Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“Hello Ben, and what precisely, leads you to believe this is "clear"?”

The fact that it would have been hideously infeasible, if not impossible, to record full inquest transcripts without a tape recorder.

“Anyone can be subject to interrogation if the police have sufficient cause to do so.”

I’m pleased to see you finally acknowledge as much. This is in marked contrast to your earlier insistence that “back in the good old days” it was only appropriate to use the term “interview” in the context of witnesses, which is obviously not true. “Interrogation” was a handy word for Abberline to use in order to convey an appearance of thoroughness to his superiors. It was also necessary for an “interrogation” to occur for the purpose of separating genuine witnesses from the great many bogus publicity-seekers that had infected the case.

“I didn't recommend him for the job, so there must have been a consensus at the time who arrived at that conclusion.”

But what job, specifically? On-the-spot deductions as to whether or not the witness or “criminal” was being truthful, without any time having elapsed post-interrogation to investigate the claims?

“Abberline used this same statement to conduct the interrogation, the report of which has not survived.”

Yes, it has.

It is the report which accompanied the statement, in which Abberline was as free as a bird to include any additional information – pertinent to his opinion on Hutchinson’s truthfulness – that emerged from the interrogation. Indeed, that is precisely what he did, which is why we learn the additional details that Hutchinson had known the deceased for three years, had occasionally lent her money, and had agreed to view her remains at the mortuary. If any additional details emerged to explain Hutchinson’s behaviour, it would have appeared in that report. There was no inquest transcript.

“The daily report is not an interrogation report.”

You haven’t produced any evidence for the existence of such an “interrogation report”, nor have you explained how such a document could possibly be recorded.

“Yes it did.
"Kitchen" is just a name, there was no "kitchen" per-se.
This term is used for a large communal room with benches and a great fire at one end for the tenants to cook anything they bring home.”

Nope, not always, actually.

The larger establishments provided communal game rooms in addition to a kitchen. But even in the lodging houses where the common room doubled up as a kitchen, there was no earthly reason to shut down the entire building! That’s so obviously nonsense. If they wanted to clean the kitchen or common room, it was the kitchen or common room that needed to be closed. It wouldn’t have denied anyone access to the bedrooms.

“Just blew that concept out of the water (again) on another thread.”

No.

I just blew your attempt to blow that out of the water…out of the water, on the same thread.

“A rather simple task when you are telling the truth, that being the difference between Hutchinson and Violenia.”

According to you, but not according to contemporary police opinion which discredited Hutchinson’s evidence (copy and pastes at hand if you wish to be out-repeated on that subject again).

“Witness statements, police notebooks, door-to-door investigation reports, etc. Abberline's men were quite capable of sorting through the paperwork in an hour or so to find support for his story.”

Door-to-door investigation reports? Good luck with that one. “Yes, I just happened to be gazing randomly out of my window at 2:30am and saw the whole thing – Kelly, Astrakhan, Hutchinson, the lot!” And mysteriously no mention of these “door-to-door” Hutch-supporting witnesses in his report? Shoddy, Abberline. What do you mean “police notebooks” – policeman who were stationed where and seeing what? It’s all nonsense. Abberline made it quite clear that his initial support for Hutchinson was entirely faith-based, which is why he expressed his mere “opinion” that he told the truth, rather than “we have confirmation that…”.

“Without knowing where the offense took place, how could Lloyds find it?”

I’m not suggesting Lloyds “found it”. It’s far more likely that they made inquiries with the police who informed THEM that their loss of interest in Isaacs was due to a prison alibi for the Kelly murder. There is no “confused” press report. He was in prison on 9th November for stealing a coat, and then after his release, he was re-arrested and imprisoned (during the Farmer attack), this time for stealing a watch.

“A solution does not require a consensus, just one person coming up with the answer.”

But everyone else rejects your proposed “solution”, so it’s only you convincing yourself that you have come up with the right “answer”.

“Anderson's belief does not include Hutchinson in any way because the man seen by Hutchinson was not the murderer.”

Not possible.

If the police accepted Astrakhan man as a genuine entity, it was not possible to prove him innocent of the Kelly murder. Anderson’s non-inclusion of Hutchinson has an altogether different reason, therefore: he didn’t accept that Astrakhan man was real.

“No evidence is necessary, even today, anyone admitting to being with the victim shortly before her murder is of automatic interest, and "could" be involved in the crime.”

You’re repeating factoids again with no evidence to support them. There is absolutely no reason to think that a voluntary witness in 1888 would be considered a potential Jack the Ripper himself walking into the station and requesting an interview. That doesn’t mean his story is “automatically” trusted. He only claimed to be the last person to see Kelly alive, which invites the possibility that his claim might be false – he might just be a publicity-seeker. Where is the evidence that Violenia, who claimed to be the last person to see Annie Chapman alive, was considered a potential suspect?

“Schwartz was not much help was he? Plus he was too early according to the medical evidence. I'm sure the police will have asked Mrs Schwartz when her husband returned home, likely well before 1 o'clock, and what state he was in.”

No, he was not “too early according to the medical evidence” (and take any objection you might have to this point onto a proper Stride thread), and unless the police were able to rule out the possibility of Mrs. Schwartz being wrong in her estimation of the time, asleep, or covering up for her husband, she would have been a pretty poor alibi-provider for Schwartz. I love the idea that Harris, Levy, and Lawende providing alibis for each other. I wonder if Fred West ever provided an “alibi” for Rose? (No, I’m not suggesting any of these men were involved. I’m highlighting the senselessness of arguing that they “alibi” each other). It doesn’t matter if Violenia wasn’t the man seen by Long – it is quite clear that the police did not especially cling to Long’s man as a likely killer, or even accept that Long was correct in her estimation of the time.

“I notice that you never allow for the suspect's demeanor, body posture, nervous disposition, shifty character, or mistakes in retelling his story - all indications to an experienced officer that this man is lying.”

But it is only a very stupid, very inexperienced officer who concludes that an absence of “nervous disposition, shifty character” etc means the witness must be telling the truth. Let’s not perpetuate the fallacy that one is always capable of judging from body language whether someone is lying or not. David Canter pisses on that bonfire, thankfully. In a recent documentary entitled “Crocodile Tears”, which explored cases of killers “helping the investigation” by going on organized search parties with police and giving tearful interviews to camera, Canter said it was nonsense to argue that body language and presentation can tell a liar from a honest person. The best way to ascertain this, he argues, is by listening to what they actually say – the content rather than the presentation, in other words. Since we have this at our disposal, we’re at no disadvantage when compared to Abberline.

“The interrogation is required to obtain specific information relative to verifying his story and not included in his initial statement.”

Why would it not be in the statement? What is the point of taking a deliberately incomplete statement, and then writing a report that doesn’t address those incomplete areas? You’re damned right there’s “no excuse for not writing it down” in the same report to his superiors in which the “incomplete” (according to you) statement is submitted. The logical explanation is that he did, which is why we learn additional information in this report that does not appear in the body of the statement.

Lots for you to catch up with here, Jon.

Two marathon Hutchinson debates. Get busy.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Can you explain why you think having “a rapport with the criminal element” would have been a particular advantage for Abberline in being able to determine whether ostensibly non-criminal witnesses were telling the truth or not?

It was one of the reason's given why he secured the position. I didn't recommend him for the job, so there must have been a consensus at the time who arrived at that conclusion.
He was the 'best' one for the job, not the 'only' one.

If the statement “was not complete” enough, the police had failed in their duty, pure and simple. If there were any “extra” details that did not appear in the body of the statement, Abberline was duty-bound to mention them in his report.

Failed in what duty?
Badham took Hutchinson's statement, 'in his own words'.
Abberline used this same statement to conduct the interrogation, the report of which has not survived.
Where is there any failing in duty?

See above, If Hutchinson supplied critical information (i.e. pertaining to his credibility) to Abberline that did not appear in the statement, it would have appeared in the accompanying report.

The daily report is not an interrogation report.

Who cares about the kitchens being cleaned for a couple of hours? That would only have been an impediment to him making himself a bacon sarnie. It would NOT have prevented him from gaining access to the bedrooms.

Yes it did.
"Kitchen" is just a name, there was no "kitchen" per-se.
This term is used for a large communal room with benches and a great fire at one end for the tenants to cook anything they bring home.
That is what a "kitchen" is, when this whole common room is closed for cleaning then the building is closed.

The Echo did not “speculate” at all. They obtained provably accurate information directly from Commercial Street police station.

Just blew that concept out of the water (again) on another thread.

The only difference is that Hutchinson might have put in a more convincing performance than Violenia.

A rather simple task when you are telling the truth, that being the difference between Hutchinson and Violenia.

But in the absence of any time to investigate Hutchinson’s “claims”, how was Abberline in any position to “satisfy” himself that Hutchinson was “being sincere”? Did he quickly check CCTV footage, or what?

Witness statements, police notebooks, door-to-door investigation reports, etc. Abberline's men were quite capable of sorting through the paperwork in an hour or so to find support for his story.

I merely pointed out that without knowing where the offense took place, we can’t assume that it would have appeared in your “convictions calendar” had it actually occurred.

Without knowing where the offense took place, how could Lloyds find it?
The more difficult you choose to 'hide' this prison term, the bigger the problem you have for a single news paper to find it.
As it happens, the solution is readily available in confused press reports of Isaacs being in prison during the assault on Farmer, not the murder of Kelly.

No offense, Jon, but who besides yourself is claiming that Isaacs=Astrakhan “answers the mystery”?

A solution does not require a consensus, just one person coming up with the answer.

I’m sorry, Jon, but what the actual feck does Isaacs (here he is again!) have remotely to do with Anderson’s observation that the only person to get a good look at the murderer was Jewish? Nothing at all is the answer. Isaacs was cleared of the murders very quickly,

So you answered your own question then?
Anderson's belief does not include Hutchinson in any way because the man seen by Hutchinson was not the murderer.
So, to use your terminology, "what the feck does Anderson's observation have to do with Hutchinson?"

You continue to provide no evidence at all for your continued assertions that Hutchinson received automatic suspect status simply by introducing himself voluntarily as a witness.

No evidence is necessary, even today, anyone admitting to being with the victim shortly before her murder is of automatic interest, and "could" be involved in the crime.
What do YOU want to call such a person Ben, if not "suspect" (however briefly), then what?

I’ve addressed this before, and frankly cannot be arsed to use different words, so here we go again:

Until you learn the difference then I have every expectation that you will keep repeating these false arguments.

Were Schwartz, Lawende, Harris and Levy treated as suspects at any point?

You forgot Richardson (Chapman case), who the police payed "special attention to".
Schwartz was not much help was he? Plus he was too early according to the medical evidence. I'm sure the police will have asked Mrs Schwartz when her husband returned home, likely well before 1 o'clock, and what state he was in.

Lawende, Harris & Levy were their own alibi's for each other (so, why do you still suggest these men?).

Violenia was not the man seen by Mrs long, so the police had to interrogate him, his story being suspicious.

And again and again and again, if necessary, depending on your persistence.

Learning the difference is the only way out for you I suspect.

Abberline stated initially that he was of the opinion that his statement was true (as opposed to untrue), not that he was of the opinion that he was not a serial killer.

The opinion expressed is correct, it covers all eventualities.

I notice that you never allow for the suspect's demeanor, body posture, nervous disposition, shifty character, or mistakes in retelling his story - all indications to an experienced officer that this man is lying.
Likewise, the absence of such physical indicators can allow the investigator to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Material evidence is not the only indicator an experienced investigator is looking for.

You still have yet to explain how your shared-by-nobody opinion that full interrogations were written down could possibly have worked. Do you realise how many hours that would have taken, i.e. too many to be squeezed in between the interrogation and the submission of the report? The Police Code says absolutely nothing about full (impossible) transcripts being made. The way you go on about these clearly non-existent transcripts, one would assume that statements themselves are obsolete.

Who said anything about "full"?
The interrogation is required to obtain specific information relative to verifying his story and not included in his initial statement.
There is no excuse whatsoever for not writing it down, so he can hand it off to his officers, so they can verify parts of his story.
That is how investigations are conducted.

[Wickerman]

It should be clear to most now that while statements were taken and signed in the official way, records of interrogations did not became standard practice until relatively late in the day.

Hello Ben, and what precisely, leads you to believe this is "clear"?

I’m particularly interested to learn that not only witnesses but the victims themselves were subject to interrogation. It certainly puts paid to the notion that the use of the word “interrogation” on this occasion is an indication that Hutchinson was regarded as a potential ripper.

You just learned this?
Anyone can be subject to interrogation if the police have sufficient cause to do so.
In general this 'cause' can be doubt about their story, or interest in their proximity to the crime, or feeling the need to define their relationship with an accused, and any similar causes.
None of these situations are exclusive to the suspect, they are equally applicable to a witness.
Remember, the designation 'witness' or 'suspect' is a conclusion arrived at by police.

You may also be interested to learn that both witness and suspect are viewed by the police as sources of information and if necessary both can be interrogated to get at the truth.

The interview and the interrogation have traditionally been used quite differently.

http://policetraining.net/blog/2012/04/18/interviewing-interrogation/

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“The interrogation officer keeps the interrogation file”

You keep chanting these factoids without producing any evidence to back them up. Where is it specified that the officers on the ground were obliged to submit witness statements to “central office”, but retain the “interrogation file” to “work on”? Why it is not equally appropriate to “keep working” on the statement itself, which was obviously the more crucial? Again, who records the interrogation, and how?

“Yes, I guess we are from different generations.”

Meanwhile, still no evidence for the assertion that the police were only permitted to use the term “interview” to apply to witnesses, and never “interrogate”.

“Then you have an erroneous perception Ben.
Abberline had a reputation for working with and among the local criminals in Whitechapel. He had a rapport with the criminal element and as such was the best detective to head the interrogation of suspects.”

Sounds like my perception was pretty spot-on then, doesn’t it? I observed a tendency amongst staunch Hutchinson defenders to assume that Abberline was the only detective involved in the case whose opinion was worth listening to, and your response has done nothing to reassure me to the contrary. Can you explain why you think having “a rapport with the criminal element” would have been a particular advantage for Abberline in being able to determine whether ostensibly non-criminal witnesses were telling the truth or not?

“The initial statement was not complete enough, as such it was surplus to Abberline after he had sat with Hutchinson and obtained a more comprehensive account of his activity that night.”

Obtained how? How was this “more comprehensive account” transcribed without a tape recorder? If the statement “was not complete” enough, the police had failed in their duty, pure and simple. If there were any “extra” details that did not appear in the body of the statement, Abberline was duty-bound to mention them in his report. Indeed, this is precisely what he did, which is why we learn the additional details that he had known Kelly for three years and occasionally gave her money, as well as the detail that Hutchinson had agreed to attend the mortuary.

“I am pointing out that this suggestion is bogus seeing as no account exists to indicate to us what Hutchinson told Abberline during the interrogation, verbally or in writing.”

See above, If Hutchinson supplied critical information (i.e. pertaining to his credibility) to Abberline that did not appear in the statement, it would have appeared in the accompanying report. If it appeared in neither, it obviously didn’t exist, unless we prefer to accept that Abberline deliberately withheld important information from his bosses for no good reason.

“Why 2:00 am?”

Because that’s when Hutchinson said he arrived back in Whitechapel, and because I never expected anyone to argue that Hutchinson was silly or insane enough to shadow silly Astrakhan man when he knew he had only half an hour left to secure lodgings elsewhere.

We've covered this before, lodging houses closed at night, for the most part to clean the kitchens, have you forgotten?

Who cares about the kitchens being cleaned for a couple of hours? That would only have been an impediment to him making himself a bacon sarnie. It would NOT have prevented him from gaining access to the bedrooms. The laws most assuredly did not require the entire building to close down for the kitchens to be cleaned, and lodgers could certainly gain access to the bedrooms during that short time. I defy you to provide a single source to the contrary.

“The Echo speculate nearer the truth, that Hutchinson's story appears to have suffered in importance”

The Echo did not “speculate” at all. They obtained provably accurate information directly from Commercial Street police station. I’m glad you’ve reduced their interest in Hutchinson to “working on the story”, rather than claiming they were actively still in pursuit of Astrakhan man. Yes, I’m quite sure they continued to work on the story, especially if they suspected it to be bogus without being able to prove it false. Your outdated and slightly fuddy-duddy contempt for the Star is noted, but bear in mind that they had reported enthusiastically on Hutchinson just two days previously, and would hardly have back-peddled so drastically (eschewing the chance to milk that particular cow for all it was worth) unless the "discredited" detail was true.

“Think about "numbers of witnesses", and "failing interrogation", just to give you a hint.
Your examples are not in the same league.”

Yes, they are.

The only difference is that Hutchinson might have put in a more convincing performance than Violenia.

“Yes, and how does Abberline begin to address this "claim"?, by interrogating Hutchinson.
Only when he is satisfied Hutchinson is being sincere will Abberline address the story he has been told about this fancily dressed Jew.”

But in the absence of any time to investigate Hutchinson’s “claims”, how was Abberline in any position to “satisfy” himself that Hutchinson was “being sincere”? Did he quickly check CCTV footage, or what?

“I recall telling you that there is no official record of Isaacs being imprisoned on Nov. 9th. (no proof).
Your reply to me was to the effect that, "likely because the records are not complete"…”

That wasn’t what I said.

I merely pointed out that without knowing where the offense took place, we can’t assume that it would have appeared in your “convictions calendar” had it actually occurred.

“That's it Ben, just dismiss anything that answers the mystery, then pretend the mystery still exists.”

No offense, Jon, but who besides yourself is claiming that Isaacs=Astrakhan “answers the mystery”?

Yep, exactly.

“Which is why it is necessary to ask some very specific questions, the answers to which are not provided in his initial statement to Badham.”

And mysteriously withheld from Abberline’s accompanying report too? Why? For what possible reason would Abberline NOT divulge critical information that would reasonably account for his opinion that Hutchinson told the truth? No, there is absolutely no evidence that full interrogations were written down, and the sensible and logical consensus is that this became standard proactive only relatively recently. If you have any evidence to the contrary, now’s the time to provide it. Otherwise, it simply won’t wash to keep insisting – minus any evidence – that it “must” have been written down, and that it “must” have been lost (along with – conveniently – every single other interrogation transcript from the case).

I’m sorry, Jon, but what the actual feck does Isaacs (here he is again!) have remotely to do with Anderson’s observation that the only person to get a good look at the murderer was Jewish? Nothing at all is the answer. Isaacs was cleared of the murders very quickly, and almost certainly because of the swift discovery that he was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder. He was certainly not identified as Astrakhan and then exonerated, because that is a total impossibility, as I’m prepared to explain and reiterate forever.

You continue to provide no evidence at all for your continued assertions that Hutchinson received automatic suspect status simply by introducing himself voluntarily as a witness. I’ve addressed this before, and frankly cannot be arsed to use different words, so here we go again:

Were Schwartz, Lawende, Harris and Levy treated as suspects at any point? Was Emanuel Violenia, who claimed to have been the last to see Annie Chapman alive, despite the fact that he was thought to have been telling porkies? The key word here is “claim” – Hutchinson “claimed” to have been the last person to see her alive, with the exception of the presumed murderer, and it was the job of the investigating officer to “interrogate” the witness for the purpose of determining whether that “claim” was truthful or the work of a publicity-seeker (and the police had been deluged with the latter). Those were the options the police were likely to entertain when faced with a voluntary witness in 1888, not “is this Jack the Ripper waltzing into the police station requesting an interview?”.

And again and again and again, if necessary, depending on your persistence.

“He may have held some suspicions due to the fact he claimed to interrogate Hutchinson”

Suspicions that he might have been one of the many lying publicity-seekers to plague the investigation, yes, NOT suspicions that he might have been Jack the Ripper himself, enjoying tea and cigars with the boys in blue. Abberline stated initially that he was of the opinion that his statement was true (as opposed to untrue), not that he was of the opinion that he was not a serial killer.

You still have yet to explain how your shared-by-nobody opinion that full interrogations were written down could possibly have worked. Do you realise how many hours that would have taken, i.e. too many to be squeezed in between the interrogation and the submission of the report? The Police Code says absolutely nothing about full (impossible) transcripts being made. The way you go on about these clearly non-existent transcripts, one would assume that statements themselves are obsolete.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Garry,

Thank you for that informative post.

It should be clear to most now that while statements were taken and signed in the official way, records of interrogations did not became standard practice until relatively late in the day. I’m particularly interested to learn that not only witnesses but the victims themselves were subject to interrogation. It certainly puts paid to the notion that the use of the word “interrogation” on this occasion is an indication that Hutchinson was regarded as a potential ripper.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Harry.
The surviving paperwork of the Whitechapel files contain no police notebooks. Am I wrong to say they did exist, that they must have existed?

From what I can determine, you either prefer to suggest that some interrogations were committed to writing, but not that of the most important witness, Hutchinson.
Or, that no interrogations were ever put in writing.

I'm not sure of the logic regardless which suggestion you support.


My argument is simpler, all interrogations were written down as required by the Police Code. That interpretation requires no special pleading, no leaps of faith, and the logic is self evident.
Mountains of paperwork have vanished in this case, the fact it no longer exists is not proof that it never did - we only have to understand police procedures, conventions and requirements of the job to realize that.

Let us refresh our memory:

"Extreme accuracy is of such importance in criminal cases that police must not trust to their memories, but enter at once in their pocket-books and diaries the particulars of all inquiries made, and the circumstances attendant upon each occurrence. The statement of a prisoner, in relation to the charge for which he is in custody, must more especially be reduced to writing at the
earliest practical moment, and, if possible, be read over to the prisoner, and signed by him. It should be taken to the trial and produced, if called for."

And

"A witness may, while under examination, refresh his memory, by referring to any writing made
by himself at the time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterwards
that the Judge considers it likely that the transaction was at the time fresh in his memory. The
original notes, even if copied, should never be destroyed, for cross-examination may be adversely
directed to such destruction."

[harry]

Jon,
This last time,as i have already answered your claims.You wrote there was material from the "interrogation' by Aberline of hutchinson that was lost.The use of the word Was means it must have existed.To know that it existed and was then lost,would require proof.As you are the only person in over a hundred and twenty years to have made such a claim,the onus of proof is on you alone.If you are correct,you are the only person to be in possession of proof.What could be more clear?

[Wickerman]

I never once mentioned having 'proof' Harry, and you well know this, yet twice now you have suggested I have.

The Police Code does not help distinguish whether a person being interviewed is to be regarded as a witness or a suspect.

Under normal circumstances in any murder case the spouse, partner, or co-habitant is the foremost person of interest, some say the first suspect.
This circumstance applies to Barnet, which is why the police had him for so long:
"...They kept me about four hours, examined my clothes for bloodstains, and finally, finding the account of myself to be correct, let me go free."
Joseph Barnet.

The second most important person, not always available, is the person who admits to seeing, or being in the company of, the victim shortly before her death.
This circumstance is satisfied by George Hutchinson.
Abberline, on first meeting him does not know if he is an innocent witness, or somehow involved in the crime - to attempt to establish this is Abberline's first task, regardless of the story he has to tell about some other man.
He may have held some suspicions due to the fact he claimed to interrogate Hutchinson, and he most certainly does know the difference between an interview and an interrogation.

Now, what part of that do you not agree with, and why?

[harry]

Trevor,
You may be correct as far as police departmental policy is/was concerned,but the rules are more general,and give w ider scope than you mentioned.My understanding is,an officer can ask questions of anyone he believes can provide information,but as soon as an officer has cause to suspect a person,he must caution that person,and tell him his rights.Also,if an officer approaches a person already under suspicion,he must first caution that person before questioning begins.Remember not all officers w ith the power to question and arrest,are police officers,and are not bound by police regulations.In the case of Hutchinson,there is no information he was treated other than a witness.
Wickerman,
I have reread your quotes,and i'll ask this question.How does this code you mention prove your clains that Hutchinson was first treated as suspect by Aberline,and that there is evidence/information,missing.

[Wickerman]

Actually, it is written on the document itself.
The initiator of a memo/report always signs his name in the bottom right.
The name of the recipient, to whom it is being sent, is written at bottom left.
It was submitted to Abberline, his name is at the bottom left.
.
.
There is no cause for dispute on this.

I think it is just as well to mention, if the "F G Abberline Inspr." in the bottom left corner is not in Abberline's own hand then he certainly is the recipient. However, if it is in his own hand then this is him submitting the statement to C. O. along with his report of the same date.
Abberline's name needs to be included among the initiators at the right side of the paper along with Badham, et al. if he was indeed present when the statement was made.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman,
Now explain how that code affected the interrogation of Hutchinson by Aberline,an initial feeling of suspicion against Hutchinson,(claimed by you)and lost material (claimed by you)....

Fair enough, though why you can't re-read the quotes I already provided from this Police Code is a question. I have already given you what you ask for in earlier posts.

The advice offered by Trevor also appears in the same Code, though given that Hutchinson was not charged it doesn't really apply in this case.

...Then I will explain to you what laws and rules did cover Aberlines conduct that evening,and why there would be no missing documentation.So fire away.

You are talking about the laws & rules as they existed in 1888, correct?
Today's updates, modifications and improvements are not applicable.

[Trevor Marriott]

Wickerman,
Now explain how that code affected the interrogation of Hutchinson by Aberline,an initial feeling of suspicion against Hutchinson,(claimed by you)and lost material (claimed by you).Then I will explain to you what laws and rules did cover Aberlines conduct that evening,and why there would be no missing documentation.So fire away.

In short the police were entitled to question any person regarding a crime. However as soon as they had belief that the person being questioned was the perpetrator of that crime then questioning should cease, and that person be arrested and taken to a police station, where the facts along with the evidence would be put before the station Sgt who would determine whether there was evidence to charge at that time or order the detention of that person for inquiries to be made to gather more evidence. Or release the person immediately.

Once arrested no further interviews took place.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Wickerman,
Now explain how that code affected the interrogation of Hutchinson by Aberline,an initial feeling of suspicion against Hutchinson,(claimed by you)and lost material (claimed by you).Then I will explain to you what laws and rules did cover Aberlines conduct that evening,and why there would be no missing documentation.So fire away.

[Wickerman]

Here you are Harry, always willing to help...

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8646

[harry]

Wickerman,
That there is/was such a code,is just another claim by you.A claim you cannot support.I was never a policeman,why should I know?,but I would be w illing to consider there was if you or someone would enlighten me,and show how it affected Aberline 's ínterogation'.No,I will not be buying the book,and I do not wish to descend to your level.I am quite happy that the q uestion of a code can be settled here in a post by someone that knows.You for example,who claims to know.
All in all your claims are not worth two pennyworth of cold p#ss,and that's overstating the value.