Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Fisherman]

I can also choose to use any of your posts in a pedagogical manner, to show how and why your arguments deserve no answer.

Like this, for example:

"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?"

Yes, that´s correct. But only if it was checked and found to be correct. What you totally forget is that it could equally have been checked out - and found to have been incorrect.

Shall I explain further? Okay, for the sake of clarity and in order to provide each and every one of us with the chance to understand:

Abberline could have checked with XXX people who were in the vicinity whether Hutchinson was known as a truthful character or not (and believe it or not, the police usually DO speak to the suspects parents too. You may be amazed what that parents tell the police at times! Look at what Dahmers parents said, for example). He may have gotten a good conduct clearance thus far, on Hutchinson´s behalf.

He may therefore have gone to bed on the 12:th, having informed his superiors about his feeling that Hutchinson was a truthful man.
Then, on the morning of the 13:th, Abberline could have wired his colleagues in Romford, who went out and spoke to the place where Hutchinson claimed to have stayed. And they may have confirmed that Hutch DID stay with them, only to realize that the police were speaking of the night leading up to the 9:th - at which stage they said: "Oh, no, officer - he was here the night BEFORE that!".
And then it would be curtains for Hutchinson´s story - but not for Hutchinson himself. And the news would somehow seep down to the Echo, who wrote about the doubts the same evening.

So, you see, Ben, you are factually wrong once again - the Romford story would not in any way speak against my scenario. On the contrary - it may well have been what revealed that Toppy had gotten the days wrong.

There are other points in your post that are equally uninformed and misleading (I never said that the police got it wrong with Packer and Violenia, for example), but I think this will serve the purpose of underlining the reason for my reluctance to exchange with you.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

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".

Take your problem up with the spectre of Abberline, then - he used those words, not me, and he was evidently basing them on the findings of the Chapman inquest, which he also referenced in the 1903 article. Phillips himself was an expert surgeon, but claimed that even he could not perform them in the conditions and time available, indicating a man with more ability than himself.

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

But not for Abberline, who in 1903 betrayed none of the senility and scattiness of mind that you’d need him to have in order for him to change his opinion from “unskilled” in 1888 to “expert surgeon” in 1903. If you want to make Abberline look dappy, keep arguing. I’m defending his consistency of opinion.

“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?”

What are you talking about?

Lawende was called in because the police considered his suspect to have been the actual ripper – ergo they were still looking for his suspect, and thought that they might be able to find him in the form of Grainger, or Sadler, and possibly Kosminski. (See? I can do bold too). Why on earth would they call in Lawende to look over new suspects for comparison with his own 1888 sighting unless the police still valued his evidence and were still interested in ascertaining the identity of his suspect? These are facts, by the way - unless you're suggesting that the viewing of Sadler and Grainger were all lies concocted by Anderson?

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

Oh, here he comes!

Isaacs!

It was only a matter of time before you wheeled him in. No, Isaacs could not possibly have been Astrakhan man, and no, he had absolutely nothing to do with Anderson's non-use of Hutchinson in subsequent identity parades, and those are facts.

Hutchinson will be asked for the name & address of the person he visited.

Who said he "visited" anyone? Just you, without any evidence. Hutchinson could easily have invented a street name, and made out that he'd heard of some work being offered there, and not being able to locate the address, went hope after a fruitless search. It's a completely baseless assumption of yours that Hutchinson spent his alleged time at Romford in company. If he was on his own for the duration, there was nothing to check, and nothing to prove him a liar, even if he was one.

The problem with conjuring up a heap of tenuous and improbably points of references that the police could supposedly check is that had they been conducted, and had they supported Hutchinson's story, there is no possibility of it being "considerably discounted" on the grounds of late presentation of his evidence and no-show at the inquest. The "very reduced importance" attached to his account tells us that whatever checks or "later investigations" were conducted, they did NOT pan out in favour of Hutchinson's credibility.

[bolo]

Hello Sally,

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.

if Hutchinson really went to Romford to get a job but couldn't find one, he might have gone back to London in the middle of the night in order to be there at a time when jobs for the day were given out.

Best wishes,

Boris

[Sally]

Hello Sally,



if Hutchinson really went to Romford to get a job but couldn't find one, he might have gone back to London in the middle of the night in order to be there at a time when jobs for the day were given out.

Best wishes,

Boris

Hi Boris,

Yes - if Hutchinson had given that as an explanation it would've been plausible enough. I can think of a few explanations that he might have given for his walk from Romford.

Competition was fierce for a day's work; so unless he had a special arrangement, he'd have been queueing up with dozens [if not more] of other General Labourers to secure that work. Hutchinson belonged to the most common of men in the East End - the Single General Labourer. They were ubiquitous, reflecting the semi-itinerant character of the local populace. Whether in Romford or London, it's doubtful that anybody would've remembered a face in the crowd - assuming, of course, that he went off to Romford for work purposes, or even at all.

[Ben]

I can also choose to use any of your posts in a pedagogical manner, to show how and why your arguments deserve no answer

So you demonstrate that my "arguments deserve no answer" by...answering?

Gosh, that makes tons of sense, Fisherman!

Abberline could have checked with XXX people who were in the vicinity whether Hutchinson was known as a truthful character or not

Like they would have done with Cross. Good. Excellent. But it would have counted for very little. Hutchinson could well have been known to family (whatever that extended to) and friends as a truthful enough character, but that doesn't mean he didn't lie on this particular occasion. It depends what motivated him into coming forward in the first place. If he was a known dodgy geezarr, the chances favoured him being yet another publicity-seeker Violenian type, but if he was a murderer injecting himself into the investigation in order to deflect suspicion away from himself, he may have had presented a good impression away from his crimes. But that’s straying slightly from the point, which is that checking the truthfulness of his character with the people most likely to back him up would not have been the most productive investigative move.

“ And then it would be curtains for Hutchinson´s story - but not for Hutchinson himself. And the news would somehow seep down to the Echo, who wrote about the doubts the same evening.”

Indeed they did, bud did they report the detail that Hutchinson (who definitely wasn’t Toppy) had inexplicably made a balls-up with the date of such a memorably long trek back from Romford? No, they didn’t, they stated that his failure to present his evidence until three days after the murder was the chief reason behind the “very reduced importance” attached to his account. In fact, thinking on, so unlikely is the date-confusion-Romford scenario that if it mythically transpired that Hutchinson had been in Romford, but not when he claimed, the more plausible explanation is that he lied about returning there on the morning of the 9th. That would be a safer and more likely explanation; that he used a trip he’d made in reality to form the basis of a concocted story. Either way, it wouldn’t be a point in favour of his credibility.

You can forget the idea that Abberline had six hours in which to investigate Hutchinson before he submitted his report. He was likely to have sent it later in the evening, rather than at midnight. If you wish to argue that Abberline spent the evening fruitlessly canvassing opinions about Hutchinson’s character from hoped-for contacts such as parents, who would likely support him whatever, and fellow lodgers, who probably knew very little about him, fine, but don't expect it to shed much light on the likelihood of Hutchinson telling the truth or not. Abberline wouldn't have, unless he was a defective detective. Don’t forget that if Hutchinson lied, he wasn’t likely to supply Abberline with an address book of contacts. He could have pretended that he kept himself to himself, and that he knew very few people in the neighbourhood. If he knew people lived nearby who could provide a character reference, was worried that they might provide a bad one, all he had to do was NOT mention them.

You can certainly stop derailing the thread with that Toppy nonsense unless you fancy some repetition from earlier threads, which I can relocate in an instant. If they tracked down Toppy’s father, he’d wonder why the hell his son was living in an east end shyte hole, spending his entire career as a labouring former groom, instead of following dear old dad into the trade (which is that the real Toppy, who had nothing to do with the witness Hutchinson, unquestionably did).

Toppy fight, anyway?

Just show me where to sign up for one.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

So you demonstrate that my "arguments deserve no answer" by...answering?

Yes. Misrepresent me and I WILL put it right. Claim falsities and I will put it right. Lie and I will put it right. These are principles of mine that I will not stray from and that may or may not cause me to react to posts of yours. It´s all up to you.

I am not interested in discussing as such with you, though. I will happily leave you to Hutchinson, yesterdays suspect if you will, as long as you don´t cross these lines.

This time over you fail on one point - you claim that Lechmere would have been subjected to the same type of interrogation and investigation as Hutchinson, but we know that only the latter was described as having been interrogated, just as we have a good pointer (the name) that this never happened to Lechmere.

I am glad that you realize that you could well be wrong about the date confusion and Romford. Of course, denying it would only be ridiculous.

Claiming that Abberline would not have worked up til midnight on a track that promised to present him with the killer is however not a very good suggestion. And presenting it by saying "You can forget ..." is displaced confidence.

You´ve had your say, I have had mine. Let´s leave it at that, shall we? Answer if you must, but stay away from misrepresentations and - if it is in your power - sad jokes about winkers.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

If they tracked down Toppy’s father, he’d wonder why the hell his son was living in an east end shyte hole, spending his entire career as a labouring former groom, instead of following dear old dad into the trade

Because life's like that, Ben. Especially in times of unstable employment, as was certainly the case in the era we're talking about. And, don't forget, there's many a successful person who started his/her life in an East End "shyte hole".

[The Good Michael]

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 don´t think Romford would be any better than having visited the Oxford Street area. You could just as well claim that it´s only poor luck if not a single street vendor remembers you from there.

You are responding to something you didn't understand. I was conjecturing that perhaps 'going to Romford' was a regular excuse used by the labor class when they didn't have an alibi. It was speculation of a concept and not necessarily about Hutch. It would be like saying, 'I was fishing' and there would be no way to check it out. If Romford was constantly a sort of overflow place for laborers who walked there, hitched rides on carts, or whatever, it would be impossible for police to check it out unless the person being checked upon had found employment. Who else could be asked?

Mike

[Wickerman]

......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

There is a comment among the police sources somewhere that informs us they entertained every lead, no matter how ridiculous it appeared to be.
So what you say in general might be true, but then we have to consider if Abberline would have given "every lead" such a glowing report to his superior as he did with Hutchinson.

[Wickerman]

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.

Certainly, and the police had gone door-to-door interviewing hundreds of residents in Dorset St. and around the adjoining streets over the weekend.
We tend to work with about nine witnesses who appeared at the Inquest, there were hundreds who did not.
Any one of those could have reported seeing Hutchinson that night.
Abberline & his team had considerably more information to work with, none of which they shared with the press.

Check him out he certainly would, but we are in no position to determine to what length.

[Fisherman]

You are responding to something you didn't understand. I was conjecturing that perhaps 'going to Romford' was a regular excuse used by the labor class when they didn't have an alibi. It was speculation of a concept and not necessarily about Hutch. It would be like saying, 'I was fishing' and there would be no way to check it out. If Romford was constantly a sort of overflow place for laborers who walked there, hitched rides on carts, or whatever, it would be impossible for police to check it out unless the person being checked upon had found employment. Who else could be asked?

Mike

Hi Mike!

I understood alright. And I still say "I was fishing" would be the much better suggestion, since that normally puts you in contact with the fewest people, whereas visiting a middle sized market town has other implications.
Sure enough, you may go unseen and unnoticed in such circumstances too, though. And therefore maybe Romford WAS used the way you suggest. There´s no telling.
One more point would be that in a town like Romford, there is always the risk of a massive fire, a sudden flooding from the sewers, etcetera, that can give you away if you do not know of them, whereas such things very rarely happen when you are out fishing.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Actually, there had been flooding in Romford that Autumn, Fish - it's quite well known. The river burst its banks and caused considerable damage to local buildings. There may have been extra casual work there to carry out repairs.

[Fisherman]

Actually, there had been flooding in Romford that Autumn, Fish - it's quite well known. The river burst its banks and caused considerable damage to local buildings. There may have been extra casual work there to carry out repairs.

Precisely so. Which goes to confirm what I am saying - there is always the risk of having these things happen in a town like Romford, whereas a fishing trip will not spring any surprises on you (other than in finned shape ).
Not that I know exactly what damage it caused Romford and when, but one can easily imagine how Abberline could have asked about to what extent the flooding was still visible in the streets or something like that.
Like I said before, there WILL be checking points, more or less useful ones, and the manner in which a suspect/witness responds to questioning about them will govern the picture the police gets.

Thanks for the info, Sally - I had no idea of the flooding.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Precisely so. Which goes to confirm what I am saying - there is always the risk of having these things happen in a town like Romford, whereas a fishing trip will not spring any surprises on you (other than in finned shape ).
Not that I know exactly what damage it caused Romford and when, but one can easily imagine how Abberline could have asked about to what extent the flooding was still visible in the streets or something like that.
Like I said before, there WILL be checking points, more or less useful ones, and the manner in which a suspect/witness responds to questioning about them will govern the picture the police gets.

Thanks for the info, Sally - I had no idea of the flooding.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish - That's ok, you're welcome. It was a particularly wet Autumn that year. You might find this article from the Romford Recorder of interest:

http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/new...ring_1_2305546

I think that there are lots of explanations that Hutchinson could have given Abberline to account for his trip to Romford which would have been perfectly plausible. But as I said in my earlier post, I think the trip to Romford would have been a lesser concern. It wasn't unusual for people to walk from Romford to London.

Remember, Hutchinson gave his statement as a voluntary witness - there's no indication that he was under suspicion by the police for so doing. Would Abberline have been concerned with 'checking out' his story of walking from Romford [had it even been possible to do so]? I think it doubtful.

[Sally]

The Romford Floods of '88 are also discussed in this thread from JtrForums:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=6158

There are some additional pictures of the flooding to look at - and note particuarly Bob Hinton's post mentioning an article from the local paper on an East End labourer being arrested in a Romford pub on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper...