The Red Handkerchief...

[Garry Wroe]

Why don't you just contact Stewart and ask him if the signatures appended to Hutchinson's statement are consistent with Abberline being present for the taking of that same statement.

Ah, the distraction tactics once again.

If I contact Stewart it will be to elicit his opinion on your insistence that witnesses determined the structure and content of police statements.

And secondly, does Abberline's daily report for 12th Nov. actually provide us with a reasonable chronology of events; that first he attended the inquest, that the police then received a statement from Hutchinson, and that finally Abberline came to interrogate Hutchinson in the evening.

Smoke and mirrors. I stated my recollection that a telegram was sent to Leman Street requesting that Abberline attend Commercial Street, which he did by way of a cab. You responded with the accusation that this was a fabrication on my part. The ‘evidence’, so you said, ‘proved’ that Hutchinson’s ‘witness statement’ was sent to ‘Central Office’ where Abberline read it and then went to speak to Hutchinson in person.

The problem is that your ‘evidence’ was nothing of the kind. It was an incomplete newspaper report. The part that you’d neglected to include clearly stated that it was the description of Astrakhan that had been issued from Commercial Street, not the witness statement. This was described as a message, and it was sent to Leman Street rather than Central Office as you maintained.

So much for the allegation of dishonesty on my part.

And finally, what is Stewarts opinion on the degree of questioning to produce Hutchinson's statement ... Could it be entirely by Hutchinson, or must it be the result of questions ... How do you feel about that?

I feel absolutely confident that, then as now, an interviewing officer would have mediated structure and cohesion whilst a witness dictated an official statement. Your contention to the contrary referred not merely to Hutchinson, but rather all witnesses. With respect to Hutchinson, however, you stated that an interviewing officer would not have requested elucidation had Hutchinson inferred that he’d stood directly outside Mary Kelly’s room shortly before her death. I stated then and maintain now that you are wrong. In fact I’d go further than that and state that your argument is utterly preposterous.

Here’s a link to the CPS website that took all of thirty seconds to locate:-

https://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/reporting_a_crime/telling_police.html

You might care to read and absorb the following, especially the emboldened sentence:-

‘A witness statement is your written or video recorded account of what happened to you. A police officer will ask you questions and write down what you have said. You will be asked to read it and sign it with your name. When you sign a witness statement you are saying that you agree the statement is a true account of your experience. Your witness statement may be used as evidence in court.’

There again, maybe the CPS doesn’t know what it’s talking about either.

[Wickerman]

I'll tell you what Garry.

Why don't you just contact Stewart and ask him if the signatures appended to Hutchinson's statement are consistent with Abberline being present for the taking of that same statement.

And secondly, does Abberline's daily report for 12th Nov. actually provide us with a reasonable chronology of events; that first he attended the inquest, that the police then received a statement from Hutchinson, and that finally Abberline came to interrogate Hutchinson in the evening.

And finally, what is Stewarts opinion on the degree of questioning to produce Hutchinson's statement.
Not the description, that is obviously the product of questions by Badham, but it is the statement that is of concern.
Could it be entirely by Hutchinson, or must it be the result of questions.

How do you feel about that?

[c.d.]

What is up with you guy on this thread? Can't you just post without throwing in some snarky comment as well? Seriously, try to come across as adults.

c.d.

[Garry Wroe]

I'm still waiting for evidence of this "Garry Wroe invented telegram" to surface, but like everything else, it's just you thinking out loud again.

There you go again with your ‘invented’ nonsense. So let’s have a look at who invented what.

You began with this sporadically emboldened newspaper quotation:-

"... and the importance they attached to this man's story may be imagined when it is mentioned that it was forwarded to the headquarters of the H Division as soon as completed by a special detective. Detectives Abberline, Nairn, and Moore were present when this message arrived, and an investigation was immediately set on foot."

In response to which I posted:-

If memory serves me correctly, Jon, Abberline was at Leman Street when he learned about Hutchinson's story. He received a telegram and immediately travelled by cab to Commercial Street.

This was when, without the slightest foundation, you alleged that this statement was a fabrication on my part.

You then maintained:-

We can be very safe in accepting that Hutchinson gave his story to Badham at Commercial St., at 6:00 pm, while Abberline was away at Central Office.
The statement was first seen by Abberline at Central Office after being sent there by Badham, et.al., at which point he came down to Commercial Street to interrogate Hutchinson.

Time and again you stated that Badham forwarded Hutchinson’s statement to Abberline at Central Office.

With me so far?

Unfortunately, for reasons best known to yourself, you didn’t present the original newspaper quote in its entirety. Whereas you posted the following …

"... and the importance they attached to this man's story may be imagined when it is mentioned that it was forwarded to the headquarters of the H Division as soon as completed by a special detective. Detectives Abberline, Nairn, and Moore were present when this message arrived, and an investigation was immediately set on foot."

… the original report, featured in the Echo of 13 November, 1888, was preceded by this:-

‘The description, which substantiated that given by others of the person seen in company with the deceased on the morning she was killed, was much fuller in detail than that hitherto in the possession of the police …’

‘The description’.

It was the description, not the witness statement, that was forwarded. And neither was it sent to Central Office. It was conveyed to ‘the headquarters of the H Division’, which as most are aware was Leman Street. On top of this the press report describes a ‘message’ having been sent from Commercial Street to Leman Street.

Again, let’s recall my initial post on the issue:-

If memory serves me correctly, Jon, Abberline was at Leman Street when he learned about Hutchinson's story. He received a telegram and immediately travelled by cab to Commercial Street.

Abberline was at Leeman Street … Well, it turns out that he was.

He received a telegram … According to the Echo it was a message.

And nowhere, absolutely nowhere, is there any reference to Hutchinson’s statement having been sent from Commercial Street to another destination.

Nowhere.

So, irony of ironies, the poster who is quick to accuse others of inventing evidence has … well … invented his evidence.

And not for the first time either.

[Wickerman]

Originally Posted by Wickerman
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?

In the principal book on the case by Michael Bilton, in the chapter dealing with his statement, there is no direct claim that Sutcliffe responded well to questioning, and neither is there a remark that they did not speak to him at all.

The questioning of Sutcliffe began on the Friday after he was brought in, all the questions concerned the crime which he was arrested for, and continued as the subject changed from theft over to the murders.

There is no talk of questioning him once he began making his statement, beyond one reference to guiding him through a series of major crimes, treating him with kid gloves, being careful not to antagonize him.
"They had to go gently with the prisoner, even when they knew Sutcliffe was lying".
"The prisoner had confessed to plenty in extraordinary detail. It was no time to grill him or challenge him. Their task was to get his story down on paper in a form that was priceless as evidence"

In thirty three pages of statement, no questions are recorded as put to the prisoner.
In the days following the taking of his signed statement, every question put to him in his interrogation is recorded, with it's reply by the prisoner.
The taking of the statement, and the subsequent interrogations, are separate chronological events, just as we see with Hutchinson.

[Wickerman]

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.

Really, except show you that almost every aspect of your arguments are false......shall we revisit the threads?

You didn't think Stewart knew what he was talking about then, did you. And, I may as well remind you, it was Stewart who said Hutchinson's detailed statement was not unique, not suspicious, he took hundreds of statements, so he should know.
You really want to open up another can of worms?


Stewart had your number, or have you conveniently forgotten that too.

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.

I'm still waiting for evidence of this "Garry Wroe invented telegram" to surface, but like everything else, it's just you thinking out loud again.

[Wickerman]

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?

You call that common sense?
You read what I wrote, so why ask what am I trying to insinuate?
Hutchinson walked into Commercial St., and told them he wanted to make a statement.
Badham wrote it down, as Hutchinson gave him the story. What could be more simpler than that?, and what on earth do we have to indicate otherwise?

Aberline interrogated,Badham wrote the statement.Fact

Another one who creates his own 'facts'.

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.

Are you saying that Badham did not know the contents, having written it down? of course he did, so why did he sign it then? - your logic is falling apart Harry.
You need to put more effort into this, or buy a few books to read. Guessing is not getting you very far.

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

Do some reading, then you might write something worth while..

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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
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]

"....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.

[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]

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.