a proper job and put an interrogation in writing is strange, unless you are one of those who believe the police were just incompetent?

[Wickerman]

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".

Ben, daily reports were mailed into Central Office every morning. That is all we are talking about here.
An Interrogation is not something to mail around, it will stay with Abberline, he is still working with it, and did so for the next couple of weeks.
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. This was a daily report, that is what an Inspector will put in his daily report.

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

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

[Wickerman]

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?

Abby.
Directly no, but this problem surfaced after a discussion about the name of the pub being changed in his initial statement to Badham.
I believe Ben suggested this change was another indication he was lying, because he had to be well acquainted with the area due to the fact he lived at the Vic. Home., and presumably had been for some time?

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

Did any of them suggest he must be lying because people wouldn't dare dress that way, in this part of town, at that hour?

That is the issue.

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

Do I take it you would like to offer up some believable, credible, perhaps even official evidence that the police did discredit him?
Come on Garry, don't be shy.

[Wickerman]

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

Hi Caz.
For what it's worth, a good place for an out of work laborer to be on a weekend is the market, moving crates, general duties.
This is where he must, in my opinion, have got the money for the Vic.

[harry]

Jon,
You need to be put right on a number of things.The result of Aberlines interrogation was contained in a written record by Badham.The terminology used by Aberline,interrogation', was not inconsistent with the word intervie wed,on that occasion.Hutchinson came willingly to the police station,and would not have been giving evidence under oath,and w ould not be bouned by the same powérs of compulsion,as at an inquest or trial.He could have refused to have signed the record made by Badham.This w ould not have negated the information given at the police station,because he gave it in the presence of both Badham and Aberline who could swear to such.
It is not I who is questioning the conduct of Aberline and Badham,but you,in insisting there should have been an additionl report, which in the good old days would never have been required.

[harry]

Jon,'
I'll rephrase the last part of my post above.Instead of should have been,read,there was.

[Batman]

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.

[Garry Wroe]

Did any of them suggest he must be lying because people wouldn't dare dress that way, in this part of town, at that hour?

That is the issue.

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

Do I take it you would like to offer up some believable, credible, perhaps even official evidence that the police did discredit him?
Come on Garry, don't be shy.

I'm not shy, Jon. Far from it. But I do draw the line at repeatedly stating the blindingly obvious. Or are you suggesting that Hutchinson was Anderson's stellar mystery Jewish witness?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[richardnunweek]

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

[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.