The Red Handkerchief...

[harry]

Jon,
There was no ambiguity in your post 1574.It is clear there you infer 'Going to the court',meant Hutchinson went into the court.Pleased to see you no longer see it that way.

[martin wilson]

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.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Common sense suggests, that whoever the man with Kelly was, he was unlikely to have been her killer, unless the act was premeditated ..
Anyone who has the inclination to dress in decent clothing , is not about to cut up a person with knives..
Regards Richard,

[John G]

Hi,
Common sense suggests, that whoever the man with Kelly was, he was unlikely to have been her killer, unless the act was premeditated ..
Anyone who has the inclination to dress in decent clothing , is not about to cut up a person with knives..
Regards Richard,

Ah, not necessarily so. In respect of the intriguing Wallace murder the police had to explain how the accused, Mr Wallace, could have avoided getting blood on his clothing. They argued that he must have stripped naked to carry out the murder and noted that this was a strategy that has been employed before by murderers. That might also explain the need for a blazing fire!

[martin wilson]

Hi all

I suppose that's the question. If Hutchison had no suspicion he was looking at a murderer, why did he stand outside the court for 45 minutes?
Committing the murder while naked is not a bad theory, after all disrobing (to some extent) to have sex would be familiar to a prostitute.
All the best.

[Abby Normal]

Hutch told the press the same story as he told police, the blue section in this post is almost the same as his police statement.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=338604&postcount=1578

If you want to compare both statements line for line, look at this link.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=297301&postcount=536

So he didn't change his story.

Extra detail provided in the press statement clarifies what he meant in his police statement, that he walked up the court.
We know the 45 minute vigil was while he stood out on Dorset St. Even in the press version he says he waited for them to come down again, so clearly he is not inside the court on this vigil.

I really do not see why there is an issue.

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.

Your quotes:

That has to be one of the most amusing objections ever put forward.
"I went to the court" - means he stood outside the entry?

You likely need to look further than the end of your nose.

Heres a suggestion for you Wick. For once, just once, pretend the ripper wasn't your beloved well dressed man and take another look at the evidence with fresh eyes. You might actually come up with a good idea for once.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
There was no ambiguity in your post 1574.It is clear there you infer 'Going to the court',meant Hutchinson went into the court.Pleased to see you no longer see it that way.

No need for ambiguity when the context is readily available.

Police Statement: I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not.
Press Statement: I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not.

Context is explained in the press version:
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.

Without the context there is ambiguity, but with the context there is no ambiguity.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.
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.

[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.

[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.