The press, what they knew and how they knew it.

[Ben]

The following post is robustly critical of ideas only, and contains no personal attacks.

I hope you don't mind me taking the liberty of correcting your introductory line.

I object in the strongest possible terms, and would suggest you don't do it again in future. My introductory line, before you fiddled with it, reflected the reality of the situation, which is that detectives supplied the press with case-related inside information on occasion. It seems to be only you who continues to insist - controversially, unrealistically and with startling naivity - that it never happened. But the real world works so much better, I find.

Where you are lacking is in being unable to demonstrate, by any means available, just why in those instances you specify, the information had to be obtained directly & illicitly from detectives and not by the established means I suggest.

But it has been demonstrated, over and over again, and not just by me. You'll notice that Garry and Sally have both urged common sense on this issue, but to no avail. It isn't possible for the two proven examples of a police-press correspondence to have been achieved through the supposedly "established means" you suggest. One of these examples, if you cast your mind back, was the Lawende description, leaked to the press prematurely and published on the 2nd October. The description would have been contained in a report at the police station, and I don't see any pressman finding access to that unless a detective chose to show it to him, which is obviously - oh so terribly obviously - what happened. So, I'll repeat my introductory line again, and without your silly inappropriate "amendment":

Detectives shared case related information with certain members of the press.

Splendid.

Onwards...

Certainly an individual PC's lips could be loosened by the offer of a free whisky or two

Certainly, but an "individual PC" would not be able to produce Lawende's description on request, and nor would he know the status of an eyewitness account in terms of how much credibility it was then being accorded. And yet these two pieces of case-related information were obtained quite obviously from a detective, and probably without a whisky bribe too.

There you go again. Certainly you have insisted, and asserted, but never once have you proved Hutchinson was ever discredited. It is something you cannot prove for the simple reason you cannot prove something which never happened.

It has been proved, many times.

And I will continue to insist and assert for as long as your lazy one liners to the contrary keep coming. It's such a shame when potentially meaningful discussions degenerate into a stamina/repetition battle; when all that's left is a competition to see who's capacity for repetition is the largest...

The police would not still be pursuing that line of inquiry a week later if they had dismissed him as a liar on the 13th. The Echo knew he was never discredited.

The Echo knew very well that he was discredited, which is essentially what they reported over two days. There is absolutely no evidence that the police were pursuing the Astrakhan line of inquiry a week later, absolutely none at all.

Thats the bit we are missing, the paragraph in the Echo reads “From latest inquiries”, which means absolutely nothing as regards talking directly to Scotland Yard.

Ah, but nobody said anything about "talking directly to Scotland yard". I'm talking primarily about communications with individual detectives working "on the ground" in police stations based in the Whitechapel and Spitalfields area, although there was certainly nothing to prevent the press from obtaining details from Scotland Yard as well. To argue that this "never" happened is equally naive and unrealistic. As I've explained before, you've simply misunderstood the sentence:

"From latest inquiries (i.e. undertaken by the Echo) it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation (i.e. undertaken by the police) - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder"

Reduced importance (Echo), does not mean Discredited (Star), and as the Star appear to have realized their mistake in never mentioning the subject again then we can dispense with this Discrediting nonsense once and for all.

Firstly, you can "dispense" with whatever you like, just don't expect many others to take your dispensations seriously. I fully intend to remind all and sundry about the fact that Hutchinson was discredited for as long as erroneous protestations to the contrary exist. Secondly, what's this nonsense about the Star "realizing their mistake"? The only reason they didn't mention Hutchinson after 15th November is because there was simply no point in dwelling on a discredited witness.

Well, lets take a look at a few recent comments by the Star about the police refusal to talk with them.

But these all pre-date the discrediting of Hutchinson's account. For all I know (and care) the police may well have had nothing to do with the Star prior to that time, but that must have changed by mid-November or else they wouldn't have disclosed the provably correct detail that Hutchinson's account had been discredited - according as it does with the reports from the Echo, which we know were both truthful and accurate, and couldn't possibly have been obtained by any other means than a direct communication with a senior police source. It also makes sense for the police to have appeased the hostile Star by supplying them with case-related information of the type previously denied to them.

Again, I'm not talking about a general practice of passing on information. I'm simply refuting the silly, naive suggestion that it never once happened. It's a dead argument. The examples I've provided prove it false. You ought to move on.

Oh yes they do, we have previous examples, in fact I have posted them. The Star were known for promoting a story one day only to downplay it the next.

Oh no they don't. You have no examples whatsoever of the Star reporting enthusiastically about a subject on one day and then undermining their own enthusiasm by pouring water on that same subject the next day, knowing full well that those undermining attempts were based on lies...and don't pretend you have. You keep ignoring Garry's observation that if the Star had wished to lie about Hutchinson's account, they had only to sensationalize it further; milk it for all it was worth, make Astrakhan the undisputed villain and sell more papers.

We both know this “gentleman” was not the loiterer in the wideawake hat, so which one of the other two was it?
The first man Lewis mentioned was the Britannia man who she passed at the corner of Dorset St. The second was the man she saw walk up the court with a woman, though you say this couple were only in Dorset St.
Which one was it Ben?

Before you answer, let me just remind you that the “Birmingham” suspect was described as resembling the man “seen with Kelly”!

No.

Forget "the seen with Kelly" bit. It's wrong.

Check out the following from the St. James' Gazette:

"He was of gentlemanly appearance and manners and somewhat resembled the description given by witnesses at the late inquest. After being closely questioned as to his whereabouts at the time of the murders, and supplying a satisfactory account of himself, he was liberated."

The Echo, who reported on the same subject, also mentioned nothing about the man being "seen with Kelly". Hence, it may be concluded that the newspaper(s) that reported this detail were in error.

What we have then is a man of "gentlemanly" appearance and manners who was mentioned at the inquest.

Lewis' Bethnal Green Road man meets both criteria.

Astrakhan man meets neither.

The Echo, in particular, were well aware that Hutchinson did not attend the inquest, and thus knew full well that the Birmingham suspect was not being compared to Hutchinson's already-discredited Astrakhan man. There is not the remotest possibility, therefore, of them describing Hutchinson as a witness who attended the inquest.

Hutchinson never used the expression “gentleman”, unlike Lewis.

As I showed you months ago, Sarah Lewis was witness to Astrachan with Kelly pass up the court.

Haha! Good one

No.

If you remember, that was another argument of yours that was proven utterly false. Sarah Lewis did not see anyone enter Miller's Court. She did not see Kelly that night (she didn't even know who she was), and she certainly did not see anyone that night who looked like Hutchinson's Astrakhan invention.

Sarah Lewis was most emphatically the witness described in the 19th November article, as I am prepared to reiterate for decades and decades if necessary.

You can wrestle with him being a witness or suspect, but he will not leave the station until Abberline is satisfied he is telling the truth.

But this is nonsense.

According to that logic, Emmanuel Violenia never left the station (maybe he's still there?). They were not satisfied that he was telling the truth - quite the reverse, actually - and yet despite his claim to have been the last person to have seen Annie Chapman alive, he was "let go" on the assumption that he was just another bogus witness. The same evidently occurred with Hutchinson, albeit after being given a temporary short-lived thumbs-up from Abberline.

[Wickerman]

.... It seems to be only you who continues to insist - controversially, unrealistically and with startling naivity - that it never happened.....

The offer has always been open for you to demonstrate exactly how it was done. I have adequately demonstrated all the alternative methods open to the Star, and have also provided their own exclamations as to how the police refuse to talk with them.
This is the Star talking, not me.

My case stands on its own merit, whereas your claims exist only in your own imaginations.
- You insist the Star had an inside source yet the Star themselves make no such claim, quite the reverse.
- You also insist you have 'proven' your claims yet you refuse to show exactly how you managed to do this.
- Finally, the only reason you persist is this unsubstantiated argument is because your theory depends on it.

But it has been demonstrated, over and over again, and not just by me. You'll notice that Garry and Sally have both urged common sense on this issue, but to no avail.

I asked Garry to come to your defense, I have not heard from Garry on this issue since, so you have no support there.
Whereas Sally only commented on the "fifty three witnesses", nothing else.
What Sally may not have been aware of is that the police provide the Coroner's Office with all the witness statements which he reads in order to select which witnesses he needs. Any reporter making inquiries at the Coroner's office could come up with that number.

Straight forward logic.

One of these examples, if you cast your mind back, was the Lawende description, leaked to the press prematurely and published on the 2nd October.

Lawende was a City witness, the press had a more amicable relationship with the City force, but I have explained that to you before.

And I will continue to insist and assert for as long as your lazy one liners to the contrary keep coming. It's such a shame when potentially meaningful discussions degenerate into a stamina/repetition battle; when all that's left is a competition to see who's capacity for repetition is the largest...

Casebook is still waiting for you to present the 'goods'.

The Echo knew very well that he was discredited, which is essentially what they reported over two days.

How do you mean "essentially"?
Which dictionary are you using that defines "Reduced importance" to meaning "Discredited"?
You're confusing apples and oranges here Ben, or are you confusing the Star with the Echo?

There is absolutely no evidence that the police were pursuing the Astrakhan line of inquiry a week later, absolutely none at all.

None?, like these you mean...

The police do not attach so much importance to this document as some of our contemporaries do; but they think it sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry.
Echo 14 Nov.


"The police are now to a great extent concentrating their efforts upon an endeavour to find a man so vividly described by George Hutchinson.."
Sheffield Independent, 16 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.
Echo, 19 Nov.

The 19th is a week later, and the fact the Echo believes the police are still following up on Hutchinson's story is equally clear.


Obviously, Hutchinson was not "discredited" in the eyes of either the police or the Echo, or the Sheffield Ind.

To argue that this "never" happened is equally naive and unrealistic. As I've explained before, you've simply misunderstood the sentence:

It never happened with the Star, they never earned sufficient credit with the police for them to take this newspaper into their confidence.
As always, if you find evidence to the contrary (not your opinion), don't be shy.

Firstly, you can "dispense" with whatever you like, just don't expect many others to take your dispensations seriously.

I'm quite sure anyone reading these reports (quoted above) about Hutchinson's story still being investigated after the 13th have a sufficient grasp of the English language to know that he was not discredited.

To argue otherwise is patently futile - it's in black and white, Ben.

You could always try to convince me that the Echo used their inside source at Scotland Yard to obtain that information

I fully intend to remind all and sundry about the fact that Hutchinson was discredited for as long as erroneous protestations to the contrary exist.

Why would anyone need reminding?, members can read English just as well as you. The news articles above (Echo/Sheffield Ind.) make it quite clear how misguided your claims are.

Secondly, what's this nonsense about the Star "realizing their mistake"? The only reason they didn't mention Hutchinson after 15th November is because there was simply no point in dwelling on a discredited witness.

You'll notice the Echo had an article to publish on the 19th (quoted above), yet the Star ignored this article. Instead they attempted to attribute the Birmingham suspect to Sarah Lewis, avoiding the obvious parallel with Hutchinson's suspect.
The Star intentionally mislead their readers, apparently because they couldn't admit their mistake about Hutchinson.

But these all pre-date the discrediting of Hutchinson's account. For all I know (and care) the police may well have had nothing to do with the Star prior to that time, but that must have changed by mid-November ...

Oh my goodness, now you want to have the police grovelling to a radical, pro-Irish newspaper? - is there no end to this madness!

Oh no they don't. You have no examples whatsoever of the Star reporting enthusiastically about a subject on one day and then undermining their own enthusiasm by pouring water on that same subject the next day,....

The most obvious example, the Star, the only paper reporting on the Schwartz incident ran the story on Oct. 1st, with all the splash and accolades (patting itself on the back), then the very next day, Oct. 2nd, reported how the story was of little consequence.

You keep ignoring Garry's observation that if the Star had wished to lie about Hutchinson's account, they had only to sensationalize it further; milk it for all it was worth, make Astrakhan the undisputed villain and sell more papers.

Their game is one of exaggeration, you should read up on their methods. When their contemporaries report a wind, the Star reports a gale, when the press report sunshine, the Star reports a heatwave.
Outright lying can cause a backlash, but exaggeration sells copy with no retribution.

Check out the following from the St. James' Gazette:

The Echo, who reported on the same subject, also mentioned nothing about the man being "seen with Kelly". Hence, it may be concluded that the newspaper(s) that reported this detail were in error.

Yes of course the St. James Gazette, Echo, Pall Mall Gazette, are all evening papers who reported the incident in brief, not full coverage.
However, the dailies, Daily News, Manchester Guardian, Irish Times, Morning Advertiser, Reynolds, and, of course the Star reported the incident in full.

It is noticeable how you select a report, in brief, from the Echo yet, in the very same issue the Echo actually mentions that police are still following the Hutchinson line of inquiry, yet you appear to claim this does not exist?

The Echo, in particular, were well aware that Hutchinson did not attend the inquest,...

And the Star were not?

No Ben, your problem is that the Echo never denounced Hutchinson, but the Star had. This is why the Star cannot associate the Birmingham suspect with Hutchinson, they would be showing themselves as incompetent.
The Echo had no such problem, so they could mention the continuance of the Hutchinson investigation, though their article on the Birmingham suspect did omit the mention of Kelly, but so did the rest of the evening papers, as coverage was edited.

[Wickerman]

Hi

Here's a quick quote from the Star regarding police co-operation;-

'The police, justly or unjustly, come in for a large share of the blame of these undiscovered crimes. It is true that Whitechapel is densely populated and difficult to cover, but it is also true that under anything like intelligent police management such a quartette of openly committed murders could hardly have occurred. One thing is absolutely certain, and that is that murderers will always escape with the ease that now characterises their escape in London until the police authorities adopt a different attitude towards the Press. They treat the reporters of the newspapers, who are simply news-gatherers for the great mass of the people, with a snobbery that would be beneath contempt were it not senseless to an almost criminal degree. On Saturday they shut the reporters out of the mortuary; they shut them out of the house where the murder was done; the constable at the mortuary door lied to them; some of the inspectors at the offices seemed to wilfully mislead them; they denied information which would have done no harm to make public, and the withholding of which only tended to increase the public uneasiness over the affair.' - the Star 11 Sept. 1888

This is a fascinating line 'the constable at the mortuary door lied to them'

Hi Mr Lucky.
Yes, in fact this date is close to when the animosity appears to have begun.
Prior to Sept 8th we read no noticeable discontent between the Star and the Met.

The trouble really began when the Star would castigated Sir Charles Warren, and this animosity spread from that singular target, to Scotland Yard, and then the Metropolitan Police in general.

Just to extract a sentence from your quote above.

"...some of the inspectors at the offices seemed to wilfully mislead them; they denied information which would have done no harm to make public,.."

Will become a common feature of the relationship between the Star and the Met. from this date onwards.



On Sept. 8th, the Star report their first indication of resistance.

"A Star reporter drove at once to the police-office, and a large and excited crowd lent confirmation to the report. The inspector on duty, however, stated in answer to inquiries that two men had been brought there "merely for their own protection." A "hue and cry," he said, had been raised in Whitechapel-road, and the mob which quickly gathered threatened to lynch the men, who to escape violence got on a tram. For their protection, however, it had been necessary to bring them to the police-station.

"Is there any suspicion against the men?" our reporter asked.

The answer was a negative shake of the head.

"Can I see the men?" asked our representative.

"Oh, dear, no!" answered the inspector.

"But then," our reporter expostulated, "if the men are merely brought here for their own protection, they are not prisoners, and if they are not prisoners surely I can see them."

"You can't see them," was the inspector's emphatic answer.

"Well, are they prisoners?" persisted the Star man.

"I have told you, sir, all I can tell you," was the curt reply, which left our reporter to draw his own conclusion."


And the relationship just goes from bad to worse.

[Wickerman]

Lofty Ideals?

The Star have visions of grandeur, they see themselves as an extension of the detective arm of the law.

New York Reporters..."are no more numerous or more intelligent than the reporters of London, but they are given every facility and opportunity to get all the facts, and no part of any case is hidden from them unless the detectives' plan makes it necessary to keep it a secret. The consequence is that a large number of sharp and experienced eyes are focussed upon every point of a case, a number of different theories develop which the reporters themselves follow up, and instances in which the detection of a criminal is due to a newspaper reporter are simply too common to create any particular comment. Reporters are not prying individuals simply endeavoring to gratify their own curiosity. They are direct agents of the people who have a right to the news and a right to know what their paid servants the police and detectives are doing to earn the bread and butter for which the people are taxed. No properly accredited reporter ever wishes to know or print anything that will thwart the ends of justice, but he does desire and is fully entitled to the fullest scope in examining all the details of the case. The sooner the police authorities appreciate and act on this the sooner the Whitechapel fiend will be captured and human life in London rendered a little more safe."
The Star, 10 Sept. 1888.



Then follows an article describing the arrest of John Piser, but the police deny the fact to the Star:

"The police at Leman-street refuse to give any information, and some officials who had come from Scotland-yard denied that such an arrest had been made but this statement was, of course, incorrect, seeing that the arrest is admitted by the prisoner's relatives. The prisoner is a Jew."

The Star subsequently exclaim:

"The police at the various centres have, however, received strict instructions from Scotland-yard not to communicate details to the press."

And that situation continued for the duration of the murders.

[Garry Wroe]

I asked Garry to come to your defense ...

You did, Jon?

... I have not heard from Garry on this issue since, so you have no support there.

I've made my position clear in previous posts, Jon. To reiterate, I think it naive in the extreme to suppose that journalists and their editors wouldn't have fostered special relationships with individuals prepared to leak inside information in exchange for cash or other favours. It happened with the Monarchy, Parliament and big business, so why on earth you believe that the Met or any other police force were corruption-free is beyond my comprehension - not least when we can draw upon the 1877 racecourse scandal and Major Smith's suspicion of an inside leak with respect to the Lusk kidney. Each to their own, I suppose.

[Wickerman]

You did, Jon?

Indeed, do you recall me asking this question?

Is there any story which appeared in the press throughout the whole Whitechapel murder investigation which either; could not have been sourced through idle gossip with a lowly constable or, could not have been pieced together by reporters following behind the detectives on the streets?
Give me an example.

As you appear to be so convinced, surely it cannot be so difficult to locate an example of Scotland Yard/The Met. sharing information which could not have been obtained by any other means?
That is your claim, is it not?

I've made my position clear in previous posts, Jon. To reiterate, I think it naive in the extreme to suppose that journalists and their editors wouldn't have fostered special relationships with individuals prepared to leak inside information in exchange for cash or other favours.

I understand you think it naive, but there are others who claim it naive to believe in unsubstantiated claims made by the press. So it looks to me like naivety exists on both sides of the argument.

Garry, when both parties concerned; Scotland Yard on the one hand and the press on the other, claim that case related information is not being shared, then how on earth can anyone today claim that both parties were lying?
That is incredulous in itself.

This is a case of 'some' Casebook members inventing a storyline against all evidence to the contrary.

It happened with the Monarchy, Parliament and big business, so why on earth you believe that the Met or any other police force were corruption-free is beyond my comprehension - not least when we can draw upon the 1877 racecourse scandal and Major Smith's suspicion of an inside leak with respect to the Lusk kidney. Each to their own, I suppose.

Garry, Major Smith belonged with the City Police, information was not so tightly restricted between the City and the press.
You know this, I know this, so why bring up City related issues?


Here's an example, on Sept. 8th, the Star actually name a source:

"Chief Inspector West and Inspector Chandler courteously gave a Star reporter the meagre particulars of which the police are in possession."

We could not ask for anything clearer than this, but again, this was before the clampdown, before the Star began to repeatedly object about the Met. becoming secretive.

Ask yourself Garry, why do we not read of specific references to sources in late Sept., October and November? - why do later stories which are worded to imply 'insider knowledge' always go unreferenced?

Why is it that the Star are unable to write about an interview with Sergt. Badham, or Insp. Nairn, or Abberline concerning their doubts about Hutchinson's story?
Why?

If they were able to reach an inside source at any level, why would they not identify their sources loud and clear, like they used to?

Dwell on that thought Garry.

[Sally]

Whereas Sally only commented on the "fifty three witnesses", nothing else.
What Sally may not have been aware of is that the police provide the Coroner's Office with all the witness statements which he reads in order to select which witnesses he needs. Any reporter making inquiries at the Coroner's office could come up with that number.

Or I may, alternatively.

Are you suggesting Jon, that the press may have enjoyed a special relationship with the coroner but not with the police?

Special pleading, surely?

I agree that there are other mechanisms by which the press may have obtained information; but equally there appears to me no reason to suppose that they couldn't have obtained information from the police at times.

That is what you appear to be arguing, and frankly, I think you're wasting your time there. How can we hope, at this remove, to demonstrate beyond any doubt the personal relationships or special arrangements that existed between members of the press and the police in 1888 - or indeed, the lack of them?

[Wickerman]

Interesting, that the Star should identify themselves from the methods of inquiry so described in this article.

Can This Possibly be Meant for Us?

While certain organs of the press are expressing in plain, unvarnished terms their opinion as to what should be done with Mr. Matthews, the Home Secretary is perplexing himself to know what should be done with the press. "I do not refer," says the London correspondent of the Birmingham Daily Gazette to the Daily Telegraph, and the Standard, which have indulged in personal attacks on the Secretary of State, but upon those energetic newspapers which have made themselves so busy in connection with the recent murders. The detectives working in the East-end have been followed about by men with note-books. They do not interview officers of the law, but swoop down upon all persons whom they think the detectives have visited and examined."
Star, 21 Sept. 1888.

[Wickerman]

Or I may, alternatively.

Are you suggesting Jon, that the press may have enjoyed a special relationship with the coroner but not with the police?

Special pleading, surely?

On the contrary Sally, I am drawing attention to the fact that those who choose to raise the issue of 'bribery' among the police do not consider 'bribery' elsewhere.

I agree that there are other mechanisms by which the press may have obtained information;

Precisely.

...but equally there appears to me no reason to suppose that they couldn't have obtained information from the police at times.

You admit to a "maybe", whereas Ben insists this IS how the Star obtained their information, for a fact.

Apples and Oranges...

That is what you appear to be arguing, and frankly, I think you're wasting your time there. How can we hope, at this remove, to demonstrate beyond any doubt the personal relationships or special arrangements that existed between members of the press and the police in 1888 - or indeed, the lack of them?

It is necessary to insist on proof when someone claims it happened for a fact, especially when both the police and the press make no such claim at all.
If we cannot believe the two principal players, who do we believe?


The suggestion that the Star did (for a fact) obtain their information this way is entirely without foundation. They clearly claim to have no such relationship with the Met. so Ben's claim is quite contrary to what is known.

So now it is Ben's claim which is discredited, it has suffered diminution, for lack of substance. It only exists as wishful thinking.

Is that what we should build cases on, wishful thinking?

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Mr Lucky.
Yes, in fact this date is close to when the animosity appears to have begun.
Prior to Sept 8th we read no noticeable discontent between the Star and the Met.

Hi Wickerman

Well I have to say that's a similar conclusion to the one I've reach regarding the point (around the 8th) at which the police stop helping the press so openly and clam up. However, I think this attitude goes back at bit further with the Star, pre-Nichols killing.

The trouble really began when the Star would castigated Sir Charles Warren, and this animosity spread from that singular target, to Scotland Yard, and then the Metropolitan Police in general

The Star had showed some sympathy for the position of Mr Munro, prior to the Nichols killing, too.

[Ben]

The offer has always been open for you to demonstrate exactly how it was done. I have adequately demonstrated all the alternative methods open to the Star

I don't know when or why this discussion became so centred around the Star, but the fact remains that they were the only newspaper to "echo the Echo" with regard to the detail that Hutchinson's credibility had suffered in the minds of the police. We know for certain that the Star reported accurately and truthfully on the subject because it was verified by a proven police communication with the Echo on that very detail. It's no use getting bogged down in semantics and attempting to establish meaningless distinctions between such expressions as "discredited", "reduced importance" and "considerably discounted". They all amount very obviously to the same observation, and neatly account for the conspicuous absence of any mention of Hutchinson's evidence from the memoirs of senior police officers published in later years, to say nothing of the later attempts to identify suspects using a Jewish witness.

Even it it wasn't established beyond reasonable doubt that the Echo reported the truth about the Hutchinson episode (which it definitely is, and which they definitely did), the whole suggested motivation for lying about it is utterly nonsensical, as Garry has pointed out. Any newspaper wishing to lie about Hutchinson's account had only to sensationalise it and milk it for all it was worth if they wanted to sell more papers. It made no sense for them to report on the discrediting of Hutchinson - killing off their chances to extract the maximum from it - unless the discrediting detail was true.

As Sally observes, it seems odd that you're perfectly happy with the idea of the coroner supplying crucial inside information to the press, but resist at all costs any suggestion that similar information could ever have been obtained from the Metropolitan police. City Police, fine. Coroner, no problem, but Met police NEVER? No, I'm sorry, but far from being "straight forward (sic) logic", that isn't even a slightly sustainable position to argue.

And no, you didn't ask anyone to come to my "defense" for the simple reason that I wasn't on the "defensive". My position on the subject - i.e. that the police shared case-related information to the press at times - is wholly proven and generally considered a rather obvious reality amongst the majority.

It has been demonstrated conclusively, time and again, that the police shared information with the press on certain occasions, and not just as a result of eavesdropping outside police stations or bribing the odd constable with booze.

None?, like these you mean...

No.

Actually.

No.

Not like any of those, because none of them so much as hint that an actual pursuit of Astrak-hunt was in session any later than the 15th November. You've also posted these quotes before, and I've addressed them before. For instance, here's the somewhat crucial bit you left out from the 14th November edition:

'The importance of that description lies (so say the morning papers) in the fact that it agrees with that furnished to the police yesterday, but which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner. There is not, so it is declared (i.e. by rival morning papers), the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity.

Even a highly questionable account is going to be made the subject of a "very careful enquiry", if only to ensure that a potentially important clue isn't dismissed out of hand. There is, however, no evidence that Astrakhan was still being pursued after 15th November. I think we can reasonably conclude that the "Sheffield Independent" were publishing out-of-date information, and I've dealt with the 19th November Echo article many times already. They simply observed 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, appeared to place "most reliance” upon Hutchinson's description.

It never happened with the Star, they never earned sufficient credit with the police for them to take this newspaper into their confidence.

Please see the opening paragraph of this post for refutation of this. You cannot possibly know this to be true, and you are thus in absolutely no position to state that it never happened. It won't achieve a great deal to post extracts from the Star complaining about the general practice of police reticence in divulging inside information, since this was never disputed. Yes, they had a bad relationship with the police in general; yes, they felt hard done by when it came to attempts to extract information, and yet somehow they got the police to dish the goods and learned that Hutchinson's credibility was under question and his "evidence" accordingly set aside. And "goods" they were, for despite the paucity of press references to Hutchinson's discrediting/discounting/dimunition (whatever you want to call it), the detail transpired to be accurate.

You'll notice the Echo had an article to publish on the 19th (quoted above), yet the Star ignored this article. Instead they attempted to attribute the Birmingham suspect to Sarah Lewis, avoiding the obvious parallel with Hutchinson's suspect.

What the...?

No, Jon. Simply no.

Look, the Star had no dog in the fight when it came to the Birmingham suspect. They were simply reporting on a story that many other newspapers were reporting on at the same time, and for that obvious reason, there is not the slightest hint of a bias on the part of the Star towards making the Birmingham suspect sound more like Lewis' suspect and less like Hutchinson's Astrakhan silliness. So unless you want to accuse a whole load of other newspapers of having the same bias...?

The Birmingham suspect was not being compared to the Astrakhan man in any press article.

The Birmingham suspect was said to resemble a man of gentlemanly manners and appearance who was mentioned at the inquest. Hutchinson did not mention a "gentleman" and certainly did not attend the inquest. Lewis, on the other hand, did both. She is the witness whose suspect was said to resemble the Birmingham suspect mentioned on the 19th November, not Hutchinson.

Absolute end of.

The Star intentionally mislead their readers, apparently because they couldn't admit their mistake about Hutchinson.

This is just nonsense.

That absolutely did not happen - FACT.

Oh my goodness, now you want to have the police grovelling to a radical, pro-Irish newspaper?

Oh my goodness, I thought I made clear that the police may have appeased the Star in attempt to prevent them using the police's silence as a stick to beat them with.

The most obvious example, the Star, the only paper reporting on the Schwartz incident ran the story on Oct. 1st, with all the splash and accolades (patting itself on the back), then the very next day, Oct. 2nd, reported how the story was of little consequence.

But where's the evidence that the Star knew they were reporting lies when they claimed that the story was "of little consequence"? How do you know they didn't believe it to be true at that juncture? As I mentioned in a post to Simon the other day, Star-bashing is rightly considered out-of-fashion these days.

Yes of course the St. James Gazette, Echo, Pall Mall Gazette, are all evening papers who reported the incident in brief, not full coverage.

The "brief versus full" distinction is a misleading one in this case, since the "brief" accounts were just a few lines shorter than the supposedly "full" ones. Obviously there was no inquest-attending witness who described a man of "gentlemanly appearance and manners" seen in Kelly's company. The last detail must therefore be in error. You say "coverage was edited" and you're right - coverage was evidently edited by the time the evening newspapers were published in order to remove the errors of the morning papers' reporting, such as the deeply erroneous "seen with Kelly" bit.

This is why the Star cannot associate the Birmingham suspect with Hutchinson, they would be showing themselves as incompetent.
The Echo had no such problem

There wasn't a SINGLE newspaper that associated the Birmingham suspect with Hutchinson, least of all the Echo, who knew full well that Hutchinson never attended the inquest.

[Scott Nelson]

The Birmingham suspect was Nicolai Wassili.

[Garry Wroe]

If they were able to reach an inside source at any level, why would they not identify their sources loud and clear, like they used to?

You're not seriously suggesting, are you, Jon, that a journalist would reveal the name of a police informant who was effectively 'on the take', or that the officer concerned wouldn't take every precaution to guard his identity?

[Fisherman]

You're not seriously suggesting, are you, Jon, that a journalist would reveal the name of a police informant who was effectively 'on the take', or that the officer concerned wouldn't take every precaution to guard his identity?

If I may? Being a journalist myself, I do have some insight into how the press handles these things nowadays, and I would imagine that it does not differ all that much from how they went about things back then.

Today, the police are sworn to secrecy in many a case, but nevertheless, the information is many a time leaked to the press just the same. And just like you say, Garry, the name of the informant is kept from public knowledge. Sure enough, the informant would take precautions to safeguard his identity too, once again in the manner you propose.

But there is an important difference when it comes to how the Star behaved, if we compare it to todayīs tabloids with a direct line into ongoing inquiries.
If a newspaper today does have the kind of information we speak of, confidential information not meant for the press, they normally present that information with a smug smile; "look here, weīve got all the information, and thatīs why you should buy our paper", sort of.

What they would never do if they DID know, is to complaint about how the police keep the vital information from them. Telling the audience that, is not a very good way to disclose that you are one step ahead of your competitors, is it? Putting it differently, it is a safe way to make sure that you donīt sell more copies of your paper.

This is why I side with Jon on the issue - the Star is pretty adamant that they are left to their own speculations, getting no help from the police. They effectively cast the police in the scoundrelīs role, having set aside what the Star suggests as a rightful demand on behalf of the public to get into the know.

Unless something significant has changed since 1888, Iīd say that this pretty much tells us that the Star did not enjoy any information from any police source that gave them the upper hand informationwise. On the contrary - they were fenced off from that information, and they made that a big deal.

Of course, if there had been any absolute certainty that there was no way that ANY paper would get vital information from the police in these matters, the Star would not have reacted like this, since it would have been moot. It is totally on the cards that it DID happen from time to time.
Apparently not this time, though. And the staff at the Star did not like it one bit.

Thatīs how I read it all. I fail to see that a paper would cover up for their information sources by whining about not getting any information at all. It would be over-elaboration and worse - it would not sell a single copy of the paper! And on the papers, economy rules ...!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

You're not seriously suggesting, are you, Jon, that a journalist would reveal the name of a police informant who was effectively 'on the take', or that the officer concerned wouldn't take every precaution to guard his identity?

Garry, I think you find yourself in a dilemma.

You appear to want to believe the Star had an inside source, but when challenged you prefer to hide behind the old excuse, it can't be proven for obvious reasons.
So why ardently promote an idea you cannot substantiate?

From your own reserved position I can see you prefer to remain in the 'reasonable to assume' category, admitting it cannot be proven.

Sally, on the other hand has admitted other methods were available for the Star to obtain such information, and suggests that talk of 'proof' is a waste of time:
" I think you're wasting your time there. How can we hope, at this remove, to demonstrate beyond any doubt the personal relationships or special arrangements that existed between members of the press and the police in 1888 - or indeed, the lack of them?"

Equally then Sally does not support Ben's position that this issue has been and can be, proven.

Which has been my argument from the beginning, Ben is wrong to insist that the Star having an inside source has been proven, because it cannot be proven.

My position from day one has been twofold:
1 - that the Star had other methods open to them to arrive at the conclusions they did.
2 - that any claims the Star had an inside source on the progress of the investigation being 'proven', are false.

To date, Sally, albeit reluctantly with choice words, has agreed with me, and you, yourself, have avoided crossing the line to firmly side with Ben.

So we are left with the unavoidable conclusion that my second point remains uncontested, and as to my first point, purely a matter of common sense.

Ben has isolated himself in this, he has no support.

So, we can leave the opinions of the Star to wallow in their own misguided speculations and move to the Echo, a more reliable and less controversial newspaper.

And Christer, I appreciate your experience on the subject.