Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[c.d.]

Hello Fish,

Choosing to believe that Hutch was telling the truth would only cost some police manpower and maybe a little embarrassment if wrong. Writing him off without being absolutely certain that he was lying could cost the police a chance to catch the Ripper. A quick cost/benefit analysis would seem to indicate that Abberline made the correct decision at the time.

c.d.

[DVV]

On the whole, I think you yourself need to be a bit more discerning. Fisherman

On that one, I really don't need, Fish.

Abberline has proved in 1903 that the question of "medical/anatomical knowledge of the killer" was still fresh in his memory, for, I repeat, he was able to quote Baxter after 15 years.

I've noted also that Abberline was categorical, using the expression "expert surgeon" - nothing less.

And I repeat : since nothing significant came to light on the subject after the 1888 series, I'm rather safe speculating that Abberline was very possibly looking for a killer with a medical background in November 1888.

Yes, very possibly. Most probably, even.

And he did not consider a poor groom (without the shadow of an alibi, and coming forward after the inquest) a viable suspect on November 12.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

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

I donīt have much time for arguing against absurdities, David. Now, have the courtesy to point out to me who has said that, and I quote:

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

I have recently pointed out to a good friend of yours that putting words into peoples mouths to make them look silly is not worthy of any sane discussion. So this time over I put the same thing to you.

NOBODY has said that the most reasonable guess is that Abberline thought differently in 1888. All that has been said is that he MAY have done so.

In other words, you have had it pointed out to you that people sometimes change their minds. Just how controversial is that?

Moderation! Please!!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I'm rather safe speculating that Abberline was very possibly looking for a killer with a medical background in November 1888.

Yes, very possibly. Most probably, even.

Cheers

Why not walk all the way out on that limb, David, and call it proven...?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hello Fish,

Choosing to believe that Hutch was telling the truth would only cost some police manpower and maybe a little embarrassment if wrong. Writing him off without being absolutely certain that he was lying could cost the police a chance to catch the Ripper. A quick cost/benefit analysis would seem to indicate that Abberline made the correct decision at the time.

c.d.

Hmmm, C D - I actually think that the police would be very anxious not to dip their toes into all too deep water. They had learnt a tough lesson by the time November arrived.
Otherwise, I agree with your analysis on a general level!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Why not walk all the way out on that limb, David, and call it proven...?

Fisherman

Because I don't need.

Now tell me : what is your problem with what I speculate ?

Once again, nothing new since 1888, Abberline remembering well what Baxter said 15 years before, the expression "expert-surgeon"....and I would not be allowed to speculate that he endorsed the theory...most probably at the time it was elaborated ?

So I don't need to say "proven".
But it's obviously far more likely and reasonable than thinking that Abberline changed his mind on this, without any new evidence, years after his involvement in the Ripper hunt.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

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 ?

Doesn't he tell us in the article?

"... since the Attorney- General made his opening statement at the recent trial, and traced the antecedents of Chapman before he came to this country in 1888. Since then the idea has taken full possession of me, and everything fits in and dovetails so well that I cannot help feeling that this is the man we struggled so hard to capture fifteen years ago."

That reads to me like Abberline only learned of Chapman's previous medical 'experience' at the trial.
And, Abberline may not be remembering the words of Baxter, he has newspaper cuttings of the cases to refer to.

"...a sheaf of documents and newspaper cuttings dealing with the ghastly outrages of 1888."

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.

Abberline is not endorsing the 'burking' theory, but it can be seen that Abberline has just recently put 2+2 together. His collection of press cuttings offering Baxter's comments, and the recent revelations about Chapmans' medical knowledge, given at the trial.

There is nothing there which we can point to as a firm indication he held these beliefs in 1888.
He had all the pieces in front of him on his desk, for the first time in 1903.

[Wickerman]

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

Ok., then please think back to when I asked...

Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
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

You could have saved your precious time by providing the source instead of the 'pun', agreed?

[Wickerman]

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.

Yes, I noticed he appears to reference the sighting by Mrs Long.
Wouldn't we have expected him to use Lawende's sighting?

I wonder if the reason is, Mrs Long identified a 'dark foreigner', Lawende did not. This may betray a bias in Abberline's aging mind.
And, Mrs Long's "dark foreigner" has been associated with the Astrachan sighting before (by the Echo).

[DVV]

You could have saved your precious time by providing the source instead of the 'pun', agreed?

Dear Jon (a Warren Smith's song, and the source in Sun Records in the 50's),

I had already referred to Abberline interviews 1903. What could it be, except the PMG ?

My pun was excellent, so no regrets (Billie Holiday).

Cheers

[DVV]

There is nothing there which we can point to as a firm indication he held these beliefs in 1888.
He had all the pieces in front of him on his desk, for the first time in 1903.

Now you're kidding.
Or merely reversing things.
The fact that he considered Chapman's medical knowledge as an important evidence of him being the ripper indicates that he'd always voted Phillips rather than Bond. He who had his famous files on his desk...
Chapman appeared to fulfil all his little blanks : murders in America, medical and anatomical knowledge...

In short : he believed Chapman was the ripper because Chapman was supposed to have been trained as a surgeon.

Arguing that Abberline endorsed the Dr Jack theory because Chapman had been a surgeon (or something of the kind) would be a complete nonsense.

Or would make him the worst inspector ever.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

DVV:

... what is your problem with what I speculate ?

Primarily that you, when challenged, resort to falsely claiming your opponents have said things they never have said. It is a very unattractive thing to be exposed to, you can take my word for that!

Secondarily that you invest too much faith in too little material.

Once again, nothing new since 1888, Abberline remembering well what Baxter said 15 years before, the expression "expert-surgeon"....and I would not be allowed to speculate that he endorsed the theory...most probably at the time it was elaborated ?

What you fail to recognize here is that Abberline may well have discussed the matter during the fifteen elapsed years, taking impressions from others and changing his mind accordingly. For example.

Jon provided another, equally viable, example.

As for me, I have no problems at all stating that Abberlines professed belief in anatomical knowledge on behalf of the killer in 1903 may well reflect a belief that stretches all the way back to 1888. Realistically, it would perhaps even be the better bet. But that does not in any fashion mean that we may exclude a change of heart on Abberlines behalf.

This is how it must be reasoned, instead of letting our imaginations run away with us.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Fish,

During these 15 years, nothing new came to light regarding the problem of JtR anatomical/medical knowledge.
So what would have prompted Abberline to change his mind ?
Please, tell us.
What Phillips had said in 1888 was said. Same with Baxter and Bond.
And Abberline, being no expert, had nothing to do except following Bond, or Phillips.

I therefore have good reasons to speculate that Abberline had always followed Phillips, while Moore, for instance, was looking for a poor dosser, in 1888-9. And nothing, in the long interview he gave in 1889, indicates that he was looking for somebody with a specific anatomical knowledge. My guess, quite logically, is that Moore was more inclined to follow Bond.

As for you, Fish, what evidence can you produce that Abberline did change his mind ?
None.

So ?

Cheers

[Fisherman]

Fish,

During these 15 years, nothing new came to light regarding the problem of JtR anatomical/medical knowledge.
So what would have prompted Abberline to change his mind ?
Please, tell us.
What Phillips had said in 1888 was said. Same with Baxter and Bond.
And Abberline, being no expert, had nothing to do except following Bond, or Phillips.

I therefore have good reasons to speculate that Abberline had always followed Phillips, while Moore, for instance, was looking for a poor dosser, in 1888-9. And nothing, in the long interview he gave in 1889, indicates that he was looking for somebody with a specific anatomical knowledge. My guess, quite logically, is that Moore was more inclined to follow Bond.

As for you, Fish, what evidence can you produce that Abberline did change his mind ?
None.

So ?

Cheers

Thatīs a sad collection, David. Very, very sad.

You evade the fact that you have misrepresented what I said (why apologize - thatīs no fun), and you instead ask me to provide evidence that Abberline changed his mind.

Thatīs just laughable from somebody who has just been told that he is being overenthusiastic about a theory for which he has no evidence himself.

I have never said that Abberline DID change his mind. It is YOU that falsely claim this.

I have said that he COULD HAVE changed his mind, nothing else.

I think Iīll just bow out and leave you to your world of simple solutions and delusions, David. Iīve lost the will to participate.

Fisherman

[DVV]

Thatīs a sad collection, David. Very, very sad.

You evade the fact that you have misrepresented what I said (why apologize - thatīs no fun), and you instead ask me to provide evidence that Abberline changed his mind.

Thatīs just laughable from somebody who has just been told that he is being overenthusiastic about a theory for which he has no evidence himself.

I have never said that Abberline DID change his mind. It is YOU that falsely claim this.

I have said that he COULD HAVE changed his mind, nothing else.

I think Iīll just bow out and leave you to your world of simple solutions and delusions, David. Iīve lost the will to participate.

Fisherman

You're sad ?

Let me laugh.

Let's put it simple, as everybody can see how confuse you are, resorting to God knows what.

I've said one thing, and only one thing, from the onset : that what we know allows me to speculate that Abberline has probably believed in Dr Jack since 1888. And that that could be one of the reasons why he did not suspect Hutch, although his alibi wasn't an alibi.

Seen ?

And what have you replied to this ?

That I had better say : "It's proven", etc etc, as if my speculation were incredibly far-fetched.

Other reply from Fish : "Oh, but Abberline could have changed his mind".

Really wise.

With that kind of reasoning, I could also argue that the foreigner seen by Mrs Long was actually a Fijian princess. Why not ?

Cheers