Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[DVV]

I could never get into Rugby

I'm so sorry for you, Jon, sincerely.
Rugby makes the world better, so better...
Football is about treachery, malingering, put-on, etc...
I admit English football is a bit better, more loyal... If they were only players like Steven Gerrard, I could watch some games.
Fact is that I can't.
I could shoot my TV !

[Wickerman]

I'm so sorry for you, Jon, sincerely.
Rugby makes the world better, so better...
Football is about treachery, malingering, put-on, etc...

Ouch!

When I was at school I couldn't figure why the Grammar School kids learned Latin, performed Shakespeare, and played Rugby.
Our Secondary school, we learned French, and woodwork, and played Football.

My view of Rugby at that age was a bunch of Neanderthals butting heads...


My parents loved the game.

(D'ya think Admin is watching this...?)

[GUT]

G'Day Jon

Ouch!

My view of Rugby at that age was a bunch of Neanderthals butting heads...


My parents loved the game.

Probably why I loved the game, though Rugby League was more my game, more running of the ball less kicking.

[DVV]

Pray for him, Gut, don't talk.

[GUT]

Pray for him, Gut, don't talk.

But I agree with the description Neanderthals butting heads, I love it.

[Cogidubnus]

You swine...I went to an English Grammar School, learned Latin, performed Shakespeare, (well it WAS the same school Paul Schofield attended after all), etc...except I bucked the trend and played Hockey, and it was the opposing Girls Grammar School team that was Neanderthal!

All the best

Dave

(PS Hope admin still isn't watching)

[Wickerman]

No, you don’t get to plonk a load of strategically located Hutch-spotters on the streets or gazing out of their windows in the small hours, especially with no evidence. Hutchinson makes clear that he encountered nobody during his Dorset Street vigil,.....

Abberline was well aware of who Hutchinson saw, he has just interrogated him. The question, my dear anxious friend is, not who Hutchinson saw, but who saw Hutchinson.

According to the press, for lack of a better source, the police interviewed 1200 men in and around Dorset St. over that weekend.

And, to address your suggestion that there was not sufficient time, the statements had to have been disseminated for Macdonald to read through them in his selection process prior to the Inquest.
We cannot say at what hour Abberline concluded his interrogation, but whether at 7:00, 8:00 or 9:00 pm, there was still three, four, possibly five hours, for his team to flip through statements, which had already been categorized, Abberline had significant manpower at his disposal.
And all that is aside from the statement of Sarah Lewis, and assuming the detective force had not seen the parallel between her story & Hutchinson's, which is well nigh impossible.

[Ben]

Abberline was well aware of who Hutchinson saw, he has just interrogated him. The question, my dear anxious friend is, not who Hutchinson saw, but who saw Hutchinson

You mean all those flash mobs who pranced their way through the streets at 3:00 in the morning! Oh, they'd have spotted him alright. Or do you mean all those hundreds of people staring out of their windows with binoculars at that time? Let's be reasonable and realistic about this. The press claim that 1200 men were interviewed means absolutely nothing if the vast majority of them were in bed and asleep when Hutchinson was on his alleged walkabout, and of the few that weren't, a high percentage were probably engaging in some form of nocturnal naughtiness, and would therefore not have spoken to the police at all, less still to impart the fascinating observation that they saw a man walking at 4.00am or 5.00am.

We cannot say at what hour Abberline concluded his interrogation, but whether at 7:00, 8:00 or 9:00 pm, there was still three, four, possibly five hours, for his team to flip through statements

Flip through statements that said what?

"I was sleepwalking and walked past a man I didn't pay any attention to"

"I was walking to work at 5.00am, and passed several man and women".

If you were expecting those statements to provide any confirmation of Hutchinson's presence (specifically Hutchinson's), you're going to be gutted, I'm afraid (no, I don't mean in the literal sense!). Similarly, if you're suggesting that Abberline dispatched his team to do anything than pursue Astrakhan man before the latter could get spooked into fleeing or changing his appearance, then you'd best think again. That was the priority, not futile and time-wasting efforts to verify that which cannot possibly be verified in the absence of CCTV.

And all that is aside from the statement of Sarah Lewis, and assuming the detective force had not seen the parallel between her story & Hutchinson's, which is well nigh impossible.

...which is established more or less for certain, especially when we consider that not a single member of the press registered the "parallel" between Lewis's wideawake man and Hutchinson, despite it being there to be recognised. There is no evidence, in fact, that the "parallel" was registered until over a hundred years after the event. But do give me any excuse to go over the "Was the Lewis connection spotted" issue again.

Secondly, the phrase was not always taken literal (sic), it was a euphemism because to admit to sleeping in doorways or on the property of others was to admit vagrancy.

So after all these years of Hutch the squeaky clean witness, Jon suddenly decides that he lied to conceal his criminal activity. Welcome aboard, Jon…

Hutchinson’s claim to have “walked about all night” because the Victoria Home was closed was at odds with his earlier claim to have had no money. If he had no money, the closure or otherwise of the home is irrelevant, and he should have said that he walked about all night because he had no money to get in anywhere. It effectively disposes of the issue of an alibi, whether the claim was accurate or not. If you're "walking about" or sleeping in a stairwell at 3.30am, you simply don't have the means of verifying that activity, unless there were some people implausibly awake at that time and monitoring their doorway or stairwell.

Lastly, he may have met up with a friend, he doesn't say he was alone, only that he walked around.

Implausible "may haves" based on no evidence won't cut it, I'm afraid.

The chances of Hutchinson encountering a "friend" (another Romford reject?) on the streets at around 3.00am are extremely remote, and the chances of Hutchinson failing to mention this "meeting" had it occurred are more remote still.

A final point on the Abberline issue - well, I say "final", but we'll just have to see: there is no need to infer exaggeration on his part, as he would simply have been aligning himself with the views of Dr. Phillips at the time. If you want to claim that Abberline was lying to bolster his Klosowski theory (for what possible reason?), you can no longer argue that he is worth taking seriously as an accurate gauge of Hutchinson's credibility.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

So after all these years of Hutch the squeaky clean witness, Jon suddenly decides that he lied to conceal his criminal activity. Welcome aboard, Jon…

Hardly 'squeaky clean' this was the East End.
No-one else uses terms like 'Toff' & 'Squeaky clean' except yourself when you resort to scorn and ridicule in order to defend your theory.

John Kelly offered the same excuse to Coroner Langham.

[Coroner] What do you mean by "walking the streets?"
[Kelly] I mean that if we had no money to pay for our lodgings we would have to walk about all night.

A euphemism.
Vagrancy carried a fine/sentence ranging from several shillings, to several days hard labour. Examples in the press, at your fingertips.

[Sally]

Hutchinson’s claim to have “walked about all night” because the Victoria Home was closed was at odds with his earlier claim to have had no money. If he had no money, the closure or otherwise of the home is irrelevant, and he should have said that he walked about all night because he had no money to get in anywhere.

The only way around this is if he'd paid up front for 6 nights at the VH, Ben [with the 7th free] in which case he wouldn't have needed cash had the home been open. It was fairly common practice in the 'better' lodging houses.

Of course, as a regular resident, one would imagine that he'd have known when the doors shut for the night and planned his journey from Romford accordingly, eh?

[Ben]

The only way around this is if he'd paid up front for 6 nights at the VH, Ben [with the 7th free] in which case he wouldn't have needed cash had the home been open

Absolutely, Sally, and as the "rules" make perfectly clear, any lodger in possession of a daily or weekly pass could access the home at any hour of the night; hence, if Hutchinson had such a pass, he could have entered the building immediately upon arrival from Romford, and Dorset Street vigils (to say nothing of "walking about all night") need not have entered the equation.

I've spied a spot of nonsense to the contrary on a recent thread, and I look forward to addressing that soon!

Hi Jon,

Vagrancy carried a fine/sentence ranging from several shillings, to several days hard labour. Examples in the press, at your fingertips.

Yes, thanks, I understand that bit, but I'm afraid you haven't demonstrated that it was a "euphemism". If dossing in a doorway entailed so severe a punishment, why can't we take Kelly at his word and assume he fully intended to "walk about all night" if Eddowes returned with no money, in lieu of the "getting utterly caned for doorway-dossing" option? We're straying slightly from the point, which is that regardless of whether or not Hutchinson told the truth about "walking about all night", it was a useful excuse for the real killer to invoke in the event that he was asked what he was doing between 3:30 and 4:30 on the morning of the murder (and the likely time of Kelly's death), as it could neither be verified nor contradicted.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Of course, as a regular resident, one would imagine that he'd have known when the doors shut for the night and planned his journey from Romford accordingly, eh?

Absolutely, Sally, and as the "rules" make perfectly clear, any lodger in possession of a daily or weekly pass could access the home at any hour of the night; hence, if Hutchinson had such a pass,...

Ok, seeing as you both appeared together (again), here's a couple of observations.

- Where has it been established that Hutchinson was a regular resident of the V.H.?

- Was Hutchinson delayed, on his way back from Romford, or did he have to leave early?

- We are given two apparently (your opinions), contesting scenario's.
He claimed to Kelly to have no money.
Yet, having no money is no excuse for the V.H. being closed, it was irrelevant?

Your conclusion is, that he is a liar because having no money is no excuse when the V.H. was closed anyway.

Rather than, consider that he lied to Kelly because she was apparently trying to cadge his last few pennies, and as with previous experiences, he never saw that again either.
That would be human nature, once bitten twice shy, as they say.

So he didn't really have no money, he just told her that.
And, as a result, he tells the police what he said to her.

[Sally]

Hello Jon,

- Where has it been established that Hutchinson was a regular resident of the V.H.?

He says so himself, I think - something like 'My usual place was closed' [not exact, I don't think, but more or less that]

Your conclusion is, that he is a liar because having no money is no excuse when the V.H. was closed anyway.

Actually, my conclusion is that he's a liar because his account is demonstrably derivative and because he can't remember which pub he stood against in his statement to the police - although he can recall in extraordinary detail, everything about his surely fictional flashy Jew.

Although actually, perhaps not, since he gave a different description to the press mere hours later.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,
He says so himself, I think - something like 'My usual place was closed' [not exact, I don't think, but more or less that]

Hi Sally.
Yes, we read, "the place where I usually sleep was closed."

Ok, two things here.
Because he was a resident of the Victoria Home on the 12th, you assume this was the same place referred to in his statement, on the night of the 8th?

Alternately, if that assumption is correct, we must ask what "usual" meant, whether it means 'the last couple of nights', or 'couple of weeks' or 'couple of months'?
What did "usual" mean?

Just looking for something more concrete to base a conclusion on.

Actually, my conclusion is that he's a liar because his account is demonstrably derivative .....

demonstrable, is often in the eye of the beholder.

There is an interesting press report, I think concerning the McKenzie case, where a man came in to confess to the murder.
The reporter explains that the police questioned him and sent him packing, the reason given was, this man had obviously made himself aware of the case through newspaper articles and as such the police knew he was making it all up.

The police were certainly aware of press reports and stories circulating about the murders, they used the press as there were more reporters about the city than available detectives.
To suggest they were so easily hoodwinked is probably more befitting the realms of paperback fiction.

....and because he can't remember which pub he stood against in his statement to the police

Ah, so consistent with him not being a regular (long-term) resident of the street?

...although he can recall in extraordinary detail, everything about his surely fictional flashy Jew.

Well, Stewart had already maintained that remembering such detail is not extraordinary (I can point you to his post, if you like), and he should know.

Although actually, perhaps not, since he gave a different description to the press mere hours later.

"Complexion pale" as opposed to "complexion dark" does not make a liar out of the witness. A typo on behalf of the press is just as likely.

Or, are you able to list all these differences you see, you must think them significant?

[Garry Wroe]

Secondly, the phrase was not always taken literal, it was a euphemism because to admit to sleeping in doorways or on the property of others was to admit vagrancy.

Once again, Jon, you are treating personal interpretation as firmly established fact. The reality is that Hutchinson had conveyed potentially case-breaking information to Abberline and thus had nothing to fear with regard to vagrancy proceedings. Many locals opted to sleep outdoors during the summer months rather than pay for lodgings. Itchy Park and any number of local railway arches were infested with rough sleepers. So long as they didn't become a nuisance they were generally left alone by the authorities. This contention of yours, therefore, is a complete red herring and ought to be treated as such until you are able to provide something in the way of evidential support. And I, for one, am not holding my breath.