Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Wickerman]

That’s very snippy and rude. Didn’t realise we were at that stage already!

You should be aware that the rudeness begins when sarcasm is used in reply to an otherwise serious point. Your unsuccessful attempts to belittle a debate are becoming a signature of your attitude across these posts.
So don't bother whining when it was you who set the wheels in motion.

Yes, but according to you, Badham had already gone way beyond the call of duty by pressurising Hutchinson into “recollecting” absurdly minute details that he had supposedly forgotten about, in order to meet the requirements of his little fill-in-the-blank questionnaire.

You don't appear to know much about the professional interviewer.

Where is the evidence, or rather the faintest indication, that Lewis had “trouble recalling anything of consequence”?

Her own words, she had trouble describing the appearance of the loiterer, but then he was not posing a threat and she didn't know a murder was about to take place.
The description of the Britannia-man is in a different category, this man had posed a threat, or at least caused her to be concerned about him, plus she had seen him twice that week. Therefore her description of him is more thorough than that of the loiterer.

Well, there’s the plentiful and compelling evidence that Hutchinson’s statement was very quickly doubted owing to doubts about its credibility,....

Press speculations do not constitute evidence. The evidence should it ever surface would come from the police, not some tabloid press looking to sell 'copy'.

Nope, no evidence for that either. I’ve debated this issue with “policeman on these boards” on a number of occasions, and at no stage did they express such a reductive and simplistic a sentiment as the one Richard espoused.

You have read the opinion by police officers on these boards from years ago, I know because you were on the same thread. Experience speaks louder than hearsay.

When Bob Hinton researched his book, he consulted a number of policemen – both serving and retired – who, without exception, expressed scepticism regarding Hutchinson’s claims.

And that's the hearsay.

None of this nonsense ever happened; otherwise it would have appeared at the inquest, as opposed to appearing in the press for five minutes before sinking without trace, along with all the other erroneous sensation-seeking dreck from the immediate aftermath of the Kelly murder.

Funny that you choose to argue the press would publish false(?) statements yet you refuse to accept the press would publish false claims about case-related "knowledge".

Why are you listing all the obscure newspapers that regurgitated one, single article circulated by the Press Association? An article that we know to be nonsense, incidentally.

Still confusing what you "know" with what you think you "know".
There is absolutely no "knowledge" that any of these witness statements are incorrect, it just hurts you to see your theory shown to be wrong from so many unrelated sources.

I always felt sorry for some of those further-away newspapers that had to rely on “telegrams” – essentially fag-ends from London which ranged from the distinctly unreliable to the provably false. Let’s see what else the article has to say: “It is conclusively proved that Kelly having spent the greater part of Friday evening in the Britannia Public house, at the corner of Dorset street, returned home about midnight with a strange an whose company she had previously been keeping.”

– Do you agree with that? Exactly, it’s nonsense.

Here is the corrected version:
“It is conclusively proved that Kelly, having spent the greater part of Thursday evening in the Britannia Public house, at the corner of Dorset street, returned home about midnight with a strange man, whose company she had previously been keeping.”
Nottingham Evening Post, 14 Nov. 1888.

What is wrong with that?, the implication is that her companion was the Blotchy character.
When you are intent on criticizing a news source you need to seek out all versions to see if the error is merely of a typographical nature - which in this case it clearly was.

[Ben]

I may have mentioned this before during my 17 years on this site, but its my belief, that Hutchinson, was telling the absolute truth, and was attempting to honestly assist the police.
I also have mentioned before that George William Topping Hutchinson was the man we call Hutchinson.

Yes, you have "mentioned" that before, Richard - many times in fact - and you're more than entitled to that belief. I happen to disagree very strongly, as I'm sure I've "mentioned before". What you neglected to mention, however, is that your belief that "Toppy" was the real Hutchinson is only that, and not the fact that you just dressed it up as. As we've discussed ad nauseam, the likelihood of Toppy being Hutchinson is very slim indeed, in my opinion.

There is nothing suspicious about his statement, only in our eyes

That doesn't make an awful lot of sense, I'm afraid. "Suspicion" is an impression; a perspective, which can't exist without "our eyes" to perceive it or otherwise. It makes about as much sense as saying "there's nothing saucy about Wolverhampton". To you maybe. What you mean is that you're personally not suspicious of Hutchinson's statement, which is fine; other people are and were, however, including sceptics from 1888.

[Ben]

“Use your imagination, but intelligently this time.”

That’s very snippy and rude. Didn’t realise we were at that stage already!

“It isn't Badham's role to "weed out liars and time-wasters", before the police interrogate the witness they need a statement to work with.”

Yes, but according to you, Badham had already gone way beyond the call of duty by pressurising Hutchinson into “recollecting” absurdly minute details that he had supposedly forgotten about, in order to meet the requirements of his little fill-in-the-blank questionnaire.

“A comparison can be made between a witness who realized he saw something worthy of reporting (Schwartz?) as opposed to a witness who has trouble recalling anything of consequence (Lewis) because she was not aware she had seen anything of value.”

Where is the evidence, or rather the faintest indication, that Lewis had “trouble recalling anything of consequence”? The moment she learned that a murder had been committed a few feet from where she had been fitfully dozing that night, she had no “trouble” recalling events, especially those that made her fearful, such as the reappearance of the black bag man from Wednesday. She thought little of the scream at the time, but as with Schwartz’s sighting of an altercation on Berner Street, it assumed a much greater significance once she learned of the murder.

“And that Richard is what history does record, all latter-day fringe theories aside.
Until something of what he said is proven or demonstrated to be false his statement stands as accepted by the authorities at the time and never contested.”

Well, there’s the plentiful and compelling evidence that Hutchinson’s statement was very quickly doubted owing to doubts about its credibility, which you – boringly, ponderously, and unsuccessfully – pretend doesn’t exist. But please don’t be so deluded as to claim that doubts about Hutchinson’s veracity belong to any sort of “fringe” mindset. More people question Hutchinson’s statement that accept it uncritically; I realise that bothers you intensely, but it’s a reality nonetheless. The term “fringe” would apply more accurately to your views on the Kelly murder, most of which are rejected by everyone except you. It also isn't necessary to demonstrate that anything Hutchinson said was provably false in order to demonstrate a likelihood that it probably was.

"There is nothing suspicious about his statement", has been the accepted opinion from policemen on these boards who have experience with the taking of witness statements, and rightly so.”

Nope, no evidence for that either. I’ve debated this issue with “policeman on these boards” on a number of occasions, and at no stage did they express such a reductive and simplistic a sentiment as the one Richard espoused. When Bob Hinton researched his book, he consulted a number of policemen – both serving and retired – who, without exception, expressed scepticism regarding Hutchinson’s claims.

“If it wasn't for the press we wouldn't have known that Bowyer had seen a man in the court about 3:00 am on Friday morning, nor that Mrs McCarthy was told by a customer that she had also seen "a funny-looking man" up the court that same morning, nor that Sarah Lewis had seen a couple walk up the passage while the loiterer was standing in Dorset St.”

Change the record, Jon. Change it. Immediately.

None of this nonsense ever happened; otherwise it would have appeared at the inquest, as opposed to appearing in the press for five minutes before sinking without trace, along with all the other erroneous sensation-seeking dreck from the immediate aftermath of the Kelly murder. It is very disturbing that you’ve adopted such a lazy, uncritical approach to source material. It’s very disturbing that you’ve sought to elevate the status of second-hand unsourced hearsay to being somehow equal to – or better than? – actual inquest evidence and police statements. We know that Bowyer did not see a man in the court at 3.30, otherwise he’d have mentioned it at the inquest or in his police statement. We know, for an absolute irrefutable fact, that Lewis did not see a couple walk up the passage, because her police statement and all but once press report assures us that she didn’t. One press article claimed, without any substantiation, that they had heard that someone (unidentified, of course) told Mrs. McCarthy that he or she had seen “such a funny man” in the court; this is third-hand hearsay, and therefore of lavatorial value to the Kelly murder investigation, as anyone with one eighth of a clue should be able to figure out.

“Although no evidence was produced at the inquest as to her having left her room after one o'clock, at which time she was heard singing, the police have obtained statements from several persons who reside in Millers Court, that she was out of her house and in Dorset street between two and three o'clock.”

Why are you listing all the obscure newspapers that regurgitated one, single article circulated by the Press Association? An article that we know to be nonsense, incidentally. I always felt sorry for some of those further-away newspapers that had to rely on “telegrams” – essentially fag-ends from London which ranged from the distinctly unreliable to the provably false. Let’s see what else the article has to say: “It is conclusively proved that Kelly having spent the greater part of Friday evening in the Britannia Public house, at the corner of Dorset street, returned home about midnight with a strange an whose company she had previously been keeping.” – Do you agree with that? Exactly, it’s nonsense. Had there been any suggestion that “Mrs. Kennedy” knew Kelly personally and was the last person to see her alive, she would unquestionably have appeared at the inquest.

“These varied accounts both confirm to some degree the story told by Hutchinson, and also seem to imply the Astrachan character was probably not guilty of her murder.”

This is, of course, complete nonsense. The only story that can be argued to “confirm”, to any “degree”, any aspect of the story told by Hutchinson is Sarah Lewis’s sighting of a man standing alone on Dorset Street at 2.30am – the inference being that the man was probably Hutchinson himself. There is absolutely nothing else – not even those bits of press tattle that you, and nobody else, are insistent on reviving as genuine evidence.

Let’s have this entire discussion all over again, just on a different thread, and using slightly different words. You’ve obviously got the time.

[Paddy]

Thankyou Jon...I shall have to read up a bit more...
Pat

[Wickerman]

I could never understand why Marys murderer was not spotted leaving her place or around there in the Astrakhan coat etc. Or why didnt he burn it and put the dark one that was at her window?

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

The inquest conducted by Macdonald was a very narrow inquiry. If it wasn't for the press we wouldn't have known that Bowyer had seen a man in the court about 3:00 am on Friday morning, nor that Mrs McCarthy was told by a customer that she had also seen "a funny-looking man" up the court that same morning, nor that Sarah Lewis had seen a couple walk up the passage while the loiterer was standing in Dorset St.
So it isn't that no-one saw anything or anyone, they did, but the reports of these sightings did not receive wide publicity.

The Press Association also reported the police being aware of several sightings of Kelly being out after 2:00 am....

Although no evidence was produced at the inquest as to her having left her room after one o'clock, at which time she was heard singing, the police have obtained statements from several persons who reside in Millers Court, that she was out of her house and in Dorset street between two and three o'clock.
Sheffield Evening Telegraph, Dundee Courier, Nottingham Evening Post, Morning Advertiser, Irish Times, Nov 14th 1888.

Among the above no doubt is the account by Mrs Kennedy that she saw Kelly out about 3:00 am on the corner by the Britannia pub talking to another man.

These varied accounts both confirm to some degree the story told by Hutchinson, and also seem to imply the Astrachan character was probably not guilty of her murder.

If there was only one account of Kelly being out after 2:00 am we might treat it with caution, but as we have several then it is not so easy to dismiss the possibility.

These accounts tend to also exonerate Blotchy as well as Astrachan, so the murderer remains unidentified.

[Paddy]

I could never understand why Marys murderer was not spotted leaving her place or around there in the Astrakhan coat etc. Or why didnt he burn it and put the dark one that was at her window?

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

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
If the killer had a lookout, I doubt it was Hutchinson...It is extremely possible that her killer was hoping to be in room 13 during the night hours, but found Kelly out around 2 pm. he then saw Her return to Dorset street in the company of Hutchinson's man. and his chance had gone, but he struck lucky in the morning when he observed Kelly on her own in the street, and quite possibly he was the man seen talking to Mary by Maxwell.
Regards Richard.

[Joshua Rogan]

I've never quite understood what purpose a lookout would serve outsdide Miller's Court when the killer was safe from disturbance behind a locked door.

[DJA]

Hi,
I may have mentioned this before during my 17 years on this site, but its my belief, that Hutchinson, was telling the absolute truth, and was attempting to honestly assist the police.

Honestly,that is so naive.

"I also have mentioned before that George William Topping Hutchinson was the man we call Hutchinson."

And he was unemployed and somehow managed a military bearing.
Perhaps the real Hutchinson was trained as a sailor.

"There is nothing suspicious about his statement, only in our eyes, the only question that confronts us, is,''Did the man he saw with Mary Kelly kill her or was it someone else''?.
For the record, I believe the man left at dawn , with Kelly asleep on the bed , very much alive, and we have to consider events after dawn to find her killer."

Prolly worth having a good look at the timing.


Regards Richard,

Thanks mate. All the Best!

PS. Ever consider that the real Hutchinson was a lookout for Jack the Ripper!

[Wickerman]

Hi,
I may have mentioned this before during my 17 years on this site, but its my belief, that Hutchinson, was telling the absolute truth, and was attempting to honestly assist the police.

And that Richard is what history does record, all latter-day fringe theories aside.
Until something of what he said is proven or demonstrated to be false his statement stands as accepted by the authorities at the time and never contested.

I also have mentioned before that George William Topping Hutchinson was the man we call Hutchinson.

Although I have never jumped onboard with that suggestion I have yet to read of anything that contradicts the hypothesis - you could be right.

There is nothing suspicious about his statement, only in our eyes, the only question that confronts us, is,''Did the man he saw with Mary Kelly kill her or was it someone else''?.

"There is nothing suspicious about his statement", has been the accepted opinion from policemen on these boards who have experience with the taking of witness statements, and rightly so.
The vast majority of dissenters to that view have no experience whatever in dealing with witnesses.

For the record, I believe the man left at dawn , with Kelly asleep on the bed , very much alive, and we have to consider events after dawn to find her killer.
Regards Richard,

And you're not alone in that view, but I think it is a view that has the most challenges to validate as theories go.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I may have mentioned this before during my 17 years on this site, but its my belief, that Hutchinson, was telling the absolute truth, and was attempting to honestly assist the police.
I also have mentioned before that George William Topping Hutchinson was the man we call Hutchinson.
There is nothing suspicious about his statement, only in our eyes, the only question that confronts us, is,''Did the man he saw with Mary Kelly kill her or was it someone else''?.
For the record, I believe the man left at dawn , with Kelly asleep on the bed , very much alive, and we have to consider events after dawn to find her killer.
Regards Richard,

[Wickerman]

Such as, what?

Use your imagination, but intelligently this time.

I ask you again – if Badham was merely trotting out a “multi-purpose form", where exactly was any interviewing “skill” demonstrated, and how was it supposed to have weeded out liars and time-wasters?

It isn't Badham's role to "weed out liars and time-wasters", before the police interrogate the witness they need a statement to work with.

I’m not sure on what basis you conclude that all Miller’s Court witnesses were unsure if they had seen “anything at all”. Cox, Lewis et al were sequestered in Miller’s Court the moment they woke up on Friday morning; as such, there is no way of knowing whether or not they would have come forward of their own volition had it been otherwise. For all we know, they might have been just as eager as Schwartz to come forward, and just as convinced that they were important witnesses “with a story to tell”. As for Schwartz, I accept that Swanson wrote a “summary” of his overall experience, but I would be hugely surprised if the recorded description was itself a “summary”.

A comparison can be made between a witness who realized he saw something worthy of reporting (Schwartz?) as opposed to a witness who has trouble recalling anything of consequence (Lewis) because she was not aware she had seen anything of value.

[DJA]

All that detail and an unknown hand had to correct lamp of "The Ten Bell (sic) to Queens Head" Public House on the Witness Statement.

[Ben]

“Badham being well acquainted with the multi-purpose form is able to extract from Hutchinson pertinent details, by the use of periodic questions”

Such as, what?

“Now, Mr. Hutchinson, you mentioned seeing a tie-pin adorning the coat of this man who walked past you, for a brief moment, in close-ish proximity to a gas lamp in what was otherwise darkness, but you neglected to mention any shape or design. Could you oblige?".

I ask you again – if Badham was merely trotting out a “multi-purpose form", where exactly was any interviewing “skill” demonstrated, and how was it supposed to have weeded out liars and time-wasters?

“A witness with a story to tell (Hutchinson/Schwartz) generally provides a more complete account than a witness who was not sure if they saw anything at all (Millers Court residents).”

I’m not sure on what basis you conclude that all Miller’s Court witnesses were unsure if they had seen “anything at all”. Cox, Lewis et al were sequestered in Miller’s Court the moment they woke up on Friday morning; as such, there is no way of knowing whether or not they would have come forward of their own volition had it been otherwise. For all we know, they might have been just as eager as Schwartz to come forward, and just as convinced that they were important witnesses “with a story to tell”. As for Schwartz, I accept that Swanson wrote a “summary” of his overall experience, but I would be hugely surprised if the recorded description was itself a “summary”.

[Wickerman]

I appreciate that, Jon, but you also said that Badham was merely adhering to a "form", in which the witness fills in the entries for moustache, eyes, earlobe bulbosity etc. Far from requiring any "skill" on the part of the police interviewer, that was an obvious invitation to any bogus witness to gild the lily as much as possible. Again, surely it's a bit revealing that all other witnesses left the "eyelash shade" section blank.

Cheers,
Ben

Perhaps I wasn't too clear, Sgt. Badham being well acquainted with the multi-purpose form is able to extract from Hutchinson pertinent details, by the use of periodic questions, so the witness statement contains as much detail as if he had filled out that form.

It is unfortunate that we do not possess the police statement provided by Schwartz but only official summaries of the contents. I mention Schwartz because he also approached the police reputedly with a story to tell, unlike the witness statements given by the Millers Court residents who were only asked if they had seen anything.
Two different types of witness, and as a result two different types of statement, one being offered the other being extracted. A witness with a story to tell (Hutchinson/Schwartz) generally provides a more complete account than a witness who was not sure if they saw anything at all (Millers Court residents).