Vetting Hutchinson

[caz]

Hi Jon,

…you seem to be having trouble getting to grips with basic human nature if you are seriously suggesting that Hutchinson did not voluntarily offer the detail that he stood right outside the murder victim's window, had it truly occurred.

But he certainly volunteered that detail to the press, Ben. If he was lying, and it never truly occurred, how do you suppose he could have got in to kill her? By helicopter from above? Conversely, if it did truly occur, but he deliberately omitted this detail when talking to the police because he had been there to commit murder, he was hardly likely to offer this same damning detail to the world at large.

As usual, there are innocent explanations for what has survived of Hutch's encounters with both the police and the press, which obey the rules of basic human nature to a greater extent than the guilty ones. As Stewart Evans took pains to point out in his related dissertation, witnesses need police guidance on the kind of details to include. A witness won't necessarily think to include a minute-by-minute account of where he was, while nothing else was happening, and the police will usually coax extra details to ascertain if anything else of potential significance was seen or heard. There's nothing particularly suspicious about a witness not seeing or hearing something and not mentioning this to the police because they never asked, but telling all to the press because this was now about him and his fifteen minutes of fame – and possibly some much-needed dosh.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Jon,

If you read the article properly, you will discover that it was Abberline’s report accompanying the statement that he referred to as a “covering report”, and it’s a very apt description because it did indeed “cover” both the statement and the interrogation. Abberline was free, or rather obliged, to offer commentary on both, and yet the only information he provided on the latter was:

“...he had known her about 3 years. Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them. He can identify the man and arrangement was at once made for two officers to accompany him round the district for a few hours tonight with a view of finding the man if possible.”

My question, which you’ve scarcely touched upon, is why would he include these relatively trivial pieces of information – stuff that really doesn’t affect his credibility either way – whilst concealing a treasure trove of bombshell explanations that supposedly “answer” all modern-day gripes and suspicions with his story, thus absolving him of suspicion?

But as far as Abberline was concerned, this was all about the victim and the man Hutch saw with her. He wasn't fixated on the witness like you are, Ben, so was only looking for anything that had a direct bearing on who and what Hutch had seen and heard of this couple. Abberline would have made notes of his interrogation, and these would almost certainly have included Hutch's reason for coming late to the party. Yet this was just one detail which he did not see fit to pass on in his covering report, presumably because he was satisfied with Hutch's explanation and it could have no possible relevance to the matter in hand – finding the man Kelly was with. What was relevant was not why Abberline personally found Hutch's statement credible (he doesn't say), but how sure the witness could be that the woman he saw was Kelly, and not just someone who looked like her - hence this line of questioning and passing on the answers. You might see this as relatively trivial stuff compared with the whole credibility issue, but it clearly wasn't to Abberline then, or to Stewart now.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

What I find confusing is that Hutchinson must have realized that there were discrepancies between his press and police statement, which he presumably signed. Moreover, he surely had to realize that the police would quickly pick up on any major discrepancies. So how did he expect to get away with it? Is it possible that, when interviewed by Abberline, he elaborated further on his initial statement? And, ironically, wouldn't it have appeared equally suspicious if the police and press statements were in perfect accord?

And let's assume for one moment that Hutchinson's account was fabricated. Well, I think it would have to be acknowledged that he had an excellent memory and had thought things through in some detail. After all, he clearly made a detailed police statement, which is broadly consistent with Sarah Lewis' account, and his press statement is reasonably similar. It therefore seems odd that he would accidentally make a fundamental mistake when recalling details to the press.

You want to watch that logical 'basic human nature' approach, John. They don't like it up 'em.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“But he didn't claim to stand at one location. You seem to want "there" to mean a precise X on the pavement, and for him not to move.

Whereas "there" can quite easily mean collectively.”

Within reason it can, yes – trust me, I was pressing this point long before you became a hardened Hutcher – but a position directly outside Kelly’s room cannot be conflated with a location on Dorset Street at the other end of the passage, at least not in this context. The former spot allows for entirely different ear and eyewitness opportunities to anywhere not within visual range of Kelly’s window, and a competent investigator would have considered it extremely significant if Hutchinson had visited both.

In any case, the fact that he made a clear distinction between “up” and “to” informs us that no such court-street conflation occurred.

“'I was there for three-quarters of an hour" - all his activities took place within that time, so standing at three different spots, merely a few feet apart, still means he "stood" for 45 minutes.”

Perfectly reasonable, as long as one of those spots is not the inside of Miller’s Court, for reasons explained above.

“However you choose to interpret his words, he still gave the explanation as:

"I went up the court, and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house, or hear any noise."

As this was his explanation for BOTH stories (them being the same), then the only correct interpretation for you is the one that best fits the explanation.”

Not sure what you’re getting at here.

His claim to have entered the court itself appears in one version only: the press interview, completely contradicting his police statement in which he claimed to have stood outside the court for three quarters of an hour. The two stories are NOT “the same”.

[Ben]

“Did you forget to include this "assured" evidence you have that Swanson was directing Abberline?
Being a superior officer does not mean you are required to direct every movement of every member of your staff.”

Well, I’m quite sure Swanson didn’t bombard Abberline with hourly reminders to do his job properly, if that’s what you mean. Being aware of the extent of his subordinate’s experience, Swanson would have considered it quite unnecessary to send such memos as: “Fred, if you think a witness is legit, please give me some sort of clue as to why” or “Abbo, if you can’t get your boys to take statements properly, couldn’t you at least tidy them up a bit yourself before sending me what you know to be an incomplete and essentially worthless document?”.

“If you read Warren's instruction, "Chief Inspr. Swanson who must be acquainted with every detail"..”

I have indeed read this instruction, Jon, and I'm very pleased to see you underline the words “every detail”. This reassures me that you are now aware of the necessity to pass on “every detail” from the Hutchinson interrogation, as opposed to sitting on crucial information pertaining to the latest star witness’s credibility and withholding them from a formal report.

“As I indicated before, the interrogation report is of no use if he sends it to Central Office to sit on a desk for how many hours?”

Who says it will just “sit on a desk”? Just you, with your unique lack of faith in the abilities of those working at “Central Office”. Why do assume it would not receive just as much meticulous attention and scrutiny from Swanson and his “Central Officers” as it would in the hands of Abberline? And why would the latter even send the statement itself if he knew or suspected that it was destined for indeterminate hours on a desk?

“So we both agree then that the information contained therein is best served by immediate action, not mailing it off to Central Office.

We don’t agree at all on that point, Jon.

An “interrogation report” in the absence of the subject of that report – the statement itself – was effectively useless. If an “interrogation report” is to have any investigative value, it necessitates continual reference with the statement, which obviously can’t happen if the latter document is elsewhere. Hence if such a thing as an “interrogation report” existed, it would have been sent with the statement.

You’ll observe, by the way, that you alone argue for the existence of such a “report”, whereas even my most vehement detractors accept that Abberline merely took “notes” on the interrogation.

“For over a hundred years those statements have been accepted verbatim.
Any "entirely new" interpretation is due to some recent poorly constructed theory (ie; easily shot full of holes), that he was lying about something.”

Don’t antagonise me with inflammatory chest-beating please, Jon; it’ll lead to unfriendliness. I’m afraid they’re only blanks (or perhaps colourful paint) you’ve been firing, and no, “those statements” have not been accepted “for over a hundred years”. They, or rather “it”, was discredited very shortly after it first appeared, and it is only with the advent of “ripperology” that attempts have been made to revive it, starting in the 1970s when well-dressed celebrity suspects were all the rage.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“If a paying customer tells her to "hush!", she will "hush". what is so unbelievable about that?”

I dunno, the fact that a manhunt for the most notorious criminal in London’s history was active in that precise locality at that time, and that the criminal in question preyed exclusively on prostitutes in the early hours of the morning? I can’t say for certain how the real ripper succeeded in putting his victims at ease long after it became apparent that prostitutes were targets, but I very much doubt that tightly grasping a small black parcel, dressing like a wealthy Jew, and hissing “hush!” at the sign of possible intrusion was likely to have done the trick.

“I quoted Stewarts opinion more than once. If you disagree with it, just come right out and say so.
Alternately, if you think Colin & Stewart provided opposing opinions (which I do not, incidentally), then that is something beyond our abilities to resolve.”

I don’t recall ever reading either gentleman claim that witness statements were taken down (in them olden days!) as long continuous monologues, scribbled down at furious speed, without the sergeant never once interjecting.

“Did I suggest Abberline thought it was deficient?”

No.

But was Abberline was himself deficient for failing to recognise and redress the deficiencies of his subordinate?

“Are you suggesting a witness statement is more important than a Confession?”

I didn’t say anything about “importance”. I observed that a greater sense of urgency exists when the offender has yet to be identified than it does after the offender has been captured and is in the process of confessing.

This, I hoped, was obvious.

“Where do you draw the line between extra detail and embellishment?”

At the point where there is no reasonable explanation for the absence of the “extra” details in the initial recounting. This is what occurred in Hutchinson’s case.

“This witness is claiming to be the last person to see the victim alive”

Really? Right now?!

No, he didn't claim any such thing.

He merely claimed to be “a” witness, and it was the task of the police to determine whether or not he was the “last” to see her alive. In that respect, he was no different from Emmanuel Violenia, who was no more investigated as a potential suspect than Hutchinson was, or Israel Schwartz for that matter.

“They are not going to know that UNTIL they get all his story down on paper, and investigate it.”

What, “walking about all night”? Good luck getting that “alibi” verified. “I bumped into a convenient fellow insomniac at 3:30am, right at the point Kelly was probably murdered!”

“I think you'll find the Ordnance map of Dorset St. shows it 25 feet wide, not 10.”

Yes, I was working on the assumption that wideawake man hadn’t encased himself into the wall at Crossingham’s, and that Lewis hadn't done likewise against a wall on the northern pavement (in order for the full 25 feet to yawn cavernously between them).

“Just think of it like Christmas Eve on the Somme, both forces put aside their differences for a time”

Stille Nacht! Indeed, Jon, that would have been an excellent plan, and I’m very sorry it didn’t pan out. I’m determined to return to Ontario for the d̶r̶i̶n̶k̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶w̶o̶m̶e̶n̶ historical sites I missed on my first visit, and when that happens, I’ll be sure to make contact (hopefully when we’re already on a “truce”!).

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“Conversely, if it did truly occur, but he deliberately omitted this detail when talking to the police because he had been there to commit murder, he was hardly likely to offer this same damning detail to the world at large.”

Unless he realised at some point after his audience with Abberline that he may have been seen entering the passage; in which case it would have been a perfectly reasonable and likely course of action, especially if the primary intention behind his visit to the police station was to provide false (but seemingly innocent) reasons for his observed presence at a crime scene. Garry makes the point that Hutchinson’s original version of events contained several flaws “courtesy of its hasty conception”, and that he used the opportunity of a press interview to clear them up.

“As usual, there are innocent explanations for what has survived of Hutch's encounters with both the police and the press, which obey the rules of basic human nature to a greater extent than the guilty ones.”

In your opinion, perhaps, but I’m afraid you’re a very long way away from demonstrating as much. Whatever some might think of the proposed “guilty” explanations for Hutchinson’s “encounters with both the police and the press”, they correlate very strongly with the behaviour of known guilty parties who have found themselves in similar situations over the decades since 1888, and are not in the least bit in conflict with the “rules of basic human nature”.

The fame/dosh-seeking explanation, on other hand, argues that Hutchinson invented the “went up the court” detail to spice up his account, despite the complete lack of “spice” to his claim that he saw no light and heard no noise. A fame-seeker making up the detail for the sake of extra drama would surely have mentioned noises coming from the room, perhaps even throwing in some muffled shouts for good measure.

“So the fact that Hutch revealed he had ventured into the court for a couple of minutes during his 45-minute vigil may not have been considered particularly relevant since he saw and heard nothing of evidential value once the couple disappeared from view.”

I completely disagree, and so would the police in 1888.

A claim to have stood immediately outside the window of a murder victim at around the time that victim was thought to have been murdered would have been of vital evidential importance, and a revelation that the room was silent and in darkness would have been just as significant as a claim that the pair were still chatting away in room #13. If anything, the former would have been far more incriminating towards Astrakhan, since it carries the obvious implication that he had already murdered Kelly by the time Hutchinson arrived outside her door. Prostitute-client encounters are not typically conducted in silence and darkness after all.

The police, being aware of this fact, would certainly have made a reference to Hutchinson’s two-minute visit to Kelly’s doorstep had the latter volunteered the information (which he certainly would have done if he was an innocent witness operating under the “basic rules of human nature”).

“While Abberline asked extra questions to help him assess the truthfulness of his statement, it was the meat of his account as a witness that was important.”

Absolutely, but ideally only after the grounds for accepting the statement was true had been communicated to the upper echelons of the police, whose business it was to be informed of such things, and for whom “are you sure this witness is telling the truth?” would have been a far more pressing question than “are you sure it was Kelly that this man saw?”. It would also have been extraordinarily short-sighted of Abberline to assume that his bosses weren’t remotely interested the reasons behind his “opinion that the statement is true”, and only bothered about the length of time Hutchinson knew Kelly.

There are no “meaty”, “off-record” revelations that Hutchinson told Abberline under interrogation which can be cited by modern-day Hutchinson-defenders to absolve the former from suspicion; otherwise they would have appeared in the report which accompanied the statement, in addition to (instead of?) the bits and bobs about knowing Kelly for three years. That is the irrefutable reality of the situation. Moreover, whatever excuse Hutchinson supplied for his failure to come forward earlier, it could only have been accepted on faith at the time of the interrogation, i.e. before any attempt at investigating or verifying such an excuse could have occurred.

It is surely no coincidence that very shortly after Hutchinson provided the press with his own explanation for the delay (i.e. that he spoke to a policeman who did nothing about it (?!?), then told a lodger who encouraged him to go to the station etc), he sank without trace, with newspapers observing that his account was “considerably discounted” and “now discredited”.

“Alternatively, if Abberline didn't think to ask that particular question, why would Hutch have thought to clarify exactly what he meant by 'to the court', or account for every minute he spent there?”

But that is precisely what Hutchinson did clarify in both his police and press account. He created a very clear distinction between going “to” the court and going “up” it, using both expressions in consecutive sentences to illustrate that he meant two different locations. At no point in his original statement does he mention going “up” the court and standing outside Kelly’s window; which means that the reference to such an activity in his press interview amounts to a contradiction, as opposed to a “clarification”.

It is also incredibly unlikely that a supposedly innocent and truthful witness, actively seeking out the police, would not have considered it important to mention standing outside the victim’s window shortly before the likely time of her death.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

But the question would then be who do you think Hutch lied to – the police or the press?

If it was to the police, his motive would have been to distance himself as far as possible from the actual crime scene, which then makes no sense of his subsequent admission to the whole world – via the press – that he had been right outside Kelly's room at one point.

If he lied to the press and never did venture into the court, he was clearly innocent of the murder and his motive would merely have been to add more drama to his story for the papers.

In either case he was going the right way about earning himself all the wrong kind of attention. Yet the police didn't bat an eyelid at this supposedly suspicious development?

Is it not more likely that during his interrogation Abberline had asked the obvious question: "When you went to the court to try and see the couple again, George, did you wait the whole time at the entrance, despite being unable to see them from there?" To which Hutch would naturally have replied: "I went into the court for a couple of minutes, but as there was still no sign of them I assumed they had gone indoors, so I went back to the entrance to wait there".

When recounting his story to the press Hutch would have been able to volunteer this extra detail if Abberline's prompting had served as a reminder.


Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

But the question would then be who do you think Hutch lied to – the police or the press?

Well to both to some extent. But in terms of the part about going into the court-to the police.

If it was to the police, his motive would have been to distance himself as far as possible from the actual crime scene, which then makes no sense of his subsequent admission to the whole world – via the press – that he had been right outside Kelly's room at one point.

Like ive said before-it smacks of classic lying behavior. Some says they were somewhere-then later thinks someone may have seen him somewhere else-and then changes their story accordingly. Hutch may have later thought that someone spotted him outside kellys door. If the police come back to him he could just say "i thought I mentioned that. but im not trying to hide anything in either case because I admitted it to the press."

Is it not more likely that during his interrogation Abberline had asked the obvious question: "When you went to the court to try and see the couple again, George, did you wait the whole time at the entrance, despite being unable to see them from there?" To which Hutch would naturally have replied: "I went into the court for a couple of minutes, but as there was still no sign of them I assumed they had gone indoors, so I went back to the entrance to wait there".

This is totally plausible Caz. But since the police report doesn't mention this crucial fact, I would tend to think he never said told them. especially since this omission includes the fact that he knows exactly where Kelly lives. something not known from his original police statement.

Alternatively, if Abberline didn't think to ask that particular question, why would Hutch have thought to clarify exactly what he meant by 'to the court', or account for every minute he spent there? Again, the fact that he did clarify this willingly for the press suggests he wasn't lying or being deliberately evasive with the police.

As I mentioned before-on the contrary-it seems more to me that he was lying. And since the two versions are so different, and strikes at the material aspect of what Hutch did that night that it reinforces it.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
Within reason it can, yes – trust me, I was pressing this point long before you became a hardened Hutcher – but a position directly outside Kelly’s room cannot be conflated with a location on Dorset Street at the other end of the passage, at least not in this context.

Hello Ben.
The distinction you are so hard pressed to create does not exist.

Badham is interested in how long Hutchinson was at the scene of the crime. It makes no difference from the view of a criminal investigation which end of the passage he was at, he is still at the crime scene and just as able to have been involved regardless where he stood.
By omitting the detail that he walked up the court does not make him any less culpable, so he had nothing to gain by keeping that detail from the police.

Not sure what you’re getting at here.

His claim to have entered the court itself appears in one version only: the press interview, completely contradicting his police statement in which he claimed to have stood outside the court for three quarters of an hour. The two stories are NOT “the same”.

He did not say to the police "I did not walk up the court", so there is no contradiction.
The two stories ARE the same, with the press version including more detail.

You're flogging a dead horse Ben.

[Wickerman]

I have indeed read this instruction, Jon, and I'm very pleased to see you underline the words “every detail”.

Not me Ben, if you HAD read it, you would be aware it was Warren who underlined it, not me.
The important word is "acquainted", which does not imply any sense of urgency, just to let Swanson know what you are doing.

Who says it will just “sit on a desk”? Just you, with your unique lack of faith in the abilities of those working at “Central Office”. Why do assume it would not receive just as much meticulous attention and scrutiny from Swanson and his “Central Officers” as it would in the hands of Abberline?

Precisely because, it was Abberline's job to "deal with it", not Swanson's.

And why would the latter even send the statement itself if he knew or suspected that it was destined for indeterminate hours on a desk?

It was surplus, given that he has just interrogated Hutchinson, and now presumably, obtained a more complete version of events.

We don’t agree at all on that point, Jon.

An “interrogation report” in the absence of the subject of that report – the statement itself – was effectively useless. If an “interrogation report” is to have any investigative value, it necessitates continual reference with the statement, which obviously can’t happen if the latter document is elsewhere. Hence if such a thing as an “interrogation report” existed, it would have been sent with the statement.

That doesn't make any sense.
You want Abberline to send his interrogation paperwork to Swanson, and then do what?
I don't see a footnote from Abberline saying, "Hurry up with that interrogation paperwork Donald, I can't investigate anything while it is sitting on your desk!"

No Ben, you have this all skewed up. Abberline is only required to make Swanson "acquainted" with the fact an interrogation has taken place. That he has done with the cover note (his Daily Report).

You’ll observe, by the way, that you alone argue for the existence of such a “report”, whereas even my most vehement detractors accept that Abberline merely took “notes” on the interrogation.

What do you think the result of an interrogation is?

... and no, “those statements” have not been accepted “for over a hundred years”. They, or rather “it”, was discredited very shortly after it first appeared, and it is only with the advent of “ripperology” that attempts have been made to revive it, starting in the 1970s when well-dressed celebrity suspects were all the rage.

Abberline's acceptance is the only official acceptance, "for over a hundred years", unless you can conjure up something else, official, reliable, and credible.
You are still on the hook to provide the details of who discredited Hutchinson, and why.
(Here comes the circular argument again...)

[Wickerman]

I don’t recall ever reading either gentleman claim that witness statements were taken down (in them olden days!) as long continuous monologues, scribbled down at furious speed, without the sergeant never once interjecting.

Neither gentlemen know how witness statements were taken down, that is why you have not read such claims.

But was Abberline was himself deficient for failing to recognise and redress the deficiencies of his subordinate?

Who said it was deficient for the period?
Only that it is deficient when compared with today.

I didn’t say anything about “importance”. I observed that a greater sense of urgency exists when the offender has yet to be identified than it does after the offender has been captured and is in the process of confessing.

This, I hoped, was obvious.

I might be if this "offender" was presumed to be guilty of anything.
This was not known prior to the giving of the statement, only after it was in writing. Hence, the subsequent interrogation.

At the point where there is no reasonable explanation for the absence of the “extra” details in the initial recounting. This is what occurred in Hutchinson’s case.

We have the "reasonable explanation", why are we/you going around in circles?

Really? Right now?!

No, he didn't claim any such thing.

He merely claimed to be “a” witness, and it was the task of the police to determine whether or not he was the “last” to see her alive. In that respect, he was no different from Emmanuel Violenia, who was no more investigated as a potential suspect than Hutchinson was, or Israel Schwartz for that matter.

The last witness to see her before those cries of "murder" were heard.
That makes him a Person of Interest in anyone's book.

What, “walking about all night”? Good luck getting that “alibi” verified. “I bumped into a convenient fellow insomniac at 3:30am, right at the point Kelly was probably murdered!”

Paperwork Ben. not legwork.
Going over scores of witness statements and police pocket books.

Yes, I was working on the assumption that wideawake man hadn’t encased himself into the wall at Crossingham’s, and that Lewis hadn't done likewise against a wall on the northern pavement (in order for the full 25 feet to yawn cavernously between them).

It's ok Ben, I can see you didn't know it was 25 feet.

Stille Nacht! Indeed, Jon, that would have been an excellent plan, and I’m very sorry it didn’t pan out. I’m determined to return to Ontario for the d̶r̶i̶n̶k̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶w̶o̶m̶e̶n̶ historical sites I missed on my first visit, and when that happens, I’ll be sure to make contact (hopefully when we’re already on a “truce”!).

I'm sure we can leave the cudgels at the door, it'll be fine.
Who knows, we may have other interests that we do agree on

[Ben]

Badham is interested in how long Hutchinson was at the scene of the crime. It makes no difference from the view of a criminal investigation which end of the passage he was at, he is still at the crime scene and just as able to have been involved regardless where he stood.

On the contrary, Jon, it makes a huge difference.

One end of the passage afforded the witness an opportunity to look and listen for signs of movement and activity coming from Kelly's room, whereas the other did not. From the point of view of a "criminal investigation", the distinction was an extremely important one, and one that a truthful, innocent voluntary witness would have jumped at the opportunity to clarify to the police without waiting to be asked. I'm perfectly aware that he was "just as able to be involved" regardless of which end of the passage he happened to be stationed at, but the police were not investigating his potential culpability; they were assessing his worth as a witness.

He did not say to the police "I did not walk up the court", so there is no contradiction.
The two stories ARE the same, with the press version including more detail.

Nope.

Not true at all.

Hutchinson informed the police that he stood "there", i.e. on Dorset Street outside the Miller's Court entrance, for three quarters of an hour, and made no mention of departing that location until 3.00am when he supposedly left the area entirely. His subsequent claim to have abandoned that location to stand outside the victim's window for two minutes is therefore a contradiction; an embellishment. He didn't just provide "more detail"; he offered an entirely different account of his movements at an hour critical to Kelly's murder, and on nobody's planet is loitering several feet away from Kelly's supine form - slain or otherwise - an "irrelevant" point to mention.

The important word is "acquainted", which does not imply any sense of urgency, just to let Swanson know what you are doing.

I'm afraid this is just bonkers, Jon. I don't know where you obtained the idea from that the word "acquainted" translates to a lack of "urgency", but I can assure you that urgency was the unwritten theme to any document associated with the Whitechapel murders. If the word "acquaint" sounds too, err, quaint, then let me assure you that this was simply Victorian-speak for "gimme the bloody details ASAP!"

Precisely because, it was Abberline's job to "deal with it", not Swanson's.

So why forward the statement?

If it fell entirely to Abberline to "deal with" Hutchinson's account thereafter, why surrender the most important document associated with it? You do realise, I hope, that this was the entire narrative; the meat and veg of Hutchinson's actual story? Any notes he took on that story were very unlikely to outdo the story itself in terms of detail, unless we wish to revisit the implausible contention that Abberline scribbled down a brand new, improved "statement" at furious speed while Hutchinson fended off "interrogation" questions.

"You want Abberline to send his interrogation paperwork to Swanson, and then do what?"

Concentrate on the nitty-gritty of on-the-ground police work presumably, which didn't mean obsessing over Hutchinson at every waking hour. Abberline was a functionary, remember; not the overlord of the ripper investigation, and he was certainly in no position to adopt a proprietorial attitude to all things Hutchinson simply because he happened to be on duty when the latter decided to stroll into the station one evening.

I don't see a footnote from Abberline saying, "Hurry up with that interrogation paperwork Donald, I can't investigate anything while it is sitting on your desk!"

Nor would you see such a footnote, or else Swanson might have responded with "I'm conducting my own investigation on the matter as head of the investigation; a position that requires underlings like you (and don't call me Donald) to supply me with "every detail" in accordance with the demands of the commissioner. Now put your knickers on and make me a cup of tea - two sugars".

Only if he was in an uncharitable mood, of course.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

But the question would then be who do you think Hutch lied to – the police or the press?

If it was to the police, his motive would have been to distance himself as far as possible from the actual crime scene, which then makes no sense of his subsequent admission to the whole world – via the press – that he had been right outside Kelly's room at one point.

If he lied to the press and never did venture into the court, he was clearly innocent of the murder and his motive would merely have been to add more drama to his story for the papers.

In either case he was going the right way about earning himself all the wrong kind of attention. Yet the police didn't bat an eyelid at this supposedly suspicious development?

Is it not more likely that during his interrogation Abberline had asked the obvious question: "When you went to the court to try and see the couple again, George, did you wait the whole time at the entrance, despite being unable to see them from there?" To which Hutch would naturally have replied: "I went into the court for a couple of minutes, but as there was still no sign of them I assumed they had gone indoors, so I went back to the entrance to wait there".

When recounting his story to the press Hutch would have been able to volunteer this extra detail if Abberline's prompting had served as a reminder.

Alternatively, if Abberline didn't think to ask that particular question, why would Hutch have thought to clarify exactly what he meant by 'to the court', or account for every minute he spent there? Again, the fact that he did clarify this willingly for the press suggests he wasn't lying or being deliberately evasive with the police.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi again Caz
I forgot to respond to this part of your post in my last post:

In either case he was going the right way about earning himself all the wrong kind of attention. Yet the police didn't bat an eyelid at this supposedly suspicious development?

They more than likely still had fresh in their memory of another recent story changing attention seeking press talking "witness" packer, and probably wrote Hutch off as such.

Which would also help explain him dropping like stone from the investigation and not ever being considered a suspect.

[Ben]

Abberline's acceptance is the only official acceptance, "for over a hundred years", unless you can conjure up something else, official, reliable, and credible.

Yep, the whole wealth of evidence in support of the contention that Hutchinson's evidence was discredited very shortly after it first appeared, thus undermining that "official acceptance", which was based entirely upon faith and first impressions. I could copy and paste the entire contents of several earlier threads on the subject, but it ought not to be necessary.

Neither gentlemen know how witness statements were taken down, that is why you have not read such claims

But I recall that both ventured their opinion based on their experience and wisdom, and don't recall either coming down in favour of the "uninterrupted monologue" theory.

Who said it was deficient for the period?
Only that it is deficient when compared with today.

In which case, fair point.

The last witness to see her before those cries of "murder" were heard.
That makes him a Person of Interest in anyone's book.

It just doesn't, Jon.

Or at least it certainly didn't in 1888.

Where is the evidence of Lawende, Schwartz, Cadosche and Violenia all being assigned "automatic suspect" status simply by virtue of them being presumably the last people to see the victim alive? Surely you can envisage the ultimate outcome of such a policy? Yep, you guessed it - zero witnesses coming forward at any point in the future out of fear of receiving such treatment.

Going over scores of witness statements and police pocket books.

But still achieving nothing in terms of procuring an alibi for Hutchinson.

It's ok Ben, I can see you didn't know it was 25 feet.

The distance between Lewis and the loitering man would not have been 25 feet.

Who knows, we may have other interests that we do agree on

Hope so, Jon - bitter over lager is the deal-breaker! I research maritime history with a lot more passion that I do ripper studies, but I can't seem to extract any juicy combativeness from Titanic passenger discussions.

All the best,
Ben

[Michael W Richards]

For over a hundred years those statements have been accepted verbatim.
Any "entirely new" interpretation is due to some recent poorly constructed theory (ie; easily shot full of holes), that he was lying about something.

Don't know what you've been reading over the past 100 years Jon, but Hutchinsons story historically is understood as being given by a witness who is later discredited. And as I can hear you moan....that point isn't disputed by many folks who know anything about these cases. Your unwillingness to accept this basic truth is causing you a great deal of angst...perhaps its time to accept what virtually every other Ripper student has and move on to WHY Hutchinson gave that statement.

Contesting that it was valid and had great value isn't sustained within historical documentation...the same base argument I point out when people claim Schwartz was actually at the Inquest and has his story entered there.

That's just flogging a horse that has already long since passed away.

Cheers Jon