Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Wickerman]

Hi Sally.

Hi Jon,
Eh? I'm not even sure what that means. If Hutchinson was lying, he could have made any sort of error, surely - including citing the Ten Bells instead of The Queen's Head. His familiarity with the locale is irrelevant.

As I pointed out earlier...

"1 - the topography does not change whether the story is true or not."

Probably not. There is no evidence that this is what happened; and considering that Badham took statements all the time, there's no reason to suggest that he made an error in this case.

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

The likelihood is that Hutchinson first cited The Ten Bells and subsequently The Queen's Head; most likely when Badham read his statement back to him - although that cannot be certain.

If you care to catch up on this thread you will see we have already reached that point (in bold).

The trouble with the 'Truthful Hutchinson' scenario that there are so many points which argue against it. The simplest explanation is that his account was fictional, either in whole or part.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but were these points raised by the better informed interrogating officer, or the lesser informed modern day critic?

Exonerating him requires far more time and energy. I tend to think that if a a litany of excuses is required to uphold a premise, it probably means that it doesn't stand up by itself.

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.

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.

[Sally]

Hi Jon,

That, is shear nonsense. There is no connection between topographical errors and intentional lies, when the witness is familiar with the neighborhood.

Eh? I'm not even sure what that means. If Hutchinson was lying, he could have made any sort of error, surely - including citing the Ten Bells instead of The Queen's Head. His familiarity with the locale is irrelevant.

it isn't necessary that Hutchinson named the pub, merely that Badham mistook the identity of the pub in question.

Probably not. There is no evidence that this is what happened; and considering that Badham took statements all the time, there's no reason to suggest that he made an error in this case. His task was to record verbatim what the witness said. The likelihood is that Hutchinson first cited The Ten Bells and subsequently The Queen's Head; most likely when Badham read his statement back to him - although that cannot be certain.

The trouble with the 'Truthful Hutchinson' scenario that there are so many points which argue against it. The simplest explanation is that his account was fictional, either in whole or part.

Exonerating him requires far more time and energy. I tend to think that if a a litany of excuses is required to uphold a premise, it probably means that it doesn't stand up by itself.

[Wickerman]

If, on the other hand, Hutchinson invented the encounter, it's entirely possible that he muddled the pubs - not because he didn't know what they were called or where they were situated, but because invention carries the risk of such slip-ups.

That, is shear nonsense. There is no connection between topographical errors and intentional lies, when the witness is familiar with the neighborhood.

No, I'm not advocating this as the only possible explanation; if he told the truth and still muddled the pubs in the recounting of his tale, that's a possibility too, albeit a less likely one.

As you have been told already, it isn't necessary that Hutchinson named the pub, merely that Badham mistook the identity of the pub in question.

That's back-peddling and then saying something completely different to what you said originally after you've been shown to be wrong.

What is clear is how you refuse to understand the simplest explanations.

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.
The officer may ask, "what was the name of the pub you stood outside?", he is not allowed to suggest a name.
I'll refresh your memory...

Badham: So Mr. Hutchinson, you say you stood outside a pub...
Hutchinson: Yes sir, the Queen's Head.
Badham: Tell Bells, you say? I'll make a note of that.

Any clearer?

The reality, as we've now established, is that "voluntary witnesses" were questioned, and the answers provided formed the basis for the subsequent statement.

No.
Witnesses can only be questioned for clarity, what you choose to believe, purely to be argumentative, is not correct.

[Ben]

Badham took the words down, therefore Badham confused the two pubs

No.

Wrong.

Nonsense.

You may as well argue that because Badham "took the words down", it was he who experienced the events of that night. Back on our planet, however, there was no good reason for Badham to "confuse the two pubs". If Hutchinson truly experienced an encounter with a Astrakhan-bedecked ponce outside the Queen's Head, he would have said "Queen's Head", and Badham would have faithfully recorded the detail without further ado. If, on the other hand, Hutchinson invented the encounter, it's entirely possible that he muddled the pubs - not because he didn't know what they were called or where they were situated, but because invention carries the risk of such slip-ups. No, I'm not advocating this as the only possible explanation; if he told the truth and still muddled the pubs in the recounting of his tale, that's a possibility too, albeit a less likely one.

Badham was responsible for recording what Hutchinson said, not for manipulating eyewitness evidence and taking presumptuous liberties with regard to what the witnesses in question "must have" meant. Unless Hutchinson said "Ten Bells", those two words would not have appeared in the Badham-recorded statement, crossed out or otherwise, and a local man like Hutchinson would obviously have been able to recount the names of his nearest pubs, as opposed to providing silly descriptions that are then misinterpreted by the supposedly hapless Badham.

Let me make it clear then.
The police are not allowed to prompt, or coerce the witness with questions in a voluntary statement.

That's not "making it clear".

That's back-peddling and then saying something completely different to what you said originally after you've been shown to be wrong.

The reality, as we've now established, is that "voluntary witnesses" were questioned, and the answers provided formed the basis for the subsequent statement.

The story reads as if Hutchinson takes up a position under the lamp at the Ten Bells. Kelly & Co. walk passed him, then they go down Dorset St

No.

Forget the Ten Bells.

It never featured in Hutchinson's account once it was crossed out and substituted with the pub he actually meant, which was the Queen's Head. In the "fabricated scenario", all Hutchinson needed to say to Badham was "Ten Bells? Oops, did I say that? What a dappy cow I am!! I'm so sorry, I of course meant the Queen's Head". And Badham would have attributed this to a casual slip-up, and amended the record accordingly.

Keiiler sounds exactly like Keyler, there is no phonetic difference, which there is between Kelsey & Keyler.
The journalists, all of them, heard Keyler (however it is spelled), not Kelsey.

From which Jon is concluding...?

"Kelsey" was obviously a confused version of the obviously similar "Kelyer".

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

No, but the likelihood of making a casual goof is increased in fantasy invented scenarios, as opposed to actual events, which involved the recollection of actually being at the location(s) in question.

Why is it a goof?
The story reads as if Hutchinson takes up a position under the lamp at the Ten Bells. Kelly & Co. walk passed him, then they go down Dorset St.
at what point they turned around is not stated. Badham would just leave the statement as-is.
The interrogating officer will ask at what point they turned back, and if he could determine why.
In a fabricated scenario Hutchinson is in control, he has no reason to change the name of the pub.

Yes, but that was why the errant newspapers got it wrong - it sounds similar and/or looks similar in print. Your Daily News, for instance, went with "Keiller" or something similar.

Keiiler sounds exactly like Keyler, there is no phonetic difference, which there is between Kelsey & Keyler.
The journalists, all of them, heard Keyler (however it is spelled), not Kelsey.
Lets not waste time on this for goodness sakes.

[Wickerman]

The only explanation I rule out, and pretty confidently at that, is that Badham was responsible for conjuring up "Ten Bells" ....

It has never been suggested that Badham invented the name.
You have suggested that Hutchinson was lying, and in consequence screwed up his own story.

1 - the topography does not change whether the story is true or not.
2 - The story was entirely his own, no witnesses, so no need to change the name of the pub. Hutchinson could have had Kelly & Co. walk up and down Comm. St. if he so choses, no-one was in a position to say otherwise.
Badham took the words down, therefore Badham confused the two pubs, how & why this occurred is entirely open to debate, but, it is not evidence of the witness lying, which is the whole point (yet again) of your argument.

Thanks for clarifying. I thought as much. I can only wonder what Jon was on about, then, when he wrote: "the police do not ask the witness questions in a voluntary statement".

Let me make it clear then.
The police are not allowed to prompt, or coerce the witness with questions in a voluntary statement. It must be given in his own words, however, the officer is allowed to ask for clarification on certain points.

Abberline's subsequent interrogation is an entirely different matter.
The voluntary statement is used as a prompt by the interrogating officer.

[Ben]

Hi Bridewell,

and only if Hutchinson named the pub. If he simply described it in some way (e.g. "the pub on the corner further up Commercial Street"

Considering how "local" he was to that immediate area, it is very unlikely, in my opinion, that he failed to name the pub. If Hutchinson was able to correct Badham during the subsequent "read-through" (i.e. "no, not Ten Bells, Queen's Head"), he was more than capable of providing the correct name when he first related his account, rather than relying on description only. I'm not suggesting that "mendacity" is the only explanation for the crossed out "Ten Bells", although it would be consistent with the conclusion that he lied, and I still maintain that it would be an unusual error for a local man to make.

The only explanation I rule out, and pretty confidently at that, is that Badham was responsible for conjuring up "Ten Bells" without Hutchinson himself uttering those words, and I trust the forgoing makes clear my reasons why. It is extremely unlikely that a local man like Hutchinson used "descriptions" in lieu of actual names.

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.

Thanks for clarifying. I thought as much. I can only wonder what Jon was on about, then, when he wrote: "the police do not ask the witness questions in a voluntary statement".

All the best,
Ben

[Bridewell]

Yes, quite clear.

What's also quite clear is that Badham wrote "Ten Bells" only on the basis of what he had been told by Hutchinson.

True, but I suspect that the error is Badham's.

If Hutchinson "pointed out" the error after reading the statement, or having it read to him, it was an error HE was responsible for making, for whatever reason.

Not necessarily, and only if Hutchinson named the pub. If he simply described it in some way (e.g. "the pub on the corner further up Commercial Street") Badham may have thought he was referring to the Ten Bells, only to be corrected by Hutchinson during a read-through prior to signature.

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 witness reads through it, or has it read to him if unable to do so. Anything the officer has misunderstood is corrected at this stage. That is what happened in the case of the statement taken, by Sgt Badham, from Hutchinson, in my view. Hutchinson may (or may not) have given a fictional account to the police, but the crossing out of "Ten Bells" and the substitution of "Queen's Head" is not evidence of mendacity on his part. A simple misunderstanding, by Badham, of what Hutchinson was telling him is the more likely explanation here.

In the modern era (since the various Criminal Justice Acts) the witness would be required to initial any alteration. That hasn't happened in the case of Hutchinson, but probably only because it wasn't thought necessary in the LVP

[Ben]

Yes, quite clear.

What's also quite clear is that Badham wrote "Ten Bells" only on the basis of what he had been told by Hutchinson.

If Hutchinson "pointed out" the error after reading the statement, or having it read to him, it was an error HE was responsible for making, for whatever reason.

[Bridewell]

What we see with the correction being written above the mistake is typical of what happens on the final reading prior to the statement being signed by all parties present.
The officer reads it through so Hutchinson can point out any errors, for correction, which is what we see here.

Absolutely right. I have a facsimile copy of Hutchinson's statement in front of me and it is quite clear this is what happened.

[Ben]

The topography doesn't change just because the story is fictional.

No, but the likelihood of making a casual goof is increased in fantasy invented scenarios, as opposed to actual events, which involved the recollection of actually being at the location(s) in question.

Not according to over a dozen journalists, who got it right

Yes, but that was why the errant newspapers got it wrong - it sounds similar and/or looks similar in print. Your Daily News, for instance, went with "Keiller" or something similar.

Why couldn't Kelly & Co. have walked up to Fournier St. (to the Ten Bells), and back?

Come on, Jon, you're scaring me now with this nonsense.

No, Kelly and Astrakhan did not stroll past Hutchinson up to the Ten Bells, and then saunter casually back past Hutchinson again, this time standing outside the Queen's Head, and then cross the road to Dorset Street, or at least Hutchinson never suggested that they did.

[Wickerman]

I'm not suggesting he doesn't, but a local man constructing a fantasy sequence in his head and then reciting it under pressure (the implied extent of which will depend on his reason for constructing such a sequence), is liable to make the odd phuck up.

The topography doesn't change just because the story is fictional.

That's because Keyler sounds a bit like Kelsey, for crying out loud!

Not according to over a dozen journalists, who got it right

There is not the slightest possibility of "Queen's Head" sounding anything remotely like "Ten Bells", .......

And, there is not the slightest reason for changing it.
Why couldn't Kelly & Co. have walked up to Fournier St. (to the Ten Bells), and back?
What difference would it have made, there were no witnesses. So no reason for your hypothetical 'change of story'.

[Wickerman]

Yes, based on what Hutchinson told him.

Or are you seriously suggesting that Badham was off with the fairies, doing his own thing, and making up stuff as he went along? Is this the sort of dialogue you're envisaging here?:

Badham: So Mr. Hutchinson, you say you stood outside a pub...

Hutchinson: Yes sir, the Queen's Head.

Badham: Tell Bells, you say? I'll make a note of that.

Unless Hutchinson himself mentioned the Ten Bells, there wasn't the slightest reason for Badham to write the name of that pub on the statement, and it is obviously ludicrous to argue otherwise.

You need to ask some advise from our local Casebook bobbies, the police do not ask the witness questions in a voluntary statement.

[Ben]

A local man knows the difference between the Ten Bells and the Queens Head, regardless whether he is lying or not.

I'm not suggesting he doesn't, but a local man constructing a fantasy sequence in his head and then reciting it under pressure (the implied extent of which will depend on his reason for constructing such a sequence), is liable to make the odd phuck up.

What we see with the correction being written above the mistake is typical of what happens on the final reading prior to the statement being signed by all parties present

Yes, at which point Hutchinson either recognised his own error and drew attention to it himself, or Sgt. Badham noticed that the Ten Bells didn't mesh up, geographically, with the rest his statement, and raised the issue with Hutchinson, who could have said "Yes, sorry, I meant Queen's Head. Whoops, silly me, been a long day etc".

What we see with the correction being written above the mistake is typical of what happens on the final reading prior to the statement being signed by all parties present

That's because Keyler sounds a bit like Kelsey, for crying out loud!

There is not the slightest possibility of "Queen's Head" sounding anything remotely like "Ten Bells", so let's dispense with that silly excuse for putting the blame, impossibly, on Badham for coming up with the "Ten Bells" error. There is not the slightest possibility of Badham writing down "Ten Bells" unless Hutchinson uttered those two words himself, not unless he had the written form of Tourettes.

Likewise, in her police statement Abberline wrote "talking to a female" when taking notes about the loiterer

Yes, because "talking to a female" had already appeared in Sarah Lewis' statement in the context of your favourite black bag man and his female companion. The excuse for valid "confusion" is present in this example, whereas Badham would have been required to pluck "Ten Bells" entirely from his bottom.

[Wickerman]

It isn't, but that's where the Queen's Head stood.

Exactly, so lets drop the pretense and admit that the statement in the dissertation that was brought up by Snapper was wrong.