The Red Handkerchief...

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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?