Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[The Good Michael]

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.

If Hutchinson walked down there, didn't find a job, and walked back, there'd be no one to ask. He said he'd spent all his money going down to Romford. That means to me he didn't find a job.

Mike

[Wickerman]

If Hutchinson walked down there, didn't find a job, and walked back, there'd be no one to ask. He said he'd spent all his money going down to Romford. That means to me he didn't find a job.

Mike

Where are we told he went to find work?

[The Good Michael]

It's an assumption Jon. Romford was a place for laborers to go look for work, if I'm not mistaken.

Mike

[Wickerman]

Haven't you noticed Mike, that all the conclusions we arrive at about Hutchinson are always based on assumptions.

Wasn't it Kelly's landlord at Breezers Hill who owned stables in Romford?
Has it not been suggested Hutchinson may have had relatives in Romford?
We do know he was prepared to do labouring, and there was a market at Romford.

How many other reasons can we think of?
No shortage of addresses among the above assumptions Mike.

[Fisherman]

spyglass:

If Abberline did belive Hutchinson on just the grounds of his statement, then you woukd have to question his ability as a competent detective.

So what you are basically suggesting is that there would have been more behind Abberlines trust in Hutchinson than the Badham statement? Yes, that is very likely. Just as Jon points out, it could have involved various elements of verifications of what Hutchinson said.

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.

Walking by Hutchinsons side on the East End streets, what was it they would have hoped to accomplish? Grab Hutchinson as he pounced on a prostitute? If you want to disclose criminal behaviour, you can of course have police officers shadowing a suspect. But they will not escort him.

Hutchinson was escorted with the outspoken aim to locate Astrakhan man and secure him for the investigation. At that stage, Astrakhan man was a prime suspect - while Hutchinson was a man that Abberline felt was to be trusted.

All the best,
Fisherman

[pinkmoon]

spyglass:

If Abberline did belive Hutchinson on just the grounds of his statement, then you woukd have to question his ability as a competent detective.

So what you are basically suggesting is that there would have been more behind Abberlines trust in Hutchinson than the Badham statement? Yes, that is very likely. Just as Jon points out, it could have involved various elements of verifications of what Hutchinson said.

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.

Walking by Hutchinsons side on the East End streets, what was it they would have hoped to accomplish? Grab Hutchinson as he pounced on a prostitute? If you want to disclose criminal behaviour, you can of course have police officers shadowing a suspect. But they will not escort him.

Hutchinson was escorted with the outspoken aim to locate Astrakhan man and secure him for the investigation. At that stage, Astrakhan man was a prime suspect - while Hutchinson was a man that Abberline felt was to be trusted.

All the best,
Fisherman

Hi fisherman,let's look at this from abberlines put of view he is investigating a series of major crimes he has no real clues so he would have to give Mr Hutchinson the benefit of the doubt just in case he was telling the truth a chance of a clue is better than no clue at all

[The Good Michael]

Haven't you noticed Mike, that all the conclusions we arrive at about Hutchinson are always based on assumptions.

Wasn't it Kelly's landlord at Breezers Hill who owned stables in Romford?
Has it not been suggested Hutchinson may have had relatives in Romford?
We do know he was prepared to do labouring, and there was a market at Romford.

How many other reasons can we think of?
No shortage of addresses among the above assumptions Mike.

Jon,

Yes. Many assumptions about Hutchinson. If you'll recall, I was talking about the possibility of 'Going Down to Romford' as being some sort of catch-all excuse in existence at the time that police couldn't check out very well. It wasn't applied to Hutch alone, but as some sort of excuse anyone could use without fear of being caught out. For what it's worth, I believe Hutch in no way, shape, or form could be the killer.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Hi fisherman,let's look at this from abberlines put of view he is investigating a series of major crimes he has no real clues so he would have to give Mr Hutchinson the benefit of the doubt just in case he was telling the truth a chance of a clue is better than no clue at all

But thatīs not "Abberlines point of view", is it? It is instead a point of view that you ascribe to Abberline, right or wrong.

Why would we not think that Abberline reasoned along the lines of: "Hmmm, weīve had Violenia and weīve had Packer and weīve had all sorts of funny people who have served us lies and concoctions of no value at all, so Iīd better be very cautious about this one. We donīt want to get it wrong this time, now that weīve got the eyes of the world on us!"

This is not to say that you could no be correct. Itīs just to warn against the notion that we could magically disclose what the people involved in the investigation thought. We canīt, alas!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

As Ben says, there wasn’t time for Hutchinson to have been ‘checked out’ between his official statement and Abberline’s report – other than perhaps to ascertain that he was resident at the Victoria Home.

Hutchinson’s walk from Romford, much discussed in respect of his honesty or otherwise, would have been the least of Abberline’s concerns in any case. It often appears in discussions on this site as though it was remarkable – in itself, it wasn’t. Contemporary records suggest that it was normal for people to walk for distances that we would consider unusual today. Local infirmary records, for example [including the Whitechapel Infirmary records] contain several admission entries for people who had walked considerable distances to London – from places such as Guildford and St Albans, for example, which are much further away than Romford.

In the years from 87-89 there are probably half a dozen admissions to the Whitechapel Infirmary who had walked from Romford; some in the horse trade, some not, which, all things considered, tells us that if not exactly commonplace, it wasn’t unusual either. It’s about 15 miles – a fair hike, but not that far. The only point for explanation there as far as I can see is why he chose to set off for London in the middle of the night – but that could have been accounted for easily enough.

As for the idea that his route was somehow ‘checkable’ – no. On his way from Romford he’d have seen some sheep, no doubt, and perhaps a few cows, but little else. Apart from passing through Ilford, most of his route was open countryside until he reached London.

Incidentally, there is a nice picture of Romford Market in 1904 here:

http://pubhistory.co.uk/Romford/HistoryofRomford.shtml

And a link to other pictures of the locale.

[Fisherman]

Jon,

Yes. Many assumptions about Hutchinson. If you'll recall, I was talking about the possibility of 'Going Down to Romford' as being some sort of catch-all excuse in existence at the time that police couldn't check out very well. It wasn't applied to Hutch alone, but as some sort of excuse anyone could use without fear of being caught out. For what it's worth, I believe Hutch in no way, shape, or form could be the killer.

Mike

As long as a person does not say that he went deep into the woods, where there was nobody to be seen, any suggestion of having visited heavily inhabited areas - such as Romford - carries with it many potential angles to perform a checkout. In that context, I donīt think Romford would be any better than having visited the Oxford Street area. You could just as well claim that itīs only poor luck if not a single street vendor remembers you from there.

My own take on matters is that Abberline would have checked out as much as he could on as many points as he could, and potentially, there would have been a great many points to check. Saying that there was nothing that could be checked - as has been said on this thread, sadly - is something that is a far cry from being any fact. And the fact (this time it IS a fact!) that Abberline stated that he believed Hutchinson spoke the truth actually points to the police having been able to confirm Hutchinsons story on at least some level.

I went to Gränna (a small town in Sweden) over midsummer, and there will be a good number of people that could confirm this, from the ones I rented a cottage from, to the ferryman on lake Vättern, the ice-cream seller in Visingsborg and the people that sold me and my family and my two boysīgirlfriends food and the ones who served it.
Actually, come to think of it, I was kind of spent out too, returning from my excursion ...

If I had wanted to hide my whereabouts, I could easily have claimed that I towed my boat to lake Vättern, launched it at a shore with no people around, put my tent up and went fishing for four days - I often do that exact thing. Among the many boats trolling for char, it would be easy to say that my boat did perhaps not attract any attention.

Romford is not a very useful destination for somebody who wants to lie, thus. Not to my mind, it isnīt.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

As Ben says, there wasn’t time for Hutchinson to have been ‘checked out’ between his official statement and Abberline’s report – other than perhaps to ascertain that he was resident at the Victoria Home.

Thatīs just your guess, Sally.
Did Hutchinsonīs mother and father live nearby?
Did any of his siblings live nearby?
Did any of his part time employers live nearby?
Did he have any friends nearby?
Did he have any other relatives nearby?
Did he visit somebody in Romford? Could that person or persons have come to London afterwards, perhaps living nearby?

Keep in mind that very many families lived in very small areas of the East End; fathers, mothers, siblings, relatives often lived in flats in the same street even.

The possibilitites are therefore countless. But they do not match what you want them to be, do they?
So you lay down - as a fact - that Abberline could ONLY have spoken to the people in the Victoria Home in the time period offered. And thatīs only a "perhaps".

Shall we agree that it is NOT a fact, and be done with it? Or do you persist?

And please, PLEASE donīt come crawling with any "near certainties"! The truth of the matter is that we donīt know how many people of interest for assessing Hutchinson lived in the vicinity.
Of course, once we admit that Hutchinson was George William Topping Hutchinson, we CAN run a check on this, to some extent. But I have a feeling that it wonīt suit you any more than the insight that your fact is anything but a fact.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

It's simple logic, Fish. There simply wouldn't have been time to perform the sort of comprehensive check that you appear to envisage between Hutchinson giving his statement and Abberline writing his report.

Your list of possibilities is irrelevant because we cannot demonstrate either that any of them applied or that they didn't. We can only go with what we have - not what we don't.

That aside, I think you missed the point of my post, which was not actually concerned with whether Abberline magically performed a total check on Hutchinson or not - but rather with the context of walking from Romford to London.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Why would we not think that Abberline reasoned along the lines of: "Hmmm, weīve had Violenia and weīve had Packer and weīve had all sorts of funny people who have served us lies and concoctions of no value at all, so Iīd better be very cautious about this one. We donīt want to get it wrong this time

But they didn't "get it wrong" with Packer or Violenia. Both of them were suspected of being publicity-seekers because they did not perform well under "interrogation". There is no reason at all to assume they were any less thorough with witnesses who were very quickly exposed as probable liars - in fact, they were probably more so, considering that it took them longer, in Hutchinson's case, to arrive at the conclusion that all was not well with his account.

Have you completely given up on "date confusion", by the way? If you're now insisting - on the basis of absolutely no evidence - that his Romford ramblings were checked out and shown to be correct, that's your theory gone to bollocks, surely? If it was established that he was in Romford and left when he said he left, the date would therefore be cemented as the correct one, and "date confusion" would cease to be a possibility.

But all that nonsense aside, the fact remains is that if the Romford tale was checked out, he would not have been dismissed as a publicity-seeking non-genuine witness, which is irrefutably what happened (copy and pastes at the ready for any dissenters who want to drag that issue out again). The reality, therefore, is that if any checking occurred, Hutchinson evidently failed those “checks”, and suffered a “very reduced importance” accordingly. This reduction of importance, we’re reliably informed, occurred as a result of “later investigations”. This was the “checking” you refer to, and it obviously didn’t pan out in Hutchinson’s favour.

So that’s the “he told the truth about Romford” squarely dealt with – it could not have happened, or else he would not have been discredited.

So now let’s explore the alternative scenario – how would he have dealt with the threat of having his alleged Romford ramble “checked out” if he was lying about it? The answer: very easily indeed. All he had to say was that he was looking for a particular location, and went home when he couldn’t find it. The police were not about to check non-existent CCTV cameras in Romford and hope to spot Hutchinson buying onions from a market stalls, so he could have lied about it all with impunity. The idea that it would be easy to perform a check-out in the absence of these is completely ludicrous.

“My own take on matters is that Abberline would have checked out as much as he could on as many points as he could, and potentially, there would have been a great many points to check.”

Your own take on matters is unimaginative, and grossly misunderstands the likely extent of checking powers the police had at their disposal in 1888. Had the police been in possession of such powers, and had they been as dedicated to using them as you’re envisaging, Cross wouldn’t have stood a chance of pulling the wool over the eyes of the police had he been the ripper. Unless of course you wish to apply ghastly double standards of the type that I’m not prepared to tolerate here.

“Did Hutchinsonīs mother and father live nearby?
Did any of his siblings live nearby?
Did any of his part time employers live nearby?
Did he have any friends nearby?
Did he have any other relatives nearby?”

Ah, you mean like Cross who lived nearby. According to you, the police tracked down people’s relatives in order to ascertain their truthfulness. Your “logic” would insist the police tracked down Mrs. Lechmere and been surprised that she was called, well, Mrs. Lechmere, and not Mrs. Cross. Realistically though, a visit to Hutchinson’s possible relatives would have communicated sod all about his propensity to lie or kill people. His mummy wasn't exactly going to say, “Ah yes, my son George – dodgy little phucker. He’s probably lying and killing prostitutes again. I’ve told him..!”

“Shall we agree that it is NOT a fact, and be done with it? Or do you persist?”

Can’t speak for Sally, but I wish to persist, Fisherman - and persist I will until eternity, if necessary.

“Of course, once we admit that Hutchinson was George William Topping Hutchinson, we CAN run a check on this, to some extent.”

We can laugh that one out of town too.

I know you said you weren’t going to respond to my posts, but since I know for a fact that you’re going to renege on that, I look forward to your response.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

It's simple logic, Fish.

You need to realize the difference inbetween simple and simplistic, Sally.

There simply wouldn't have been time to perform the sort of comprehensive check that you appear to envisage between Hutchinson giving his statement and Abberline writing his report.

Hutch appeared at 6 PM. That left six hours of the day. We donīt know at what exact time Abberlines report was finished, saying that Hutch was to be believed.

Six hours, Sally - that is a lot of time. Of course, you now move the goalpoasts by claiming that we are discussing "comprehensive" checks, whereas no such thing has ever been mentioned. I am speaking of a quick check to see if people had him down as a good or a bad guy - a liar or a truthful man.

Your list of possibilities is irrelevant because we cannot demonstrate either that any of them applied or that they didn't. We can only go with what we have - not what we don't.

And do you "have" any information telling you that none of the persons I mentioned in my post above did not live close enough to run a check? No you donīt! So letīs not go with what we DONīT have.
Incidentally, Toppys father and mother lived in Lenham road (in 1891, at least), ten kilometres from the Victoria home, as the crow flies. Six hours would be quite, quite sufficient to speak to them.
So donīt you speak of irrelevance, Sally, when you have nothing at all to show for it.

That aside, I think you missed the point of my post, which was not actually concerned with whether Abberline magically performed a total check on Hutchinson or not - but rather with the context of walking from Romford to London.

I choose my own points. And this time I picked up on something that was falsely presented as a fact. I often do. And it very often comes from the exact same very few sources.

It wonīt do.

Now, how many checks can a healthy swarm of effective police officers run in six hours? Hm? None, eh?

Dear me...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I know you said you weren’t going to respond to my posts

Factually wrong, as always.

I said that I would be less inclined to respond to you, since you do not produce arguments of a quality that deserves any answer.

Once you DO produce quality arguments, I reserve the right to answer.

So hereīs my answer to your last post:



The best,
Fisherman