Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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]

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

Perhaps I wasn't too clear, Sgt. Badham being well acquainted with the multi-purpose form is able to extract from Hutchinson pertinent details, by the use of periodic questions, so the witness statement contains as much detail as if he had filled out that form.

It is unfortunate that we do not possess the police statement provided by Schwartz but only official summaries of the contents. I mention Schwartz because he also approached the police reputedly with a story to tell, unlike the witness statements given by the Millers Court residents who were only asked if they had seen anything.
Two different types of witness, and as a result two different types of statement, one being offered the other being extracted. A witness with a story to tell (Hutchinson/Schwartz) generally provides a more complete account than a witness who was not sure if they saw anything at all (Millers Court residents).

[Ben]

“Badham being well acquainted with the multi-purpose form is able to extract from Hutchinson pertinent details, by the use of periodic questions”

Such as, what?

“Now, Mr. Hutchinson, you mentioned seeing a tie-pin adorning the coat of this man who walked past you, for a brief moment, in close-ish proximity to a gas lamp in what was otherwise darkness, but you neglected to mention any shape or design. Could you oblige?".

I ask you again – if Badham was merely trotting out a “multi-purpose form", where exactly was any interviewing “skill” demonstrated, and how was it supposed to have weeded out liars and time-wasters?

“A witness with a story to tell (Hutchinson/Schwartz) generally provides a more complete account than a witness who was not sure if they saw anything at all (Millers Court residents).”

I’m not sure on what basis you conclude that all Miller’s Court witnesses were unsure if they had seen “anything at all”. Cox, Lewis et al were sequestered in Miller’s Court the moment they woke up on Friday morning; as such, there is no way of knowing whether or not they would have come forward of their own volition had it been otherwise. For all we know, they might have been just as eager as Schwartz to come forward, and just as convinced that they were important witnesses “with a story to tell”. As for Schwartz, I accept that Swanson wrote a “summary” of his overall experience, but I would be hugely surprised if the recorded description was itself a “summary”.

[DJA]

All that detail and an unknown hand had to correct lamp of "The Ten Bell (sic) to Queens Head" Public House on the Witness Statement.

[Wickerman]

Such as, what?

Use your imagination, but intelligently this time.

I ask you again – if Badham was merely trotting out a “multi-purpose form", where exactly was any interviewing “skill” demonstrated, and how was it supposed to have weeded out liars and time-wasters?

It isn't Badham's role to "weed out liars and time-wasters", before the police interrogate the witness they need a statement to work with.

I’m not sure on what basis you conclude that all Miller’s Court witnesses were unsure if they had seen “anything at all”. Cox, Lewis et al were sequestered in Miller’s Court the moment they woke up on Friday morning; as such, there is no way of knowing whether or not they would have come forward of their own volition had it been otherwise. For all we know, they might have been just as eager as Schwartz to come forward, and just as convinced that they were important witnesses “with a story to tell”. As for Schwartz, I accept that Swanson wrote a “summary” of his overall experience, but I would be hugely surprised if the recorded description was itself a “summary”.

A comparison can be made between a witness who realized he saw something worthy of reporting (Schwartz?) as opposed to a witness who has trouble recalling anything of consequence (Lewis) because she was not aware she had seen anything of value.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I may have mentioned this before during my 17 years on this site, but its my belief, that Hutchinson, was telling the absolute truth, and was attempting to honestly assist the police.
I also have mentioned before that George William Topping Hutchinson was the man we call Hutchinson.
There is nothing suspicious about his statement, only in our eyes, the only question that confronts us, is,''Did the man he saw with Mary Kelly kill her or was it someone else''?.
For the record, I believe the man left at dawn , with Kelly asleep on the bed , very much alive, and we have to consider events after dawn to find her killer.
Regards Richard,

[Wickerman]

Hi,
I may have mentioned this before during my 17 years on this site, but its my belief, that Hutchinson, was telling the absolute truth, and was attempting to honestly assist the police.

And that Richard is what history does record, all latter-day fringe theories aside.
Until something of what he said is proven or demonstrated to be false his statement stands as accepted by the authorities at the time and never contested.

I also have mentioned before that George William Topping Hutchinson was the man we call Hutchinson.

Although I have never jumped onboard with that suggestion I have yet to read of anything that contradicts the hypothesis - you could be right.

There is nothing suspicious about his statement, only in our eyes, the only question that confronts us, is,''Did the man he saw with Mary Kelly kill her or was it someone else''?.

"There is nothing suspicious about his statement", has been the accepted opinion from policemen on these boards who have experience with the taking of witness statements, and rightly so.
The vast majority of dissenters to that view have no experience whatever in dealing with witnesses.

For the record, I believe the man left at dawn , with Kelly asleep on the bed , very much alive, and we have to consider events after dawn to find her killer.
Regards Richard,

And you're not alone in that view, but I think it is a view that has the most challenges to validate as theories go.

[DJA]

Hi,
I may have mentioned this before during my 17 years on this site, but its my belief, that Hutchinson, was telling the absolute truth, and was attempting to honestly assist the police.

Honestly,that is so naive.

"I also have mentioned before that George William Topping Hutchinson was the man we call Hutchinson."

And he was unemployed and somehow managed a military bearing.
Perhaps the real Hutchinson was trained as a sailor.

"There is nothing suspicious about his statement, only in our eyes, the only question that confronts us, is,''Did the man he saw with Mary Kelly kill her or was it someone else''?.
For the record, I believe the man left at dawn , with Kelly asleep on the bed , very much alive, and we have to consider events after dawn to find her killer."

Prolly worth having a good look at the timing.


Regards Richard,

Thanks mate. All the Best!

PS. Ever consider that the real Hutchinson was a lookout for Jack the Ripper!