Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Ben]

As such, Bond's proposed time of death might have been awry by several hours. In fact, given the weight of other evidence, it must have been out by at least an hour and a half.

I agree entirely, Garry.

It's just that Jon had previously argued that the police had exhibited a preference for Bond's time of death, and suggested that this was the reason for the loss of interest in Hutchinson as a witness, as opposed to the actual reasons outlined in the Echo. Trouble is, if he then wants Astrakhan man to have an "alibi" in the form of Mary Cusins, he would have to disavow that particular argument and accept that the police had confidently ruled out any possibility of Bond's suggested 1.00am time being correct.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

By his own admission, he knew Mary and was with her right before she died. That should have been enough to arouse Abberline's suspicions.

An important correction here, CD - Hutchinson claimed he was "with her right before she died", and while a "claim" can be true or false, an "admission" is always true. I can't "admit" to being a billionaire, but I can falsely claim that I am one.

Abberline would have been all too familiar with the phenomenon of bogus witnesses making false claims, whereas he had no experience at all of serial killers injecting themselves into investigations as witnesses. If we're to be truly realistic, the chances are exceptionally slim that he entertained for one moment the possibility of the real Jack the Ripper entering a police station and requesting an interview. The "interrogation" was for the purpose of ascertaining whether his claim was true or the work of one of many publicity-seekers to burden an investigation.

But even in the exceptionally unlikely event that Abberline did grill Hutchinson as a suspect, he had very little hope of determining his guilt or innocence, especially if the response to the question of his whereabouts for previous murders ran something along the lines of: "I was asleep at the Victoria Home, as usual". There wasn't the faintest hope of "checking" whether or not Hutchinson was one of the 500 lodgers to pay for a bed on a particular night three weeks previously.

Emanuel Violenia claimed (not "admitted) to have been the last person to see Annie Chapman alive, but when his account was discredited as bogus, it was simply assumed that he lied about the whole thing, including his alleged presence there that night. He did not convert into a suspect, any more than Hutchinson did.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

I agree entirely, Garry.

It's just that Jon had previously argued that the police had exhibited a preference for Bond's time of death, and suggested that this was the reason for the loss of interest in Hutchinson as a witness, as opposed to the actual reasons outlined in the Echo. Trouble is, if he then wants Astrakhan man to have an "alibi" in the form of Mary Cusins, he would have to disavow that particular argument and accept that the police had confidently ruled out any possibility of Bond's suggested 1.00am time being correct.

I was aware of your position, Ben, which is why no criticism was intended. All of this Isaacs as Astrakhan business is absurd to my way of thinking - much like the frequently repeated assertion that Sarah Lewis saw a couple enter Miller's Court. As for the discussion relating to the Echo, this like many other newspapers was simply hungry for news and didn't take kindly to the lack of what today would be termed regular press conferences. But it, as with a number of other newspapers, clearly had at least one inside source, an informant who provided the information which led to the Hutchinson-as-timewaster story. But then this is a premise rejected out of hand by Jon. In fact he once made the extraordinary claim that the 'copper on the take' didn't exist during the Ripper murders. That, of course, wasn't the viewpoint of a number of journalists at the time, but there you go. As I said a few weeks ago, standards have certainly slipped on this site.

[Sally]

All of this Isaacs as Astrakhan business is absurd to my way of thinking

It absolutely is, Garry. The premise lacks any evidential basis, defies logic and is contradicted by contemporary evidence. It is, in short, a fantasy. But there we are - he's the subject of a lot of speculative nonsense in any case. A pity that Isaacs, an interesting character in himself, is routinely reduced to the role of pawn in the pet theories of others.

[Wickerman]

.... In fact he once made the extraordinary claim that the 'copper on the take' didn't exist during the Ripper murders.

Given that I have never believed such a thing, in fact I know the opposite to be true, would it be too much to ask you to substantiate that claim, with the actual source?

[Garry Wroe]

A pity that Isaacs, an interesting character in himself, is routinely reduced to the role of pawn in the pet theories of others.

Absolutely, Sally. He's one of those peripheral characters who helps us to see and understand the East End in a more realistic light.

[Garry Wroe]

Given that I have never believed such a thing, in fact I know the opposite to be true, would it be too much to ask you to substantiate that claim, with the actual source?

When I have more time, Jon, I'll certainly try to locate the post(s) under discussion.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Might Abberline have asked about the clothing for other reasons, such as cementing identity? Yes, of course.

Glad you are now conceding this much, Ben. I could have sworn I read several posts of yours ridiculing the idea of Abberline needing to ask Hutch about Kelly's clothing, since he would be going to identify her unclothed remains on the morrow.

Also, if it's a 'yes, of course' Abberline might have asked a question that gets no mention in his brief report, then I trust you will not in future ridicule others for arguing there was more to his interrogation than has come down to us, whether detailed notes of it were made or not.

The Echo made it quite clear that the authorities had come to view the late appearance of his evidence as a problem as a result of investigating the matter further.

“From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder.”

Whatever this “later investigation” turned up, it evidently undermined Hutchinson’s credibility to the extent that it suffered a “very reduced importance”. Perhaps it was revealed that Hutchinson’s explanation for his delay in coming forward (whatever it was) cannot have been true, or perhaps Abberline’s endorsement of Hutchinson’s statement didn’t sit well with his superiors? Alternatively, Hutchinson’s press disclosures might have been undoing, given their embellishments and flat-out contradictions (as well as a claim to have contacted a policeman, which could easily have been checked out and proved false). Or did he slip up somehow on his walkabout with police one night, as Garry once suggested?

Another significant concession - will wonders never cease?

The police did not confide anything to the Echo about the nature of this "later investigation", nor what it 'turned up', otherwise we'd have seen it in print and you would not be forced to guess, just like the Echo, that whatever it was, it 'evidently' undermined Hutch's credibility. You then go on to guess what the police may have found out during this later investigation, which they clearly kept back from the Echo and didn't record for posterity either - unless of course you now fully concede that information concerning Hutch has not survived.

'From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?' - Echo, 13th November 1888.

The part in bold above is the only explanation the Echo can come up with for their own 'very reduced importance' conclusion - that the authorities are now asking themselves why Hutch did not come forward sooner. That's it. There is nothing else.

Why their own conclusion? Look again at the language, Ben:

'From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?' - Echo, 13th November 1888.

Why only 'appears' and 'seems' if this was actually the case because the police had said so, directly to the Echo, and invited them to print it with their blessing? They would have written in no uncertain terms that 'the police have informed us that they now attach a very reduced importance to his statement, and ask why he didn't come forward sooner'. Of course, the last bit would still have made no sense, as the police would not be asking anyone but Hutch such a question, and Abberline would have got the answer out of him during his interrogation.

The Echo might have guessed right on the credibility issue, if not for the right reasons (because they clearly didn't know what they were - which is why you don't either), but they were guessing nonetheless.

That much should be obvious to anyone with your grasp of the English language, Ben.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Manchester Courier
November 16, 1888
"The police are working diligently upon the clue furnished by George Hutchinson. Judging from a communication made by Mr. Galloway, a clerk employed in the City and living at Stepney, no reliance is now placed upon the statement made by the woman Cox, and the detectives rely almost exclusively upon Hutchinson's description of the supposed murderer."

Funny that, three days after the Echo thought detectives had attached a very reduced importance to Hutch's statement.

Seems the press, collectively, couldn't get their heads round the idea that the police could investigate more than one lead at a time.

The papers did not have a clue really. Why? Because the police were hardly likely to tell the papers - and therefore the whole world, including the killer himself and the various suspects - who they were going after and who was safe.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

“Funny that, three days after the Echo thought detectives had attached a very reduced importance to Hutch's statement.”

What, the Manchester Guardian?

No, not that funny really.

Not when we remind ourselves that they had incorrectly assumed that the police were still pursuing Hutchinson on the basis of the Galloway sighting, which even now is drastically misunderstood. The blotchy man who sparked Galloway’s interest was a plain-clothes detective, and in order to prevent his cover being blown, the nearest copper on beat fobbed him (Galloway) off with a bogus excuse about blotchy-looking suspects not being sought anymore. Nothing at all to do with a non-existent preference for Astrakhan types.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“Also, if it's a 'yes, of course' Abberline might have asked a question that gets no mention in his brief report, then I trust you will not in future ridicule others for arguing there was more to his interrogation than has come down to us, whether detailed notes of it were made or not.”

I thought I'd made it clear that it wasn’t a “yes, of course”, but rather an acknowledgement that Abberline “might” have asked the question. Personally, I don’t believe he did for the reasons I’ve already provided; it wasn’t mentioned in either the statement or the report, and Hutchinson could easily have found ways to discover what Kelly was actually wearing whilst still lying about the Astrakhan episode. I don’t recall “ridiculing” anyone who insists that there was a conveniently destroyed “full interrogation report”, although I have argued very vehemently to the contrary.

“The police did not confide anything to the Echo about the nature of this "later investigation", nor what it 'turned up', otherwise we'd have seen it in print and you would not be forced to guess, just like the Echo, that whatever it was, it 'evidently' undermined Hutch's credibility.”

Whatever later investigations turned up, the result was that a “very reduced importance” was attached to Hutchinson’s credibility because of his failure to come forward before and present his evidence at the inquest. Don’t keep saying that it was an explanation the Echo themselves “came up with”, because that is absolutely not the case. Let’s examine the quote instead:

“Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?”

Not the Echo themselves, but the “authorities”.

If you’re worried about the cagey terminology used by the Echo on the 13th, reflect that it was still very early days as far as assessments over Hutchinson’s credibility went. That article was only published 12 hours after Hutchinson made himself known to the police. Fortunately, its conclusions are cemented the very next day (14th) when the same observations are quite literally “echoed”, observing specifically that the account had been:

“considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest in a more official manner”.

No “seems to be” or “appears that”, but rather an unsensational statement of fact. If there was any vagueness the previous day, it was all cleared up “on inquiry at at the Commercial-street Police-station to-day” (Echo, 14th November). Gone is the need to “guess”, along with any temptation to lie about what the police told them (that is, if they had any hope of being supplied information at the police station again). Moreover, if the Echo had said anything the previous day that the police considered inaccurate or offensive, they would hardly have confided in them on the 14th. Evidently, the police were happy with the Echo's reporting, and confirmed to them at the station that they had understood matters correctly with regard to Hutchinson.

So no evidence of "guesswork" on the part of the Echo on either day of reporting, especially not the second, and even less evidence of lying.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

All of this Isaacs as Astrakhan business is absurd to my way of thinking - much like the frequently repeated assertion that Sarah Lewis saw a couple enter Miller's Court.

Couldn't agree more, Garry.

The good news is that we now have three active threads' worth of the stuff.

All the best,
Ben

[Batman]

Even if Galloway's man was a plain clothes detective, why does that not make him Blotchy?

[Wickerman]

Ben just makes it up as he goes, much like a Star reporter.

"The police state that the man who aroused the suspicion of Mr. Galloway by frequently crossing and recrossing the road, is a respectable citizen,
Evening News, 17 Nov. 1888.

[Garry Wroe]

... Hutchinson could easily have found ways to discover what Kelly was actually wearing whilst still lying about the Astrakhan episode.

To be honest, Ben, I think it likely that Hutchinson would have been asked about Kelly's clothing, if only to add inferential weight to the assumption that the woman killed in Miller's Court was indeed Kelly. The point, however, is that if Hutchinson really was a longstanding associate of Kelly, he would have been perfectly aware of the clothing she normally wore, and could thus have given an accurate description of her attire without having seen her at all on the night of the murder.