Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[The Snapper]

How did he misplace a pub ?

http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...roo-hutch.html

According to his account, Hutchinson was outside the ‘Queen’s Head at the corner of Flower and Dean Street’. But astonishingly, there was no public house by any name at this location. Instead, as a contemporary map reveals, there was only the bleak rise of a tenement block, to be found there. As to the ‘Queen’s Head’: this public house, rather than being located at the corner intersection of Flower and Dean Street, was actually located at the corner intersection of Commercial Street and Fashion Street.

Snapper

[Wickerman]

Take this as a friendly hint Snapper, do your own research, don't rely on others.

First, show me where Hutchinson says the Queens Head is at the corner of Flower & Dean St.?

About 2 am 9th I was coming by Thrawl Street, Commercial Street, and saw just before I got to Flower and Dean Street I saw the murdered woman Kelly. And she said to me Hutchinson will you lend me sixpence. I said I cant I have spent all my money going down to Romford. She said Good morning I must go and find some money. She went away toward Thrawl Street. A man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her. They both burst out laughing. I heard her say alright to him. And the man said you will be alright for what I have told you. He then placed his right hand around her shoulders. He also had a kind of a small parcel in his left hand with a kind of strap round it. I stood against the lamp of the Queen’s Head Public House and watched him. They both then came past me and the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes.
Police Statement, 12th Nov. 1888.

Ok, so now that mistake is out of the way. Read what he told the press.

"He put his hand again on her shoulder and they both walked slowly towards me. I walked on to the corner of Fashion street, near the public house. As they came by me his arm was still on her shoulder."

The 'public house' referred to above is, yes you guessed it, the Queens Head (which was located at 74 Comm. St., on the corner with Fashion St.).
Now, reflect back to his police statement and tell me on the corners of which streets did he say he stood when Kelly & Astrachan walked passed him?

He doesn't say, does he.
So lets not go spreading untruths about what Hutchinson is supposed to have said, when we all know he said no such thing.

Read all the sources Snapper, all the sources, before you pass judgement.

[Wickerman]

And while we are at it, here is another untruth...

Contrary to what Jon just wrote, the police did have their doubts about Hutchinson's credibility, .....

[Sally]

He doesn't say, does he.
So lets not go spreading untruths about what Hutchinson is supposed to have said, when we all know he said no such thing.

What he originally said, I believe, is that he was standing outside the Ten Bells.

[Wickerman]

What he originally said, I believe, is that he was standing outside the Ten Bells.

Define "originally"? SVP

[Ben]

I agree entirely with your post, Garry. Shawcross is indeed a stronger comparison, along with several others.

Hi Jon,

You encourage Snapper to conduct his own research, but it appears you haven't done yours, or else you would know that Hutchinson's original statement contains "The Ten Bells" crossed out and replaced with "The Queens Head". There are a number of possible explanations for this amendment, but a realistic one is that Hutchinson invented the encounter and ballsed up his geography in so doing. It's a remarkably easy thing to do when conjuring up a fictional sequence of events, but it would be an extremely odd error for a local man - who experienced an actual set of events - to make.

Now, reflect back to his police statement and tell me on the corners of which streets did he say he stood when Kelly & Astrachan walked passed him?

He doesn't say, does he.

Yes, he does - the northern corner of Fashion Street and Commercial Street, where the Queen's Head stood. How could he have "stood against the lamp of the T̶e̶n̶ ̶B̶e̶l̶l̶s̶ Queen's Head public house" if he was on the other side?

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Oh how you love to switch horses in mid-stream.

Two things here, first the discussion was about the Queens Head being on the corner of Flower & Dean.

"According to his account, Hutchinson was outside the ‘Queen’s Head at the corner of Flower and Dean Street’."

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/ripperoo-hutch.html

Clearly, Hutchinson made no such comment.
(Proven!)

Second, now another suggestion is introduced, it is suffice to say that the Ten Bells was in the opposite direction (north of Dorset St), and as Hutchinson did not write his own statement, it is the recording officer who wrote "Ten Bells".
How that came to be is anybody's guess, but as usual, the preferred interpretation of those "not so objective" members is to blame Hutchinson.

These are two separate issues.

If anyone needs a reminder of how easy it was for the recording officer to write down errors, you only need to check the police statements for the Kelly Inquest.

Yes, he does - the northern corner of Fashion Street and Commercial Street, where the Queen's Head stood. How could he have "stood against the lamp of the T̶e̶n̶ ̶B̶e̶l̶l̶s̶ Queen's Head public house" if he was on the other side?

Where is "Fashion St." mentioned in his police statement?
And, other side? - what do you mean "other side"?

[Ben]

Second, now another suggestion is introduced, it is suffice to say that the Ten Bells was in the opposite direction (north of Dorset St), and as Hutchinson did not write his own statement, it is the recording officer who wrote "Ten Bells".

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.

Where is "Fashion St." mentioned in his police statement?

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

[Wickerman]

You encourage Snapper to conduct his own research, but it appears you haven't done yours, or else you would know that Hutchinson's original statement contains "The Ten Bells" crossed out and replaced with "The Queens Head". There are a number of possible explanations for this amendment, but a realistic one is that Hutchinson invented the encounter and ballsed up his geography in so doing. It's a remarkably easy thing to do when conjuring up a fictional sequence of events, but it would be an extremely odd error for a local man - who experienced an actual set of events - to make.

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

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.

If the mistake had been made at the point of telling the story, eg: "I stood against the lamp of the Ten Bells, er I mean Queens Head.....", then the correction would have been written immediately after the mistake, not above it.

So here we have the same scenario as exists elsewhere in statements taken down by officials, they make mistakes.

If you recall, in Sarah Lewis's Inquest testimony 'Kelseys" is struck out as a mistake for Keylers. Lewis never said Kelsey's (no press account wrote Kelsey either), she knew the family, they were the Keylers. Hodgkinson made a mistake.
Likewise, in her police statement Abberline wrote "talking to a female" when taking notes about the loiterer. Here he was also confused, Lewis never suggested the loiterer was talking to anyone.

Police make mistakes when taking down witness statements, you can't simply blame the witness as part of your overall plan to present them as liars.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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'.

[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.

[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.