Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[harry]

Jon,
The interpretation is quite simple.You first opposed the existence of a telegram,then write you have no doubt a telegram played a part.The silliness is yours.As to proof,have you not claimed Aberline submitted an additional report which was lost.Where is the proof of that? Where is the proof a detective(excepting Aberline) was present at any time that evening at Commercial Street police station,or a reporter,or that information was conveyed to Aberline by a detective.It is all conjecture on your part,based mainly on an unsubstanciated newspaper article.No proof whatsoever.
Then now you wish to deny a code has any bearing on the matter,after previously insisting a code covered all activities of police behaviour.
As to whether the questioning of Hutchinson would have been passed to a detective if one had been present,I'll leave that to police officers to answer.

[Wickerman]

Harry.
When someone claims a telegram was used, I expect that person to offer some reference in support of that claim.
If it is obvious the person is avoiding the issue, then of course I have reason to doubt the existence of this telegram.
As it turns out, I was right, it was nothing more than a suggestion.

I see you are very hung up on this word "proof", even when no-one else has suggested any exists. It seems you are intent on picking a fight for no good reason, none that I can tell.

This "special Detective" mentioned by the reporter is not given a rank.
The Detective may have been a Detective Constable, who would be outranked by Badham, who was a sergeant.
I don't know Harry, why waste time trying to argue about something that was not even stated?

I think you need to buy this Police Code, if for no other reason than to educate yourself - it can't hurt surely.

[Garry Wroe]

When someone claims a telegram was used, I expect that person to offer some reference in support of that claim.

And if I could be bothered to waste time in disproving yet another of your ludicrous claims I'd do so. But I can't.

If it is obvious the person is avoiding the issue, then of course I have reason to doubt the existence of this telegram.

Not avoiding the issue, Jon, avoiding becoming embroiled in an argument with an individual who rejects any evidence which conflicts with his own ill-conceived ideas, irrespective of the overwhelming nature of the said evidence. Your obdurate insistence that Sarah Lewis saw a couple pass up Miller's Court as she made for the Keylers is a typical case in point.

As it turns out, I was right, it was nothing more than a suggestion.

It was the recollection of a piece of information I first came across years ago, possibly even decades ago. The one thing I do know is that individual witness statements were not sent across the length and breadth of London like invitations to a wedding. Perhaps you should commune with Anderson again. He'll put you straight on the issue.

[Garry Wroe]

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

Okay, Jon. Have a look at the 'What the Press Knew' thread. Page 15 would make a good starting point.

[harry]

Jon,
Not picking a fight,just asking you to do what you have suggested numerous times to other posters,supply proof.You are the only one to claim Aberline made a report which has been lost.Interesting I'm sure,to everyone interesred in the Ripper case,and a great find if true.Surely such a claim needs proof.As does the presence of a detective and his delivering of information of Hutchinson,the evening Hutchinson showed at the police station.
I do not need the police code.Badham was a uniformed officer,a sergeant.Doesn't mean his seniority gave him rights over investigation personnel,no matter that person's rank.The code,or departmental policy would decide the priority of investigation and/or interrogation of suspects/witnesses.That Badham wrote the witness statement of Hutchinson,to me indicates no other detective officer was present,and that Aberline instructed Badham to do so,and that prior to that time,all communication had been verbal.

[Scott Nelson]

Jon,
Not picking a fight,

But Jon likes fights, as does Ben.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
Not picking a fight,just asking you to do what you have suggested numerous times to other posters,supply proof.

Harry.
You are attempting to draw a parallel, where none exists.

Any, and every poster can share their belief on an issue, we all do that. It is ONLY if they first assert that proof does exist, or their belief has been proven, that I ask, often repeatedly, for them to show this proof.
Also, in cases where no such claim has been made, I may ask if proof exists to support their claim. I think it is a perfectly reasonable question, and as such deserves a simple "yes", or "no", not an ongoing ducking & weaving to avoid admitting what now appears to be the obvious answer.

In the case of the Police Code, I quoted you, more than once I believe, the sections that require questions put to a witness/suspect be committed to writing - that officers are not to trust to memory.
That, and other supportive quotations, are my reference.

Now, if you persist in this I suggest you prove me wrong and show exactly where I ever claimed to have proof?

I do not need the police code.Badham was a uniformed officer,a sergeant.Doesn't mean his seniority gave him rights over investigation personnel,no matter that person's rank.

No Harry, this was not "a Detective" (in the ordinary sense), the reporter described him as a "special" Detective.
Once again, if you had been familiar with this Police Code you would be able to read what "Special" means, in the context of the Constabulary.

Special Constables are assigned to duties to assist the regular police departments, whether this is the Uniform department, or Detective department.
It is a temporary measure, he is not a full Detective (if assisting the Det. Dept.), but is there to assist, run messages, help with filing, generally doing the legwork to free up more experienced officers. He carries equal authority of other constables yes, but he may not have the experience.
A "Special" Detective will most certainly not undertake to interview an important witness, when senior, more experienced, officers are available.

[Wickerman]

But Jon likes fights, as does Ben.

[harry]

Jon,
But you assert that Aberline did write a report and that this report was lost.You have repeated that claim on more than one thread.You have supplied no evidence to back that claim.
Same with the detective.Nothing to support.No proof.It is being asked of you to supply proof.So here is the simple question you yourself say should be asked,and a simple yes or no will do.Do you have proof?It is you who is ducking and weaving.
Special detective or not,his presence has to be proven.Yes or no?
Not quite sure of your point regarding putting to writing.I am not disputing the witness statement of Hutchinson was put to writing,the question is when,and my contention is that it was written during or soon after Aberline had questioned Hutchinson.
I always believed that the code instructs,'As soon as possible after...'Might not be possible immediately in some cases.

[Wickerman]

"So, when I later told you no proof exists of this document, you tried to make an issue out of it. Yet at no point in this discussion had I ever claimed proof did exist."

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=332512&postcount=689

Is that what you have been looking for?


The reporter made up this Special Detective now?

I am not disputing the witness statement of Hutchinson was put to writing,the question is when,and my contention is that it was written during or soon after Aberline had questioned Hutchinson.

Based on what?
Abberline's name is not among the witness signatures, along with Badham & Arnold. Which means he was not present.

[harry]

Jon,
Obviously since you posted a false claim there would be no evidence.That is the crux of the matter.What you were trying to achieve only you know.
Only claim of a special detective is one obscure writing by a reporter.Nothing to substanciate it from any other source.
Aberline was not present.Your claim simply because his name was not on a report which didn't need his signature. Hutchinson's presence is comfirmed,as is Badham's by signatures on the statement Badham wrote.Aberlines presence is confirmed,by the report that he wrote that puts both Aberline and Hutchinson at the same station.Altogether the evidence is overwhelming that all three were together at the police station that evening .If you mean Aberline was not present when Badham wrote the statement,you must have good reason for saying so.What is your reasoning.

[Wickerman]

I don't know why it is I have to repeat everything to you.

Witnesses present at the taking of the statement are required to sign the statement, this is done at bottom right.
Hutchinson, Badham & Arnold, signed the statement - clear?

Abberline, in his report stated that the witness had given a statement.
He then adds that he has since interrogated the witness, which implies the statement already existed prior to the interrogation.

Abberline signed the statement with "submitted', which is corroborated by his daily report where he writes that he forwarded the statement to C. O. - clear?

[harry]

Jon
I don't know why I have to correct you so often'
That Arnold signed the statement is merely information that the statement was in Arnold's possession at some time.Clear,but if you are suggesting that Arnold too was at Commercial Street police station that evening,and he must have been if your latest claim of him being a witness is correct,then supply confirmation,and no,the signature on the statement doe s not prove it.Clear
Of course a statement existed prior to Aberlines intervention and questioning.I have told you so.It would have been given by Hutchinson verbally.It was his reason for being at the police station.An interview could not have proceded without him stating why he was there.Clear.
From Aberline not being there because his Signature w as not on on the statement,we now have Arnold there because his Signature was.Incredible.
Even Hutchinson was not required to sign the statement when it was completed by Badham,and Badham,because he had headed the record with his name would not necessarily have to sign.That Hutchinson did sign,is a clear indication that he did so voluntarily.He could not be compelled to do so.
Want to argue that.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

“Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contemporaries, we learned on inquiry at the Commercial Street police station today that the elaborate description given above is virtually the same as that previously published. It is a little fuller, that is all. But it proceeds from the same source.”

It did proceed from the same source, and this information could only be confirmed by the police.

Hi Ben,

And that is your evidence for the police drip-feeding the Echo other information, such as this witness sighting suddenly losing credibility because it had just dawned on them that Hutch ought to have come forward sooner? As if attending the inquest would have made his Astrakhan Man that much more believable? Is this the position you think the police adopted and would have volunteered to the Echo?

It wasn’t just a “message to prostitutes” though, was it? What about ordinary members of the public who may have been deterred from reporting the presence or activities of Astrakhan types by the “false” information that an account involving a suspicious Astrakhan type last seen with Kelly had been discredited? What if one of these was the actual murderer, and managed to avoid capture as a direct result of the misinformation that Astrakhan types were no longer being sought?

How many of them are you talking about?

Ironically, members of the public did continue to report such men, who were very quickly released – obviously because the police weren’t still seeking them.

'Such men', Ben? How odd, if Astrakhan types were as rare in the East End as bacon sarnies in a synagogue. Evidently the public had no problem seeing and reporting 'such men', taking the Echo's claims with the large pinch of salt that might have done you a bit of good.

Men were very quickly released if they could identify and give a good account of themselves. If you think it was 'obviously' because they matched the description of Astrakhan Man (surely not??), but he was no longer being sought, are you suggesting the police no longer thought he existed, or no longer thought he was the killer? I thought even you accepted they couldn't categorically prove Hutch had lied about seeing the man with Kelly, even if they strongly suspected it. Ah, here we are:

There was always the possibility that the police rejected Hutchinson’s account in error (i.e. in the absence of final proof that he lied), which is why they didn’t make an official declaration that Hutchinson was discredited, preferring instead to impart the detail to more reputable press sources.

So nothing 'official' then, or placed on file, to the effect that Hutch was discredited - in case he shouldn't have been? Yes, yes, I see. Just a nod and a wink about it at best to their favourite newsmen, even though according to you this could have been a fatal error of judgement if the murderer was indeed 'one of these' Astrakhan types?

Interesting.

Are you sure you are getting enough sleep, Ben?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

While we're on the subject of press reports, I do hope that those insisting that the statement was conveyed by cop-ogram on a silver platter understand that this appeared in a press report...

...This report has no more "support" than the Echo and Star articles relating to Hutchinson's discrediting, or the Lloyds Weekly article referring to Isaacs being in prison at the time of the murder.

So not much support for any of these reports, or no support at all?

I can live with that, Ben.

Love,

Caz
X