The Red Handkerchief...

[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

[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.

[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?

[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]

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,
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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.