The Red Handkerchief...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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 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

[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.

[Wickerman]

Remember, it was the witnesses who determined the structure and content of the police interview.

Offering a statement, is not an interview. He offered himself, he was not called in.
A statement is simply telling them what you saw, and you heard, in your words.

[Wickerman]

You see, I know that court reporters were using shorthand in court for hundreds of years before those 'two extant copies of the inquests' were written; and I know that they are what is [and was] known as a fair copy; which is the longhand copy derived from the shorthand taken in court.

Other courts are of no concern.
The reason we know the Eddowes inquest papers are the originals is written all over them, almost, on every page.
The Kelly inquest record may be debatable.

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.

Just out of interest, do you think that Hutchinson's statement was originally taken down in shorthand?
If not, why not?

[Abby Normal]

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.

Not in wicker world it isn't.

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

And if that's not enough, the next sentence -I stood there for 45 minutes-then means back outside the court in wicker world.

And in this crazy world you get ridiculed for not getting it.

Total BS, and frankly, im not dealing with it anymore. its pointless.

[Garry Wroe]

Sorry Garry, my mistake - I was going for the rational approach there when of course I should have recognised the futility of trying to counter fantasy with inconsequential things like logic and recorded facts.

It keeps Ben entertained, I suppose.

[Sally]

And while we're at it...

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.

[Sally]

Sorry Garry, my mistake - I was going for the rational approach there when of course I should have recognised the futility of trying to counter fantasy with inconsequential things like logic and recorded facts.

I should have learned my lesson from the Morning Advertiser drivel.

I do apologise, it won't happen again

Now, back to the 19th Century aka 'Olden Times'.....

[Garry Wroe]

Doesn't that document in and of itself tell us that witnesses were questioned?

Haven’t you heard? It was the witnesses who determined the structure and content of the police interview, not the investigators.

The reason for structuring a witness interrogation with questioning is to elicit information that is relevant of course; a procedure grounded in logic and necessity. Why would you think that has changed?

Well, here’s a clue: we have no official documentary evidence that Hutchinson mentioned having stood directly outside Kelly’s room shortly before the murder. According to Jon he did make reference to such but Badham was not permitted under the rules of interview to press him further on the issue.

Remember, it was the witnesses who determined the structure and content of the police interview.

Get it now?

[Sally]

Well, maybe you should purchase the two extant copies of the Inquests and see for yourself, before you continue to guess your way through another argument.

Seen 'em Jon - and I'm not guessing, I'm afraid - I don't 'guess', that would be you.

You see, I know that court reporters were using shorthand in court for hundreds of years before those 'two extant copies of the inquests' were written; and I know that they are what is [and was] known as a fair copy; which is the longhand copy derived from the shorthand taken in court.

This has been standard practice in England and on the Continent for centuries. The shorthand copies rarely survive, but are fascinating to read when they do

You may doubt what I say, if you like - but I shouldn't think you'd have to look very far to discover the truth - see for yourself.

I would suggest that in future you ascertain the facts first before you make ludicrous claims based on nothing more than your ill-informed opinion.

Of course you were, because that it what is done today. The method used today is not the issue.
What is not known is what was the procedure a hundred or more years ago.
Much has changed in the last century with respect to dealing with witnesses

Gosh, yes - because a hundred years ago was so long ago, right? Nobody knew how to think then, you know - they were way too primitive. Yes, in olden times, women were invisible and couldn't go out of the house without a hat unless they were a prostitute; and the streets were policed by men who asked no questions.

Things were so different then!

You say that the procedure a hundred years ago ][or 'Olden Times' if you prefer...] is not known; yet you yourself have previously posted a list of questions asked of witnesses by the police; as Garry mentioned yesterday. I presume that that document dates from the time that we're discussing [because if not, you must admit to using a document from another, presumably later period to support one of your arguments relating to 1888] But that aside -

Doesn't that document in and of itself tell us that witnesses were questioned?

But it isn't required to demonstrate that police procedure was to question witnesses then, as now - all you need to do is look at what is written at the time; and at the common structure of contemporary witness statements to see it.

The reason for structuring a witness interrogation with questioning is to elicit information that is relevant of course; a procedure grounded in logic and necessity. Why would you think that has changed?

It's baffling.