The Red Handkerchief...

[harry]

Jon,
What is not known is what was the procedure a hundred or more years ago.
You are incorrect again.

Shorthand was in common use at that time. Numerous trial transcrips are available from that time.Questioning is well questioning,and interrogation was questioning.Shorthand was transcribed into more common recognised forms of writing.Witnesses went to the police or were sought by the police,and were treated very much as they are today.There was no other way.We can pretty accurately guess what happened the evening Hutchinson went to the police station.Only you it seems, wants to differ.

[Wickerman]

... In all of the years I spent examining official documentation I never once found a written record of one of these interrogations.

How would you recognize it?

The Police Code addresses the issue in several locations, but indirectly. The central thrust being that the investigating officer is not to trust in his memory when taking statements from the witness.

Once you rationalize for yourself the justification for writing down what a witness tells you, then you have already found the reason for committing the interrogation to writing.

The reason, and importance, is the same.

That is not to say that every interrogation must be committed to writing, some will be none productive, as is the case with some witness statements.
Should the interrogation be productive, what do you do with the information?
What would your reason be for not writing it down?

[Wickerman]

... Later on in that thread, however, you embarked on a complete volte face and stated that no policeman engaged on the Ripper case passed information to journalists. When Ben and I repeatedly questioned you on the issue you remained steadfast. I would encourage posters to access the thread in question and draw their own conclusions.

Well, why don't you go one better and provide the link so we can all read along with you. It wouldn't be the first time you have misinterpreted what I said. We certainly know of no policeman who passed information to journalists, and the quality of what was printed in the press does not convince the reader that they had an inside source.

Oddly enough, a similar kind of situation arose just a few days ago on the Why Did Abberline Believe Hutch? thread. There you stated: ‘I have certainly never said Anderson dismissed Hutchinson.’ When I responded with evidence to the contrary, you conceded: ‘Indeed, it is my belief that this influenced Anderson to redirect inquiries …’

That's right, redirect inquiries to 50/50, instead of 100% in pursuit of the Hutchinson suspect. How does that imply Anderson dismissing Hutchinson?
He is showing interest in two suspect, not one.

.... as with your contention that Anderson dismissed Hutchinson’s story as a consequence of Dr Bond’s time of death estimation, yet still continued to regard Astrakhan as the prime suspect in the Kelly murder.

It strikes me your biggest problem is that you don't read what I write.
Anderson never dismissed Hutchinson (in my opinion). If he directed Scotland Yard to take a second look at Blotchy, that does not mean he has dropped Astrachan, the direction is "as-well-as" not "instead-of".

This is your "all or nothing", "black or white", interpretation of the debate that is the problem.
Life is not that simple, and certainly detective work does not proceed one suspect at a time, where on earth would you get that idea?

[Wickerman]

It has been explained to you enough times now – by a former policeman no less, amongst others – that the statement was committed to paper following a “question and answers” session, and not, as you weirdly suggest, as a result of Hutchinson holding court for a few minutes and only imparting what he considered "important".

No-one alive today knows what the procedure was in 1888, the opinion previously given reflects the method used today.
A police Historian may have an idea, should that be the case it will be due to obtaining examples of paperwork and interpreting the same.

The reality is that if any critical information emerged from the interrogation that did not appear in the statement, it would have been mentioned in the report.

Wrong report, the Daily Reports do not make it to the Case files.
Daily Reports have nothing to do with suspect interrogations, anything contained in the Daily Reports is superficial at best.
All Abberline is doing is accounting for his time.

If, for instance, Hutchinson had related the detail that he entered the court itself and stood outside Kelly’s window, you can absolutely guarantee that it would have appeared in the statement or the report.

"I went to the court" does the same, Sgt Badham had no idea someone a hundred years later would misinterpret what he wrote.
Thankfully, the press cleared that up.

The absence of any meatier information than this should inform us immediately that it doesn't exist, and never did.

Abberline added a footnote to the end of Sarah Lewis's statement, alluding to the fact she did offer other observations not included in the above statement.
Which demonstrates that the officer taking the statement does not always include everything told to him.

Abberline’s use of the word “interrogate” most assuredly does not imply that he considered Hutchinson a suspect.

Maybe we should sort this out once and for all.

A witness offers a statement to police.
The investigating officer reads the statement, and as a result suspects, either:
1 - this witness sounds a little too good to be true.
2 - this witness knows more than he is telling us.
3 - this witness might have had a more active roll in this murder than he is letting on.

Either one of these suspicions make that witness into a suspect.

"Suspect", does not ONLY mean suspected of murder, it includes that certainly, but it also means the witness is not entirely believed by the officer.

The fact Abberline said he had to interrogate Hutchinson tells us that he held suspicions about him, or his story. We do not know what those suspicions were, that is all.
What ever they were, Abberline's suspicions were satisfied.

What’s this nonsense about the discredited “Mrs. Kennedy” being due to appear at a “second sitting” of the inquest? You reckon a woman who claimed to have seen the Kelly herself talking to a man at 3.00am wasn’t important enough a witness to include with the first lot, and that when the alleged “second sitting” failed to materialise, the police didn’t bother to ensure that her evidence – and crucially, her description of Kelly’s companion – was circulated?

Witnesses are not selected in order of importance, and Macdonald did intend to sit for a 2nd inquest, which did not materialize.
That being the case, there are a number of unknown witnesses out there who were slated to appear.
And, the police already had Kennedy's statement, they do not need the Coroner's OK to pursue inquiries concerning what she told them.

[Wickerman]

Yeah. Now, considering the above, how do you suppose that they did that? You don't really think that the Court Reporter transcribed in court using longhand do you?

Surely not.

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.

I have given witness statements and I was certainly asked questions.

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.

[Garry Wroe]

I have given witness statements and I was certainly asked questions. The policemen who took my statements didn't write down verbatim what I said as I said it; they listened to what I said, asked questions, wrote down my accounts and asked me to verify that what they had written was correct. I see no reason to think that the procedure in 1888 was any different.

In fact, don't we see the same procedure at work in Hutchinson's statement?

Precisely, Sally. Jon has in the past even reproduced the checklist of questions to be covered during those police interviews.

As for the Abberline interrogation of Hutchinson, this was standard procedure for the time and was designed to weed out genuine witnesses from the time-wasters whose information might derail an ongoing investigation. Major Smith ‘interrogated’ Lawende in such a fashion and failed to ‘trip him up’. Violenia, on the other hand, was exposed as a bogus witness and shown the door. In all of the years I spent examining official documentation I never once found a written record of one of these interrogations.

That, perhaps, ought to be telling us something.

But, then, some are receptive only to the information which supports their arguments.

[Garry Wroe]

This came up again at the end of March this year, yet you still choose to ad-lib, and misrepresent my argument.
You are not the only one who does this, though it is symptomatic among the vocal minority.

That’s right, and it was me who brought it up. Early on in the What the Press Knew thread you did agree that some policemen had passed information to journalists in exchange for inducements such as money or alcohol. Fine. Later on in that thread, however, you embarked on a complete volte face and stated that no policeman engaged on the Ripper case passed information to journalists. When Ben and I repeatedly questioned you on the issue you remained steadfast. I would encourage posters to access the thread in question and draw their own conclusions.

Oddly enough, a similar kind of situation arose just a few days ago on the Why Did Abberline Believe Hutch? thread. There you stated: ‘I have certainly never said Anderson dismissed Hutchinson.’ When I responded with evidence to the contrary, you conceded: ‘Indeed, it is my belief that this influenced Anderson to redirect inquiries …’

In response to your initial assertion, therefore, the evidence is clear – no-one has misrepresented you. Your problem is that your arguments are often so illogical and at odds with the evidence that you have a tendency to change horses mid-race whilst hoping that no-one has noticed. Sometimes you even attempt to ride both horses, as with your contention that Anderson dismissed Hutchinson’s story as a consequence of Dr Bond’s time of death estimation, yet still continued to regard Astrakhan as the prime suspect in the Kelly murder.

Astonishing.

Here’s an idea, though. Rather than complaining that others have misrepresented you, try leading by example and abandon the misrepresentation of Sarah Lewis’s evidence. That would be a start, at least.

[Sally]

Exactly. And if Abberline was "interrogating" Hutch as in interrogating him as a suspect, his next phrase would been ".....and do not believe he is a suspect." or something along those lines. That he follows it up with the phrase "....and I believe his statement is true." its obvious he means interrogate as a credible witness, seeing that, as Ben has astutely pointed out, that the police were wary of bogus witnesses like Packer and Violenia.

Yes, exactly Abby - Hutchinson was interrogated - questioned closely. That's all.

[Sally]

Why couldn't he keep up?

Because it is impossible to transcribe in longhand at a normal speaking pace Jon. It's around 150 words per minute. Why don't you try it and see how it works out for you?

Hutchinson's statement as given to Badham is 397 words - had Badham really been transcribing as Hutchinson spoke, it'd have taken him less than three minutes to write.

I think we can all agree that it probably didn't happen like that.

The Court recorder at the inquest had no problem, and both Eddowes & Kelly inquest records are in long hand. They had more to write that Badham, and for longer.

Yeah. Now, considering the above, how do you suppose that they did that? You don't really think that the Court Reporter transcribed in court using longhand do you?

Surely not.

The people who do that job today type, which is much faster than writing by hand - and they are required to have a typing speed of up to 200 words a minute, which is incredibly fast - about 4 times the average of your standard office worker.

Work it out.

The content of the witness statements themselves, the nine statements for the inquest, plus Hutchinson's statement, are the best evidence we have that they were not the result of questioning.
Details, important to the investigator are missing.

No,

The statements are evidence simply of statements being taken in the usual fashion - through questioning. Additional details added subsequently are a product either of further witness recall [clue, this is why the police always tell witnesses to get in touch if they remember anything else]; or additional questions.

As in this case.

I have given witness statements and I was certainly asked questions. The policemen who took my statements didn't write down verbatim what I said as I said it; they listened to what I said, asked questions, wrote down my accounts and asked me to verify that what they had written was correct. I see no reason to think that the procedure in 1888 was any different.

In fact, don't we see the same procedure at work in Hutchinson's statement?


"I stood against the lamp of the Ten Bells Queen’s Head Public House and watched him"

See what I mean?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Harry,

"Interrogate" comes ultimately from the Latin interrogāre; into English via Old French, more than likely. I imagine Jon's '15th Century' origin comes from a popular online dictionary.

Etymology aside - what is of more pertinence in this context is that the term 'interrogation' was in common parlance during the 19th century and quite clearly meant, as you say, 'to question closely' As it has done for a very long time in fact. By the 19th century, the term was if anything more broadly applied than in earlier times - it had become more generalised/generalisable.

To return to this rather petty argument regarding Hutchinson's imagined [by Jon alone, apparently] 'suspect status' as denoted by the fact that Abberlline interrogated him; it is in short a nonsense.

Exactly. And if Abberline was "interrogating" Hutch as in interrogating him as a suspect, his next phrase would been ".....and do not believe he is a suspect." or something along those lines. That he follows it up with the phrase "....and I believe his statement is true." its obvious he means interrogate as a credible witness, seeing that, as Ben has astutely pointed out, that the police were wary of bogus witnesses like Packer and Violenia.

[Sally]

The New Standard dictionary,as late as the 1950's had this explanation .Interrogate,"To question closely". Interrogation,"Questioning".
So Aberline was correct to use the word,and it had no other meaning than what is explained above.Now your source from the 15th century?

Hi Harry,

"Interrogate" comes ultimately from the Latin interrogāre; into English via Old French, more than likely. I imagine Jon's '15th Century' origin comes from a popular online dictionary.

Etymology aside - what is of more pertinence in this context is that the term 'interrogation' was in common parlance during the 19th century and quite clearly meant, as you say, 'to question closely' As it has done for a very long time in fact. By the 19th century, the term was if anything more broadly applied than in earlier times - it had become more generalised/generalisable.

To return to this rather petty argument regarding Hutchinson's imagined [by Jon alone, apparently] 'suspect status' as denoted by the fact that Abberlline interrogated him; it is in short a nonsense.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
How do you feel about the fact that more and more people are cottoning on the realisation that your “defence” of Hutchinson is motivated chiefly by a desire for Jack the Ripper to have been “well-dressed” man who carried his knife in a black bag (it hasn’t gone unnoticed that you haven’t denied any of the Druitt stuff)?

How do you mean "cottoning on"? All they need to do is ask.
Certainly I think the killer was a "respectably dressed" male, middle-aged, well educated, local, living by himself.
You trying to say I am keeping it a secret?
Did you forget?, I had a signature that described him at one time. Not a well recommended method of keeping it a secret, Ben

And no, I don't suspect Druitt, nor do I suspect Thompson, but I believe they are nearer to the class of the actual killer than Blotchy.

No, nothing remotely like it. At no point in his book does Sugden make the absurd suggestion that the police never divulged case-related information to any member of the press at any stage of the investigation.

Of course he doesn't, and neither have I.
You made a similar accusation back in June 2013, to which I replied:

And I have not claimed that it never happened. Certainly an individual PC's lips could be loosened by the offer of a free whisky or two.
How reliable is information obtained in such a fashion? How thick will the icing on the cake be once the PC realizes he can obtain another whiskey for the sake of a little creative embellishment?

This came up again at the end of March this year, yet you still choose to ad-lib, and misrepresent my argument.
You are not the only one who does this, though it is symptomatic among the vocal minority.

Why is any of this my problem? The police knew full well that that Blotchy’s full and accurate description would be published after the inquest,..

When the police issue a press release, it is distinctive, brief and to the point. Examples are seen in the Daily Telegraph, 12th Nov.
They don't rely on piecemeal details scattered across several sentences given by a witness.

No, it must be so because certain members of the press were able to demonstrate it beyond dispute, and in accordance with all other evidence. Actually.

It's a circular argument Ben, it begins, and ends, with the same press articles.

It isn’t remotely “like” it.

Really, Ben, you must put a little more effort into this. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

This, is what was cut and pasted into all the Hutchinson interviews published on the 14th.

The man was about 5ft. 6in. in height, and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache turned up at the ends. He was wearing a long dark coat trimmed with astrachan, a white collar with black necktie, in which was affixed a horse-shoe pin. He wore a pair of dark spats with light buttons over buttoned boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain.


This is the original, printed on 13th Nov. Notice the blue section at the bottom.....look familiar?

A man, apparently of the labouring class, with a military appearance, who knew the deceased, stated that on the morning of the 9th inst. he saw her in Commercial-street, Spitalfields (near where the murder was committed), in company with a man of respectable appearance. He was about 5 ft. 6 in. in height, and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache turned up at the ends. He was wearing a long, dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, a white collar with a black necktie, in which was affixed a horse-shoe pin. He wore a pair of dark gaiters with light buttons, over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain.

19th century version of, Cut and Paste.

No, she was probably terrified and deprived of sleep, as well as being detained within an enclosure in which the most horrific mutilation murder the country had ever encountered had just recently occurred.

Ah, so when Hutchinson adds detail, it's because he's lying, yet when Sarah Lewis does it, it's because she was tired.
Perfect sense... ..to those who are trying to railroad Hutchinson.

I’m assuming here that forgetfulness is your supposedly “very reasonable and logical explanation why the latter statement is more complete than the former”. If you have another, I’d be fascinated to hear it. Maybe the police were just a bit rubbish, and couldn’t be bothered to extract the relevant information despite time being of the essence to do so?

Yes, the reporter obtained the extra information because he asked questions, not asked by Badham.

15,000 posts is the new target number.

Yes, I had you down as a numbers man. The lack of logic, or lack of evidence, matters little, so long as the numbers are there.
Not being a Lemming, I tend not to be impressed by numbers, but each to their own.

But the Echo made very clear the fact that they were not expressing their own opinion, but rather reporting on the result of “later investigation” conducted by the police.

"Later investigation" means what Ben?
"... it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be..."

"Appears", "seems?, you mean they are not sure?
Didn't the police give them a firm statement, what kind of source was this that shares vague opinion?

Why not, "today, the police informed our representative that they do not afford much credibility to the statement published by our morning contemporaries" - or words to that effect.

Something definite, for a change.

It is a fact that the Echo received accurate case-related information from the police at Commercial Street police station on the 14th November, as proven on numerous occasions,...

That was public knowledge, as has been demonstrated many times.

Yes, there most assuredly is “mention” of the statement being “discounted” by the police – “considerably” so, in fact. The Echo were received by the police on the 14th, and were told that the statement had been “considerably discounted” because the statement had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner, despite the “declarations” of the “morning papers”, i.e. the Daily News (your favourite, notoriously) that there was not the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson’s veracity.

Have you noticed that the article dated the 14th, refers back to that of the 13th, which we just discussed, the one making the vague claim.
Is that your definition of a proven source?

[harry]

Jon,
The New Standard dictionary,as late as the 1950's had this explanation .Interrogate,"To question closely". Interrogation,"Questioning".
So Aberline was correct to use the word,and it had no other meaning than what is explained above.Now your source from the 15th century?

Why couldn't he keep up?You try keeping up,writing in longhand,with a person speaking without interruption,enough words to cover several pages.
It is why Shorthand came into being.No, there would have been nothing wrong with Badham interrupting,but you say that didn't happen.No prompting,no distraction,no questions, remember.

Ben has covered everything else.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
Your interpretation of Interrogation?.What is the origin of that precise wording? Was it in operation in 1888.Was Aberline using it when mentioning the word,or could his interpretation and use have a different meaning? I'll repeat, do not confuse present times with 1888.

Harry.
The word & meaning dates back to the 15th century, at least.

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.

Why couldn't he keep up?
The Court recorder at the inquest had no problem, and both Eddowes & Kelly inquest records are in long hand. They had more to write that Badham, and for longer.

Alternately, there is nothing wrong with Badham saying, "just hold on a minute", and then, "carry on".
This isn't a competition.

The content of the witness statements themselves, the nine statements for the inquest, plus Hutchinson's statement, are the best evidence we have that they were not the result of questioning.
Details, important to the investigator are missing.

[Ben]

It has been explained to you enough times now – by a former policeman no less, amongst others – that the statement was committed to paper following a “question and answers” session, and not, as you weirdly suggest, as a result of Hutchinson holding court for a few minutes and only imparting what he considered "important". This is another very weak and transparent attempt on your part to trivialise the inconvenient existing evidence, while championing the elusive “lost” reports that you insist must have existed at some point and must have said what you want it to have said. The reality is that if any critical information emerged from the interrogation that did not appear in the statement, it would have been mentioned in the report.

If, for instance, Hutchinson had related the detail that he entered the court itself and stood outside Kelly’s window, you can absolutely guarantee that it would have appeared in the statement or the report. If it appeared in neither, it means Hutchinson did not divulge this information until his interview with the journalist the following day. Unless, of course, you prefer to accept that the police – and Abberline and Badham in particular – were wildly incompetent. The real insanity here resides in the implication that during such a critical stage of the investigation, Abberline was content to submit an inferior document to superiors – only the bits that Hutchinson himself “thought important” apparently! - while squirreling away the truly important information for himself (so he could solve the case all by himself?!)

We learn from Abberline’s report that there were details that emerged from the interrogation that did not appear in the body of the statement, but unfortunately for your missing-evidence-that-explains-all-and-exonerates-Hutchinson theory, they were restricted to Hutchinson being in no regular employment and having known the deceased for three years. The absence of any meatier information than this should inform us immediately that it doesn't exist, and never did.

If the interrogation record was “written down” (and you’ve failed repeatedly in your efforts to explain how this was feasible), it would have been sent up the chain along with the statement.

Abberline’s use of the word “interrogate” most assuredly does not imply that he considered Hutchinson a suspect. “Interrogate” simply implies thoroughness, and was an impression he would have wanted to convey to his superiors, as opposed to “had a cosy fireside chat with…, for instance. Moreover, the police had hitherto been bombarded with bogus witnesses, and it was in an investigator’s interest to ensure that Hutchinson wasn’t just another of these.

What’s this nonsense about the discredited “Mrs. Kennedy” being due to appear at a “second sitting” of the inquest? You reckon a woman who claimed to have seen the Kelly herself talking to a man at 3.00am wasn’t important enough a witness to include with the first lot, and that when the alleged “second sitting” failed to materialise, the police didn’t bother to ensure that her evidence – and crucially, her description of Kelly’s companion – was circulated?