...to track down the most wanted man in history, Jon, the importance and urgency of which instantly superseding any other line of police investigation, such as whether or not someone might be tempted to steal someone else’s hat from the market.
Your memory must be worse than mine.
Henry Holland left the scene of the murder in Hanbury St. to find a constable, he said: " I then went for a policeman in Spitalfields Market. The officer told me he could not come."
I would say an actual mutilated body in full view of the public, giblets all over the place, is of more concern than a story of a liaison several days old. Yet, the constable attached to the market "could not" leave his post.
Quite so, but any information of interest that Abberline managed to extract, beyond that contained in the statement, ended up in his accompanying report,...
The document to which you refer is the day's end report of his duties. The first of which was his attendance at the inquest.
An interrogation report will be filed, the expectation is that this document will be used in evidence at a future trial.
An interrogation record contains nothing else but the interrogation.
Alright then, “reports which strongly indicated an early morning, small hours time of death, in common with all other ripper victims”. Better? The point being that Hutchinson could not have failed to read these reports if he was following newspaper coverage as you suggest,....
Of course. The murders were the topic of the day, so chatting about them with others is to be expected. All lodgers sharing what they read or heard.
Hutch can make his own mind up, like you do.
The fact that reports of a late morning ToD far outnumbered anything else tends to make a convincing case. As short-lived as it was.
But now you’re suggesting that it required Hutchinson getting his hands on a copy of Lloyds Weekly News, and satisfying himself that the “medical examination” tallied with the time of his sighting,....
Like I said. Sharing with other lodgers what they read & hear.
No, “eyeing him up for robbery” is not very “feasible” because anyone with such expensive looking clothes and accessories so ostentatiously on display would have BEEN robbed long before Hutchinson had even clapped eyes on him.
People did get mugged. They maybe wouldn't if they followed your advise. Ever heard of "It'll not happen to me", do you think that only applies to our generation?
What I’m interested in, though, are the actions and behavioural traits of known serial offenders who have come forward as “witnesses” .....
What is the norm, a serial killer who does, or one who doesn't?
Following the 'norm' is how an hypothesis is usually decided.
Or are you more in favour of special pleading?
Hi Ben. I don’t want to flog a dead horse, but I have done some checking and I have an update. I found a reference to Ridgway “injecting” himself into the investigation in May 1984, perhaps this is what you were remembering. The source appears to be John Douglas (but see below!)
From the Seattle Times, November 26, 2003, in an article titled “Profiler Can’t Recall Why He Said Letter Wasn’t From Green River Killer’”
“FBI criminal profiler John E. Douglas misidentified an anonymous 1984 letter from Green River killer Gary L. Ridgway in the midst of the nation's worst serial-killing spree.
Douglas wrote that the letter was "a feeble and amateurish attempt" by someone who "has no connection with the Green River Homicides."
He was wrong.
Ridgway, as part of his confession to police, admitted earlier this year that he wrote that letter. Police say that had they known that, it could have helped them catch him earlier.’
In the same article the claim is made that Ridgway came forward and “injected” himself in the investigation in May 1984, giving information about Christensen, which agrees with what has been reported on this thread. The article is not explicit on this point, but the reporter seems to be getting his information from Douglas.
Keep this in mind: May 1984.
The following is from Robert Keppel’s “Riverman” which recounts the investigation of Gary Ridgway in great detail. The following chronology is given on pages 440-441 (you can find these pages on-line in Google Books)
Here are the facts as outline by Keppel.
1. Ridgway was interviewed by Detective Fox in early May 1983 regarding the Malvar murder in April.
2. Police are suspicious and interview Ridgway a second time on November 16, 1983, this time by Detective Larry Gross.
3. In February 1984 Ridgway’s name is give to the police by Dawn White, identified as a prostitute.
4. Ridgway is interviewed for a third time on April 12, 1984 by the King Count Police in Washington State.
5. On May 7, 1984 Ridgway is given a polygraph test to confirm his various statements, including his supposed friendship with Christensen. He passes.
So now, in early May 1984, Ridgway is a serious suspect and has been interviewed FOUR TIMES, the last one being a polygraph test.
So how, with a straight face, can John Douglas claim that Ridgway “injected himself into the investigation” in May 1984? After he was already a suspect and had been interviewed multiple times?
How can that possibly have any meaning?
And how does it relate to Hutchinson?
As I see it, Douglas has revised the case after-the-fact and didn’t do a very good job of it.
The same thing happened in the Chikatilo case. A top Russian cop claimed he had developed an amazingly accurate profile of the Russian Ripper. The detective that actually captured Chikatilo went back through the police records and found no evidence that this profile ever existed. Yet we are supposed to take the profilers seriously.
P.S. Nowhere do I see Keppel claim that Ridgway "injected himself" in the investigation. It was always the police who initiated contact. Another profiling success story shot down. It's a myth.
Barnett had already said it was her by peeping through the window ..... seems that was deemed sufficient .
As I say ..... identified by location , nothing more unless someone comes up with actual evidence to suggest otherwise rather than supposition
In the London Daily News, 10 Nov. we read:
".....Barnet was sent for, and he at once identified the body as that of Kelly or "Ginger", as she was called owing to the colour of her hair".
This sentence was preceded by a description of the preliminary examination conducted by the doctors, and the photographer taking pictures...
Following the mention of Barnet, we read that the body was taken away at four o'clock.
So it seems that Barnet was brought in to the room to identify the body while it lay on the bed. And her hair was the most noticeable feature still evident.
People outside chatting,or men idly standing around outside buildings,might have been a familier sight in Dorset street,in the warmer summer nights,,but on a cold inclement November morning between 2 and 3 am? Are you serious Jon?
Let me answer you this way.
This cutting is from The Standard, 10 Nov. 1888.
"People loiter about it nearly all night".
This is Crossingham's, 10 November, directly opposite Millers Court.
Cold or not, who are we to argue with contemporary evidence?
This part of London in 1888 is as alien to us in our day as the dark side of the moon.
Jon,in reply to your post 513.
There doesn't appear to have been any loiterers that night.Hutchinson states a reason for being outside Crossinghams.Lewis saw only a man ( Hutchinson), and a couple who were mobile.
We do not know who Hutchinson spoke to initially on entering the police station. We know Aberline came from somewhere else.It can,I believe,be assumed Badham was in the police station when Hutchinson entered.Hutchinson has been reported as leaving in the company of policemen.
There is no evidence that Aberline expressed in written form or verbally,any other comment than," it is my opinion." To anyone.
Hope I will not be accused of bad English by ending with a two word phrase.
Whether or not the police believed Hutchinson at the time or not is irrelevant, they had to believe him. They could not disprove anything he was saying with regards to what he allegedly saw, and to publicly call him a liar would have done them no favors with the press, or the public, who by this time had lost confidence in the police and their ability to catch the killer.
However what they believed off the record is another matter.
I believe Abberline's words "I am of opinion that his statement is true" are part of his internal CID report on the inquest and Hutchinson's evidence, not anything released to the public. As such, even if Abberline was unable to find any obvious falsehoods in the story, he would be perfectly justified in expressing a negative opinion to his superiors if he had any doubts about it's veracity.
This feels like the 4th deja vu all over again...
A stranger walks in with a story,Abberline was not there at 2:00 am in Dorset st.,he did not have any other witness to verify/check against this stranger's story in regards to the Kelly/Astrachan part.Abberline was in the dark.So he did not have any questions to ask to check the stranger's story except "what happened next and what happened after that".
If Hutch just followed the story he told Badham he would have been unassailable at the time he was talking to Abberline.Abberline was on the optimistic side when he said in his opinion this man was telling the truth.What choice then did Abberline had but be optimistic afterall he was in the dark.
In agreement with several posters just disregarding Hutch right there and then was a stupid option,this man could possibly,however remote, led them to the murderer.But his optimism or pessimism for argument's sake did not change it,in reality he was in the dark.
But per procedure/common sense (when just told a simple story one won't know outright which 2 of 40 strangers are liars),per news reports about suspects who's alibis were checked/verified and suspect released,
they would have to check this stranger's background/history/lodging/neighbors/friends/Romford which would have made it clear/official if this stranger was telling the truth or not.Whatever the result was, per background of 'there was no official police line regarding Hutch" and that Hutch was discredited (Star report),there was already the possibilities or "unofficial line" that Hutch was discredited as well as that he was not.Which of those newspapers was correct regarding the official line? The closest we have is Dew's memoir that Hutch was not there.No matter how limited his involvement was with the ripper murders,he was an active PC at that time.
One can conjecture all one wants,as is right,but this all we know.
I will add,in agreement with some posters,that no matter when and how you look at it,with no other testimonies,that the man known to be with Kelly around an hour before her death (closest to the doctors's estimated time of death) was a prime suspect and the witness a main witness.Since this was not the case then the whole story was discredited.
Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
What would have been the opinion of police,on Monday 12th about the man reported by Lewis as standing outside Crossinghams,in the period before Hutchinson fronted up.? When they found he was residing only a few minutes from a police station,and that there had ben innumerable members of the police force in the area,anyone of whom could have been approached? What then?If that had been thought of as suspicious,as I think it is,fronting up at about six pm would not on it's own be enough to dispel such suspicions.So it's his story that is the focal point of Aberline's opinion?
Now don't tell me we shouldn't question that opinion.Quite frequently one will reply on these boards,"Yes, but that is only an opinion".Meaning What?