Some years ago a study was conducted in England as to the amount of misconduct by police in the taking and reporting of witness statements,and interrogation procedures.The findings were that five per cent were found to be corrupt,or not in accordance with law.95% showed honesty and compliance with both the law and police directives.
Have known some high ranking police here in Victoria,including a Superintendent/Drug Squad Chief.
One cousin was lost in the line of duty.
One niece/God daughter in NSW spent many years as an Academy instructor.
Due to a flatmate leaving his law books on the cocktail bar,I'm very familiar with police procedures.Some of the legal tricks were quite underhanded.
An ex undercover operative ranked 30% of police corrupt and many of the remainder incompetent.
I have nothing against police,however am aware of the ratio.
Fortunately, the nearest decent sized town has a teaching police station and the constables are on the ball. Polite and to the point.
My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account
Abberline has the right & the ability to put him in a line-up if he thinks the guy could be the killer.”
Of course he had, but Hutchinson’s act of coming forward, preemptively and in the guise of a witness, significantly reduced the threat of Abberline exercising that right or ability, since he was unlikely in the extreme to consider the possibility of the actual killer seeking an audience with the police.
We discussed the late morning versus early morning times of death for Kelly on a previous mega-thread. I would refer you there.
There is not so much as a hint of suggestion that Hutchinson’s “current abode” differed in any way from “the place where (he) usually slept”.
I think we can allow for some degree for confusion regarding Abberline’s 1903 “peaked cap” recollections. He was clearly referencing either Lawende or Schwartz, but perhaps had become hazy over details in the intervening years.
Infinitely more understandable than forgetting all about the star witness of the case, who indisputably alleged a close front view of the suspect, and whose description would have been so useful in establishing a potential link with surly, foreign dark-moustachioed Klosowski.
Too bad for Abberline that the discrediting of Hutchinson’s account ensured that the latter could not be wheeled out in support of his latest organ-harvester-for-cash theory.
It goes without arguement,that the phrase,"Can be identified",was used by either Hutchinson or Badham.Hutchinson orally, Badham in wriiten form.
I don't think it follows that Hutchinson used those very words. Bear in mind that this was right at the end of the statement, and preceded by the equally pithy words "Jewish appearance". Nobody, I'd suggest, would say "Jewish appearance" and leave it at that, anymore than they'd say "Can be identified" in normal speech. What probably happened was that Hutchinson said something fuller (e.g. "He looked Jewish, and I think I'd know him if I saw him again") and Badham summarised it without changing Hutchinson's essential meaning in any way. It was a long and detailed statement, so perhaps Badham was running out of steam - or even ink! - by this point; all the more reason to abbreviate.
In 1970 I served for 3 months in Melbourne, in what was then the Australian Federal Narcotics Bureau.Some of the best agents there were former Victorian police officers for whom I had the highest respect.While they too admitted to some corruption within the State police,and the need to be careful in any dealings with them, I never felt that corruption was a big problem.
Also,growing up in England I had the impression that police there could be trusted, were honest,and though sometimes a little too officious,seldom did they overstep the mark of official practices.
One funny event occurred while I was interrogating a suspect aboard a vessel berthed in Melbourne docks.He became obsessed that I was the commissioner for police of Victoria,and no amount of persuasion could convince him otherwise.I suppose I should have felt flattered,but my superiors ignored my pleas,that on his evidence,I deserved higher pay,and a promotion.
Or should that be,"I wish you good night and happy dreams".See how these arguments affect a person.
Equally it could have been Hutchinson running out of steam,and abbreviating a comment.Like wise, how many other phrases and sentences,could have been shortened,but were not.Why just the one? Even Aberline accepted it,and passed it on as written. What he thought is not mentioned,but I would suppose had he believed a substitution had been made,he would have had a notation to that effect added.
This is why I started the "If Mrs. Maxwell didn't see Mary Who Did She See" thread. Although it got a fair number of responses they didn't really respond to my original question which was how hard could it have been for the police to find the woman she believed to be Mary. They might have pursued this avenue of inquiry but we don't seem to have a record of it.
The fact we lack any official report is not surprising given the vast majority of the official paperwork is missing.
Perhaps brief snippets like the one below are all we are going to see...
THE TIME OF THE MURDER
"Another important statement was made this morning to a representative of the Central News, by Mrs. Maxwell (or Mapwell) the wife of the deputy of a lodging house in Dorset street, situate just opposite the court in which the crime was committed. From the circumstantial character of Mrs. Maxwell's statement there is little doubt of its accuracy, and the police are now working on it in all directions. As Mrs. Maxwell saw the deceased woman at nine o'clock yesterday morning the crime must have been perpetrated in the broad light of day."
Evening News, 10 Nov. 1888.
Yet, it is from an official complaint by Warren to the Home Office, that we know the press learned the various directions the investigation was taking by following detectives and re-interviewing whom ever they spoke to.
Various statements are published as to the time when Kelly was last seen alive, yet none give an early morning time of death in the Pall Mall Gazette.
The Murder Committed After 9 A.M.
If the following statement can be confirmed, it has a very important bearing upon the question, who is the murderer? because it fixed approximately the time at which the murder was committed. But so many stories have been invented for the sake of gain by the people who live in the locality since these murders became the sensation in the newspaper that it is difficult to ascertain whether they are accurate or otherwise. However, here is the latest statement, and it is given on the authority of the Central News:-
Mrs Maxwell, the wife of the deputy of the lodging-house in Dorset-street,..etc...etc."
Stories like this were common in the weekend press, the public (incl. Hutchinson) could not fail to be influenced by what was read in most every London paper.
Another subtitle in the Pall Mall Gazette, 10 Nov.
COMMITTED IN BROAD DAYLIGHT
AN IMPORTANT STATEMENT
One of our reporters prosecuting enquiries on the scene of the murders to-day writes: - The details of the murder of Mary Jane Kelly are still enshrouded in mystery. There is no disposition on the part of the police officers at Commercial-street police-station to correct any of the conflicting statements which have been made by the newspapers, or to supply further particulars.....
In Broad Daylight....
This from the Morning Advertiser, 10 Nov.
"JANE KELLY, it is believed, was killed between eight and half-past ten o'clock yesterday morning. There is some conflict of testimony on this head, but it would appear that in this interval the woman was seen alive, and, according to one statement, Kelly must have been abroad in the streets in company with a man with whom she returned to her lodging only a few minutes before her mutilated body was found".
This widespread belief is something we tend to overlook when discussing the case. It certainly provides justification for the Coroner requiring Mrs Maxwell to appear before the inquest.