The Red Handkerchief...

[caz]

The Late George Hutchinson

It was not public “knowledge” that both descriptions came from the same source. It was an assumption that could only be confirmed by the police. And the Commercial Street visit was not “only” regarding this detail; they also extracted the information that Hutchinson’s account had been “considerably discounted” because it had not been made at the inquest and in the proper manner.

Hi Ben,

You appear to disagree with Garry on this point. Or maybe you missed his two very coherent and logical posts on the matter? He said it was only common sense that Hutch's delay in coming forward would not have been a reason for the police to discount his statement, as can be seen from the example of Lawende, who didn't come forward at all, but was found as a result of police enquiries. Garry described the 'late arrival' explanation, as printed in the Echo, as a 'red herring' and 'window dressing', in the absence of any official - and credible - explanation for this alleged lessening of interest in Hutch's suspect.

Either the police fobbed the Echo off with this 'convenient' (Garry's word) but bogus and illogical reason, and they fell for it, or they were left to guess, based on what they already knew, eg a) the police were still interested in Cox's suspect, who was at the crime scene two hours before Hutch's suspect, therefore b) they must be having serious second thoughts about the latter's account, and all the Echo could put it down to was that Cox had attended the inquest and Hutch had not.

Where I depart from Garry is when he goes on to say that Hutch may have invented the Sunday policeman during his walkabout and been caught out in a blatant lie, resulting in his story being: 'subjected to a rapid and rigorous reassessment'.

I submit that had this happened, his story would not merely have suffered a reduction in importance, and he would not just have 'fallen from grace', but suffered a rapid rise to suspect status himself.

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

Hi Ben,

You appear to disagree with Garry on this point. Or maybe you missed his two very coherent and logical posts on the matter? He said it was only common sense that Hutch's delay in coming forward would not have been a reason for the police to discount his statement, as can be seen from the example of Lawende, who didn't come forward at all, but was found as a result of police enquiries. Garry described the 'late arrival' explanation, as printed in the Echo, as a 'red herring' and 'window dressing', in the absence of any official - and credible - explanation for this alleged lessening of interest in Hutch's suspect.

Either the police fobbed the Echo off with this 'convenient' (Garry's word) but bogus and illogical reason, and they fell for it, or they were left to guess, based on what they already knew, eg a) the police were still interested in Cox's suspect, who was at the crime scene two hours before Hutch's suspect, therefore b) they must be having serious second thoughts about the latter's account, and all the Echo could put it down to was that Cox had attended the inquest and Hutch had not.

Where I depart from Garry is when he goes on to say that Hutch may have invented the Sunday policeman during his walkabout and been caught out in a blatant lie, resulting in his story being: 'subjected to a rapid and rigorous reassessment'.

I submit that had this happened, his story would not merely have suffered a reduction in importance, and he would not just have 'fallen from grace', but suffered a rapid rise to suspect status himself.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I agree. And surely if Hutchinson was caught out in a blatant lie he would, at the very least, been charged with wasting police time and possibly attempting to pervert the course of justice.

[caz]

Actually, I see a couple of problems with Hutch inventing the policeman during his walkabout to further explain his delay in coming forward. Firstly, the idea is that he could claim he had assumed the policeman would pass on his information and that would be the end of it. But then he'd have been asked why he came forward at all in that case. How likely is it that he could have claimed to know everything that went on at the inquest, and had come forward immediately afterwards because his information had not come out?

Secondly, would he have invented this policeman as his reason for not coming forward sooner if he had previously given Abberline a different excuse, which he had apparently accepted? And would he feasibly have been dismissed as a mere time-waster under such circumstances?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I agree. And surely if Hutchinson was caught out in a blatant lie he would, at the very least, been charged with wasting police time and possibly attempting to pervert the course of justice.

One would have thought so, John. I doubt Abberline would have been remotely amused, considering his workload at the time. I wonder how many Packers and Violenias it would have taken before he snapped - particularly as he had stuck his neck out this time and initially believed Hutch was being truthful.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sally]

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 Coroner's Court is a Court of Law, Jon - same rules apply.

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.

That's silly, Jon. There was no legal requirement on the Press to report verbatim from a court hearing - and it's evident that they didn't.

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.

You didn't - you asked me if I thought it had been copied from shorthand, I don't. Have you actually seen it? I wouldn't put my faith in transcriptions if I were you.

By the way, how's your understanding of the term 'Interrogate' coming along?

[Garry Wroe]

But whose 'window dressing'?

Beyond question, Caz, police kept an extremely tight lid on the Hutchinson situation. Since an overwhelming majority of journalists seem to have been unaware of later developments it would appear that the Echo must have derived its information from someone in the know – though its informant need not necessarily have been a policeman. Major Smith, for example, suspected a member of the clerical staff when news of the Lusk kidney was leaked to the press. The likelihood to my mind, however, is that the ‘insider’ was a senior detective.

So the ‘window dressing’ may have been the product of a police determination not to reveal to the press what was considered to have been sensitive case-related information. Equally, it might well have been a journalistic ploy which enabled a newspaper to run the diminution story whilst at the same time protecting an inside source.

Or, likelier still, a combination of the two.

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.

First of all, Caz, we need to evaluate the probity of the story itself. Once we do there remains no realistic justification for doubting that Hutchinson was indeed sidelined by investigators. Thus, excluding the possibility that the Echo somehow hit the bullseye with the luckiest of lucky guesses, the inescapable conclusion is that its ‘diminution’ piece was predicated on reliable intelligence.

On top of this we know that investigators showed a marked and consistent reluctance to impart anything but the most basic of case-related information to the press, a situation that became even more pronounced on Anderson’s return to duty.

When viewed in this context the Echo was certainly not misleading its readership, and nor were the police made to look foolish. The Echo had come by information which suggested that Hutchinson’s story had been discredited. It sought confirmation of such at Commercial Street, received it, but was accorded no more than a perfunctory and not altogether accurate account as to how this had come to be. Thus it was happy to report the patently contrived ‘late arrival’ explanation for Hutchinson’s diminution because it had acquired official confirmation of the story itself. For their part investigators had confirmed the story whilst revealing next to nothing of the circumstances which surrounded Hutchinson’s dismissal as a credible witness.

Hence no negative connotations on either side.

It was a simple trade-off which enabled each side to attain what it considered under the circumstances to be a favourable outcome.

[Wickerman]

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.

Yes, it is ambiguous, but there are no circumstances within that sentence that decide the meaning one way or the other.

What does decide the meaning is the explanation offered in the press versions.
Think about it this way, if you believe you see some meaning in the police statement that indicates to you that he only stood outside the entry way, but in the press version he explains that he walked up the passage, then clearly you have the wrong meaning, surely?

You believe that is what happened with Sutcliffe? That there was no initial questioning.

He was questioned initially on the charges for which he had been arrested. As the exchange gradually moved away from that and towards the serial killings, he stopped talking and requested to make a statement - the questions then stopped.

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.

Of course they took breaks, after several hours, that is not the point.
The content of the statement was not aided by questions, or prompting, or guided in any way by police. They let him give his statement in his own way.
That, is just what we see in the Hutchinson statement.

Witness or suspect, until the statement is completed these labels are of no consequence. The final content of a statement will determine whether they view him as a witness or is now a suspect, and then, suspected of what?

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.

Certainly he was interrogated, but that came later.
Badham took his statement. Later, Abberline arrived and began his interrogation with Hutchinson, using his statement as a guide for the questioning.

This is what we see with Sutcliffe, he provided a voluntary statement, unaided by police questioning. This was Appendix A, in the book.
The subsequent interrogations of Sutcliffe came later. Just in case you were going to ask, yes they were recorded, as they should be.
The interrogations form Appendix B, in the book.

In both cases this is the straight forward correct procedure, why should there be any issue over it?
It's clear, isn't it?

[Wickerman]

The Coroner's Court is a Court of Law, Jon - same rules apply.

There are no rules which dictate how inquest testimony is to be recorded.
Incidentally, the City (as opposed to the Met.), required their witnesses to acknowledge & sign their testimony - this is what we see.
A witness cannot read shorthand, so cannot sign or acknowledge it.

That's silly, Jon. There was no legal requirement on the Press to report verbatim from a court hearing - and it's evident that they didn't.

Legal, has nothing to do with it.
If my boss is embarrassed because I introduced false testimony in an otherwise faithful article, my ass is toast.

You didn't - you asked me if I thought it had been copied from shorthand, I don't. Have you actually seen it? I wouldn't put my faith in transcriptions if I were you.

Why bother with this case when you have no faith in anything but your own opinion?

By the way, how's your understanding of the term 'Interrogate' coming along?

Probably long before you were born, my dear.

[Wickerman]

One would have thought so, John. I doubt Abberline would have been remotely amused, considering his workload at the time. I wonder how many Packers and Violenias it would have taken before he snapped - particularly as he had stuck his neck out this time and initially believed Hutch was being truthful.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz.

Had anything of that nature occurred, Hutchinson would have been brought back in for an interview, or word spread that he was now being looked for.
The eagle-eyed press hovering around the various police stations are hardly likely to miss that event.

[Wickerman]

"....but which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner."
Echo, 14 Nov.

From a legal perspective, this statement is entirely incorrect.
This is the best evidence that it does not come from the police, or in fact, from anyone in authority.

No testimony given at an inquest is challenged in order to determine the truth of the statement. So Hutchinson's none appearance is of no consequence legally speaking.

The Coroner is not in charge of the police investigation, the coroner has his own agenda; to identify the victim, and to discover the when, the why, and by what means the victim met her death.
The police take the case from that point on.

We know, it is the police who determine the value of a statement, by investigation, the coroner has no bearing on the matter. In fact, contrary to the quote by the Echo, the police only provide the Coroner with reliable statements, that is to say statements they have investigated and found not to be defective.

It is the police who determine the value of a statement, not the Coroner.

[harry]

Jon
The initial exchanges,of why Hutchinson was at the police station,would have been verbal,and that alone would have been of enough importance to send for Aberline.The full written statement,plus Aberlines report was made after the interrogation obviously,for until then the full story would not be known.No need for Badham to put anything on paper,prior to Aberline's appearance,for he could verbally advise Aberline when that officer arrived.Standard procedure.

Try as you may,you will not be convincing in the false claim there was an extra report which became lost.

That is all I can write on the matter.

[Wickerman]

Harry.

Why do you say his initial story given at Commercial St. "would have been verbal", based on what exactly?

Abberline's daily report provides the chronology of his day.
- He attended the inquest, which took up most of his day.
- Hutchinson came in and gave his statement.
- Abberline interrogated him this evening.

He does not report that the statement is the result of his interrogation.
In fact, Abberline's name is not included as present (witnessed) on that document.
If Abberline had been present, his name would be below Ellisdon, and above Arnold.
His name is not there, he was not present.
Regardless of what you 'think' was standard procedure.

Abberline's contribution to that document is stated right on it, he "submitted" it along with his report, nothing more.

[harry]

Jon,
Based on common sense, and experience,unless you want to insinuate that Hutchinson arrived with a written statement.Or do you have another method?
Aberline interrogated,Badham wrote the statement.Fact
Aberline was present,he didn''t need to countersign as having read.He knew the contents.He passed the statement on.Fact.Do you seriously believe he would have passed a document to seniors without knowing the content.

How can you seriously argue Aberline was not present. Your claims are getting more wild and ridiculous.Go find someone else to listen.

[Garry Wroe]

Actually, I see a couple of problems with Hutch inventing the policeman during his walkabout to further explain his delay in coming forward. Firstly, the idea is that he could claim he had assumed the policeman would pass on his information and that would be the end of it. But then he'd have been asked why he came forward at all in that case.

In which case, Caz, he would in all likelihood have repeated the claim he made to journalists – that he’d done so on the advice of a fellow lodger.

How likely is it that he could have claimed to know everything that went on at the inquest, and had come forward immediately afterwards because his information had not come out?

I’m puzzled as to why you think he might have claimed that the inquest had any bearing on his coming forward when most people in Hutchinson’s position derived their case-related information from newspaper reports. As I’ve already said, he claimed that he came forward after being advised to do so by a fellow lodger.

Secondly, would he have invented this policeman as his reason for not coming forward sooner if he had previously given Abberline a different excuse, which he had apparently accepted?

My guess is that he told Abberline that, although he’d been aware of the murder on the Friday, he’d not known the victim’s identity until the Sunday or Monday and had thus not recognized the relevance of the Kelly sighting until several days after the fact.

Hutchinson then embarked on the Monday walkabout with two detectives. As I mentioned several weeks ago these detectives would have been tasked with eliciting as much information as possible during their time with Hutchinson. They would have adopted a friendly approach in order to make him comfortable and confident in their company. If, during what would have been one of a number of informal exchanges, Hutchinson had been lulled into making the Sunday policeman claim, he need not necessarily have realized that his companions would report such a remark to their superiors. Had it occurred to him afterwards, of course, we have an explanation as to why he mentioned the Sunday policeman whilst speaking to journalists on the Tuesday evening.

It has to be said that this is no more than speculation on my part. The one thing of which we may be certain, however, is that something happened in the period between Abberline penning his summary report on the Monday evening and the Echo’s Tuesday deadline, something which proved to be a game-changer as far as Hutchinson’s credibility was concerned. The Sunday policeman claim is but one of many scenarios which might account for such.

And would he feasibly have been dismissed as a mere time-waster under such circumstances?

Could investigators have anticipated that a multiple murderer such as Jack the Ripper would walk into a police station masquerading as an eyewitness?

It wasn’t until relatively recently that such events have been recognized and even planned for by the more advanced of law enforcement personnel. This being the case it is not difficult to understand why discredited witnesses such as Violenia were simply shown the door rather then falling under suspicion.

Had Hutchinson’s story begun to unravel, therefore, his entire account would have been dismissed and it would have been assumed that he never saw Kelly and Astrakhan at all – as appears to have been the case with Violenia and Chapman. Once investigators had adopted such an all-or-nothing mindset the chances of them viewing Hutchinson or any other discredited witness with suspicion were slim to nonexistent.

Hi Ben … You appear to disagree with Garry on this point.

In Ben’s defence, Caz, he has stated many times on these boards that he does not regard the ‘late arrival’ explanation for Hutchinson’s diminution as being definitive. If he’s guilty of anything it’s that he allowed himself to be dragged into an irrelevant discussion by a poster whose Hutchinson-related arguments are generally so weak that they depend upon distraction tactics. Hence I detailed my thinking as a subtle means of pulling the debate back on course.

Apparently, I was a little too subtle.

[Garry Wroe]

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 …

And you are absolutely certain of this, are you, Jon?

No prompting, no distractions, no questions ... This is how it is done.

I’m almost tempted to e-mail Stewart in order that you might benefit from the knowledge and experience of someone who actually knows what he’s talking about.

There again, Stewart’s done me no wrong.

If your aim is to demonstrate your total ignorance of such matters, carry on because you are doing a sterling job. If not, I would suggest that you go away and learn something of the topic under discussion before commenting further.