The guidelines for interviewing the two were very different, in fact, there were no procedures for interviewing a witness in 1888.
A witness statement to police is not even 'sworn' to by the witness. A suspect on the other hand had certain rights and procedures had to be followed.
That said, lets look at your reply..
Originally posted by harry
View Post
In Hutchinson's case it was the murder of Kelly.That is for starters.Hutchinson himself introduces the destination of Romford,so no ,it cannot be changed to anything else,and the onus is on Hutchinson to give evidence that proves he did go to Romford.Any police investigation would be to verify that proof.That would stand for any claim Hutchinson made,and there were several.None seems to have been proven,except being at Crossinghams.
There are several ways in which a witness statement can be tendered,acted on, and reported.There were two examples that evening,one involving a sergeant,the other Aberline.Now Aberline submitted a statement of interview which was not signed by Hutchinson,while the Sergeant conducted a record of interview which was signed by Hutchinson.Take your pick,in each the onus was on Hutchinson to prove his(Hutchinsons) claims.Any follow up would be by police to verify the claims.
My point.The onus is very much on the witness to prove elements of a witness's involvement.
Now,except for the sighting at Crossinghams,what elements of Hutchinson's statement might be accepted as proven?
My point.The onus is very much on the witness to prove elements of a witness's involvement.
Now,except for the sighting at Crossinghams,what elements of Hutchinson's statement might be accepted as proven?
If Hutchinson had subsequently been charged he would have been read his rights, then interrogated, where every critical reply would be investigated. I think this is what you are getting at, but in this case he is 'suspected of involvement'. Hutchinson never was as far as we know.
Look at all the statements given to Abberline from the residents of Millers Court, they were used at the inquest. None of those witnesses were interrogated, none had to prove their story. How did Maxwell 'prove' what she said?, truth is she didn't.
Hutchinson's statement to police is no different to those given by the residents of Millers Court.
We know from press reports that Abberline decided to interview Hutchinson himself after that initial statement was received, because of it's critical importance. A telegram was sent from Commercial St. to Scotland Yard, and Abberline with two or three other top detectives rushed in a cab to Commercial St. We read this in the press.
This was out of the ordinary to interview a witness twice, but this was a unique situation.
The written report of this second interview has not survived, but all the questions 'we' ask today would have been addressed in that second interview.
Leave a comment: