Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Wickerman]

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.

- You've had it both from myself & Colin that it appears Badham made the mistake.
- We know the topography does not change whether the story is true or fabricated.
- You admitted yourself that Hutchinson is unlikely to confuse the two pubs, on his doorstep.

Your assertion that this change from Ten Bells to Queens Head is indicative of a fabrication is therefore in tatters.
How many others need to explain it to you.

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”.

Any sequence would have worked, he had no need to make the change, IF, as you claim, he was making it all up.
Kelly & Co. could have walked up Comm. St., Hutch COULD have stood under a lamp at the Ten Bells, and they COULD have crossed over and back to Dorset St. The story was entirely in his own hands, he could claim anything he wanted, therefore, no need to change the pub.

You’ve spent ages arguing, wrongly, that statement-taking officers were not permitted to offer “suggestions” or volunteer information not provided by the witness.

The fact you do not grasp the difference between voluntary statements, police statements, and interrogation, which all require a degree of questioning, but not the same degree, is the cause of your dilemma.

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.

Watch my lips, Badham, not Hutchinson.

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?

Not at all, Colin is perfectly correct.
The interviews which took place in Millers Court, and incidentally at the IWMC in Berner St. is precisely the way Colin described.

Do I need to explain the difference again?

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”?

The police do not discredit a witness (as with Packer/Violenia) unless they have been able to establish that what they claimed is false (as with Packer/Violenia).
How clearer could it be.

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.

The Echo. 19 Nov.
"...The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; but so far they remain without any direct clue. Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache."

Given your belief the Echo had inside (case related) knowledge, the above should not be difficult for you to swallow.
On the other hand, I can see that journalists, eaves-dropping on police exchanges, and in pursuit of the detectives across the East End can easily determine which suspect they are in pursuit of. All, without access to 'inside sources'.

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

The frequent disappearing acts you are known to perform, coincidentally after a degree of pressure?

[Scott Nelson]

Ben, did Hutchinson kill Mary Kelly?

[Ben]

“You've had it both from myself & Colin that it appears Badham made the mistake.”

..Which counts for nothing beyond reinforcement of your obvious wrongness on the issue. When it comes to actual police practices, I have deferred to Bridewell’s greater experience; as opposed to rejecting that experience, as you have done, and pretending he was talking about “Miller’s Court witnesses”, which he definitely wasn’t. However, when it comes to matters of common sense, such as a local man knowing the names of the nearest pubs as opposed to relying on description only, I prefer to rely on the filthily obvious, thank you. There is no realistic possibility of Badham being responsible for the “Ten Bells” error. He would not have written those words down unless Hutchinson uttered them.

Your objections to my perfectly straightforward observations are confused and ponderous. I’m observing, very simply, that a person who did not experience what he is describing (and is therefore lying about it) is obviously more likely to make the odd, casual “topographical” slip-up than a person who actually did experience those events, and therefore has them mapped out more clearly in his/her mind.

No, of course he isn’t going to claim that Astrakhan and Kelly went all the way to the Ten Bells, before pointlessly doubling back and crossing the road, enduring Hutchinson’s probing efforts more than once. That would seem deeply unusual, and would invite so much scepticism that even the initial faith-based “interrogation” would have been a challenge to surmount.

“How many others need to explain it to you.”

You mean beyond the enormous chorus of people queuing up to express their agreement with you?

“The fact you do not grasp the difference between voluntary statements, police statements, and interrogation, which all require a degree of questioning, but not the same degree, is the cause of your dilemma.”

The fact that you argue unconvincingly and misappropriate various terms for own misguided means does not a “dilemma” make.

“Watch my lips”

Eeewww, no thanks, Jon!

“The interviews which took place in Millers Court, and incidentally at the IWMC in Berner St. is precisely the way Colin described.”

But Colin was describing what happened in Hutchinson’s case, irrefutably so. Nobody said a single thing about “the interviews which took place in Miller’s Court” or “at the IWMC in Berner Street” until you chimed in and tried to pretend Colin was talking about them, when he clearly wasn’t, and all because you were disappointed that his police experience didn’t gel with what you wanted to be true. Well, unlucky.

“The police do not discredit a witness (as with Packer/Violenia) unless they have been able to establish that what they claimed is false (as with Packer/Violenia).
How clearer could it be”

How more wrong can you be, more like. It was never established that “what they claimed is false” in either Packer's or Violenia's case. It was merely the strong opinion of the police that what they said was false, just so with the equally discredited Hutchinson. The only reason some people are less inclined to un-discredit Packer is because he didn’t describe an exciting poshly-dressed man with a black bag.

You often quote that extract from the Echo, 19th November, but all it tells us is that "some" of the authorities continued to place “most reliance” on the Astrakhan description supplied by Hutchinson, evidently in spite of the fact that the statement had been “considerably discounted”. What isn’t specified is just who amongst the authorities towed this line, and more importantly, how much influence their beliefs had on the direction of the investigation. My strong suspicion would be not much, considering that none of the senior police officials, such as Abberline, Anderson and Swanson, placed "most reliance” upon Hutchinson's description. Quite the reverse, in fact.

What you absolutely won’t find is a single instance of the police actively looking for Astrakhan types on the basis of Hutchinson’s description, at least not after mid-November.

“The frequent disappearing acts you are known to perform, coincidentally after a degree of pressure?”

Otherwise known as the travelling to the other side of the world for the best part of four months and being very busy with work act. Not that you’re in any position to empathise, but those of us for whom real life intervenes on our obsession with Hutchinson debates will often go “silent” in consequence. As you’ll no doubt have spotted, I play catch up when time permits and respond to each and every point I’ve missed, and which you entertainingly misconstrued as "pressure".

I invite you to point me in that direction of a single occasion where I have ignored or remained silent when challenged.

In the meantime, I anxiously await the scariness of your next “pressurizing” reply.

[Ben]

Hi Scott,

I think he's the strongest known suspect in her murder, not that Hutchinson is "known" particularly.

Ben

[Wickerman]

..Which counts for nothing beyond reinforcement of your obvious wrongness on the issue.

Bridewell's opinion counts for nothing?
Let me remind you of a comment you recently made:

Are you now saying bollocks to the bobbies, unless they align themselves with the conclusion you jumped to from the outset?

An interesting about-face if you don't mind me saying so.

Any poster must agree with you before you will accept his superior experience?

When it comes to actual police practices, I have deferred to Bridewell’s greater experience; .....

Bridewell was giving the benefit of his experience as it is applied TODAY, with TODAY'S witnesses, not those of a hundred years ago.

The vast majority of witnesses TODAY are regarded as Voluntary, this is provided for in Law. TODAY, a witness is not necessarily required to give a statement to police. If he/she does, the Law deems it as a Voluntary statement.

In the last hundred years the Law pertaining to the rights of the witness has improved, plus police procedures have changed, add to this the recent Human Rights legislation, and TODAY's Voluntary witness is a long way from that same-named title of a century ago.

The witnesses in Millers Court were detained, not allowed to leave until they gave a statement to police. These were NOT voluntary witnesses.
The modern term might be Compulsory Witness, one to whom suspicion may be attached due to various circumstances.

Hutchinson could have left anytime he chose, his compliance was not demanded, he was under no obligation to provide a statement, HE was a true Voluntary witness.
Only on completion of his statement, once he signed it, does his status potentially change.
At that point Hutchinson could have been viewed with suspicion, he could have been cautioned (he could have been cautioned half way through his statement).
On reading the finished statement Abberline could have addressed him as a suspect, or just give him the benefit of the doubt and see how the subsequent interrogation goes.
Apparently, it went well.

Suffice to say, Bridewell was perfectly correct in what he wrote. This is not a black & white issue, as you are trying to paint it. Much has changed over the last century which you are not taking into account.

As for Badham asking questions, I was specifically addressing the comment you made about Badham "suggesting" an alternate name for the pub.
He may well have done so, but by rights he should not. We will never know.
However, regardless how much you choose to dance around the issue, the mistake is not evidence, or an implication, not even suggestive, of lying on Hutchinson's part.

There is no realistic possibility of Badham being responsible for the “Ten Bells” error. He would not have written those words down unless Hutchinson uttered them.

Oh yes there is, most certainly Badham 'could' have erred, if not by confusing the name of the pub, then by confusing the pub at the corner of Fournier St. with the pub at the corner of Fashion St.

No, of course he isn’t going to claim that Astrakhan and Kelly went all the way to the Ten Bells, before pointlessly doubling back and crossing the road, enduring Hutchinson’s probing efforts more than once. That would seem deeply unusual, and would invite so much scepticism that even the initial faith-based “interrogation” would have been a challenge to surmount.

Rubbish, a simple "we can go back to my place", is all that would entail.

How more wrong can you be, more like. It was never established that “what they claimed is false” in either Packer's or Violenia's case.

It is necessary to have proof that the witness changed his story. Two versions of the same event, from the same witness, IS establishing unreliability.
Discovering a witness to have lied under interrogation IS establishing unreliability.
In either case it matter not which version is true, two versions are not acceptable, one of them is false.

[Ben]

Still going, Jon?

Marvellous.

“Bridewell was giving the benefit of his experience as it is applied TODAY, with TODAY'S witnesses, not those of a hundred years ago.”

Nice try, but unluckily for you your conclusions, no, Bridewell was referring to specifically to what would have happened in Hutchinson’s case, according to his knowledge and experience, otherwise his comments would not have been relevant to the discussion at hand. Don’t keep capitalizing the word “voluntary” and saying the word over and over – we’ve already established that we’re talking specifically about “voluntary witnesses” of which Hutchinson was one such example, and Bridewell was outlining standard procedure in cases where a Voluntary witness Voluntarily comes forward. What happens in such cases is that the information is extracted from the witnesses through a question and answer format, and not, as you keep insisting, by staying silent as mice while the witness holds court with a long narrative, with one policeman having to scribble it down furiously as he goes.

That has never been the case, for obvious reasons.

Your “compulsory” versus “voluntary” is, I’m afraid, an essentially meaningless distinction, as it makes no difference to the manner in which the information from the witnesses is obtained, i.e. by questions and answers which are then, as Bridewell points out, assembled into a coherent narrative.

“At that point Hutchinson could have been viewed with suspicion, he could have been cautioned (he could have been cautioned half way through his statement”

Whereupon Hutchinson says, “knickers to you, then, if you don’t want my help”, and skips merrily out of the station, secure in the knowledge that if they then gave him the Gestapo treatment in response, he could alert the press to the appalling manner in which the police treat “voluntary witnesses”. You’re just wrong all this, Jon. You were so anxious to recruit police expertise, and now that you’ve got some, you’re annoyed at their conclusions, and therefore substitute yourself as the expert on all things police-related. Cautioning him halfway through his statement? “Let me just stop you there, George. Let it be officially recorded that this is all starting to sound a bit like bollocks to us. But please, do continue”. What?? He didn’t recite a statement. He was questioned, he answered, and his answers were put together into a narrative that he then signed as accurate.

“However, regardless how much you choose to dance around the issue, the mistake is not evidence, or an implication, not even suggestive, of lying on Hutchinson's part.”

It would be very consistent with the conclusion that he was lying, but then he was discredited too, so the preponderance of evidence is all pointing one way – not Jon’s way.

“Oh yes there is, most certainly Badham 'could' have erred, if not by confusing the name of the pub, then by confusing the pub at the corner of Fournier St. with the pub at the corner of Fashion St.”

Oh no there isn’t (panto season’s started early). Badham wouldn’t have confused anything with anything because his role wasn’t to assume and decipher, but rather to record the words spoken by the witness, and to that end, “Ten Bells” appears on the statement because those were the words originally spoken by the witness before that “witness” realised he did a booboo and corrected himself.

“Rubbish, a simple "we can go back to my place", is all that would entail.”

And it just suddenly, at that moment, became a good idea for a prostitute to come up with, "stay at my place" – in this already ludicrous scenario - after they’d got as far as the Ten Bells? How odd that they’d want to endure the snooping efforts of Hutchinson twice when it was the easiest thing in the world to give him a wide berth?

“Discovering a witness to have lied under interrogation IS establishing unreliability”

That’s one way, certainly.

Another is to come to the conclusion, based on the implausibility of the statement and the three-day “delay” in the appearance of the witnesses who provided it, that the statement is a probable fabrication, especially if an embellished, contradictory press account follows hot on its heels.

[Wickerman]

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”.

To which you explained...

Otherwise known as the travelling to the other side of the world for the best part of four months and being very busy with work act.

Ah, so I wasn't lying then, that's a relief.
For a moment there I thought I might end up among the Liars Club, you know, along with Paumier, Kennedy & Hutchinson, and all those who say things you do not agree with.

[Wickerman]

Nice try, but unluckily for you your conclusions, no, Bridewell was referring to specifically to what would have happened in Hutchinson’s case,....

Based on what is required TODAY, not a hundred years ago.

Lets take a look at Hutchinson's police statement.

In his first line he say's "about 2:00 am, I was coming by Thrawl Street.", but we notice Hutchinson is not explaining just how he knew the time.
In a period where the correct time was more of an estimate among the lower classes it is crucial for an investigator to establish, to the best of his ability, how the witness knew the time.
If Badham was asking even basic questions, why did he not ask him?

Here's another point, at the end of his statement, we read:
"I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away."
Given that Badham knew the critical cry of "oh murder" had been heard variously between 3:30-4:00am, what Hutchinson did when he left, and what time DID he leave, are very critical points to have included in his statement.

Badham was either incompetent at taking witness statements, or he was not required to ask questions.
It is also unlikely that Badham was alone with Hutchinson, as Insp. Ellisdon was present it is probable that he was also in the interview room.
Both experienced officers signed this inadequate statement. However, it is only inadequate if we assume modern interview procedures were followed.
Modern interview procedures were NOT followed, that is apparent.

The conclusion therefore, is the witness spoke his statement to the officers in his own words.

Now, what about the statement Hutchinson gave to the press.

Lets just stay on those first two points.
If you compare both statements line for line, there are differences, true, but the format seems consistent in both. The story starts the same way ("at 2 o'clock"), and ends with almost the same words ("so I went away"), verbatim.

Then, a typical police produced description is included followed by an inconsistent scattering of issues, the story no longer flows as a continuous narrative.
Hutchinson talks about going up the court, then being out until 3:00am looking for him, the fact he carried a parcel, he lives in the neighbourhood, the Sunday morning episode, viewing the body at the mortuary, and so on.
This is obviously a paragraph compiled from questions put to Hutchinson by the reporter.

And, surprise-surprise, we actually have a reporter who knew the importance of establishing the time, because within these questions we read Hutchinson's response to the 'time' issue.
" I am able to fix the time, as it was between 10 and 5 minutes to 2 o'clock as I came by Whitechapel Church. When I left the corner of Miller's-court the clock struck 3 o'clock."

How is it Badham didn't know to do this?

Then again, what happened when Hutchinson left?
"After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed."

How come Badham didn't know to pursue this either?

We know, because Badham was NOT required to ask questions. That was Abberline's responsibility. All Badham was doing is taking down the witness statement IN HIS OWN WORDS.

Lastly, about the pub.

If Hutchinson (as you believe) had mentioned the name (Ten Bells), then why did he not give the name to the press?
In all the press versions we read:
" I walked on to the corner of Fashion-street near the publichouse."

What public house?, why not Ten Bells, why not Queens Head?
If he can remember the name to the police then why not to the press?

This was Badham's mistake. The most likely solution to this question is that Badham inserted the wrong name, as Hutchinson had only said "public house", so Badham tried to be specific, but erred. He was corrected by Hutchinson on the read-through.

[Wickerman]

Whereupon Hutchinson says, “knickers to you, then, if you don’t want my help”, and skips merrily out of the station,....

I don't know what period the police caution was introduced, but in TODAY's procedure, the caution CAN be issued mid-statement.
The police have a responsibility to warn the witness the legal implications of what they are about to say. The witness may choose to shut up and walk out, that is a risk the police must take.
Entrapment is not acceptable.

[Ben]

Based on what is required TODAY, not a hundred years ago.

Bridewell was not engaging in a spell of creative writing just for the sake of it, Jon. He didn’t go, “Here’s what happens in TODAY'S world of policing, but it probably happened completely differently back then, and I’m therefore just wasting time contributing something of no relevance to this thread”. He related his experience because he considered it applicable to Hutchinson in 1888. His opinion was very obviously that Hutchinson's information was elicited using a "question and answer" format, which was then transcribed into statement form, and not, as you appear to envisage, by Hutchinson delivering a lengthy monologue which some poor policeman had to scribble down at furious speed. In fact, I'd venture a guess that "your” method of obtaining eyewitness testimony has never happened at any point in police history, given how hopelessly and comically impractical it would be.

“In a period where the correct time was more of an estimate among the lower classes it is crucial for an investigator to establish, to the best of his ability, how the witness knew the time.
If Badham was asking even basic questions, why did he not ask him?”

Because Badham was not the “investigator”.

His job was not to “investigate” nor to question the veracity of the story in any way, but simply to record the information pending the arrival of the actual “investigator” – Abberline. It is the purpose of the big and supposedly scary “interrogation”, conducted by Abberline, to ask probing questions as to why he was there, or how he’d know this or that. All Badham had to do was record the information, and let Abberline deal with the hows and the whys and the “do you mind if I don’t”s. It would have been a case of:

Q: Where did you go next?

A: Thrawl Street.

Q: What time?

A: 2.00ish.

I’m not sure what trouble you’re having over Hutchinson’s alleged departure time from Miller’s Court. This is made extremely clear from his own words – three quarters of an hour after he commenced his vigil at his vantage point outside the court in Dorset Street, which happened a few minutes after the encounter with Kelly at 2.00am. What Hutchinson “did when he left” was not Badham’s lookout because it did not relate to his sighting of the victim or suspect. I say again, it was not the job of Badham to determine credibility or lack thereof.

Let us see some evidence, please, for a distinction between “modern” and Victorian methods of extracting eyewitness evidence. I keep seeing you write about Big Important Distinctions between Modern methods and Old methods, Voluntary Witnesses versus Involuntary Witnesses etc, but what you’ve failed to provide is any evidence for these distinctions. The Casebook members with police experience haven’t helped you out in that regard – in fact they’ve made it pretty clear that these distinctions don’t exist. According to what evidence, then, do you base your assertion that the Miller’s Court witnesses had their evidence extracted from them any differently to how Hutchinson’s evidence was extracted from him? According to what evidence to you base your assertion that Hutchinson was required to provide a narrative before any questions were asked?

“The conclusion therefore, is the witness spoke his statement to the officers in his own words.”

What an excellent idea.

In which case, if Hutchinson’s “own words” did not include “Ten Bells”, there would be no justification for the inclusion of “Ten Bells” in his statement.

“And, surprise-surprise, we actually have a reporter who knew the importance of establishing the time, because within these questions we read Hutchinson's response to the 'time' issue.
"I am able to fix the time, as it was between 10 and 5 minutes to 2 o'clock as I came by Whitechapel Church. When I left the corner of Miller's-court the clock struck 3 o'clock."

How is it Badham didn't know to do this?”

He almost certainly did. Your accusation of incompetence against Badham only makes sense if Hutchinson had any intention of stating, at the time of the police interview, that he was able to “fix the time”, or that he saw the man again in Petticoat Lane, or that he lived in the neighbourhood and carried a pair of “kid gloves” and a “red stone seal” etc. If he didn’t, and perhaps hadn’t even dreamed up these details by the evening of the 12th, it is discredited Hutchinson at fault, not the professional policeman who cannot be blamed for failing to elicit information that Hutchinson had no intention of giving, and perhaps didn’t even “exist” at that time. It’s everyone else that must be at fault if we want to make Hutchinson whiter than white.

“If Hutchinson (as you believe) had mentioned the name (Ten Bells), then why did he not give the name to the press?”

I don’t know, but according to you, witness statements have to be recorded in their “OWN WORDS”. According to you, therefore, “Ten Bells” only appears because Hutchinson spoke those words, and Badham had no business writing them down if he didn’t – not unless he was extremely naughty and incompetent, and deviated from what you insist was police procedure. You cannot, on the one hand, insist that Hutchinson’s statement “would have” been recorded “IN HIS OWN WORDS” as a continuous monologue, and then claim that Badham made stuff up and inserted his “own words” into a witness statement.

No, what obviously happened here was that Hutchinson originally said “Ten Bells”, and then realised his error after the “read-through”.

“The police have a responsibility to warn the witness the legal implications of what they are about to say”

But the police had no idea what Hutchinson was “about” to say, did they?

Serving Hutchinson with a “caution” halfway through the recounting of his experience (and then expecting him to carry on?) would have made no sense from an investigative point of view, and would have deterred future witnesses from coming forward if word got out about his treatment. The police could ill-afford to take such a chance, especially at that stage.

“Ah, so I wasn't lying then, that's a relief.”

No, you were just being extremely unimaginative in failing to recognise that real life often inconveniently intervenes on our precious Hutchinson-debating time, and anyone who misconstrues this as silence borne of “pressure” (from Joseph Isaacs and other fun stuff) must not suffer from the affliction of real life intervening.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

And to emphasize the point, the best indication that Hutchinson gave his statement in his own words is the almost verbatim similarity between what he told Badham on the evening of the 12th, to what was published in the press on the morning of the 14th.

Statement to the police, in Blue.
Statement to the press, in Red.
(The Times, 14th Nov.)

About 2 am 9th I was coming by Thrawl Street, Commercial Street,
"At 2 o'clock on Friday morning I came down Whitechapel-road into Commercial-street

As I passed Thrawl-street I passed a man standing at the corner of the street,

and saw just before I got to Flower and Dean Street I saw the murdered woman Kelly.
and as I went towards Flower and Dean-street I met the woman Kelly,

whom I knew very well, having been in her company a number of times.

And she said to me Hutchinson will you lend me sixpence.
She said, 'Mr. Hutchinson, can you lend me sixpence?'

I said I cant I have spent all my money going down to Romford.
I said I could not.

She said Good morning I must go and find some money.

She went away toward Thrawl Street.
She then walked on towards Thrawl-Street, saying she must go and look for some money.

A man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her.
The man, who was standing at the corner of Thrawl-street then came towards her and put his hand on her shoulder and said something to her, which I did not hear,

They both burst out laughing.
and 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 put his hand again on her shoulder,

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.
and they both walked slowly towards me. I walked on to the corner of Fashion-street near the publichouse.

They both then came past me and the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes.
As they came by me his arm was still on her shoulder. He had a soft felt hat on, and this was drawn down somewhat over his eyes.

I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern.
I put down my head to look him in the face, and he turned and looked at me very sternly,

They both went into Dorset Street I followed them.
and they walked across the road to Dorset-street. I followed them across and stood at the corner of Dorset-street.

They both stood at the corner of the Court for about 3 minutes.
They stood at the corner of Miller's-court for about three minutes.

He said something to her. She said alright my dear come along you will be comfortable He then placed his arm on her shoulder and gave her a kiss.

She said she had lost her handkerchief
Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, 'I have lost my handkerchief.'

he then pulled his handkerchief a red one out and gave it to her.
He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket and gave it to Kelly,

They both then went up the court together.
and they both went up the court together.

I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not.
I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not.

I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away.
I stood there for three-quarters of an hour, to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away.

My suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer.

It is far easier for the witness to remember his own words, than the words of the officer. And as can be seen from the above, the similarity is as close to verbatim as you could hope to get.

Conclusion, Hutchinson's statement to Badham was in his own words.

[Ben]

Many thanks, Jon, for emphasizing my point that Hutchinson's "own words" were used in both the statement and the press report, just as long as you appreciate that he was answering questions "in his own words" on both occasions, as opposed to trotting out a lengthy monologue. Evidently therefore, Hutchinson's own words included "Ten Bells" at the police interview, which was later corrected to "Queen's Head".

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

So you now switch horses and claim the police statement WAS in his own words?
So long as you have now seen the light, how you arrive there is of no concern to me.

As to what questions Badham asked for his clarification we will never know.
That said, the condensed description which follows the voluntary statement is highly indicative of what a policeman would need to know.
Specific questions to clarify just what this suspect looked like.

I guess this matter is now closed.

[Ben]

So you now switch horses and claim the police statement WAS in his own words?

Very funny, Jon, but as you're perfectly well aware, this is something I've been arguing since the start of this discussion. It is precisely because Hutchinson's own words were used in the statement that it becomes a nonsense to argue that Badham was responsible for the inclusion of the erroneous "Ten Bells" detail. The only remaining argument seems to be over the way in which Hutchinson's "own words" were recorded. Bridewell (with my full agreement) tells us that it followed a "question and answer" procedure, whereas you insist that Hutchinson delivered an entire monologue that some poor sod had to write down at alarming speed.

That said, the condensed description which follows the voluntary statement is highly indicative of what a policeman would need to know.

You call that a "condensed" description?

"Just the condensed version, please. The absolute basics, you know; eyelash colour, shirt collar material...that sort of thing".

I guess this matter is now closed.

Yes, I think it's run its course.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

From the other thread, which you tried unsuccessfully to derail:

There has never been a single objection raised to the reality that the Victoria Home was the place Hutchinson referred to when he spoke of where he "usually" slept. This has been accepted since message board discussions began, and for good reason, by pro and anti Hutchinson theorists alike, and yet according to you, it's only MY "tenuous and convenient assumption". If Hutchinson's lodgings were anywhere other than the Victoria Home, you have an even bigger problem, considering that few other places ran anywhere near as tighter ship - relatively speaking - as the Victoria Home did. The likelihood of the other, grottier lodgings houses being "closed" was very slim indeed.

Your confederate Mr Wroe no longer approves of "treating personal interpretation as firmly established fact" (Oh, the irony!), so try another approach, lest you fall victim to his wroth (sic) too.

Wrath.

Garry was asking for evidence for your assertion that "walking about all night" was a euphemism, and you failed to provide any, electing instead to respond with an irrelevance.