The Red Handkerchief...

[Ben]

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)?

“Isn't that just what I have been trying to impress on you for years now, it isn't just me.”

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. I’m afraid, as with many of your arguments, it really is “just you”. If the police refused to discuss a particular issue with the press, the latter might have had recourse to picking up fag-ends by following detectives or bribing constables; and sometimes this information was correct, and at other times not. The problem with you is that you pick and choose which bits of “street” information you want to be correct. You keep talking about “press opinion” despite the fact that neither the Echo nor the IPN were “opining” at all, but rather passing on what they claim to be police information. The difference is that while the Echo provided actual evidence for a direct communication with the police, the IPN didn’t, and yet it is the latter rag’s claims that you choose to swallow whole.

“Why the delay?
In your opinion, the police did not publish Blotchy's description because...four days down the line the inquest coverage will do it for us?, .....geeze, we can save 2d on printed space - wow!
Really, Ben....”

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, whereas Hutchinson’s late post-inquest appearance meant that it fell to the police themselves to ensure that his description was circulated. Unless you’re seriously suggesting that they actively encouraged Hutchinson to blab to the press. If you’ve got a problem with the police “waiting four days” before the publication of Cox’s account, you must take it up with the spectres of the 1888 police, not me.

“Ah, the Circular Argument again.
It must be so, because the press said it is so.”

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.

“Anytime it is necessary - you know there is nothing to be gained by you daring me. Whatever and whenever, it will be done.”

On the contrary, I “gain” hugely from your repetition of previously annihilated arguments, because it gives me the excuse I crave to annihilate them again. So I entreat you, go ahead and repeat the “automatic suspect” mantra, and I will copy-and-paste my previous response. I'm waiting.

“The detail included within the press version of his story on the 14th is like a 'cut and paste' of what was published on the 13th.”

No, it isn’t.

It isn’t remotely “like” it.

The press version of his story was based on the words spoken by Hutchinson to that particular reporter on the 13th, with no regard to the police release that appeared earlier that day. No need for “cutting and pasting” if the journalist had direct access to the source (Hutchinson), which he obviously did. The cut-and-paste explanation also fails to account for the numerous embellishments which appear on the 14th, such as the pair of kid gloves, the red stone seal etc.

“Then go away and figure out by yourself how she came up with the extra detail.
Was she lying in her police statement?”

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. It’s one thing to forget certain "details" first time around, but quite another to forget about entire events, such as spotting the same suspect again and alerting a negligent policeman about it. 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?

“Nobody, except Sugden?
More people than you think, but most do not enjoy mindless argy-bargy which goes nowhere - me, I'm different, I find it entertaining.”

No, nobody except you, Jon.

I don’t visit serial killers websites for “entertainment”, personally, but each to his own. Whilst “mindless argy-bargy that goes nowhere” doesn’t seem to be a debating strategy that’s serving you very well (ditto for anyone who favours a last-man-standing approach to discussion), it does ensure that Hutchinson dominates the forum, which keeps me happy. 15,000 posts is the new target number.

“Press opinion is false because the police tell them nothing.”

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. It also remains a nonsensical blanket statement that “the police tell them nothing”. 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, and in the spirit of “mindless argy-bargy that goes nowhere” I look forward to repeating it again, if necessary.

“The "morning papers" is a reference to the Daily News, which wrote:
"It will be observed that the description of the supposed murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police, and published yesterday morning. There is not the slightest reason to doubt Hutchinson's veracity, and it is therefore highly probable that at length the police are in possession of a reliable description of the murderer."

No mention of police opinion, or anything being discounted by police. That snippet was embedded by the Echo, within a paragraph taken from the Daily News.”

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.

Regards,
Ben

[harry]

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.

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.

You made false claims of missing information,and of an interrogation report of Aberline,and you are making ridiculous assertions and claims to support them.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
No it is you that is wrong.Aberline uses the word interrogation.It is there in his report.It is Aberlines way of expressing his questioning of Hutchinson,and it is clear that Aberline considered Hutchinson a witness only.

Yes, interrogation, and an interrogation is defined here:
"The purpose for an interrogation is to elicit the truth from a person whom the investigator believes has lied during an interview. It represents, therefore, an effort to persuade the subject to tell the truth."

So if you interrogate a witness, it is because you have suspicions, therefore, you are actually interrogating a suspect. The fact Abberline uses the term "interrogate" implies the witness has already given his statement, and Abberline needs to dig deeper into his story.
Considering the witness as a suspect (meaning you hold suspicions about him/her) does not mean you think he is the killer, it only means you think he may have lied about something. Hutchinson was treated with suspicion, that is what I have claimed.
Why does that not make sense to you?

Anyway, what does that have to do with the question I posed to you?

Experience tells me it would not have been in the chronological order of the witness statement that survives today.

Have you never heard the police say, "just start at the beginning, sir"?
Why can he not tell his story in a step by step fashion? You could, I could, and so could he.

You cannot compare what goes on at an inquest,to questioning at a police station.Hutchinson was not on oath,and except for possible departmental policy,Aberline,and to a lesser degree Badham,were not constrained in their method of questioning,if kept within legal bounds.Think 1888,and do not confuse what you did with what was permissible then.

It is the end result that is comparable, it matter little how he got there, or what methods were used. What is important is that these first statements are given by the witness in their own words.

So, either you accept the statement was taken as it was related to the officer, or it was the result of questioning. That is the issue here.

I have answered your questions.Up until Aberline finished his questioning,it would have been verbal only,except for noting Hutchinson's particulars.When Aberline was finished,then Badham would have taken a written statement,writing in the first person,and using the information imparted by Hutchinson.Hutchinson would then be invited to read what had been written,and to sign each page.Which he obviously did.The starting point being when Hutchinson entered Commercial Street,and then in chronological order until Hutchinson started walking the streets.

At no point have you offered any reason for this belief, are we to accept you know this for sure, if so, then what is your evidence?

I ask, of course, because we have a press report which contests your opinion. Abberline was not present when Hutchinson arrived, it was taken in his absence and the statement was sent to him at Headquarters.
But by all means tell me it is wrong, but by the same token then, you must then tell me why you are so right.

Go ahead.

Information not considered pertinent was noted and placed in a report by Aberline.

Why make note of something that is not pertinent?

[harry]

Jon,
No it is you that is wrong.Aberline uses the word interrogation.It is there in his report.It is Aberlines way of expressing his questioning of Hutchinson,and it is clear that Aberline considered Hutchinson a witness only.

Everone is wasting breath trying to make you understand.We do not know how Hutchinson expressed himself on entering the police station,or what words he used,but common sense dictates it was in relation to Kelly's murder.Experience tells me it would not have been in the chronological order of the witness statement that survives today.

You cannot compare what goes on at an inquest,to questioning at a police station.Hutchinson was not on oath,and except for possible departmental policy,Aberline,and to a lesser degree Badham,were not constrained in their method of questioning,if kept within legal bounds.Think 1888,and do not confuse what you did with what was permissible then.

I have answered your questions.Up until Aberline finished his questioning,it would have been verbal only,except for noting Hutchinson's particulars.When Aberline was finished,then Badham would have taken a written statement,writing in the first person,and using the information imparted by Hutchinson.Hutchinson would then be invited to read what had been written,and to sign each page.Which he obviously did.The starting point being when Hutchinson entered Commercial Street,and then in chronological order until Hutchinson started walking the streets.

Information not considered pertinent was noted and placed in a report by Aberline.From beginning to the end,it would have been the police dictating matters,not Hutchinson.There was no third report.No missing information.

[Wickerman]

As opposed to that which prevails in Jonworld wherein witness statements are sent arbitrarily all over London;

Arbitrarily?
Care to quote me saying this?

....wherein DC Walter Dew ascends to the rank of Sergeant!!! despite the official record to the contrary;

Coincidentally, I thought to ask about that just recently.
Apparently, Constables can be temporarily 'acted up' to Sergeant, as and when required.
This, from someone who knows more about policing than you and me put together.

.....wherein Mrs Kennedy becomes a stellar witness despite her nonappearance at the Kelly inquest;

And you 'know' that Kennedy was not slated to appear at the second sitting, the adjournment that was cancelled?

...wherein police continue to regard Astrakhan as a prime suspect even after Hutchinson’s witness statement had been disregarded.

Still preaching this "disregarded statement" I see. Still without the slightest whisper of evidence, oh, sorry, circular arguments require no evidence - silly me.

And there’s your answer. Had Hutchinson even suggested that he’d wandered into the court he would have been asked whether he there saw or heard anything of relevance to the murder under investigation.

To take your example, Hutch said to the press that he went up the Court, stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see or hear anything.
What is there for Badham to write down except that, "he went to the court"?

Did he, for example, discern light or sound emanating from the room? Had he heard or seen anyone else in the court?

Those are not questions of clarification. Those are exploratory questions.
There is a fine line between the two, but if your question distracts the witness from their train of thought, then the question is not one of clarification.

Example, question of clarification:
Witness says he saw a man across the road.
Badham: Can you describe him?

Example, exploratory question:
Witness says he saw a man across the road.
Badham: Did you see anything else?

I could likely think of better examples, but the slight difference is sufficient.

In other words clarification would have been required, and any additional detail supplied by Hutchinson would have been included in the witness statement.

All your subsequent objections could be addressed by me simply saying this.
Perhaps you might care to answer the same question I posed to Harry?

[Wickerman]

Jon.
Your words,"Think of it like a confession,the subject lays it all out in his own words,no prompting,no distractions,no que stions".
You think that is how it happened in 1888,or that matter today.

It didn't and it doesn't.

How wrong you are.
I had to give a witness statement and that is precisely how it went.
The officer wrote it down, but I had to give it in my own words, so don't waste your breath telling me it doesn't happen that way.

we know it didn't happen that way. We know there was a distraction.Aberline was sent for,and an interrogation took place,and have you ever known of an interrogation that didn't involve questioning.

You are confusing two separate incidents.
A witness statement is not an interrogation record.

I asked you a question, why did you not answer?

Take another look at those police statements by Cox, Lewis, Barnett, etc. all nine of them.
Then look at all their inquest testimonies, compare each testimony with the police statement given by that witness.

Now, as yourself this, if Abberline questioned all those witnesses, how is it that the Coroner, a medical man / politician, could extract more information from them than Abberline, arguably one of the best interrogators in H division?

Sure Hutchinson might have been asked if he wished to write his own statement,but he didn't,because we know Badham did,and Badham would have done it the police way,in Chronological order.

Badham wrote it, Hutchinson dictated it. No questions.

Now, answer the question Harry.

[caz]

Ah yes, that was it - it must always be the lowly, downtrodden "constables" who are compelled to "conjure up" and "exaggerate" and basically lie to the press, derailing a manhunt for a mutilating serial killer of woman in the process, and all for the sake of procuring that precious whisky.

Hi Ben,

I'm just trying to imagine how your suggested 'derailing' would work. The police were conducting the manhunt, not the press, not the public and certainly not the killer himself. The one sure way of 'derailing' it was for the police, whether it be an official or unofficial whisky swigging source, to make a free gift to the killer - via the newspapers - of accurate inside information on how their enquiries were going, to show him whether they were getting warmer or remained stone cold. It is so fundamental to successful police work to keep their enquiries on a need-to-know basis (and occasionally to give out disinformation when necessary, to lure the culprit into making a mistake - imagine that! the blighters in blue!) that I can hardly believe you do not appreciate this and try to argue otherwise.

Love,

Caz
X

[martin wilson]

Hi all.

Thought provoking suggestion that he was trying to cadge a bed. He told Mary he was all spent out going to Romford. He said after he left the court he walked around all night as the place he usually slept was closed.
This begs a question. How could he pay for it? Ok, he might have had his lodging money only, or he may have been well known and trusted for it at the lodging house. We will never know.
However he also said he hadn't had anything to drink all day. By which I am taking it he means alcohol. It does suggest he was flat broke, and while I am not discounting Jon's other ideas, it's the one that I am most drawn to.
All the best.

[Garry Wroe]

So here we have another example of Policing according to Garry Wroe.

As opposed to that which prevails in Jonworld wherein witness statements are sent arbitrarily all over London; wherein DC Walter Dew ascends to the rank of Sergeant!!! despite the official record to the contrary; wherein Mrs Kennedy becomes a stellar witness despite her nonappearance at the Kelly inquest; wherein police continue to regard Astrakhan as a prime suspect even after Hutchinson’s witness statement had been disregarded.

The Policing class you appear to have missed was the one where they tell you not to lead the witness when making his/her initial statement. It must be in his/her own words, and the only questions that can be asked are for clarification.

And there’s your answer. Had Hutchinson even suggested that he’d wandered into the court he would have been asked whether he there saw or heard anything of relevance to the murder under investigation. Did he, for example, discern light or sound emanating from the room? Had he heard or seen anyone else in the court? In other words clarification would have been required, and any additional detail supplied by Hutchinson would have been included in the witness statement.

You keep beating this drum about what we should know, all the while staying oblivious to the fact that paperwork is lost. How convenient for you.

Huh??? Perhaps you’d care to provide the relevant quotes for such then.

The Hutchinson statement hasn’t been lost. It has survived and is open to public scrutiny. That is the document under discussion. Save the diversionary tactics for those unfamiliar with your smoke and mirrors debating style.

Hutchinson's initial statement to police is most certainly NOT "a continuous sequence of events", any more than the police statement of Sarah Lewis is expected to account for everything she saw & heard that night. Her statement DID NOT cover everything, neither was it expected to, it was merely what she thought important - just like Hutchinson.

Staggering. Truly staggering.

So now it’s the witness who decides which information is relevant to an ongoing murder investigation?

The witness!!!

This just keeps getting better and better.

Hang on a minute, though. What was that about clarification mentioned in your earlier lesson in police interviewing techniques?

Over and out.

[harry]

Jon.
Your words,"Think of it like a confession,the subject lays it all out in his own words,no prompting,no distractions,no que stions".
You think that is how it happened in 1888,or that matter today.

It didn't and it doesn't.The order of things would have been Hutchinson entering the police station and stating to an officer he had information.
On being asked what it was,do you really believe he would have given that information in the exact chronological order that we have today,with no prompting,no distractions and no questions?

Of course not,and we know it didn't happen that way. We know there was a distraction.Aberline was sent for,and an interrogation took place,and have you ever known of an interrogation that didn't involve questioning.

Sure Hutchinson might have been asked if he wished to write his own statement,but he didn't,because we know Badham did,and Badham would have done it the police way,in Chronological order.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
You believe the wording written by Badham,is exactly as Hutchinson recounted? Or do you believe some is an interpretation by Badham?What of the information given to Aberline? Word for word perfect? Written as spoken?

The whole police statement is given in the first person, "I was coming," "I saw...", "I heard...", etc.
Why do you ask, have you seen something that looks like interpretation by Badham?

If you look at Bowyers police statement, taken by Abberline, it is in the third person. "He was sent...", "He said...", "He knocked....", etc.
Clearly we can expect a degree of interpretation by Abberline in that one instance.
All the other police statements, those of McCarthy, Barnett, Cox, etc. are all taken in the first person.

Interestingly, Abberline takes the statement of Sarah Lewis in the first person, then adds a footnote in the third person to summarize a further comment she makes.

So we have clear examples of how police conducted the taking of witness statements.

So, to get back to your question, there is nothing I see to suggest any interpretation by Badham, unless you have something in mind.

[harry]

Jon,
You believe the wording written by Badham,is exactly as Hutchinson recounted? Or do you believe some is an interpretation by Badham?What of the information given to Aberline? Word for word perfect? Written as spoken?

[Wickerman]

There's a simple reason why your assertion gained little to no traction. Hutchinson not only provided a police statement, he was questioned prior to pen going to paper. On top of this he was 'interrogated' by Abberline. Had there been any suggestion that he'd stood directly outside Kelly's room we'd know about it. Any even semi-competent investigator would have sought to determine whether he'd noticed any light or sound emanating from the room. He would have been asked if he'd seen or heard anyone else in the court. Any number of questions would have required answers. Yet we have nothing. Not a single reference to Hutchinson having been within touching distance of what had already become the most notorious murder scene in British criminal history.

You either do not understand the nature of a police witness statement or are disregarding reality in order to sustain an unsustainable assertion. The simple fact of the matter is that Hutchinson's police statement was a written account detailing a continuous sequence of events pertaining to the death of Mary Jane Kelly. Had Hutchinson mentioned being outside her room at a time critical to her death, such a claim would, by necessity, have been included in the statement.

Odds-on you'll dispute even this glaring reality.

So here we have another example of Policing according to Garry Wroe.

And yet, we have nine brief witness statements taken by Abberline in Millers Court, and not one of those statements was complete as given.
Every one of those witness statements had to be expanded at the inquest by thorough questioning.
So much for YOUR view then.

You expect Hutchinson to be unique, and have the ability to tell the police every single detail in that one brief statement.

The Policing class you appear to have missed was the one where they tell you not to lead the witness when making his/her initial statement. It must be in his/her own words, and the only questions that can be asked are for clarification.

Once the statement is made, then follows the interrogation, using the statement as a prompt to guide the questioning.
The equivalent of this, with respect to the Inquest witnesses, is the Coroner's questioning.
The interrogation of Hutchinson, by Abberline, has not survived. We have no equivalent of the "Coroner's questioning" for Hutchinson to expand on his statement.

You keep beating this drum about what we should know, all the while staying oblivious to the fact that paperwork is lost. How convenient for you.

Hutchinson's initial statement to police is most certainly NOT "a continuous sequence of events", any more than the police statement of Sarah Lewis is expected to account for everything she saw & heard that night. Her statement DID NOT cover everything, neither was it expected to, it was merely what she thought important - just like Hutchinson.

Hutchinson's account is nothing more than how he remembers it, and what he thinks is important, which is why police interrogation is required, police have a more clinical view of what is important, a view rarely shared by the witness.

What you are doing here is creating another straw-man argument. Setting the expectation up so high, quite falsely I might add, only to knock it down for not meeting 'your' expectations.
When 'your' expectations bear no resemblance to what was done.

The Witness Statement is the account by the witness, in their own words.
Think of it like a confession, the suspect lays it all out in his own words, no prompting, no distractions, no questions.

[Wickerman]

Its only an issue for you and your twisted logic, because its clear in both accounts that after his sentence of going to the court-which is into the court in your twisted logic-he stood THERE for 45 minutes.

And you have the gall to patronize me.

This is in plain English..
I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise.
What language do you want it in.

Why don't you read through all the police statements given by Prater, Cox, Lewis, Barnett, etc. and compare them with what they eventually said at the inquest.
Once you have listed all the differences, I expect you will denounce them all as liars.
Twisted logic you say.....believe me, we wouldn't be having this exchange if your logic was up to par.

Do everyone a favor and put a little more thought into it.

[Wickerman]

Hi all.

'My suspicions were aroused by seeing a man so well dressed, but I had no suspicion he was the murderer.'

'I stood there for three quarters of an hour to see if they came down again but they did not'

Something doesn't make sense here.
All the best.

Perhaps if we focus on the important points:
I had no suspicion he was the murderer.

There are a wealth of other criminals in town besides this murderer, any one of which could have taken advantage of her in other ways. Hutch had no idea there was going to be a murder that night.
Isn't being curious sufficient cause to hang around?
He may have hoped to cadge a bed for the night after her customer left, is that so wrong?

Who knows, he may have even considered mugging Astrachan himself.
It only stands to reason Abberline will ask him the same question (why did you wait around, George?), so whatever answer he gave was suitable enough for Abberline.

As is often the case, just because "we" do not know the answer, does not make it suspicious.