The Red Handkerchief...

[Ben]

It was mentioned previously that this man seen by Hutchinson at 2:00 am, could have been dressed the same on the Sunday morning, where he claimed to see him once again in the market (as stated to the press).

So you do like Hutchinson's press account? In spite of the fact that you very recently cautioned another poster against using it in support of his point, and that press accounts of his evidence amounted only to "gossip"?

Do make your mind up.

I'm afraid you've touched upon one of the very silliest of Hutchinson-supporting arguments; the notion that Astrakhan man wore the very same clothes and accessories when Hutchinson supposedly spotted a man that might have been him on the Sunday (a detail that only appears in the press, and should be rejected accordingly, says Jon). But if Hutchinson was using this second sighting as an opportunity to confirm that "blahw me daaahhn, that fing I fought was a horseshoe tie pin was actually a horseshoe tie pin!", why would he then state that he only "fancied" it was the same individual from the Miller's Court encounter, but "could not be certain"? Was he seriously wondering that it might have been a different person wearing identical clothes and accessories?

There are older threads on Casebook where a retired policeman who had taken "hundreds of witness statements" said that the detail offered by Hutchinson is not unusual at all.

There is also a magistrate who consulted a number of policemen – both retired and serving – who all dismiss Hutchinson’s statement as “pure fantasy”. Even tests for photographic memory don't require memorization feats as advanced as Hutchinson's to illustrate its presence in a particular individual.

The content is provided by Hutchinson, certainly, but the attention to detail of the list is mostly due to the experience of the interviewing Sergeant, who knows his job

Unless you're suggesting Badham's list included such categories as "eyelash colour" and "tie pin shape", it's perfectly clear that Hutchinson volunteered most of Astrakhan's physical attributes without the assistance of a questionnaire. It's obvious that many of those "attributes" listed on the form you quoted would not be considered in the context of a fleeting sighting with a stranger. Hutchinson would not have known Astrakhan's "eating habits", for instance!

Of course, how silly of me. The police only gave nothing to the reporters, "in the past few days".

Yes. How silly of you.

We'll forget all the other instances of silence shall we..

Sometimes they were silent, but at other times - wait for it! - they provided information to some members of the press. A taxing concept for some to embrace, obviously.

The suspect passed right under his nose, men often wear handkerchiefs displayed.

From their external outer coat pockets?!

Remind me never to take fashion tips from you, Jon.

No, that's not how anyone wears a handkerchief.

It would either have been nestled in a waistcoat pocket, or in a jacket pocket underneath his Astrakhan coat and completely beyond Hutchinson's visual range, unless the man had an absurdly protruding chest. While we're on the subject of gas lamps, I'd be interested to see the evidence that the Queen's Head had a lamp of its own, separate from the nearby lamp on Fashion Street.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

You are right but setting aside the standard ID details as per your form no matter how experienced the officer is he cant compensate for someone like Hutchinson saying that he was able to see specific colours. i.e. red handkerchief,red stone in very bad lighting conditions. If I recall Hutchinson goes as far as to say the man had dark eyes and dark eyelashes. !

As a police officer those are the things which would make me question the truthfulness.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Are you saying that standing under a gas lamp, as the suspect walks passed, you think it would not be possible to identify the colour of the stone, or the colour of the handkerchief?

No-one should expect that he identified the colour of these items from several yards away down Dorset St. The suspect passed right under his nose, men often wear handkerchiefs displayed, in view, out of the breast pocket. Perfectly visible from 2-3 ft away, wouldn't you think?

[Trevor Marriott]

It was mentioned previously that this man seen by Hutchinson at 2:00 am, could have been dressed the same on the Sunday morning, where he claimed to see him once again in the market (as stated to the press).
So yes, some of the more detailed points may have been added from the daylight sighting.
It's a possibility, but it is not necessary in order to accept his account.

There are older threads on Casebook where a retired policeman who had taken "hundreds of witness statements" said that the detail offered by Hutchinson is not unusual at all.
Some witnesses are extremely observant, others are not so good. That is only to be expected, we are dealing with people, and everybody is different.
I do not recall any policeman coming on here and contesting that.

There is another point that nobody appears to consider. Sgt Badham was an experienced officer, he would have known the Witness Description form off by heart. This form is very detailed, here is a portion of it.



An experienced officer can ask the witness about those details; eyes, nose, hair, moustache, etc. and the end result will be a very detailed description.
The content is provided by Hutchinson, certainly, but the attention to detail of the list is mostly due to the experience of the interviewing Sergeant, who knows his job.

You are right but setting aside the standard ID details as per your form no matter how experienced the officer is he cant compensate for someone like Hutchinson saying that he was able to see specific colours. i.e. red handkerchief,red stone in very bad lighting conditions. If I recall Hutchinson goes as far as to say the man had dark eyes and dark eyelashes. !

As a police officer those are the things which would make me question the truthfulness.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I'd wonder when the police had the time to test witness statements to that degree, quite apart from anything else.

There lies the problem with the witness statements they have to be taken on face value, but when you read into them there are many questions which could and should have been asked but were not.

Limited questions were put to the witnesses at the inquests and I can perhaps understand why because of the role of the coroner and his court.

The problem we face with Hutchinson`s statement is that the police had no choice publicly but to accept Hutchinson`s statement, to reject it publicly would have alienated them from the public even more.

But whether the police accepted off the record as being the truth is another matter.

The other problem with the witness statements is that nowadays we scrutinize the statements much more when we are looking at the likely involvement of specific suspects, or to clear up any ambiguities. The police in 1888 didn't have any main suspects, so they had no reasons to delve deeper into the what the witnesses were saying.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

"Of course, no information as to what has transpired is afforded by any of the officers, who-as evidenced by their attitude towards the Press in the East-end during the past few days-very zealously obey the stringent orders they have to "give nothing to reporters."

"During the past few days".

Of course, how silly of me. The police only gave nothing to the reporters, "in the past few days".
We'll forget all the other instances of silence shall we....

Really Ben,....who are you trying to kid.

[Wickerman]

I have been reading over the first few pages of this thread, with the discussion of how detailed GH was in his description of the man he supposedly saw with MJK, despite the poor lighting conditions, and I was wondering... Could Hutchinson have based his details on someone he'd seen in daylight, or in a lighted room, at an earlier time?

Was he trying to frame someone else, someone he knew, at least by sight, and perhaps had a dislike for?

It was mentioned previously that this man seen by Hutchinson at 2:00 am, could have been dressed the same on the Sunday morning, where he claimed to see him once again in the market (as stated to the press).
So yes, some of the more detailed points may have been added from the daylight sighting.
It's a possibility, but it is not necessary in order to accept his account.

There are older threads on Casebook where a retired policeman who had taken "hundreds of witness statements" said that the detail offered by Hutchinson is not unusual at all.
Some witnesses are extremely observant, others are not so good. That is only to be expected, we are dealing with people, and everybody is different.
I do not recall any policeman coming on here and contesting that.

There is another point that nobody appears to consider. Sgt Badham was an experienced officer, he would have known the Witness Description form off by heart. This form is very detailed, here is a portion of it.



An experienced officer can ask the witness about those details; eyes, nose, hair, moustache, etc. and the end result will be a very detailed description.
The content is provided by Hutchinson, certainly, but the attention to detail of the list is mostly due to the experience of the interviewing Sergeant, who knows his job.

[Ben]

Hi Sally,

I'd wonder when the police had the time to test witness statements to that degree, quite apart from anything else.

I suppose it's possible that this formed part of the "later investigations" that resulted in Hutchinson's account receiving a "very reduced importance". Might a few curious coppers have revisited the scene and thought "hang on..."?

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Like this you mean?

The police at Leman-street refuse to give any information, and some officials who had come from Scotland-yard, denied that such an arrest had been made, but this statement was, of course, incorrect, seeing that the arrest is admitted by the prisoner's relatives.
Echo.

No, Jon.

Not remotely like that.

That isn't evidence of the police lying to the Echo. It is evidence of them refusing to provide information on one particular issue. That extract doesn't even originate from an Echo journalist, but rather a press agency, which is why we see it reproduced verbatim in other newspapers, such as the Star and the Evening News.

You quote the Echo as follows, and highlight in bold the snippets that you wrongly believe come to the rescue of your argument, but I've taken all those highlights out and would like to draw your attention to the relevant bit:

"Of course, no information as to what has transpired is afforded by any of the officers, who-as evidenced by their attitude towards the Press in the East-end during the past few days-very zealously obey the stringent orders they have to "give nothing to reporters."

"During the past few days".

In other words, not all the time.

Surely you're not still struggling with the basic reality that sometimes the police would supply some information to some journalists? The fact that the police were adopting a tight-lipped attitude at one stage of the investigation does mean that they would never discuss any case-related information at any stage.

That's terribly obvious.

Regards,
Ben

[Sally]

Sorry, Sally, but 'we' were not all around to witness 'you' doing this thing to death. 2014 was a busy old year for me and I'm only just beginning to catch up with some of the topics that interest me nearly as much they must have interested you at the time, considering you happily joined in with the doing to death.

Hi Caz, sorry you missed all the fun last year; but as I said, my comment was an aside. made in passing. I sometimes think life's too short to go round in circles.

Incidentally, my 'cut and paste job' was as clear as your own, regarding Kelly's female associate, since you cut and pasted the identical article I began my post with.

You're right. I'd missed that entirely. Honestly, I don't always read posts in detail if I'm pressed for time. I probably wouldn't have involved myself at all but for Colin's post, which I felt merited a response.

[Sally]

But they never put it to the test !

I have put it to the test and believe me you cannot distinguish a red stone from a blue stone from a black stone even in half light ! the same for a handkerchief.

I say again the witness statements were never tested yet many still treat the contents as being written in stone.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'd wonder when the police had the time to test witness statements to that degree, quite apart from anything else.

[Trevor Marriott]

I guess that's possible. These 'poor lighting conditions' though. So many people saying that it would be impossible for Hutchinson to have seen what he claimed. Their number, however, does not include Abberline or, for that matter, Badham, two men who knew well those lighting conditions which the 21st century poster can only guess at.

But they never put it to the test !

I have put it to the test and believe me you cannot distinguish a red stone from a blue stone from a black stone even in half light ! the same for a handkerchief.

I say again the witness statements were never tested yet many still treat the contents as being written in stone.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Bridewell]

I have been reading over the first few pages of this thread, with the discussion of how detailed GH was in his description of the man he supposedly saw with MJK, despite the poor lighting conditions, and I was wondering... Could Hutchinson have based his details on someone he'd seen in daylight, or in a lighted room, at an earlier time?

Was he trying to frame someone else, someone he knew, at least by sight, and perhaps had a dislike for?

I guess that's possible. These 'poor lighting conditions' though. So many people saying that it would be impossible for Hutchinson to have seen what he claimed. Their number, however, does not include Abberline or, for that matter, Badham, two men who knew well those lighting conditions which the 21st century poster can only guess at.

[caz]

As an aside, I do wonder why these old discussions are resurrected - we did all this 'Hutchinson's Derivative Story' thing to death.ages ago.

Sorry, Sally, but 'we' were not all around to witness 'you' doing this thing to death. 2014 was a busy old year for me and I'm only just beginning to catch up with some of the topics that interest me nearly as much they must have interested you at the time, considering you happily joined in with the doing to death.

Incidentally, my 'cut and paste job' was as clear as your own, regarding Kelly's female associate, since you cut and pasted the identical article I began my post with.

Love,

Caz
X

[Pcdunn]

Hutchinson described someone he'd seen in daylight?

I have been reading over the first few pages of this thread, with the discussion of how detailed GH was in his description of the man he supposedly saw with MJK, despite the poor lighting conditions, and I was wondering... Could Hutchinson have based his details on someone he'd seen in daylight, or in a lighted room, at an earlier time?

Was he trying to frame someone else, someone he knew, at least by sight, and perhaps had a dislike for?

[Wickerman]

And the sheer implausibility of the police lying to the Echo.

Like this you mean?

The police at Leman-street refuse to give any information, and some officials who had come from Scotland-yard, denied that such an arrest had been made, but this statement was, of course, incorrect, seeing that the arrest is admitted by the prisoner's relatives.
Echo.

And the sheer implausibility of the police supplying the Echo with accurate information, knowing that the latter had been spreading lies about them the previous day.

The police, however, refuse to give any details about the matter.
Echo.

These men were conveyed to the Leman-street Police-station, where the officials on duty absolutely refuse to give any information whatsoever to journalists.
Echo.

Of course, no information as to what has transpired is afforded by any of the officers, who-as evidenced by their attitude towards the Press in the East-end during the past few days-very zealously obey the stringent orders they have to "give nothing to reporters."
Echo.

Up to the present the police refuse the Press any information.
Echo.

Remind me again Ben, where does your idea of preferential treatment towards reporters from the Echo come from?
Apart from the obvious, 'desperation to defend the theory'?