Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[bolo]

Hello Wickerman and Fisherman,

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?

Valid points, I will take them into consideration.

About the press echo, what sets Hutchinson's testimony apart from the likes of Lawende or Smith is its thoroughness concerning A-Man and that he would be able to identify him. As far as I know, this was not the case with other witnesses, specially Lawende who explicitly stated that he would not be able to recognise the man he had seen in Eddowes' company if he saw him again. I guess this made Hutch more interesting for the police and press than the others.

Still, this does not rule out the possibility that parts of Hutch's statement was fabricated or exaggerated.

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.

I've re-read the entry on Abberline in A-Z and agree with you that he probably was no fool. He received countless awards and commendations and was, and I quote the entry here, "able and efficient, and possessed more intimate knowledge of the East End and its underworld than any police contemporary".

The thing is, the events of 1888 caught everyone on the hop, including Abberline. He was confronted with a Tsunami of interest by the press, most probably his superiors, politicians of all colours and the general public. When Hutchinson came along after the most brutal murder of them all, it must have been like a gift of God for the Inspector; a very detailed description of a person who could have been the murderer and the promise to be able to identify him if he would see him again, that was really something for a police who only had a lot of theories and more or less vague (and more often than not conflicting) witness statements to work with but no tangible evidence. No wonder Abberline believed him, or in other words, WANTED or HAD to believe him as he had no alternative option at hand.

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

Lewis saw a man with a wideawake hat standing opposite to the entrace of Miller's Court at half past 2 in the morning. She may have seen Hutchinson but as we have no description of Hutch's appearance at the night of Kelly's murder, her testimony does not seem like an ironclad corroboration of his story to me.

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".

Is there a transcript of Abberline's interrogation of Hutch? I take it that your list of questions Abberline asked Hutch is based on the usual LVP police methods that we know from other cases but I would prefer a first-hand report which would enable us to tell what it was that convinced Abberline of Hutchinson's credibility.

I mean, Hutch had enough time to make his story plausible as he did not appear at the inquest but went to Commercial Street police station a few days later.

Best wishes,

Boris

[John Wheat]

Maybe because he was telling the truth?

[DVV]

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

Don't get saucy, son - and forgive my bilingual pun.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

.... I think that it is by and large a reflection of how the Badham interview (if you will) was conducted.

Hi Christer.
All I would caution about is that Hutchinson's statement was deemed Voluntary, which if taken literally means, he gave it totally from memory, in his own words and without responding to questions.

Abberline would use this voluntary statement as a prompt when interrogating Hutchinson.
Abberline would hit him with a series of "you said...", "you said...", etc. Expecting a more detailed response to each question, and where necessary provide explanations.
Sadly, this interrogation report has not survived.

[Wickerman]

Don't get saucy, son - and forgive my bilingual pun.

Cheers

I'll take that as "no known source".

Then from whence came the suggestion Abberline believed in the killer showing anatomical knowledge?

[DVV]

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.

No Jon, you're wrong, and I don't care about Chapman.

Fact is that Abberline was insistent, 15 years after, that the murders were the work of an "expert surgeon", and was even able to remember the words of Baxter.
So when do you think he endorsed the theory ?
In 1895 ? 93 ? 1901 ?

The only reasoneable guess is that he made up his mind in 1888, when Phillips and Baxter gave birth to their famous theory.

There must have been some controversy within the force at the time, hence the involvement of Bond, and perhaps, the fact that Abberline was replaced by someone who held a completely different opinion : Moore.

Now if you want to argue that Abberline is more likely to have endorsed the medical theory years after the murders than in 1888, feel free.

Cheers

[DVV]

I'll take that as "no known source".

Yeah.
No known source from the PMG.
Don't cheat me, Jon.
I have little time for this.

[Fisherman]

Is there a transcript of Abberline's interrogation of Hutch?
Best wishes,

Boris

Alas, no - we only know that there WAS an interrogation, but what was asked is lost to us. Just like you say, I think that it would have been questions asked to establish whether Hutchinson spoke the truth or not. He said that he had been to Romford, and the police would want that confirmed, and so on. Thatīs how these matters are handled. It would go along the lines: "So, Mr Hutchinson, letīs go over this again. You said that youīd been to Romford? Could you tell us about it?"
Same question, multiple times - and then you check if you get the same answers all the time.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fact is that Abberline was insistent, 15 years after, that the murders were the work of an "expert surgeon", and was even able to remember the words of Baxter.
So when do you think he endorsed the theory ?
In 1895 ? 93 ? 1901 ?

The only reasoneable guess is that he made up his mind in 1888, when Phillips and Baxter gave birth to their famous theory.

Cheers

Iīm afraid that I donīt agree at all, David.

Abberline took interest in the Chapman poison murder series and the ensuing trial. He came to the conclusion that George Chapman was a good bid for the Ripper.

This was not a conclusion Abberline reached in 1888 - it was something he arrived at in the twentieth century.

How are we going to be able do decide from that what Abberline thought and what governed his decisions in 1888?

If Abberline reasoned that Chapman was the killer - could it be that it only then dawned on him that Phillips could have been on the money fifteen years earlier? Of course it could. In 1903, Abberline tries to make a case for Chapman being the Ripper, and he hinges it very much on medical/anatomical competence on behalf of Chapman. He claims that the poison murders point to extensive medical knowledge, and of course he must have been tempted to add the anatomical bit too to strengthen his case.

But that does not mean that he necessarily must have endorsed the same sentiments in 1888. We cannot even exclude the possibility that he could have been very adverse to the suggestions about anatomical insights back then, only to change his mind when Chapman was netted. The benefit of hindsight and all that!

Serial killers were very rare back then, and it must have been tempting to cast Chapman in the Rippers role. And how could we best add to the credibility of such a suggestion? What possible pointers would seemingly strengthen the case? Exactly ...!

What I am after is contemporary 1888 verification of this suggested stance on Abberlines behalf. Until we have that, we have nothing more than an interesting and ponderable suggestion that may have something going for it - or not. We most assuredly donīt have any certainty. To claim - as you do - that it is the only reasonable guess is simply unviable.

All the best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

I think we need to keep in mind that Abberline's belief did not have to be absolute. It could have run the gamut from this witness appears to be credible and time is of the essence to I believe him with absolute certainly and would bet the life of my wife and children on it. And it is certainly possible that his belief changed over time.

c.d.

[DVV]

Hi Fish

I truly admire the constancy with which you and a handful of other posters disagree with anything you happen to read on a Hutch or Fleming thread. At the cost of the most absurd reasonings.

Look : no other ripper-like series took place between 88 and 1903, Phillips and Baxter expressed their opinions in September and October 88, nothing else of any significance on the matter came to light after the Dorset Street murder... and you are telling me that if Abberline believed in Dr Jack in 1903, quoting Baxter 1888 in the 1903 PMG, that means that he most probably did not follow Baxter/Phillips in 1888 ?

Sorry, but who can agree with such reasoning ?

Cheers

[Sally]

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.

Except that Hutchinson was not the man whom Abberline believed in retrospect had seen the Ripper, Jon.

It would thus seem unlikely that he had Astrachan Man in mind when considering Chapman.

[Fisherman]

DVV: Hi Fish

I truly admire the constancy with which you and a handful of other posters disagree with anything you happen to read on a Hutch or Fleming thread. At the cost of the most absurd reasonings.

Do you count C D into that abominable pack? Maybe you should read his answer?

Look : no other ripper-like series took place between 88 and 1903, Phillips and Baxter expressed their opinions in September and October 88, nothing else of any significance on the matter came to light after the Dorset Street murder... and you are telling me that if Abberline believed in Dr Jack in 1903, quoting Baxter 1888 in the 1903 PMG, that means that he most probably did not follow Baxter/Phillips in 1888 ?

Sorry, but who can agree with such reasoning ?

C D, for one. Even if itīs arguably not a question of any "most probably`s" in his case. Nor is it in my case. I am a little less dramatic about things. Could he have changed his mind? Yes. Could he even have disbelieved the anatomical expertise suggestions back in 1888? Yes, he could.
In the end, it is as obvious as it is undramatic. Letīs keep it that way.

On the whole, I think you yourself need to be a bit more discerning. Certainly, if there is a group of posters that entertain a reputation of being more one-eyed than a cyclops about the case-related material, itīs the one endorsing Hutchinson as the killer. With the nice odd exception.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I think we need to keep in mind that Abberline's belief did not have to be absolute. It could have run the gamut from this witness appears to be credible and time is of the essence to I believe him with absolute certainly and would bet the life of my wife and children on it. And it is certainly possible that his belief changed over time.

c.d.

You will be correct on this score, C D - when we cannot be certain that we are right, then our feeling that this is nevertheless so will always end up somewhere on a scale. Abberline could have felt close to the fence, just as he could have felt quite reassured that Hutch was telling the truth.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

How funny, as ever....

Hear, hear :

Since Abberline believed in Dr Jack in 1903, the most reasonable guess is that he did NOT believe so in 1888...

Well, at least, that's how some posters are reasoning at tea time.

Don't want to cross them later....

Cheers all