|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4310
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 6:09 am: | 
|
That is actually true, although most of the interesting reports to the Home Office are actually signed by him.
But yes - his bearing for the case is highly exaggerated. Swanson was pretty much the man in charge for a while and the eyes and ears for the whole operation, and when Swanson got the desk job, it was actually not Abberline who was the one in highest command on the ground.
Abberline also left the police force quite early and one can wonder why.
One can also wonder what went on in Swanson's and Henry Moore's's heads for example. As I said earlier, I find it baffling that none of the higher authoritites seems to have focused on the numerous inconsistencies and odd things in Hutchinson's statement. So no, Abberline was certainly not alone in this.
Note that I specifically said in an earlier post, that the handling of GH:s statement was not odd for its time, in fact I have read hundreds of reports regarding witness statements from this time, that comes close to idiotic compared to modern standards.
So what we see in the Ripper case (the failure to investigate Kidney; the poor handling of the witness statements, where the reports leave more questions than answers; their failure - or rather, uninterst - in tracking down Joseph Flemming in connection with the Kelly murder etc.) are all very representative for their time. The interviews performed at the time would NOT have have been accepted by modern superiors or authorities and I am certainly not only talking about the Ripper case.
I am definitely of the opinion that neither psychology, judgement of character or interviewing witnesses was Abberline's strong points. But again, he was not alone in this.
But it would be fruitful if people would stop putting Abberline on a piedestal.
Abberline got the job probably because he had a good knowledge of the area but his experience in that regard and his experience of thieves, gangs and ruffians was hardly of any value in a complex serial killer case, nor was the police's general approach of house to house searches. Abberline made a lot of mistakes, but YES - so did also his collegues and superiors. And in Stride's case, they definitely didn't work with an open mind, another faulty approach.
As for more MET material popping up hiding additional information, several famous researchers of the case have confirmed that the MET files are pretty much complete (what is missing are personal note books and the files from the City police). What we see is what we get. Stop looking for things that aren't there; Abberline clearly says that he believes Hutchinson and consider him an important witness, and I am afraid that is an embarrassing fact that is not in his favour. There was no reason for him to lie or hide information in an official internal document and if there would have existed any additional internal discussions some of it would have been present also in the written reports.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on January 08, 2006)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 806
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 8:20 am: |
|
Hi Bob,
"True but where did the newspaperman get the info from? A friendly local bobby with access to the files and a thirst?"
Could be, but the bobby in question wouldn't necessarily need access to the files. Maybe the bobby in GH's case just knew Hutchinson had talked to Abberline for whatever time and figured that that might have been an important talk, and therefore interesting for his newspaper contact.
If Abberline found Hutchinson's information so important and delicate that it should be kept a secret from the public, I can imagine that he would have personally seen to it that it didn't somehow find its way to the public domain.
If so, I think the logical thing to do would be to personally deliver a written report to his superiors, or verbally report to them first and only then write a report if still found necessary. I don't really see any use in writing a 'fake' report with regards to his comments on Hutchinson, like you suggest he might have done.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3578
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 2:51 pm: |
|
Hmmmm a lot to be considered here!
I am totally convinced that Hutch made his statement in good conscience- now .. What he was actually up to that night-sadly we will never know - but have a feeling he may not have been whiter than white (mind you who was in the environs of Dorset St)
Anyway you'll never convince me that the 'statement', however "large ",is anything other than the truth OR... a complete fabrication in which case a LOT of things in this case fall down!
Hutch I am sure saw something or someone...for what reason he came forward is another case...a lot of people saw a lot over those few days....like Mrs Maxwell for example
Suzi
'The multitude is always in the wrong'-Dillon Wentworth Earl of Roscommon 1633?-1685
|
jason_connachan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 5:15 am: |
|
c.d, Sir Robert, Ben
With regards to Abberline receiving input from other officers. By the time Abberline interviewed GH he was also receiving help from the City Police. Even though GH was a Met Witness in a Met murder case, im sure the City police would also have taken an interest in GH. |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1101
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 5:20 pm: |
|
Hi AmateurSleuth,
If Hutchinson had admitted to Abberline to having been an accomplice to the Ripper, it should go without saying that the report Abberline made to his superiors would have mentioned this important point. It's also the sort of thing some other police officials would have mentioned somewhere, even if for whatever reason they didn't believe this confession. Well, of course, barring massive coverups, which doesn;t seem to fit what we know.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Ben Holme
Inspector
Username: Benh
Post Number: 163
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 6:31 pm: |
|
Hi Jason,
Other witnesses got a far better sighting of a suspect, not one of whom came forward to give a statement such as Hutchinsons.
I've dealt with this previously:
Hutchinson could not very easily have injected himself into the police enquiries by admitting that he was Lawende's suspect, for example. The timing, when analysed properly, renders the likelihood of this man not being the ripper remote in the extreme, and as such, an admission from Hutchinson would be imprudent.
Similarly, he would ill-advised to admit to the police: "I was the man who physically abused a soon-to-be-murdered Ms. Stride, and yes, it was me who hurled anti-semitic abuse at a passer-by."...for obvious reasons. Inferentially, he cannot admit to being PC Smith's or William Marshall's man because such an admission would inevitably reintroduce Israel Schwarz (which, as I demonstrated, would spell trouble.)
I think GH would know how good a look Lewis had got of him.
Why should that necessarily follow?
From all indications it was not a detailed sighting.
From all indications, Sarah Lewis observed not only the man's face, but his facial expression. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4313
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 7:01 pm: |
|
Jason,
"We do not know exactly what Abberline asked Hutchinson. All we have is a copy of his final signed statement of what GH witnessed that night."
No we don't have just the statement from GH, we actually have a report signed by Abberline, where he comments on the statement and Hutchinson as a witness. If he had had any doubts or if any of the discrepancies were addressed, they would at least have been mentioned in some way it that report, but they are not. One can therefore only conclude that Abberline or the others didn't care about those discrepancies or didn't bothered to check them out. If they DID check them out, it certainly would have been a gross error of conduct not to mention this in the report considering those official internal documents might be read by the superiors, and even people like Anderson and Warren.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on January 08, 2006)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1336
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 7:54 pm: |
|
Jason Connachan:
Hutchinson went to the Commercial Street police station over three days later on a Monday evening. Actually,to be more accurate,almost 3 and 3/4 days after the crime. Thats what I meant,sir...
I'd bet he heard about it the next day somehow, wouldn't you? |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 726
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 8:25 pm: |
|
"I'd bet he heard about it the next day somehow, wouldn't you?"
I can't imagine he hadn't; in fact, I'd say it was virtually impossible that he didn't know within 12 hours of the murder, if not less. Let's not forget he didn't live that far from MJK...
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 727
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 9:24 pm: |
|
Glenn - if the police records are complete, where are the almost ONE THOUSAND dockets created immediately after the Double Event? As Swanson said, 80 people were detained, and the movements of 300 more on that evening looked into. Sounds like a dragnet to me...is there any record of the files it produced?
Nope.
So why do you insist the police records are complete ? Where is Tumblety's file, for instance ?
Do you think the police dragnet just might have been even more intense after MJK ? Or do you think they called everything off except for a cursory search for AM ?
And as far as slagging Aberline goes, look at the man's promotion record. Do you think this is the CV of a cretin ?
ABBERLINE, Frederick George
1863 : Jan 5 - Joins Metropolitan Police Warrant Number 43519. Appointed to N Division (Islington).
1865 : Aug 19 - Promoted to Sergeant. This was very rapid promotion. Oct 30 - Moved to Y Division (Highgate).
1873 : Mar 10 - Promoted to Inspector.
1878 : Apr 8 - Moved to H Division (Whitechapel) and promoted to Local Inspector.
1887 : Feb 26 - Moved to A Division (Whitehall). Nov 19 - Moved to CO Division (Scotland Yard).
1888 : Feb 8 - Promoted to 1st Class Inspector.
1889 : Investigates Cleveland Street Scandal.
1890 : Dec 22 - Promoted to Chief Inspector.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4317
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 9:36 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
I said the official reports intended for the superiors and the Home Office. Not the suspect files. Everybody knows they are gone.
As for Abberline & Co, their conduct on some occasions speaks for itself. But again, they operated in 1888 and we shouldn't expect anything else beyond that.
Abberline's CV is totally uninteresting since we are dealing with a police force in 1888, when many modern police procedures were in thier infancy. Sure he was considered to have a good reputation, but compared to what?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on January 08, 2006)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1342
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 9:51 pm: |
|
Sir Bob:
Abberline acquired 82 citations for his police work,I believe.
Thats a damned good police record compared to anyones.... |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4318
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 9:55 pm: |
|
Yes, Howard. But in 1888, when police work was far from the standards we have today, what does that actually mean? Not much.
And surely that CV didnt have much impact on the results of the Ripper investigation. The whole police force probably tried the best they could but they were inexperienced in matters like these and they they were under alot of pressure and subsequentely made a lot of fatal mistakes. Not surprising, considering we are talking 1888. As I have said now million times, I have seen hundreds of reports and handlings of wtiess statements in both England and Scandinavia from the same time period, and they display the same ignorance for details and they all leave more questions than answers and although there is alot of hard work in there, there is also alot of sloppiness and naivety.
The London police were no better no worse than any other police force at the time.
I just wish people would stop referring to Abberline as some kind of genious and hot shot cop, because he certainly wasn't. He made common mistakes as everyone else at the time and the same can be said for Swanson, Moore, Anderson and even some of the coppers!!!!!
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on January 08, 2006)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 728
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 10:07 pm: |
|
"Abberline acquired 82 citations for his police work,I believe."
"But in 1888, when police work was far from the standards we have today, what does that actually mean? Not much. "
I think this exchange speaks for itself.
I suppose the authorities in 1788 must have been even more complete dumbf*$!s. Thank God we live in the modern day when the average cop is a savant.
You know, in my heart of hearts, I think the Whitechapel police knew more about going door to door and asking questions of neighborhood characters than the LAPD or NYPD do today. They had nothing but shoeleather and they used it.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4319
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 10:11 pm: |
|
Yes, Sir Robert, but who the heck is the better for house to house searches in a serial killer case, if that is the ONLY option you have?
I agree, though. They certainly did know how to do that and I believe they really put in a lot of efforts there. But surely that was not their weak point.
I think also some of the errors can be a result of an enormous work load; they probably interviewed hundreds of suspects brought in by the coppers or suggested by the general public, almost all of them with certainty a waste of time. It must have been terrible and chaotic.
But the problem was that they flunked in handling some important witnesses like Kidney and Hutchinson, and some were never even heard in spite of given much weight in the papers.
Again - the handling of Hutchinson's story would not be acceptable by today's standards, but it was not in any way singular for its time.
The fact that Abberline believed Hutchinson means absolutely nothing and fact remains that his statement as well as Abberline's rather poor and unclarifying report leaves more questions than answers, and that is unsatisfying.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on January 08, 2006)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 3070
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 4:22 am: |
|
I certainly cannot go along with Glenn’s statement that the MET files have been thoroughly examined by ‘famous researchers’ and have nothing more to yield.
Recently I was able to post on this board six letters from these files, only one of which has been mentioned before by these ‘famous researchers’.
Each and every letter was very pertinent to the crimes of the Whitechapel Murderer.
These letters were found by a school teacher setting course work for his students.
Problem is that these ‘famous researchers’ are only interested in a very narrow field of the subject, and therefore do tend to ignore material not relevant to their search. Equally so, the majority of them when they examine the files do so with a particular vested interest in a commercial publication that is designed to make them a lot of money.
We are I am afraid faced with a peculiar situation much like with the translation and publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls when it was being undertaken by Jesuit priests, in that they were hardly going to publish any material that represented a threat to their own beloved beliefs and values… it is only since the scrolls were fully published on the internet that we have seen the true value of them.
Today we see genuine researchers - such as school teachers and students - involving themselves in this subject of Jack; people who are able to look at the subject as an entirety, in a completely objective and unbiased manner.
Therefore I believe it to be entirely possible that major new material concerning this case is still liable to surface from these files, providing that is that they have not been destroyed or stolen by your ‘famous researchers’. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4320
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 7:04 am: |
|
AP,
Again, what I was talking about was the official internal reports to the Home Office.
And I never said that all of the files in there had been fully explored, what I meant was that those that are in there are pretty complete, and that not much is lacking from them, in contrast to what many believe, regardless which things that might surface from them and what has been ignored by previous researchers.
That being said, without doubt occasional documents will turn up now and again - the Littlechild letter is such an example, but again, that is not an internal official report, it is a personal letter and that is not what we are discussing here; we are discussing why some things aren't mentioned in the offical reports to the superiors.
Oh yes, without doubt some documents in the files were nicked at some stage by some researchers during the 1970s.
Besides, I think you are obsessed with striking against authors, accusing them of only thinking of money. The authors who took their time and made the effort to transcript the complete files and put them together in the Ultimate Sourcebook surely achieved something that has been a great aid for several other researchers, especially amateurs. Of course they had some kind of profit in mind as well, but we all have to live, don't we, and they at least did something that has been valuable to others. Not every author has an agenda.
Anyway, back to Hutchinson.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on January 09, 2006)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2810
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 1:20 pm: |
|
One of the key omissions of these "major Researchers"is the mention of the Special Commission of October 22nd 1888.This was one of the biggest shambles in the history of political journalism and consumed the energies of all the Chief Police officers but in particular of James Monro,Robert Anderson and Chief Inspector Littlechild.As the main context and backdrop to the hunt for the Whitechapel murderer this omission IMHO is of major significance.
It may also explain why the murderer was never caught.
Who was appointed "overseer" and adviser to the Ripper Hunt in the weeks of October /November 1888?
Who did Abberline report to and seek advice from in 1888/89?
In terms of time allocated tasks it couldnt have been Robert Anderson,James Monro or Chief Inspector Littlechild.It wouldnt have been physically posible since all their energies must have gone into this matter of major news and national interest that the Special Inquiry was throwing up. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 3071
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 5:38 pm: |
|
Ah Glenn, you are probably right in that I seem to have an obsession directed against authors and their prurient desire to make money from this subject.
However I should make it clear to you that this abiding obsession is only directed at authors whose literary efforts are so transparent and ill-informed that they do this subject irrevocable harm.
On the other hand I have nothing but the deepest respect for those authors who attempt to deal with the facts, and nothing but the facts, and attempt to provide us with basic research material to push the quest forward.
Perhaps I have been tardy in making this distinction, but it is a distinction I would ask you and others to take on board whenever you read my often disparaging remarks about authors on this board.
Similarly when I present information on these boards as ‘new’, I do mean as new on the boards, because of course I do realise that this information has probably been knocking about for years, but mostly in an environment where it cannot be accessed by everyone.
In the past few years I have moved from being a published author to being an outright internet cowboy, with the specific aim of bringing as much information into the public domain as I possibly can, even when it means stealing that information wholesale, and firing my guns at the consequences.
It is a ‘sauce’ of great pleasure to me that there are still very ‘human’ and genuine researchers and writers out there, employed in honest research to better our knowledge of this subject, and that with very little commercial gain.
I salute them and expect lots of brandy. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page