The Red Handkerchief...

[Wickerman]

Jon,
Based on common sense, and experience,unless you want to insinuate that Hutchinson arrived with a written statement.Or do you have another method?

You call that common sense?
You read what I wrote, so why ask what am I trying to insinuate?
Hutchinson walked into Commercial St., and told them he wanted to make a statement.
Badham wrote it down, as Hutchinson gave him the story. What could be more simpler than that?, and what on earth do we have to indicate otherwise?

Aberline interrogated,Badham wrote the statement.Fact

Another one who creates his own 'facts'.

Aberline was present,he didn''t need to countersign as having read.He knew the contents.He passed the statement on.Fact.Do you seriously believe he would have passed a document to seniors without knowing the content.

Are you saying that Badham did not know the contents, having written it down? of course he did, so why did he sign it then? - your logic is falling apart Harry.
You need to put more effort into this, or buy a few books to read. Guessing is not getting you very far.

How can you seriously argue Aberline was not present. Your claims are getting more wild and ridiculous.Go find someone else to listen.

Do some reading, then you might write something worth while..

[Wickerman]

I’m almost tempted to e-mail Stewart in order that you might benefit from the knowledge and experience of someone who actually knows what he’s talking about.

There again, Stewart’s done me no wrong.

Really, except show you that almost every aspect of your arguments are false......shall we revisit the threads?

You didn't think Stewart knew what he was talking about then, did you. And, I may as well remind you, it was Stewart who said Hutchinson's detailed statement was not unique, not suspicious, he took hundreds of statements, so he should know.
You really want to open up another can of worms?


Stewart had your number, or have you conveniently forgotten that too.

If your aim is to demonstrate your total ignorance of such matters, carry on because you are doing a sterling job. If not, I would suggest that you go away and learn something of the topic under discussion before commenting further.

I'm still waiting for evidence of this "Garry Wroe invented telegram" to surface, but like everything else, it's just you thinking out loud again.

[Wickerman]

Originally Posted by Wickerman
Peter Sutcliffe sat down with Det. Sgt. Smith and Det. Insp. Boyle, who took his statement themselves ... Sutcliffe gave a chronological account of 12 murders covering 33 pages, for almost 16 hours ... At no point during these 16 hours did Smith or Boyle ask Sutcliffe any questions …

And you are absolutely certain of this, are you, Jon?

In the principal book on the case by Michael Bilton, in the chapter dealing with his statement, there is no direct claim that Sutcliffe responded well to questioning, and neither is there a remark that they did not speak to him at all.

The questioning of Sutcliffe began on the Friday after he was brought in, all the questions concerned the crime which he was arrested for, and continued as the subject changed from theft over to the murders.

There is no talk of questioning him once he began making his statement, beyond one reference to guiding him through a series of major crimes, treating him with kid gloves, being careful not to antagonize him.
"They had to go gently with the prisoner, even when they knew Sutcliffe was lying".
"The prisoner had confessed to plenty in extraordinary detail. It was no time to grill him or challenge him. Their task was to get his story down on paper in a form that was priceless as evidence"

In thirty three pages of statement, no questions are recorded as put to the prisoner.
In the days following the taking of his signed statement, every question put to him in his interrogation is recorded, with it's reply by the prisoner.
The taking of the statement, and the subsequent interrogations, are separate chronological events, just as we see with Hutchinson.

[Garry Wroe]

I'm still waiting for evidence of this "Garry Wroe invented telegram" to surface, but like everything else, it's just you thinking out loud again.

There you go again with your ‘invented’ nonsense. So let’s have a look at who invented what.

You began with this sporadically emboldened newspaper quotation:-

"... and the importance they attached to this man's story may be imagined when it is mentioned that it was forwarded to the headquarters of the H Division as soon as completed by a special detective. Detectives Abberline, Nairn, and Moore were present when this message arrived, and an investigation was immediately set on foot."

In response to which I posted:-

If memory serves me correctly, Jon, Abberline was at Leman Street when he learned about Hutchinson's story. He received a telegram and immediately travelled by cab to Commercial Street.

This was when, without the slightest foundation, you alleged that this statement was a fabrication on my part.

You then maintained:-

We can be very safe in accepting that Hutchinson gave his story to Badham at Commercial St., at 6:00 pm, while Abberline was away at Central Office.
The statement was first seen by Abberline at Central Office after being sent there by Badham, et.al., at which point he came down to Commercial Street to interrogate Hutchinson.

Time and again you stated that Badham forwarded Hutchinson’s statement to Abberline at Central Office.

With me so far?

Unfortunately, for reasons best known to yourself, you didn’t present the original newspaper quote in its entirety. Whereas you posted the following …

"... and the importance they attached to this man's story may be imagined when it is mentioned that it was forwarded to the headquarters of the H Division as soon as completed by a special detective. Detectives Abberline, Nairn, and Moore were present when this message arrived, and an investigation was immediately set on foot."

… the original report, featured in the Echo of 13 November, 1888, was preceded by this:-

‘The description, which substantiated that given by others of the person seen in company with the deceased on the morning she was killed, was much fuller in detail than that hitherto in the possession of the police …’

‘The description’.

It was the description, not the witness statement, that was forwarded. And neither was it sent to Central Office. It was conveyed to ‘the headquarters of the H Division’, which as most are aware was Leman Street. On top of this the press report describes a ‘message’ having been sent from Commercial Street to Leman Street.

Again, let’s recall my initial post on the issue:-

If memory serves me correctly, Jon, Abberline was at Leman Street when he learned about Hutchinson's story. He received a telegram and immediately travelled by cab to Commercial Street.

Abberline was at Leeman Street … Well, it turns out that he was.

He received a telegram … According to the Echo it was a message.

And nowhere, absolutely nowhere, is there any reference to Hutchinson’s statement having been sent from Commercial Street to another destination.

Nowhere.

So, irony of ironies, the poster who is quick to accuse others of inventing evidence has … well … invented his evidence.

And not for the first time either.

[c.d.]

What is up with you guy on this thread? Can't you just post without throwing in some snarky comment as well? Seriously, try to come across as adults.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

I'll tell you what Garry.

Why don't you just contact Stewart and ask him if the signatures appended to Hutchinson's statement are consistent with Abberline being present for the taking of that same statement.

And secondly, does Abberline's daily report for 12th Nov. actually provide us with a reasonable chronology of events; that first he attended the inquest, that the police then received a statement from Hutchinson, and that finally Abberline came to interrogate Hutchinson in the evening.

And finally, what is Stewarts opinion on the degree of questioning to produce Hutchinson's statement.
Not the description, that is obviously the product of questions by Badham, but it is the statement that is of concern.
Could it be entirely by Hutchinson, or must it be the result of questions.

How do you feel about that?

[Garry Wroe]

Why don't you just contact Stewart and ask him if the signatures appended to Hutchinson's statement are consistent with Abberline being present for the taking of that same statement.

Ah, the distraction tactics once again.

If I contact Stewart it will be to elicit his opinion on your insistence that witnesses determined the structure and content of police statements.

And secondly, does Abberline's daily report for 12th Nov. actually provide us with a reasonable chronology of events; that first he attended the inquest, that the police then received a statement from Hutchinson, and that finally Abberline came to interrogate Hutchinson in the evening.

Smoke and mirrors. I stated my recollection that a telegram was sent to Leman Street requesting that Abberline attend Commercial Street, which he did by way of a cab. You responded with the accusation that this was a fabrication on my part. The ‘evidence’, so you said, ‘proved’ that Hutchinson’s ‘witness statement’ was sent to ‘Central Office’ where Abberline read it and then went to speak to Hutchinson in person.

The problem is that your ‘evidence’ was nothing of the kind. It was an incomplete newspaper report. The part that you’d neglected to include clearly stated that it was the description of Astrakhan that had been issued from Commercial Street, not the witness statement. This was described as a message, and it was sent to Leman Street rather than Central Office as you maintained.

So much for the allegation of dishonesty on my part.

And finally, what is Stewarts opinion on the degree of questioning to produce Hutchinson's statement ... Could it be entirely by Hutchinson, or must it be the result of questions ... How do you feel about that?

I feel absolutely confident that, then as now, an interviewing officer would have mediated structure and cohesion whilst a witness dictated an official statement. Your contention to the contrary referred not merely to Hutchinson, but rather all witnesses. With respect to Hutchinson, however, you stated that an interviewing officer would not have requested elucidation had Hutchinson inferred that he’d stood directly outside Mary Kelly’s room shortly before her death. I stated then and maintain now that you are wrong. In fact I’d go further than that and state that your argument is utterly preposterous.

Here’s a link to the CPS website that took all of thirty seconds to locate:-

https://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/reporting_a_crime/telling_police.html

You might care to read and absorb the following, especially the emboldened sentence:-

‘A witness statement is your written or video recorded account of what happened to you. A police officer will ask you questions and write down what you have said. You will be asked to read it and sign it with your name. When you sign a witness statement you are saying that you agree the statement is a true account of your experience. Your witness statement may be used as evidence in court.’

There again, maybe the CPS doesn’t know what it’s talking about either.

[Garry Wroe]

What is up with you guy on this thread? Can't you just post without throwing in some snarky comment as well? Seriously, try to come across as adults.

I take exception to being accused of lying on the basis of zero evidence, CD. If you think that refuting such an allegation is childish, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But please don't expect me to concur.

[John G]

Hello Garry,

But surely police procedures for taking witness statements may have been fundamentally different, and less formal, in Victorian England than today. I mean, were there even any codified rules determined by legislation or codes of practice?

Even in more recent times there have been significant legislative changes in this area: see for example Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984.

[Garry Wroe]

But surely police procedures for taking witness statements may have been fundamentally different, and less formal, in Victorian England than today.

As far as I’m aware, John, the taking of witness statements remained pretty much unchanged until the relatively recent introduction of PACE. But if, as you suggest, the process was less formal in the Victorian era, this would introduce the likelihood of there having been more interaction between the interviewing officer and witness, rather than less as has been contended elsewhere.

There has been a great deal of nonsense generated on this thread of late, much of it introduced to distract from a fundamentally flawed argument supported neither by common sense nor the available evidence. This is the kind of rubbish that deters many from participating on the Hutchinson threads and even drives people from the Casebook site altogether.

I wouldn’t dwell on it too much if I were you. There are more intelligent and interesting debates to be had elsewhere.

[Wickerman]

It is probably as well to point out that Stewart has already shared his opinion on the quality of the content in the statement given by Hutchinson. It is found to be inadequate for several reasons.
Neil Bell, in his recent book, Capturing Jack the Ripper, includes some of Stewarts opinions between pages 208-210.

Assuming Hutchinson was adequately questioned Stewart has observed 'poor practices' which resulted in Hutchinson not being asked to provide distances between himself and the couple, or other fixed locations which would help the police better appreciate what he saw & heard.

Also, the parcel held by the suspect is not given any dimensions, which should be important to an investigating officer due to the fact this parcel could have contained a weapon.
[Ripper Notes: Suspect and Witness - The Police Viewpoint, Evans, 2005.]

Recently, we have debated the meaning of Hutchinson's words, "I then went to the Court", which by itself is ambiguous. Badham should have asked him to clarify that.
Also, we notice Hutchinson does give the time this event began, "About 2 a.m.", but the investigating officer should have asked him when did he leave, and where did he go after that.
Simply terminating the statement with, "...I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away." is not acceptable for an investigating officer.
A statement cannot be left open ended like that.

The investigator will realize that this man could be making some of this up to give himself an alibi, he may have had a bigger role to play in this murder than he is letting on.

The investigator, fully aware that the cry of "murder" was heard between 3:30-4:00, roughly, needs to know exactly what time Hutchinson left the scene, and where did he go afterwards, who he may have seen or spoken to, anything to validate his story so the police can know his whereabouts at the time the cry of murder was heard.

Hutchinson's statement is wholly inadequate for the above reason's. Which then raises a valid question, "was he questioned at all, or just not adequately enough?".
The question is a valid one to any person who agrees with the above noted deficiencies.

[Sally]

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.

Hey Jon

So... First you assert that Hutchinson was thoroughly questioned; and now you assert that he was inadequately questioned.

That's some U-turn - Spectacular!

Poor old Badham, demoted from competent to idiot on a whim.

Which is it going to be? Make your mind up.

[Garry Wroe]

Hey Jon
So... First you assert that Hutchinson was thoroughly questioned; and now you assert that he was inadequately questioned.

In addition to which he wouldn’t have been questioned at all under the rules of interview. It was the witnesses, see, that determined the structure and content of the witness statement.

That's some U-turn - Spectacular!

As I said a few weeks ago:-

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 …

Yep. That just about sums it up.

[Wickerman]

Hey Jon

So... First you assert that Hutchinson was thoroughly questioned; and now you assert that he was inadequately questioned.

That's some U-turn - Spectacular!

Poor old Badham, demoted from competent to idiot on a whim.

Which is it going to be? Make your mind up.

I've suggested before that you quit guessing, just re-read the relevant post.

[Wickerman]

Ah, the distraction tactics once again.

If I contact Stewart it will be to elicit his opinion on your insistence that witnesses determined the structure and content of police statements.

Don't be surprised if Stewart doesn't ask you, "what did Jon actually say?".

The problem is that your ‘evidence’ was nothing of the kind. It was an incomplete newspaper report. The part that you’d neglected to include clearly stated that it was the description of Astrakhan that had been issued from Commercial Street, not the witness statement. This was described as a message, and it was sent to Leman Street rather than Central Office as you maintained.

Ok, lets play it your way, though I fail to see how this helps your argument.
Forget the Statement, lets just agree it was the "description" that was sent to HQ.

Hutchinson's statement, including the description, covered two and a half pages. The description was written on the lower half of page two, following the statement. Written above the description are the words: "Circulated to A. S." (All Stations).

So, the statement was already committed to writing at Commercial St. while Abberline, Nairn & Moore were away at H.Q.
Then, the description was circulated, no doubt to HQ as well as all other stations.

So, we read:
"This description, which substantiates that given by others of the person seen in company with the deceased on the morning she was killed, is much fuller in detail than that hitherto in the possession of the police, and the importance they attach to this man's story may be imagined when it is mentioned that it was forwarded to the headquarters of the H Division as soon as completed by a special detective. Detective Abberline, Nairn, and Moore were present when this message arrived, and an investigation was immediately set on foot.".

We'll forget the mention of "this man's story", and that "it was forwarded to HQ", and, whether the "message" refers to the "description" or the "statement", just for the sake of this argument. Acknowledging the "description" achieves the same goal.

This "description", which was written after the "statement", (on pg. 2.), was then sent to All Stations, in the absence of Abberline, while he was away at H. Q.

Are we done?