Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Ben]

The value of an experienced interviewer is in the extraction of detail the witness initially did not recollect

I appreciate that, Jon, but you also said that Badham was merely adhering to a "form", in which the witness fills in the entries for moustache, eyes, earlobe bulbosity etc. Far from requiring any "skill" on the part of the police interviewer, that was an obvious invitation to any bogus witness to gild the lily as much as possible. Again, surely it's a bit revealing that all other witnesses left the "eyelash shade" section blank.

Cheers,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Not really, no.

If Hutchinson reported “details” that he didn’t actually see or notice, that was hardly the fault of Badham.

I think you must have skipped the last few lines in the post you are responding to, namely...

".....the recollection of detail is likely not attributable to Hutchinson himself, but more likely to the professionalism of Sgt. Badham in coaxing the often forgotten minutiae of specifics from the witness which he initially may not have realized the extent of what he saw.

A skilled interviewer can extract minute details that the witness hadn't even realized he had seen at the time."

The value of an experienced interviewer is in the extraction of detail the witness initially did not recollect, an indisputable fact of police work.

It might also be observed that no other witness provided anything like as “detailed” a description as Hutchinson’s.

Lawende was not questioned by the Met., so which comparable witness statement are you referring to?

[Ben]

“One of the reason's Hutchinson's statement contains a lot of detail can be attributed to Sgt. Badham.”

Not really, no.

If Hutchinson reported “details” that he didn’t actually see or notice, that was hardly the fault of Badham. Even if there were special little sections – which I very much doubt - for filling in such criteria as tie-pin shape, or eyelash colour, or shirt collar material, or nostril hair-length or whatever else, Hutchinson could always have left those sections blank; which he was bound to do if he was human and not telling porkies. But the fact that Hutchinson referred, very implausibly, to the colour of the man’s eyelashes is hardly an indication that Badham specifically quizzed him on that point - “Eyelash colour, Mr. Hutchinson?” - before looking up expectantly at his witness for a ready answer.

It might also be observed that no other witness provided anything like as “detailed” a description as Hutchinson’s. Was that because Badham wasn’t on hand with his fill-in-the-blank questionnaire to coax the “forgotten minutiae of specifics” out of other witnesses? One can only wonder what goodies might have been extracted from Lawende if only he had been given the Badham treatment – a seahorse pattern on the red neckerchief perhaps? No, we must be realistic; Hutchinson bears sole responsibility for whatever “detail” appeared in his Astrakhan description. If he neither noticed nor remembered – as was likely given the circumstances – there was nothing preventing him from saying so, and a “skilled interviewer” would appreciate that, without pressuring the witness into to giving an “answer” that he or she, being human, cannot provide. It cannot be credibly argued that “the recollection of detail is likely not attributable to Hutchinson himself”, and I hope you’re just wording yourself poorly. The “recollection of detail” could not have been achieved by anyone other than Hutchinson himself, and if those supposedly “recollected details” strike a distinct bum note, credibility-wise, the blame lies with Hutchinson.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

I have often had to wonder if Hutchinson actually existed, and was not just a police plant to give the public the thought the police were successfully getting witnesses of a good viewpoint to the murders.

Hi Broda, and welcome.

If I recall correctly, Simon Wood was of a similar mindset.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

First ever post in this forum!

I must confess that it always struck me as Hutchinsons witness report was too perfect. Too flawlessly given and far too descriptive.

Welcome.

One of the reason's Hutchinson's statement contains a lot of detail can be attributed to Sgt. Badham.
When a witness offers a statement as important as this one was it is necessary for the officer taking the statement to extract as much detail as he can.

Hutchinson obviously gave a somewhat superficial statement when he first arrived at Commercial St. Station, typically the witness does not always appreciate the value of what he saw or realize the extent in detail when he first relates his story. This is why the interviewing officer, in this case Sgt. Badham, would take him aside in a room away from distractions and have Hutchinson start slowly relating his story, and at frequent intervals Badham would interject with questions in order to clarify specific details the police need to know.
I have a copy of the witness description form in use by police at the time and the sequence of questions on that form equate rather well with the detail provided by Hutchinson.

This is not a case of a witness providing a flawless performance with respect to detail of the suspect, the witness will be prompted with questions from Sgt. Badham.
Relevant questions on the form begin with Age, then Height, Build, Hair, Eyebrows, Forehead, Eyes,...etc. and including Complexion, Moustache or Beard, Dress, etc.

This is very close to what we see in sequence in Hutchinson's statement, and the recollection of detail is likely not attributable to Hutchinson himself, but more likely to the professionalism of Sgt. Badham in coaxing the often forgotten minutiae of specifics from the witness which he initially may not have realized the extent of what he saw.

A skilled interviewer can extract minute details that the witness hadn't even realized he had seen at the time.

[c.d.]

Hello Broda,

First of all, welcome to the boards. I think if you scroll through this thread from the beginning it will help answer your question.

But a couple of points to help you out:

It might be better to turn the question around and ask if there was any reason (at least initially) NOT to believe Hutchinson. If he didn't appear to be drunk or mentally unstable or didn't immediately start talking about collecting a reward, Abberline's natural inclination was probably to believe him especially since this could have been an instance where the police finally received a detailed description of the Whitechapel murderer. After all, Abberline was only human and desperate to catch the killer.

There are also degrees of believing ranging from he is probably telling the truth to I would bet the lives of my wife and children on it. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

c.d.

[Jason Spencer]

First ever post in this forum!

I must confess that it always struck me as Hutchinsons witness report was too perfect. Too flawlessly given and far too descriptive.
I have often had to wonder if Hutchinson actually existed, and was not just a police plant to give the public the thought the police were successfully getting witnesses of a good viewpoint to the murders.
Such a report would have doubtlessly given a large morale boost to the police too.

There is also the possibility that the witness report was accepted because it was a great report. It gave him everything but a name and such clear descriptions would have been seen almost as a hand from God.

[Ben]

“Isaacs wore that imitation gold chain while impersonating a Detective, no-one described him as opulent.”

I don’t disagree, Jon, but I thought we were talking about Astrakhan’s appearance as described by Hutchinson, which was unmistakably opulent; in contrast to Isaacs, who fooled nobody with his “flashy” faux chain.

“he failed to produce the warrant card, that is why he was arrested.”

That was one problem, yes. Another was that he’d done a piss-poor job of attempting to look like anything resembling a detective.

“The Police Code informs us that it is a felony to impersonate anyone for gain”

But not a “serious” felony, which is what you originally claimed it was. “Impersonation” is very low on the felony scale, especially in comparison to the truly “serious” felonies of murder and rape.

“You repeatedly forget that your accusations have never been established. You also keep saying they are 'the majority opinion', yet it is the same five or six voices that keep repeating the same accusations.”

As against the same one or two voices - well, one - who persistently engages those five or six with doggedly repeated claims that Hutchinson told the squeaky-clean truth. I’m not making any “accusation”. I’m simply accepting the contemporary police judgment of Hutchinson’s credibility after later investigations had “considerably discounted” his statement.

I haven’t seen any evidence of disunity amongst those who have expressed reservations about that statement’s credibility. There might be some dispute about why he may have lied, but not what. As for “status quo”, remember that you’re about a million miles away from the “status quo” as it’s possible to be in terms if your views on the case, and before you take offense, be aware that most would accept that as a compliment. Your views on the Kelly murder have absolutely nothing to do with the “status quo”.

If this was a competition to see whose is the most "mainstream" opinion, you would come rock bottom, but the good news is that it isn’t, and nor should it be.

By the way, who was your last post, #613 aimed at?

"Hatchett". Sorry I didn't make that clear.

Regards,
Ben

[Paddy]

Dja

Originally Posted by DJA

Check out pictures of Randolph in his coats.

I thought Randolph was gay? Pictures of him were circulated in a pink tutu.
If it was him wouldn't he be targeting men?

Also I would have thought fur trimmed coats would have been common with immigrants from the Pale or Russia. Some were not that poor.

Pat....

[Wickerman]

No, it isn’t, Jon.

Anyone who prominently displays a thick gold chain and wears expensive clothes is irrefutably opulent – no “interpretation” required.

Isaacs wore that imitation gold chain while impersonating a Detective, no-one described him as opulent.
Just because you use the term does not make it so, Ben.

…And it was a claim that was met with immediate scepticism (and probably quiet ridicule) because "his attire let him down".

No-one mentioned his attire, like I said, he failed to produce the warrant card, that is why he was arrested.

In which case, thousands of men commit a “serious felony” on a nightly basis following a visit to Ann Summers and a special request from an adventurous missus – Jon “Kinky Cop” Smyth included, no doubt!

Not really sure where you are going with that.
The Police Code informs us that it is a felony to impersonate anyone for gain, be it property or financial.
Isaacs attempted to gain admittance to the pier by fraudulent means, the price of admittance is the financial gain.
The fact he impersonated a Detective in order to perpetrate the fraud only makes it worse.

But your insistence that Hutchinson told the truth – which, incidentally, is not the majority-held opinion – is predicated on a “particular theory” that you subscribe to concerning the sequence of events on the morning of the 9th November, and it happens to be an extremely unique and alternative one.

You repeatedly forget that your accusations have never been established. You also keep saying they are 'the majority opinion', yet it is the same five or six voices that keep repeating the same accusations. The same five or six voices that can't even agree on what they 'believe' he may have lied about.
Not what you would call a unified front.
That, does not constitute a majority opinion.

The statue quo is that Hutchinson was believed, and never shown to have lied, or even accused of lying.
Like it or not that it the official history of this issue.

By the way, who was your last post, #613 aimed at?
It doesn't look like something I had written.

[Ben]

“A guy is out on the street on a very unclement night. He has time on his hands. He sees a guy making an attachment to someone he knows, and perhaps is someone who could, if it wasnt for this newcomer, have provided him with a place of dry refuge for the night.

Of course he is going to take notice, not just because of the above, but also because he has the time on his hands, and nothing else to do.”

I’ve highlighted in bold the more problematic elements with this reductive assessment of Hutchinson’s statement, and I’m afraid they betray a lack of understanding about the likely mentality of a homeless person who had just walked 13 miles in the small hours on a “very inclement night”. If Hutchinson was the irregularly employed casual dosser he claimed to be, he would have put every effort into rectifying his homeless predicament as soon as possible, and that would reasonably have involved getting out of the cold and wet, and seeking shelter in a secluded doorway somewhere. Neither boredom nor a desire for pointless, voyeuristic entertainment was likely to weigh heavily on the mind of a person in those dire circumstances.

You ask us to accept everything that Hutchinson said because Abberline believed him, but then add some brand new bits of your own and insist we must accept those as well, despite them not appearing anywhere in Hutchinson’s statement. He told Abberline that he couldn’t help Kelly with sixpence because he had “spent all (his) money going down to Romford”, which is quite different to the perfectly innocent “please can I stay in your room because I’ve utterly exhausted from walking for miles and miles in the rain”.

You claim to reject “speculation”, but it is precisely that which you engage in here. It seems "speculation" is only permissible if it is Hutch-friendly.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“Though Astrachan was not described as "opulent", that is your interpretation.”

No, it isn’t, Jon.

Anyone who prominently displays a thick gold chain and wears expensive clothes is irrefutably opulent – no “interpretation” required. I never once claimed that nobody “dressed up” at night-time in that part of the East End (we need only consider the purportedly “theatrical” Israel Schwartz to appreciate otherwise). I observed that nobody would advertise their obvious wealth in one of the most notorious areas on London, especially not at a time when police and public were apt to accost anyone looking vaguely out of place. I would suggest that this reality ought to be obvious to anyone not tantalized by the long-demolished image of the ripper as a dashing doc with a top hat.

An N-reg Ford Escort with body-coloured bumpers and an overlarge spoiler may be described as flashy, whereas a brand new Bentley Continental is opulent.

“It was not his attire that let him down, but the fact he drew attention to himself in attempting to gain admittance to the pier without a ticket, by claiming to be a Detective”

…And it was a claim that was met with immediate scepticism (and probably quiet ridicule) because "his attire let him down". There is no evidence that Isaacs’s appearance convinced anyone, even for a moment, into thinking that he was an actual detective. So immediate and abysmal was his failure that it is tempting to feel sorry for him and his stupid-looking fake watch chain from Claire's Accessories.

“Impersonating a detective IS a serious felony.”

In which case, thousands of men commit a “serious felony” on a nightly basis following a visit to Ann Summers and a special request from an adventurous missus – Jon “Kinky Cop” Smyth included, no doubt!

“I think it has become more difficult for the modern reader/researcher to identify reasonable suspects outside the murder inquiry. So they prefer to take the easy route and look inside the inquiry”

For “easy route” read “logical route”, or rather “first route taken by any competent modern-day detective”. I don’t know who convinced you that looking for suspects “outside” the murder inquiry takes precedent over looking “inside” it, but I can assure you that it runs contrary to normal police practice.

“My comment concerns the opinions of modern theorists, 'we' today accuse witnesses of lying when they just happen to say something that speaks against a particular theory.”

But your insistence that Hutchinson told the truth – which, incidentally, is not the majority-held opinion – is predicated on a “particular theory” that you subscribe to concerning the sequence of events on the morning of the 9th November, and it happens to be an extremely unique and alternative one. It is therefore very unfair to assert that it is only Hutchinson’s doubters whose arguments in that regard are governed by the defence of a “particular theory”.

All the best,
Ben

[Hatchett]

Hi,

Just about everything you have written DJA.

Best wishes.

[DJA]

Is that serious?

Yep.

Check out pictures of Randolph in his coats. Heard of Google?
Gull resided next door in Brook Street.

Have a look at the timeline of events after Mary Ann Kelly's murder.
Especially Phillips attempts at gaining a pardon over the weekend.
Next thing the cops have Hutchinson.

[Wickerman]

Given that Hutchinson had possibly approached Dr. Phillips over the weekend in the hope of being pardoned for being a lookout,Abberline again appears to have been brought in to ensure our Jack was not caught.

George's X ray vision is unbelievable.

The uninitialized change of hotels on the statement is a big worry.

The description of A Man is that of Randolph Churchill.
His moustache changes as do his 'photos.
Sir William Withey Gull lived next door to him.
The seal implies something else.High Office.

The statement was a warning to The Establishment that Jack needs to be left free.

Look at WE Gladstone's letter to The Times.
Guess whose idea that was?

Is that serious?