Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Ben]

Excellent posts, David and Boris.

Fisherman, not so much (with no personal slight intended towards Fisherman, although I am troubled by his glaring inconsistency of reasoning).

“I also think that the police would have gathered references from people in Hutchinson´s circle of aquaintances and relatives, to whatever extent such a thing was possible; dosshouse keepers, working comrades, family members etcetera, all in order to get a clear picture of what kind of track record Hutchinson had with these people.

This in combination would have been what led Abberline to believe that Hutchinson was truthful.”

When did all of this happen, Fisherman?

When did all this canvassing of opinions regarding Hutchinson’s character take place? Abberline expressed the “belief” that “Hutchinson was truthful” a few hours after the latter first put in an appearance. Are you seriously suggesting – and please think hard about this – that Abberline and his fellow detectives were able to amass a wide collection of references from “people in Hutchinson’s circle” in just a few hours? Because if you are, you’re definitely wrong.

I’ve found it necessary to point this out a million times, and I’ll doubtless find occasion to reiterate it a million times more, but Abberline penned his report of approval before it was possible to conduct anything like the sort of investigative “checking out" that you insist “must have” happened. Hutchinson didn’t enter Commercial Street Police Station until 6.00pm on the evening of the 12th November…then Badham had to call Abberline…then Abberline had to make his way there…then Abberline had to interrogate Hutchinson. All this would have taken hours, and yet we know he submitted his statement outlining his “opinion that (Hutchinson’s) statement is true” later that night.

Abberline's opinion couldn't possibly have been based on much more than faith.

As David points out, the best that could be achieved in so short a space of time was confirmation that Hutchinson was indeed a resident of the Victoria Home.

What annoys me most is that if you were a true purist in suggesting that a good detective will cross every “t” and dot every “i”, Charles Cross wouldn’t stand a chance as a suspect, and yet you insist that the detectives must have been sloppy in failing to spot that Cross was the ripper (your new suspect), but suddenly applied infallible investigative rigour when interrogating Hutchinson (a much more established “rival” suspect). You must dispense once and for all with this glaring inconsistency of reasoning, or dispense with your Cross theory. One of the two.

“Policemen check things out before they arrive at a verdict of believing or disbelieving.
And that was exactly what Abberline did. He interrogated Hutchinson. He questioned him on every point of importance, and his sole purpose for doing this was that he wanted to establish if Hutchinson told the truth or not.”

Oh, just like they did with Cross?

They would have wanted to establish if he was telling the truth, so according to the above, they checked him out?

“I also think that the police would have gathered references from people in Hutchinson´s circle of aquaintances and relatives, to whatever extent such a thing was possible; dosshouse keepers, working comrades, family members etcetera, all in order to get a clear picture of what kind of track record Hutchinson had with these people.”

Again, just like they did with Cross, if they applied the same thoroughness of investigation that they did with Hutchinson? Or do the rules change when it comes to your witness=suspect theory? Only come out with this sort of stuff if you’re determined to score own goals for the Crossmere theory. Realistically, of course, character references mean feck all if you’re dealing with manipulative liars and potential killers – like you want Cross to have been. Many serial killers (and serial liars) have excellent character references pre-capture.

...while the impression of honesty he had given nevertheless lived on for a man like Walter Dew.

...while the impression of honesty and not being a killer (in Cross's case) lived on for, well, pretty much every single policeman involved in the case...

“Ungrounded optimism and high hopes would not have played any role”

Yes, it could have done, and probably did, as Boris sensibly points out. In addition, James Tully made the observation in his excellent book (which favours James Kelly as the ripper), that Abberline’s initial endorsement of Hutchinson was “not significant” as the police were ready to “clutch at any straw” by that stage.

I don’t want to get cross (or lechmere!), Fisherman, but sometimes I think you forget that you have a suspect of your own now, and will be called out accordingly when you apply double standards in so glaring a fashion, as you’re doing here. Have a go at Druitt and Tumblety instead, and you won’t encounter such problems.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

I don't think that Abberline chose to believe Hutch because of a theory he had in mind. He was under pressure from the press, the general public and most probably his superiors who wanted results. In light of the horrible carnage of Miller's Court, Abberline's interest in Hutch looks little more than grasping at straws to me, all the more as it did not lead to any useful results, at least none that we know of.

I'm not so sure the press held that much direct influence over the police that Abberline would feel pressure from that quarter. If there was any pressure it likely came down the pipe from the Home Office, and it would be Anderson & Swanson who had to deal with that prospect.

If you recall, the Met. conducted a house-to-house enquiry in and around Dorset St. taking in all the residents & lodging-houses over that weekend following the murder.
The police literally had hundreds of statements from all manner of people. On top of that we know from one report in the Echo that as many as 53 people had made statements as to "suspicious men" thought to be Kelly's assassin.

Most of our decisions are based on the words of nine witnesses who appeared at the inquest. Do you detect an imbalance?

Abberline had considerably more information on what occurred in the vicinity of Dorset St. that night than we do. So, if we can't imagine how he arrived at any conclusions because our knowledge is deficient, it does not automatically extend to Abberline, that his knowledge must also have been deficient.
We, are the ones who are grasping at straws.

[Ben]

To reinforce Boris's point, Abberline was under immense pressure from all quarters (i.e. a combination of police, press, and general public) - so much so that he nearly broke down under the strain, according to his own reflections in 1892. In the aftermath of the Chapman murder, he sought to expedite the viewing of Isensschmidt by the witnesses from Mrs. Fiddymont's pub "for the purpose of allaying the strong public feeling that exists". In other words, let's hope to goodness they all say it's him, so we don't get in any more doggy-do with press and public for failing to capture the killer".

It would be hopelessly unrealistic to rule out the possibility that straw-clutching, borne of pressure and compounded by a lack of progress in the investigation, may have influenced Abberline's short-lived faith-based approval of Hutchinson.

[GUT]

G'day Jon

Abberline had considerably more information on what occurred in the vicinity of Dorset St. that night than we do. So, if we can't imagine how he arrived at any conclusions because our knowledge is deficient, it does not automatically extend to Abberline, that his knowledge must also have been deficient.

Seems to be the most forgotten thing on these boards, we are working with a tiny fraction of what the police had.

[Lechmere]

The Cross comparison doesn't function as we have no evidence to suggest he was interrogated. Yet we have evidence that Hutchinson was interrogated.
So far as we are able to determine Cross's real name was never discovered and he did not feature at all after his appearance at the inquest.
Hutchinson went out with the police searching for the A-man. He was regarded as an important part of the investigation with a sighting of the possible culprit. A description of this possible culprit was circulated to other police station.
Hutchinson also gave an interview to the press. Lechmere did not.
Hutchinson came to prominence when the Ripper investigation was fully matured.
Lechmere was involved at the very beginning, just as Abberline was seconded.
Lechmere flitted in and quickly out and his involvement was not regarded as a matter of significance and was not deemed worthy of comment by the press.

[GUT]

G'day Lechmere

One of my uncles is the child of parents who are not together. He uses his birth name in official records, and his step father's name the rest of the time. Why couldn't Cross be doing exactly the same

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

The Cross comparison doesn't function as we have no evidence to suggest he was interrogated. Yet we have evidence that Hutchinson was interrogated.

"Interrogate" was simply a useful word to illustrate that Hutchinson was closely quizzed in order to ascertain whether he was truthful or not. Realistically speaking, this would have occurred in Cross's case too, unless anyone wishes to argue that the investigating officer didn't care.

So far as we are able to determine Cross's real name was never discovered and he did not feature at all after his appearance at the inquest.

"So far as we are able to determine" - yes, fair enough, which means we don't conjure up mythical "evidence" from nowheresville and assert that the police "must have" investigated his origins, "must have" uncovered his father's name (which would have been very easy to achieve), and "must have" eliminated him as a suspect somehow. If we're not conjuring up a set of "must haves" for Cross on the basis of that which "we are unable to determine", then we're certainly not doing so for Hutchinson.

I have seen it suggested that Robert Paul was grilled as a suspect, and yet he arrived on the scene later than Cross, who was ostensibly the first person to discover the body. It is completely impossible to accept that it did not occur to the police to treat as suspicious the first person to discover the body when it did occur to them to view Paul in that light, despite arriving on the scene later.

It should be obvious why proponents of the Cross theory (and similar) should steer especially clear of depicting the police as infallible when it came to overlooking potential guilt and dishonesty.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

bolo: Hi Fisherman,

as far as I know, Abberline's interrogation of Hutchinson did not lead to any worthwhile results.

That´s a rather awkward way of putting things. We all know that none of the measures the police took gave any results in the form of securing the killer. That would not have meant that they deemed all their efforts wrongful or worthless. They follow routines, and a good many thing must be done during the course of a case like this.

In Hutchinson´s case, they listened to him, interrogated him and came to the concllusion that he was telling a true story. That does not translate into not leading to any wortwhile results. Instead they initially believed that they had secured a star witness and a description of a man who was quite possibly the killer. That would have been regarded as worthwhile, methinks.

And as we can see that Hutchinson´s story was still followed up on even after the diminution of importance it suffered, I think we must accept that significant value was ascribed to him throughout.

I don't diss him, but something tells me that he wouldn't have spent much time with him in a different (i. e. less urging) situation.

That´s an odd way of putting it. If he reported the theft of a bike, or what?He was a murder case witness, so how could the situation be less urgent? Or are you suggesting that they would have thrown hi out if he surfaced after the Nichols deed, but pounced on him after Kelly?

The super detailed description of A-man, combined with an obvious loss of memory concerning other details (Romford walk, hanging around in the streets, times, etc.) does not give me the impression of a witness that should be allowed more consideration than Packer or Maxwell.

Loss of memory ...? Where did you get that from? What was it he could not remember? More pertinently, what was asked and answered during the interrogation?

I don't want to blame Abberline or any other member of the force, they were at their wits' end and the pressure that rested on their shoulders forced them to come up with results, so interviewing Hutch and/or rating him as an important witness was the best they could do.

How could it be - if it was so very obvious that he should not be treated with any confidence? Are you not gainsaying yourself here?

Other than Hutch, no witness of the MJK case could deliver anything substantial so it's only natural they believed (or wanted to believe) him to some extend.

What about Cox, Boris? Not substantial? Dew would have disagreed ... And I really don´t think that there is any police policy saying that the least bad witness must be believed!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Are you seriously suggesting – and please think hard about this – that Abberline and his fellow detectives were able to amass a wide collection of references from “people in Hutchinson’s circle” in just a few hours? Because if you are, you’re definitely wrong.

Regards,
Ben

So you do it once again, Ben. You put words in my mouth. As always.

This time you state that I have claimed that the police were able to amass a wide collection of references from “people in Hutchinson’s circle” in just a few hours.

What I wrote was, and I quote:

I also think that the police would have gathered references from people in Hutchinson´s circle of aquaintances and relatives, to whatever extent such a thing was possible; dosshouse keepers, working comrades, family members etcetera, all in order to get a clear picture of what kind of track record Hutchinson had with these people.

So, as you can see - and sidestep if you want to - I took great care to point out that the police would have tried to get hold of people to the extent that this was possible. This would reasonably have been police procedure when you wanted to find out what track record a witness had - unless you disagree? Maybe that were uninterested in such things?

As you will appreciate, the way I worded myself, it goes without saying that if the police could only find one person to speak to, then that would have represented the exact extent to which it was possible to do so. If they found six persons, that would have represented the extent. If they found nobody, then that would have been the extent we have. I am speaking of a tool the police would have used on a routine basis, nothing else.

Now, take a look at the map and look up the Victoria Home. Then look up where the Commercial Street police station was situated. After you have found the two entities, measure the distance between them. Then ask yourself whether it would have been possible for a fit and healthy young PC to cover that distance and speak to the dosshouse people in the time window offered.

After that, ask yourself if it would have been possible that Hutchinson could have had any aquaintance, relative etcetera living within an area that was close enough to allow for a visit and some questions in the time space available.

Then you round off with the most important questions of them all:

Is it a wise strategy to misrepresent what other posters say?
Will you be found out if you place words in other posters mouths?
Should you leave out important distinctions in other peoples posts in order to try to make a point that could otherwise not be made?
Should we apologize if we do this by mistake - or by our own free will?

This is not something that belongs to a productive and sane discussion. We all know that the police would have wanted and needed references about Hutchinson.
We can all see that there would have been potential opportunities to find such references in a short time.

So why would we need you to claim that I have stated that the police were able to amass a wide collection of references from people in Hutchinson’s circle in just a few hours?

What ends and purposes does such a faulty statement serve?

You tell me!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Interrogate" was simply a useful word to illustrate that Hutchinson was closely quizzed in order to ascertain whether he was truthful or not.

Yes, Ben - that is what an interrogation is: a close questioning.

Realistically speaking, this would have occurred in Cross's case too, unless anyone wishes to argue that the investigating officer didn't care.

Realistically speaking, I could not have put that any clearer myself. Of course Lechmere was questioned!
Whether the questioning was as close as the one Hutchinson was subjected to, is something we cannot know, since we don´t have it on record. And it of course remains that Lechmere could have lied without being found out.

The salient point that needs to be made in this context, however, is that he was and remained Charles Cross throughout his dealings with the police. That effectively implicates that the police did not run any deeper check on him, for whatever reason. Otherwise, they would have found out his real name.

At the end of the day, this is what we are left with.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Good day GUT
Was your uncle ever involved in a murder investigation after being found close to a dead body and did he only give his assumed name rather than his official name to the police?
Dealing with the police during a very high profile murder investigation is, I would suggest, quite an ‘official’ event. In every single recorded instance – and we have in excess of 100 spread across quite a wide variety of sources – that Charles Lechmere gave his family name, it was always as Lechmere not Cross. Except when he went to the police after the appearance of Robert Paul’s story which stated that he was standing by the dead body.

Ben
I agree ‘interrogate’ is a useful word. It was used specifically in relation to Abberline’s questioning of Hutchinson and implies a considerable degree of rigour was involved. I would hazard a guess that by this stage in the enquiry they were used to Walter Mitty types coming forward, who under ‘interrogation’ contradicted themselves and altered their story, which progressively fell apart. Indeed we know that this was the case.
We have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Lechmere was put under any such interrogation. Not least because he didn’t claim to have seen the murderer and had a simple to remember story to tell – unlike Hutchinson of course.

We are able to determine (with a fair degree of certainty) that the police did not establish Lechmere’s real name because they continued to refer to him just as Cross whenever they mentioned him in their internal files –as late as 19th October 1888, by which time the case had moved on considerably and after which it is exceptionally unlikely they would have revisited such a seemingly unremarkable witness. People who known aliases or alternative names were recorded as such.

Lechmere – so far as we can determine – came forward voluntarily. Robert Paul most certainly didn’t. Paul gave an anti-police interview to the press. Lechmere didn’t. Another murder happened on the doorstep of Paul’s workplace – not on the doorstep of Lechmere’s workplace. Again you are not comparing like with like.

Try as you might there is only very superficial similarity between the Hutchinson and Lechmere cases and when you look at the detail your comparisons don’t hold any water.

It isn’t my purpose to insert Lechmere into this Hutchinson discussion – I was merely responding to the now commonplace endeavour to deflect criticism from suspect Z by attempting to bring Lechmere into the equation.

The other point about Hutchinson is that he remained part of the police investigation for a considerably longer time than the duration of his interrogation by Abberline. We know from how other people involved in this case were handled that they were quite quick in establishing bona fides, when they wanted to.

[Sally]

We have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Lechmere was put under any such interrogation. Not least because he didn’t claim to have seen the murderer and had a simple to remember story to tell – unlike Hutchinson of course.

Quite true - he was found 'leaning over the body' of his victim [or so I've read]

Of course, he lived in a house and had a real job, so unlike Hutchinson, who had neither, he wouldn't have been checked out.

Things were different in Olden Times, eh?

Hope the book's coming along Ed - judging by the continuing interest in Barnett, it's all you need to succeed - no matter what the level of speculation applied - if you have a suspect in mind.

Good news for Dale Larner, at any rate.

[Lechmere]

Sally
Things are indeed progressing well so far as propagating Lechmere theory is concerned.
Very well indeed!

Things were different in olden times.
There was a propensity to take householders with a regular job at face value as they were not regarded as belonging to the criminal class. Unless they slagged off the police in the press of course.
And as you know people living in lodging houses with no regular employment were the very class the police tended to view with suspicion.

Actually I suppose times don't change that much. The police still profile sections of the community, identifying those which they believe to be more criminally inclined and giving those segments more attention than others. It is often the cause of complaint.

[The Good Michael]

To the question, some things I have no doubt of:

1. Abberline and the whole police force were under stress and scrutiny and no different than any other police force in the free world that couldn't apprehend a notorious villain.

2. Hutchinson was questioned, checked out rather thoroughly, produced viable alibi, and was believed for a time by an excellent detective.

3. Hutchinson was so credible that he even accompanied the police on a sort of reenactment of what he claims to have seen.

4. Walking from Romford was not suspicious enough, nor was the idea of his waiting near the Court entrance, nor the idea of giving money periodically to Kelly, for the police to doubt his statement and interrogation (if they were not the same thing)

5. The police would have wanted to believe Hutchinson's story once he, as a person, was checked out, because if he were credible, his lead would have seemed of massive importance.

6. Other, earlier reports of a fairly well-to-do suspect would certainly have come into play when it came to believing Hutchinson's story.

7. Somewhere along the way, but not quickly, the lead soured. We don't know why.


Mike

[Ben]

One of my uncles is the child of parents who are not together. He uses his birth name in official records, and his step father's name the rest of the time. Why couldn't Cross be doing exactly the same

Yes, good point, Gut.