Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[The Good Michael]

True Mike, they didn't use the term. Though not suggesting ethnicity is no guide to the ethnicity of the suspect.

In the case of Schwartz, it is from the surviving police files that we are left to believe (due to the known usage of "Lipski" by Gentiles against Jews) that the man seen by Schwartz was "not likely" a Jew.

No known "foreign" traits recognised among the majority of legitimate suspects.

Right, aside from Long. Again, Jewish suspects wouldn't have called attention to foreign traits and indeed, physical traits often have nothing explicit to do with eastern European Jewishness unless a person is of an orthodox nature complete with beard, locks and clothing, so lack of discussion of physical traits means a lot less than ethnic make-up of a given street or area as far as viability of the Jewishness of a suspect, yet that is not for this thread.

Cheers,

Mike

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

There is no evidence - and no good reason - to assume that Abberline ever revised his opinion on Klosowski. His memoirs don't mention the ripper murders at all, let alone his Klosowski theory associated therwith. Had he ever found cause to revise his opinion, one would reasonably have expected him to correct the record, rather than allowing his last recorded words on the subject to be the promulgation of a theory he no longer invested in.

The point is, Abberline had not left any official record of his thoughts. And, by the time he wrote his reminiscences, it was of no significance.

Pizer? Issenschmidt? Kloswoski? Kosminski? Isaacs (Ha!)? Ludwig?

All seem pretty "foreign" to me.

I already listed the unidentified suspects earlier, the ones you throw in were all identified. Pizer, Isenschmid, Ludwig & Isaacs, all cleared (Isaacs eventually), so not suspected in 1888 (or, as per Dave's limited time window of "August 1888").
Kosminski, not even known to be a suspect in 1888.

P.S. lets be clear, the only legitimate police suspects were the ones who remained nameless.
If the police identified them (as per your offering), they would either be cleared, or jailed, so no longer a suspect.

[DVV]

Jon,

Has Abberline said once that the killer had no anatomical knowledge at all ?

If you have something new, please share.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Jon,

Has Abberline said once that the killer had no anatomical knowledge at all ?

If you have something new, please share.

Cheers

Dave.

Given that most of Abberline's written opinions, or reports, have not survived, it is not possible to accurately answer that question.

What is the more probable is that when Detectives are faced with offering an opinion concerning medical matters well beyond their own professional abilities, they will either quote, or defer, to the opinion of the medical professionals themselves.

Here we know Dr Bond saw nothing to suggest "scientific or anatomical knowledge", yet other professionals, Dr Phillips, Dr Brown, Sequeira, etc. were rather vague as to the extent of such knowledge.

Would you expect Abberline to stick his neck out if the various medical opinions could not provide any real consensus?

[Ben]

Abberline had not left any official record of his thoughts. And, by the time he wrote his reminiscences, it was of no significance

But perceived "insignificance" wasn't the reason for the non-mention of Kloswoski or the ripper in his memoirs. He omitted them because he never intended those particular memoirs to be about the ripper case, that's all. His last recorded thoughts on the question of the ripper's identity were those expressed in 1903 with regard to Kloswoski. Had he changed his opinion subsequent to that, the reasonable expectation is that he'd have set the record straight.

Abberline's opinion - not shared by his superiors - was that the killer was an "expert surgeon", and this was obviously the opinion he had at the time of the murders, unless he was senile in 1903, which was only 15 years later, when the chances of such a drastic memory failure were very remote. The evidence tells us that he did stick his neck out with regard to the surgical skill issue, and came down firmly on the side of Phillips, who left us with the clear impression than the mutilations must have been committed by someone with more surgical skill than himself!

P.S. lets be clear, the only legitimate police suspects were the ones who remained nameless.

Oh, you mean witness descriptions of men seen with victims etc.

In which case, yes, I agree that very few of these had anything to suggest a foreigner. However, that doesn't change the fact that foreign identified suspects kept cropping up.

A few pages ago, you wrote:

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?

I've addressed this already. We have evidence aplenty of other witnesses receiving sustained police interest in their evidence. We don’t have to rely on the press for them either, as several of them are mentioned (albeit not always by name) in later years by senior police officials as having been truthful witnesses whose evidence they relied upon, and Hutchinson is a conspicuous absentee from all of them.

For instance, we know that Lawende was used subsequently in attempts to compare new suspects with the man he saw in Church Passage, whereas Hutchinson, who got a far better look than Lawende, was not. Does this become invalidated because the press didn’t feel obliged to report in January 1889 “Just a reminder, everybody – the police still think Lawende’s a good witness!”. No, of course it doesn’t.

If superior sources than the press assure us that various witnesses continued to be treated as truthful and accurate, we have no reason to dispute them. If Hutchinson is conspicuously absent from all press reports and all subsequent interviews, memoirs, and suspect ID attempts, that tells its own story. We have it on the authority of Robert Anderson that the only person to get a good view of the murderer was Jewish, and yet Hutchinson – who got a far better “view” of Astrakhan man than any of the Jewish witnesses did of their “suspects” – was not Jewish, and therefore cannot have been this “only person”. Like it or not, this accords remarkably well with the reported “discrediting” of Hutchinson back in 1888.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

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.

No more than Cross, for instance, "would have been" required to confirm various details that you hope the police glossed over, like his real name as a result of a visit to his wife and place or work (even though it was bound to come to the fore anyway). We are absolutely not having one rule for one witness-turned-suspect, and different rules for others, at least not on my watch. We have no evidence, and certainly no reason to infer, that Hutchinson's interrogation was any more thorough than those conducted with earlier witnesses.

If Hutchinson never went to Romford, there was nothing preventing him from coming up with any number of bogus excuses for a lack of verification. "I heard there was some work for me up there, but I couldn't find the road, and spent ages looking for it". He didn't need to have "stayed" anywhere in Romford, and nor would he have had any trouble recounting what he might have seen on the way home, "building sir, lots of 'em...oh and roads". Great.

Equally, he would have been asked which streets he walked after his vigil, and what points of confirmation he had

What "points of confirmation" was he likely to procure at 3.00 in the morning? If we accept the amazingly unlikely event that he was asked which specific streets he sauntered after leaving Miller's Court, he could have taken hos invented pick from any of the roads that weren't likely to have coppers patrolling them at that time - a subject he would have had particular insight into if he was the ripper.

Still no evidence that Hutchinson was ever asked about Kelly's clothing, which would have been pointless considering that he was due to attend the mortuary the next day to conduct an identification. As with the above two mythical "questions", a lying Hutchinson could have evaded it with ease: I didn't notice sir, I was preoccupied with Mr. Hastrakhan".

What we have then is:

a) No evidence that these questions were ever asked.

b) No good reason to think they were.

c) Easy ways for a guilty Hutchinson to get round them even if they were.

d) Idiot detectives if they were stooopid enough to ask such questions, knowing how easy there were to bluff around without fear of inviting censure or suspicion.

Regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Hi Fisherman,



No more than Cross, for instance, "would have been" required to confirm various details that you hope the police glossed over, like his real name as a result of a visit to his wife and place or work (even though it was bound to come to the fore anyway). We are absolutely not having one rule for one witness-turned-suspect, and different rules for others, at least not on my watch. We have no evidence, and certainly no reason to infer, that Hutchinson's interrogation was any more thorough than those conducted with earlier witnesses.

Cross would have been more easily checked out than Hutchinson. It makes me wonder if 'going down to Romford' was a typical excuse that police couldn't touch. I remember that Romford was a market town and there were many labor jobs available each day to the first in line. I don't know why, however, and I assume that the town was sort of like Mullingar in Ireland, a place where a lot of the livestock, produce, and regional goods moved through to get to Dublin.

Mike

[Ben]

That's a good point about the type of place Romford was, Mike.

Costermongers heading east would also sell their wares there - meat and fish usually.

Cheers,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben: Hi Fisherman,

No more than Cross, for instance, "would have been" required to confirm various details that you hope the police glossed over, like his real name as a result of a visit to his wife and place or work (even though it was bound to come to the fore anyway). We are absolutely not having one rule for one witness-turned-suspect, and different rules for others, at least not on my watch. We have no evidence, and certainly no reason to infer, that Hutchinson's interrogation was any more thorough than those conducted with earlier witnesses.

This is a Hutchinson thread, not a Lechmere thread. If you feel you lack in knowledge on that particular front, much is to be had, but on the proper threads.

As for your assertion that "We have no evidence, and certainly no reason to infer, that Hutchinson's interrogation was any more thorough than those conducted with earlier witnesses", it reveals a sorely lacking insight. Hutchinson was interrogated, remember, whereas no such thing is recorded about the other witnesses. He was also questioned late in the series, when the pressure would have been on to a larger extent. So you are clearly wrong: we have BOTH evidence and reason to think that Hutchinson was subjected to a more thorough questioning.

If Hutchinson never went to Romford, there was nothing preventing him from coming up with any number of bogus excuses for a lack of verification. "I heard there was some work for me up there, but I couldn't find the road, and spent ages looking for it". He didn't need to have "stayed" anywhere in Romford, and nor would he have had any trouble recounting what he might have seen on the way home, "building sir, lots of 'em...oh and roads". Great.

Great? How so?
Of course we can conjure up scenarios where he did not remember one single significant detail, but why would that be of any interest? The only thing that matters is that we can be certain that he was asked about the route and that he would quite probably be able to mention something that was easy enough to check. The other way around, he would not be able to produce a single thing that could be checked, just as you propose.
No matter which version applied, Abberline believed Hutchinson. It´s anybody´s guess if that strengthens your suggestion or mine.

What "points of confirmation" was he likely to procure at 3.00 in the morning?

PC:s he met, people he met, gas lamps that were damaged, rows taking place, broken down carriages in the road, carmen on their way to work, other workers on their way to work - that sort of thing. Anything at all, really.
Unless he met nobody and saw nothing at all, which he could also have said.
In the end, Abberline believed him. It´s anybody´s guess if this strengthens your suggestion or mine.

If we accept the amazingly unlikely event that he was asked which specific streets he sauntered after leaving Miller's Court...

Of course the police asked him what streets he walked, if he could remember them. That would provide them with knowledge that was important to them when trying to check his story. Why would they NOT be interested in that?

... he could have taken hos invented pick from any of the roads that weren't likely to have coppers patrolling them at that time - a subject he would have had particular insight into if he was the ripper.

He would? How so? Did copperwatching belong to his list of activities? Do we know this, or is it just a guess on your behalf?
Not that it matters - he either told a verifiable story or he told a non-verifiable story, as per you. In the end, Abberline believed him. And as you know, it´s anybody´s guess if this strengthens your suggestion or mine.

Still no evidence that Hutchinson was ever asked about Kelly's clothing, which would have been pointless considering that he was due to attend the mortuary the next day to conduct an identification.

Ah - so now it´s suddenly pointless to ask somebody about a victim´s clothes the day before that somebody is to see the victim in the mortuary?
If he could describe them the day after, he could describe them the day before too, sort of? Especially if he was a good describer of shredded nightgowns ...

Not my way of reasoning, I must say.

As for the evidence of any questioning about Kelly´s clothes, we don´t have it and we won´t get it other than by means of circumstantial evidence - the police DO ask about such things.
And in the end, Abberline believed him so I think the better guess is that he cleared that hurdle too.

What you are suggesting is kind of funny - if he lied, then I am convinced that the police would be interested in this. And if he had to conjure up Kelly´s clothes, perhaps ending up with the wrong outfit altogether, then the police would know that he DID lie.
What you suggest is that they would not take advantage of the opportunity to ask. Not in a million years.
Why?

What we have then is:

a) No evidence that these questions were ever asked.

b) No good reason to think they were.

c) Easy ways for a guilty Hutchinson to get round them even if they were.

d) Idiot detectives if they were stooopid enough to ask such questions, knowing how easy there were to bluff around without fear of inviting censure or suspicion.

e) d) ...and a poster that has not got very good insights into police work and who wants to make a meal of a missing interrogation protocol.

Sad? Yes.
Unexpected? No.

I think I will be less willing to answer your posts in the future. It´s precious little fur for the effort of skinning a whole pig, as the maid put it.

Do you have that proverb too?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Costermongers heading east would also sell their wares there - meat and fish usually.

Cheers,
Ben

Yes - so there is every chance that Hutchinson´s assertion that he was spent out going down to Romford was partly due to him having bought himself something to eat and/or drink along the road; a potentially checkable detail, as it were.
And Abberline DID believe him, so we should allow for Hutch having cleared the hurdles in this respect.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

That was a short holiday, Fisherman!

Your "mini-vacation" is most people's normal length of time to respond to a post.

This is a Hutchinson thread, not a Lechmere thread. If you feel you lack in knowledge on that particular front, much is to be had, but on the proper threads.

But when you apply terrible double-standards with your less popular suspect, the comparison needs making, and it will be made whenever those double-standards are applied. Hutchinson was no more "interrogated" than any other witness whose truthfulness, or otherwise, needed to be established. Abberline was bound to use the word "interrogate" when speaking to his bosses. "Had a cosy, marmalde-fuelled chinwag with..." doesn't create quite as favourable an impression. It is most emphatically not the case that things were more loosey-goosey at the start of the investigation – quite the reverse. There was not the desperation for anything of value and lack of worthwhile leads (and nowhere near as much pressure and criticism) in those early stages. If there was a prime time to latch onto anything that might present a glimmer of hope, even if it involved a less sceptical approach, it was towards the end of the investigation.

“The only thing that matters is that we can be certain that he was asked about the route and that he would quite probably be able to mention something that was easy enough to check.”

Like all the stuff that was “certainly” checked in Cross’s case, which, once resolved, established that he wasn’t guilty – that sort of stuff. What was there to check about “the route”? Keep walking east along Whitechapel High Street and eventually you’re in Romford, more or less. Abberline would have known that, and so would every man living in the area. It is inconceivable that any time was wasted over that issue.

“No matter which version applied, Abberline believed Hutchinson. It´s anybody´s guess if that strengthens your suggestion or mine.”

Well, definitely not yours, because there was no possibility of Abberline being able to “check” any aspect of the alleged Romford excursion prior to the writing of that report. I’ve pointed this out a painful number of times, and yet it never sinks in for some reason. Abberline penned that document on the evening of 12th November, and Hutchinson did not come forward until 6pm that evening. There was, quite simply, no time to check anything beyond his residency at the Victoria Home by the time he expressed his “opinion” that his statement was true. That opinion was based largely on faith – it cannot possibly NOT have been.

“Unless he met nobody and saw nothing at all, which he could also have said.”

…Or LIED about.

That’s the whole point. If he said he didn’t encounter anyone after 3.00am, it could have been a pack of lies, but since there was nothing to contradict him, and nothing remotely unusual about not meeting anyone at such an ungodly hour of the morning, there was nothing to implicate him or make him out a suspicious liar, even if he was one.

“Of course the police asked him what streets he walked, if he could remember them. That would provide them with knowledge that was important to them when trying to check his story. Why would they NOT be interested in that?”

But there was nothing to “check” his story against. I don’t know if you expected Abberline to check a whole load of CCTV tapes, or what, but the reality is that Hutchinson was unlikely to have encountered anyone if he really did “walk about all night”, and if he lied about it, there was nothing to contradict him.

“He would? How so? Did copperwatching belong to his list of activities?”

It might well have belonged on the ripper’s list of activities. "Walking about all night" was perhaps a dangerous thing for a publicity-seeker to lie about when there were PCs patrolling those streets who would have spotted him had he really been there. A killer, on the other hand, who conceivably monitored the police beats to an extent, would have known which roads to lie about walking along after 3.00am – the ones which he knew DIDN’T have coppers strolling up and down them at that time.

“If he could describe them the day after, he could describe them the day before too, sort of?”

He wasn’t asked to attend the mortuary to identify clothes. He went there to identify a person. The only reason to ask a witness about the victim’s clothes was to establish that victim’s identity, but in Hutchinson’s case, he claimed to have known her for three years AND was due to identify the body the next day. The police would not – unless they were dumbarses – have asked about clothes in order to determine if Hutchinson was telling the truth, as all the latter needed to say (if he wasn't) was that he didn’t notice. If Hutchinson was there that night, as I believe he was, he’d have known precisely what she was wearing, and would have related the details upon request, but as I’ve explained above, there is no evidence that he was asked. He would only “conjure up the wrong clothes” if he wasn’t there and lied about the whole thing, which, as you know, is not my opinion.

“I think I will be less willing to answer your posts in the future.”

Yeah, yeah…

Heard that one before.

“It´s precious little fur for the effort of skinning a whole pig, as the maid put it”

Pigs don’t have fur, so that maid is silly.

You’ve winked at me five times in those two posts, Fisherman – making you officially the biggest winker on this thread!

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

That was a short holiday, Fisherman!

Your "mini-vacation" is most people's normal length of time to respond to a post.



But when you apply terrible double-standards with your less popular suspect, the comparison needs making, and it will be made whenever those double-standards are applied. Hutchinson was no more "interrogated" than any other witness whose truthfulness, or otherwise, needed to be established. Abberline was bound to use the word "interrogate" when speaking to his bosses. "Had a cosy, marmalde-fuelled chinwag with..." doesn't create quite as favourable an impression. It is most emphatically not the case that things were more loosey-goosey at the start of the investigation – quite the reverse. There was not the desperation for anything of value and lack of worthwhile leads (and nowhere near as much pressure and criticism) in those early stages. If there was a prime time to latch onto anything that might present a glimmer of hope, even if it involved a less sceptical approach, it was towards the end of the investigation.



Like all the stuff that was “certainly” checked in Cross’s case, which, once resolved, established that he wasn’t guilty – that sort of stuff. What was there to check about “the route”? Keep walking east along Whitechapel High Street and eventually you’re in Romford, more or less. Abberline would have known that, and so would every man living in the area. It is inconceivable that any time was wasted over that issue.



Well, definitely not yours, because there was no possibility of Abberline being able to “check” any aspect of the alleged Romford excursion prior to the writing of that report. I’ve pointed this out a painful number of times, and yet it never sinks in for some reason. Abberline penned that document on the evening of 12th November, and Hutchinson did not come forward until 6pm that evening. There was, quite simply, no time to check anything beyond his residency at the Victoria Home by the time he expressed his “opinion” that his statement was true. That opinion was based largely on faith – it cannot possibly NOT have been.



…Or LIED about.

That’s the whole point. If he said he didn’t encounter anyone after 3.00am, it could have been a pack of lies, but since there was nothing to contradict him, and nothing remotely unusual about not meeting anyone at such an ungodly hour of the morning, there was nothing to implicate him or make him out a suspicious liar, even if he was one.



But there was nothing to “check” his story against. I don’t know if you expected Abberline to check a whole load of CCTV tapes, or what, but the reality is that Hutchinson was unlikely to have encountered anyone if he really did “walk about all night”, and if he lied about it, there was nothing to contradict him.



It might well have belonged on the ripper’s list of activities. "Walking about all night" was perhaps a dangerous thing for a publicity-seeker to lie about when there were PCs patrolling those streets who would have spotted him had he really been there. A killer, on the other hand, who conceivably monitored the police beats to an extent, would have known which roads to lie about walking along after 3.00am – the ones which he knew DIDN’T have coppers strolling up and down them at that time.



He wasn’t asked to attend the mortuary to identify clothes. He went there to identify a person. The only reason to ask a witness about the victim’s clothes was to establish that victim’s identity, but in Hutchinson’s case, he claimed to have known her for three years AND was due to identify the body the next day. The police would not – unless they were dumbarses – have asked about clothes in order to determine if Hutchinson was telling the truth, as all the latter needed to say (if he wasn't) was that he didn’t notice. If Hutchinson was there that night, as I believe he was, he’d have known precisely what she was wearing, and would have related the details upon request, but as I’ve explained above, there is no evidence that he was asked. He would only “conjure up the wrong clothes” if he wasn’t there and lied about the whole thing, which, as you know, is not my opinion.



Yeah, yeah…

Heard that one before.



Pigs don’t have fur, so that maid is silly.

You’ve winked at me five times in those two posts, Fisherman – making you officially the biggest winker on this thread!

Regards,
Ben

You see, Ben? "There was nothing to check his story against".
Your suggestion, totally unsubstantiated, but as always, served as a fact. With trimmings on the side.

That´s why am disinclined to answer.

Fisherman

[spyglass]

Hi
If Abberline did belive Hutchinson on just the grounds of his statement, then you woukd have to question his ability as a competent detective ( something I often question ).
However I feel certain that Abberline in this case did still suspect him, and therefore would have had him watched at all times.
He was escorted by police officers for a while dont forget.
I remember reading DI Harry Cox newspaper article on how he followed a certain suspect for many nights....Hutchinson maybe?
Regards.

[Wickerman]

Cross would have been more easily checked out than Hutchinson. It makes me wonder if 'going down to Romford' was a typical excuse that police couldn't touch.

Strange as it may seem Mike, the Romford trip would have been the easiest to check out.
Hutchinson will be asked for the name & address of the person he visited. Abberline will have telegraphed the local Romford station to send a man to this address. To ask, when Hutchinson arrived, how long he stayed, when he left, and by what means, and if he had any money on him.
Abberline knew how to do his job.

[Wickerman]

Abberline's opinion - not shared by his superiors - was that the killer was an "expert surgeon", and this was obviously the opinion he had at the time of the murders,

Hardly possible, none of the surgeon's involved in the case used those words.
Even Phillips only suggested "indications of knowledge", ie: "There were indications of anatomical knowledge, which were only less indicated in consequence of haste."
And, "...some anatomical knowledge."

None of which amounts to "expert surgeon".

And, as I already pointed out, Dr Bond scuttled the idea of "skill" once and for all.

I've addressed this already. We have evidence aplenty of other witnesses receiving sustained police interest in their evidence. We don’t have to rely on the press for them either, as several of them are mentioned (albeit not always by name) in later years by senior police officials as having been truthful witnesses whose evidence they relied upon, and Hutchinson is a conspicuous absentee from all of them.

Oh right, you choose to rely on those error ridden memoirs talking about unnamed suspects.
I'm talking about REAL suspects, AT the time of the murders, NOT relying on self aggrandizing memoirs written decades later, which cannot be substantiated.

For instance, we know that Lawende was used subsequently in attempts to compare new suspects with the man he saw in Church Passage,

He was called in because of a murder, NOT to suggest the police were still actively looking for his suspect, which is what we are talking about here.
Try again, "How long after the witness descriptions were published are the police still looking for the Lawende suspect? (and then try Mrs Long, Schwartz, and PC Smith.).

......whereas Hutchinson, who got a far better look than Lawende, was not."

Right, and what had occurred in between times?

Isaacs had been found, arrested & interrogated, and from that point on (Dec 6th), we have certainly no more mention of the Hutchinson suspect.