Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[harry]

Jon,
How do you know how Aberline was advised about Hutchinson?.You write the statement was first seen by Aberline at central office.Seems you are de claring there was already a written statement.On what information?,and how do you know it was given to Badham?
Seems it's you, not Ben,that lacks the basics.

[Wickerman]

Harry.

Do you have cause to question this report?

"... and 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, and an investigation was immediately set on foot."

Your move...

[Garry Wroe]

If memory serves me correctly, Jon, Abberline was at Leman Street when he learned about Hutchinson's story. He received a telegram and immediately travelled by cab to Commercial Street.

[Wickerman]

Leman St. was the Headquarters for H Division, yes.
We have no statement that verifies which 'Headquarters' was intended in the article. The point being, he was not at Commercial St., and as such, the completed statement was sent to him.
I know Moore was also based at Central Office (with Abberline), but they could have been at Leman St. that night.

[harry]

Jon,
Well what was received by Aberline, was not the witness statement by Badham. There is no record of who Hutchinson first spoke to on entering the police station.As Gary writes,the information was relayed by telegram,which seems not to have survived.It is extremely doubtfull that the full contents of the witness statement was included in the telegram,and who the special detective was,and what his message contained,can only be guessed.As much as you try Jon,you cannot substanciate a case of missing interrogation material.

[Wickerman]

I realize Garry invented this mysterious telegram (he did say, "if memory serves", apparently not this time), but the actual fact is the written message was taken by special Detective.
So, anyone care to produce anything, by anyone, to support this fictional telegram?

Anybody.....

I don't mind debating the written word with anyone, but when people resort to inventing a telegram, when the actual record states, "...it was forwarded to the headquarters of the H Division as soon as completed by a special detective." then someone has some explaining to do.

[Ben]

“We can be very safe in accepting that Hutchinson gave his story to Badham at Commercial St., at 6:00 pm, while Abberline was away at Central Office.”

Otherwise known as Leman Street police station, Jon.

I was worried that you were trying to squeeze in a “second meeting” with Abberline prior to the 12th November report, that’s all. Given the potential importance of Hutchinson’s evidence, it was always going to necessitate an audience with a senior “on the ground” detective. As long as we’re agreed that Abberline had only one meeting with Hutchinson before the submission of his report, I can sleep easy. There have been so many brand new “interesting” Hutchinson-related theories in recent months, I was worried another was on its way.

Please don’t scare me like that again!

“It was necessary to list those questions because the statement does not provide the answers”

Yes, it does.

The statement and the accompanying report provide all the answers to the questions you pose, and the press versions of his statement provide additional information, not immediately relevant to his credibility.

“Its just as well you do because that is where we are headed.”

Sorry, where are we “headed”?

In the direction of four duplicate Hutchinson debates?

Ooh goody, I do hope so.

I wonder how many repetition wars certain people are willing to lose before they realise that blitz-posting certain esoteric areas of ripper interest will not avail them as a debating strategy?

“I'm sure you need to believe that all the streets were totally desterted, that Hutchinson was the only one on the streets anywhere.”

Nope, I just need a spot of evidence for the new and exciting theory that Hutchinson’s self-alleged presence on the streets that night was confirmed by some insomniac who wanted to make friends with people in the small hours, and an accompanying explanation for Abberline’s astonishing failure to make reference to this critical point of “conformation” in his report. I’m afraid you simply don’t get to plonk a load of convenient no-evidence Hutch-spotters on the streets when you want them to have been there.

The comparison with Astrakhan man is flawed for obvious reasons. It is unlikely that an unremarkable working class man would attract attention on the streets at any time of the day or night, whereas a walking amalgamation of all the "spooky" press ripper attributes sauntering the most notorious streets in the ripper murder district, complete with gold “mug me” chain would have obvious problems.

“Just as stupid as the police fobbing a reporter off with an excuse that the Gallowey 'Blotchy' was “a respectable citizen” – in other words, bugger off.”

What are you talking about?

The police didn’t fob off a “reporter”. A specific constable on beat fobbed off a member of the public who wished to draw his intention to a blotchy-faced man, unaware that the man in question was known to the police as a “respectable citizen” working in concert with the police, and not a potential ripper suspect.

“Any Whitechapel murder suspect is considerably more than a casual news story.”

Until they stop being “suspected” due to the existence of an alibi, as obviously occurred with Isaacs.

“Strange that Lloyds never reported on that confusion, which likely explains why they misunderstood the association between the arrest of Isaacs and the attack on Annie Farmer.”

Not strange at all, considering that there was never any “confusion” or “misunderstanding”. They understood perfectly that Isaacs was initially suspected of possible involvement in the Kelly murder until he provided a prison alibi. Once cleared of that, he was again suspected, this time of committing the Farmer attack, but he was able to provide a separate prison alibi (separate offense) for that too, which then restricted any police interest in him to his culpability in the theft of a watch, for which he was guilty.

“I meant what I said.
Rejection only comes from those who have something to lose, who cannot allow the possibility that Hutchinson was being truthful.”

Look, this is perfectly simple – can you name a single person, besides your good self, who believes that Isaacs was Astrakhan and was exonerated of the Kelly murder due to an alibi? I wouldn’t find it quite so irritating if you at least acknowledged that you were presenting a brand new, controversial theory of your own, but instead you pretend that this opinion represents mainstream rank-and-file thinking on the subject, which it clearly isn’t.

“If what Canter wrote was common practice, he would not have written about it, there would have been no need.”

Eh?

He was talking about a layman’s perspective. His point was that while your Average Joe might think it a clever idea to look for nervous ticks and shiftiness (and other such nonsense), and conclude that anyone not displaying those signs must be telling the truth, a competent investigator – from any century – ought to know otherwise.

“Are you telling me that enticing you around these boards, stressing you out, raising your blood pressure, making you lose your cool, and correcting every ridiculous argument is not working?”

You keep telling yourself that’s what your achieving here, Jon.

Meanwhile, popularity for “Isaacstrakhan has an alibi” continues to soar…oh, wait.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Otherwise known as Leman Street police station, Jon.

Yes Ben.

Yes, it does.

The statement and the accompanying report provide all the answers to the questions you pose, and the press versions of his statement provide additional information, not immediately relevant to his credibility.

Oh dear, then I can trust you to fill in the answers:
- Precisely what time did you leave Dorset St.?
- When you left Dorset St., where did you go, who did you meet, and can anyone confirm this?
- What was the reason you stood outside Millers Court for so long?
- Why did you not come forward earlier?
- What exactly was your relationship with the deceased?

Please think about what you write.
Abberline cannot use the details in a press report, more especially as the damn thing only appeared two days later.

I wonder how many repetition wars certain people are willing to lose before they realise that blitz-posting certain esoteric areas of ripper interest will not avail them as a debating strategy?

If your memory is failing you again, I can remind you.
Feel the need to try again?

Nope, I just need a spot of evidence for the new and exciting theory that Hutchinson’s self-alleged presence on the streets that night was confirmed by some insomniac who wanted to make friends with people in the small hours, and an accompanying explanation for Abberline’s astonishing failure to make reference to this critical point of “conformation” in his report.

Remind me again, which type of evidence are you expecting to see, your home-grown version, or the conventional version?
What time of the morning was Ludwig at that coffee stall in Whitechapel Road?
Endless stalls up and down the High street, all through the night, manned by insomniacs?, well, it might help.

The comparison with Astrakhan man is flawed for obvious reasons. It is unlikely that an unremarkable working class man would attract attention on the streets at any time of the day or night, whereas a walking amalgamation of all the "spooky" press ripper attributes sauntering the most notorious streets in the ripper murder district, complete with gold “mug me” chain would have obvious problems.

But if the streets are empty, who is there to mug him?
And if they were not empty, and they weren't, then Abberline has another line of enquiry to pursue.

What are you talking about?

The police didn’t fob off a “reporter”. A specific constable on beat fobbed off a member of the public who wished to draw his intention to a blotchy-faced man, unaware that the man in question was known to the police as a “respectable citizen” working in concert with the police, and not a potential ripper suspect.

Please read the account more carefully, Gallowey was not given the identity of the blotchy character, all the constable told him was, "he was working with us".
It was the reporter who made enquiries to find out who this blotchy character was, it was the reporter who was told it was a "respectable citizen".
Please, you are making this too easy.

Not strange at all, considering that there was never any “confusion” or “misunderstanding”. They understood perfectly that Isaacs was initially suspected of possible involvement in the Kelly murder until he provided a prison alibi.

They understood perfectly, did they?
Strange that the Lloyds reporter interviewed Mary Cusins & Cornelius Oakes on or before the 8th Dec.

"From inquries made by a representative of Lloyds it appears that Isaacs, the latest suspect, has resided on various occasions at a lodging-house in Paternoster-row,..etc."

So they received their accounts in person from Cusins & Oakes, and published them on the 9th, then again on the 16th.
Yet it was not until the 23rd that Lloyds decide to change their story, with no quotes, no sources, no explanation.
If this revision had been obtained by a Lloyds reporter, wouldn't they have made the reader aware of that?
If there is no confusion, it certainly reads like a half-hearted attempt at a revision - caused by whom, what & why?

The bottom line though is, no such prison, or court record exists to confirm this story, hence, it is false - the reason why is the only remaining question.

Look, this is perfectly simple – can you name a single person, besides your good self, who believes that Isaacs was Astrakhan and was exonerated of the Kelly murder due to an alibi? I wouldn’t find it quite so irritating if you at least acknowledged that you were presenting a brand new, controversial theory of your own, but instead you pretend that this opinion represents mainstream rank-and-file thinking on the subject, which it clearly isn’t.

I can stand on my own two feet, unlike some who revel in patting each other on the back at every opportunity.
[a sign of insecurity]

No, you are telling me that 'everybody' is against the idea, which may or may not be true.
However, what is true, is, only those vocal minority who have so much invested in any number of "Hutchinson-the-liar" theories have voiced an opinion, predictably in the negative.

He was talking about a layman’s perspective. His point was that while your Average Joe might think it a clever idea to look for nervous ticks and shiftiness (and other such nonsense), and conclude that anyone not displaying those signs must be telling the truth, a competent investigator – from any century – ought to know otherwise.

You do know why the lie detector is not admissible in court, right?
Because it is a known fact that people can deceive a machine just as easily as a living, breathing, investigator.
The ability for a suspect to hide, or convey a false, emotion is an established fact. If Abberline did not observe these emotions, coupled with Hutchinson making no mistakes in re-telling his story, then he saw no indication to disbelieve him.

You must have read Garry's opinion, that Abberline spoke with Hutchinson and "believed him", based on nothing more than his face to face meeting.
So Garry is saying this was possible, that Abberline trusted his instincts and the physical & emotional responses of the witness, and you are saying it isn't?

Do you want to get your stories straight on this?

[Garry Wroe]

I realize Garry invented this mysterious telegram (he did say, "if memory serves", apparently not this time), but the actual fact is the written message was taken by special Detective.
So, anyone care to produce anything, by anyone, to support this fictional telegram?

Invented? Fictional? I don't take kindly to baseless attacks on my integrity, Jon. Continue and I'll report the issue.

I don't mind debating the written word with anyone, but when people resort to inventing a telegram, when the actual record states, "...it was forwarded to the headquarters of the H Division as soon as completed by a special detective." then someone has some explaining to do.

As ever, Jon, you take one unsubstantiated report from a newspaper which appears to support your argument and treat it as factual. Worse still, you then denigrate anyone who dares to question the said information. To call this approach unscholarly would be an understatement.

I first began researching Hutchinson and his part in the Ripper case in the mid-Eighties. I dare say that no-one has researched this man to anything like the length and depth as I have done over the decades. Perhaps this is something you ought to remember the next time you're tempted to demonstrate the extent of your Hutchinson-related knowledge. It would also help if you knew a little of the police procedures in place at the time of the Ripper murders. But then, given your track record involving the Gallaghers, Kennedy as a primary witness, nonexistent sightings by Sarah Lewis, unique inside knowledge of Anderson's innermost thoughts, claims of a completely honest Metropolitan Police Force, assertions regarding the admission policies of the Victoria Home and the fantastical proposition of Isaacs as Astrakhan, why should I expect any better?

[harry]

Jon,
Would you care to give provinence to your claim of a detective being the person who informed Aberline of Hutchinson's presence and statement.Is it in a police file,for instance,a newspaper account,or perhaps a remembrance of Walter Dew.Interesting,as like Gary,I believed Aberline was informed by telegram.
So do you care to support this fictional detective?

[Wickerman]

That looks like another very long winded way of avoiding presenting a source.

Save yourself and your integrity and please provide the official source for this "telegram". Harry chose to back you up, he is assuming you are not mistaken. I assume you do not intend to disappoint a fellow Hutchinsonian?

Of course, if you were mistaken, I can understand that, and we will say no more about it.

Oh, by the way, have you found that quote you attributed to me, that you decided to offer up, or was that another "mistake"?

I first began researching Hutchinson and his part in the Ripper case in the mid-Eighties. I dare say that no-one has researched this man to anything like the length and depth as I have done over the decades.

Yes, I can very well believe you would fall back on such a claim.
Ever heard the expression, the proof is in the pudding?

[Ben]

“Oh dear, then I can trust you to fill in the answers:
- Precisely what time did you leave Dorset St.?
- When you left Dorset St., where did you go, who did you meet, and can anyone confirm this?
- What was the reason you stood outside Millers Court for so long?
- Why did you not come forward earlier?
- What exactly was your relationship with the deceased?”

You’re repeating yourself, Jon – copying and pasting from a few days ago, in fact. I can do that too, like this:

Most of these are covered in the documents you try to trivialise – the witness statement and the accompanying report. He waited outside because of his fixation with the oddity of Astrakhan being in Kelly’s company; his relationship with the deceased was that of a casual acquaintance who occasionally gave her “a few shillings”; and he left the court at 3.00am (Abberline would not have been so daft and unimaginative as to ask for “precision”). The others are accounted for in the press; he only came forward on the recommendation of a fellow lodger, and he “walked about all night” after leaving the court, etc.

I’m not suggesting that Abberline “used” unpublished press reports. I’m saying it’s possible that Hutchinson supplied the same excuse to him (for his “delay” in coming forward) that he would later give to the press, i.e. that he had informed a policeman about the incident on Sunday and ultimately went to the station on the recommendation of a fellow lodger.

You repeat, and I counter-repeat. Productive stuff, as always.

“Remind me again, which type of evidence are you expecting to see, your home-grown version, or the conventional version?”

Anything, Jon.

I just need something resembling some sort of evidence for Hutchinson’s presence being “confirmed” on the streets. It’s nonsense for so many reasons, including (but not restricted to):

1) Even if there was the odd insomniac up and about on the same streets that Hutchinson allegedly wandered, the best the former could realistically have provided was a general recollection that yes, maybe the odd bloke or two sauntered past at a time he couldn’t recall. The entirely unremarkable sight of an ordinary local man on the streets was unlikely to prompt a passer-by to scrutinise his features, let alone remember that it was “George Hutchinson”.

2) Assuming Hutchinson wasn’t lying about “walking about all night”, he was almost certain not to remember “precisely” what street he happened to be wandering at any particular time.

3) Had his presence on the streets been confirmed, there was no chance of his statement being discredited, no chance of Abberline failing to mention this crucial detail in his report, and absolutely no chance of Hutchinson being omitted from the various reports, interviews and memoirs of senior police officials that addressed the issue of ripper-related eyewitness sightings. Unfortunately for this evidenceless, non-existent “street confirmation”, all of that happened.

“Please read the account more carefully, Gallowey was not given the identity of the blotchy character, all the constable told him was, "he was working with us".”

You’re the one who needs to read the account more carefully. At no stage did the constable reveal to Galloway that the blotchy road-crosser was working with the police. He merely informed him that he was not going to pursue the individual in question because the police were seeking a man of a “different” appearance. This was the fob-off, designed to put Galloway off the scent and conceal the fact that the blotchy character was in fact working in concert with the police. In reality, the police were very much still in pursuit of the real Blotchy, as described by Mary Cox.

“So they received their accounts in person from Cusins & Oakes, and published them on the 9th, then again on the 16th.
Yet it was not until the 23rd that Lloyds decide to change their story, with no quotes, no sources, no explanation."

What is it you’re struggling to understand about simple chronology? Yes, they initially provided the accounts of Cusins and Oakes, because at that stage it was still on the cards as to whether or not Isaacs was a worthy suspect in the Kelly murder. Then the whole Isaacs hoo-ha went quiet as the police discovered his prison alibi and promptly ditched him. They were not duty-bound to inform the press about this development, but were evidently happy to supply the information to whoever asked or cared, as Lloyds did in late December. I’m not sure why you’re expecting Lloyds to provide quotes and sources. Were the police really likely to care if Lloyds didn’t accept their stated reason for their loss of interest in Isaacs? And were Lloyds really banking on anyone being sceptical? Who would be sceptical, anyway? Yep, you guessed it: people with theories that require Isaacs being Astrakhan. Just you, in other words.

“The bottom line though is, no such prison, or court record exists to confirm this story, hence, it is false”

Hence NO, Jon.

Your “convictions calendar” remains utterly useless as a means of determining who was and wasn’t in prison throughout the entire country in November, and pretending otherwise won’t make it so.

“However, what is true, is, only those vocal minority who have so much invested in any number of "Hutchinson-the-liar" theories have voiced an opinion, predictably in the negative.”

That doesn’t explain why those “who have so much invested in any number of” Hutchinson-the-truth-teller theories haven’t voiced an opinion in favour of Isaacstrakhan. I guess they realise that it just weakens their cause. You speak of a “minority” (huge irony), but according to what evidence do you base your assertion that those who believe Hutchinson told the truth outnumber those who believe he lied?

“Because it is a known fact that people can deceive a machine just as easily as a living, breathing, investigator.”

Yes.

Well done.

We’re getting somewhere.

And what type of people “can deceive a machine just as easily as a living, breathing, investigator”…? That’s right – good liars. People who appear honest in spite of the fact that they are anything but. People who do a BIG poopoo on the misconception that one can always spot the fibbers from their shifty, nervous body language. That may be a great method for sifting out bad liars, but useless for the more intelligent, more plausible rogues who can “deceive a machine just as easily as a living, breathing, investigator”...an investigator like Abberline, for instance.

“So Garry is saying this was possible, that Abberline trusted his instincts and the physical & emotional responses of the witness, and you are saying it isn't?”

I agree with Garry 100%

Abberline could only work on the basis of what Hutchinson said and how he said it.

We, however, cannot make the very clumsy mistake of concluding that a man with a plausible demeanour cannot also be a liar.

Finally, I’m afraid Garry is quite right to note that it is very hypocritical of you to chastise others for relying on press reports when that is precisely what you’re doing with your reliance on the press report (described by you as “the actual record”) that the statement was conveyed from one station to the other by some sort of "cop-ogram", instead of the sensible usual method of telegram. I don’t know if you’ve envisaging the statement on a silver tray with a few Fox’s Glacier Mints sprinkled round the edges or what, but telegram gets my vote all day long.

All the best,
Ben

[Scott Nelson]

All the best,
Ben

I don't know about this. Just can't be sure. Will Ben and Jon ever meet up for a few pints? Can I ever persuade either of the absolute truth about the Hutchinson affair?

[Garry Wroe]

Save yourself and your integrity and please provide the official source for this "telegram".

Oh, by the way, have you found that quote you attributed to me, that you decided to offer up, or was that another "mistake"?

Unfortunately, Jon, unlike yourself, some of us have neither the time nor the inclination to spend virtually every waking moment on this site. The information is out there for anyone who is interested. Frankly, I'm not.

Ever heard the expression, the proof is in the pudding?

The problem being, Jon, that your interpretation of proof is simply that which accords with whatever pet theory you happen to be hawking at a particular time. Your insistence, for example, that Sarah Lewis sighted a couple enter Miller's Court as she made her way to the Keylers. And the source of this 'proof'? No, not Sarah's official police statement. Nor her official inquest deposition. It originated in what was a clear example of misreportage in a single newspaper. Small wonder an increasing number of posters are having difficulty in taking you seriously. And this coming from a man who once insisted that only official sources were to be trusted. Newspaper reports, it was asserted, were all but worthless in terms of their evidential value.

[Wickerman]

He waited outside because of his fixation with the oddity of Astrakhan being in Kelly’s company;

That is not an answer Ben, Hutch is not waiting because of any fixation, Astrachan is inside, he cannot see him, so what is he fixated on now?
The question remains, "why did you wait for so long"?
The answer begins with, "because I intended to.......(what?)
The statement does not tell Abberline what Hutch intended to do.

...his relationship with the deceased was that of a casual acquaintance who occasionally gave her “a few shillings”;

No it isn't, he said he had known her three years.
The answer will provide Abberline with where he knew her from, and under what circumstances.
Three years prior, Kelly was living at Breezers Hill, so was this where he met her, and if so in what capacity, if not then where?

...and he left the court at 3.00am (Abberline would not have been so daft and unimaginative as to ask for “precision”).

Once again Ben, no.
Being at Thrawl St. "about 2 am", plus "about three quarters of an hour", does not add up to 3:00 (we'll let the 3 minutes slip).
Abberline did not know he left the street at 3:00. And certainly, he needed to know the time as accurately as Hutch could provide.

The others are accounted for in the press; he only came forward on the recommendation of a fellow lodger,

Wrong again (not doing too well are we?).
The question was, "why did you not come forward earlier?", not "what caused you to come in when you did?"

.....and he “walked about all night” after leaving the court, etc.

Fail!
Abberline needs to know what direction, which streets, people seen, anyone spoken to?, etc.

When I say the answers were not there, it is because they were not there.
I do understand why you think they were, as you have clearly demonstrated, it is because you do not know what questions to ask.

You’re the one who needs to read the account more carefully.

Keep your eye on the ball, Ben. This is the detail you need to read:
"The police state that the man who aroused the suspicion of Mr. Galloway by frequently crossing and recrossing the road, is a respectable citizen, and that he was, as a matter of fact, acting in concert with them in his "mysterious movements."

This was what the police told the reporter on inquiring at the police station.
It was not the constable talking to Gallowey. The police fobbed the reporter off with an excuse.

Finally, I’m afraid Garry is quite right to note that it is very hypocritical of you to chastise others for relying on press reports when that is precisely what you’re doing with your reliance on the press report (described by you as “the actual record”) that the statement was conveyed from one station to the other by some sort of "cop-ogram", instead of the sensible usual method of telegram.

Hypocrisy, was the precise word that came to mind when Garry threw that out. Given the unsubstantiated "discredited" yarn from the Star, and the many unsubstantiated articles from the Echo, plus this last laugh from Lloyds, your entire charade is built on unsubstantiated press reports.
It struck me as the pot calling the kettle black, as they used to say.
Every accusation you (collectively) have leveled against Hutchinson is based on unsubstantiated press reports and half-truths.
Howls of laughter does not quite describe this ill conceived notion.

The conventional way to move paperwork from station to station was by carriage, which is what will have happened in this case. The special Detective taking the horse and carriage to Leman St.
No mention of a telegram, obviously because the statement being three pages long is far too much to put on a telegram.

Abberline eventually sent the same statement to Headquarters with his daily report didn't he? No telegram there either, and that paperwork went by carriage too.

Plus, the fact this unsubstantiated suggestion is endorsed by yourself pretty well confirms the fallacy of the idea.