Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[caz]

Hi Caz,

...In each case, it was an ordinary member of the public who reported the man in question (not Echo readers, apparently!), which necessitated police interest even if they were no longer looking for men resembling Hutchinson’s description.

You see Ben, this is what makes no sense. The only possible reason why a mere sighting of a man who happened to resemble Hutch's description should have necessitated police interest (and presumably by 'interest' you mean actively following up the lead, rather than saying "Ooh yes, thank you Mrs Busybody, we'll be sure to look into it", before filing the note in the waste paper basket), would be that they had not given up the routine task of seeking to eliminate Hutch's suspect from their enquiries. You even acknowledged that with no proof he was an invention, the police could not 'officially' discredit Hutch's account in case they were wrong.

On the other hand, once they considered Astrakhan Man was no longer a realistic suspect, that would have been that, and any further sightings of such types would not have been followed up.

I’m not suggesting that the police “needed” to supply accurate information to the press, but it was heavily in their interest to ameliorate the hostility and heavy censure that the police were receiving from the press (and consequently the public), and if it was no skin off their noses to divulge the mundane detail that a witness was no longer being taken seriously, they may as well have taken a reputable newspaper with no obvious political agenda into their confidence on the issue.

Well that's a weakening from your previous position that the police would have felt obliged to supply the Echo with accurate details of their latest enquiries. They were trying to solve a string of murders first and foremost, and had clearly not been too concerned with keeping the press and public sweet to date, so why start after the latest? It's only your opinion that they chose to do so, and that it was 'no skin off their noses'.

I can’t imagine the police provided them with detailed specifics, no, but they did relate the basics, which were that Hutchinson’s account had received a “very reduced importance” for reasons concerning his credibility (i.e. as opposed to an “honest mistake”, or Mary Cox’s evidence being preferred, or Bond’s speculated time of death being championed etc).

Well no, Ben, again it's only your opinion that if the police told the Echo about Hutch's account now having a "very reduced importance", it was due to doubts about his credibility. You acknowledge that there are no specifics here, and this is evident from the Echo only being able to point the finger at Hutch's tardy appearance and absence from the inquest, which was presumably not exclusive inside police info.

We know full well that the police did not allow the press to believe that all “witnesses evidence” purporting to be same was legitimate, and in this particular case, the idea of using subterfuge to in order to prevent Astrakhan from “changing his appearance” just doesn’t make any sense. As if there was any chance of him being lulled into a false sense of security, and continuing to think it was a good idea to swan around the East End murdering prostitutes dressed in conspicuous and ostentatious garb, supposedly oblivious to the reality of a witness staring straight into his face and then following him from behind.

Hmm, well isn't it your contention that Hutch had been murdering the prostitutes, in which case what chance was there of him thinking it a good idea to carry on slaughtering, once he had shown his face as a witness and supposedly been discredited for his efforts? Talk about pissing on his own chips.

But the point is, since people were still reporting Astrakhan types as possible rippers, apparently oblivious to your reassurances that he wouldn't have been seen dead looking like that near deepest, darkest Dorset Street, never mind luring prossies to their death, and since these reports 'necessitated' police interest, it would also have been in the real ripper's interest not to look anything like Astrakhan Man, whoever he was, and certainly at that time. Just as it would have been in Hutch's interests, after coming forward, not to look like Hutch if he ever wanted to kill again in the area. So if the press were speculating, rightly or wrongly, that Astrakhan Man was no longer a credible suspect, it would arguably have been in the police's best interests to let them get on with it, so the police could get on with their job without the killer being any the wiser.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It would have been a simple matter to identify the beat constable, question him, and determine whether Hutchinson's claim was true. If it proved to be a fabrication the rest of the Astrahan story would have been viewed with suspicion. His statement would have been subjected to microscopic scrutiny, which in turn would have revealed a number of inconsistencies.

Very interesting, Garry. Microscopic scrutiny, eh? And Ben - true to form - agrees with your analysis.

Yet the police never even considered for a moment the possibility he was lying to cover his own tracks? Oh yes, because they had never experienced any criminals trying to pull the wool over their eyes before, only the odd liar or attention seeker.

Love,

Caz
X

[Garry Wroe]

Very interesting, Garry. Microscopic scrutiny, eh? And Ben - true to form - agrees with your analysis.

Yes, Caz. Microscopic scrutiny. The degree of detailed analysis which helped to expose Violenia as a bogus witness.

Yet the police never even considered for a moment the possibility he was lying to cover his own tracks?

The police thinking at the time appears to have been that anyone who came forward with a concocted story was either an attention-seeker or profiteer. The Violenia episode bears striking similarities to that which involved Hutchinson. So far as can be determined Violenia was never held on suspicion.

Oh yes, because they had never experienced any criminals trying to pull the wool over their eyes before, only the odd liar or attention seeker.

Oh, but they had – which is why the policy relating to the offer of rewards was abandoned in 1884.

But this wasn't about just any criminal. It was about a man whose predations were beyond the experience of any of those engaged on the case. Officialdom aside, read the contemporaneous newspaper reports and you'll encounter example after example of supernatural references to the killer. The Fiend in Human Form, for instance. The Monster. The Ghoul. It was as though the magnitude of these crimes was such that their perpetrator came to be viewed as otherworldly rather than an outwardly normal human being who looked and for the most part behaved much the same as the majority of his compeers.

So this is about expectation. But the issue of expectation and its influence on perception is not confined to the Whitechapel Murders. Misperception regarding criminals and their crimes has arisen on countless occasions since 1888. During the course of the Yorkshire Ripper manhunt, for example, Dick Holland stated with absolute confidence that, even in a room filled with a hundred men, he and his detectives would know the killer in minutes. Unfortunately for Holland subsequent events exposed the folly of this claim. We now know that Peter Sutcliffe was interviewed by police on at least nine occasions before his eventual arrest and conviction. On not one of those occasions did he 'quickly give himself away' as Holland had predicted.

When viewed in these terms it must be considered overwhelmingly unlikely that Abberline would have entertained the possibility that Jack the Ripper might walk into the lion’s den and confront his police adversaries whilst masquerading as a witness. Thus Hutchinson would have been assessed under the expectation that he was either a truthful witness, a mistaken witness, a deranged witness or a publicity-seeker-cum-profiteer. Once the inconsistencies in his story had been exposed it would have been assumed that he was another Violenia or Packer and he would have been treated accordingly.

Despite the examples of Packer and Violenia, however, there are still those who think that Hutchinson should and would have been treated as a special case. No evidence is offered in support of such a contention. Violenia is explained away with the assertion that he was ‘different’. He wasn’t. The parallels between he and Hutchinson are remarkably similar, yet still the objections persist. Even the experiences of modern criminalists are dismissed as irrelevant by the objectors. Former FBI profiler John Douglas has confirmed that offenders do come forward under the guise of witnesses and that their subterfuge often goes unrecognized by police officers. Douglas, remember, is considered to be one of the world’s foremost criminological experts, but this seemingly counts for little amongst those who insist that Hutchinson would have been viewed with suspicion once his Astrakhan story came to be disbelieved.

Whilst incomplete, the evidence we have is relatively straightforward. Hutchinson’s Astrakhan story was at first believed by Abberline. Within a day, however, there emerged a newspaper report which cast doubt on Hutchinson’s credibility. Two days later another newspaper stated that the Astrakhan story had been discredited altogether. Coupled with this, other reports described how police had raided low lodging houses and casual wards in their search for the killer – the last places where one would have expected to find an individual such as Astrakhan. Much later, Anderson stated that only one witness had ever got a decent view of the killer. Whoever he was, this witness was not Hutchinson. Later still, Walter Dew confirmed Hutchinson’s fall from grace and speculated that he might have confused the time or date of his claimed Astrakhan sighting.

The evidence is compelling: Hutchinson’s story was discredited and there is not the slightest indication that he came under police suspicion as a consequence of such. But there again, neither did Violenia.

It would be helpful if those who dispute this conclusion would adduce some supporting evidence rather than positing baseless claims. Simply stating that Hutchinson was not discredited is not evidence. Nor is the assertion that Violenia was ‘different’ from Hutchinson. I’m simply looking for the truth, and any evidence that might help me get there would be welcomed with open arms.

Any evidence.

[Garry Wroe]

You see Ben, this is what makes no sense. The only possible reason why a mere sighting of a man who happened to resemble Hutch's description should have necessitated police interest (and presumably by 'interest' you mean actively following up the lead, rather than saying "Ooh yes, thank you Mrs Busybody, we'll be sure to look into it", before filing the note in the waste paper basket), would be that they had not given up the routine task of seeking to eliminate Hutch's suspect from their enquiries. You even acknowledged that with no proof he was an invention, the police could not 'officially' discredit Hutch's account in case they were wrong.

On the other hand, once they considered Astrakhan Man was no longer a realistic suspect, that would have been that, and any further sightings of such types would not have been followed up.

There are many examples of men who were given into custody merely because they carried a black bag. This item attained prominence courtesy of Fanny Mortimer's description of a man she saw hurrying down Berner Street shortly before the discovery of Stride's body. The man was identified as Leon Goldstein, and police enquiries cleared him of any involvement in the murder. Despite this, however, each and every man given into custody as a consequence of his black bag was processed in the normal way. Investigators were obliged to do as much, even in the knowledge that their efforts would lead nowhere. It was a case of procedure.

[Wickerman]

Despite the examples of Packer and Violenia, however, there are still those who think that Hutchinson should and would have been treated as a special case. No evidence is offered in support of such a contention. Violenia is explained away with the assertion that he was ‘different’. He wasn’t.

Who was the last known person to see Mary Kelly alive? - Hutchinson.

Who was the last person known to see Annie Chapman alive? - Mrs Long.

Who was the last person known to see Liz Stride alive? - either Schwartz or PC Smith.

Do you see Packer or Violenia mentioned there anywhere?
Correct, and that's the difference Garry.

[Garry Wroe]

Who was the last known person to see Mary Kelly alive? - Hutchinson.

Hutchinson?

According to whom?

Investigators dismissed Hutchinson’s story and thus the claim that he’d sighted Mary Kelly shortly before her death.

Investigators dismissed Violenia’s story and thus the claim that he’d sighted Annie Chapman shortly before her death.

Stick to the facts, Jon, rather than the smoke and mirrors irrelevancies.

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson?

According to whom?

Yes, ....according to Hutchinson.

Just like, Mrs Long's sighting of Chapman......according to Mrs Long.
And, Schwartz's sighting of Stride.......according to Schwartz.
Where are we assured that these sighting are a FACT?

To my mind they are all equal, if one is taken as fact, then they all are. If one is dismissed, they all are. We have no police dismissal of Long, or of Schwartz, or of Hutchinson.
Hey, why don't we go for broke, if we are going to be stupid about this then lets ask, since when was it a fact that PC Smith saw Stride?

The FACTS Garry, are, as much as you try to manipulate them, that NONE of those sightings were dismissed by police - None!
Those are the FACTS.

Investigators dismissed Hutchinson’s story and thus the claim that he’d sighted Mary Kelly shortly before her death.

Investigators dismissed Violenia’s story and thus the claim that he’d sighted Annie Chapman shortly before her death.

Stick to the facts, Jon, rather than the smoke and mirrors irrelevancies.

I wonder if you are another one who has your own version of what is factual...?

Ok, then seeing as we have police opinion on the dismissal of Violenia, shall we set the bar at that level?

Where is the police opinion that Hutchinson was dismissed?

If you stick to FACTS Garry, your Hutchinson theory will crash and burn.

[Garry Wroe]

The FACTS Garry, are, as much as you try to manipulate them, that NONE of those sightings were dismissed by police - None!
Those are the FACTS.

Then someone is obviously posting under your name, Jon, because I distinctly recall you postulating that Anderson had dismissed Hutchinson's account on the basis of Dr Bond's estimation of Kelly's time of death.

So which is it ... this week?

[Wickerman]

Then someone is obviously posting under your name, Jon, because I distinctly recall you postulating that Anderson had dismissed Hutchinson's account on the basis of Dr Bond's estimation of Kelly's time of death.

So which is it ... this week?

These exchanges with you would go much smoother if you took the time to quote that which you feel you have the time to criticize.
If you have time for the latter, then why not the former?

I have certainly never said Anderson dismissed Hutchinson.
You have asserted Anderson's belief that a Jew was the prime witness, not Hutchinson.
To which my reply is, that Anderson must have known Hutchinson did not see the killer.
How does that amount to a dismissal of his story?

[Wickerman]

If you can't be bothered to quote me, I can.

"Anderson believed the principal witness, and the suspect, were both Jewish.
So naturally the Hutchinson suspect had to be eliminated if Anderson was correct in his belief.
- One solution to this is that he privately, or officially, accepted Dr Bond's estimate, as opposed to the statement given by Hutchinson.
- Alternately, his belief came about because the Hutchinson suspect was found, and was subsequently eliminated from their enquiries.

Either could have happened."

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=335515&postcount=1459

Have you got it now?

[Paddy]

"Anderson believed the principal witness, and the suspect, were both Jewish.
So naturally the Hutchinson suspect had to be eliminated if Anderson was correct in his belief.
- One solution to this is that he privately, or officially, accepted Dr Bond's estimate, as opposed to the statement given by Hutchinson.
- Alternately, his belief came about because the Hutchinson suspect was found, and was subsequently eliminated from their enquiries

Jon, another theory might be.......

Cox stated in his memoir that they quickly got on the track after the last murder. Now assuming that Kelly was the last murder (which I have some doubts myself) Mr A could have been found (and have already been a suspect) He could have given an alibi. The person who provided this alibi could have been the Jewish witness who later told the truth once the suspect was safely put away as insane. This would make the suspect a very good possibility but still only a suspect?
This theory could fit with Anderson, Swanson and Coxs' statements.

Pat.................

[Wickerman]

Jon, another theory might be.......

Cox stated in his memoir that they quickly got on the track after the last murder. Now assuming that Kelly was the last murder (which I have some doubts myself) Mr A could have been found (and have already been a suspect) He could have given an alibi. The person who provided this alibi could have been the Jewish witness who later told the truth once the suspect was safely put away as insane. This would make the suspect a very good possibility but still only a suspect?
This theory could fit with Anderson, Swanson and Coxs' statements.

Pat.................

Hi Pat.

Harry Cox was a City Detective, even though we know the Met. and the City worked together, it is possible that the City had different suspects that we have never heard of, than the Met.
Most of City Police records being destroyed in the war.

With respect to Mr A. giving an alibi, this is always possible. I had considered this point but only IF, Mr A. was actually Joseph Isaacs.

He was arrested and confined in connection with the Whitechapel murders, and curiously, several press articles which mention him describe him as "said to be a Jew" or, "described as a Jew", which I considered strange.
When the press wrote about Lawende, or Pizer, they would simply say "a Jew", with no expression of caution.
Which tends to raise the question whether it was not obvious from his features or speech that Astrachan was a Jew.

If we think back to Anderson's claim that, once the witness discovered the suspect was a Jew, he declined to swear to him, I wondered if this was because the suspect was born in England, but of Semitic heritage - as was Joseph Isaacs.
His accent must have been strongly English - London English, or perhaps Cockney, or close enough. Isaacs was cleared of any connection, but was still imprisoned for Larceny, for three months.

[Paddy]

Jon

Which tends to raise the question whether it was not obvious from his features or speech that Astrachan was a Jew.

Yes John I had forgotten that the witness did not know he was Jewish.
See attached police report re Mr A....

[Sally]

His accent must have been strongly English - London English, or perhaps Cockney, or close enough.

Doubtful, Jon. Are you sure you've got the right Isaacs here?

[Wickerman]

Doubtful, Jon.

On what basis?