Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Wickerman]

Whereupon Hutchinson says, “knickers to you, then, if you don’t want my help”, and skips merrily out of the station,....

I don't know what period the police caution was introduced, but in TODAY's procedure, the caution CAN be issued mid-statement.
The police have a responsibility to warn the witness the legal implications of what they are about to say. The witness may choose to shut up and walk out, that is a risk the police must take.
Entrapment is not acceptable.

[Wickerman]

Nice try, but unluckily for you your conclusions, no, Bridewell was referring to specifically to what would have happened in Hutchinson’s case,....

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

Lets take a look at Hutchinson's police statement.

In his first line he say's "about 2:00 am, I was coming by Thrawl Street.", but we notice Hutchinson is not explaining just how he knew the time.
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?

Here's another point, at the end of his statement, we read:
"I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away."
Given that Badham knew the critical cry of "oh murder" had been heard variously between 3:30-4:00am, what Hutchinson did when he left, and what time DID he leave, are very critical points to have included in his statement.

Badham was either incompetent at taking witness statements, or he was not required to ask questions.
It is also unlikely that Badham was alone with Hutchinson, as Insp. Ellisdon was present it is probable that he was also in the interview room.
Both experienced officers signed this inadequate statement. However, it is only inadequate if we assume modern interview procedures were followed.
Modern interview procedures were NOT followed, that is apparent.

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

Now, what about the statement Hutchinson gave to the press.

Lets just stay on those first two points.
If you compare both statements line for line, there are differences, true, but the format seems consistent in both. The story starts the same way ("at 2 o'clock"), and ends with almost the same words ("so I went away"), verbatim.

Then, a typical police produced description is included followed by an inconsistent scattering of issues, the story no longer flows as a continuous narrative.
Hutchinson talks about going up the court, then being out until 3:00am looking for him, the fact he carried a parcel, he lives in the neighbourhood, the Sunday morning episode, viewing the body at the mortuary, and so on.
This is obviously a paragraph compiled from questions put to Hutchinson by the reporter.

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?

Then again, what happened when Hutchinson left?
"After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed."

How come Badham didn't know to pursue this either?

We know, because Badham was NOT required to ask questions. That was Abberline's responsibility. All Badham was doing is taking down the witness statement IN HIS OWN WORDS.

Lastly, about the pub.

If Hutchinson (as you believe) had mentioned the name (Ten Bells), then why did he not give the name to the press?
In all the press versions we read:
" I walked on to the corner of Fashion-street near the publichouse."

What public house?, why not Ten Bells, why not Queens Head?
If he can remember the name to the police then why not to the press?

This was Badham's mistake. The most likely solution to this question is that Badham inserted the wrong name, as Hutchinson had only said "public house", so Badham tried to be specific, but erred. He was corrected by Hutchinson on the read-through.

[Wickerman]

Don’t tell lies, Jon, it’s not becoming.

Show me a single occasion where I’ve “fallen silent” in response to what you hilariously describe as “pressure”.

To which you explained...

Otherwise known as the travelling to the other side of the world for the best part of four months and being very busy with work act.

Ah, so I wasn't lying then, that's a relief.
For a moment there I thought I might end up among the Liars Club, you know, along with Paumier, Kennedy & Hutchinson, and all those who say things you do not agree with.

[Ben]

Still going, Jon?

Marvellous.

“Bridewell was giving the benefit of his experience as it is applied TODAY, with TODAY'S witnesses, not those of a hundred years ago.”

Nice try, but unluckily for you your conclusions, no, Bridewell was referring to specifically to what would have happened in Hutchinson’s case, according to his knowledge and experience, otherwise his comments would not have been relevant to the discussion at hand. Don’t keep capitalizing the word “voluntary” and saying the word over and over – we’ve already established that we’re talking specifically about “voluntary witnesses” of which Hutchinson was one such example, and Bridewell was outlining standard procedure in cases where a Voluntary witness Voluntarily comes forward. What happens in such cases is that the information is extracted from the witnesses through a question and answer format, and not, as you keep insisting, by staying silent as mice while the witness holds court with a long narrative, with one policeman having to scribble it down furiously as he goes.

That has never been the case, for obvious reasons.

Your “compulsory” versus “voluntary” is, I’m afraid, an essentially meaningless distinction, as it makes no difference to the manner in which the information from the witnesses is obtained, i.e. by questions and answers which are then, as Bridewell points out, assembled into a coherent narrative.

“At that point Hutchinson could have been viewed with suspicion, he could have been cautioned (he could have been cautioned half way through his statement”

Whereupon Hutchinson says, “knickers to you, then, if you don’t want my help”, and skips merrily out of the station, secure in the knowledge that if they then gave him the Gestapo treatment in response, he could alert the press to the appalling manner in which the police treat “voluntary witnesses”. You’re just wrong all this, Jon. You were so anxious to recruit police expertise, and now that you’ve got some, you’re annoyed at their conclusions, and therefore substitute yourself as the expert on all things police-related. Cautioning him halfway through his statement? “Let me just stop you there, George. Let it be officially recorded that this is all starting to sound a bit like bollocks to us. But please, do continue”. What?? He didn’t recite a statement. He was questioned, he answered, and his answers were put together into a narrative that he then signed as accurate.

“However, regardless how much you choose to dance around the issue, the mistake is not evidence, or an implication, not even suggestive, of lying on Hutchinson's part.”

It would be very consistent with the conclusion that he was lying, but then he was discredited too, so the preponderance of evidence is all pointing one way – not Jon’s way.

“Oh yes there is, most certainly Badham 'could' have erred, if not by confusing the name of the pub, then by confusing the pub at the corner of Fournier St. with the pub at the corner of Fashion St.”

Oh no there isn’t (panto season’s started early). Badham wouldn’t have confused anything with anything because his role wasn’t to assume and decipher, but rather to record the words spoken by the witness, and to that end, “Ten Bells” appears on the statement because those were the words originally spoken by the witness before that “witness” realised he did a booboo and corrected himself.

“Rubbish, a simple "we can go back to my place", is all that would entail.”

And it just suddenly, at that moment, became a good idea for a prostitute to come up with, "stay at my place" – in this already ludicrous scenario - after they’d got as far as the Ten Bells? How odd that they’d want to endure the snooping efforts of Hutchinson twice when it was the easiest thing in the world to give him a wide berth?

“Discovering a witness to have lied under interrogation IS establishing unreliability”

That’s one way, certainly.

Another is to come to the conclusion, based on the implausibility of the statement and the three-day “delay” in the appearance of the witnesses who provided it, that the statement is a probable fabrication, especially if an embellished, contradictory press account follows hot on its heels.

[Wickerman]

..Which counts for nothing beyond reinforcement of your obvious wrongness on the issue.

Bridewell's opinion counts for nothing?
Let me remind you of a comment you recently made:

Are you now saying bollocks to the bobbies, unless they align themselves with the conclusion you jumped to from the outset?

An interesting about-face if you don't mind me saying so.

Any poster must agree with you before you will accept his superior experience?

When it comes to actual police practices, I have deferred to Bridewell’s greater experience; .....

Bridewell was giving the benefit of his experience as it is applied TODAY, with TODAY'S witnesses, not those of a hundred years ago.

The vast majority of witnesses TODAY are regarded as Voluntary, this is provided for in Law. TODAY, a witness is not necessarily required to give a statement to police. If he/she does, the Law deems it as a Voluntary statement.

In the last hundred years the Law pertaining to the rights of the witness has improved, plus police procedures have changed, add to this the recent Human Rights legislation, and TODAY's Voluntary witness is a long way from that same-named title of a century ago.

The witnesses in Millers Court were detained, not allowed to leave until they gave a statement to police. These were NOT voluntary witnesses.
The modern term might be Compulsory Witness, one to whom suspicion may be attached due to various circumstances.

Hutchinson could have left anytime he chose, his compliance was not demanded, he was under no obligation to provide a statement, HE was a true Voluntary witness.
Only on completion of his statement, once he signed it, does his status potentially change.
At that point Hutchinson could have been viewed with suspicion, he could have been cautioned (he could have been cautioned half way through his statement).
On reading the finished statement Abberline could have addressed him as a suspect, or just give him the benefit of the doubt and see how the subsequent interrogation goes.
Apparently, it went well.

Suffice to say, Bridewell was perfectly correct in what he wrote. This is not a black & white issue, as you are trying to paint it. Much has changed over the last century which you are not taking into account.

As for Badham asking questions, I was specifically addressing the comment you made about Badham "suggesting" an alternate name for the pub.
He may well have done so, but by rights he should not. We will never know.
However, regardless how much you choose to dance around the issue, the mistake is not evidence, or an implication, not even suggestive, of lying on Hutchinson's part.

There is no realistic possibility of Badham being responsible for the “Ten Bells” error. He would not have written those words down unless Hutchinson uttered them.

Oh yes there is, most certainly Badham 'could' have erred, if not by confusing the name of the pub, then by confusing the pub at the corner of Fournier St. with the pub at the corner of Fashion St.

No, of course he isn’t going to claim that Astrakhan and Kelly went all the way to the Ten Bells, before pointlessly doubling back and crossing the road, enduring Hutchinson’s probing efforts more than once. That would seem deeply unusual, and would invite so much scepticism that even the initial faith-based “interrogation” would have been a challenge to surmount.

Rubbish, a simple "we can go back to my place", is all that would entail.

How more wrong can you be, more like. It was never established that “what they claimed is false” in either Packer's or Violenia's case.

It is necessary to have proof that the witness changed his story. Two versions of the same event, from the same witness, IS establishing unreliability.
Discovering a witness to have lied under interrogation IS establishing unreliability.
In either case it matter not which version is true, two versions are not acceptable, one of them is false.

[Ben]

Hi Scott,

I think he's the strongest known suspect in her murder, not that Hutchinson is "known" particularly.

Ben

[Ben]

“You've had it both from myself & Colin that it appears Badham made the mistake.”

..Which counts for nothing beyond reinforcement of your obvious wrongness on the issue. When it comes to actual police practices, I have deferred to Bridewell’s greater experience; as opposed to rejecting that experience, as you have done, and pretending he was talking about “Miller’s Court witnesses”, which he definitely wasn’t. However, when it comes to matters of common sense, such as a local man knowing the names of the nearest pubs as opposed to relying on description only, I prefer to rely on the filthily obvious, thank you. There is no realistic possibility of Badham being responsible for the “Ten Bells” error. He would not have written those words down unless Hutchinson uttered them.

Your objections to my perfectly straightforward observations are confused and ponderous. I’m observing, very simply, that a person who did not experience what he is describing (and is therefore lying about it) is obviously more likely to make the odd, casual “topographical” slip-up than a person who actually did experience those events, and therefore has them mapped out more clearly in his/her mind.

No, of course he isn’t going to claim that Astrakhan and Kelly went all the way to the Ten Bells, before pointlessly doubling back and crossing the road, enduring Hutchinson’s probing efforts more than once. That would seem deeply unusual, and would invite so much scepticism that even the initial faith-based “interrogation” would have been a challenge to surmount.

“How many others need to explain it to you.”

You mean beyond the enormous chorus of people queuing up to express their agreement with you?

“The fact you do not grasp the difference between voluntary statements, police statements, and interrogation, which all require a degree of questioning, but not the same degree, is the cause of your dilemma.”

The fact that you argue unconvincingly and misappropriate various terms for own misguided means does not a “dilemma” make.

“Watch my lips”

Eeewww, no thanks, Jon!

“The interviews which took place in Millers Court, and incidentally at the IWMC in Berner St. is precisely the way Colin described.”

But Colin was describing what happened in Hutchinson’s case, irrefutably so. Nobody said a single thing about “the interviews which took place in Miller’s Court” or “at the IWMC in Berner Street” until you chimed in and tried to pretend Colin was talking about them, when he clearly wasn’t, and all because you were disappointed that his police experience didn’t gel with what you wanted to be true. Well, unlucky.

“The police do not discredit a witness (as with Packer/Violenia) unless they have been able to establish that what they claimed is false (as with Packer/Violenia).
How clearer could it be”

How more wrong can you be, more like. It was never established that “what they claimed is false” in either Packer's or Violenia's case. It was merely the strong opinion of the police that what they said was false, just so with the equally discredited Hutchinson. The only reason some people are less inclined to un-discredit Packer is because he didn’t describe an exciting poshly-dressed man with a black bag.

You often quote that extract from the Echo, 19th November, but all it tells us is that "some" of the authorities continued to place “most reliance” on the Astrakhan description supplied by Hutchinson, evidently in spite of the fact that the statement had been “considerably discounted”. What isn’t specified is just who amongst the authorities towed this line, and more importantly, how much influence their beliefs had on the direction of the investigation. My strong suspicion would be not much, considering that none of the senior police officials, such as Abberline, Anderson and Swanson, placed "most reliance” upon Hutchinson's description. Quite the reverse, in fact.

What you absolutely won’t find is a single instance of the police actively looking for Astrakhan types on the basis of Hutchinson’s description, at least not after mid-November.

“The frequent disappearing acts you are known to perform, coincidentally after a degree of pressure?”

Otherwise known as the travelling to the other side of the world for the best part of four months and being very busy with work act. Not that you’re in any position to empathise, but those of us for whom real life intervenes on our obsession with Hutchinson debates will often go “silent” in consequence. As you’ll no doubt have spotted, I play catch up when time permits and respond to each and every point I’ve missed, and which you entertainingly misconstrued as "pressure".

I invite you to point me in that direction of a single occasion where I have ignored or remained silent when challenged.

In the meantime, I anxiously await the scariness of your next “pressurizing” reply.

[Scott Nelson]

Ben, did Hutchinson kill Mary Kelly?

[Wickerman]

I’m actually saying simply that a liar is more likely to slip up than an honest person, regardless of how familiar he is with the district and the local pub names, because he is not recounting actual events but rather mentally mapped-out ones.

- You've had it both from myself & Colin that it appears Badham made the mistake.
- We know the topography does not change whether the story is true or fabricated.
- You admitted yourself that Hutchinson is unlikely to confuse the two pubs, on his doorstep.

Your assertion that this change from Ten Bells to Queens Head is indicative of a fabrication is therefore in tatters.
How many others need to explain it to you.

It would have been an unremarkable case of, “hang on, that sequence of events I just made up doesn’t work with that pub, but it does with this pub”.

Any sequence would have worked, he had no need to make the change, IF, as you claim, he was making it all up.
Kelly & Co. could have walked up Comm. St., Hutch COULD have stood under a lamp at the Ten Bells, and they COULD have crossed over and back to Dorset St. The story was entirely in his own hands, he could claim anything he wanted, therefore, no need to change the pub.

You’ve spent ages arguing, wrongly, that statement-taking officers were not permitted to offer “suggestions” or volunteer information not provided by the witness.

The fact you do not grasp the difference between voluntary statements, police statements, and interrogation, which all require a degree of questioning, but not the same degree, is the cause of your dilemma.

Unless you’ve now back-tracked on that, there was no possibility of the words “Ten Bells” appearing in the statement unless Hutchinson himself uttered them.

Watch my lips, Badham, not Hutchinson.

Do you accept, incidentally, that your latest pronouncements are utterly at odds with the experience of Bridewell, one of the very “local Casebook bobbies” whose advice you encouraged me to heed?

Not at all, Colin is perfectly correct.
The interviews which took place in Millers Court, and incidentally at the IWMC in Berner St. is precisely the way Colin described.

Do I need to explain the difference again?

Wait a minute, perhaps this is just one big misunderstanding that has lasted for years. Are you taking “discredited” to mean “proven false” or “proven lying”?

The police do not discredit a witness (as with Packer/Violenia) unless they have been able to establish that what they claimed is false (as with Packer/Violenia).
How clearer could it be.

There is no evidence of any sustained “pursuit” of Astrakhan types, and if you quote the Sheffield Independent again, or the Rutland Review, or any of that lot in an effort to demonstrate otherwise, I’ll just repost my original responses to those.

The Echo. 19 Nov.
"...The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; but so far they remain without any direct clue. Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache."

Given your belief the Echo had inside (case related) knowledge, the above should not be difficult for you to swallow.
On the other hand, I can see that journalists, eaves-dropping on police exchanges, and in pursuit of the detectives across the East End can easily determine which suspect they are in pursuit of. All, without access to 'inside sources'.

Show me a single occasion where I’ve “fallen silent” in response to what you hilariously describe as “pressure”.

The frequent disappearing acts you are known to perform, coincidentally after a degree of pressure?

[Garry Wroe]

Abberline took statements all the time, yet we have written examples of his mistakes in witness interviews.

Which, I'm afraid, Jon, serves only to undermine any notion of Abberline's infallibility.

[Ben]

“Not sure what you are alluding to here, but then again, you often see things no-one else does...”

Name a single thing I “see” that “no-else does”. All of my views have supporters and adherents, Jon – in fact most of the theories I subscribe to didn’t even originate with me; they simply made sense, and I agreed with them. The only person who consistently dreams up theories that attract no support at all is you.

“You appear to be saying it is inconceivable for a local man to not know the name of the pub, yet at the same time it is very easy for this local man to confuse this pub with another.”

I’m actually saying simply that a liar is more likely to slip up than an honest person, regardless of how familiar he is with the district and the local pub names, because he is not recounting actual events but rather mentally mapped-out ones. It would have been an unremarkable case of, “hang on, that sequence of events I just made up doesn’t work with that pub, but it does with this pub”.

Haven't you learned by now that idle threats do not work?

On the contrary, I've learned that they work magnificently, as witness my ability to coerce your continued responses, and thus guarantee the dominance of Hutchinson threads. Anyone new to the case, and new to message board discussion, will be confronted by a wealth of Hutchinsonia, and will quickly come to the conclusion that Hutchinson is where it’s at. If it’s dominating discussion, it is because there is no smoke without fire – or so anyone new to Casebook would reason - and I rely on YOU to create that smoke, Jon. You.

“Whether Badham wrote "Ten Bells" in error, or Hutchinson offered it in error is not known, nor determinable.”

Hutchinson erred, not Badham.

You’ve spent ages arguing, wrongly, that statement-taking officers were not permitted to offer “suggestions” or volunteer information not provided by the witness. Unless you’ve now back-tracked on that, there was no possibility of the words “Ten Bells” appearing in the statement unless Hutchinson himself uttered them. Do you accept, incidentally, that your latest pronouncements are utterly at odds with the experience of Bridewell, one of the very “local Casebook bobbies” whose advice you encouraged me to heed? You keep insisting, minus any evidence, that the police were not “allowed” to question the witness until after they had provided their information as a narrative, whereas Bridwell – with actual experience – assures us that the information itself was elicited as a result of asking questions.

Experience assures us that “Q&A” was the means of extracting the information from the witness that is then put together in statement form, whereas you say that’s not acceptable. Are you now saying bollocks to the bobbies, unless they align themselves with the conclusion you jumped to from the outset? If so, I’ll respectfully decline to join you, and listen to Bridewell instead, as I was initially encouraged to do by you (awkward!).

“When you show the World this evidence that the police discredited him, then this issue will be put to rest.”

But I don’t want the issue to be “put to rest”. I want to go round and round in circles on the subject, and ensure the continuity of Hutchinson threads. That’s my agenda here, and at least I’m honest about it. I love that I have to show the “World” the reality – the very obvious, proven reality – that Hutchinson was discredited. Right, Jon, because the entire “World” is shining its big scary Spotlight on Hutchinson message board discussions. Yes, I just said it was proven that Hutchinson was discredited; not that he lied, just that he was discredited. Are you going to let me get away with that? What are you going to do? Let’s have it.

“Correct, and as the police only deal with facts, not rumor, then they could not discredit him, good”

Wait a minute, perhaps this is just one big misunderstanding that has lasted for years. Are you taking “discredited” to mean “proven false” or “proven lying”? Let me assure you, then, that this is not remotely what is meant by “discredit”, which in this case means simply that no “credit” came to be invested in the statement because the police no longer believed that it was genuine. That's “belief”, to clarify again - arrived at as a result of investigation, not proof.

“Couple this with the very fact the press were aware the police were still pursuing the Hutchinson suspect a full week later”

No. Uncouple it, because it’s wrong.

There is no evidence of any sustained “pursuit” of Astrakhan types, and if you quote the Sheffield Independent again, or the Rutland Review, or any of that lot in an effort to demonstrate otherwise, I’ll just repost my original responses to those.

“As for an "endless parade", I've noticed "endless repetition" from one member, plus endless claims of "proof" or "fact", but when pressured to produce this rare commodity, the claims fall silent.”

Don’t tell lies, Jon, it’s not becoming.

Show me a single occasion where I’ve “fallen silent” in response to what you hilariously describe as “pressure”.

[Wickerman]

I see Sally's done an admirable job of sorting you out, Jon, and as such, there is very little to add, but I'll have a go.

Not sure what you are alluding to here, but then again, you often see things no-one else does...


Do I detect another contradiction?

It is astoundingly obvious that a person who invents a sequence of events is more likely to confuse location-related details than a person who experienced genuine events at the actual locations.

Followed by...

As a local man who lived about 100 yards away from the pub in question, it is inconceivable that he couldn't recall its name and had to rely on description only.

You appear to be saying it is inconceivable for a local man to not know the name of the pub, yet at the same time it is very easy for this local man to confuse this pub with another.
Do you want to go back to the drawing board and try this excuse again?

If you copy and paste your earlier objection again, I'll respond by copy-and-pasting this paragraph.

Haven't you learned by now that idle threats do not work?

Exactly, so he is not "allowed" to "include the detail" of a pub name that was never once uttered by the witness, which means that Badham, for instance, was not "allowed" to write "Ten Bells" unless Hutchinson uttered those words.

This is a good place to remind you of your previous assertion...

As a local man who lived about 100 yards away from the pub in question, it is inconceivable that he couldn't recall its name

Enough said on that then.

Have you finally accepted that you were completely wrong to insist that officers are not permitted to ask questions until after they’d listened to the entire narrative?

It has already been posed to you that here, on this issue, Badham erred.
Whether Badham wrote "Ten Bells" in error, or Hutchinson offered it in error is not known, nor determinable.
But you are quite adamant that Hutchinson could not have confused the Ten Bells for the Queens Head, so I guess you have provided your own answer.

You are not allowing yourself to see that asking questions with a voluntary witness for clarification is acceptable, but for interrogation, it is not.
The statement MUST be voluntary, AND, this means, in the witnesses own words.

The residents of Millers Court were not voluntary witnesses (obviously, there is a fine line here between witness & suspect, when talking about the residents). They were not permitted to leave until they gave a statement, these were taken down, just as Colin described, in the officers own words and after questioning.

A Voluntary witness, like Hutchinson, is treated differently.
He is there of his own free will, not a suspect (as with the residents) at this point, and so is not questioned, except for clarification.

Yes, he was discredited, and I demand that you amuse me by seeing how “ceaseless” you can be in protesting to the contrary, as against my “ceaselessness” in sustaining the observation.

There you go again with your brow-beating threats.
What do you think it truly achieves, except to paint yourself in a negative light?
When you show the World this evidence that the police discredited him, then this issue will be put to rest.
But you & I both know this will never happen.

No, he was not “accused” by the police for the simple reason that they could only do so if they had proof of dishonesty, which they clearly did not.

Correct, and as the police only deal with facts, not rumor, then they could not discredit him, good. I'm glad you've seen the light.
Couple this with the very fact the press were aware the police were still pursuing the Hutchinson suspect a full week later, then we know your claim is false.

as long as the hardened Hutchinsonian have an “endless parade of willing debaters lined up day and night to argue with you and prolong the discussion to infinity”,.....

As for an "endless parade", I've noticed "endless repetition" from one member, plus endless claims of "proof" or "fact", but when pressured to produce this rare commodity, the claims fall silent.
I've noticed that none of your (so-called) supporters came to your assistance when this request for "proof" was tabled, the silence was deafening.

[Ben]

I see Sally's done an admirable job of sorting you out, Jon, and as such, there is very little to add, but I'll have a go.

You keep - annoyingly - repeating the same spurious objection with regard to "topography" as though it was never challenged, but it has, many times, because it's nonsense. It is astoundingly obvious that a person who invents a sequence of events is more likely to confuse location-related details than a person who experienced genuine events at the actual locations. If it really happened, it is easier to cement in one's mind. That's just obvious. If you copy and paste your earlier objection again, I'll respond by copy-and-pasting this paragraph.

As you have been told already, it isn't necessary that Hutchinson named the pub

But it's ludicrous to suggest he didn't name the pub. As a local man who lived about 100 yards away from the pub in question, it is inconceivable that he couldn't recall its name and had to rely on description only.

An officer is allowed to ask for clarification, he is not allowed to direct the statement by including details not already mentioned by the witness.

Exactly, so he is not "allowed" to "include the detail" of a pub name that was never once uttered by the witness, which means that Badham, for instance, was not "allowed" to write "Ten Bells" unless Hutchinson uttered those words.

By George, he's finally got it!

Have you finally accepted that you were completely wrong to insist that officers are not permitted to ask questions until after they’d listened to the entire narrative? Your assertion that witnesses are only allowed to be questioned for clarity is completely at odds with Bridewell’s observation:

“What happens during the taking of a witness statement is that the officers elicits the information from the witness in a Q & A process, so as to get it clear in his (or her) own mind what the witness is trying to say. He (or she) then records that information in a structured, chronological (and hopefully coherent) form.”

The information is obtained as a result of asking questions, not just “clarification”.

Hilariously, it was you who encouraged me to listen to the “local Casebook bobbies” on this issue!

“There is nothing to exonerate him from, he was not found untruthful, he was not discredited, he was not accused of anything by the police.”

Yes, he was discredited, and I demand that you amuse me by seeing how “ceaseless” you can be in protesting to the contrary, as against my “ceaselessness” in sustaining the observation. No, he was not “accused” by the police for the simple reason that they could only do so if they had proof of dishonesty, which they clearly did not.

“Sally has raised a point that speaks to the sad commentary of modern society. That it is easier to point an accusing finger than it is to demonstrate how erroneous that accusing finger is.”

Sally wasn’t talking about “society”; she was talking specifically about Hutchinson, and if you’re finding it less than “easy” to demonstrate the supposed folly of “pointing the accusing” finger at him, you’ll just have to try a bit harder, or else pick on a weaker suspect on a different thread where you’ll find it “easier… to demonstrate how erroneous that accusing finger is”. The fact that a lying Hutchinson would be massively injurious to your “well-dressed, black bag man” ripper theory is the only reason you stick around here anyway.

“Where there are always those who will choose to accept the unsubstantiated words of the accusers, happily there are 'others' who will never cease to call them to task”

Attaboy, Jon.

You BE that brave, determined soldier and keep posting. Maybe you’ll outlast me in debate? You must try! And you must continue contributing to the proliferation and domination of Hutchinson threads here on H̶u̶t̶c̶h̶b̶o̶o̶k̶ Casebook. As Roy rather astutely points out, as long as the hardened Hutchinsonian have an “endless parade of willing debaters lined up day and night to argue with you and prolong the discussion to infinity”, they have putty in their hands.

[Wickerman]

Unless of course those 'others' really, and I mean really enjoy discussing nothing but George Hutchinson thousands and thousands of times over.

Even though some of these 'others' appear to enjoy (read: are prepared to tolerate) the constant repetition, there is still no requirement that they must prove hypothetical unsubstantiated accusations to be wrong.

Sally has raised a point that speaks to the sad commentary of modern society. That it is easier to point an accusing finger than it is to demonstrate how erroneous that accusing finger is.
Therefore, because it is easier perhaps we should all accept malicious gossip rather than question the methods that give rise to such gossip.

Where there are always those who will choose to accept the unsubstantiated words of the accusers, happily there are 'others' who will never cease to call them to task.

[Roy Corduroy]

When a modern-day 'group' invent hypothetical scenario's to incriminate a witness it is not incumbent on others who question their methods to exonerate the witness.

Unless of course those 'others' really, and I mean really enjoy discussing nothing but George Hutchinson thousands and thousands of times over.

Which is apparently the case here.

So if you are a Hutchinson Suspector, you've struck gold on Casebook. Because of the endless parade of willing debaters lined up day and night to argue with you and prolong the discussion to infinity. Almost like swimming - no - not the English Channel, more like swimming the Atlantic Ocean. An astounding feat all the way around.

Roy