Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Wickerman]

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've warned you before about that memory of yours

I recall telling you that there is no official record of Isaacs being imprisoned on Nov. 9th. (no proof).
Your reply to me was to the effect that, "likely because the records are not complete".

Bit of a cop out you say?

[Wickerman]

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.
.
.
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).

That's it Ben, just dismiss anything that answers the mystery, then pretend the mystery still exists. After all, the mystery must be upheld in order to defend the theory.

[Garry Wroe]

Abberline met Hutchinson after his statement was committed to paper, not before.

Highly unlikely, Jon. But if you'd care to supply confirmatory evidence for such I'd be pleased to see it.

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.

If Hutchinson had incriminated himself in any way, shape or form he'd have been detained and subjected to further interview.

[harry]

Wickerman,
For something to be lost,it must have once existed.Tell us how you know of it's existence,the nature of the information contained,and under what circumstances it was lost.Also this police code you keep harping on.What is/was it ,and how did it affect the interrogation by Aberline of Hutchinson.Do not ask me,I am just the amatuer,youré the professional.
Garry is certainly correct in his assessment.Untill after Aberline questioned Hutchinson,all exchanges would have been verbal,except maybe that Hutchinson's name and address w as noted in an incident report.Police code?

[The Good Michael]

A point here: I don't like that people use Anderson to support arguments, but then throw out the idea of Kosminski being the Ripper. The justification for picking and choosing is all agenda-based stuff. Anderson supports the idea of Hutchinson not being a candidate for the murders and that of course diminishes Hutchinson's importance (way after the fact)...unless one just wants to assume Kelly was a Hutchinson one-off.

Mike

[Garry Wroe]

In fairness, Mike, Anderson's assertions regarding his mystery witness are to a certain extent corroborated by Swanson. Where some draw the line is in the acceptance that Anderson's suspect was identified as Jack the Ripper. The two positions are by no means mutually exclusive.

[Wickerman]

Highly unlikely, Jon. But if you'd care to supply confirmatory evidence for such I'd be pleased to see it.

Actually, it is written on the document itself.
The initiator of a memo/report always signs his name in the bottom right.
The name of the recipient, to whom it is being sent, is written at bottom left.
It was submitted to Abberline, his name is at the bottom left.

In support of this is the brief mention in the Echo of the sequence of events.
Reporters always being on hand at the police station will see the activity unfold, and we read:
"...the importance they attached to this man's story may be imagined when it is mentioned that it was forwarded to the headquarters of the H Division as soon as completed by a special detective. Detectives Abberline, Nairn, and Moore were present when this message arrived,..."
Echo, 13 Nov. 1888.

There is no cause for dispute on this.

If Hutchinson had incriminated himself in any way, shape or form he'd have been detained and subjected to further interview.

Well, like I keep saying, whether he is going to incriminate himself will be up to Abberline to determine in the subsequent interrogation.
Which is why it is necessary to ask some very specific questions, the answers to which are not provided in his initial statement to Badham.
And, to get it in writing is imperative.

I had to wonder why you offered the background of that 70's documentary. I think we are all old enough to know about different levels of interrogation, and what would be written down, and what officially "never happened", so to speak.
Hutchinson's case was not at all similar, no-one is entertaining the idea that Abberline tied him up by his thumbs, and put match sticks under his toe nails.
There were some very serious questions he had to answer, information not contained in that initial statement, information that would need to be checked out, hence, written down.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman,
For something to be lost,it must have once existed.Tell us how you know of it's existence,the nature of the information contained,and under what circumstances it was lost.Also this police code you keep harping on.What is/was it ,and how did it affect the interrogation by Aberline of Hutchinson.Do not ask me,I am just the amatuer,youré the professional.
Garry is certainly correct in his assessment.Untill after Aberline questioned Hutchinson,all exchanges would have been verbal,except maybe that Hutchinson's name and address w as noted in an incident report.Police code?

And there was me assuming you knew what the Police Code was. Now I understand your resistance to the point I was making.
I am told this book is to be published shortly, this year, you might get yourself a copy, then we will be on the same level.

[Wickerman]

In fairness, Mike, Anderson's assertions regarding his mystery witness are to a certain extent corroborated by Swanson. Where some draw the line is in the acceptance that Anderson's suspect was identified as Jack the Ripper. The two positions are by no means mutually exclusive.

Yes but Garry, it could just as easily be claimed that Anderson knew of Isaacs being cleared, why wouldn't he?
All Abberline's reports go through Swanson, and Swanson reports to Anderson, not forgetting they are close on a personal level.
Abberline specifically investigated Isaacs, and cleared him. We learn this in the press:

"....it was said by the police that they wished the fullest inquiry as to the prisoner's movements on the night of Nov. 8. For that purpose he was remanded, but Detective Sergeant Record, H Division, said that so far there was no further charge against the prisoner. The prisoner was then asked if he wished to go to trial, but he pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to three months' hard labour."

This is why Anderson maintained his belief in a Jewish witness (Lawende?), and not Hutchinson - who had not seen the killer afterall.

[harry]

Wickerman,
That there is/was such a code,is just another claim by you.A claim you cannot support.I was never a policeman,why should I know?,but I would be w illing to consider there was if you or someone would enlighten me,and show how it affected Aberline 's ínterogation'.No,I will not be buying the book,and I do not wish to descend to your level.I am quite happy that the q uestion of a code can be settled here in a post by someone that knows.You for example,who claims to know.
All in all your claims are not worth two pennyworth of cold p#ss,and that's overstating the value.

[Wickerman]

Here you are Harry, always willing to help...

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8646

[harry]

Wickerman,
Now explain how that code affected the interrogation of Hutchinson by Aberline,an initial feeling of suspicion against Hutchinson,(claimed by you)and lost material (claimed by you).Then I will explain to you what laws and rules did cover Aberlines conduct that evening,and why there would be no missing documentation.So fire away.

[Trevor Marriott]

Wickerman,
Now explain how that code affected the interrogation of Hutchinson by Aberline,an initial feeling of suspicion against Hutchinson,(claimed by you)and lost material (claimed by you).Then I will explain to you what laws and rules did cover Aberlines conduct that evening,and why there would be no missing documentation.So fire away.

In short the police were entitled to question any person regarding a crime. However as soon as they had belief that the person being questioned was the perpetrator of that crime then questioning should cease, and that person be arrested and taken to a police station, where the facts along with the evidence would be put before the station Sgt who would determine whether there was evidence to charge at that time or order the detention of that person for inquiries to be made to gather more evidence. Or release the person immediately.

Once arrested no further interviews took place.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Wickerman,
Now explain how that code affected the interrogation of Hutchinson by Aberline,an initial feeling of suspicion against Hutchinson,(claimed by you)and lost material (claimed by you)....

Fair enough, though why you can't re-read the quotes I already provided from this Police Code is a question. I have already given you what you ask for in earlier posts.

The advice offered by Trevor also appears in the same Code, though given that Hutchinson was not charged it doesn't really apply in this case.

...Then I will explain to you what laws and rules did cover Aberlines conduct that evening,and why there would be no missing documentation.So fire away.

You are talking about the laws & rules as they existed in 1888, correct?
Today's updates, modifications and improvements are not applicable.

[Wickerman]

Actually, it is written on the document itself.
The initiator of a memo/report always signs his name in the bottom right.
The name of the recipient, to whom it is being sent, is written at bottom left.
It was submitted to Abberline, his name is at the bottom left.
.
.
There is no cause for dispute on this.

I think it is just as well to mention, if the "F G Abberline Inspr." in the bottom left corner is not in Abberline's own hand then he certainly is the recipient. However, if it is in his own hand then this is him submitting the statement to C. O. along with his report of the same date.
Abberline's name needs to be included among the initiators at the right side of the paper along with Badham, et al. if he was indeed present when the statement was made.