A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Ben]

Your desperation is duly noted.

Yeah, Jon...you've really got me on the ropes with this one.

As if the paper 'had' to include a physical description at all... of course they didn't.

Of course they didn't have to, but as argued by both myself and DRoy, they may have chosen to in order to better conceal his identity.

The thing about the "Harris/Reid" argument will always remain as, he's the wrong age, from the wrong part of the country, and he gets his facts wrong, especially those not taken from the press.

No.

The "thing" about the "Harris/Reid" argument will always boil down to the reality that Harris was probably Reid, unless we're prepared to accept silly "coincidence". The age is perfectly compatible, the "wrong part of the country" is most rationally attributable to deliberate misinformation, and as for getting "facts wrong", so did other detectives who spoke to the press.

But, y'know, meanwhile back on topic...

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
I have proved conclusively, several times on several threads over the last year, that the Echo extracted information from the police pertaining to Hutchinson's account that we know for certain to be true.

Hi Ben.
Ok, lets approach this in more detail.
This is what the Echo learned.

The Echo learned from Comm. St. station that the second description published by the Star naming Hutchinson, was virtually the same description as that previously published on the 13th, in at least four morning papers, and released by the police.

This is not 'inside' information, both articles are in the public domain, and as Hutchinson has now provided his name to the second article, the police need no longer withhold his name.

This example you cling to does not represent the Echo obtaining 'inside' information. At the time the Echo made those enquiries the subject matter was already public information.
As I maintain, they never did receive 'inside' information.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Ok, lets approach this in more detail.

Okay, but just this one more post on the subject because we're drastically off-topic from "Access to Mary Kelly" here.

The second press publication of Hutchinson's account was obviously not sanctioned by the police. It cannot have been, as it contained numerous contradictions and embellishments of the original police statement. It wasn't just published by The Star either. Hutchinson evidently gave his account to a member of a press agency, which is why we see it duplicated more or less exactly in several newspapers. It is not certain whether or not he sought out reporters of his own volition, as he did the police, but it would be a reasonable assumption.

This is not 'inside' information, both articles are in the public domain, and as Hutchinson has now provided his name to the second article, the police need no longer withhold his name

But not in the public domain was any confirmation from the police that the naughty, unsanctioned "second" press report was authored by the same "witness" whose description was published on the 13th November. As the Echo observed, several of their "press contemporaries" believed that they were authored by two separate Astrakhan-spotters, and that it took a visit to the police station to ascertain that this was not the case. This certainly qualifies as "inside information" as nobody else besides the police was in any position to offer such a confirmation.

We know, then, that the Echo did approach the police station and extracted reliable, accurate information. We also know that they reported:

From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?

Evidently, therefore, the Echo extracted the information about this "reduced importance" in the same way they extracted the information regarding the 13th/14th confusion. This amounts to clear evidence of both a communication with the police and faithful reporting of accurate information received. We can therefore state, without any reasonable doubt, that the police had indeed attached a reduced importance to Hutchinson’s account, and this more than qualifies as "inside information". If the relationship between the Echo and the police was such that the latter felt comfortable divulging information, there is no way the Echo would have blotted their copybook and soured that relationship by making false claims about what "the authorities" had discovered.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,



Okay, but just this one more post on the subject because we're drastically off-topic from "Access to Mary Kelly" here.

Agreed Ben, I moved this debate...

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=255994&postcount=1

See you there...