The Red Handkerchief...

[Sally]

Other courts are of no concern

See, just posting that truly does demonstrate that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

The reason we know the Eddowes inquest papers are the originals is written all over them, almost, on every page.

Ditto

The Kelly inquest record may be debatable.

And again.

Oh dear.

As usual, you are doggedly persisting with your ill-informed arguments in the face of indisuptable facts supplied by others far better versed in these matters than you evidently are; digging yourself into a bigger hole every time you respond with bluster and twaddle.

You have though, if Ben is paying attention, given the reason why the press coverage of these inquests are more complete. Not, as has been suggested, because the press have invented testimony, but because the press used shorthand, as opposed to Hodgkinson at the Kelly inquest, and Shelton, at the Eddowes inquest, who both applied longhand.

Therefore, only capturing the most relevant details and in consequence produce a lesser document.

Sigh.

No Jon.

The inquest papers do not fulfill the same purpose as a press report, obviously. The inquest papers are required to provide a verbatim account of the court proceedings because they are official, legal documents. A press report is required to do no such thing because it is no such thing – it is written to inform but also to entertain; the content is enitrely at the whim of the reporter – there is nothing to prevent embellishment.

Whether members of the press used shorthand – and undoubtedly many of them did – is irrelevant. What is wholly relevant, on the other hand, is that the court reporters – who were of course not members of the press – certainly used shorthand. There is is.

Just out of interest, do you think that Hutchinson's statement was originally taken down in shorthand?

It wasn't.

If not, why not?

Quite apart from anything else, the context is completely different Jon. Shorhand was used in situations that required accurate transcription of real time speech – during court proceedings and in other contexts where accuracy at speed was essential. Why do you think a police interview would require shorthand? It would be entirely counterintuitive. The purpose of the interview, obviously, was to ascertain the facts, as a clear and indisputable priority; not to record what the witness sad as quickly as possible.

It isn't difficult to understand.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

...I’ve merely been discussing the treatment of the statement, and no, it is not just a “guilty” Hutchinson who might have had reason to provide inadequate explanations for both his failure to come forward earlier and his 45-minute vigil in Dorset Street. Even in the very unlikely event that he told the truth about the Astrakhan episode, he could still been “motivated” into giving evasive answers for other reasons, such as wanting to conceal a desire to sleep with Kelly. The point being that irrespective of Hutchinson’s possible motivation for giving insufficient explanations, the police could ill-afford to reject the entire account – and risk the almighty flak that went with it – because of them.

Okay, Ben, so an innocent Hutch might also have had reason to give evasive answers to Abberline about his own movements and motivations, but you are still presuming his answers were evasive, and there is no evidence for that. How could Abberline have formed an opinion on the truthfulness of the statement itself on that basis? It simply makes no sense.

Abberline was very unlikely to withhold details from his bosses that supported his opinion that the statement was true, and if Hutchinson had provided satisfactory excuses for what we now consider grey areas, they would have warranted obvious inclusion in the report.

I disagree entirely. At the time, Abberline's priority was to satisfy himself that this was a lead worth following up, and after interrogating Hutch he felt able to form that opinion. He gives no explanation why he believed Hutch's statement, but a series of unhelpful and unlikely "dunnos" and "can't remembers" under his interrogation, concerning Hutch's own movements, would hardly have done the trick. On the other hand, if Hutch gave clear, detailed explanations to those questions, in line with his clear and detailed witness account, it would make perfect sense of Abberline's brief report, concentrating on the latter after stating his opinion that it was truthful.

Had Abberline only got vague "don’t knows" and "can't remembers", as you suggest, I have no doubt he would have been more sceptical, but not to the point where he could have afforded to (in your words) 'reject the entire account and not circulate the description'. The circumstances would still have warranted a report and further investigation, but judging the truthfulness of the account and expressing an opinion on it would have been problematic to say the least. After the likes of Packer and Violenia, Abberline could easily have erred on the side of caution by not expressing that opinion if there was as little to justify it as you suggest.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The delay in his coming forward is at best strange, and at worst suspicious. Remember, though, that Abberline would have questioned him closely on the issue and appeared to have been satisfied with Hutchinson's explanation. The point I was trying to make is that investigators would never have jettisoned a crucially important witness on the basis of the witness's failure to come forward as soon as he might have done. Lawende is a perfect example of such. This being the case, the 'late arrival' explanation for Hutchinson's diminution was merely window dressing. There must have been far more compelling reasons behind the police decision to sideline him.

Hi Garry,

But whose 'window dressing'? The Echo gave the clear impression that Hutch's late arrival had caused him to go from a very important witness to a much less important one. I have always said that makes no sense and cannot be right, for the reasons you give above. His statement would not have been considered truthful and important in the first place if coming forward late (or not at all, as in Lawende's case) was enough to diminish it in any way at all. Therefore this 'window dressing' was either guesswork by the Echo or duff information given them by the police. Certainly, if all the police told them was all the newspaper printed, it was misleading at best and made the police look foolish in the process.

Hi Garry,

I ought to have clarified that I don't believe for a moment that Hutchinson's three-day "delay" in coming forward was the only reason for his account receiving a "very reduced importance", and not do I doubt that the "later investigations" alluded to in the Echo uncovered additional reasons for doubting his credibility. The only reason I've continued to stress the "late appearance" angle to Jon and chums is to illustrate the fact that whatever circumstances were ultimately responsible for Hutchinson's statement being "considerably discounted", they related directly to his credibility…

Nice try, Ben. But as Garry explained, the delay itself was no reason at all for a reduction in importance, and was not necessarily a credibility problem. You can insist until you are blue in the face that something must have happened to cast serious doubt on Hutch's credibility, and it may have done. But if it did, the police never suggested as much to the Echo, or they would not have got the wrong end of the stick about Hutch's lateness causing this alleged police about-turn. If the 'later investigations' merely referred to the ongoing search for Blotchy, the Echo may have misconstrued this for a significant lessening of interest in Hutch's suspect. After all, unless it was the police who misled them about the lateness being the issue, they got that one wrong by guessing, so why not the rest of it? In fact, if you take away the lateness red herring, as Garry advised, you have nothing left that relates 'directly' or otherwise to Hutch's personal credibility. You may both be relying on him saying or doing something on his walkabout to cast doubt on his story, when it may have been a simple case of the police trying to follow more than one lead, all of which would have gone cold relatively quickly if nobody matching the descriptions could be found and no new information was forthcoming.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Ben,

Philip Sugden in his book, seemed to believe Hutcinson's story. This is an interesting quote, regarding Hutchinson's decision to go the press: "We cannot tell because the police records have almost all been lost. But the CID view at the time seems to have been that it blighted Abberline's efforts to trace the suspect alerting him to the hunt and perhaps encouraging him to change his appearance." (Sugden, 2002) Could it therefore be possible that the police lost confidence in him because, by going to the press, they believed that he had undermined their efforts to find the suspect, and assumed that the alerted suspect would either of fled the locality or radically changed his appearance? This annoyance towards Hutchinson may have been compounded if they had specifically asked him not to go to the press.

It's a great point, John. As Sugden suggests, the police would not have wanted the killer to read all about who they were or were not trying to track down. If they were furious with Hutch for spilling the beans they might well have wanted the press to think it was all a flash in the pan, while quietly carrying on their enquiries.

Love,

Caz
X

[Garry Wroe]

Offering a statement, is not an interview. He offered himself, he was not called in.

Interview: 'Discuss formally with (somebody) for the purpose of an evaluation.' (Wordweb.)

This is the stuff of pure desperation. It’s right up there with the Gallagher/Keyler nonsense of yesteryear.

Keep it coming, Jon. Your public expects.

[Wickerman]

This silly nonsense regarding Hutchinson's self-confessed presence at Millers Court -

They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not.

According to him, Kelly and Astrakhan went up the Court; he went to the Court.

They entered, he didn't. The distinction is perfectly clear.

Hutchinson "went to the court", like you "went to the Mall".
Or maybe you do just stand outside, I wouldn't know.

Nevertheless, Harry agreed, "I went to the court" is ambiguous (of course it is), Harry and I do not agree on much but the meaning of this phrase in isolation is indisputable.

What makes it unambiguous is the press version where it is explained what was meant.

[Sally]

Interrogate

Interrogate [imp & p.p.] INTERROGATED; p. pr. & vb, n. INTERROGATING] [Lat. Interrogare, interrogatum. from iinter, between, and rogare, to ask; To question formally; to examine by asking questions; as, to interrogate a witness.

Syn, - To question; inquire; ask. See QUESTION.

Webster's Complete Dictionary of the English Language, London, George Bell & Sons 1886.

[Sally]

Hutchinson "went to the court", like you "went to the Mall".
Or maybe you do just stand outside, I wouldn't know.

Nevertheless, Harry agreed, "I went to the court" is ambiguous (of course it is), Harry and I do not agree on much but the meaning of this phrase in isolation is indisputable.

What makes it unambiguous is the press version where it is explained what was meant.

In the context of Hutchinson's witness statement Jon, the statement is evidently not ambiguous - you are in denial

Surely you have better uses for your time than this?

[Wickerman]

As usual, you are doggedly persisting with your ill-informed arguments in the face of indisuptable facts supplied by others far better versed in these matters than you evidently are; digging yourself into a bigger hole every time you respond with bluster and twaddle.

Indisputable facts?
If you had truly "seen 'em", you wouldn't be making this ridiculous stand. The evidence that the Eddowes inquest papers are original is written all over them. There is no dispute over this.
There were no court reporters in these inquests. The larger criminal courts, yes, Old Bailey - certainly, but the local Coroner's inquest - No!
The notes were taken by the Coroner's Officer, among his other duties.
I am not talking about the use of shorthand in the nationwide criminal court system.

The inquest papers do not fulfill the same purpose as a press report, obviously. The inquest papers are required to provide a verbatim account of the court proceedings because they are official, legal documents. A press report is required to do no such thing because it is no such thing – it is written to inform but also to entertain; the content is enitrely at the whim of the reporter – there is nothing to prevent embellishment.

Most of the principal dailies were represented at the inquest, on the whole their coverage is quite consistent. Embellishments have never been identified to date, and what possible reason would they have to stand out as the only newspaper who inserted some controversial verbiage which results in them being refused admittance in future inquests?
No reporter is going to risk being refused entry, his paper will have no use for him anymore. If he can't do his job right, he is out.

Quite apart from anything else, the context is completely different Jon. Shorhand was used in situations that required accurate transcription of real time speech – during court proceedings and in other contexts where accuracy at speed was essential. Why do you think a police interview would require shorthand?

I don't think it did, I asked you, "how do you know it wasn't?"
It is obvious, I just wondered if you could see why.
Never mind - it doesn't matter.

It would be entirely counterintuitive. The purpose of the interview, obviously, was to ascertain the facts, as a clear and indisputable priority; not to record what the witness sad as quickly as possible.

It isn't difficult to understand.

Indeed, which makes me wonder why Ben couldn't imagine Badham having the time to write Hutchinson's interrogation down. That, is what started this off to begin with.
Which is why I mentioned the Eddowes inquest papers, I wasn't talking about the nationwide court system.

[Wickerman]

In the context of Hutchinson's witness statement Jon, the statement is evidently not ambiguous - you are in denial

Surely you have better uses for your time than this?

Oh, for sure, but it wasn't me who started this nonsense off.

The difference between what he told police, and what he told the press, is being used to suggest Hutch changed his story.
Rather infantile nonsense, I know, but there it is.

[Wickerman]

Interview: 'Discuss formally with (somebody) for the purpose of an evaluation.' (Wordweb.)

This is the stuff of pure desperation. It’s right up there with the Gallagher/Keyler nonsense of yesteryear.

Keep it coming, Jon. Your public expects.

You can walk in off the street and offer a voluntary statement, or

You can be brought in for questioning, or an interview, or an interrogation.
These three certainly involve questioning.

It's the single voluntary statement that I am concerned with, not the meaning of "interview".
Today, the police use "interview" to cover interrogations, in their never ending attempt to pacify everyone. Just like every statement given today is deemed voluntary, no matter how it was obtained....such is life.

[Wickerman]

Yes police do state 'Start at the beginning',because so many witnesses do not,and they then have to be guided by the interviewer.We do not know at which point Hutchinson started.You say it was like a confession,in his own words,no prompting,no distractions,no questions.From beginning to end,in chronological order.I doubt that very much,but if that was the case,when was the written version taken. Writing in longhand,as Badham did,he could not have kept pace with a confessional verbal account as you describe.

Harry.
You might want to re-read what you wrote above, and then read through this prime example of what I am talking about.

http://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/confessn.htm

Peter Sutcliffe sat down with Det. Sgt. Smith and Det. Insp. Boyle, who took his statement themselves.
Sutcliffe gave a chronological account of 12 murders covering 33 pages, for almost 16 hours.

At no point during these 16 hours did Smith or Boyle ask Sutcliffe any questions, they wanted a pure statement, in HIS own words, in HIS own time.
No prompting, no distractions, no questions.

This is how it is done.

Once they had the statement, then, the questions began - the interrogation followed.

[harry]

Jon,
Yes,the meaning is ambiguous,but it depends on the circumstances,and in this case it is clear that Hutchinson was referring to a series of activity,that ended with him being at,but not in the court.

You believe that is what happened with Sutcliffe? That there was no initial questioning.No breaks in the sixteen hours.No distractions.He was an accused,not a witness.His confession came later,not at the beginning.What he had been accused of was known.He would have been cautioned.Entirely different set of circumstances.

So I do not need to reread,to understand that Hutchinson,was ,in the words of Aberline,interrogated,and you should understand by now that means questions and answers.

[caz]

I'm inclined to think that there was no proof that Hutchinson actually lied but that lack of progress simply meant that the investigation into Kelly's murder eventually just ground to a halt.

I agree, John. I suspect it really was as simple as that.

It takes a whole lot of speculation, based on very little information confirmed by official police sources, to conclude that they gave up on Hutch and his suspect, and would not have revisited his statement quick smart if anyone resembling Astrakhan Man had materialised and been unable to account for his movements on one or more murder night.

Abberline did not need to judge that statement truthful, and would have looked a right twit to do so, if his colleagues or superiors at the time would have found it so hellishly unlikely that anyone of that description could exist, or would have chosen to kill prossies in the East End dressed like a cheap Del Boy or Joey Essex - very possibly from the Old Clothes Market, Petticoat Lane. This was not toff gear.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Quite often the 'solutions' to the evident problems with Hutchinson's account are so preposterous as to be vaguely amusing - but the real problem is of course that it does distract from the real issues, as you say. I also think that the rather obsessive attempts of a vocal minority to 'exonerate' Hutchinson are bound to discourage any new debate. Perhaps that's the intention.

You must be joking, Sally. There would be no debate at all if the opponents to this suspect theory disappeared overnight - just a bit of embarrassing back-slapping followed by a relieved silence I'd imagine. Nobody is preventing anyone from introducing something 'new' to the debate, but I'm not sure what that could possibly consist of.

By the way, one person's 'evident problems' with Hutchinson are another person's 'conjured up problems', which were not necessarily seen as problems at all by those in the thick of the investigation.

Love,

Caz
X