Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Wickerman]

So you reject as "gossip" anything that appeared in press versions of his account that didn't appear in the police statement? So I guess that's the "Sunday policeman" out of the equation then, along with the claim that he told a fellow lodger about the Astrakhan episode?

That's all just "gossip" according to you.

That's good to know.

Correct, and I'm sure you will also agree, that we should resist any attempt to build a theory on press reports.

[Ben]

To be honest, Ben, I think it likely that Hutchinson would have been asked about Kelly's clothing, if only to add inferential weight to the assumption that the woman killed in Miller's Court was indeed Kelly.

Indeed, Garry, this certainly makes more sense as a motivation to quiz Hutchinson over the clothing issue. As a means of gauging his truthfulness, however, it was essentially useless to my mind.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

When an official police statement is available, I tend to go with that over newspaper 'gossip'.

So you reject as "gossip" anything that appeared in press versions of his account that didn't appear in the police statement? So I guess that's the "Sunday policeman" out of the equation then, along with the claim that he told a fellow lodger about the Astrakhan episode?

That's all just "gossip" according to you.

That's good to know.

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson claimed to have known Kelly 'very well', had given her money on several occasions and had been 'in her company' many times.

When an official police statement is available, I tend to go with that over newspaper 'gossip'.

[GUT]

To be honest, Ben, I think it likely that Hutchinson would have been asked about Kelly's clothing, if only to add inferential weight to the assumption that the woman killed in Miller's Court was indeed Kelly. The point, however, is that if Hutchinson really was a longstanding associate of Kelly, he would have been perfectly aware of the clothing she normally wore, and could thus have given an accurate description of her attire without having seen her at all on the night of the murder.

What's more, based on reports of what was found in her room, and what we know of people of that social class and time, if he'd only seen her in the street twice he had a pretty good shot at describing what she was [likely to be] wearing.

[Garry Wroe]

The good news is that we now have three active threads' worth of the stuff.

The problem being, though, Ben, Isaacs puts in more appearances than Hutchinson.

[Garry Wroe]

This has all the markings of another straw man argument.

Hutchinson claimed to have known Kelly 'very well', had given her money on several occasions and had been 'in her company' many times.

[Wickerman]

All Hutchinson said was he had known her "about 3 years".

Which could easily mean he first met her three years ago, and three years ago she was living at Breezers Hill.
- There is no implication that he has seen her frequently since.
- No cause to assume Kelly was anything special to him.
- No cause to assume he should know her wardrobe intimately.

This has all the markings of another straw man argument.

[Garry Wroe]

... Hutchinson could easily have found ways to discover what Kelly was actually wearing whilst still lying about the Astrakhan episode.

To be honest, Ben, I think it likely that Hutchinson would have been asked about Kelly's clothing, if only to add inferential weight to the assumption that the woman killed in Miller's Court was indeed Kelly. The point, however, is that if Hutchinson really was a longstanding associate of Kelly, he would have been perfectly aware of the clothing she normally wore, and could thus have given an accurate description of her attire without having seen her at all on the night of the murder.

[Wickerman]

Ben just makes it up as he goes, much like a Star reporter.

"The police state that the man who aroused the suspicion of Mr. Galloway by frequently crossing and recrossing the road, is a respectable citizen,
Evening News, 17 Nov. 1888.

[Batman]

Even if Galloway's man was a plain clothes detective, why does that not make him Blotchy?

[Ben]

All of this Isaacs as Astrakhan business is absurd to my way of thinking - much like the frequently repeated assertion that Sarah Lewis saw a couple enter Miller's Court.

Couldn't agree more, Garry.

The good news is that we now have three active threads' worth of the stuff.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“Also, if it's a 'yes, of course' Abberline might have asked a question that gets no mention in his brief report, then I trust you will not in future ridicule others for arguing there was more to his interrogation than has come down to us, whether detailed notes of it were made or not.”

I thought I'd made it clear that it wasn’t a “yes, of course”, but rather an acknowledgement that Abberline “might” have asked the question. Personally, I don’t believe he did for the reasons I’ve already provided; it wasn’t mentioned in either the statement or the report, and Hutchinson could easily have found ways to discover what Kelly was actually wearing whilst still lying about the Astrakhan episode. I don’t recall “ridiculing” anyone who insists that there was a conveniently destroyed “full interrogation report”, although I have argued very vehemently to the contrary.

“The police did not confide anything to the Echo about the nature of this "later investigation", nor what it 'turned up', otherwise we'd have seen it in print and you would not be forced to guess, just like the Echo, that whatever it was, it 'evidently' undermined Hutch's credibility.”

Whatever later investigations turned up, the result was that a “very reduced importance” was attached to Hutchinson’s credibility because of his failure to come forward before and present his evidence at the inquest. Don’t keep saying that it was an explanation the Echo themselves “came up with”, because that is absolutely not the case. Let’s examine the quote instead:

“Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?”

Not the Echo themselves, but the “authorities”.

If you’re worried about the cagey terminology used by the Echo on the 13th, reflect that it was still very early days as far as assessments over Hutchinson’s credibility went. That article was only published 12 hours after Hutchinson made himself known to the police. Fortunately, its conclusions are cemented the very next day (14th) when the same observations are quite literally “echoed”, observing specifically that the account had been:

“considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest in a more official manner”.

No “seems to be” or “appears that”, but rather an unsensational statement of fact. If there was any vagueness the previous day, it was all cleared up “on inquiry at at the Commercial-street Police-station to-day” (Echo, 14th November). Gone is the need to “guess”, along with any temptation to lie about what the police told them (that is, if they had any hope of being supplied information at the police station again). Moreover, if the Echo had said anything the previous day that the police considered inaccurate or offensive, they would hardly have confided in them on the 14th. Evidently, the police were happy with the Echo's reporting, and confirmed to them at the station that they had understood matters correctly with regard to Hutchinson.

So no evidence of "guesswork" on the part of the Echo on either day of reporting, especially not the second, and even less evidence of lying.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“Funny that, three days after the Echo thought detectives had attached a very reduced importance to Hutch's statement.”

What, the Manchester Guardian?

No, not that funny really.

Not when we remind ourselves that they had incorrectly assumed that the police were still pursuing Hutchinson on the basis of the Galloway sighting, which even now is drastically misunderstood. The blotchy man who sparked Galloway’s interest was a plain-clothes detective, and in order to prevent his cover being blown, the nearest copper on beat fobbed him (Galloway) off with a bogus excuse about blotchy-looking suspects not being sought anymore. Nothing at all to do with a non-existent preference for Astrakhan types.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

Manchester Courier
November 16, 1888
"The police are working diligently upon the clue furnished by George Hutchinson. Judging from a communication made by Mr. Galloway, a clerk employed in the City and living at Stepney, no reliance is now placed upon the statement made by the woman Cox, and the detectives rely almost exclusively upon Hutchinson's description of the supposed murderer."

Funny that, three days after the Echo thought detectives had attached a very reduced importance to Hutch's statement.

Seems the press, collectively, couldn't get their heads round the idea that the police could investigate more than one lead at a time.

The papers did not have a clue really. Why? Because the police were hardly likely to tell the papers - and therefore the whole world, including the killer himself and the various suspects - who they were going after and who was safe.

Love,

Caz
X