Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[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]

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]

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]

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."

[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

[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

[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/

[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.

[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

[Abby Normal]

Hi Ben
once again your astuteness in evaluating the evidence has enlightened me.

Admittedly, I had often struggled to understand why Abberline had used the word "interrogation" when describing his chat with hutch. That's usually a word you would associate with a suspect.But Now since you pointed it out why-it makes perfect sense.

Considering all the bogus witnesses they had previously dealt with, Abberline wanted to convey that he questioned the witness hard and felt he was a legit witness. Not a suspect-just not a bogus witness.

[Ben]

Thanks for the encouraging words, Abby.

Glad to hear you felt it makes sense. It would indeed be supreme folly to assume that "interrogation" equals "murder suspect".

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

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

Well obviously Ben, we are not talking about that then are we.
If you understood the point of an interrogation it might make this a little easier.

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.

I'll be pleased when you make more of an effort to understand the issue.

Every witness is interviewed, the soft and easy discourse between two people in an attempt to gain an understanding as to what they saw or heard.
When the witness statement was put in writing it is generally required to be in the witness's own words (Re: Hutchinson), any questions being limited to clarifying points made by the witness. No questions to be asked which distract the witness's train of thought.

If, said statement does not contain sufficient detail, or the contents conflict with other information obtained, or something in the statement is found to be untrue, or not possible, then a second meeting may be necessary.

The point of this next meeting will be to expand on that inconsistency by searching and specific questions, and the atmosphere could change to the point of being confrontational - this is an interrogation.

PACE has changed all that in today's police force.

“Interrogation” was a handy word for Abberline to use in order to convey an appearance of thoroughness to his superiors.

This kind of nonsense comes from someone unwilling to understand.

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.

We are talking about Hutchinson here, right. We cannot say for certain why Hutchinson was interrogated, but it is quite reasonable to assume Abberline wanted to pose some very specific questions. And, certainly, his statement was not detailed enough.

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?

You don't know what Abberline's role was?

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.

This report describes what Abberline has been involved with on that day, the 12th, which is why it begins with the inquest - it is a daily report.
He also mentions the existence of the statement as a separate issue to the interrogation, which contrary to Garry's belief, indicates the statement was not as a result of the interrogation.
The interrogation came after.

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.

The need for it is self evident, much pertinent detail is not provided in the initial statement, such as:
- Precisely what time did you leave Dorset St.?
- When you left Dorset St., where did you go, who did you meet, and can anyone confirm this?
- What was the reason you stood outside Millers Court for so long?
- Why did you not come forward earlier?
- What exactly was your relationship with the deceased?

An investigating officer is going to need the answers to those questions, and possibly a good deal more.
If you don't think it is a good idea to write those answers down, then maybe you have a better method of distributing these answers to his team, so they can check them out?

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!

- We are told the establishment was closed for a couple of hours overnight.
- We know that these places closed for cleaning.
You interpret that however you choose.

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).

Here we go again, playing games - "contemporary police opinion". There was only one contemporary police opinion, and that opinion supported Hutchinson.

Door-to-door investigation reports? Good luck with that one.
.
.
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…”.

Wherever Hutchinson went after Millers court, those streets were patrolled by police.
Stalls up and down Whitechapel High St. were there all night, if he had met or spoke to anyone they might remember.
Residents of Dorset St. coming and going while Hutchinson was on the streets, all these, and more, are sources for Abberline to have checked, c/w Sarah Lewis's statement.

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.

Or, alternately, in order to protect the witness from those pestering reporters, the police sold them a false line - so they would leave him alone.
The confused story line is still the best bet, until we learn exactly what he was imprisoned for on the 12th - how much do you want to bet it was for stealing a coat?

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

The only rejection comes from those who cannot bare the thought of Hutchinson actually being truthful.

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.

Why not?
He could be the killer, or an accessory, or could have seen more than he admits to.

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.

Still in the habit of ordering people around I see.
You are confusing Schwartz the witness with Schwartz the killer. As a witness he was not too early, as a killer he was far too early, by at least 10 minutes.

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).

I had to wonder if you were suggesting all three took turns with the knife, or some other nonesense.

Violenia wouldn't have been interrogated if he had provided a sound story, and we do not know what suspicions the police had about him. Whatever they were, Violenia fell apart under the pressure.

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.

Ah yes, your hero, the psychologist.
Did David Canter 'prove' this?, of course not, he gave his opinion, and like the proverbial sponge, you soak it up.

It may surprise you to know that before Canter many experienced officers had their own opinions about that. Which do you think is most relevant in a century old murder case, the opinion of an officer a hundred years ago, or the opinion of a modern psychologist?

What appears to have slipped your mind is, we are dealing with “what people think”, so ask yourself this. Did investigators ever believe they could tell when a person is lying by their physical reactions?
Well...?

Exactly....so Canter's modern opinions are not relevant in a century old murder case.

[Wickerman]

Thanks for the encouraging words, Abby.

Glad to hear you felt it makes sense. It would indeed be supreme folly to assume that "interrogation" equals "murder suspect".

Regards,
Ben

Right, you guys do need to stick together, for support if nothing else.
Even if you can't agree on what Hutchinson did wrong...

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“The point of this next meeting will be to expand on that inconsistency by searching and specific questions, and the atmosphere could change to the point of being confrontational - this is an interrogation.”

And rightly so – Abberline wanted to ascertain that Hutchinson wasn’t a mere publicity-seeker of the type that had hampered the Whitechapel investigation for months. He also wanted to give the impression to his superiors that he was thorough in his methods, and the use of the word “interrogate” usually conveys that impression pretty successfully. I don’t know what you mean about a “next meeting”, though. Hutchinson had only introduced himself to the police at 6.00pm on the 12th November. I think we can be reasonably safe in assuming that the “interrogation” constituted the “first meeting”. I accept that the statement would have been in the witness’s “own words”, but that does not mean it was taken as a continuous narrative, as we learned last year from those well versed in police matters. It would still have followed the standard “question and answer” format.

“And, certainly, his statement was not detailed enough.”

And so Abberline submits a statement to his superiors that he knows was “not detailed enough”? No. He wasn’t a pillock. If he knew or suspected that the statement contained some grey areas, he would have clarified them during the interrogation, and then made reference to it in his report. I do hope you understand the necessity for Abberline to put the people with overall charge of the entire investigation sufficiently in the picture. At the moment, you still seem very stuck in the misconception that the buck stopped with Abberline, and that only his opinion mattered. If any detail emerged from the interrogation that was relevant to Hutchinson’s credibility but did not appear in the statement (for whatever odd reason), it would have appeared in the report. If it appeared in neither, it didn’t exist…or Abberline was obstinately withholding crucial information for no good reason.

“You don't know what Abberline's role was?”

Not the mind-reader that your theory requires him to be, at any rate.

“He also mentions the existence of the statement as a separate issue to the interrogation, which contrary to Garry's belief, indicates the statement was not as a result of the interrogation.”

It doesn’t “indicate” any such thing, and no, he doesn’t just “mention the existence of the statement”. He provides the original in accordance with his duty to put his superiors (they did exist, you know) sufficiently in the picture about the latest developments. I realise that your intention is to trivialise and dismiss the documents that do exist, while championing the hoped-for no-evidence existence of supposedly lost documents, but officially speaking, the statement was the most important document ever to exist in connection with Hutchinson.

“The need for it is self evident, much pertinent detail is not provided in the initial statement, such as:
- Precisely what time did you leave Dorset St.?
- When you left Dorset St., where did you go, who did you meet, and can anyone confirm this?
- What was the reason you stood outside Millers Court for so long?
- Why did you not come forward earlier?
- What exactly was your relationship with the deceased?”

Most of these are covered in the documents you try to trivialise – the witness statement and the accompanying report. He waited outside because of his fixation with the oddity of Astrakhan being in Kelly’s company; his relationship with the deceased was that of a casual acquaintance who occasionally gave her “a few shillings”; and he left the court at 3.00am (Abberline wouldn’t have asked for “precision”). The others are accounted for in the press; he only came forward on the recommendation of a fellow lodger, and he “walked about all night” after leaving the court, etc.

“We are told the establishment was closed for a couple of hours overnight.”

No, “we’re” not told any such thing.

The common rooms or kitchens were closed for a couple of hours each night, not the entire building. It didn’t affect access to the dormitories in the slightest.

“There was only one contemporary police opinion, and that opinion supported Hutchinson.”

Until that opinion was revised and discredited, in accordance with the views of more senior police officials (I do look forward to going round in circles on this point on three separate threads).

“Stalls up and down Whitechapel High St. were there all night, if he had met or spoke to anyone they might remember.”

“If”..

“Might”..

Great, I’m convinced.

Unless, of course, we accept the far more likely reality that Hutchinson didn’t speak to anyone out and about at 3.00am. I do hope we’re not constructing anymore fictional “alibis”. Isaacs’s was bad enough, and I doubt our collective stomachs can accommodate another. In the unlikely event that some poor insomniac sod fancied a 3.00am chinwag on the mean, cold, wet, largely deserted streets, this was obviously something for Abberline to make reference to in his report. It would have equated to crucial confirmation of his presence there that night that he had no business concealing from Swanson when time was of the essence.

“Or, alternately, in order to protect the witness from those pestering reporters, the police sold them a false line - so they would leave him alone.”

Nah, that’s stupid.

There was no reason for Lloyds to pester Isaacs in the first place. It wasn’t exactly the sensation you seem to want it to be – more of a casual inquiry: is there anything to this Isaacs business? No. Okay…

The “confused story” excuse is also very bad. The reported prison alibi for the Kelly murder would perfectly account for the loss of interest in Isaacs, and it would also explain why other newspapers reported that he was wanted as a possible suspect in the Alice Farmer attack, but not for the mutilation murders.

“The only rejection comes from those who cannot bare (sic) the thought of Hutchinson actually being truthful.”

So you think everyone else accepts that Astrakhan was Isaacs and had an alibi for the Kelly murder? You’re saying that whoever accepts that Hutchinson told the truth must also accept that Isaacs was Astrakhan – yes?

Wow.

“You are confusing Schwartz the witness with Schwartz the killer. As a witness he was not too early, as a killer he was far too early, by at least 10 minutes.”

But if Schwartz was the killer, what was to prevent him lying about the time at which he arrived on the scene?

“Violenia wouldn't have been interrogated if he had provided a sound story, and we do not know what suspicions the police had about him. Whatever they were, Violenia fell apart under the pressure.”

No, he didn’t.

He just gave an implausible account that wasn’t accepted by the police, and at no point was the implausibility of his account considered a good reason to warp him into a suspect. What exactly is this nonsense about him only being “interrogated if he had provided a sound story”? So it’s the thumbscrew treatment if you provide a “sound story”, but cushy cups of tea, a thin knowing smile, and an embarrassed roll of the eyes if you talk bollocks? A sure-fire way to deter potentially genuine witnesses from coming forward in the future, if ever I heard one.

“Did David Canter 'prove' this?, of course not, he gave his opinion, and like the proverbial sponge, you soak it up.”

Yes, I do, and considering that he has more insight into criminal psychology than any individual we’re discussing from 1888, I’ll cheerfully be that "proverbial sponge".

“It may surprise you to know that before Canter many experienced officers had their own opinions about that. Which do you think is most relevant in a century old murder case, the opinion of an officer a hundred years ago, or the opinion of a modern psychologist?”

What the blazes are you on about?

Which “officer a hundred years ago” had a different opinion to Canter on the issue? Do tell - I’d be uniquely fascinated to find the first plonker who thinks he can always discern from body language when a person is lying. I’d be enthralled to find the “genius” from yesteryear who doesn’t accept that some people can create a favourable impression in terms of demeanour, and still fib their arses off. Humanity hasn’t changed, shockingly enough, and Canter’s observations are still hugely relevant, unless you’re seriously suggesting that nobody in the late 19th century was capable of lying and projecting a favourable impression at the same time?

You remain a very nice guy, Jon, but this level of nonsense just stresses one out.

Have a go at some non-Hutchinson threads.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hello Ben.

I don’t know what you mean about a “next meeting”, though. Hutchinson had only introduced himself to the police at 6.00pm on the 12th November. I think we can be reasonably safe in assuming that the “interrogation” constituted the “first meeting”.

We can be very safe in accepting that Hutchinson gave his story to Badham at Commercial St., at 6:00 pm, while Abberline was away at Central Office.
The statement was first seen by Abberline at Central Office after being sent there by Badham, et.al., at which point he came down to Commercial Street to interrogate Hutchinson.
I apologize, I wasn't aware you lacked the basics.

And so Abberline submits a statement to his superiors that he knows was “not detailed enough”?

Abberline is the one who requires the detail, not his superiors, they are not investigating officers. All he is doing is making them aware that a new investigation is in the works. There will always be more reports to follow as the need arises, meanwhile his team are investigating.
The daily report is sufficient to make them aware, the attached statement is superflous to Abberline, and being mentioned first, is not the result of the interrogation but was the instrument used to conduct the interrogation, which followed his arrival.

Most of these are covered in the documents you try to trivialise

It was necessary to list those questions because the statement does not provide the answers – its no good contradicting what I said, that doesn't change anything.

Until that opinion was revised and discredited, in accordance with the views of more senior police officials (I do look forward to going round in circles on this point on three separate threads).

Its just as well you do because that is where we are headed.
To start this round off you can provide this document that came from the police which discredited Hutchinson.

Unless, of course, we accept the far more likely reality that Hutchinson didn’t speak to anyone out and about at 3.00am.

See anyone, or speak to anyone.
I'm sure you need to believe that all the streets were totally desterted, that Hutchinson was the only one on the streets anywhere.
Well, if that were the case these empty streets would be quite safe for “fancy” dressed Jews to flaunt their gold watch chains & jewelry.....
Ok, I'm glad we cleared that up.

Nah, that’s stupid.

Just as stupid as the police fobbing a reporter off with an excuse that the Gallowey 'Blotchy' was “a respectable citizen” – in other words, bugger off.
Are you aware of the instances when the police did lie to the press, just to get rid of them?

There was no reason for Lloyds to pester Isaacs in the first place. It wasn’t exactly the sensation you seem to want it to be – more of a casual inquiry: is there anything to this Isaacs business? No. Okay…

Any Whitechapel murder suspect is considerably more than a casual news story.

The “confused story” excuse is also very bad. The reported prison alibi for the Kelly murder would perfectly account for the loss of interest in Isaacs, and it would also explain why other newspapers reported that he was wanted as a possible suspect in the Alice Farmer attack, but not for the mutilation murders.

Strange that Lloyds never reported on that confusion, which likely explains why they misunderstood the association between the arrest of Isaacs and the attack on Annie Farmer.

So you think everyone else accepts that Astrakhan was Isaacs and had an alibi for the Kelly murder? You’re saying that whoever accepts that Hutchinson told the truth must also accept that Isaacs was Astrakhan – yes?

Wow.

I meant what I said.
Rejection only comes from those who have something to lose, who cannot allow the possibility that Hutchinson was being truthful.
I understand the partizanship and fully realize the need to defend a belief – I am not surprised, it was predictable.

What the blazes are you on about?

Which “officer a hundred years ago” had a different opinion to Canter on the issue?

Well, I think that first response proved my point. You apparently are not aware.
If what Canter wrote was common practice, he would not have written about it, there would have been no need.

You remain a very nice guy, Jon, but this level of nonsense just stresses one out.

I “remain” a very nice guy?
Are you telling me that enticing you around these boards, stressing you out, raising your blood pressure, making you lose your cool, and correcting every ridiculous argument is not working?
Dammitt!

I'll have to try harder...