Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[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?

----

[Wickerman]

There is at least one in Ripperologist, Jon, .....

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

You can make as many negative inferences from that as you like, but if you refuse to obtain yourself a copy, I will continue to struggle to take your condemnations seriously.

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

What are you suggesting he did confirm?

I thought I answered that in the sentence you just replied to.

Why didn’t Bowyer mention anything about a “stranger at 3.00am” when he was initially interviewed prior to the inquest, where he gave his evidence?

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.
Whatever he was doing at 1:00 - 3:00 - or 5:00 in the morning was irrelevant, until Hutchinson came forward.
Now, if he saw someone in the court at 3:00 am, it mattered.