Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

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.

Garry's arrival is timely, as his book addresses every point you raised, including this one. He observes that even if Hutchinson's claim to have had no money was "a ruse intended to preserve what little cash he had", there was nothing preventing him from securing a bed in "one of the hundreds of other lodging houses which proliferated the neighbourhood". It could further be observed that if he had money, there ought to have been nothing preventing a man with "no regular employment" from dossing down in Romford for most of the night, and leaving early for "home" the following morning - had he really been there, of course.

As for the police being "hoodwinked, they weren't; at least not for very long, or else it would not have been reported less than 24 hours after Hutchinson's first appearance that his evidence had suffered a "very reduced importance" for reasons that concerned his credibility. Hutchinson's Astrakhan description was derivative, as Sally points out, regardless of whether or not the police were "hoodwinked" by it for a very short time. It contained a myriad of details borrowed from earlier witness accounts, and pandered to all the “scary” attributes that had been circulating in the press with regard to the ripper’s likely appearance. The McKenzie suspect you refer to – William Wallace Brodie – confessed to being Jack the Ripper, and there was obviously a significantly reduced likelihood of the police being “hoodwinked” by such a confession than by “another” witness description.

As far as “remembering details” is concerned, the more pressing doubts concern Hutchinson’s ability even to notice the items he supposedly memorized, and if we’re deferring to the opinions of policemen, you should note Bob Hinton’s finding: “I have spoken to many serving and ex-police officers, and without exception they all dismiss Hutchinson’s description as pure fantasy. The general consensus of opinion being that witnesses generally get the sex and the height about right, but after that it’s pot luck”.

"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.”

A typo?

How on earth does a policeman confuse “pale” for its absolute polar opposite – dark? Not as a result of a “typo”, that’s for sure.

Regards,
Ben

[Monty]

Abberline assigned two detective to Hutchinson in hopes of finding a suspect. He did the same with Harris, and was successful.

Belief or not, it was worth a punt.

Monty

[Ben]

Absolutely, Monty.

[Wickerman]

Once again, Jon, you are treating personal interpretation as firmly established fact....

James Field, 35, John Park, 21, and Frederick Scott, 19, were charged with being found sleeping in the open air......
About half past three on Tuesday morning (May 22nd) a constable heard a noise of snoring in one of the arches of Frederick St. St. George's. He then found the prisoners asleep. No money was found on either of the men.
East London Observer, 26 May, 1888.

Even fifty years prior (1833), the same rule applied.

Re:FREDERICK WILLIAM ELLIOTT (prisoner).
ROBERT DREW (police-constable R 140). I took the prisoner on the 7th of November - I charged him with vagrancy, as he was sitting about the doors..

As to your observation about Itchy Park, yes of course, it was a Church Yard. Since the middle ages (and before), anyone who finds rest on Church premises is beyond the reach of the law, but only for minor offenses such as this.
This was the same 'rule' that was applied to prostitution, why the ladies of the night were allowed to congregate at St. Botolphs, Aldgate.

Hope this helps.

[Garry Wroe]

It's a matter of record, Jon, that during the summer months many East Enders abandoned the doss house in favour of outdoor sleeping. It is also an historical fact that during colder periods rough sleepers deliberately broke shop windows in order to incur a prison sentence and so escape the hardship of living on the streets. This could not have been the case if, as you assert, police arrested everyone found sleeping outdoors. You might also wish to consider the events of 1887 when for months thousands of 'vagrants' slept nightly in Trafalgar Square. These people were not arrested on mass. For one thing there simply weren't enough cells to accommodate any such 'mob', much less the many thousands of homeless individuals who occupied the East End and other areas of London. This isn’t to say that outdoor sleepers weren’t arrested from time to time. They were. But by and large they were simply moved on by beat constables – a situation which gave rise to criticism expressed by social reformers who argued that a man or woman deprived of sleep would start the day in an exhausted state and therefore in no condition to undertake work which in turn would allow the person concerned to secure lodgings. Far from helping matters, the contention was that the moving on policy was one which exacerbated the homeless situation in the East End and beyond.

So Hutchinson had nothing to fear from revealing to Abberline that he had slept outdoors on the morning of the Kelly murder. Nothing whatsoever. Like everyone else in London he knew that investigators were desperate to lay hands on the killer. The notion, then, that the man who Abberline believed to have been an important witness would have been bundled into a cell courtesy of a minor misdemeanour is beyond preposterous.

And just for the record, Jon, other posters do not incur my ‘wroth’. Were I to become angry every time I encountered unscholarly, ill-informed nonsense on the Casebook site I’d be living in a permanently choleric state. My approach is simply to shrug my shoulders and let people get on with it. Life’s easier that way.

[c.d.]

Abberline assigned two detective to Hutchinson in hopes of finding a suspect. He did the same with Harris, and was successful.

Belief or not, it was worth a punt.

Monty

I was under the impression that Abberline himself accompanied Hutch around Whitechapel. Is that incorrect?

c.d.

[Garry Wroe]

It is, CD. As Monty says, Hutchinson performed the identification of Kelly's remains as well as the two known night trawls in search of Astrakhan in the company of two detectives.

[c.d.]

Thank you, Garry. I don't know where I got that from but I was wrong.

I'll be damned if you can't learn something on these boards every now and then.

c.d.

[Garry Wroe]

My pleasure, CD.

[DRoy]

And just for the record, Jon, other posters do not incur my ‘wroth’. Were I to become angry every time I encountered unscholarly, ill-informed nonsense on the Casebook site I’d be living in a permanently choleric state. My approach is simply to shrug my shoulders and let people get on with it. Life’s easier that way.

Thank goodness you let that slide Garry, you just described me! I think I know what I'm talking about then I get put in my place very shortly after. My approach is simply to shrug my shoulders and spit out unscholarly, ill-informed nonsense on Casebook in hopes I might someday contribute something of value. One of these days...

Cheers
DRoy

[Garry Wroe]

Oh, I think you do a good deal better than that, DRoy. I simply look forward to the day on which Casebook returns to its former glories. One can but live in hope.

[Wickerman]

It's a matter of record, Jon, that during the summer months many East Enders abandoned the doss house in favour of outdoor sleeping. It is also an historical fact that during colder periods rough sleepers deliberately broke shop windows in order to incur a prison sentence and so escape the hardship of living on the streets. This could not have been the case if, as you assert, police arrested everyone found sleeping outdoors.

You objected to the point I was making concerning sleeping outdoors, I merely provided proof by way of actual incidents.

This isn’t to say that outdoor sleepers weren’t arrested from time to time. They were.

Glad we have arrived at the same point.
And naturally, dozens sleeping outdoors are not about to be arrested en-mass, and that simply does not happen every day.
Rather than raise up special circumstances, lets stay with the everyday occurrences.

But by and large they were simply moved on by beat constables....

Certainly they were, the local authorities on down to the beat constables often took pity on these homeless. And why did they move them on Garry?
Because so long as they were moving they were not deemed a problem for the authorities.

If you have ever read about how the vagrancy laws evolved you can appreciate how locking up the vagrants, and limiting their movements was self defeating.
It was decided that the homeless must be allowed to 'drift', in order to find work. Work will not find them, in order to better themselves the homeless must be permitted to move about.

This then is how the law was circumvented, the homeless could not be found guilty of sleeping outdoors if they 'claimed' they walked about all night, even though from a purely practical point of view the authorities knew full well they were lying.

So Hutchinson had nothing to fear from revealing to Abberline that he had slept outdoors on the morning of the Kelly murder.

I think you must have read about the vagrant, a defendant, who approached the constable and asked to be arrested for vagrancy as he had not eaten in days. On being refused, he picked up a brick and threw it through a window.
Yes, he got his meal, several of them in fact.

We should equate Hutchinson's knowledge with that of the defendant in this case, and his street knowledge of what happens to vagrants, not with Abberline.

And just for the record, Jon, other posters do not incur my ‘wroth’. Were I to become angry every time I encountered unscholarly, ill-informed nonsense on the Casebook site I’d be living in a permanently choleric state. My approach is simply to shrug my shoulders and let people get on with it. Life’s easier that way.

Yes, it has been noticed how you choose to ignore numerous indiscretions made by members who share your belief, yet only raise an objection towards those who do not.

The context to which I alluded to (in case you were not aware) was Ben's recent claim that 'proof' of anything is purely a personal matter. That if Ben regards some detail as proven in accordance with his judgement (and only his) then as far as he is concerned, it is 'proven'.
An all time low, in my opinion.

This runs counter to the caution you offered towards myself, not to present belief as if it were fact. Yet, the irony is, the entire case against Hutchinson is totally based on belief, yet pushed, promoted, and asserted, ad nauseam, as if it were fact.

Name one point against Hutchinson proven to be a lie.

And I am not talking about Ben's home-grown-proof, I mean legitimate academic proof.

[harry]

Surely the case against Hutchinson is based on unproven claims made by him.Did Aberline prove those claims? Hardly likely,since Aberline could only form an opinion that Hutchinson was truthfull.On what grounds?What proof?

[Wickerman]

Surely the case against Hutchinson is based on unproven claims made by him.Did Aberline prove those claims? Hardly likely,since Aberline could only form an opinion that Hutchinson was truthfull.On what grounds?What proof?

Unproven by whom?

[Ben]

Exactly right, Harry.

Clearly there was no possibility of "proving" the accuracy and truthfulness of his account a scant few hours after first meeting Hutchinson, which was when Abberline penned his report expressing the "opinion" that the statement was true. Hence, that opinion must have been based primarily on faith.

All the best,
Ben