Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Ben]

Yes, quite clear.

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

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

[Bridewell]

Yes, quite clear.

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

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

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

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

What happens during the taking of a witness statement is that the officers elicits the information from the witness in a Q & A process, so as to get it clear in his (or her) own mind what the witness is trying to say. He (or she) then records that information in a structured, chronological (and hopefully coherent) form. The witness reads through it, or has it read to him if unable to do so. Anything the officer has misunderstood is corrected at this stage. That is what happened in the case of the statement taken, by Sgt Badham, from Hutchinson, in my view. Hutchinson may (or may not) have given a fictional account to the police, but the crossing out of "Ten Bells" and the substitution of "Queen's Head" is not evidence of mendacity on his part. A simple misunderstanding, by Badham, of what Hutchinson was telling him is the more likely explanation here.

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

[Ben]

Hi Bridewell,

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

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

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

What happens during the taking of a witness statement is that the officers elicits the information from the witness in a Q & A process, so as to get it clear in his (or her) own mind what the witness is trying to say.

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

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wickerman]

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

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

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

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

[Ben]

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

No.

Wrong.

Nonsense.

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

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

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

That's not "making it clear".

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

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

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

No.

Forget the Ten Bells.

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

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

From which Jon is concluding...?

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

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

An officer is allowed to ask for clarification, he is not allowed to direct the statement by including details not already mentioned by the witness.
The officer may ask, "what was the name of the pub you stood outside?", he is not allowed to suggest a name.
I'll refresh your memory...

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

Any clearer?

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

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

[Sally]

Hi Jon,

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wickerman]

Hi Sally.

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

As I pointed out earlier...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Roy Corduroy]

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

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

Which is apparently the case here.

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

Roy

[Wickerman]

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

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

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

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

[Ben]

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

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

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

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

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

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

By George, he's finally got it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attaboy, Jon.

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

[Wickerman]

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

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


Do I detect another contradiction?

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

Followed by...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enough said on that then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ben]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hutchinson erred, not Badham.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. Uncouple it, because it’s wrong.

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

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

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

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

[Garry Wroe]

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

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