Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[The Snapper]

That really goes to the heart of it. If Hutchinson is lying then why ? BTW I remain unconvinced with regards to him being Jack.

Snapper

[Wickerman]

Identifying cause, and guessing, are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

[The Snapper]

I'm leaning towards lying.

Snapper

[Wickerman]

At the end of the day all that matters is whether you think there is cause to interpret the error as a result of Hutchinson lying, or was it an honest mistake.

[The Snapper]

I didn't use the words "lying" or "wrongdoing". My point was that IMHO Badham didn't substitute anything and just took the statement as dictated. Ergo the mistake was Hutchinsons.

Snapper

[Cogidubnus]

I don't think it's pushing it that much Snapper...certainly it's not pushing it anywhere near as far as suggesting the manuscript correction to the statement is evidence of lying or wrongdoing...it is simply a correction entered before the statement is signed...no more...no less...

Unless of course you have irrefutable evidence it's something more?

All the best

Dave

[The Snapper]

So Hutchinson didn't name the pub but it's name was automatically inserted for him by Badham ... which Hutchinson later pointed out was the wrong pub and got Badham to correct.
The idea that Badham is putting things into Hutchinsons statement which Hutchinson never originally said is pushing it. Mistakes are one thing but substitution is quite different. If he was sure enough to get Badham to correct it why didn't he mention it by name in the first place ? The more likely inference to my mind is that he did and that he was wrong. And another thing. How do we even know that it was Hutchinson that spotted this error ?

Snapper

[Sam Flynn]

Wrath.

Garry was asking for evidence for your assertion that "walking about all night" was a euphemism.

Perhaps "walking about all night" was a euphemism for visiting a brathel?

[Wickerman]

There has never been a single objection raised to the reality that the Victoria Home was the place Hutchinson referred to when he spoke of where he "usually" slept.

My observations have on occasion been regarded as a 'first', so this is only to be expected.
The fact no-one has thought to establish this fundamental requirement is an indication of the lack of thoroughness displayed by those who readily adopt such theories.

So now the objection is raised, officially, so deal with it.
Or, you could admit that there is no reliable foundation for any subsequent assumptions raised against Hutchinson based on his unknown address up until the 8th of November.

The likelihood of the other, grottier lodgings houses being "closed" was very slim indeed.

Who said 'grotty'?, more assumptions?

Garry was asking for evidence for your assertion that "walking about all night" was a euphemism, and you failed to provide any, electing instead to respond with an irrelevance.

You might want to read his post again ("nothing to fear with regard to vagrancy proceedings"), no mention of establishing the euphemism. Only that people were sleeping all over the place, and therefore my suggestion that they could be arrested is my 'belief'.

Another example of switching horses when cornered?

[Ben]

From the other thread, which you tried unsuccessfully to derail:

There has never been a single objection raised to the reality that the Victoria Home was the place Hutchinson referred to when he spoke of where he "usually" slept. This has been accepted since message board discussions began, and for good reason, by pro and anti Hutchinson theorists alike, and yet according to you, it's only MY "tenuous and convenient assumption". If Hutchinson's lodgings were anywhere other than the Victoria Home, you have an even bigger problem, considering that few other places ran anywhere near as tighter ship - relatively speaking - as the Victoria Home did. The likelihood of the other, grottier lodgings houses being "closed" was very slim indeed.

Your confederate Mr Wroe no longer approves of "treating personal interpretation as firmly established fact" (Oh, the irony!), so try another approach, lest you fall victim to his wroth (sic) too.

Wrath.

Garry was asking for evidence for your assertion that "walking about all night" was a euphemism, and you failed to provide any, electing instead to respond with an irrelevance.

[Ben]

So you now switch horses and claim the police statement WAS in his own words?

Very funny, Jon, but as you're perfectly well aware, this is something I've been arguing since the start of this discussion. It is precisely because Hutchinson's own words were used in the statement that it becomes a nonsense to argue that Badham was responsible for the inclusion of the erroneous "Ten Bells" detail. The only remaining argument seems to be over the way in which Hutchinson's "own words" were recorded. Bridewell (with my full agreement) tells us that it followed a "question and answer" procedure, whereas you insist that Hutchinson delivered an entire monologue that some poor sod had to write down at alarming speed.

That said, the condensed description which follows the voluntary statement is highly indicative of what a policeman would need to know.

You call that a "condensed" description?

"Just the condensed version, please. The absolute basics, you know; eyelash colour, shirt collar material...that sort of thing".

I guess this matter is now closed.

Yes, I think it's run its course.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

So you now switch horses and claim the police statement WAS in his own words?
So long as you have now seen the light, how you arrive there is of no concern to me.

As to what questions Badham asked for his clarification we will never know.
That said, the condensed description which follows the voluntary statement is highly indicative of what a policeman would need to know.
Specific questions to clarify just what this suspect looked like.

I guess this matter is now closed.

[Ben]

Many thanks, Jon, for emphasizing my point that Hutchinson's "own words" were used in both the statement and the press report, just as long as you appreciate that he was answering questions "in his own words" on both occasions, as opposed to trotting out a lengthy monologue. Evidently therefore, Hutchinson's own words included "Ten Bells" at the police interview, which was later corrected to "Queen's Head".

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

And to emphasize the point, the best indication that Hutchinson gave his statement in his own words is the almost verbatim similarity between what he told Badham on the evening of the 12th, to what was published in the press on the morning of the 14th.

Statement to the police, in Blue.
Statement to the press, in Red.
(The Times, 14th Nov.)

About 2 am 9th I was coming by Thrawl Street, Commercial Street,
"At 2 o'clock on Friday morning I came down Whitechapel-road into Commercial-street

As I passed Thrawl-street I passed a man standing at the corner of the street,

and saw just before I got to Flower and Dean Street I saw the murdered woman Kelly.
and as I went towards Flower and Dean-street I met the woman Kelly,

whom I knew very well, having been in her company a number of times.

And she said to me Hutchinson will you lend me sixpence.
She said, 'Mr. Hutchinson, can you lend me sixpence?'

I said I cant I have spent all my money going down to Romford.
I said I could not.

She said Good morning I must go and find some money.

She went away toward Thrawl Street.
She then walked on towards Thrawl-Street, saying she must go and look for some money.

A man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her.
The man, who was standing at the corner of Thrawl-street then came towards her and put his hand on her shoulder and said something to her, which I did not hear,

They both burst out laughing.
and they both burst out laughing.

I heard her say alright to him. And the man said you will be alright for what I have told you.

He then placed his right hand around her shoulders.
He put his hand again on her shoulder,

He also had a kind of a small parcel in his left hand with a kind of strap round it.

I stood against the lamp of the Queen’s Head Public House and watched him.
and they both walked slowly towards me. I walked on to the corner of Fashion-street near the publichouse.

They both then came past me and the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes.
As they came by me his arm was still on her shoulder. He had a soft felt hat on, and this was drawn down somewhat over his eyes.

I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern.
I put down my head to look him in the face, and he turned and looked at me very sternly,

They both went into Dorset Street I followed them.
and they walked across the road to Dorset-street. I followed them across and stood at the corner of Dorset-street.

They both stood at the corner of the Court for about 3 minutes.
They stood at the corner of Miller's-court for about three minutes.

He said something to her. She said alright my dear come along you will be comfortable He then placed his arm on her shoulder and gave her a kiss.

She said she had lost her handkerchief
Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, 'I have lost my handkerchief.'

he then pulled his handkerchief a red one out and gave it to her.
He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket and gave it to Kelly,

They both then went up the court together.
and they both went up the court together.

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

I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away.
I stood there for three-quarters of an hour, to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away.

My suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer.

It is far easier for the witness to remember his own words, than the words of the officer. And as can be seen from the above, the similarity is as close to verbatim as you could hope to get.

Conclusion, Hutchinson's statement to Badham was in his own words.

[Ben]

Based on what is required TODAY, not a hundred years ago.

Bridewell was not engaging in a spell of creative writing just for the sake of it, Jon. He didn’t go, “Here’s what happens in TODAY'S world of policing, but it probably happened completely differently back then, and I’m therefore just wasting time contributing something of no relevance to this thread”. He related his experience because he considered it applicable to Hutchinson in 1888. His opinion was very obviously that Hutchinson's information was elicited using a "question and answer" format, which was then transcribed into statement form, and not, as you appear to envisage, by Hutchinson delivering a lengthy monologue which some poor policeman had to scribble down at furious speed. In fact, I'd venture a guess that "your” method of obtaining eyewitness testimony has never happened at any point in police history, given how hopelessly and comically impractical it would be.

“In a period where the correct time was more of an estimate among the lower classes it is crucial for an investigator to establish, to the best of his ability, how the witness knew the time.
If Badham was asking even basic questions, why did he not ask him?”

Because Badham was not the “investigator”.

His job was not to “investigate” nor to question the veracity of the story in any way, but simply to record the information pending the arrival of the actual “investigator” – Abberline. It is the purpose of the big and supposedly scary “interrogation”, conducted by Abberline, to ask probing questions as to why he was there, or how he’d know this or that. All Badham had to do was record the information, and let Abberline deal with the hows and the whys and the “do you mind if I don’t”s. It would have been a case of:

Q: Where did you go next?

A: Thrawl Street.

Q: What time?

A: 2.00ish.

I’m not sure what trouble you’re having over Hutchinson’s alleged departure time from Miller’s Court. This is made extremely clear from his own words – three quarters of an hour after he commenced his vigil at his vantage point outside the court in Dorset Street, which happened a few minutes after the encounter with Kelly at 2.00am. What Hutchinson “did when he left” was not Badham’s lookout because it did not relate to his sighting of the victim or suspect. I say again, it was not the job of Badham to determine credibility or lack thereof.

Let us see some evidence, please, for a distinction between “modern” and Victorian methods of extracting eyewitness evidence. I keep seeing you write about Big Important Distinctions between Modern methods and Old methods, Voluntary Witnesses versus Involuntary Witnesses etc, but what you’ve failed to provide is any evidence for these distinctions. The Casebook members with police experience haven’t helped you out in that regard – in fact they’ve made it pretty clear that these distinctions don’t exist. According to what evidence, then, do you base your assertion that the Miller’s Court witnesses had their evidence extracted from them any differently to how Hutchinson’s evidence was extracted from him? According to what evidence to you base your assertion that Hutchinson was required to provide a narrative before any questions were asked?

“The conclusion therefore, is the witness spoke his statement to the officers in his own words.”

What an excellent idea.

In which case, if Hutchinson’s “own words” did not include “Ten Bells”, there would be no justification for the inclusion of “Ten Bells” in his statement.

“And, surprise-surprise, we actually have a reporter who knew the importance of establishing the time, because within these questions we read Hutchinson's response to the 'time' issue.
"I am able to fix the time, as it was between 10 and 5 minutes to 2 o'clock as I came by Whitechapel Church. When I left the corner of Miller's-court the clock struck 3 o'clock."

How is it Badham didn't know to do this?”

He almost certainly did. Your accusation of incompetence against Badham only makes sense if Hutchinson had any intention of stating, at the time of the police interview, that he was able to “fix the time”, or that he saw the man again in Petticoat Lane, or that he lived in the neighbourhood and carried a pair of “kid gloves” and a “red stone seal” etc. If he didn’t, and perhaps hadn’t even dreamed up these details by the evening of the 12th, it is discredited Hutchinson at fault, not the professional policeman who cannot be blamed for failing to elicit information that Hutchinson had no intention of giving, and perhaps didn’t even “exist” at that time. It’s everyone else that must be at fault if we want to make Hutchinson whiter than white.

“If Hutchinson (as you believe) had mentioned the name (Ten Bells), then why did he not give the name to the press?”

I don’t know, but according to you, witness statements have to be recorded in their “OWN WORDS”. According to you, therefore, “Ten Bells” only appears because Hutchinson spoke those words, and Badham had no business writing them down if he didn’t – not unless he was extremely naughty and incompetent, and deviated from what you insist was police procedure. You cannot, on the one hand, insist that Hutchinson’s statement “would have” been recorded “IN HIS OWN WORDS” as a continuous monologue, and then claim that Badham made stuff up and inserted his “own words” into a witness statement.

No, what obviously happened here was that Hutchinson originally said “Ten Bells”, and then realised his error after the “read-through”.

“The police have a responsibility to warn the witness the legal implications of what they are about to say”

But the police had no idea what Hutchinson was “about” to say, did they?

Serving Hutchinson with a “caution” halfway through the recounting of his experience (and then expecting him to carry on?) would have made no sense from an investigative point of view, and would have deterred future witnesses from coming forward if word got out about his treatment. The police could ill-afford to take such a chance, especially at that stage.

“Ah, so I wasn't lying then, that's a relief.”

No, you were just being extremely unimaginative in failing to recognise that real life often inconveniently intervenes on our precious Hutchinson-debating time, and anyone who misconstrues this as silence borne of “pressure” (from Joseph Isaacs and other fun stuff) must not suffer from the affliction of real life intervening.

Regards,
Ben