Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vetting Hutchinson

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

  • Originally posted by Ben View Post
    Sorry to hear that, Jon! I also watched a Leafs game a few months ago which, alas, also resulted in a thrashing, but still a great experience. On my last day in Canada I took some pretty good photos from the CN Tower down onto the Rogers Centre, where the roof was open and a game in session.
    I do hope you had a great time (sincerely!). I know when I have returned to the UK, I am happy to get back here.
    Did you feel the Tower move?
    It's been years since I was up the Tower, it moves about 8 feet in the wind, if I recall correctly - not a lover of heights!!!
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ben View Post
      So do I.

      And as I "see it" you are one of the few remaining adherents to the outdated Gentleman Jack theory, who regard the revival of Hutchinson's eividence as that theory's salvation,....
      But how Ben?
      If I don't believe Astrachan was the killer, how does Hutchinson's story support the idea that the killer was "well-dressed" - how?
      That is what I asked you Ben.


      ... although your contention that Kelly was serviced by two successive well-dressed dandies carrying black packages that night - the second being her killer - is really quite unique, to couch it in polite terms.
      The mutilations were quite unique, maybe they didn't happen either?
      Hutchinson's story has nothing to do with the question of whether Britannia-man was her eventual killer.


      ... you cannot keep relying on "lost reports" to formulate an argument. It's the worst sort of cop-out, especially in this case, given the illogicality of the suggestion that Abberline deliberately withheld important details from his bosses when it was his duty to supply them at the earliest opportunity.
      You are jumping to conclusions again. At what point do I say Abberline held anything back from his superiors?
      Did you ever read Stewart's assessment of Hutchinson's statement?

      Here are a couple of reminders for you.

      The first thing to note is that it appears to have been written by Sgt Badham at Hutchinson's dictation and then signed by Hutchinson when finished.

      Abberline would certainly have read the statement and had it in front of him when he 'interrogated' Hutchinson. Unfortunately Abberline's notes of that interview have not survived the passage of time, although we do have his covering report, which does supply a few extra details. What is for certain is that Abberline would have cleared up with Hutchinson as to why he had come forward so late.
      (my emphasis - Jon)
      http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-witness.html

      Why don't you take the time to read it again, and you will also see that Stewart already pointed out how deficient Badham must have been to not thoroughly question Hutchinson in order to extract more useful and pertinent information from the witness. Stewart even listed specific questions that should have been asked.
      Also, as you can see, my contention that there would have been an interrogation report is mentioned by Stewart.

      I have repeatedly pointed out that Hutchinson was not adequately questioned, maybe not at all, though there must have been some questions if for only guidance.
      What is bizarre, is the notion that there was not an interrogation report. That circumstance would only be true if nothing was gained from the interrogation.
      Recording, in writing, the words of a witness/suspect is required in the Police Code.


      Do try to pay heed to the words you've only just typed: "let's judge Hutchinson on what we know". Okay, great approach, but unfortunately for your theories we know that:

      A) Hutchinson provided the police with a single location for his 45-minute vigil outside, and referred to it as "to the court".

      B) Hutchinson made clear to the press that he regarded "to the court" as the area on Dorset Street in front of the Miller's Court entrance, and "up the court" as entering the passage to the court itself.
      That has been clarified (I hope) in my reply to Abby.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by SirJohnFalstaff View Post

        How thorough was the vetting on Hutchinson at the time? Not only about his testimony but also about who the man was?

        Thank you
        Very poor.

        Doubt he was Toppy. Irrelevant.

        Most likely a 22 year old who was trained on the "Exmouth",hence his military bearing.

        Hutchinson was possibly a look out for Jack the Ripper.

        He panicked when he discovered the incident had resulted in murder.

        His statement, regarding Astrakhan man, was designed to throw investigators off the trail.

        Then again,if you look at Abberline's transfer immediately Nichols was murdered,was he brought in to investigate or cover up!

        Shortly after Hutchinson came forward,Phillips attempted to gain a pardon.

        Honestly reckon Phillips had a very good idea who our Jack was.
        He described one of his tools of trade.
        Were they peers.

        Might not have been the big secret we are led to believe.

        Even the Nuns "up the road" knew.
        My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
          not if your following someone there Caz.
          CONTEXT.

          Police:
          went to the court (45 minutes)

          press:
          went up the court (couple of minutes)

          If I said I followed someone to their house, does that mean I went into the house? No.

          If I said I followed someone to the court, does that mean I went into the court? No.

          CONTEXT.
          So, 'going to the court' absolutely excludes the possibility of going into the court? Because... if it isn't in the exact language you want... then it isn't literal enough and all things important are literal? How simple is your world? I do wish mine were so black and white. I could become a conservative. I have to go to the toilet now.

          Mike
          huh?

          Comment


          • Bridewell,
            In ordinary circumstances I would agree with you,but it must be remembered that a witness claims would be open to vigorous cross examination in a trial, and to be out at 2am might be might not have been considered ordinary,even in Whitechapel.
            What I was really doing however,was illustrating what I considered should have happened if Badham had taken a statement before Aberline became involved.In that case Badham not knowing how Aberline would respond,or even would attend,would have included details later added by Aberline.Or don't you think so?

            Comment


            • I've just read Hutcbhinson's account as reported in the Star, which makes interesting reading. The article begins by saying:"This morning we have a fuller statement respecting the well-dressed man..." Now considering the Star's reputation for dramatic journalism-see, for example their version of Schwartz's account-that sets off alarm bells straight away. In other words, it clearly implies that the objective is to entice Hutchinson to give more information-and if he was paid for the account, he might feel he has to oblige.

              The initial details, however, are very similar to what he told the police. For instance, he says "I went to look up the court..." However, he then appears to get carried away, referring to a "massive gold chain", and elaborating events by stating "I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes." And, of course, he mentions that he reported the incident to a police officer on Sunday morning.

              My instinct is that the Star's journalist wanted information that was not available to the press generally; a journalistic scoop. Therefore, he had to encourage Hutchinson to give a "fuller statement", with more substantial or dramatic details. Hutchinson duly obliged, but possibly like Schwartz- with his knife-wielding Pipeman, Stride being pushed into the passage rather than thrown on to the footpath, and an assailant who's now suddenly become tipsy-he simply got too carried away. Although perhaps not as much as Schwartz!
              Last edited by John G; 06-18-2015, 12:13 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by harry View Post
                Bridewell,
                In ordinary circumstances I would agree with you,but it must be remembered that a witness claims would be open to vigorous cross examination in a trial, and to be out at 2am might be might not have been considered ordinary,even in Whitechapel.
                What??? Donīt you know that the streets were absolutely swarming with people at that hour, Harry?

                Mainly Buckīs Row. It was CRAMMED with people passing through in an east-westernly direction. And they were all carmen.

                Comment


                • Yes Fisherman,but that was the night before,and they were all coming from Romford

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by harry View Post
                    Yes Fisherman,but that was the night before,and they were all coming from Romford
                    Ah - well that explains things! I was just amazed to see how being out and about at 2 AM in the East End could suddenly attract police interest and warrant cross examinations, whereas I have earlier been told that there were heaps of people who would have been passing through Bucks Row in the wee hours.

                    I never realized that these discerning critics were speaking of Romford carmen passing on the night of the 30:th. Thanks for sorting that out, Harry!
                    Last edited by Fisherman; 06-18-2015, 02:36 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Hi Jon,

                      If you told two different people the same story, but, you then explain what happened in detail to only one of them, how is that lying?
                      Well, if that's what happened, then he was concealing vital information from the police for no good reason, thereby inviting suspicion. I'm afraid that no amount of "Oh, I would have mentioned that detail if only the silly police had bothered to ask" would have served as anything remotely resembling a satisfactory excuse for such a serious omission. It isn't just additional "detail" either - it's a complete deviation from what he informed the police, which is that he went "to" the court (which we know is not the same as going "up" it) and stood there for three quarters of an hour before going "away". Staying outside the court for 45 minutes is different to going in and out of the court during that time-frame, not just more "detailed".

                      If I don't believe Astrachan was the killer, how does Hutchinson's story support the idea that the killer was "well-dressed" - how?
                      Unless I've misunderstood your argument, you usually cite the Hutchinson-alleged presence of Astrakhan man on the streets to demonstrate the supposed ordinariness of well-dressed men - your preferred ripper type - frequenting the area in the small hours.

                      The mutilations were quite unique, maybe they didn't happen either?
                      I hope you won't object to my quoting you on this the next time someone argues that Abberline saw nothing overtly ludicrous about the idea of a man fitting Astrakhan's description sauntering the small-hours streets of Whitechapel. Perhaps he did, but perhaps he also subscribed to the "a unique mutilating serial killer just might..." school of thought that you espouse.

                      If Badham did a half-arsed job of eliciting information from Hutchinson, as you controversially now contend, why didn’t Abberline seek to redress that half-arsedness when he reviewed the statement himself? If he was remotely unhappy with the paucity of information contained within the statement, why didn’t he rectify that situation before submitting what he knew to be an incomplete statement to his superiors? If Abberline extracted other crucial information; answers to questions overlooked by Badham, they would have logically appeared in the accompanying letter. What possible reason did he have for withholding these and only mentioning comparatively trivial information, such as the detail that Hutchinson occasionally gave her money? I’m afraid if Badham is to be accused of incompetence, Abberline must share the blame for making no effort to rectify the problems and clear up the supposed grey areas before feeding the information up the chain; in which case the “mystery” as to how Hutchinson could have pulled the wool over his eyes is rendered not to mysterious at all.

                      In the old days it was the "Hutchinsonians" who stood accused of relying on the 1888 police being incompetent to sustain their argument, but it appears those tables have turned.

                      Nobody apart from you has insisted there must have been an “interrogation report” – that is entirely your construct, and it is obvious that nothing of the kind existed in reality. Stewart, whose participation in this discussion you seem eager to recruit, suggested that Abberline made “notes”, which is certainly not an “interrogation report”, and much more in alignment with what I suggested several months ago. From the 2nd March:

                      “Abberline most assuredly did not transcribe the full interrogation, and nor was he duty-bound to, or else it would have been submitted to his superiors along with the statement. That’s just obvious, and it seems to be only you who won’t accept that. A few personal notes in his pocket book, yes, maybe; but not full transcripts containing crucial information that he inexplicably kept to himself.”

                      All the best,
                      Ben
                      Last edited by Ben; 06-18-2015, 04:28 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Hi JohnG,

                        The Star did not interview Hutchinson themselves, and thus did not have a "journalistic scoop" as they did with Schwartz. As I mentioned yesterday, the Star was merely one of several newspapers that obtained their information from a press agency, most probably Central News, and it was an agency journalist who interviewed Hutchinson, rather than an individual newspaper. If you look at the Pall Mall Gazette report of Hutchinson's statement, you will see notice that it is identical to the Star's.

                        All that was meant by a "fuller statement" was that it contained information beyond a mere description, which was all that the police had supplied to newspapers the previous day.

                        Regards,
                        Ben

                        Comment


                        • It's been years since I was up the Tower, it moves about 8 feet in the wind, if I recall correctly - not a lover of heights!!!
                          It was an amazing experience, Jon, and yes it was certainly shifting, albeit not very much according to the pendulum in the room at the top - it was hot and humid day with not much wind. I enjoyed looking down through the glass floor at the ant-like forms down below, and noting that I was more or less on top of the impressive aquarium I had recently visited!

                          I also saved the life of a skunk on the Blue Mountains.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ben View Post
                            Hi JohnG,

                            The Star did not interview Hutchinson themselves, and thus did not have a "journalistic scoop" as they did with Schwartz. As I mentioned yesterday, the Star was merely one of several newspapers that obtained their information from a press agency, most probably Central News, and it was an agency journalist who interviewed Hutchinson, rather than an individual newspaper. If you look at the Pall Mall Gazette report of Hutchinson's statement, you will see notice that it is identical to the Star's.

                            All that was meant by a "fuller statement" was that it contained information beyond a mere description, which was all that the police had supplied to newspapers the previous day.

                            Regards,
                            Ben
                            Hi Ben,

                            Thanks for the informative reply. Would Hutchinson have been paid by the Central News Agency? Did this agency have a reputation for sensationalizing accounts, or sensationalist journalism?

                            Comment


                            • You're very welcome, John.

                              As for payment, I would strongly assume so, but I'm afraid I don't have anything more concrete than that. I haven't heard of any reputation for sensationalising on the part of the Central News, and I would tend to trust their reporting more than, for instance, a maverick newspaper out for itself.

                              All the best,
                              Ben

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Ben View Post
                                You're very welcome, John.

                                As for payment, I would strongly assume so, but I'm afraid I don't have anything more concrete than that. I haven't heard of any reputation for sensationalising on the part of the Central News, and I would tend to trust their reporting more than, for instance, a maverick newspaper out for itself.

                                All the best,
                                Ben
                                Thanks again Ben. What is clearly interesting is that the account initially refers to "I went to look up the court", before progressing the story with reference to "I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes. That suggests that Hutchinson clearly differentiated two separate activities.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X