Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Ben]

That's a good point about the type of place Romford was, Mike.

Costermongers heading east would also sell their wares there - meat and fish usually.

Cheers,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Hi Fisherman,



No more than Cross, for instance, "would have been" required to confirm various details that you hope the police glossed over, like his real name as a result of a visit to his wife and place or work (even though it was bound to come to the fore anyway). We are absolutely not having one rule for one witness-turned-suspect, and different rules for others, at least not on my watch. We have no evidence, and certainly no reason to infer, that Hutchinson's interrogation was any more thorough than those conducted with earlier witnesses.

Cross would have been more easily checked out than Hutchinson. It makes me wonder if 'going down to Romford' was a typical excuse that police couldn't touch. I remember that Romford was a market town and there were many labor jobs available each day to the first in line. I don't know why, however, and I assume that the town was sort of like Mullingar in Ireland, a place where a lot of the livestock, produce, and regional goods moved through to get to Dublin.

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Hutchinson would have been required to confirm that he had been to Romford, by explaining where he had stayed and what he had done and what route he took home and what he saw along that route.

No more than Cross, for instance, "would have been" required to confirm various details that you hope the police glossed over, like his real name as a result of a visit to his wife and place or work (even though it was bound to come to the fore anyway). We are absolutely not having one rule for one witness-turned-suspect, and different rules for others, at least not on my watch. We have no evidence, and certainly no reason to infer, that Hutchinson's interrogation was any more thorough than those conducted with earlier witnesses.

If Hutchinson never went to Romford, there was nothing preventing him from coming up with any number of bogus excuses for a lack of verification. "I heard there was some work for me up there, but I couldn't find the road, and spent ages looking for it". He didn't need to have "stayed" anywhere in Romford, and nor would he have had any trouble recounting what he might have seen on the way home, "building sir, lots of 'em...oh and roads". Great.

Equally, he would have been asked which streets he walked after his vigil, and what points of confirmation he had

What "points of confirmation" was he likely to procure at 3.00 in the morning? If we accept the amazingly unlikely event that he was asked which specific streets he sauntered after leaving Miller's Court, he could have taken hos invented pick from any of the roads that weren't likely to have coppers patrolling them at that time - a subject he would have had particular insight into if he was the ripper.

Still no evidence that Hutchinson was ever asked about Kelly's clothing, which would have been pointless considering that he was due to attend the mortuary the next day to conduct an identification. As with the above two mythical "questions", a lying Hutchinson could have evaded it with ease: I didn't notice sir, I was preoccupied with Mr. Hastrakhan".

What we have then is:

a) No evidence that these questions were ever asked.

b) No good reason to think they were.

c) Easy ways for a guilty Hutchinson to get round them even if they were.

d) Idiot detectives if they were stooopid enough to ask such questions, knowing how easy there were to bluff around without fear of inviting censure or suspicion.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Abberline had not left any official record of his thoughts. And, by the time he wrote his reminiscences, it was of no significance

But perceived "insignificance" wasn't the reason for the non-mention of Kloswoski or the ripper in his memoirs. He omitted them because he never intended those particular memoirs to be about the ripper case, that's all. His last recorded thoughts on the question of the ripper's identity were those expressed in 1903 with regard to Kloswoski. Had he changed his opinion subsequent to that, the reasonable expectation is that he'd have set the record straight.

Abberline's opinion - not shared by his superiors - was that the killer was an "expert surgeon", and this was obviously the opinion he had at the time of the murders, unless he was senile in 1903, which was only 15 years later, when the chances of such a drastic memory failure were very remote. The evidence tells us that he did stick his neck out with regard to the surgical skill issue, and came down firmly on the side of Phillips, who left us with the clear impression than the mutilations must have been committed by someone with more surgical skill than himself!

P.S. lets be clear, the only legitimate police suspects were the ones who remained nameless.

Oh, you mean witness descriptions of men seen with victims etc.

In which case, yes, I agree that very few of these had anything to suggest a foreigner. However, that doesn't change the fact that foreign identified suspects kept cropping up.

A few pages ago, you wrote:

Then by taking the opinion of Abberline, coupled with the ongoing references by various press outlets, up to 19th Nov. we are presented with a consistent picture of a witness who offered a believable story.
Compare this with other witnesses like, Mrs long, Lawende, Schwartz, PC Smith.
How long after their accounts are given publicity do we still read in the press of the police pursuing 'that' line of inquiry?

Does Hutchinson fair any better, or any worse?

I've addressed this already. We have evidence aplenty of other witnesses receiving sustained police interest in their evidence. We don’t have to rely on the press for them either, as several of them are mentioned (albeit not always by name) in later years by senior police officials as having been truthful witnesses whose evidence they relied upon, and Hutchinson is a conspicuous absentee from all of them.

For instance, we know that Lawende was used subsequently in attempts to compare new suspects with the man he saw in Church Passage, whereas Hutchinson, who got a far better look than Lawende, was not. Does this become invalidated because the press didn’t feel obliged to report in January 1889 “Just a reminder, everybody – the police still think Lawende’s a good witness!”. No, of course it doesn’t.

If superior sources than the press assure us that various witnesses continued to be treated as truthful and accurate, we have no reason to dispute them. If Hutchinson is conspicuously absent from all press reports and all subsequent interviews, memoirs, and suspect ID attempts, that tells its own story. We have it on the authority of Robert Anderson that the only person to get a good view of the murderer was Jewish, and yet Hutchinson – who got a far better “view” of Astrakhan man than any of the Jewish witnesses did of their “suspects” – was not Jewish, and therefore cannot have been this “only person”. Like it or not, this accords remarkably well with the reported “discrediting” of Hutchinson back in 1888.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Jon,

Has Abberline said once that the killer had no anatomical knowledge at all ?

If you have something new, please share.

Cheers

Dave.

Given that most of Abberline's written opinions, or reports, have not survived, it is not possible to accurately answer that question.

What is the more probable is that when Detectives are faced with offering an opinion concerning medical matters well beyond their own professional abilities, they will either quote, or defer, to the opinion of the medical professionals themselves.

Here we know Dr Bond saw nothing to suggest "scientific or anatomical knowledge", yet other professionals, Dr Phillips, Dr Brown, Sequeira, etc. were rather vague as to the extent of such knowledge.

Would you expect Abberline to stick his neck out if the various medical opinions could not provide any real consensus?

[DVV]

Jon,

Has Abberline said once that the killer had no anatomical knowledge at all ?

If you have something new, please share.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

There is no evidence - and no good reason - to assume that Abberline ever revised his opinion on Klosowski. His memoirs don't mention the ripper murders at all, let alone his Klosowski theory associated therwith. Had he ever found cause to revise his opinion, one would reasonably have expected him to correct the record, rather than allowing his last recorded words on the subject to be the promulgation of a theory he no longer invested in.

The point is, Abberline had not left any official record of his thoughts. And, by the time he wrote his reminiscences, it was of no significance.

Pizer? Issenschmidt? Kloswoski? Kosminski? Isaacs (Ha!)? Ludwig?

All seem pretty "foreign" to me.

I already listed the unidentified suspects earlier, the ones you throw in were all identified. Pizer, Isenschmid, Ludwig & Isaacs, all cleared (Isaacs eventually), so not suspected in 1888 (or, as per Dave's limited time window of "August 1888").
Kosminski, not even known to be a suspect in 1888.

P.S. lets be clear, the only legitimate police suspects were the ones who remained nameless.
If the police identified them (as per your offering), they would either be cleared, or jailed, so no longer a suspect.

[The Good Michael]

True Mike, they didn't use the term. Though not suggesting ethnicity is no guide to the ethnicity of the suspect.

In the case of Schwartz, it is from the surviving police files that we are left to believe (due to the known usage of "Lipski" by Gentiles against Jews) that the man seen by Schwartz was "not likely" a Jew.

No known "foreign" traits recognised among the majority of legitimate suspects.

Right, aside from Long. Again, Jewish suspects wouldn't have called attention to foreign traits and indeed, physical traits often have nothing explicit to do with eastern European Jewishness unless a person is of an orthodox nature complete with beard, locks and clothing, so lack of discussion of physical traits means a lot less than ethnic make-up of a given street or area as far as viability of the Jewishness of a suspect, yet that is not for this thread.

Cheers,

Mike

[Wickerman]

Schwartz and Lawende probably wouldn't have used the term "foreigner" for personal and political reasons. They would have just used details and would have avoided any feelings of the man they saw being possibly Jewish.



Mike

True Mike, they didn't use the term. Though not suggesting ethnicity is no guide to the ethnicity of the suspect.

In the case of Schwartz, it is from the surviving police files that we are left to believe (due to the known usage of "Lipski" by Gentiles against Jews) that the man seen by Schwartz was "not likely" a Jew.

No known "foreign" traits recognised among the majority of legitimate suspects.

[Ben]

Expect a PM shortly, David!

Hi Jon,

There is no evidence - and no good reason - to assume that Abberline ever revised his opinion on Klosowski. His memoirs don't mention the ripper murders at all, let alone his Klosowski theory associated therwith. Had he ever found cause to revise his opinion, one would reasonably have expected him to correct the record, rather than allowing his last recorded words on the subject to be the promulgation of a theory he no longer invested in.

So we are apparently (negative) -2, and possibly -3, as far as the "foreign suspect" goes.

That certainly wasn't how the police went about assessing eyewitness evidence. They weren't goals to be scored, and they certainly weren't all invested with the same significance. Lawende, for instance, had considerably greater value than Long on account of the fact that the latter never saw her suspect's face. PC Smith was considered a genuine and accurate witness, but the man he saw may not have been the ripper (and so on).

The legitimately identified suspects, acknowledged by police, appear to have no noticeable "foreign" traits

Pizer? Issenschmidt? Kloswoski? Kosminski? Isaacs (Ha!)? Ludwig?

All seem pretty "foreign" to me.

Regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

As to the Ripper being a foreigner, this idea gets one point from Mrs Long, but loses a point by Schwartz, and another by PC Smith, and loses another point by Lawende. It may have gained back one short-lived point with Hutchinson, but then lost it again due to Mrs Cox.
So we are apparently (negative) -2, and possibly -3, as far as the "foreign suspect" goes.

Schwartz and Lawende probably wouldn't have used the term "foreigner" for personal and political reasons. They would have just used details and would have avoided any feelings of the man they saw being possibly Jewish.



Mike

[RockySullivan]

Wickerman, and then sgt whites story was someone that looked foreign but actually wasnt (i think?). So thats about somewhere in the middle and could account for the confusion perhaps

[Wickerman]

It is evident from his 1903 interviews that Abberline was ultimately convinced that Chapman was the Ripper due to his long term views - for him, Chapman fulfilled the majority of his prior expectations.

One of those expectations was clearly that the Whitechapel Murderer was a foreigner....

It is also notable that since 1903 until his death in 1929 Abberline appears to have made no further mention of his, apparently short-lived, theory.
Perhaps, one of those flashes of inspiration that are momentarily significant, but then fade under the weight of more accurate recollections.
Abberline's reminiscences, extend to forty pages, makes no mention of this Chapman-Ripper theory. (Wojtczak, p. 215.)

As to the Ripper being a foreigner, this idea gets one point from Mrs Long, but loses a point by Schwartz, and another by PC Smith, and loses another point by Lawende. It may have gained back one short-lived point with Hutchinson, but then lost it again due to Mrs Cox.
So we are apparently (negative) -2, and possibly -3, as far as the "foreign suspect" goes.

The legitimately identified suspects, acknowledged by police, appear to have no noticeable "foreign" traits.

[DVV]

Will an insane Barrister do?

The one Macnaghten introduced as a "doctor" ?

Thanks, Jon.

[DVV]

Amusing narrow-mindedness

Just a last quick comment on this thread.

All of us are, or should be, aware that Phillips and Baxter did influence the investigation... I thought it was well-known...and accepted.
Investigation : in other terms, human beings, such as...Abberline...especially since he himself seems to acknowledge that influence in the PMG.

But if you dare to suggest so on a Hutch-thread, the anti-Hutch squad gets immediately infuriated, and forgets the basic knowledge we should share.

It's delightful.