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

[Ben]

There were far more reporters around town than detectives, so following them, as we know they did, and re-interviewing the witnesses, as they did, and subsequently drawing their own conclusions from what they learned, as they did, is quite a simple procedure to understand.

And understand it I do, thanks. I also accept that it happened during the course of the Whitechapel murders investigation. In this particular instance, however, it is clear that the Echo obtained their sources directly from detectives. It is, as Sally points out, the simplest explanation by far, especially when we know for an indisputable certainly that detectives divulged inside information on the case to certain representatives of the press.

The piece is entirely constructed to provide a picture of a police force who are unable to provide an answer.

No it isn't.

No it definitely and unquestionably isn't.

Where do you get this stuff from?

You're conjuring up a whole load of silly conspiracies and hidden agendas when all we have here is a simple, uncomplicated piece concerning the current progress of the investigation. It isn't saying anything remotely negative about the police. It simply observed that a witness account turned out to be worthless, in light of later investigations. If anything, the article is highlighting the proactivity of the police.

You think Abberline forgot to ask him that very question?

He may well have done, but it appears he cannot have been entirely satisfied with the answer, or else the police would not still be questioning his failure to come forward the next day, as they clearly were. Indeed, it appears that Hutchinson's colourful attempt to explain his failure to come forward earlier (our favourite Sunday non-existent policeman) reduced his already tenuous credibility even further.

So Hutchinson provided all the necessary answers during the interview on the evening of the 12th, otherwise he would not have been let go.

You can forget that idea too.

Whatever Hutchinson may have claimed on the evening of 12th, it would have been impossible to verify many of his particulars during the course of that one interview, and thus impossible to be completely satisfied with everything he stated. And yet he was "let go" anyway because he was a witness and not a suspect. He most certainly did not become an "automatic suspect" any more than Schwartz or Violenia did, and the idea of the real killer coming forward as a suspect would not have been entertained by a police force in its infancy.

[Wickerman]

Not that I like to repeat myself, but for the sake of you Ben & Sally, let me remind you both of one perfect example where the press published a report from a trusted source, and the information was false!

It is no secret how the press held the City police in high regard when compared with the reluctant Met. concerning the need for 'certain' information. The City were considerably more receptive than the Met.

"A representative of the Press, in an interview yesterday with Superintendent Foster, of the City police, was assured that the rumour that a portion of the body of the woman found in Mitre-square was missing was totally unfounded."
Morning Advertiser, 2 Oct. 1888.

Totally unfounded, no part of Eddowes body was taken away?

This is how a trusted source responds to the press. So what misinformation do you think the Echo might have expected to obtain from a 'hostile' force, if they obtained anything at all?

C'mon, ladies & gents, this is not difficult.

[Wickerman]

Welcome back, Sally, and spot on as usual.

It is difficult to envisage how the Echo reporters could have extracted the information you alluded to unless they were in direct communication with the police. I don't see how "canvassing the residents" would have resulted in the very specific figure of 53, unless they took an eternity about it..?!?

There were far more reporters around town than detectives, so following them, as we know they did, and re-interviewing the witnesses, as they did, and subsequently drawing their own conclusions from what they learned, as they did, is quite a simple procedure to understand.
I mean, for those who are not trying to avoid the obvious.

The fact that you keep describing the Echo article extract as "melodramatic" makes me wonder, seriously, if you even know what the word means.

That is precisely what it is (melodrama=over stating the case), the "authorities" are not asking the Echo, they are not even asking Hutchinson. The piece is entirely constructed to provide a picture of a police force who are unable to provide an answer. Sidestepping the fact the police have no intention of sharing this detail with the press.
Make the police look as if they do not know, it makes them look bad. This is a familiar tactic assumed by the Star.

I don't know where you're getting any of that from, but it is stated unambiguously that the authorities were questioning Hutchinson's failure to alert them earlier.

You think Abberline forgot to ask him that very question?
Of course not.
So Hutchinson provided all the necessary answers during the interview on the evening of the 12th, otherwise he would not have been let go.
He's an automatic suspect remember, admitting to being the last person to see Kelly alive.
The subsequent interview with Abberline will not terminate until Hutchinson has answered EVERY question put to him.

You can take that to the bank!


The fact the press are always a day late and a dollar short comes as no surprise, they are having to piece things together the best way they can.
Rarely do they ever get it right.

[Sally]

Hi Ben

It is difficult to envisage how the Echo reporters could have extracted the information you alluded to unless they were in direct communication with the police. I don't see how "canvassing the residents" would have resulted in the very specific figure of 53, unless they took an eternity about it..?!?

Yes, I agree - it's a solution, but a clumsy one - not one I prefer, personally. Besides which, would they really have gone to such canvassing lengths just so that they could state emphatically that as many as 53 persons had seen 'suspicious men'?

Whilst it's not impossible that such canvassing occurred in this case; police intelligence is a far simpler explanation.

Or in other words - and given the general content of the article in question - I consider it unlikely.

[Sally]

Hi Jon,

Its difficult to see how they were.

See above. Individual intepretation of text. You say A) I say B). We can agree to differ.

Reporters didn't canvass the residents for witness? - I know they did, and so should you. Warren himself complains about it to the Home Office.

Sure. But why bother if the information came from the horses mouth, eh?
They could have canvassed the residents for witnesses, but equally, they could have received that nice, precise figure from their police friends. The latter is the simpler explanation, and I always prefer those (they're generally the best) so....

Do you think reporters sat on their behinds?

No Jon. I think, that then - as now - reporters found their story any way they could; and that includes (then, as now) from police sources.

Or do you think peopile were above such things n olden days?

[Ben]

Welcome back, Sally, and spot on as usual.

It is difficult to envisage how the Echo reporters could have extracted the information you alluded to unless they were in direct communication with the police. I don't see how "canvassing the residents" would have resulted in the very specific figure of 53, unless they took an eternity about it..?!?

Hi Jon,

The fact that you keep describing the Echo article extract as "melodramatic" makes me wonder, seriously, if you even know what the word means. It is the polar opposite of melodramatic - very matter-of-fact, uncontroversial, desultory, un-flowery reporting on the result of the latest police inquiries. Another promising witness turned out to be a dud. Big whoop. Onto more pressing matters.

They learn that the police are no longer escorting Hutchinson around town, hence it is assumed by the press that the police have less an interest today than they had yesterday.

I don't know where you're getting any of that from, but it is stated unambiguously that the authorities were questioning Hutchinson's failure to alert them earlier.

There is nothing remotely "poor" about the structure of the sentence you quoted. You've simply misunderstood it.

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

My bold.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Whilst, of course, readers will always interpret text individually; if any veracity at all is to be attributed to the Echo article, it's difficult to see how they weren't in possession of police intelligence.

Its difficult to see how they were.

E.g. - As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin.

Reporters didn't canvass the residents for witness? - I know they did, and so should you. Warren himself complains about it to the Home Office.

And again - [I]The most remarkable thing in regard to the latest statement is, that no one else can be found to say that a man of that description given was seen with the deceased

Again, evidence of persistent enquiries by a hungry media.

Do you think reporters sat on their behinds?

[Wickerman]

Ben, you only provide the very paragraph which contained the melodrama.

"From latest inquiries" are the reporters inquiries, they follow detectives around, they question witnesses, both at the Victoria Home and no doubt Hutchinson himself.
They learn that the police are no longer escorting Hutchinson around town, hence it is assumed by the press that the police have less an interest today than they had yesterday.

Incidently, you may have noticed the poor sentence structure:
From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation

The reporter is repeating himself, likely just for emphasis.

Here, just look:

"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? As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin. The most remarkable thing in regard to the latest statement is, that no one else can be found to say that a man of that description given was seen with the deceased, while, of course, there is the direct testimony of the witnesses at the inquest, that the person seen with the deceased at midnight was of quite a different appearance."

Melodrama is not evidence, but it may sell newspapers.

[Sally]

Whilst, of course, readers will always interpret text individually; if any veracity at all is to be attributed to the Echo article, it's difficult to see how they weren't in possession of police intelligence.

E.g. - As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin.

An emphatic, specific statement - how do they know this, unless they have police intelligence?

And again - The most remarkable thing in regard to the latest statement is, that no one else can be found to say that a man of that description given was seen with the deceased



How do they know?

I think it's either an acceptance that the Echo had police intelligence, or a claim that they fabricated the whole thing.

Ipso facto, the first seems the more likely.

[Ben]

No Ben, the Echo (13th) merely offer their own opinion they make no suggestion that they have spoken with the police, there is no mention of "the authorities" as their source.

This is all so hopelessly wrong, Jon.

They did not "offer their own opinion".

They tell us very clearly that they communicated with the police.

They make it very clear that "the authorities" were having problems with Hutchinson's account.

Here, just look:

"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? As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin. The most remarkable thing in regard to the latest statement is, that no one else can be found to say that a man of that description given was seen with the deceased, while, of course, there is the direct testimony of the witnesses at the inquest, that the person seen with the deceased at midnight was of quite a different appearance."

"From latest inquiries", "in light of later investigation"...they are reporting on the "later investigation" conducted by the police. We know this because further down they say "why, ask the authorities" did Hutchinson not come forward before. There can be absolutely no doubt that it was the police who were raising doubts about Hutchinson's credibility. The Echo were merely the messengers. There is no "conjecture" here at all, and there is certainly no "emotion" or "melodrama" (what a frankly bizarre thing to infer from the above). It is a simple, straightforward article informing its readers that Hutchinson's account had been discredited.

No, the police do not single out the Echo, they treat them all the same, they tell them nothing.

False, I'm afraid.

Provably and irrefutably false.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

On the evening of the 13th November, The Echo published inside information from "the authorities" to the effect that Hutchinson had been discredited for reasons that were inextricably linked to the question of his credibility, or lack thereof.

No Ben, the Echo (13th) merely offer their own opinion they make no suggestion that they have spoken with the police, there is no mention of "the authorities" as their source.

There is a short piece of melodrama (emotional plea) where they suggest "the authorities" are mystified as to why Hutchinson did not come forward earlier.
This is not inside information, it is merely conjecture on their part because the police are not telling them what they want to know. Abberline has already interviewed Hutchinson but true to form the police give no details away which causes the press once again to apply conjecture.

In turn you interpret this conjecture as an official source.

Would the police have wanted anything to do with the Echo if they'd caught them publishing brazen out-and-out porkie-pies about their treatment of Hutchinson's account?

All the media outlets were speculating, the Echo was treated no different. No, the police do not single out the Echo, they treat them all the same, they tell them nothing.

[Ben]

It's a fact that the Metropolitan Police disclosed reliable inside information to certain members of the press. It is therefore a complete waste of time to claim otherwise and argue accordingly. We have at least two proven instances of it occurring, although I'm sure there are many more. Nobody's suggesting that it was ever the common practice, but the sheer naivity - and impossibility - of the argument that it "never" happened in the Whitechapel murders investigation should be apparent to all.

On the evening of the 13th November, The Echo published inside information from "the authorities" to the effect that Hutchinson had been discredited for reasons that were inextricably linked to the question of his credibility, or lack thereof. Did the Echo lie about this detail for the sheer shytes and giggles of it? Well, no, definitely not, because almost immediately following this publication they obtained additional Hutchinson-related information directly from Commercial Street police station. Would the police have wanted anything to do with the Echo if they'd caught them publishing brazen out-and-out porkie-pies about their treatment of Hutchinson's account? No. Would the Echo have deliberately sabotaged what was evidently a good relationship with the Met police? Also no.

So we may dispense, permanently, with the insanely ludicrous suggestion that the Echo lied about the police's discrediting of Hutchinson.

And yes, the revelation that the 14th November description attributed to "George Hutchinson" emanated from the same source as the 13th November account attributed to "a man, apparently from the labouring class but with a military appearance" certainly qualified as "inside information". The account from the 14th was not sanctioned by the police, unlike the account from the 13th, and as such the police would not have wished it to be "public information" that both came from the same source.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Garry.
My position was stated very early on.

In response I am presented with scenario's where one detective is playing tour guide for the press and in consequence providing inaccurate information, or another police official is describing the history and customs of the Metropolitan police, and a third relating his memoirs to a newspaper, neither of which have anything to do with the Met/SY providing "reliable inside information about the murder investigation to the press".

I have asked for examples from more than yourself but to date no-one has come up with anything to contest my claim.

Let me remind you where this all began. It was claimed that the Echo (Nov. 14) received inside information when they approached Commercial St. P.S. to inquire about the 2nd Hutchinson article, that the police gave them inside information that both descriptions (1st/2nd) came from the same source.

This was not inside information, both reports emanated through the Central News, the police only shared with the Echo what was already public knowledge.
(ie, the fact a public agency are able to provide the information means the information is in the public domain).

So I am not talking about memoirs, off-duty tour guides, or history lessons.
The question pertains specifically to the Whitechapel murder investigation and the relationship between Scotland Yard/The Met. and the press.

The relationship between the City police and the press are not under dispute.

[Garry Wroe]

Then please, Jon, allow me to be quite specific. My previous post was a direct response to your own observations:-

The first point was to suggest that certain members of the press obtained reliable inside information on the murder investigation from Scotland Yard.

My counter to this is that Scotland Yard gave away no important inside information, that those who believe this (just because the papers say so!) are being mislead.

So if you are averse to someone challenging your statements, Jon, it might be better not to make them in the first place.

[Wickerman]

Who exactly has stated that Scotland Yard was the source for leaked information, Jon?

The claims are mostly attributed to "the police". It is necessary to make the distinction between the City, who had a more amiable relationship with the press, and the Met/Scotland Yard. Hence, my earlier comment.

Again, Jon, your contention that policemen did not sell information to the press may well be entrenched, but it is not supported by the historical evidence.

Please Garry, allow me to be quite specific - in bold.

The debates here center on the press obtaining reliable inside information on the direction of the Whitechapel murder investigation, from the Met/Scotland Yard.

The topic is quite specific as to the subject, otherwise certain theories which hinge on this belief will find no support.