Where was Jack the Ripper's payment? How much did Mary Jane Kelly charge?

[Ben]

The Echo made a claim, an unsourced claim, which implied the police have entertained doubts, but there is no direct reference to the police, either City or Met. or even to Scotland Yard.

It most certainly was not an "unsourced claim". Their source, as they were ably to demonstrate, was the Metropolitan police, with whom they communicated on the 14th November at Commercial Street police station; the same local police headquarters that Hutchinson initially approached with his three-day late story. That's as specific a source as you're likely to encounter, realistically speaking.

The fact that his evidence wasn't "sworn" had nothing to go with the "very reduced importance" it ultimately received. It was his failure to come forward for three days that injured his credibility, and if you consider it "utter rubbish" to question the veracity of a witness statement on those grounds, I'd respectfully submit that you are better off continuing with the day job and steering well clear of any career path that might involve professional investigation.

Did the "delay" constitute the entire reason for Hutchinson's discrediting? No. The Echo made clear that the importance came to be reduced as a result of "later investigation" - but it evidently played a role.

If you're quoting from 14th November Echo extract, why did you leave out the bit that described Hutchinson's statement as:

"...considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner."...?

"Considerably discounted" is more damning, I would have thought, than "very reduced importance", which means that far from "overturning" the previous afternoon's report, it was actually reinforcing it. I don't dispute that it became the subject of "careful inquiry" - what could be more essential than additional "inquiry" when the veracity of a statement is questioned? This is where the aforementioned "later investigation" came in. There is no "scuttling the story" and no "dropping of the ball", just basic confirmation of the previous day's report.

Your argument cannot be any stronger than "he may have been discredited", and leave it at that - just conjecture.

Yes it can.

Yes it certainly can.

And is.

The evidence strongly favours the conclusion that Hutchinson's story was discredited, since the Echo provably did visit Commercial Street police station, just as they reported; gaining case-related information in the process. Yes, they could have told a senseless, motiveless lie about Hutchinson's discrediting, and poured warm diarrhoea over the prospect of ever receiving police information at any point in the future, but it isn't very likely. Nor is it likely to be a coincidence that the contemporary reports of his discrediting accord remarkably well with the total non-mention of Hutchinson in the later correspondences of senior police officials.

So that's where we'll "leave it" - where the evidence actually points, and speaking of "leaving it", let's have no more from you on the subject of the Echo. You've stated your position clearly and I've done the same. Move on.

The fact his statement has survived, but any paperwork pertaining to his dismissal has not, is a bit awkward for that theory.

What "theory"?

I don't invoke "lost reports" when arguing a point; I regard it is a cop-out, but it's something you do regularly. More than enough "paperwork" has survived in support of the contention that Hutchinson was discredited, short of a report saying, "It's official folks, the statement is false", which nobody would reasonably expect.

Which is why Abberline was so interested in Isaacs when he was seen to resemble the man described by Hutchinson.
Which shows that as far out as Dec. 6th Abberline had Hutchinson's story in the forefront of his mind.

A wind-up, Jon, surely? Isaacs again? Really?

Your "which is why..." (above) is a total non sequitur. Isaacs was reportedly the subject of a very fleeting police interest because he was a) locally resident and purportedly left the area straight after the Kelly murder (which turned out not to be case), and b) alleged to have threatened violence to all women over the age of 17. There is not the faintest whiff of an indication - anywhere, ever - that Abberline was specifically interested in him because of some mythical (and actually non-existent) resemblance to preposterous Astrkahan man. In fact, there is no indication that Isaacs's appearance had anything to do with the short-lived police interest in him.

Isaacs has absolutely nothing to do with Hutchinson. Absolute end of.

Indications within the Pall Mall Gazette (1903) suggest that Abberline only recently developed the 'Chapman was the Ripper' theory and to the best of our knowledge Abberline never put pen to paper to detail out his theory to anyone.

But "Police Work From Within" was written in 1914, which gave Abberline 11 years to "develop the Chapman-was-ripper theory", and discuss it with amateur criminologists such as Adam, with whom - according to you - he was on "very friendly and personal terms". So why didn't he? Because he didn't know Adam from Adam, is the answer; at least not in 1914, when his Klosowski theory was already 11 years old.

I don't know what you mean when you claim that Abberline did not "detail out his theory to anyone". He "detailed it out" to anyone who cared to pick up a copy of the Pall Mall Gazette in 1903, after granting an interview with a journalist from that paper. He wasn't exactly being hush-hush about it.

When you write a book with the intention of crediting the theory to a well respected ex-Inspector of police who is still alive it would be very wise if not professionally expedient to make sure the named inspector did still maintain the same theory in 1930 as he had in 1903.

I'm talking about 1914, not 1930.

Your argument, remember, was that Abberline was the direct source for the inclusion of the Astrakhan description in Adam's 1914 chapter. That can't possibly have been case for the reason I have already stated: if it came from Abberline, Adam would have known all about the former detective's passionate advocacy of Klosowski as the ripper, and would therefore have made reference to it in his chapter on the ripper murders. Instead, the complete absence of any reference to Klosowski or Abberline leaves us in no doubt at all that detective and author were not remotely acquainted at that stage.

As for Adam's 1930 offerings, there is even less mystery over the inclusion of Hutchinson's description therein; he just lifted it from his earlier published work and plonked it in his new Klosowskified one, just as he lifted and plonked Hutchinson's press description into his 1914 chapter. No "help" from Abberline was required, and if he sought to obtain some, he would have received the same message I'm trying to drum into you; that however useful Hutchinson might have been to Team Klosowski, he was unfortunately "discounted" in 1888.

Not their concern, and given the aggravation caused by the actions of nuisance reporters, it's quite possible they derived some small pleasure from it.

They derived "pleasure" for duping the public into believing that a description of a violent murder was false, and that it was therefore unnecessary to report anyone matching that description? Wow.

The "discredited" bit was from the Star, not the Echo, and the Star never claimed to have obtained their info from any police - therefore, conjecture, invention.

Are you claiming that the ditching of Packer, described as "worthless" in the same Star article, was also "conjecture" and "invention"? Talk me through the logic of reporting accurately about the status of one discredited witness, whilst telling complete porkies - for no good reason - about another. Then explain to me why, if it was mere "invention", does it accord so well with both the Echo - who did cite the police as their source - and the later writings of the police seniority.

The press agencies were the preferred outlet for official press releases from Scotland Yard. The police did not deal directly with any individual newspaper on any subject concerning the murder investigation.

Yes, they did.

Yes they definitely and provably did, as I've demonstrated successfully a truly profane amount of times.

The idea that the police only dealt with press agencies is an utter fantasy. Irrespective of the original source of the information supplied to the Press Association - who, in turn, supplied it to the Irish Times - it was nonsensical and inaccurate information.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

No, it wasn’t.

A casual observer could easily have assumed that two separate people had seen the same individual, and that the two descriptions were “virtually” the same because the person being described was wearing the same clothes. The police would not have been anxious for it to become “public knowledge” that a description that they had been responsible for circulating had “proceeded from the same source” as an entirely unsanctioned press interview, which contained numerous embellishments. On the contrary, they would have sought to distance themselves from the 14th November account. The relevant point, which you keep trying to bury in more and more rubble, is that the police imparted accurate information to the Echo after receiving them at Commercial Street police station. Would they then publish lies about the reason for Hutchinson’s “very reduced importance”, knowing full well that the consequence of such action would have been an embargo on any future audiences with the police? The answer is absolutely no way.

...Like I keep telling you.

The story obtained and presumably released by the Central News appeared in a number of morning papers like the Times, the Daily News, Morning Advertiser, Morning Post to name a few, in fact the version published by the Star in the evening was ripped-off from the Morning Post. Regardless, this version that named Hutchinson as it's source also included the police circular from the previous day embedded within the story.

"The man was about 5ft. 6in. in height, and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache, turned up at the ends. He was wearing a long dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, a white collar, with black necktie, in which was affixed a horseshoe pin. He wore a pair of dark 'spats' with light buttons over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain."

Compare the above with this from the 13th, by the "unnamed" source.

"He was about 5 ft. 6 in. in height, and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache turned up at the ends. He was wearing a long, dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, a white collar with a black necktie, in which was affixed a horse-shoe pin. He wore a pair of dark gaiters with light buttons, over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain."

Apart from swapping the word 'gaiters' for 'spats' they 'are' identical, which is not going to happen with two independent descriptions given of the same person. No two people think alike to that degree of detail without adding or omitting something different.
This is the dead give-away that they both came from the same source. No need to ask police to confirm that.

Not at all. I just don’t understand why you couldn’t have been honest and admitted that you had forgotten that Kennedy’s evidence appeared in the Evening News on the 10th, as opposed to pretending you knew all about it, but wanted to “see how I would handle it”.

Only you would come up with something like that "Gee, I bet he forgot about Kennedy", after the thousands? of times I have brought her up you now try to suggest I forgot her?
No, actually, the Kennedy story was the next paragraph down after Sarah Ronay, I was working from the Star of 10th Nov.

I wanted to see if you would switch horses from castigating Kennedy for the past several years to now using her as your steadfast evidence for the rumors of a 'scream' of murder.
Maybe it's just my sense of humour.

That whole article is nonsense, as we’ve discussed before. I always felt sorry for some of those further-away newspapers that had to rely on “telegrams” – essentially fag-ends from London which ranged from the distinctly unreliable to the provably false. Let’s see what else the article has to say: “It is conclusively proved that Kelly having spent the greater part of Friday evening in the Britannia Publichouse, at the corner of Dorset street, returned home about midnight with a strange an whose company she had previously been keeping.” – Do you agree with that? Exactly, it’s nonsense. Had there been any suggestion that “Mrs. Kennedy” knew Kelly personally and was the last person to see her alive, she would unquestionably have appeared at the inquest.

All newspapers used the "telegram/telegraph", so I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Are you suggesting that the accuracy of the telegram diminishes over distance? That telegrams received up't north become distorted or inaccurate the further you go from London?

I’m pretty sure I only drew attention to the basic reality that sometimes the police supply some information to some journalists. The fact that the police were adopting a tight-lipped attitude at one stage of the investigation does mean that they would never discuss any case-related information at any stage thereafter, and nor does it preclude them from going back to tight-lipped again after that.

I've noticed this tendency from you a few times, when you can't come up with any evidence in support of your assertion you claim, well 'sometimes', 'some' police might give 'some' information to a reporter.
It's like that other claim you made, rather than deal with the issue we were talking about you jumped a hundred years ahead and claimed that 'some' people lied to the press about what happened at a football ground - for goodness sakes Ben, all you do with responses like this is show that it is the exception that proves the rule.
If it happened ALL the time you wouldn't need to reach so far away from the topic for an example.

You claim that the Echo obtained case related information from police, privy to only them, is demonstrably false and as far as you are able, unproven.
In fact the Echo themselves have continually shown, month after month, that they are aggravated by the police not giving them anything.

[Wickerman]

Hi Observer,

I would have to include the only reliable press sketch of Hutchinson, which depicts a shortish, stoutish man wearing a billycock or wideawake hat - and is thus a good "match" for Lewis's description. It remains a possibility that she saw someone other than Hutchinson, but such is the striking similarity between her sighting and his "admitted" behaviour, that is must be considered an exceptionally remote one, in my opinion.

Jon'll back me up on this!

All the best,
Ben

I have been trying to post an enlargement of that sketch showing Hutchinson loitering in the background, but, I should add that it would help if we knew what Hutchinson looked like if we are to regard this sketch as 'evidence'.
I 'believe' Lewis's loiterer was Hutchinson, but it can't be anything more than a belief.

[Wickerman]

Agreed, Garry.

The above would also apply to the Star report from 15th November, which described Hutchinson's account as "another story now discredited". Pulling the plug on a story that still had plenty of journalistic mileage - and claiming falsely that the police had ditched it - made no sense whatsoever.

The same report also dismissed Packer as having peddled a "worthless story", but for some reason people don't "dismiss" that dismissal as they do with Hutchinson's. Strange, that!

All the best,
Ben

What 'mileage' would any newspaper expect to get out of this witness?, newspapers feed off controversy, as controversy sells copy.
When times are lean it has been known that the press create their own controversy, in fact the Star has a track record of these types of stories.
This book touches on this issue...

https://fionnevelyn.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/pdf-jack-the-ripper-and-the-london-press-by-l-perry-curtis-download.pdf

[dixon9]

could jack have been their pimp and did not have to pay them?Looking for his weekly 'cut' but all said they had no money so he slaughtered them.

just really a question

[Wickerman]

It most certainly was not an "unsourced claim". Their source, as they were ably to demonstrate, was the Metropolitan police, with whom they communicated on the 14th November at Commercial Street police station;

No Ben, you seem to be talking about a different issue.
The Commercial St. source, to which you refer above, was in connection with Hutchinson's story being "from the same source" - this we read on the 14th..
The unsourced claims I mention are in connection with the "very reduced importance" article that we read on the 13th.
No source given for this speculation.

It was his failure to come forward for three days that injured his credibility,

Abberline already knew he had not come forward for three days when he wrote "I am of opinion his statement is true". No expression of doubt indicated to his superiors. So his credibility was uninjured even when Abberline knew about his failure to come forward.
You'll need to come up with something else, clearly that didn't work.

Did the "delay" constitute the entire reason for Hutchinson's discrediting? No. The Echo made clear that the importance came to be reduced as a result of "later investigation" - but it evidently played a role.

If you're quoting from 14th November Echo extract, why did you leave out the bit that described Hutchinson's statement as:

"...considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner."...?

Because I already addressed that point once.

The fact remains the police took and accepted his statement regardless of the fact it was given to them after the inquest.
What language do you want this in? - the credibility of a witness statement does NOT rest on whether the statement was sworn.
(Good grief!)

If it was necessary, the police would make every witness swear to their police statement when they sign it.
Therefore, that claim by the press is utter rubbish

Are you claiming that the ditching of Packer, described as "worthless" in the same Star article, was also "conjecture" and "invention"?

The Star reported on the grape story back on Oct. 5th, the very evening of the day when the subject had been raised at the Stride inquest.

This is what they wrote:
The grape story is effectually disposed of by the statement of the authorities at Leman-street to a Star reporter. In the first place the police have no evidence that any grapes were found on the site of the Berners-street murder, and, moreover, Dr. Phillip's post mortem disclosed no trace of grapes or grapestones in Elizabeth Stride's stomach.

The police merely, once again, confirmed what had been aired publicly at the inquest.

So, where is the Star's explanation of their claim that Hutchinson's story was "worthless"?
- Who was their source?
- Where did they obtain that theory?
- Why do they not say anything about it being an official opinion? - because it wasn't, because it is an invention, it is speculation based purely on what the Echo had written over the previous two days. The Star took the Echo reports of "suffered diminution", and "very reduced importance", and twisted it to mean the story was "discredited".
When in actual fact all we have to substantiate any second-guessing of his story by police was the estimated time of death officially given to Anderson by Dr. Bond.
There is nothing else to show due cause.

Yes, they did.

Yes they definitely and provably did, as I've demonstrated successfully a truly profane amount of times.

The idea that the police only dealt with press agencies is an utter fantasy.

Oh, brother!
I only wish any of your assertions had been "proved", it would at least make these exchanges more challenging.

Leaving aside the City Police, as it was admitted at the time they were more accommodating with respect to the press.
The press complained specifically about the Met. and Scotland Yard who would not share information - this is what can be, and has been proven.

Whether any Met constable made a few comments to a journalist is beside the point, no constable is going to be a "mine of information" with respect to the progress of the investigation.

Vincent's dictum begins with:
"Police must not on any account give any information whatever to gentlemen connected with the press relative to matters within police knowledge", etc. etc.

Does this mean an officer or constable cannot talk to a journalist?, of course not.
The dictum is intended to prevent an officer or constable sharing privileged information, evidence, details on the direction of the case, or orders given, even details concerning a particular beat of the constable.

The dictum does not suggest an officer/constable cannot talk about anything already in the public domain, or personal theories, beliefs, so long as no mention is made of any facts which lead to those theories and beliefs.

I'll give you an example of what I mean. At first glance this quote seems to contravene Vincent's dictum, but if we take it apart piece by piece, as close as it appears to come, it doesn't really cross any lines.
The source is unnamed, but the article tells us Inspector Reid may have been present at the time this statement was given.

"So far as we have been able to judge," said the police inspector to an Echo reporter this morning, "everything seems to indicate that the murder was committed by the same hand responsible for the deaths of so many unfortunate women in this beighbourhood only a few months back. Of course, there is a probability that another person is the assassin, but the position of the wound in the throat, the peculiarly sharp nature of the wound, and the position of the body when found suggest that only one person is responsible for the death."
Echo, Feb 13th 1889.
(Re: Frances Coles murder)

For what it's worth this same article tells us that officers in general are divided as to whether this murder was part of the previous series, and the piece then concludes with an opinion on that same subject from Chief Commissioner Sir Edward Bradford.
So sharing opinions is fine, I guess everyone likes to talk about what they believe, though the line is firmly drawn at whatever tangible evidence exists that may lead to those beliefs. That subject is out of bounds because it falls under "police knowledge".

Now, are we on the same page yet?

[Wickerman]

I have been trying to post an enlargement of that sketch showing Hutchinson loitering in the background, but, I should add that it would help if we knew what Hutchinson looked like if we are to regard this sketch as 'evidence'.
I 'believe' Lewis's loiterer was Hutchinson, but it can't be anything more than a belief.

Ok, here we go....




Is this the 'loiterer' in the background?

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

The police have been providing "inside" information to journalists since policemen and newspapers first came into existence; the Whitechapel murders being no exception. You can continue to wallow in your own obstinate, noisy ignorance if you wish - sticking your head in the sand and screaming "no, no, no!" - but all you're doing in denying that which everyone else in the world accepts as a reality, and a pretty unremarkable one at that.

Apart from swapping the word 'gaiters' for 'spats' they 'are' identical, which is not going to happen with two independent descriptions given of the same person. No two people think alike to that degree of detail without adding or omitting something different.

You and I are aware of that, yes.

But I said "to the casual observer" from 1888, not "to an internet-bound, Hutchinson-obsessed 21st century hobbyist"; there is a significant difference. The former, for instance, could easily have spotted the description of an Astrakhan-attired suspect in the 14th November and thought, "hang on a minute, didn't somebody else mentioned an Astrakhan coat yesterday morning?". Your helpful, copy-and-pasted side-by-side comparison would have worked wonders in disabusing people of their misapprehension in this regard, but unfortunately for them, you weren't around in 1888.

For all anyone but the police knew, some opportunist calling himself George Hutchinson might have read the description in the 13th November morning papers and decided to weave a fictional story around it, falsely claiming to have been the Astrakhan-spotter alluded to. Only the police knew that Central News's interviewee was the same man who approached the police on the evening of the 12th. Only the police knew that he was known as George Hutchinson. Only the police knew that the story related in the press on 14th November was the same one - with contradictions and embellishments - that Hutchinson initially provided them with. Which means - *drumroll* (if it helps hammer home the message) - that the only people capable of confirming that the 13th November press description "proceeded from the same source" as the following day's press interview with Hutchinson were the police.

...Which also means that your very poor argument (for which you provide neither a smidgen of evidence nor anything resembling a rational motive) that the Echo invented a communication with the police is completely nullified.

Only you would come up with something like that "Gee, I bet he forgot about Kennedy", after the thousands? of times I have brought her up you now try to suggest I forgot her?

Well, about as many times as I've shouted that nonsense down (probably thousands, yes), but that's neither here nor there. I never suggested that you had forgotten about Kennedy entirely; I suggest that you forgot where her story appeared, when it appeared, and/or at what hour she claimed to have heard the "scream". If you had not forgotten, why would you make the wholly inaccurate claim that there was no "scream" for Bowyer to read about in the press, which might have jogged his weirdly selective (as per you) memory that his 3.00am "sighting" (as per you) might just be significant?

Where have I "switched horses" and when have I stopped "castigating" Kennedy? I'm still every inch of the opinion that she was a discredited "witness" who attempted to pass of Lewis's story as her own. Bowyer, on the other hand, was neither to know nor suspect as much when he read her story in the papers (which you wrongly assert he couldn't have done).

All newspapers used the "telegram/telegraph", so I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Are you suggesting that the accuracy of the telegram diminishes over distance? That telegrams received up't north become distorted or inaccurate the further you go from London?

No, I'm not suggesting either of those things. I'm simply pointing out that the information provided was complete bunkum in the case of the Press Association's despatch to the Irish Times and Morning Advertiser, and should not, therefore, be relied upon.

It's like that other claim you made, rather than deal with the issue we were talking about you jumped a hundred years ahead and claimed that 'some' people lied to the press about what happened at a football ground - for goodness sakes Ben, all you do with responses like this is show that it is the exception that proves the rule.

But your so-called "rule" is nothing of the sort - it's horribly deluded nonsense, which is why nobody joins you in espousing it (big clue, that one, usually). For every instance of refused information, I can provide a counter-instance of shared information, and yet for some reason you interpret the act of one constable refusing an Echo journalist access to a dead body as evidence that the police never, ever share sensitive information with the press. I mentioned the Hillsborough disaster to illustrate a particularly notorious example of a very well-known and easily recognisable phenomenon: press fabrication and embellishment. If you're seriously suggesting that such practices are in any way exceptional, then you are in dire need of long-overdue wake-up call.

You claim that the Echo obtained case related information from police, privy to only them, is demonstrably false and as far as you are able, unproven.

It is demonstrably true, as I've just proved yet again. Conjure up whatever absurdities you like in your perpetually weak attempts to dismiss the discrediting of Hutchinson, but if you're still insisting that the police did not confirm to the Echo that which only the police were humanly capable of confirming, you are factually in error.

[Ben]

What 'mileage' would any newspaper expect to get out of this witness?, newspapers feed off controversy, as controversy sells copy.

The same mileage you get from it, obviously - an opportunity to milk the absurd Astrakhan man for all he was worth; to put an interesting, exciting, mysterious top-hatted twat in the imaginary dock, as opposed to accepting the ripper for the boring local prole he probably was; to eschew the boring and predictable in favour of the exotic and titillating.

The Star could have had an absolute field day with the Astrakhan man.

"Well-dressed fiend taunts hopeless coppers".

"Flashy Jack outsmarts his pursuers yet again".

"Ripper dangles gold chain right under their oblivious, disorganised, ineffectual, piggy little noses".

How's that for a golden opportunity to stir up some "controversy"?

But they didn't take it.

Why not?

Maybe because - as beastly luck would have it - the Astrakhan lead turned out to be a dud, and they realised they would only look stupid themselves by milking a non-existent cow; thus compelling them - probably reluctantly - to inform their readership of the uncontroversial, unsensational fact that Hutchinson had been discredited.

You ignored my question: why would the Star faithfully report the fact that Packer was discredited, but claim falsely that Hutchinson had received the same treatment? If you're going to invent a "motive", try to make it a vaguely credible one this time.

The Commercial St. source, to which you refer above, was in connection with Hutchinson's story being "from the same source" - this we read on the 14th..
The unsourced claims I mention are in connection with the "very reduced importance" article that we read on the 13th.
No source given for this speculation.

From which you conclude...?

What, exactly?

That the Echo lied (for no discernible reason) about the conclusions arrived at by the police on the afternoon of the 13th November, but through some miracle were still received by the police the next morning, who, undeterred by the fact that this same newspaper had brazenly lied about them less than 24 hours earlier, dutifully provided them with the requested information, which essentially "echoed" the previous day's report? Or..OR...there's always that simpler explanation with actual evidential support; that the 13th and 14th November reports agree with each other with regard to Hutchinson's "very reduced importance" and "considerable discounting" (respectively) because they were both true.

Abberline already knew he had not come forward for three days when he wrote "I am of opinion his statement is true". No expression of doubt indicated to his superiors. So his credibility was uninjured even when Abberline knew about his failure to come forward.

Unless the "later investigation" alluded to in the Echo had undermined or negated whatever excuse Hutchinson had originally come up with for his "delay". Even if the cited reason was a fob-off, it still related to doubt over his credibility, and there is no way the police would have publicly vilified a genuine witness just to put the press off the scent.

What language do you want this in? - the credibility of a witness statement does NOT rest on whether the statement was sworn.
(Good grief!)

But if the witness does not come forward for three days after the murder, it inevitably raises questions as to its veracity, whether that witness's evidence has been sworn or not.

Keep underlining and bold-highlighting in that petulant style you've chosen to adopt, and keep up the pretentious faux-indignation. I'm only too delighted to follow suit. It's the cyber equivalent of shouting, and I can shout a lot louder than you can.

"The Star reported on the grape story back on Oct. 5th, the very evening of the day when the subject had been raised at the Stride inquest.

This is what they wrote:
The grape story is effectually disposed of by the statement of the authorities at Leman-street to a Star reporter. In the first place the police have no evidence that any grapes were found on the site of the Berners-street murder, and, moreover, Dr. Phillip's post mortem disclosed no trace of grapes or grapestones in Elizabeth Stride's stomach."

Wait just a grapestalk-picking moment here - the "authorities at Leman Street" gave a "statement" to The Star regarding their perception of a witness's honesty? That would be an impossible outrage according to your rule-book, remember? Leman Street authorities supplying sensitive "case-related" information to a renegade rag like the Star? What's going on there? This is precisely the practice that you previously insisted never happened. You asserted that it was not permissible, under any circumstances, to accept that the Echo entered into a dialogue (as contemporaneously reported) with the police at Commercial Street station regarding the discrediting of Hutchinson, and yet now, all of sudden, you accept that Leman Street spoke directly to the Star regarding the discrediting of Packer??

This glaring inconsistency and hypocritical double-standards begs a jolly good explanation, albeit not one I suspect you're capable of providing.

You've clearly discarded any possibility of the Star "second-guessing" the police here, as you spuriously insisted was the case with the Echo (with your plucked-from-nowhere assertion that the police favoured Bond's time of death above all other evidence). I wonder what the difference could be?

The Star took the Echo reports of "suffered diminution", and "very reduced importance", and twisted it to mean the story was "discredited".

Get a dictionary. If you think the word "discredited" (Star) means anything radically different to "considerably discounted", then you need to study it more closely, or get a better one.

The press complained specifically about the Met. and Scotland Yard who would not share information - this is what can be, and has been proven.

Some newspapers complained that on some occasions the police refused information; other newspapers reported that on other occasions, the police provided the requested information. Stop me if any of this sounds like brain surgery, as opposed to what if actually is - the basic reality of police-press communication, as persisted in for centuries. Who are you quoting when you use the phrase "mine of information"? You're doing that thing you do again; wrapping your own words in speech marks and claiming they originated from someone else. No such "mine" was required for the inconsequential, non-bombshell revelation that yet another "witness" had been discarded.

The dictum is intended to prevent an officer or constable sharing privileged information, evidence, details on the direction of the case, or orders given, even details concerning a particular beat of the constable.

I'm sure this and similar "dictums" were written, and always with the best of intentions, but guess what happens in the real world? "Suck my dictum", that's what. Do you think speed limits are always adhered to whenever and wherever they are imposed? You talk about the police never "crossing lines" (because that's so terribly naughty, and we know the police never cross lines, in the world, ever), but who dictates these lines? Well, you, apparently. You decide, for instance, that the ditching of a two-a-penny witness statement on the grounds that it might not be genuine is an example of top secret information (as opposed to a consensus of informed opinion, as it probably was), whereas accepted police wisdom regarding the number of eviscerating serial killers roaming the streets is a freebie, to be dished out to any interested gutter pressmen like cocopops.

But then you go and bollocks up your entire "dictum" argument with your uncritical acceptance that the authorities gave a statement to the Star regarding the discrediting of a witness; which, in your mind qualifies as dictum-breaking case-related no-go information.

No, Jon.

We are not on the "same page".

We don't appear to be on the same planet as far as our understanding of police-press communication goes.

I 'believe' Lewis's loiterer was Hutchinson, but it can't be anything more than a belief.

But what if this "belief" based on? (Careful, I'm being really clever and trying to lure you into a trap with this question).

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

The police have been providing "inside" information to journalists since policemen and newspapers first came into existence;....

I'm well aware of that Ben, but as I pointed out to you earlier, when backed into a corner you always reach for the 'generic all encompassing excuse', "well it's happened before", of course it has happened before, and after, but your challenge is to show that it happened in this particular instance.
After all you are insisting that it did happen in this instance.

It's the same argument you throw against Hutchinson, because witnesses have been known to lie to police, you have accused Hutchinson of lying on the strength of nothing whatsoever except that "witnesses have been known to exaggerate, lie, inject themselves into the investigation", etc. It's the same old "it's happened before therefore it did happen this time" - which is total rubbish.
You have nothing on Hutchinson, or Kennedy, or Bowyer, or a handful of nameless reporters who just happen to speak or write to something you disagree with so you label them all "liars", or some such criticism.

The former, for instance, could easily have spotted the description of an Astrakhan-attired suspect in the 14th November and thought, "hang on a minute, didn't somebody else mentioned an Astrakhan coat yesterday morning?".

Exactly, so the natural step to take is to look at yesterday's paper - it's really so simple.

For all anyone but the police knew, some opportunist calling himself George Hutchinson might have read the description in the 13th November morning papers and decided to weave a fictional story around it, falsely claiming to have been the Astrakhan-spotter alluded to.

All the while holding a copy of yesterday's newspaper in front of the Central News reporter and reciting the police issued detailed description, point by point?
Yeh, that would fool 'em all.

Only the police knew that Central News's interviewee was the same man who approached the police on the evening of the 12th.
Only the police knew that he was known as George Hutchinson.

Like I said, the 2nd story had been public knowledge all day and the identical description gave it away as coming from the same source.
The Echo did not say that the police told them the name of the informer, a simple nod to the right question would constitute confirmation in the eyes of the press.
All that aside, this issue does not fall under "privy information" as defined by Vincent's dictum.

...Which also means that your very poor argument (for which you provide neither a smidgen of evidence nor anything resembling a rational motive) that the Echo invented a communication with the police is completely nullified.

You're on the wrong track again, the "invented story" was "very reduced importance" being due to the story not being given at the inquest.
A different argument to the one you are dealing with above.

No, I'm not suggesting either of those things. I'm simply pointing out that the information provided was complete bunkum in the case of the Press Association's despatch to the Irish Times and Morning Advertiser, and should not, therefore, be relied upon.

And this opinion is based on what?
If you think about it we have no police report of her whereabouts leading up to Cox's story of seeing Kelly with Blotchy "about midnight", as the article suggests.
What we do have are contesting press reports, one from the Star which says this:
"...As far as inquiries have gone, no man answering the description given by Cox entered any tavern in the immediate neighborhood and took away beer.", which has been interpreted as meaning there was no confirmation of Cox's story. But does not indicate Kelly was not out at that hour.

Then we have this from John McCarthy:
"At eleven o'clock last night she was seen in the Britannia public house, at the corner of this thoroughfare, with a young man with a dark moustache. She was then intoxicated. The young man appeared to be very respectable and well dressed."

Which in turn is consistent with this which you take issue with:
"It is now conclusively proved that Mary Jane Kelly, having spent the latter part of Friday evening in the "Ringers," otherwise the "Britannia" public-house, at the corner of Dorset-street, returned to her home about midnight with a strange man, whose company she had previously been keeping."
["Friday" being an obvious misprint for "Thursday"]

Where is the "nonsense"?
What report do we have that says Kelly was not out on Thursday evening?

Dr. Bond must have obtained some indication of when Kelly last ate from police in order to use digestion as a guide in estimating a time of death.

It is demonstrably true, as I've just proved yet again,......... if you're still insisting that the police did not confirm to the Echo that which only the police were humanly capable of confirming, you are factually in error.

What I am insisting Ben is that your belief is not proven, it is and will forever remain merely a 'belief'.
Using unrelated instances from another period in time, on another subject entirely, is not helping you prove your assertion about the Echo.
Yes of course "some" police have shared "some" inside details with the press over the years, this fact does not "prove" nor even "demonstrate" that this occurred in Nov. 1888 between the Echo and the Met. police.

Whereas it is proven that the press were not being taken into any preferred confidence by police and as a result, by their own admission, had to make up stories the best way they could.
That, is an established fact - assuming you trust your own sources, the Star & the Echo.

[Wickerman]

You ignored my question: why would the Star faithfully report the fact that Packer was discredited, but claim falsely that Hutchinson had received the same treatment? If you're going to invent a "motive", try to make it a vaguely credible one this time.

It isn't that I ignored the question, the question does not deserve a reply because it is invalid.
So long as your Echo wrote, “...Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson....”, as late as the 19th Nov., then any assertion by the Star back on the 15th that he had been discredited is made redundant.
It simply did not happen.

For the witness to be discredited it must be shown to be so, as it was with Packer, mere suspicions on behalf of one or two officers does not render the witness as discredited.

At no time are we led to believe the “police” as a whole shared one theory as to who the Ripper was, or to what level of society he belonged. Throughout the crimes up until they wrote their memoirs the various officers held different beliefs about the killer.
This being the case it is quite consistent for us to read that the police were divided about their prime suspects – Blotchy & Astrachan.
No-one wrote about Cox being discredited because “some of the authorities” preferred to believe Hutchinson, so why should Hutch have to be discredited because “some” prefer to believe Cox?
The argument must work both ways to be valid.

That the Echo lied (for no discernible reason) about the conclusions arrived at by the police on the afternoon of the 13th November,..

The Echo invented their story due to the police not sharing information with them – simple.

......but through some miracle were still received by the police the next morning, who, undeterred by the fact that this same newspaper had brazenly lied about them less than 24 hours earlier, dutifully provided them with the requested information,

The police, as a public service, are to treat all members of the press equally, regardless of those who misrepresent their work.

November reports agree with each other with regard to Hutchinson's "very reduced importance" and "considerable discounting" (respectively) because they were both true.

“Very reduced importance” is not “discredited”. Packer was “discredited”, and the police were not divided as to whether to believe him or not.
When a story is discredited it is thrown out entirely – like Packer's “grape” story.

It must mean "thrown out" for you to claim that we hear nothing from Hutchinson anymore. So if you insist it doesn't mean "thrown out" then you undermine your own argument.

As for Hutchinson, being of “reduced” importance only means the police now have more than one suspect.
"Some" police still adhere to Hutchinson's story - therefore he couldn't have been discredited, or that would make fools of others within the department.

Unless the "later investigation" alluded to in the Echo had undermined or negated whatever excuse Hutchinson had originally come up with for his "delay".

Which obviously was not the case as their coverage on the 19th testifies to.
Hutchinson was still a valid police witness at that later date.

But if the witness does not come forward for three days after the murder, it inevitably raises questions as to its veracity, whether that witness's evidence has been sworn or not.

Yet Abberline already knew about the delay from Hutchinson., so that don't work either.
Try another...

Wait just a grapestalk-picking moment here - the "authorities at Leman Street" gave a "statement" to The Star regarding their perception of a witness's honesty? That would be an impossible outrage according to your rule-book, remember?

You're not reading what I wrote.
This dismissal of the grape story by the Leman-street police was only done after the issue had been made public during the day at the inquest.
The issue is not privy information anymore and as such the witness is not protected by police protocol.

Some newspapers complained that on some occasions the police refused information; other newspapers reported that on other occasions, the police provided the requested information.

Where do the Echo say they obtained opinion like - “suffered diminution” and “very reduced importance”, from any police or anyone in authority?
Show me where...

But what if this "belief" based on? (Careful, I'm being really clever and trying to lure you into a trap with this question).

Timing.

[Wickerman]

On the same day - 15th Nov., that the Star offered this line...
"Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson, who said that on Friday morning".....etc.

We read in the Echo something more positive.
"The "clue" given by the groom Hutchinson was yesterday followed up, although no trace of the man with the Astrachan jacket and prominent gold chain could be discovered. While Hutchinson's veracity is not questioned, it is considered a remarkable thing that no-one else in Dorset-street saw such an uncommon stranger - for that locality - as the person described by the groom."
Echo, 15th Nov. 1888.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I'm well aware of that Ben, but as I pointed out to you earlier, when backed into a corner you always reach for the 'generic all encompassing excuse', "well it's happened before", of course it has happened before, and after, but your challenge is to show that it happened in this particular instance.

You have neither "backed" nor are capable of "backing" anyone anywhere, less still me into a corner, and the fact that you've convinced yourself otherwise serves as a very poignant insight into the extent of your delusion on this subject. I've risen to and easily demolished the "challenge" you amusingly describe as such, and only made reference to the reality of police indiscretion because you've been insisting - vacuously, obstreperously, and for far too long - that it never occurs.

I don't appreciate you mischaracterising my arguments concerning Hutchinson. I have consistently made clear why I believe he gave a false statement, and why the police apparently came to reach a similar conclusion. It has nothing to do with the fact that "witnesses have been known to exaggerate, lie, inject themselves into the investigation". I only ever make reference to those particular realities when someone (well, it's really only you these days) claims that no witness or killer would ever behave as it has been suggested Hutchinson may have behaved.

The same applies to the Echo and your dotty notions regarding press/police communication. I have never once stated of the police practice of sharing information with the press that "it's happened before therefore it did happen this time" or anything like it, whereas you continue to claim that it has never happened before and therefore can't have happened "this time". If you're back-pedalling from that ludicrous position, as you now appear to be, I'm very relieved, but for quite some time now it has been your favourite bad excuse for dismissing the Echo's findings.

Thanks also for the latest dose of transparent hypocrisy on your part - accusing me of rubbishing anything that I "disagree with", when that is precisely what you're doing with your spurious, illogical insistence that the Echo were lying in their report.

All the while holding a copy of yesterday's newspaper in front of the Central News reporter and reciting the police issued detailed description, point by point?
Yeh, that would fool 'em all.

It wouldn't have been necessary for a would-be plagiarist to reproduce the Astrakhan description "point-by-point", as it is clear the press lifted the description from the previous morning's report. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was you who first drew my attention to that fact. The chances of Hutchinson himself being able to regurgitate the description in the same order, and using identical phraseology, are exceptionally slim, even by his admittedly super-human standards.

Like I said, the 2nd story had been public knowledge all day and the identical description gave it away as coming from the same source.

You've ignored my response and irritatingly repeated your original nonsensical claim as though it hadn't been swiftly killed, which it had. So I'll try again: who was to say that an opportunist by the name of George Hutchinson hadn't "borrowed" the 13th November press description - as Kennedy had "borrowed" from Lewis - and created a fictional story around it?

Answer: Only the police.

Only the police were capable of confirming that George Hutchinson, the man interviewed by the press, was their original source for the Astrakhan description. Was this a sensitive dictum-breaking disclosure? No, not really - no more than the not-so-big "reveal" that yet another eyewitness lead had been discarded. Epoch-shattering stuff it most assuredly was not.

As far as your Press Association despatch is concerned, aside from the outdated nonsense they wrote about Hutchinson, I was referring to this gem:

"It is now conclusively proved that Mary Jane Kelly, having spent the latter part of Friday evening in the "Ringers", otherwise the "Britannia" public-house, at the corner of Dorset-street, returned to her home about midnight with a strange man, whose company she had previously been keeping."

Do you agree with that statement?

Are you now claiming that it has been "conclusively proved" that Kelly spent the evening in Ringers' pub? According to what evidence? A single piece of unsourced hearsay attributed to John McCarthy, which, shockingly enough, did not appear at the inquest? McCarthy himself didn't see Kelly at any pub with any stranger on the night of her death; it was simply alleged in a newspaper article that he had heard about someone who might have done. That's about as horrible a provenance as you're likely to encounter, but you're suddenly now seriously suggesting that it constitutes "conclusive proof" of Kelly drinking in Ringers' that night?

What about the press articles that stated precisely the opposite? This one, for instance:

"There is a beershop at the corner of Dorset-street, but, according to information furnished within a few hours of the discovery of the murder, the woman Kelly did not have any drink in the house on the previous night." Echo, 13th November.

You haven't even understood your own source. The only person who accompanied Kelly "to her home about midnight" was Blotchy. It was Cox's suspect to whom the Press Association were referring in that article, not your silly "respectable and well-dressed" man from the McCarthy "quote". So how do you explain that one, Jon? If the hearsay attributed to McCarthy is supposed to bolster the "conclusive proof" alluded to by the PA, why the two diametrically opposed descriptions of Kelly's drinking companion? Two wrongs don't make a right, and two bogus sources don't combine to create "conclusive proof" - especially not when they don't even agree.

What I am insisting Ben is that your belief is not proven, it is and will forever remain merely a 'belief'.

And you can carry on "insisting" until you're blue in the face and raw at the digits from excessive keyboardery; I will carry on counter-insisting and demonstrating that the Echo received the information they claimed to have received - unsensational as it was - from the police.

Big of you to concede, finally, that press disclosures and indiscretions are a reality of life, as opposed to something that "Vincent's Scary-Darey Dictum" would prevent from ever happening. I only brought up this well-established reality because you had previously insisted that such disclosures never happen, and was thus an impossibility in this particular case. If you've dispensed with that nonsense at last, that's a start. I need no longer refer to Hillsborough or any other very well-known instances of very well-known phenomena. We can instead go back to attempting to impress upon you why the evidence indicates that it did occur in this case particular case, with all the lovely repetitive argy-bargy that goes with it.

Whereas it is proven that the press were not being taken into any preferred confidence by police and as a result, by their own admission, had to make up stories the best way they could.
That, is an established fact

No, it isn't.

No, it most certainly isn't.

The Echo referred to specific instances of refused information; just as they referred to specific instances of shared information. For your argument to work (snort!), the Echo would need to have written something like, "the police are not sharing, have never shared, nor ever will share any information with this newspaper", but amazingly enough, they didn't.

[Ben]

For the witness to be discredited it must be shown to be so, as it was with Packer..

No, Jon.

Here's where you keep going very badly wrong.

You seem to think that to "discredit" something is to prove it false, which is absolutely not the case. It implies a lack of trust in a given thing, as opposed to a total loss thereof, and is in this respect no different to "very reduced importance" or "considerably discounted". The evidence strongly suggests that Hutchinson's evidence was doubted, not disproved, and where doubt prevails there must always remain the possibility that the doubt is misplaced, hence the fact that "some of the authorities" continued to place some faith in Hutchinson. It is not known who these remaining Astrakhan fans were, but they weren't among the police seniority who left Hutchinson-excluding reminiscences.

Packer wasn't "disproved"; he was discredited, doubted, discounted, suspected of lying. The fact that no trace of a grape was found at the scene in no way disproved Packer's story. For all anyone knew, the mysterious "clerkly" individual described by Packer (right up your street, I would have thought!) could have denied Stride any of his purchases, and popped his discarded stalks back in his bag.

The same applies to Emmanuel Violenia. Doubted, yes. Disproved, no.

No-one wrote about Cox being discredited because “some of the authorities” preferred to believe Hutchinson

I know, but they did write about Hutchinson having been so, and it had nothing remotely to do with Cox. Like it or lump it, that's the contemporary evidence, and given your penchant for accepting any old press tattle on the grounds that it hasn't been entirely disproved, you shouldn't have any problem with a press report that correlates perfectly well with the subsequent recorded views of senior policemen.

The Echo invented their story due to the police not sharing information with them – simple.

Simply nonsense, more like - badly argued, ill-considered, self-serving, easily refutable nonsense. If they "invented it" (again not even an attempt at a rational motive for doing so) how was it that they were received by the police at their headquarters the very next day? "Oh look, it's the journos who told dangerous, libellous lies about the direction of the investigation. Invite them in for tea and rock buns, and let's provide them with more helpful information!"

Not a chance in hell.

The police, as a public service, are to treat all members of the press equally, regardless of those who misrepresent their work

And motorists are to adhere to the speed limits at all times. Guess what happens in the real world, Jon? Honestly, you can't possibly be as gullible and unworldly as you constantly depict yourself as, so I suggest you abandon the pretence. If the 1888 police treated the press all equally, Littlechild would not have written that journalist Tom Bulling received preferential treatment from Scotland Yard.

As for Hutchinson, being of “reduced” importance only means the police now have more than one suspect.

It doesn't mean any such thing. How absurdly irrational would that be?

The police and press were fully aware of Cox's evidence by the time Hutchinson came forward, and it was only "in the light of later investigation" that a "very reduced importance" came to be attached to Hutchinson's statement. A clear reason was given for this "reduction", and lamentably for your conclusions, it related directly to doubts over its credibility.

Which obviously was not the case as their coverage on the 19th testifies to.

"Testifies to"? So you are prepared to accept the Echo's reports regarding the police treatment of witnesses? Whenever you wrongly perceive that the press were offering positive commentary on Hutchinson, it becomes gospel to you, apparently; in this case, it must be true because the Echo "testified" to it. So in order to avoid an accusation of glaring double-standards then; Hutchinson's account was "considerably discounted" because the Echo "testified" to it on 13th November. Good. Glad that's sorted.

The reality, of course, is that Hutchinson was not a "valid police witness" by the 19th November; rather a doubted-but-not-disproved one.

This dismissal of the grape story by the Leman-street police was only done after the issue had been made public during the day at the inquest.
The issue is not privy information anymore and as such the witness is not protected by police protocol.

Show me where Packer's veracity was questioned at the inquest. Show me, for that matter, where Packer ever described the woman eating a grape. If you're claiming that Packer was a proven liar on the grounds that no grapes were found in Stride's stomach, I guess that makes Hutchinson a proven liar because nobody else saw or described the ludicrous Astrakhan suspect?

I'm afraid I don't pay any attention to your arbitrary pronouncements regarding who or what does or doesn't qualify as being "protected by police protocol". You've thus far demonstrated very little knowledge on the subject.

Where do the Echo say they obtained opinion like - “suffered diminution” and “very reduced importance”, from any police or anyone in authority?

On the 13th November the Echo reported that Hutchinson's statement had only a "very reduced importance" attached to it, and they added "Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?" The next day, the same newspaper discovered "on inquiry at the Commercial Street police station" that Hutchinson's statement had been "considerably discounted". Don't pretend you don't consider it significant when the papers refer to a police source, since the absence of same from the 15th November Star piece formed the basis of your excuse for rejecting it. Bit tricky to backpedal from that now and hope it passes unnoticed.

Timing.

Timing? Interesting, Jon. Could you elaborate a bit on this and explain what you mean?

On the same day - 15th Nov., that the Star offered this line...
"Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson, who said that on Friday morning".....etc.

We read in the Echo something more positive.
"The "clue" given by the groom Hutchinson was yesterday followed up, although no trace of the man with the Astrachan jacket and prominent gold chain could be discovered. While Hutchinson's veracity is not questioned, it is considered a remarkable thing that no-one else in Dorset-street saw such an uncommon stranger - for that locality - as the person described by the groom."
Echo, 15th Nov. 1888.

Is it really "positive", Jon?

Compare these two fictional press articles, and let me know which of the two you consider to be the more "positive".

"Another argument now discredited is that advanced by the poster Wickerman..." - The Casebook Star, 2016.

Or...

"The "argument" presented by the poster Wickerman was given some consideration today, although no trace of evidence for his theories could be discovered. While his ability to present a cogent premise is not questioned, it is considered a remarkable thing that no-one else agrees with any of his thoughts relating to press-police communication or the eyewitness evidence from the Kelly murder." - The Casebook Echo, 2016.

Tricky one.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hello Ben.

....... I've risen to and easily demolished the "challenge" you amusingly describe as such, and only made reference to the reality of police indiscretion because you've been insisting - vacuously, obstreperously, and for far too long - that it never occurs.

Given that I am well aware that “some” members of the police have shared discrete information with select members of the press over the years, I fail to understand why you keep asserting that I claim “it never happened”.

As I keep maintaining, your challenge is to show it happened with the Echo in November 1888, not a hundred years later in another part of the country, involving different journalists, on a different subject entirely.
Such an argument it totally irrelevant.
The people involved in Nov. 1888, the politics, the tensions, the mutual acrimony between the police and the press are all componants in the factors to be considered. Which is why you choosing some out of place, out of time, out of context examples is completely irrelevant.
What it does do though adequately demonstrates that you have no way to substantiate your assertion, let alone demolish what is demonstrably and admitted by both sides to be a fact.

I have consistently made clear why I believe he gave a false statement, and why the police apparently came to reach a similar conclusion.

Why you “believe” the police came to that conclusion.
Yet your own source, the Echo, still repeated that Hutchinson's veracity (that is, truthfulness & accuracy) is not being questioned – and that on the same day as that startingly laughable and controversial “discredited” story was released by the Star.

It wouldn't have been necessary for a would-be plagiarist to reproduce the Astrakhan description "point-by-point", as it is clear the press lifted the description from the previous morning's report. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was you who first drew my attention to that fact. The chances of Hutchinson himself being able to regurgitate the description in the same order, and using identical phraseology, are exceptionally slim, even by his admittedly super-human standards.

And likewise, the press taking a second account from a plagiarist are not about to use a series of details previously attributed to another witness entirely.
Only modern-day theorists reach for this 'plagiarist' theory to support some outlandish claim. The people of the time reading the papers just take what they read at face value.
Two accounts, providing identical descriptions of the same suspect, at the same time (early morning), on the same day, at the same location, are easily attributable by anyone with an ounce of common sense to the same witness.

You've ignored my response and irritatingly repeated your original nonsensical claim as though it hadn't been swiftly killed, which it had. So I'll try again: who was to say that an opportunist by the name of George Hutchinson hadn't "borrowed" the 13th November press description - as Kennedy had "borrowed" from Lewis - and created a fictional story around it?

Using an example like Mrs Kennedy, who's story neither you nor anyone else has ever determined to be plagiarised, only emphasises how ridiculous this is becoming.
First Ben, establish your facts before you use them to bolster another argument.

As far as your Press Association despatch is concerned, aside from the outdated nonsense they wrote about Hutchinson, I was referring to this gem:

"It is now conclusively proved that Mary Jane Kelly, having spent the latter part of Friday evening in the "Ringers", otherwise the "Britannia" public-house, at the corner of Dorset-street, returned to her home about midnight with a strange man, whose company she had previously been keeping."

Do you agree with that statement?

I can't disagree with it, I have nothing else by way of official paperwork or press coverage with which to contest it – do you?

What about the press articles that stated precisely the opposite? This one, for instance:

"There is a beershop at the corner of Dorset-street, but, according to information furnished within a few hours of the discovery of the murder, the woman Kelly did not have any drink in the house on the previous night." Echo, 13th November.

You have not looked at the dates – your source is the 13th, mine is the day after – the 14th.
The last word on this subject is that “it is now conclusively proved”, I can't argue with it because it is the last word on the matter.
On what grounds are you arguing with it?

You haven't even understood your own source. The only person who accompanied Kelly "to her home about midnight" was Blotchy. It was Cox's suspect to whom the Press Association were referring in that article, not your silly "respectable and well-dressed" man from the McCarthy "quote".

I have said nothing about a “respectably dressed” suspect. That is you jumping to conclusions. McCarthy said she was in the Ringers is the point, not who she was with. McCarthy was telling us Kelly was in the Ringers in the evening, the article claimed the same. The fact she was seen with a respectably dressed man before she came home with Blotchy has nothing to do with it. Kelly was a prostitute, why should she spend all evening with the same man?
Apparently she didn't – shocker eh!!

.... I will carry on counter-insisting and demonstrating that the Echo received the information they claimed to have received - unsensational as it was - from the police.

At what point have you ever demonstrated this, all you keep repeating is your opinion. Giving “opinion” is not demonstrating anything except that it is your belief, erroneous as it is.

For your argument to work (snort!), the Echo would need to have written something like, "the police are not sharing, have never shared, nor ever will share any information with this newspaper", but amazingly enough, they didn't.

Which merely serves to illustrate that what you expect them to write is patently wrong.
All through November the Echo have complained about the police telling them nothing.
You have yet to change this fact, which you obviously cannot do.

The printed word in the press of the time will far outlast the temporary blinkered opinions of “some” latter-day theorist.
If you get my drift....