The Red Handkerchief...

[Garry Wroe]

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

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

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

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

Astonishing.

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

[Garry Wroe]

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

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

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

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

That, perhaps, ought to be telling us something.

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

[Wickerman]

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

Surely not.

Well, maybe you should purchase the two extant copies of the Inquests and see for yourself, before you continue to guess your way through another argument.

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

Of course you were, because that it what is done today. The method used today is not the issue.
What is not known is what was the procedure a hundred or more years ago.
Much has changed in the last century with respect to dealing with witnesses.

[Wickerman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe we should sort this out once and for all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wickerman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wickerman]

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

How would you recognize it?

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

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

The reason, and importance, is the same.

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

[harry]

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

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

[Sally]

Well, maybe you should purchase the two extant copies of the Inquests and see for yourself, before you continue to guess your way through another argument.

Seen 'em Jon - and I'm not guessing, I'm afraid - I don't 'guess', that would be you.

You see, I know that court reporters were using shorthand in court for hundreds of years before those 'two extant copies of the inquests' were written; and I know that they are what is [and was] known as a fair copy; which is the longhand copy derived from the shorthand taken in court.

This has been standard practice in England and on the Continent for centuries. The shorthand copies rarely survive, but are fascinating to read when they do

You may doubt what I say, if you like - but I shouldn't think you'd have to look very far to discover the truth - see for yourself.

I would suggest that in future you ascertain the facts first before you make ludicrous claims based on nothing more than your ill-informed opinion.

Of course you were, because that it what is done today. The method used today is not the issue.
What is not known is what was the procedure a hundred or more years ago.
Much has changed in the last century with respect to dealing with witnesses

Gosh, yes - because a hundred years ago was so long ago, right? Nobody knew how to think then, you know - they were way too primitive. Yes, in olden times, women were invisible and couldn't go out of the house without a hat unless they were a prostitute; and the streets were policed by men who asked no questions.

Things were so different then!

You say that the procedure a hundred years ago ][or 'Olden Times' if you prefer...] is not known; yet you yourself have previously posted a list of questions asked of witnesses by the police; as Garry mentioned yesterday. I presume that that document dates from the time that we're discussing [because if not, you must admit to using a document from another, presumably later period to support one of your arguments relating to 1888] But that aside -

Doesn't that document in and of itself tell us that witnesses were questioned?

But it isn't required to demonstrate that police procedure was to question witnesses then, as now - all you need to do is look at what is written at the time; and at the common structure of contemporary witness statements to see it.

The reason for structuring a witness interrogation with questioning is to elicit information that is relevant of course; a procedure grounded in logic and necessity. Why would you think that has changed?

It's baffling.

[Garry Wroe]

Doesn't that document in and of itself tell us that witnesses were questioned?

Haven’t you heard? It was the witnesses who determined the structure and content of the police interview, not the investigators.

The reason for structuring a witness interrogation with questioning is to elicit information that is relevant of course; a procedure grounded in logic and necessity. Why would you think that has changed?

Well, here’s a clue: we have no official documentary evidence that Hutchinson mentioned having stood directly outside Kelly’s room shortly before the murder. According to Jon he did make reference to such but Badham was not permitted under the rules of interview to press him further on the issue.

Remember, it was the witnesses who determined the structure and content of the police interview.

Get it now?

[Sally]

Sorry Garry, my mistake - I was going for the rational approach there when of course I should have recognised the futility of trying to counter fantasy with inconsequential things like logic and recorded facts.

I should have learned my lesson from the Morning Advertiser drivel.

I do apologise, it won't happen again

Now, back to the 19th Century aka 'Olden Times'.....

[Sally]

And while we're at it...

This silly nonsense regarding Hutchinson's self-confessed presence at Millers Court -

They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not.

According to him, Kelly and Astrakhan went up the Court; he went to the Court.

They entered, he didn't. The distinction is perfectly clear.

[Garry Wroe]

Sorry Garry, my mistake - I was going for the rational approach there when of course I should have recognised the futility of trying to counter fantasy with inconsequential things like logic and recorded facts.

It keeps Ben entertained, I suppose.

[Abby Normal]

This silly nonsense regarding Hutchinson's self-confessed presence at Millers Court -

They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not.

According to him, Kelly and Astrakhan went up the Court; he went to the Court.

They entered, he didn't. The distinction is perfectly clear.

Not in wicker world it isn't.

They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not.

And if that's not enough, the next sentence -I stood there for 45 minutes-then means back outside the court in wicker world.

And in this crazy world you get ridiculed for not getting it.

Total BS, and frankly, im not dealing with it anymore. its pointless.

[Wickerman]

You see, I know that court reporters were using shorthand in court for hundreds of years before those 'two extant copies of the inquests' were written; and I know that they are what is [and was] known as a fair copy; which is the longhand copy derived from the shorthand taken in court.

Other courts are of no concern.
The reason we know the Eddowes inquest papers are the originals is written all over them, almost, on every page.
The Kelly inquest record may be debatable.

You have though, if Ben is paying attention, given the reason why the press coverage of these inquests are more complete. Not, as has been suggested, because the press have invented testimony, but because the press used shorthand, as opposed to Hodgkinson at the Kelly inquest, and Shelton, at the Eddowes inquest, who both applied longhand.
Therefore, only capturing the most relevant details and in consequence produce a lesser document.

Just out of interest, do you think that Hutchinson's statement was originally taken down in shorthand?
If not, why not?

[Wickerman]

Remember, it was the witnesses who determined the structure and content of the police interview.

Offering a statement, is not an interview. He offered himself, he was not called in.
A statement is simply telling them what you saw, and you heard, in your words.