Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[bolo]

Hello DVV,

Hi Boris,

may be so, but what does "excellent" mean in the JtR case ?
Years after, he was still believing in Dr Jack, and appeared appallingly stupid in his interviews.
How many serial killers did he catch ?

Cheers

"excellent" may or may not mean much in light of the Whitechapel murder investigation...

From what I've read, he was quite successful at his Pinkerton job so he must have known his craft. Maybe his memory became a bit fuzzy in later years due to age issues.

Best wishes,

Boris

[DVV]

Viable for Abberline. Anyone's who's read Hugo knows that impoverished people may often do a lot of wondering around at night. Again, viable in the eyes of the police.

Mike

Hi Mike,

No. Again. That is no alibi.
But did not need to be one, since Hutch wasn't suspected.
Hugo ?
Good example of non-realistic literature. Bearness wasn't his strongest point, and the A-Man is as much credible as Quasimodo.

Cheers

[DVV]

Maybe his memory became a bit fuzzy in later years due to age issues.
Boris

Here, Boris, the important point is about the theory of a murderer possessing a good deal of anatomical/medical knowledge.
Abberline didn't make up his mind in 1903.
If he thought so in 1903, he certainly thought so in November 1888.

And that's the (main) reason why he failed to suspect Hutchinson.

Cheers

[bolo]

DVV,

interesting point.

So you think that Abberline had a theory of his own which made it difficult for him to stay unbiased?

It would be rather anticlimactic to say the least to find out that Abberline believed in a Gladstone bag-toting Doctor Ripper or other commonplace stuff...

Boris

[DVV]

Yep. Eerybody had his own theory in 1888.
And Abberline, as far as we can make out, believed the killer was well versed in anatomy.
Thus it could hardly be a poor groom dossing in the VH. At least, it couldn't help him suspect Hutch.
On the contrary, Henry Moore, who took the job 6 months later, believed that the ripper was to be found in a doss house, especially the large ones, such as the VH, where people were just "numbers".

Cheers

[Lechmere]

Someone giving a false name after being found next to a freshly slain body?
A sure sign of innocence if ever there was one and anyone suggesting otherwise must be a buffoon.

The same person immediately after wards gets into a dispute with the first policeman he met as to what he told him.
Another sign of innocence.

Choosing to take control of the situation by bluffing it out rather than running off – possibly into the arms of the local beat policeman just as the alarm is being raised…
Oh no – the sensible thing would have been to panic and run.

Paul was just worried because of the reputation of the street?
Shouldn’t Lechmere have been more worried? He had just discovered the body of a woman when someone comes up behind him in the street. Lechmere didn’t try to take evasive action from Paul. Paul took evasive action from Lechmere.

[DVV]

Please, Lechmere, take your little carman by the hand and walk him to a Lechmere's thread, if you find no whisky bar.

Thanks in advance

[Lechmere]

Ben
However you huff and puff – we know Paul was examined for a day. We know Hutchinson was interrogated by Abberline.
No such information exists about Lechmere – whose true name remained unrecorded.

Regarding Pizer – he was named as a prime suspect early on in the internal police records. And soon after Piggott and Isenschmid.
Is anyone similarly named in later records?
The next ‘named’ suspect that I can think of who dominated the police’s thinking was Sadler. Some considerable time after.
So on what basis – apart from your unique opinion – do you claim that the police would have clutched at straws more readily in November?

I wasn’t criticising the police – I was describing who the investigation developed.

Indeed there was nothing to stop the police from going back and reinvestigating Lechmere.
But we have absolutely no reason to suppose they did. It would actually have been remarkable if they had.
If we compare how other major and complex investigations pan out – such as the Yorkshire Ripper case, when the police were considerably more experienced and better resourced - early lines of enquiry are regularly buried.

You now claim that Abberline didn’t really interrogate Hutchinson but just chose that word to impress his superiors?

You will notice that I said all the residents of Millers Court were locked in and interviewed. Not Dorset Street. I can guarantee that more residents in Millers Court were interviewed than residents in Bucks Row.

The Nichols inquest started the day after her death. While it went in for several days after this, there was some doubt initially whether she died in situ.
Kelly’s inquest opened 3 days after her death. Was it rushed? It quickly established the cause of her death which is why it was held.
The only ‘cock up’ I can think of in the Kelly case was the delay in opening the door which was caused by an over concern to do things right. And this ‘cock up’ had no material impact on the investigation that I can think of.
The Kelly murder was one of the first – possibly the first – time that crime scene photographs were taken.

So far as the police recording of names is concerned – whether a name was an alias or an alternative name is no significant – different known names were recorded.
An alias doesn’t have to be a totally invented name.
Most people who give themselves different names to mask their identities chose a family name.

You seem to be fixating in amending the official record. It wasn’t a case of amending an official record. It was a case of recording his true name when they mentioned him – such as on 19th October 1888. In the same way as they mentioned other peoples alternative names.
If the police had a card index system for everyone involved in the case (they probably didn’t) then if they discovered his true t=name then they obviously should have recorded it am=nd amended their records as it would help to ceate a true picture.
The idea that it is quite innocent to give a false name – the name of a policeman to make the person concerned seem more innocent by association – is frankly bonkers. Oh – no, it was undoubtedly innocent.
There are numerous reasons why he would have been compelled to give genuine home and work details which have been discussed before

It’s not impossible for Lechmere not to come into the frame if the police went out of their way to haul Paul in on suspicion, for the simple fact that we have no reason whatsoever to suppose that they did. It is clear that the police did go out of their way to get Paul. But we know Paul was innocent and any investigation of him would have been short and not required the questioning of anyone else.

Incidentally there is no reason to suppose Lechmere told Paul his name at all on the night in question.

Your logic fails at every hurdle.

[Lechmere]

DVV
It certainly wasn't my idea to discuss Lechmere on this thread.
Ben introduced him in a failed attempt at deflection.

[Wickerman]

No, it's not. As this thread has been started in the suspect section under "Hutchinson, George", I'm interested in finding out whether Hutch was a proper witness, just wanted to have his 15 minutes of fame or should be taken into consideration as a viable suspect.

Fair enough.
Then by taking the opinion of Abberline, coupled with the ongoing references by various press outlets, up to 19th Nov. we are presented with a consistent picture of a witness who offered a believable story.
Compare this with other witnesses like, Mrs long, Lawende, Schwartz, PC Smith.
How long after their accounts are given publicity do we still read in the press of the police pursuing 'that' line of inquiry?

Does Hutchinson fair any better, or any worse?

I THINK he just wanted to get his name in the papers and cash in on the whole thing but DO NOT KNOW it for sure, that's why I'm hoping for worthwhile input on the matter.

Excuse me for quoting the above, honesty is a rare quality in these Hutchinson debates. You THINK, as opposed to KNOW, or has been PROVEN, is much appreciated.

I'd still rate him as a good inspector who most probably did the best he could to bring the Whitechapel murder cases to a good end.

Yes, the Local Inspector for Whitechapel H Division for nine years before joining Scotland Yard. He was no fool and had likely seen and heard every excuse in the book, by every type of felon, so his opinion is of utmost importance, and, as some are want to do, cannot be neutralized by the opinion of some inexperienced reporter.

... and this is my conjecture - I think he may have made it all up, or even worse, came up with a flowery story to send the police off track in order to protect himself or another person we don't know about yet.

Ok, so you do not see the testimony of Sarah Lewis as confirming at least the basic story provided by Hutchinson?

[Wickerman]

Here, Boris, the important point is about the theory of a murderer possessing a good deal of anatomical/medical knowledge.
Abberline didn't make up his mind in 1903.
If he thought so in 1903, he certainly thought so in November 1888.

So, are you suggesting that after 15 years he wouldn't have changed his mind?

Do you still hold the same beliefs you did 15 years ago?

I only ask because that comment looks extremely strained, as if you are eager to push a point.
The only reasonable connection I can see between Abberline's suspect in 1903, is the resemblance between Chapman & the Hutchinson suspect.

It could be easily said that Abberline saw a resemblance in Chapman that was originally placed in his memory by Hutchinson.
If that is the case then Abberline must have retained his belief in this suspect after all these years.

[Wickerman]

And Abberline, as far as we can make out, believed the killer was well versed in anatomy.

Make out from where?
I'm sorry, I can't guess which source you are using.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

I still think that Hutch lied (or at least greatly exaggerated his testimony) but have no facts to back it up, that's why I keep my mind open for other possible scenarios.

Hutchinson's testimony rubs me the wrong way because the wealth of details he delivered concerning A-Man does not fit to his other quite vague statements (namely the walk to Romford and back and the walking around in the streets bits) in my opinion. To me, it sounds like he conjured up the vision of a slumming toff with Jewish features which leaves an even worse taste in my mouth, given the Ghoulston Street graffito, the Stride murder near the WMEC, the Eddowes murder near another Jewish club and the general anti-semitic tendencies of parts of the East End population which must have been at another peak shortly after the murder of Mary Kelly. What's more, he came in two (?) days after the official inquest - why? Maybe the reason for that is quite mundane but it also could have been a tactical move on Hutch's part which would constitute another hint at his dishonesty.

That is also why I think that Abberline made a rash decision in rating Hutch's statement as valuable.

Again, I have no data to back it up, just wanted to show you my reasoning.

Best wishes,

Boris

You are quite welcome to your take on things, bolo! We all are.

As for the discrepancy you observe when it comes to the detail in his stoy when it comes to A man and Romford/Walking the streets (respectively), I think that it is by and large a reflection of how the Badham interview (if you will) was conducted.
Badham would have been set on getting as much as possible of the elements important to catching the killer down on paper, and to that end, Hutchinson would have been asked to give as much detail as he could about the man he had seen.
As you will have noticed, he does not say a iot about the apparition of Kelly, and he did not need to - when it came to Badhams report. Knowing how she was dressed would not serve the end of catching a killer.
Nor would knowing which streets Hutchinson walked.
Nor would knowing his whereabouts in Romford or who he met or what he saw returning from Romford.

Those things, however, were extremely important in another context - that of establishing if Hutchinson was telling the truth. And these matters would have been extensively and intensely covered in the interrogation Abberline subjected Hutchinson to.

Hutchinson would have been required to confirm that he had been to Romford, by explaining where he had stayed and what he had done and what route he took home and what he saw along that route.
Equally, he would have been asked which streets he walked after his vigil, and what points of confirmation he had.
Finally, Abberline would have asked about Kellyīs appearance on the murder night (which it wasnīt in the first place, if you ask me).

Badhams report was aimed at supplying the police with a description of the potential killer.
Abberlines interrogation was aimed at establishing that Hutchinson told the truth. This is why Abberline only mentions the interrogation and not the Badham report when he says "I have interrogated the witness and I am of the meaning that he is telling the truth".

This is how I look upon it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I have not read all of the Cross threads. I admit, I can only abide so much rubbish. That's what this is. One supposition, theory, leap of logic, guess, implication, and strain of credulity after another. Cross was no more JtR than was Sickert. They are birds of a feather.

Exemplify, Patrick - and letīs see what more rubbish I can provide you with.

In the end, having read up on matters greatly facilitates oneīs understanding of matters.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Make out from where?
I'm sorry, I can't guess which source you are using.

Abberline would presumably have been quite aware that the killerīs extensive anatomical knowledge was something that most medical men involved in the investigation did not buy into.
To propose that he chose to disregard this - with no own personal insights in the science at all - is simply preposterous.

But just like you, Jon, I am interested in the underlying source material that gives away Abberline on this point!

All the best,
Fisherman