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

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson sticks to the Astrakhan story which cannot be disconfirmed by Sarah Lewis.

And this he couldn't have done at the Inquest?

[Wickerman]

But the Echo most assuredly HAD received "proprietary information" from the police. The revelation that Hutchinson's account had suffered a "very reduced importance" most assuredly qualifies on that score. And before you argue that the Echo lied about this detail (for what possible reason?),...

Hi Ben.
Perhaps you can quantify this assumption of yours, please read what the Echo later published on the 19th.

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. Others are disposed to think that the shabby man with a blotchy face and a carrotty moustache described by the witness Mary Ann Cox, is more likely to be the murderer.
Echo, 19 Nov.

Doesn't it make you wonder what the source of the claim by the Echo was if, on the 13th the story was of "reduced importance" but 6 days later the police "have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt for Astrachan"?

Dubious sources, or another example of making it up as you go?

Well, crucially, one of those "quizzings" would have occurred in the privacy of an interrogation room at the police station, while the other necessitated a very public airing, which would not have been terribly desirable if Hutchinson had anything to hide. The crowds that attended (or tried to attend) the inquest was reportedly very large, and who knows what key witnesses from previous murders and attacks they may have comprised? Schwartz? Lawende?...Ada Wilson?

And Abberline was perfectly within his rights to hold Hutchinson until Lewis, Schwartz, Lawende, Mrs Long, and uncle Tom Cobely and all, had all been brought to see him face to face.

Coming forward was the last thing a culpable witness will do where he has knowingly been seen by other witnesses.

Why you can't see this is perplexing.

.

[Garry Wroe]

And this he couldn't have done at the Inquest?

He could have done, Jon. But Hutchinson clearly had no intention of coming forward until something spooked him on the day of the Kelly inquest hearing. For my money that something was Sarah Lewis. But then we've covered this ground many times before.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson

All this means 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, appeared to place "most reliance” upon Hutchinson's description.

Doesn't it make you wonder what the source of the claim by the Echo was if, on the 13th the story was of "reduced importance" but 6 days later the police "have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt for Astrachan"?

Woah...!

Where does that quote come from?

Let's at least quote the article properly.

It read: "The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer"

There is nothing in the Echo that says or implies that there was any sort of "unrelaxed" hunt for Astrakhan. They simply went on to state that some of the authorities still "relied" on the statement made by Hutchinson. There is not the slightest insinuation that anyone of any influence was still hunting Astrakhan man.

And Abberline was perfectly within his rights to hold Hutchinson until Lewis, Schwartz, Lawende, Mrs Long, and uncle Tom Cobely and all, had all been brought to see him face to face.

Of course he was "in his rights", but the point is that it is incredibly unlikely that he had any inclination to do so, especially after Hutchinson had come forward voluntarily under the guise of a co-operative witness. He bought into it, at least initially.

Un-"oops".

Coming forward was the last thing a culpable witness will do where he has knowingly been seen by other witnesses.

No offence, but according to who? You? It's just that actual investigators and experts in serial crime say the exact opposite; that this is precisely what serial offenders have done. I can only defer to their infinitely greater knowledge, I'm afraid.

[Wickerman]

He could have done, Jon. But Hutchinson clearly had no intention of coming forward until something spooked him on the day of the Kelly inquest hearing. For my money that something was Sarah Lewis. But then we've covered this ground many times before.

Indeed we have Garry, and there is still nothing convincing about the idea that Hutchinson was anything more than what he claimed to be, an honest witness giving an honest story to the police.

.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
All this means 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, appeared to place "most reliance” upon Hutchinson's description.

Hi Ben.
The paragraph is quoted in its entirety, what we learn is that the the police pursued both leads. Given that we are dealing with two police forces, the City and the Met. it should not be surprising that we have a difference of opinion.
What is important for this debate is that the police were still pursuing the Hutchinson suspect, and that tells us that any claim by a media outlet (Echo?) that the police had lost interest in that suspect is a false claim.
Whatever the source was, it was not the police.

Of course he was "in his rights", but the point is that it is incredibly unlikely that he had any inclination to do so, especially after Hutchinson had come forward voluntarily under the guise of a co-operative witness. He bought into it, at least initially.

Why would you now suggest that Abberline need not do his job properly?
An investigating detective still has to report to his superiors, and must still dot the "i's" and cross the 'T's".
So when Swanson or Anderson enquire if Abberline checked him out, Abberline says what, "No, I didn't bother, he had an honest face"?


C'mon Ben, give the police a little more credit. This is not the Keystone Cops.

No offence, but according to who? You? It's just that actual investigators and experts in serial crime say the exact opposite; that this is precisely what serial offenders have done. I can only defer to their infinitely greater knowledge, I'm afraid.

No, it is not what they do.
Perpetrators do inject themselves into an investigation when they have not been seen at the crime scene, but when they have been seen under suspicious circumstances (as a loiterer?), no, they do not come forward. They keep well away.

.

[Ben]

there is still nothing convincing about the idea that Hutchinson was anything more than what he claimed to be, an honest witness giving an honest story to the police.

You might not find it convincing, Jon, but then you're one of the very few people who still argues inexplicably in favour of a well-dressed, possibly upper/middle class ripper of the type Hutchinson conjured up in his statement, and it could be observed that this preference of yours (if it IS a preference, and I haven't misread you) may be colouring your judgment somewhat when it comes to discussing the honesty and possible motivations of Hutchinson himself.

[Wickerman]

You might not find it convincing, Jon, but then you're one of the very few people who still argues inexplicably in favour of a well-dressed, possibly upper/middle class ripper of the type Hutchinson conjured up in his statement, and it could be observed that this preference of yours (if it IS a preference, and I haven't misread you) may be colouring your judgment somewhat when it comes to discussing the honesty and possible motivations of Hutchinson himself.

Well dressed yes, but working class.
And no, I do not believe Astrachan was the Ripper.
I believe Hutchinson was telling the truth.

This is about what the press knew, and how they knew it.
Reporters would take vague information and make a story out of it because the police were not sharing their findings on the investigation with the press.

That much is demonstrable in numerous instances. Where the press claimed to have 'reliable sources' yet fail to identify those sources, and their claims subsequently end up wrong, we should learn to not be so enthusiastic in accepting their claims.

.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

What is important for this debate is that the police were still pursuing the Hutchinson suspect, and that tells us that any claim by a media outlet (Echo?) that the police had lost interest in that suspect is a false claim.

No.

No evidence that any member of any police force was still "pursuing" the Astrakhan man described by Hutchinson. The article only tells us that "some of the authorities" still placed "most reliance" on it. No individual is specified, although as I've mentioned elsewhere, other comments attributed to Abberline, Swanson and Anderson suggest very strongly that it can't have been any of them. It is also not specified how much influence these purportedly pro-Hutchinson elements had, if any, on the direction of the investigation. The answer can only be: not much, judging from the Echo's earlier reports on the treatment of Hutchinson's account.

So no, the Echo report of 13th November is not false. You're simply championing their 19th November claim over their 13th November claim, and for no good reason. They don't even contradict each other.

So when Swanson or Anderson enquire if Abberline checked him out, Abberline says what, "No, I didn't bother, he had an honest face"?

No, I'm not suggesting this at all.

All witnesses were checked out to determine whether or not they appeared to be genuine informers or publicity seekers, and in Hutchinson's case, despite a short-lived thumbs-up on the day he came forward, he was evidently lumped into the latter category.

Perpetrators do inject themselves into an investigation when they have not been seen at the crime scene, but when they have been seen under suspicious circumstances (as a loiterer?), no, they do not come forward. They keep well away.

Again, is this just according to you?

If so, I'm afraid it's wholly in error. Prostitute serial killer John Eric Armstrong injected himself into the investigation after he had been seen "under suspicious circumstances" AND when he was seen at the crime scene "as a loiterer". So did Nathaniel Code. Don't take this the wrong way, but I am demonstrably more knowledgeable than you are on the subject of serial crime and its perpetrators. That's nothing for you to feel bad about, less still for me to boast about. It's a depressing subject, and I'm sure there are many areas of expertise in which your knowledge vastly trumps my own, but when you say things like "no, they do not come forward. They keep well away" I'm afraid I know for certain that it can't possibly be based on any real knowledge.

But meanwhile, back on your press-related topic.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

Hi Jon,
No evidence that any member of any police force was still "pursuing" the Astrakhan man described by Hutchinson.

What type of evidence?
We have nothing from either Abberline, Swanson or Anderson directly after the Kelly murder. Controversially, the Astrachan description might be consistent with Abberline's later suspicions about George Chapman. Whether he suspected Chapman at the time of the Kelly murder is unknown.

What we are dealing with here is two inconsistent views by the press, either the police discredited Hutchinson (your claim) and simply stopped investigating him altogether, or, they continued to investigate him (Echo 19th Nov.), because they could not fault his story.

These claims are not mutually acceptable, but they are consistent with how the press promoted and demoted a particular line of inquiry.

One caveat I have explained elsewhere is that the City Police were more amiable with the press than were the Met. If any press outlet claimed to have received info from the City we can readily accept that this could be the case. As it is, the Echo here claims to have a source at Commercial St. so a City source is not suggested. The Met. did not share their investigation with any media unless it was via an official press release.

So far, you have not demonstrated that this is the case.

The article only tells us that "some of the authorities" still placed "most reliance" on it. No individual is specified,....

Therein lies your red flag!

It is also not specified how much influence these purportedly pro-Hutchinson elements had, if any, on the direction of the investigation.

The Police are not a democracy, each detective can pursue his own line of inquiry, no consensus is required. If one detective is working on the Hutchinson case, then the police are working on the Hutchinson case.

The answer can only be: not much, judging from the Echo's earlier reports on the treatment of Hutchinson's account.

This unsourced claim you mean?

You're simply championing their 19th November claim over their 13th November claim, and for no good reason. They don't even contradict each other.

I champion the known resistance of the Met. to share details of their investigation with the press.

If so, I'm afraid it's wholly in error. Prostitute serial killer John Eric Armstrong injected himself into the investigation after he had been seen "under suspicious circumstances" AND when he was seen at the crime scene "as a loiterer". So did Nathaniel Code. Don't take this the wrong way, but I am demonstrably more knowledgeable than you are on the subject of serial crime and its perpetrators. That's nothing for you to feel bad about, less still for me to boast about. It's a depressing subject, and I'm sure there are many areas of expertise in which your knowledge vastly trumps my own, but when you say things like "no, they do not come forward. They keep well away" I'm afraid I know for certain that it can't possibly be based on any real knowledge.

There is no cookie-cutter mould for serial killers, they come from every walk of life. They are everyman.
For you to claim "thats what they do" as if it is as normal as carrying a weapon for a serial killer is a deceptive argument.

You would be more accurate if you claimed they have been known to inject themselves on rare occasions, but not approach the police out of the blue claiming to have been at the murder scene as a witness.
That is what Hutchinson did, and this is what I am suggesting is not commonly done.
You might say Armstrong & Code both came forward before the police even knew they existed (like Hutchinson), and offered a story that places them firmly in the role of a prime suspect, like Hutchinson, all the while claiming to be a witness, but this is so unlikely I would have to read it myself.

Anyhow, this is drifting off topic.

.

[Garry Wroe]

The Police are not a democracy, each detective can pursue his own line of inquiry, no consensus is required. If one detective is working on the Hutchinson case, then the police are working on the Hutchinson case.

The London police didn't and don't work in that manner, Jon. Detectives operated within an hierarchical command structure. Since financial, human and temporal resources were limited, officers were not free to go off and do their own thing. They followed orders. Thus detectives would have focused their investigative attention in an entirely different direction once Hutchinson had fallen from grace.

This isn't to say that Astrakhan types weren't investigated post-Hutchinson. They were. But these were men who had come to police attention via members of the public who, like many newsmen, were unaware of the latest developments in the manhunt. It was simply a matter of procedure that all such tip-offs were investigated and accounted for. The fact remains, however, that within days of Hutchinson coming forward police were mounting swoops on low lodging houses and casual wards in their hunt for the killer. In other words the investigative focus had switched from the affluent Astrakhan to precisely the kind of low-class individual that Anderson surmised was responsible for the murders.

[Ben]

Controversially, the Astrachan description might be consistent with Abberline's later suspicions about George Chapman. Whether he suspected Chapman at the time of the Kelly murder is unknown.

Somewhat unlikely, Jon, considering that Klosowski was completely unknown to Abberline in 1888 and hadn't poisoned anyone by then! It was only in 1903 that Abberline went public with his suspicions regarding Klosowski, and despite references to and comparisons with eyewitness descriptions from the time of the murders (someone who had seen a man in a "P&0" cap, and others who had only acquired a rear view of a foreign-looking suspect), he didn't allude to any parallel with Astrakhan man. Why? Because the Astrakhan man had been discredited many years previously.

What we are dealing with here is two inconsistent views by the press, either the police discredited Hutchinson (your claim) and simply stopped investigating him altogether, or, they continued to investigate him (Echo 19th Nov.), because they could not fault his story.

They can be perfectly compatible if we accept the probable explanation that the faction who allegedly remained pro-Hutchinson as late as the 19th November did not have any great sway within the force(s), and that they did not influence the actual direction of the investigation.

The Met. did not share their investigation with any media unless it was via an official press release.

Yes they did.

Without the slightest shadow of a doubt, they most emphatically, provably did. Debate stifled on that score I'm afraid, unless we're up for several more pages of "yes it is!" "no it isn't!".

For you to claim "thats what they do" as if it is as normal as carrying a weapon for a serial killer is a deceptive argument.

Ah, but it wasn't me saying "that's what they do", remember?

You were the one speaking in absolutes with regard to what a serial killer would or wouldn't do. You made that very clear indeed when you wrote:

"no, they do not come forward. They keep well away"

...which is simply wrong.

You would be more accurate if you claimed they have been known to inject themselves on rare occasions, but not approach the police out of the blue claiming to have been at the murder scene as a witness.

That's precisely what they have done, and I went into this in some depth in my Casebook Examiner article of a few years ago. Serial crime itself is a "rare occasion", but among those we know about, certain traits crop up with sufficient frequency that they can be documented and even successfully predicted on occasions, and this is one of them.

That is what Hutchinson did, and this is what I am suggesting is not commonly done.

Again, nothing is "commonly done" when it comes to serial crime, but each case is situation specific.

You might say Armstrong & Code both came forward before the police even knew they existed (like Hutchinson), and offered a story that places them firmly in the role of a prime suspect, like Hutchinson, all the while claiming to be a witness, but this is so unlikely I would have to read it myself.

That's precisely what both of them did, so yes, please do "read it yourself".

Meanwhile, this is drifting heavily from the topic, yes. Back to the press discussion then...

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

The London police didn't and don't work in that manner, Jon. Detectives operated within an hierarchical command structure.

That is how they function today. The detective force was in its infancy in 1888 and not inhibited by the restraints put on their modern counterparts. Financial concerns have always been present.

The point I am making Garry is that when we talk about 'The Police' we paint a picture of them thinking and acting as one large cohesive unit. This was not the case, individual detectives had their own methods, their own suspects and their own lines of inquiry to pursue. If just one detective enters the Victoria Home on a hunch, the press see it as "The Police are now investigating the Victoria Home". This is not an accurate representation of what was in progress and largely due to the Met. not choosing to inform the press what they were doing.

I find it quite inconceivable that modern readers cling to the concept of a police force who give away details of their line of inquiry to the killer.
Telling the press is the same as telling the killer himself. This is why they kept quiet, and subsequently this is why the press embellished and invented their own reports, they still had to sell papers.

... The fact remains, however, that within days of Hutchinson coming forward police were mounting swoops on low lodging houses and casual wards in their hunt for the killer. In other words the investigative focus had switched from the affluent Astrakhan to precisely the kind of low-class individual that Anderson surmised was responsible for the murders.

You might remember that house-to-house searches, which included lodging-houses, were conducted following the Chapman murder, the Stride murder and the Kelly murder. It was just procedure.
You might find Fishman's East End 1888 of some value here. It is cited where a number of doss-house residents had fallen from the high life. Some had been wealthy West End gentlemen.
This being known to Abberline would justify the need, so no it is not only because they were looking among the low classes.

Suffice to say, the search of lodging houses was the best use of manpower to investigate the most male suspects in the least time all in one place.
Numerous handbills delivered to private houses also testify to the police maintaining their vigilance among the private dwellings.

The police did not narrow their investigation at all, and there is nothing in the surviving paperwork which suggests they did. In fact the whole Whitechapel Murder investigation was always a broad line of inquiry.

If you recall Anderson wrote at the time "we had no clue". The reliability of what he wrote once retired is still the subject of debate, and rightly so.
What Anderson wrote at the time of the murders is, however, more accurate, more important and compelling.

.

[Wickerman]

Somewhat unlikely, Jon, considering that Klosowski was completely unknown to Abberline in 1888 and hadn't poisoned anyone by then!

Once again you jump to conclusions.
Klosowski was a polish Jew, as was Kosminski, they were the same age, they both lived in the East End and although it is suggested in later years that Kosminski could have been among the dozens if not hundreds of East enders investigated or placed under surveillance we cannot know for certain.
Likewise then, so could Klosowski.
We have no way of knowing the names of all those investigated by Abberline's team.

.... he didn't allude to any parallel with Astrakhan man.

I'm sure he would not refer to him by the name Astrachan, simply knowing of his existence would suffice.

Why? Because the Astrakhan man had been discredited many years previously.

More likely because he found out who our Astrachan really was and he was eliminated from inquiries.


Now to the point of the thread...

They can be perfectly compatible if we accept the probable explanation that the faction who allegedly remained pro-Hutchinson as late as the 19th November did not have any great sway within the force(s), and that they did not influence the actual direction of the investigation.
.
.
Without the slightest shadow of a doubt, they most emphatically, provably did. Debate stifled on that score I'm afraid, unless we're up for several more pages of "yes it is!" "no it isn't!".

I'm familiar with your emphatic stance on issues, though what you find convincing is not always a balanced interpretation.

Here you seem to be insisting that when the Echo suggest a "very reduced importance" is associated with Hutchinson's claim, that this is proof of them receiving proprietary information. Yet, in the very same paper we already read of the divergence of opinion between the Met. and the City. That the Met. were induced to inquire after Blotchy, while the City preferred the Hutchinson suspect.
This same opinion is only repeated on the 19th that the police "have not relaxed their endeavours", and among their lines of inquiry is this "gentlemanly man", our Mr Astrachan.

The press are able to learn this from the City police, and from their own reporters simply doing their job, following the police around in their investigations.
There is nothing here to suggest the Echo received proprietary information.

Since you appear to have dropped your earlier argument likely due to realizing that it was the Central News who released both articles attributed to Hutchinson, may I take it you have spent your last coin on the subject?

If there is anything else that comes to mind which convinces you the press must have had exclusive inside information on details of the police investigation, please feel free to bring it up here.

.

[Ben]

You can't have it both ways, Jon.

Either the police was "in its infancy" in 1888, less sophisticated, and not as "restrained" as their modern counterparts, in which case it is even more ludicrous to argue that they would never divulge case-related information with the press. Or they operated as Garry described, in which case they would not have divided off into separate groups, with one pursuing Astrakhan and the other pursuing Blotchy (which is not what the Echo were suggesting anyway). If you argue that different detectives were off doing their own things in terms of ripper-related investigation, who's to say that one of them didn't blab to certain members of the press? The less of a "large cohesive unit" they were, the greater the likelihood of case-related "proprietary information" finding its way into the hands of the press.

As for former "west-end gentleman" finding their way into grotty lodging houses, I wouldn't cling to that as fact. Fishman would have been relying purely on the lodgers' say-so that they were respectable "once upon a time". Could be bollocks, and it does seem strangely reminiscent of modern-day "pub-talk". "I used to be well pucka, me, I $hit you not mate!".If they existed at all, they would have been in the tiny, tiny minority of doss house dwellers, and it's frankly comical to envisage Abberline et al swooping on lodging houses specifically to locate such a person.

All the best,
Ben