Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[John G]

Hello John,

What evidence is there that Abberline was "obsessed" with Chapman? Even Abberline's statement that he believed Chapman to be the killer has a questionable source. And wasn't Abberline reported to have said something like "I can't help but feel that this is the man that we were looking for?" That would seem a far cry from stating I know beyond a doubt that this has to be the man.

Chapman was hanged in 1903 so he was never a contemporary suspect. Therefore there is no way that Abberline would have dismissed Hutchinson's statement simply because it did not match a description of Chapman.

c.d.

In 1903 Abberline clearly did reject Hutchinson's evidence, at least by implication, and probably because the age that he gave for his suspect, mid thirties, conflicted with Chapman's age at the time, 23: see my previous post 366. Either that or he was suffering from a serious case of selective amnesia!

As to whether he became obsessed with the idea that Chapman was the killer, maybe that's putting things a little strongly. However, I will refer to comments that he made in an interview with the Pall Mall Gazette, 24th March, 1903: "Since then the idea has taken full possession of me, and everything fits in and dovetails so well that I cannot help feeling that this is the man [Chapman} we struggled so hard to capture fifteen years ago." And: ""As I say," went on the criminal expert, "there are a score of things which make one believe that Chapman is the man; and you must understand that we have never believed all those stories about Jack the Ripper being dead, or that he was a lunatic, or anything of that kind.

[harry]

It has been suggested that Aberline first viewed Hutchinson as a suspect.How can that be?
Hutchinson arrived at the police station and gave his statement,verbally I presume.It w as considered important to inform Aberline He decided to go himself to the police station and question Hutchinson.So,it is obvious that Aberline,before speaking to Hutchinson,w as aware that Hutchinson was claiming to be an eyewitness,and that there was another person,seen by Hutchinson,who was suspect,and it was this suspect who,on Hutchinson's testimony,w as the last person reportedly seen with Kelly before her being found dead.Why would Aberline remotely suspect Hutchinson knowing that astrakhan was the logical suspect.Obviously he did not,at that time,and the word interrogation has no meaning in that sense,nor does it convey any indication that there was additional important testimony to the statement of Hutchinson,other than that written by Badham.

[Wickerman]

Why would drink be a reason to go out again when Blotchy brought a pale of ale with him.

I already said, she still needs money for food & drink tomorrow, not tonight, tomorrow.

Where and when she obtained the fish and potatoes is not known.

Like I said before, there is no reason to believe in a break in continuity over Blotchy's arrival and the fact that no one saw him leave, despite their being activity.

What reason is there to believe he stayed after 1 o'clock, when all was quiet & dark?
What reason is there to believe anyone was in that room after 1 o'clock?

[Scott Nelson]

Blotchy likely did exist, but I am pointing out to you that the accusations against Hutchinson for the existence of Astrachan can be equally applied to Cox for the existence of Blotchy.

Interesting analogy. I wonder what Ben thinks.

[GUT]

Why would drink be a reason to go out again when Blotchy brought a pale of ale with him. That's a sizable amount of beer for two people. Again, she is an alcoholic and unlikely to avoid drinking in her own home. Food, she has. Fish and potatoes.

Also Prater was standing at the entrance after Cox had returned and didn't see anyone leave for 30 minutes before going into McCarthy's.

Like I said before, there is no reason to believe in a break in continuity over Blotchy's arrival and the fact that no one saw him leave, despite their being activity.

We know she had the fish and potato's in her room???

[Batman]

She could easily have had three clients that night, there was nothing to prevent her. She was not too drunk to walk down the passage, according to Cox, so she was not too drunk to go out again.
Rent, food, drink, all good reason's to go out again. Especially as tomorrow was the Lord Mayor's Show, she might want some spare change in her pocket for a good time.

Why would drink be a reason to go out again when Blotchy brought a pale of ale with him. That's a sizable amount of beer for two people. Again, she is an alcoholic and unlikely to avoid drinking in her own home. Food, she has. Fish and potatoes.

Also Prater was standing at the entrance after Cox had returned and didn't see anyone leave for 30 minutes before going into McCarthy's.

Like I said before, there is no reason to believe in a break in continuity over Blotchy's arrival and the fact that no one saw him leave, despite their being activity.

[Wickerman]

I don't think she was crazy enough to sit there signing to herself drunk after a client left.

Why not, both McCarthy and Vanturney have said she used to sing to herself.
So why not now, especially when she is a little tipsy.

Highly unlikely. She was drunk. Had more ale. Had something to eat and went to bed. Lights out by 1:30am.

I understand you prefer to think that, but it is by no means certain. That she went out is equally possible.

There is more evidence for Blotchy here than your Isaac character. Cox lives there. She has a reason for being there. She is immediately local as a witness. Not one of those strange ones off the road like Hutchinson whose connection to Miller's Court is only his own word of mouth.

Cox claimed to have gone down the passage when Prater was there, but Prater never saw her.
I am not suggesting she was intentionally lying, though she may have confused the times she gave when she came and went.
And yes, Blotchy likely did exist, but I am pointing out to you that the accusations against Hutchinson for the existence of Astrachan can be equally applied to Cox for the existence of Blotchy.
Neither suspect were confirmed.

You assumption for this is that Blotchy can't pay. That's all. Apparently Issac's can't either in your hypothesis because she goes out a third time.

She could easily have had three clients that night, there was nothing to prevent her. She was not too drunk to walk down the passage, according to Cox, so she was not too drunk to go out again.
Rent, food, drink, all good reason's to go out again. Especially as tomorrow was the Lord Mayor's Show, she might want some spare change in her pocket for a good time.

[Batman]

But that is another assumption.
Blotchy arrived about 11:45, if he was equally drunk he may have not been able to get his moneys worth out of Kelly because of the drink .
He could easily have left long before 1 o'clock, serviced or unserviced.

It is more likely there is no break in the continuity as you suggested. She is going to sing. She has someone with a lot of ale with her. At 1am Mary was still singing. He was likely still there then. I don't think she was crazy enough to sit there signing to herself drunk after a client left.

Right, so is she out again, or not?

Highly unlikely. She was drunk. Had more ale. Had something to eat and went to bed. Lights out by 1:30am.

No confirmation that Blotchy even existed.

There is more evidence for Blotchy here than your Isaac character. Cox lives there. She has a reason for being there. She is immediately local as a witness. Not one of those strange ones off the road like Hutchinson whose connection to Miller's Court is only his own word of mouth.

She needs to eat and drink tomorrow morning.
Prostitution is mostly a nighttime activity, if she doesn't earn enough tonight, she doesn't eat or drink until tomorrow night.
Can you go all day without eating?

You assumption for this is that Blotchy can't pay. That's all. Apparently Issac's can't either in your hypothesis because she goes out a third time.

She is having fish and potatoes. She has a client. No reason to assume she doesn't have her money, food or alcohol.

Cox was in and out several times that evening because she couldn't sleep. Her account is quite detailed.

[Wickerman]

For your hypothesis to work MJK had two clients on Friday night/morning before the killer struck. So you have 3 actors involved. That makes MJK a pretty active prostitute.

Cox described MJK, an alcoholic, as in a drunken state when last seen with Blotchy who was carrying a pale of ale with him to her room.

Are we really to believe that MJK would have been in any condition to service anyone else after that happening? She had a sing song, ate fish and potatoes and I doubt she avoided the ale.

At 1am Mary was still singing. He was likely still there then.

But that is another assumption.
Blotchy arrived about 11:45, if he was equally drunk he may have not been able to get his moneys worth out of Kelly because of the drink .
He could easily have left long before 1 o'clock, serviced or unserviced.

Somewhere between 1am and 1:30am the light was out in Mary's room. No singing.

Right, so is she out again, or not?

Nobody claims to have met her between. Nobody else saw her. Nobody saw Blotchy leave. Hutchinson doesn't describe seeing Blotchy with her either. Blotchy was never found.

No confirmation that Blotchy even existed.

Why would MJK have gone out looking for more clients? She found one already. That's all they needed to pay the rent.

She needs to eat and drink tomorrow morning.
Prostitution is mostly a nighttime activity, if she doesn't earn enough tonight, she doesn't eat or drink until tomorrow night.
Can you go all day without eating?

[c.d.]

Hello John,

What evidence is there that Abberline was "obsessed" with Chapman? Even Abberline's statement that he believed Chapman to be the killer has a questionable source. And wasn't Abberline reported to have said something like "I can't help but feel that this is the man that we were looking for?" That would seem a far cry from stating I know beyond a doubt that this has to be the man.

Chapman was hanged in 1903 so he was never a contemporary suspect. Therefore there is no way that Abberline would have dismissed Hutchinson's statement simply because it did not match a description of Chapman.

c.d.

[Batman]

For your hypothesis to work MJK had two clients on Friday night/morning before the killer struck. So you have 3 actors involved. That makes MJK a pretty active prostitute.

Cox described MJK, an alcoholic, as in a drunken state when last seen with Blotchy who was carrying a pale of ale with him to her room.

Are we really to believe that MJK would have been in any condition to service anyone else after that happening? She had a sing song, ate fish and potatoes and I doubt she avoided the ale.

At 1am Mary was still singing. He was likely still there then.

Somewhere between 1am and 1:30am the light was out in Mary's room. No singing.

Now what Hutchinson et al would have us believe is that for 30 minutes Mary either sat in the dark or went walkabout because its 2am before Hutchinson claims to meet her. Nobody claims to have met her between. Nobody else saw her. Nobody saw Blotchy leave. Hutchinson doesn't describe seeing Blotchy with her either. Blotchy was never found.

Why would MJK have gone out looking for more clients? She found one already. That's all they needed to pay the rent.

[Wickerman]

The initial statement given by Hutchinson is not sufficiently detailed, which is why, among other reason's, Abberline would need to interrogate Hutchinson.

A minimum of what Abberline needs to know can be listed:
- What time, precisely, did you leave Dorset St.?
- Where, exactly, did you go afterwards, and who did you see?
- Why did you stay in Dorset St. for so long?
- Who else did you see coming and going in Dorset St. while you were on your vigil?
- Can you name anyone who can substantiate any part of this statement?

No answers to the above questions are contained within his initial statement, and until his story is verified, Hutchinson - by his own admission is a suspect due to the fact he is the last person who claims to have been in the company of the victim shortly before her death.

Abberline view's Hutchinson as an obvious suspect first, and witness second.
The interrogation is required to satisfy the first query, so he can then proceed to the second.

Hutchinson's responses need to be recorded so they can be investigated.
He can only be a valued witness if he can clear himself of any suspicion.
This is one reason why the interrogation is to be written down, another is the very fact, perhaps expectation, that he will unknowingly say something to incriminate himself.

This paperwork has not survived.

[harry]

I believe that Aberlines opinion of honesty would have been added in anticipation of the certain request of seniors,"How must trust can be put into the person giving the information",and that the opinion related to the person and not the details.The real test of course,would only arise if Hutchinson did in fact make an ID.Would it prove positive or negative?So I do not accept that Aberline's opinion of that evening has any bearing on the guilt or innocence of Hutchinson,and that Hutchinson,as a suspect,rests on what was contained in Hutchinson's statement,and the fact he withheld that information for three days.By the way,how do we know it was 6PM when he arrived at the police station?

[Wickerman]

Hi GUT.

Yes, but this belief that "no-one would dress like that", is more of an urban myth. There are no sources that make this assertion, nor could there be. Only modern theorists trying to poor cold water on Hutchinson's story.

There is one case, I think her name, Lady Hamilton, riding through Brushfield St. (behind Dorset St.) in her carriage, when some local thief jumped up on the step, and reached in grabbing her watch, and ripped it from her, taking off down the street.

Affluent men & women were being robbed, and mugged, in Spitalfields (press reports, court cases, etc). They could hardly be victims if they didn't go there, right.

[GUT]

G'day Jon

What amazes me even more is that we have Isaacs who s said to have fit the description to a T and yet people insist on saying that no one dressed like that would venture into the East End.