Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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,
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,
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.

[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

[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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.