Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Garry Wroe]

I know you have asserted this belief of yours, but the basis of your belief is an uncorroborated press opinion, nothing official.
And according to several press articles over the next couple of weeks, the police are still following up on Hutchinson's suspect.
That 'fact' alone speaks against your opinion, decisively.

Unfortunately, it doesn't. What you do not appear to appreciate is that there were two types of 'suspect' - those who were uncovered by the investigative process and those who were named or given into custody by members of the public. In this latter context a number of men were named by civilians because their handwriting bore a certain similarity to that found on the published Jack the Ripper letters. The simple reality of the situation is that the police had a professional obligation to investigate all of these men even in the knowledge that such lines of inquiry were going to lead precisely nowhere. Dr Holt was another of these men. He was given into custody merely because a Mrs Humphries thought he had looked at her 'in a funny way'. Following the press coverage accorded to Fanny Mortimer's sighting of Leon Goldstein, moreover, a number of men were given into custody solely because they carried black bags.

This distinction between official and civilian 'suspects' is critical if we are to make sense of what happened in the weeks following Hutchinson's rejection as a credible eyewitness. The interest in these so-called astrakhan men was not a reflection of official police thinking at the time, it was the result of a public reacting to what had been published in the newspapers. Given that it wasn't until fairly recently that press reports relating to Hutchinson's 'diminution' were uncovered, it should come as no surprise that the Victorian public was unaware of Hutchinson's fall from grace and continued to report Astrakhan types well into December.

Now, if someone could provide the details of an Astrakhan arrest that did not come about courtesy of information derived from a member of the public ...

[Wickerman]

It still just didn't happen that way, as I've explained a great many times. Hutchinson's discrediting had absolutely nothing to do with Bond's time of death, for which not a shred of evidence exists to support the contention that "Scotland Yard" championed it to the exclusion of other evidence, such as the mutually supportive statements of Lewis and Cox regarding to the "Murder!" cry. It also runs contrary to the explanation the police definitely provided to the Echo for "considerably reducing" Hutchinson, which concerned Hutchinson's credibility.

Hi Ben.
I know you have asserted this belief of yours, but the basis of your belief is an uncorroborated press opinion, nothing official.
And according to several press articles over the next couple of weeks, the police are still following up on Hutchinson's suspect.
That 'fact' alone speaks against your opinion, decisively.

Whereas my opinion is based on an official report in the hands of police.
No contradiction to speak against my view. And, this report would also provoke the same speculation in the press that appears to suggest the reduced importance of Hutchinson's story.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good afternoon Abby,

I don't really see what all the fuss is about ...

... Isnt this all we really need to know to come to the conclusion that George Hutchinson was just not that credible of a witness?

All the fuss is about - are you sitting down - this is a George Hutchinson SUSPECT thread. Which raises the fuss level accordingly.

Roy

[Ben]

In addition to this, it was reported that he threatened violence to anyone over the age of 17

All women over the age of 17, I should clarify.

[Ben]

True, his story might have been diminished to some degree once Scotland Yard received the report from Dr. Bond. His estimated time of death certainly turned the focus towards Mrs Cox's statement, rather than centered on Hutchinson.

No, Jon.

Still no.

It still just didn't happen that way, as I've explained a great many times. Hutchinson's discrediting had absolutely nothing to do with Bond's time of death, for which not a shred of evidence exists to support the contention that "Scotland Yard" championed it to the exclusion of other evidence, such as the mutually supportive statements of Lewis and Cox regarding to the "Murder!" cry. It also runs contrary to the explanation the police definitely provided to the Echo for "considerably reducing" Hutchinson, which concerned Hutchinson's credibility.

And as far out as December 6th, Abberline takes a handful of strong-arm officers to arrest a Jewish suspect who was said to "certainly resemble the man in the Astrachan coat".

"Said" by who?

That's right - just the press.

There is not the slightest fart of an indication that Isaacs was of interest to the police because of any resemblance to an eyewitness description, least of all Hutchinson's. Isaacs became a suspect because he reportedly lived a stone's throw away from Miller's Court, and departed the area shortly after the Kelly murder. In addition to this, it was reported that he threatened violence to anyone over the age of 17. If that isn't sufficient material to warrant immediate priority as a suspect, I don't know what is.

No eyewitness evidence is remotely needed to justify the police's initial interest in Isaacs.

Who did he think he was arresting in the first week of December, if not the man described by Hutchinson?

A potential Jack the Ripper.

NOT A potential Astrakhan man, who had already been discredited.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“And that is your evidence for the police drip-feeding the Echo other information, such as this witness sighting suddenly losing credibility because it had just dawned on them that Hutch ought to have come forward sooner?”

It's proof that the police did provide accurate information to the Echo, which is what you asked me to provide.

I never suggested that it “had only just dawned on them” that he ought to have come forward sooner. I’m suggesting that whatever form these “later investigations” took, they undoubtedly undermined the credibility of whatever excuse Hutchinson initially provided for his late appearance. In addition, and as I mentioned one of the other Hutchinson threads (lot of them about!), Abberline would have risked exposing the police to heavy censure from press and public if he had failed to circulate Hutchinson’s description purely on the basis of an inadequate response to the question of his late arrival. It is likely, therefore, that the description was circulated in spite of the fact that it might have been considered problematic in some respects. If it did not very quickly result in the capture of the Astrakhan man, THEN the police could conduct proper investigations into the statement’s grey areas.

The police could ill-afford to run a mile at the slightest whiff of nonsense.

“'Such men', Ben? How odd, if Astrakhan types were as rare in the East End as bacon sarnies in a synagogue. Evidently the public had no problem seeing and reporting 'such men'…”

Not in the East End – other parts of London. There was no rule asserting that if Astrakhan man was real, he couldn’t venture into more affluent parts of London, and as such my point still stands: if the real Astrakhan man was spotted wondering around – I dunno – St. Pauls (?) in late November, and the “spotter” had been deterred from reporting the matter because of what he had read in the Echo, it would have been as a direct of the police supplying that paper with false information, according to your recent suggestion.

The above offers a good illustration of the potentially dangerous consequences of lying to a newspaper about which pieces of eyewitness evidence were no longer being taken seriously, especially if that newspaper was able to prove that they had obtained their information “on enquiry at Commercial Street police station”.

…Which is why I’m strongly compelled to accept the truth of the Echo’s statement that among the information obtained directly from the police station was the not-all-that-startling revelation that Hutchinson’s account had been “considerably discounted because the statement had not been made at the inquest and in the proper manner”. Bogus witnesses surface all the time – it was really no biggie to either party, irrespective of whatever implications it may have for modern day Hutchinson theories.

“So nothing 'official' then, or placed on file, to the effect that Hutch was discredited - in case he shouldn't have been?”

The evidence is that Hutchinson's evidence was discredited, which is not the same as being proven false. The distinction is rather a crucial one. Even if overwhelming evidence and common sense indicated that here was another time-wasting publicity-seeker, they couldn’t completely rule out the possibility that he was honest (any more than they could with Packer and Violenia), which is why you’ll encounter no official declaration that his account was “officially” false.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

True, his story might have been diminished to some degree once Scotland Yard received the report from Dr. Bond. His estimated time of death certainly turned the focus towards Mrs Cox's statement, rather than centered on Hutchinson.

Scotland Yard though cannot dismiss a witness based on that alone. They still have to pursue both lines of inquiry, as confirmed in the press.
And as far out as December 6th, Abberline takes a handful of strong-arm officers to arrest a Jewish suspect who was said to "certainly resemble the man in the Astrachan coat".

How many other suspects fit the description of this short, 30 year old Polish Jew?
Not the Schwartz suspect, not Lawende's suspect, then who?
Who did he think he was arresting in the first week of December, if not the man described by Hutchinson?

Obviously, his story had not been discredited by Nov. 15th, as suggested by the Star, Abberline was still acting on it a full three weeks after it was given to police.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Caz all, Ben

I don't really see what all the fuss is about and all the tit and tat about the minutia of hutch and the news paper account of his story being diminished/discredited, given less import etc. or HOWEVER one wants to describe it.

We have a witness, who on the face of it, has a dubious story and many questions surrounding his credibility based on the circumstances of his coming forward. And then in short time his suspect, and him as a witness, apparently is dropped in any more of the investigation.

In conjunction with the press account of his story being diminished in importance.

Isnt this all we really need to know to come to the conclusion that George Hutchinson was just not that credible of a witness?

Its obvious to me any way.

[caz]

While we're on the subject of press reports, I do hope that those insisting that the statement was conveyed by cop-ogram on a silver platter understand that this appeared in a press report...

...This report has no more "support" than the Echo and Star articles relating to Hutchinson's discrediting, or the Lloyds Weekly article referring to Isaacs being in prison at the time of the murder.

So not much support for any of these reports, or no support at all?

I can live with that, Ben.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

“Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contemporaries, we learned on inquiry at the Commercial Street police station today that the elaborate description given above is virtually the same as that previously published. It is a little fuller, that is all. But it proceeds from the same source.”

It did proceed from the same source, and this information could only be confirmed by the police.

Hi Ben,

And that is your evidence for the police drip-feeding the Echo other information, such as this witness sighting suddenly losing credibility because it had just dawned on them that Hutch ought to have come forward sooner? As if attending the inquest would have made his Astrakhan Man that much more believable? Is this the position you think the police adopted and would have volunteered to the Echo?

It wasn’t just a “message to prostitutes” though, was it? What about ordinary members of the public who may have been deterred from reporting the presence or activities of Astrakhan types by the “false” information that an account involving a suspicious Astrakhan type last seen with Kelly had been discredited? What if one of these was the actual murderer, and managed to avoid capture as a direct result of the misinformation that Astrakhan types were no longer being sought?

How many of them are you talking about?

Ironically, members of the public did continue to report such men, who were very quickly released – obviously because the police weren’t still seeking them.

'Such men', Ben? How odd, if Astrakhan types were as rare in the East End as bacon sarnies in a synagogue. Evidently the public had no problem seeing and reporting 'such men', taking the Echo's claims with the large pinch of salt that might have done you a bit of good.

Men were very quickly released if they could identify and give a good account of themselves. If you think it was 'obviously' because they matched the description of Astrakhan Man (surely not??), but he was no longer being sought, are you suggesting the police no longer thought he existed, or no longer thought he was the killer? I thought even you accepted they couldn't categorically prove Hutch had lied about seeing the man with Kelly, even if they strongly suspected it. Ah, here we are:

There was always the possibility that the police rejected Hutchinson’s account in error (i.e. in the absence of final proof that he lied), which is why they didn’t make an official declaration that Hutchinson was discredited, preferring instead to impart the detail to more reputable press sources.

So nothing 'official' then, or placed on file, to the effect that Hutch was discredited - in case he shouldn't have been? Yes, yes, I see. Just a nod and a wink about it at best to their favourite newsmen, even though according to you this could have been a fatal error of judgement if the murderer was indeed 'one of these' Astrakhan types?

Interesting.

Are you sure you are getting enough sleep, Ben?

Love,

Caz
X

[harry]

Jon
I don't know why I have to correct you so often'
That Arnold signed the statement is merely information that the statement was in Arnold's possession at some time.Clear,but if you are suggesting that Arnold too was at Commercial Street police station that evening,and he must have been if your latest claim of him being a witness is correct,then supply confirmation,and no,the signature on the statement doe s not prove it.Clear
Of course a statement existed prior to Aberlines intervention and questioning.I have told you so.It would have been given by Hutchinson verbally.It was his reason for being at the police station.An interview could not have proceded without him stating why he was there.Clear.
From Aberline not being there because his Signature w as not on on the statement,we now have Arnold there because his Signature was.Incredible.
Even Hutchinson was not required to sign the statement when it was completed by Badham,and Badham,because he had headed the record with his name would not necessarily have to sign.That Hutchinson did sign,is a clear indication that he did so voluntarily.He could not be compelled to do so.
Want to argue that.

[Wickerman]

I don't know why it is I have to repeat everything to you.

Witnesses present at the taking of the statement are required to sign the statement, this is done at bottom right.
Hutchinson, Badham & Arnold, signed the statement - clear?

Abberline, in his report stated that the witness had given a statement.
He then adds that he has since interrogated the witness, which implies the statement already existed prior to the interrogation.

Abberline signed the statement with "submitted', which is corroborated by his daily report where he writes that he forwarded the statement to C. O. - clear?

[harry]

Jon,
Obviously since you posted a false claim there would be no evidence.That is the crux of the matter.What you were trying to achieve only you know.
Only claim of a special detective is one obscure writing by a reporter.Nothing to substanciate it from any other source.
Aberline was not present.Your claim simply because his name was not on a report which didn't need his signature. Hutchinson's presence is comfirmed,as is Badham's by signatures on the statement Badham wrote.Aberlines presence is confirmed,by the report that he wrote that puts both Aberline and Hutchinson at the same station.Altogether the evidence is overwhelming that all three were together at the police station that evening .If you mean Aberline was not present when Badham wrote the statement,you must have good reason for saying so.What is your reasoning.

[Wickerman]

"So, when I later told you no proof exists of this document, you tried to make an issue out of it. Yet at no point in this discussion had I ever claimed proof did exist."

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=332512&postcount=689

Is that what you have been looking for?


The reporter made up this Special Detective now?

I am not disputing the witness statement of Hutchinson was put to writing,the question is when,and my contention is that it was written during or soon after Aberline had questioned Hutchinson.

Based on what?
Abberline's name is not among the witness signatures, along with Badham & Arnold. Which means he was not present.

[harry]

Jon,
But you assert that Aberline did write a report and that this report was lost.You have repeated that claim on more than one thread.You have supplied no evidence to back that claim.
Same with the detective.Nothing to support.No proof.It is being asked of you to supply proof.So here is the simple question you yourself say should be asked,and a simple yes or no will do.Do you have proof?It is you who is ducking and weaving.
Special detective or not,his presence has to be proven.Yes or no?
Not quite sure of your point regarding putting to writing.I am not disputing the witness statement of Hutchinson was put to writing,the question is when,and my contention is that it was written during or soon after Aberline had questioned Hutchinson.
I always believed that the code instructs,'As soon as possible after...'Might not be possible immediately in some cases.