Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Ben]

No problem about the delay, Jon. I assumed you’d moved onto other topics. I hope you managed to resolve the connection issue.

My criticism was that no capable researcher has endorsed the theory of Mr Senise.

But that’s such an obviously unfair and irrational criticism, given how subjective an entity “researcher capability” is. A “capable researcher” in your mind is presumably one who agrees with the conclusions you jumped to years ago regarding Hutchinson. We can all play that fun game:

“All those who disagree with my opinion on Hutchinson’s credibility are toff-fanciers who are stuck in the dark ages of ripper studies...

...and are titillated by the idea of an exotic suspect...

...and smell of wee.”

No, that’s not my actual stance on my debating opponents as I’m sure you appreciate, but it’s a pretty accurate satirisation of your own logic for dismissing Senise’s identification.

The author did not set out to “prove” that Aussie George was the 1888 informant, any more than he sought to prove that Hutchinson was the murderer; he simply offered a hypothesis. If you wish to challenge that hypothesis, you first need to familiarise yourself with it, and I’m afraid that usually involves reading the book in which it is presented.

Clearly, it has worked for me so far.

You mean your strategy of never reading a single ripper book until you’ve had it on the good authority of a “capable researcher” that the author in question has definitely solved the Jack the Ripper mystery? Yep, it’s clearly working wonders for you, Jon.

Rather than persistently objecting you really need to attend a court to understand the role of the witness.

I have attended a court, and nothing even remotely resembling what you describe occurred on my watch, nor has it happened in any court in history, or anywhere on this planet, ever, for that matter.

Never have I encountered a theory so dependent on irrational collective stupidity on the part of so many. Stupid Abberline (and the rest of the police, inferentially) for failing to ask Bowyer if he had seen anyone suspicious on the night in question, stupid coroner for not bothering to ask either, and stupid Bowyer for not thinking to volunteer such obviously critical information.

But brilliant, astute, eagle-eyed journo for doing what the authorities failed so inexplicably to do and finally asking Bowyer just the right question - “did you see anyone suspicious” - and finally eliciting the information about a stranger in the court at 3.00am.

Witnesses did not provide a continuous narrative of their life leading up to the murder.
They are there to answer specific questions.

Yeah. Like “did you see any suspicious persons?”, which is an ever-so-slightly important question to ask in the context of an unsolved brutal murder and an uncaught serial killer. No “narrative of their life” required; just an answer to that utterly pertinent question.

As for what Abberline may have asked, you seem to forget this court was a nest of prostitutes, strange men coming and going was quite comon.
We have Prater's comment in evidence of this:

"It was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased.”

Yes, and there was good reason to suspect that one of them could have been the killer, which was why particular attention was paid to any stranger soliciting prostitutes in that court, especially considering that one of those prostitutes became the most brutalised murder victim in London’s history.

There was no belief on the Friday that Kelly had been killed over night, she was seen alive in the late morning

The inquest didn’t happen on Friday; it happened on Monday, three days later, by which time it was understood that Kelly was probably murdered in the early morning, in common with previous victims. That afforded the police ample time to appreciate the significance of any sighting of a stranger reported to have occurred at that pivotal time, and quiz their assembled witnesses accordingly.

How many witnesses were asked if they saw Kelly with a man in the court around midnight? - None! (re: Cox's statement)

How do you know?

You’re the one constantly reminding us that witnesses were interrogated in “question and answer” format. What makes you think anything different occurred with the Millers Court witnesses? How do you know that Lewis and Cox didn’t mention Wideawake and Blotchy (respectively) in response to the specific question “did you see any strange men that night?”. Moreover, how do you know that the absence of any suspicious men from Bowyer’s evidence wasn’t attributable to a negative response to precisely the same question? “Did you see anyone?” “No.”

You’re forever waxing lyrical about proper interrogation techniques, but you don’t apply your spiel with any sort of consistency. It’s one rule for Hutchinson (“everything he said was the result of a Q&A session”) but quite another for the inquest attendees when they were questioned by police (“they gave a continuous narrative without being interrupted by police questions”). I’m obviously paraphrasing here, but I think it captures the essence of your inconsistency.

They returned to Millers court (as reported on the 14th), and re-interviewed the tenants with a particular time in mind.

Nonsense.

They had a “particular time in mind” well in advance of the inquest - the one inferred from the Lewis/Prater-reported cry of “murder”, which any sighting of a 3.00am stranger would have been extremely relevant to, and yet Bowyer mentioned nothing of such a sighting. I wonder why?

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Aberline had as much information to work on as we have.It is there in his statement of interview

Absolutely right, Harry.

But this is usually the bit where we get reminded, for some strange reason, about Abberline’s knowledge of the “local characters”, as though it was relevant to anything.

I look forward to it being explained to us!

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Today a witness statement can be provided in many ways....

C'mon Harry, we're not talking about today.

In 1888 the choices were not so numerous.A written or verbal witness statement was the norm,provided of course by the witness .In the case of Hutchinson,it is obvious he came to the police station and made a verbal statement.There would have been no need for Badham to provide a separate witten account,had it been otherwise.

Exactly, so why the contention?

What is contained in that written statement is claims made by Hutchinson,and placed on paper by Badham.In that situation,the only questions Badham need ask,is to clear items of Ambiguity.Any suggestion of Badham influencing the statement by asking questions,would render the statement null and void,so it is not done,Questions are normally left until the narrative has been given.Equally,a written statemen produced by a witness,is only questioned on items of ambiguity.Only in a court is the line of questioning claimed by you undertaken.

Like the name of the pub, a revision made after the statement was completed.
I don't disagree with what you say, but each witness is different. Some have to be guided as in my example, while some are sufficiently composed to give a sequential & detailed statement all by themselves.
What an officer cannot do is make suggestions, the whole statement must be in the witnesses own words.

You now say Jon,you do not understand the Q andA format.Strange,as you have often referred to it.

I was not sure what you meant by "Q & A".

Aberline had as much information to work on as we have.It is there in his statement of interview.He could just as easily have used the word interviewed Hutchinson.He was not rushed in his choice of words,but he used the word interrogated.You interview a witness,you interrogate a suspect. Like it or not.

Abberline also had the subsequent information derived from the interrogation, which we do not have.

[Wickerman]

Ripperologist Jon! The online publication dedicated to research into the Whitechapel murders.

Hello Ben.
Sorry for the delay, we've been losing service over the past week, changing service providers (internet/TV/phone) and all the aggravation that entails.

So yes, it appears I read "a ripperologist" rather than your "the Ripperologist", quite the faux pas - no excuse for that.

It looks like you are referring to the review in issue 161, written by Paul Begg or David Green.
The review does not address the point I was making.
I have not criticized the quality of research, nor whether the book should be recommended reading. My criticism was that no capable researcher has endorsed the theory of Mr Senise.
That remains a matter of fact.

Which is a patently ludicrous position to adopt. Presumably then you won’t buy any suspect book unless you’ve read online beforehand that the author has “established the identity” of the killer?!

Clearly, it has worked for me so far.
If an author ever does manage to make the connection, it will not be a secret.

Abberline would have asked about anything that might impact on the question of Mary Kelly’s murderer,...

No Ben, not at all.
Rather than persistently objecting you really need to attend a court to understand the role of the witness.
You have also misunderstood the role of Sarah Lewis and the fact she also faced a barrage of questions, and only responded to questions. Witnesses did not provide a continuous narrative of their life leading up to the murder.
They are there to answer specific questions.

As for what Abberline may have asked, you seem to forget this court was a nest of prostitutes, strange men coming and going was quite comon.
We have Prater's comment in evidence of this:

"It was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased."

The importance of Bowyer's sighting was not that he saw a man in the court at any time - which one should he tell the officer about?
There was no belief on the Friday that Kelly had been killed over night, she was seen alive in the late morning.

How many witnesses were asked if they saw Kelly with a man in the court around midnight? - None! (re: Cox's statement).
So you have no basis on which to assert Bowyer would have been asked if he saw a strange man in the court over night. He wasn't asked to confirm Cox's sighting either.

The importance of the time came to the surface due to Hutchinson, because of his statement the police now had a time to look for a suspect.
They returned to Millers court (as reported on the 14th), and re-interviewed the tenants with a particular time in mind. This could be when Bowyer mentioned seeing a man about that time (3:00) in the court.

[harry]

That's the only way you can prepare a statement,like it or not.Ridiculous.
Today a witness statement can be provided in many ways.It can be sent by ordinary mail,it can be sent by email,it can be faxed,it can be phoned in,and it can be given verbally to a person authorized to receive it,and in none of these cases can a witness be forced,by a police officer,to answer questions on the content.Nor can a police officer alter that statement by additions or subtractions,except with the permission of the sender,who is under no obligation to do so. That's today,like it or not.

In 1888 the choices were not so numerous.A written or verbal witness statement was the norm,provided of course by the witness .In the case of Hutchinson,it is obvious he came to the police station and made a verbal statement.There would have been no need for Badham to provide a separate witten account,had it been otherwise.

What is contained in that written statement is claims made by Hutchinson,and placed on paper by Badham.In that situation,the only questions Badham need ask,is to clear items of Ambiguity.Any suggestion of Badham influencing the statement by asking questions,would render the statement null and void,so it is not done,Questions are normally left until the narrative has been given.Equally,a written statemen produced by a witness,is only questioned on items of ambiguity.Only in a court is the line of questioning claimed by you undertaken.

You now say Jon,you do not understand the Q andA format.Strange,as you have often referred to it.

Aberline had as much information to work on as we have.It is there in his statement of interview.He could just as easily have used the word interviewed Hutchinson.He was not rushed in his choice of words,but he used the word interrogated.You interview a witness,you interrogate a suspect. Like it or not.

[Michael W Richards]

All that is know for certain is that Hutch came in and gave a statement, debating what else happened is all well and good...as long as you realize there is no existing record of what may or may not have transpired between investigator and witness beyond taking a statement down. Hutch asked for Abberline here....Abberline didnt inject himself into this interview upon hearing someone was in the station with information about Kellys murder. Which of course the statement doesnt provide anyway...it describes brief events that he claims he saw involving Mary and an unidentified older man. Merely a person of interest...as Isreals BSM man would be, and Kates Sailor Man. There was no smoking gun witness statement here. Yet Abberline sticks his neck out again..like he did with Schwartz, insisting he believed the tale(s).

Neither man had their statements cross examined in court, in fact.. neither man, as it turns out, is a part of either Inquest.

So was their information suppressed...or in short time, found to be "discredited"? Was Abberline a little too willing to buy anything that looked like a legitimate clue?

[Wickerman]

A prepared statement is pre-written.Nonsense.

That's the only way you can prepare a statement, like it or not.

Some are,but in the case of Hutchinson it is clear that he went to the police station volluntarily and gave a verbal account,.....

Ah, so "some are", so it was not nonsense then, glad we have that cleared up.

.....and why I say it was a prepared statement is because he was reciting from memory,events that had happened three day's previous,and is the reason he came forward.

Ah, "reciting from memory"?, and what device would you employ to recall events from three days past?
Or, do you believe every witness who is interviewed days after an event offers a "prepared statement" then?

How could any officer put questions,untill they had heard what Hutchinson had to report,and those questions,in the main, would have referred to matters of ambiguity

The kind of questions I am talking about are what an officer needs to make the statement flow smoothly.
Just humor me in this for a minute....

Badham: Ok, Mr Hutchinson, in your own words tell me what happened.
G.H.: On Friday morning I came up Commercial street......
Badham: What part of Commercial street?
G.H.: I was passing Thrawl street, on my way to Flower & Dean and I saw Mary Kelly....
Badham: What time was this?
G.H.: Almost 2 o'clock.
So Badham writes....About 2 am 9th I was coming by Thrawl Street, Commercial Street, and saw just before I got to Flower and Dean Street....

This is what I mean by Badham asking questions for clarity.
I'm not sure what you mean by a Q-A, Q-A, format.

What kind of interview was conducted by Aberline is unknown,what we have is a statement of interview written by Aberline in which the word interrogated is used,and being as Aberline was a senior experienced officer,it is expected that he used the word in it's proper meaning,and was,in consequenc,treating Hutchinson as a suspect.

"Interrogation" in this context can easily mean he questioned him intently, it doesn't automatically mean G.H. was viewed as a suspect. The police should need something more than his own statement to cast him as a suspect.
To be a suspect I would hope they had evidence of some sort. As it was too early for them to have obtained any, then no, G.H. was not suspected of anything at this point.
However, because of the obvious importance of this man's statement his story needed to be thoroughly addressed in the smallest detail (ie; "interrogate") until Abberline was satisfied the witness was being truthful.

[harry]

A prepared statement is pre-written.Nonsense.
Some are,but in the case of Hutchinson it is clear that he went to the police station volluntarily and gave a verbal account,and why I say it was a prepared statement is because he was reciting from memory,events that had happened three day's previous,and is the reason he came forward.How could any officer put questions,untill they had heard what Hutchinson had to report,and those questions,in the main, would have referred to matters of ambiguity

You show me Jon,any example of a witness statement,where a witness comes forward volluntarily, that has the format, Q-A,Q-A,Q-A, etc. It doesn't work that way,but a suspect interogation does.

What kind of interview was conducted by Aberline is unknown,what we have is a statement of interview written by Aberline in which the word interrogated is used,and being as Aberline was a senior experienced officer,it is expected that he used the word in it's proper meaning,and was,in consequenc,treating Hutchinson as a suspect.

[Wickerman]

Agreed Trevor.
A "prepared statement" is pre-written which was not the case here.

I also think Harry is confusing the roles of Badham & Abberline.
Badham only asks questions for clarity, he is taking a statement not creating one. Whereas Abberline will ask searching questions in depth, based on what was written in the statement, now he is being interrogated.

[Trevor Marriott]

One cannot question a person about a happening,untill that person has given details of a happening.In the case of Hutchinson,he Hutchinson,came to the police station with a prepared statement,and when he had given details,it was up to the officer present to decide what details needed clarification,such as those of an ambiguous nature.Too much interuption,or too many questions on the part of the listener,might lead to a suggestion the witness was being led or harrassed.So a good interviewerr asks as few questions and intrupts as little aspossible.
.

Where does it state that Hutchinson went with a prepared statement ?

A good interviewer will ask as many question as is needed to ascertain as much information as is possible from a witness.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ben]

I was talking about the opinions of researchers, accomplished researchers. I doubt a Ripperologist is an accomplished position.

Ripperologist Jon! The online publication dedicated to research into the Whitechapel murders. I can’t recall off-hand if the review was written by Paul Begg or Gareth Williams, but it was one or the other, and both strike me as “accomplished researchers”. The latter praises it highly despite rejecting the proposed identification.

If I read that he has established the identity, then I will buy the book. Otherwise, it is all conjecture

Which is a patently ludicrous position to adopt. Presumably then you won’t buy any suspect book unless you’ve read online beforehand that the author has “established the identity” of the killer?!

That is easy to answer. Bowyer was not asked. His statement begins with "at 10:45", Abberline was only interested in Bowyer's account of how & when he found the body

This is nonsense.

Abberline would have asked about anything that might impact on the question of Mary Kelly’s murderer, and a sighting of a stranger in the court at 3.00am would certainly have qualified as such (because Abberline was so experienced and thorough, like he was with Hutchinson, remember?). Similarly, Bowyer would not have required any prompting to provide such an obviously crucial piece of evidence.

The reason Bowyer mentioned nothing about a 3.00am stranger in either his police statement or inquest evidence is quite simple; he never saw one.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Have we had confirmation that Sue Iremonger was supplied with the correct version of the wedding certificate, Ben?

We have indeed, Gareth. We have Sue Iremonger’s presentation at the WADE conference in 1993, in which she made very clear that she examined the original documents.

I intend to say it again and again whenever the subject comes up, considering how absurd the proposed alternative - that she accidentally studied a modern registrar’s handwriting on a modern photocopied piece of paper(!) - continues to be.

All the best,
Ben

[harry]

One cannot question a person about a happening,untill that person has given details of a happening.In the case of Hutchinson,he Hutchinson,came to the police station with a prepared statement,and when he had given details,it was up to the officer present to decide what details needed clarification,such as those of an ambiguous nature.Too much interuption,or too many questions on the part of the listener,might lead to a suggestion the witness was being led or harrassed.So a good interviewerr asks as few questions and intrupts as little aspossible.

We do not know what Badham's opinion was,but because Aberline was sent for,and after Badham had briefed Aberline,an interrogation was conducted,suggesting to me,that neither Badham nor Aberline was at first convinced Hutchinson was telling the truth.Even afterwards,the only conclusion came to was an opinion of honesty.

[Sam Flynn]

Which is contrast to the opinion of an experienced professional document examiner who studied the original signatures

Have we had confirmation that Sue Iremonger was supplied with the correct version of the wedding certificate, Ben? If not, then we really must stop saying that she studied the original signatures.

[Varqm]

Spot on, Jon. A good interviewer will ask many questions before writing a single word and will continue to ask questions until the witness's account is clear in his or her mind. Only then will a formal statement be taken.

Badham certainly questioned Hutchinson and Abberline did likewise. Both were experienced detectives and knew the local area and many of its villains. Abberline even used the word "interrogated" which is not suggestive of a couple of thicko's naively taking a local chancer's word at face value. Given his experience and local knowledge, I place a great weight on Abberline's opinion that the statement was true (ie an honest account). If your starting position is that Hutchinson killed MJK then of course you dismiss his witness statement as bogus (ditto Lechmere).

If Abberline already knew the truth when stating " I am of opinion his statement is true" why did he then have to have Hutch identify the victim at the Shoreditch mortuary.What's the point ,he already knew the truth,he already interrogated the witness/stranger?

----