Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

    This is a question I've long been thinking about.
    I believe I've found the answer, but I'd be pleased to hear you all...

  • #2
    Hi,
    Most likely because he came across as a genuine guy, and some of his account could be verified..
    Regard Richard.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by DVV View Post
      This is a question I've long been thinking about.
      I believe I've found the answer, but I'd be pleased to hear you all...
      1.because hutch came in voluntarily as a witness.
      2. If the press report of hutch being of military bearing is accurate it would have added a level of initial credibility.
      3.hutch said he was a friend of Mary Kellys and knew her and then shortly thereafter IDed her body.
      4.abberline was probably exhausted, stressed out and vulnerable to being overly oppptimistic when presented with a witness who said he knew the victim well, gave a good description of the probable killer, could ID the man again, etc.
      5. It's basic human nature to Beleive what someone is telling you unless later things come to light which point to the opposite.
      6.MOST IMPORTANT IMHO, abberline just came from the inquest where he had just heard and/or reheard Sarah Lewis corroborate (part of)hutch's story of actually being there as the waity watchy man.
      "Is all that we see or seem
      but a dream within a dream?"

      -Edgar Allan Poe


      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

      -Frederick G. Abberline

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Richard,

        the only thing that could be verified is that the VH would not let him in.

        What else ?

        Comment


        • #5
          Hello DVV, all,

          Mary Kelly's death left the police with yet another ghastly murder by an unknown hand so Abberline and his colleagues must have been under heavy pressure. As Hutch was one of the few witnesses who came up with a relatively detailed testimony (the possibility of him having made it all up or altered the facts in order to protect himself notwithstanding), Abberline may have been more inclined to believe or at least listen to him than he would have been in a less urging situation. Beggars can't be choosers.

          All the best,

          Boris
          ~ All perils, specially malignant, are recurrent - Thomas De Quincey ~

          Comment


          • #6
            G'day Abby

            5. It's basic human nature to Beleive what someone is telling you unless later things come to light which point to the opposite.
            Not for an investigating police officer. Certain professions start to doubt everything they are trained that way.
            G U T

            There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

            Comment


            • #7
              G'day bolo

              Originally posted by bolo View Post
              Hello DVV, all,

              Mary Kelly's death left the police with yet another ghastly murder by an unknown hand so Abberline and his colleagues must have been under heavy pressure. As Hutch was one of the few witnesses who came up with a relatively detailed testimony (the possibility of him having made it all up or altered the facts in order to protect himself notwithstanding), Abberline may have been more inclined to believe or at least listen to him than he would have been in a less urging situation. Beggars can't be choosers.

              All the best,

              Boris
              There were other witnesses that were unbelieved, look at Packer and Maxwell as two that spring to mind.
              G U T

              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

              Comment


              • #8
                Hi Bolo

                A much sensible post, but bear in mind that they all had a theory already ("Theories ! theories !").
                Years after, Abberline believed Phillips to be true...which means he thought like this years before.

                Cheers

                Comment


                • #9
                  Just as GUT very sensibly points out, policemen are trained not to believe everything they are told, no matter if it is something they want to hear or not.
                  Policemen check things out before they arrive at a verdict of believing or disbelieving.
                  And that was exactly what Abberline did. He interrogated Hutchinson. He questioned him on every point of importance, and his sole purpose for doing this was that he wanted to establish if Hutchinson told the truth or not.

                  Obviously, Hutchinson responded well to the interrogation, giving answers that seemingly confirmed that he was telling the truth about all the parameters involved. Matters that could be verified would have checked out, just as Richard says.

                  I also think that the police would have gathered references from people in Hutchinson´s circle of aquaintances and relatives, to whatever extent such a thing was possible; dosshouse keepers, working comrades, family members etcetera, all in order to get a clear picture of what kind of track record Hutchinson had with these people.

                  This in combination would have been what led Abberline to believe that Hutchinson was truthful.

                  Ungrounded optimism and high hopes would not have played any role. Fatigue on behalf of Abberline could have, to some extent - he could have forgotten to ask a vital question or two, for example, but which questions needed to be asked would have been very much a matter of routine.

                  All the best,
                  Fisherman

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                    1.because hutch came in voluntarily as a witness.
                    2. If the press report of hutch being of military bearing is accurate it would have added a level of initial credibility.
                    3.hutch said he was a friend of Mary Kellys and knew her and then shortly thereafter IDed her body.
                    4.abberline was probably exhausted, stressed out and vulnerable to being overly oppptimistic when presented with a witness who said he knew the victim well, gave a good description of the probable killer, could ID the man again, etc.
                    5. It's basic human nature to Beleive what someone is telling you unless later things come to light which point to the opposite.
                    6.MOST IMPORTANT IMHO, abberline just came from the inquest where he had just heard and/or reheard Sarah Lewis corroborate (part of)hutch's story of actually being there as the waity watchy man.
                    forgot one:
                    7. serial killers are known to be pretty good liars.
                    "Is all that we see or seem
                    but a dream within a dream?"

                    -Edgar Allan Poe


                    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                    -Frederick G. Abberline

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Ever considerd the possibility that the police didn't really believe Barnet or Hutchinson but put them under surveillance.By giving the impression they were both believed they would be relaxed enough to try another murder.
                      Last edited by pinkmoon; 06-11-2014, 09:40 AM.
                      Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hi DVV,

                        Originally posted by DVV View Post
                        Hi Bolo

                        A much sensible post, but bear in mind that they all had a theory already ("Theories ! theories !").
                        Years after, Abberline believed Phillips to be true...which means he thought like this years before.

                        Cheers
                        I don't think that Abberline chose to believe Hutch because of a theory he had in mind. He was under pressure from the press, the general public and most probably his superiors who wanted results. In light of the horrible carnage of Miller's Court, Abberline's interest in Hutch looks little more than grasping at straws to me, all the more as it did not lead to any useful results, at least none that we know of.

                        Best wishes,

                        Boris
                        ~ All perils, specially malignant, are recurrent - Thomas De Quincey ~

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by bolo View Post
                          In light of the horrible carnage of Miller's Court, Abberline's interest in Hutch looks little more than grasping at straws to me, all the more as it did not lead to any useful results, at least none that we know of.

                          Best wishes,

                          Boris
                          Grasping at straws? A man, described in detail and seen in Kelly´s Company at 2 AM on the murder morning would have been an almighty "straw", I must say!
                          Abberline would have done his homework, Bolo. He interrogated Hutchinson, and the latter was able to satisfyingly answer the questions that were put to him, so it is quite apparent that Abberline was not grasping at straws, but instead conducting routine police work, netting what seemed to be a probable case-breaker.
                          Then something happened that greatly reduced the importance of Hutchinsons story, while the impression of honesty he had given nevertheless lived on for a man like Walter Dew.

                          I see no reason at all to diss Abberline when it comes to the Hutchinson errand. And as far as we can tell, neither did his superiors.

                          The best,
                          Fisherman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hi Fisherman,

                            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            Grasping at straws? A man, described in detail and seen in Kelly´s Company at 2 AM on the murder morning would have been an almighty "straw", I must say!
                            Abberline would have done his homework, Bolo. He interrogated Hutchinson, and the latter was able to satisfyingly answer the questions that were put to him, so it is quite apparent that Abberline was not grasping at straws, but instead conducting routine police work, netting what seemed to be a probable case-breaker.
                            Then something happened that greatly reduced the importance of Hutchinsons story, while the impression of honesty he had given nevertheless lived on for a man like Walter Dew.

                            I see no reason at all to diss Abberline when it comes to the Hutchinson errand. And as far as we can tell, neither did his superiors.

                            The best,
                            Fisherman
                            as far as I know, Abberline's interrogation of Hutchinson did not lead to any worthwhile results. I don't diss him, but something tells me that he wouldn't have spent much time with him in a different (i. e. less urging) situation. The super detailed description of A-man, combined with an obvious loss of memory concerning other details (Romford walk, hanging around in the streets, times, etc.) does not give me the impression of a witness that should be allowed more consideration than Packer or Maxwell.

                            I don't want to blame Abberline or any other member of the force, they were at their wits' end and the pressure that rested on their shoulders forced them to come up with results, so interviewing Hutch and/or rating him as an important witness was the best they could do. Other than Hutch, no witness of the MJK case could deliver anything substantial so it's only natural they believed (or wanted to believe) him to some extend.

                            Cheers,

                            Boris
                            ~ All perils, specially malignant, are recurrent - Thomas De Quincey ~

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by pinkmoon View Post
                              Ever considerd the possibility that the police didn't really believe Barnet or Hutchinson but put them under surveillance.By giving the impression they were both believed they would be relaxed enough to try another murder.
                              Then why give their superiors and the rest of the force the same impression?
                              Best Wishes,
                              Hunter
                              ____________________________________________

                              When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X