Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Fisherman]

In addition to which, Ben, the two detectives would almost certainly have taken Hutchinson to Dorset Street, if only to test and clarify elements of the earlier police statement. If it became apparent that the lighting conditions were insufficient to allow Hutchinson to see what he'd claimed to have seen immediately before Kelly's death, this would have introduced doubt about the veracity of his statement and thus his overall credibility.

Very true. It equally applies, though, that the police may had no trouble at all accepting this parameter.

It deserves pointing out that eyesight is something that we do not all have in equal amounts. If there was doubt, it stands to reason that the police would have asked themselves "could he really have seen all that?" instead of dogmatically stating "he could not have seen all that".

More to the point, as I have pointed out before, Not a single one of us knows what the light was like and not a single one of us knows for how long a time Hutchinson got to take in Astrakhan man. Any differences involved will have had an almighty importance.
Was it two seconds? Was it twenty?Were the light conditions the same when Hutchinson walked with the detectives? Was the sky clouded on one or both occasions? Did the moon shine through on one or both occasions?

Abberline could - and would, as far as Iīm concerned - have asked about this. He would have been in the know, whereas we are much, much more in the dark than Hutchinson was.

At the end of the day, I donīt invest much in the suggestion. Thatīs not to say that I can rule it out - in that context, it is much the same as many other suggestions I dislike: I have to live with them, but I donīt have to like them.

Much of my dislike is grounded in the fact that Dew had nothing condemning to say about Hutchinson fifty years on - on the contrary, he stated that he would not reflect on him.
That does not sit well in combination with a suggestion of a lying man. Itīs against the evidence, and so I opt for another explanation to the partial disinterest that ultimately became the fate for Hutchinsonīs story.

The best,
Fisherman

[bolo]

Hello again, Fisherman,

It deserves pointing out that eyesight is something that we do not all have in equal amounts. If there was doubt, it stands to reason that the police would have asked themselves "could he really have seen all that?" instead of dogmatically stating "he could not have seen all that".

More to the point, as I have pointed out before, Not a single one of us knows what the light was like and not a single one of us knows for how long a time Hutchinson got to take in Astrakhan man. Any differences involved will have had an almighty importance.
Was it two seconds? Was it twenty?Were the light conditions the same when Hutchinson walked with the detectives? Was the sky clouded on one or both occasions? Did the moon shine through on one or both occasions?

as far as I remember, there was a gas lantern on the side opposite (and a few yards further up Dorset St.) of the gateway to Miller's Court and another one opposite to the door of Mary Kelly's abode.

As you can see here: http://www.casebook.org/victorian_london/weather.html , the weather on the night of November 9th, 1888, was rainy until 11 pm, then overcast with a 100% cloud cover and a waxing moon crescent with 37% visibility. Temperatures ranged between 39°F/3.9°C and 46°F/7.8°C. In other words, quite dark and uncomfortable.

I doubt that Hutchinson could have seen and memorized all the details he mentioned in his testimony, given the lighting conditions and his position. Of course he might have been more alert than usual and thus took more care to closely examine the man he had seen, and maybe he actually was able to get a clear sight of him.

Best wishes,

Boris

[Ben]

Hi Garry,

“If it became apparent that the lighting conditions were insufficient to allow Hutchinson to see what he'd claimed to have seen immediately before Kelly's death, this would have introduced doubt about the veracity of his statement and thus his overall credibility.”

Absolutely, and it would neatly account for the doubt that was attached to his statement the following day. Significantly, the Echo mentioned that his statement had suffered a “very reduced importance” in light of “later investigations”, and it would make perfect sense if these perambulations and visits to the scene of his alleged encounter formed a large part of these "investigations", not least from the point of view of timing.

Great to see you back here!

Hi Lechmere,

“In the earlier stages of the investigation the police can be seen to have ‘clutched at straws’ too readily and been publicly embarrassed or privately frustrated and irked.”

No more than they did in the investigation’s later stages, actually, and probably less so, considering that there was much less pressure and hostile criticism around September. The police were not “jumping to conclusions” in the case of Pizer and Leather Apron. They were simply pursuing the best leads that they had, according to the best intelligence at the time. The fact that Pizer turned out not to be the ripper is a woefully inadequate reason for criticising the police. Even if they weren’t “diligent” enough with other avenues – which I don’t accept at all – what was to stop them going back and addressing the areas of potential suspicion that they carelessly glossed over, according to you? What was to stop them taking a closer look at Paul and Cross once Pizergate had blown over? Breath-taking incompetence? Which turned magically into meticulous rigor by the time they came to Hutchinson?

We know that the “interrogation” of Hutchinson can’t have been anywhere near as “thorough” as you seem to be envisaging, otherwise Abberline’s report to his superiors would not have been submitted just a few hours after Hutchinson first put in an appearance. Very little of value could have been “checked out” in so short a space of time. Abberline was obviously going to use the word “interrogate” when writing his superiors, by the way, if only for the sake of creating a favourable impression. He could hardly have written, “had a cosy fireside chat with Hutchinson”.

“Dorset Street was cordoned off and no one was allowed to leave Millers Court until they had been questioned.
In Bucks Row the police failed to even interview most residents. In the early stages they were sloppy and missed things.”

Dorset Street was only cordoned off because Kelly’s body remained in Miller’s Court. This wasn’t remotely feasible with Nichols’ remains, which were right on the street, and thus impossible to shield from on-lookers in this era before big white tents. As far as interviewing residents were concerned, I can guarantee you they interviewed more residents in Bucks Row than they did in Dorset Street. The latter, as you’ll recall, was fully of grotty lodging houses catering to hundreds per night. Were they all interviewed? Plenty of kock-ups and inadequacies occurred in the wake of the Kelly murder – the “rushed” inquest and the bloodhound fiasco to cite two obvious examples. No evidence at all, then, of any greater thoroughness or scepticism and thoroughness by the time of the Kelly murder, but rather a lack of useful leads resulting into an overly optimistic latching on to anything that could be of value.

“I’m not quite sure why you say the onus wasn’t on the police to change their records if they established that Cross’s real name was Lechmere. The fact is that in their internal reports they routinely recorded known aliases.”

But it wasn’t an “alias” in the sense that it was a completely invented name of the type that was likely to generate suspicion. It was the actual name of someone from his actual family, and if the police established that there was a perfectly valid and innocent explanation for its usage – such as not wishing his birth name to be associated in the press with a mutilation murder, or he used it socially, or whatever – there was no reason for any alteration of the official record. Whatever the reason, it was undoubtedly an innocent one. The alternative, with its inevitable implications it would have on Cross’s utter stupidity and naivety as a supposedly clever psychopath, doesn’t withstand scrutiny. It would mean he irrationally expected the police not to check with his wife at home, and expected his work colleagues from Pickfords not to read the papers and work out that Cross was Lechmere. I’m afraid that better attempts at identity concealment have been conducted by a giraffe in dark glasses trying to get into a “polar bears only” golf club (damn Blackadder, stealing all my gags!)

I do hope you were only joking when you suggested that everyone who ascribes innocent, i.e. non-murderous motives to the name change has a “flaky view”, as that would mean everyone who isn’t a supporter of Crossmere-the-ripper has a “flaky view”. That isn’t the most ideal way to bring others around to your perspective, and I certainly wouldn’t include it in your book!

You suggest that he gave the name Cross “on reflex”, but this seems unlikely to me. When Cross (as ripper) was “caught” by Paul, he would have been fully aware he had to play the “witness” card, and since the introductions between the two carmen were unlikely to have occurred until after their “examination” of the body, he had ample time to come up with the exceptionally bad idea of using a different name to “conceal” his identity.

“By the time Paul was in the frame Lechmere had been dismissed as a nobody with not much to say”

I regard that as impossible, I’m afraid, Lech.

If ever Robert Paul came under suspicion – as the second person to discover the body – there is no possibility of it not at least occurring to the police that Cross (the first person to discover the body) might be a good person to check out too.

“Are you suggesting that for a long time the police did not regard the lodging houses as the likely dwelling place of the culprit?”

I’m sure they regarded it as ONE likely place, and how sensible of them, because it was. That does not mean they excluded other types of residence.

Best regards,
Ben

[Patrick S]

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

No! No! It's far more likely that Cross gave a false name becuase he was Jack the Ripper! Who knows. Maybe in 100 years or so your uncle will be accused of murder, too!

I don't want to get into the whole Cross thing again. I will discuss one thing, of many that seems to strain belief with respect to his being the JtR. So, let's assume that Paul came upon Cross just after he killed Nichols.

- Paul is walking
- Cross just killed Nichols
- It's dark out
- Cross has no idea what, exactly, Paul has seen
- Cross does not run into the darkness, instead,
- He walks up to Paul and says, "Come see this woman."

It's more nonsense reference Paul saying that he feared he may be assaulted by Cross as some indication of Cross' guilt. That was owing to WHERE he was not WHO Cross was.

So, I'll end it with a question. Why didn't Cross run? Why take the bigger risk by getting involved?

[Fisherman]

bolo: Hello again, Fisherman,

as far as I remember, there was a gas lantern on the side opposite (and a few yards further up Dorset St.) of the gateway to Miller's Court and another one opposite to the door of Mary Kelly's abode.

Dorset Street was a comparatively well lit street, we know that much. What we donīt know is how many lights were lit and with what quality, and which of them came into play. At any rate, it would seem that the main observations Hutchinson made were in Commercial Street, but I think that we cannot exclude the possibility that he observed things on more than just the one occasion. Itīs impossible to establish any complete list of what opportunitites he had at this remove in time.

As you can see here: http://www.casebook.org/victorian_london/weather.html , the weather on the night of November 9th, 1888, was rainy until 11 pm, then overcast with a 100% cloud cover and a waxing moon crescent with 37% visibility. Temperatures ranged between 39°F/3.9°C and 46°F/7.8°C. In other words, quite dark and uncomfortable.

Yep, I know that - Iīve been looking into the weather very much. However, what I am speaking of is the suggestion that the policemen that followed Hutchinson around town would have been able to conclude from that nights lighting conditions what Hutchinson could have seen on the murder night. There are so many unknown parameters involved, and we are always faced with the fact that Abberline accepted Hutchinsonīs story after having interrogated him and resonably after having given the story some long and hard afterthought. We will inevitably run aground on that reef, and thatīs as it should be - we must give the contemporary police the upper hand instead of trying to diss them with much less knowledge than they had.

I doubt that Hutchinson could have seen and memorized all the details he mentioned in his testimony, given the lighting conditions and his position. Of course he might have been more alert than usual and thus took more care to closely examine the man he had seen, and maybe he actually was able to get a clear sight of him.

The problem I identify with that reasoning is that I donīt know what the lighting conditions were, I donīt know how many observations Hutchinson made and I donīt know for how long a time he made them. Nor do I know how good a memory he had (well, thatīs not really true, since we do have Reg Hutchinson saying that Toppy had a trule excellent detail memory, never even having to list the many things he needed to bring to a working site. And, as you know, I have no doubts that Toppy was the witness).
All in all, I think it is very commendable to add, as you do, that we must open up for the possibility that Hutchinson was on the money. It is also quite refreshing coming from somebody who reasons that Hutchinson cannot be trusted, but thatīs another matter altogether.

What specific weight we should award the two respective propositions - he could do it or he could not do it - is impossible to say. For my own part, I would feel distinctly uncomfortable to go for any guess that differed wildly from Abberlines verdict of a truthful story, and I think that Reg Hutchinsons story goes a long way to paint a picture of a man with a remarkable memory of detail.

To be able to say that, and to expect a measured and calm answer is nice. Thanks for that, bolo!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Patrick S]

This is a question I've long been thinking about.
I believe I've found the answer, but I'd be pleased to hear you all...

Isn't the simple answer usually the correct one? I suspect strongly that Abberline believed Hutchinson because he was believable. With that, I think it's worth reiterating what that implies. In order to do that, one must only understand who Abberline was. He was an accomplished, decorated, respected investigator who, as has been stated, was by training and experience, inclined to not believe.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S:

It's more nonsense to say quote Paul saying that he feared he may be assaulted by Cross. That was owing to WHERE he was not WHO Cross was.

How do we establish if Lechmere was a chilling encounter for Paul? Paul said that the territoy was known for muggings and gangs, but that applied to very many streets. Could it not be that the physical apperance of Lechmere and the vibes he sent out was what caused the concern? Can we be sure that this was not so?

So, I'll end it with a question. Why didn't Cross run? Why take the bigger risk by getting involved?

Have you not read all the Lechmere threads? That question has been answered a thousand times, Patrick. Just like the case with the potential intimidation Lechmere caused Paul, we cannot tell.
But imagine that Lechmere was in a "bubble" cutting away at Nichols, and did not notice Paul until a stage when he knew that he would be heard or seen running away.
What was to be preferred in such a situation - legging it and potentially having Paul crying "Stop the murderer!" after having seen Nichols, or playing it cool, and drawing no attention to your person?

I think that if we accept that Lechmere was the killer, we must also accept that he was a psychopath.
What are the traits of psychopaths?
Are they easily scared?
Are they nervous creatures?
Do they run when sensing danger?
Or do they welcome it?
Is killing a kind of game to many psychopaths?

Have you read about psychopath criminals that taunt the police, that seek out danger and play with fire?

What did Jeffrey Dahmer do when his intended, drugged victim managed to escape him, and terrified and trembling ran off and into the arms of people on the street outside Dahmerīs apartment, people who were joined by two policemen?
Did he run, sensing danger?

Or did he walk straight down to the policemen, tell them that the boy was his lover who was in a bad state, whereupon the policemen handed the boy over in Dahmers custody?

What remained of him was found later, in Dahmers apartment, an apartment he let the police into that day. They forgot to check his fridge, however.

You would have run like a rabbit.
I would have run like rabbit.
Dahmer kept a cool head and handled the situation. He did not want to go glip of his kill.

Psychopathic and sociopathic behaviour is a very interesting field of study. If you have not done so before, I encourage you to read up on it. It offers a very viable explanation to the question why Lechmere chose not to run: because he judged - correctly - running, not staying put, as the bigger risk. He would have felt quite confident that he could handle the situation, I believe.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Isn't the simple answer usually the correct one? I suspect strongly that Abberline believed Hutchinson because he was believable.

Apologies for butting in, Patrick, but no, that is not the simplest answer because Hutchinson's statement was discounted shortly after it first appeared, indicating that Abberline's faith-based opinion was very short-lived. On a semi-related topic, why is it that Abberline is the only detective who must consistently wear a white had, whereas all the other detectives (including those who outranked him and were more "decorated", "respected" etc) are fair game for criticism?

I've often wondered this, and slightly suspect that Hollywood and Knight bear some of the responsibility.

Regards,
Ben

[Fleetwood Mac]

This is a question I've long been thinking about.
I believe I've found the answer, but I'd be pleased to hear you all...

Well, I think you can safely say that Abberline's instincts/experience told him that it wasn't impossible for a man dressed in that way to be in that area at that time of night.

I personally wouldn't disbelieve him on the basis of his testimony, because some people do have an eye for detail.

What would raise an eyebrow is the timing of his statement and I'm also not convinced that in those days prostitutes just walked up to men clearly down on their luck and asked them for a lend. I would imagine every penny was precious and would be a pointless question. Having said that, Barnett helped her out from time to time so maybe not a pointless question.

[bolo]

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

[DVV]

Isn't the simple answer usually the correct one? I suspect strongly that Abberline believed Hutchinson because he was believable.

If so, Jack the Ripper is a Jewish supervillain attired like a Marseilles' pimp.
But that's of course not the case, and the famous Sunday sighting is another evidence that Hutch was a barefaced liar.

[DVV]

Abberline may have been an excellent inspector (I don't doubt that, btw.)
Boris

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

[DVV]

Apologies for butting in, Patrick, but no, that is not the simplest answer because Hutchinson's statement was discounted shortly after it first appeared, indicating that Abberline's faith-based opinion was very short-lived. On a semi-related topic, why is it that Abberline is the only detective who must consistently wear a white had, whereas all the other detectives (including those who outranked him and were more "decorated", "respected" etc) are fair game for criticism?

I've often wondered this, and slightly suspect that Hollywood and Knight bear some of the responsibility.

Regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

fully agreed.
I wish Moore had succeeded him earlier, let's say, on Monday 12 November 88, at around 17:45.
In April 89, that was already too late.

Cheers

[Patrick S]

Apologies for butting in, Patrick, but no, that is not the simplest answer because Hutchinson's statement was discounted shortly after it first appeared, indicating that Abberline's faith-based opinion was very short-lived. On a semi-related topic, why is it that Abberline is the only detective who must consistently wear a white had, whereas all the other detectives (including those who outranked him and were more "decorated", "respected" etc) are fair game for criticism?

I've often wondered this, and slightly suspect that Hollywood and Knight bear some of the responsibility.

Regards,
Ben

Ben,

I tend to regard most of the involved (contemporary) detectives as fair game for criticism, Abberline included. However, I also view them as, mostly, 'white hatted' in that they were there, examining evidence, speaking to witnesses, investigating the crimes. They knew the area, the crime scenes, saw the bodies. For me, it's more logical to trust their suppositions, limited as they were from a technological perspective, over other, less informed suppositions formed years later.

[Patrick S]

Patrick S:

It's more nonsense to say quote Paul saying that he feared he may be assaulted by Cross. That was owing to WHERE he was not WHO Cross was.

How do we establish if Lechmere was a chilling encounter for Paul? Paul said that the territoy was known for muggings and gangs, but that applied to very many streets. Could it not be that the physical apperance of Lechmere and the vibes he sent out was what caused the concern? Can we be sure that this was not so?

So, I'll end it with a question. Why didn't Cross run? Why take the bigger risk by getting involved?

Have you not read all the Lechmere threads? That question has been answered a thousand times, Patrick. Just like the case with the potential intimidation Lechmere caused Paul, we cannot tell.
But imagine that Lechmere was in a "bubble" cutting away at Nichols, and did not notice Paul until a stage when he knew that he would be heard or seen running away.
What was to be preferred in such a situation - legging it and potentially having Paul crying "Stop the murderer!" after having seen Nichols, or playing it cool, and drawing no attention to your person?

I think that if we accept that Lechmere was the killer, we must also accept that he was a psychopath.
What are the traits of psychopaths?
Are they easily scared?
Are they nervous creatures?
Do they run when sensing danger?
Or do they welcome it?
Is killing a kind of game to many psychopaths?

Have you read about psychopath criminals that taunt the police, that seek out danger and play with fire?

What did Jeffrey Dahmer do when his intended, drugged victim managed to escape him, and terrified and trembling ran off and into the arms of people on the street outside Dahmerīs apartment, people who were joined by two policemen?
Did he run, sensing danger?

Or did he walk straight down to the policemen, tell them that the boy was his lover who was in a bad state, whereupon the policemen handed the boy over in Dahmers custody?

What remained of him was found later, in Dahmers apartment, an apartment he let the police into that day. They forgot to check his fridge, however.

You would have run like a rabbit.
I would have run like rabbit.
Dahmer kept a cool head and handled the situation. He did not want to go glip of his kill.

Psychopathic and sociopathic behaviour is a very interesting field of study. If you have not done so before, I encourage you to read up on it. It offers a very viable explanation to the question why Lechmere chose not to run: because he judged - correctly - running, not staying put, as the bigger risk. He would have felt quite confident that he could handle the situation, I believe.

The best,
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.