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

[Wickerman]

But the press would not have known that their informant was a plagiarist; they would have taken it on complete faith that the informant was the source of the 13th description November.

The Central News reporter would have asked if his witness was the one who was responsible for the previous day's 'wanted' release. There is no way Hutchinson is going to keep that from him. And likewise, all subsequent readers will take it on faith that both accounts are the same given the identical descriptions in both examples.
So, who is talking about a plagiarist – only you.

The Echo are only claiming to have discovered the obvious, as would anyone reading both accounts. I have to wonder what the constable at the station must have thought, “gawd, is this one stupid or what”.

Only the police had the power to confirm that he wasn't, and that both descriptions "proceeded from the same source". Call it an "outlandish claim" if you like, but it's also an indisputable fact.

And I've been telling you that both accounts were public knowledge, and the name of the source was public knowledge, so the police are not giving away proprietary information.
It doesn't matter if anyone suspected the sources were different, they weren't – that is the fact of the matter. The police are not concerned with what any reporter might suspect.

Kennedy is another matter. Yes, the evidence strongly favours the conclusion that she plagiarised Lewis's account, although I concede an outside chance that she was Lewis using a pseudonym. What I don't concede, or remotely countenance for one moment, is the eccentric notion that she was a genuine witness who had a near-identical experience to Lewis, was the last person to see Kelly alive, and yet was not called to the inquest. It's pretty much just you who favours that third option.

Explain why is her being a witness excentric ?

The Echo was an evening paper writing on events up to the afternoon of the 13th, whereas the morning papers, relying on press despatches from London (Irish Times etc), published their latest information on the morning of 14th; the source for which couldn't possibly have obtained their information any later than the afternoon of the 13th.

Rubbish, morning papers from Essex up to Edinburgh ran that story on the 14th, including the Morning Advertiser – if you care to look.
Why on earth would you try to claim the agency telegraph cannot inform nationwide press overnight?
The Echo went to press long before the final conclusions had been obtained, in just the same way that the evening papers leave all their inquest coverage half finished, they have to leave before the final curtain falls.
This is one reason we only get half a story from the evening press.

[edit: just located a copy of the Nottingham Evening Post who ran this same story on the 14th, they began the article with:
".....we received the following telegram at an early hour this morning, The Press Association is enabled to state..(then follows the story we are talking about). So there you have it, the time of the telegram and the source]

McCarthy was not the source for the alleged Kelly sighting - you do get that?

I didn't say he was – do you get that!
I wrote that the story came from him, the actual source was unnamed.

But as Philip Sugden pointed out:

"...a sighting of Mary with a man on the night of her death would have been an observation of the greatest importance so it is difficult to understand why McCarthy made absolutely no reference to the incident in his statement to the police or in his testimony before the coroner".

Yes, Phil Sugden could easily have found out why, he only needed to ask a solicitor (lawyer). He would have been told the same that I have been telling you. A witness is only expected to answer the question posed, not volunteer information ad-lib.
It was Bowyer who was asked when he last saw the victim, McCarthy was not.

Since you consider it "conclusively proved" that Kelly spent her last evening in Ringer's pub with a man who accompanied her home around midnight, can you tell me what this man looked like? Your fascinating sources are at variance on this rather crucial point, and yet you claim they support each other.

We don't take press stories as conclusively proved even if they claim to be. But neither do we dismiss them as lies when we have nothing to the contrary. What we should do is bear them in mind and leave it at that.
We are in no position to contest or confirm what they say.
In this case that report would be consistent with Dr. Bond using digestion as a means to determine Kelly's time of death – he would need to know what that article has suggested.

There's that contemptible repetition of previously challenged nonsense again. My response to which was as follows: 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.

It was not that long ago you were insisting the Echo never complained about the police after Nov. 10th, now you have changed your tune, but still singing the wrong song.

[Wickerman]

But now that I've risen to that challenge and succeeded in demonstrating that the police discussed their treatment of witnesses with the Echo newspaper,...

I haven't seen any demonstration other than your repeated claims.

I do wish you would make your mind up, though. If you accept the Echo report of the 19th November as accurate, you must also accept that the police discussed their treatment of Hutchinson with that same newspaper;

Might you be alluding to the statement that "some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance on....Hutchinson", etc. etc.?

This just might imply an opinion extracted from the police by someone?
Well,....let me take you on a brief tour of the newspapers...

If you care to look back to the Echo of Nov. 13th you will see the first mention by them that the police are divided over two suspects, so the claim on the 19th while still true was not a new claim.
So where did the Echo get that story on the 13th from, the police? - No!

Now you need to look in the morning papers of the same day, both the Daily Telegraph and the Morning Post ran the same story, which was then borrowed by the Echo in the evening. The fact two morning papers ran the same story is highly suggestive that the common source was a press agency.

So, sad for you and your belief in the Echo obtaining "inside" information from the police, but it appears that the story first came from a news agency.

Anything else I can help you with?

That's right, and do you remember why they repeated the spiel about Hutchinson's veracity not being doubted or questioned? Not because they thought so themselves, or because the police had told them as much, but because their errant chums from the "morning papers" had originally reported, on the basis of their own misunderstanding,...

Hold on a second, if it was reported erroneously by their contemporaries, and the Echo had decided for themselves on the 14th that it was erroneous, then why are they repeating something on the 15th that they “know” to be wrong?

This does not make any sense if you are right, but if you are wrong, as is often the case, then those morning contemporaries were not mistaken to write the veracity of the witness was sound, because it was not tied to the similarity of both published descriptions.
And in fact, when we do check the morning papers, no attribution is exactly what we do find.



Now, lets just take a second look that press quote you offered up.

”... The importance of this description lies (so says the morning papers) in the fact that it agrees with that furnished to the police yesterday,....

I notice you looked up the morning papers for the 14th, but you could not find any one of them who associated the veracity of the witness with the fact that two published descriptions were the same.

I also looked, and I can tell you right now the Times make no mention of Hutchinson's veracity. The Daily Telegraph do not run the story at all. The Daily News, Morning Post & Morning Advertiser all mention the veracity of the witness but neither associated it with a belief that both descriptions were the same.

One full example from the Daily News is this:
"It will be observed that the description of the supposed murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police, and published yesterday morning.
There is not the slightest reason to doubt Hutchinson's veracity, and it is therefore highly probable that at length the police are in possession of a reliable description of the murderer. "

Two statements there, two independent statements. The latter is not dependent on the former. In the latter we do not read "therefore, there is not the slightest reason", etc. Neither do we read, "As a result, there is not the slightest reason", etc.

There is no attribution stated or implied in the second line derived from what is written in the first line. No connection, in other words.

Could this be more evidence of an invented storyline?


Now, as for this bit...

but which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner. There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity...

Well, the discounting on the basis of the witness not being sworn or appearing at the inquest, is as I have pointed out before, a fallacy. Someone in the press may have believed a statement should be sworn to but the police do not require a swearing to investigate or question a witness. So it is simply untrue to say the police would devalue a statement on those grounds – all witness statements are unsworn.

By now you must be getting an education on how the press can put together a story from dribs and drabs, and from hearsay, speculation and innovation on their part.

To be continued...

[Ben]

You cannot suspect a coat for too long

Well you say that, Jon, but coats can be sneaky things. If I had my way they'd all be locked up: Duffels, Ulsters, Norfolks, the lot.

Witness statements don't have an expiry date, by the way; they don't become less credible just because they don't immediately lead to the arrest of the offender.

The "latter portion" of my quote refers to Packer and "the great majority of others" - Hutchinson included, apparently.

[Wickerman]

If there had been no discrediting, Astrakhan man would have been the prime suspect by many miles, and the fact that Hutchinson had provided such a detailed description would have generated a much-needed boost of confidence and optimism for the police. Instead, of course, we read this:

[I]"Possessing no information likely to lead to the arrest of the murderer". This briefly describes the position of the authorities - at least, up to midnight - in regard to the Whitechapel atrocities. The police had then apparently no clue - at least, of a tangible character - and were as much at fault as in either of the preceding outrages.

Which only serves to emphasize why your introductory line is wrong. You cannot suspect a coat for too long, a week to ten days at the most, after that the description is worthless.

The latter portion (below) of your selected quote refers only to Packer.

The "extraordinary statements", the "singular events", the "mysterious visitors" have produced, on investigation, no actual result or satisfaction. The visitors to the fruiterer's shop for a time created excitement in the neighbourhood; but now it is declared that Packer's statement, so far as it bears on the identity of the murderer, is worthless. So, too, with the great majority of others."

The Echo, 16th November.

My bold.

[Ben]

Here we have one of the meanings: “To prove or show to be false”.
There are a variety of meanings depending on context and whether it is a verb or a noun

So on what grounds do you assert that the Star meant "disproved" when they wrote "discredited", as opposed to what most people understand by the term; doubted?

The cause suggested by the Echo for Hutch's story being reduced in importance is, in their opinion that “the story was not given at the inquest”. They certainly did not get that reason from the police as it is factually incorrect.

I have explained – enough times now, with any luck – that I do not regard the “delay” as the most significant reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting; the police “fobbed” off the Echo by hinting at their general attitude towards Hutchinson, without going into specifics. Having said that, I don’t understand what trouble you appear to having with the idea that Hutchinson’s initial excuse for his delay, provided at the time of the “interrogation”, was later revealed to be bogus thanks to the "later investigations" alluded to in the Echo.

The Echo had not a hope in hell of being received at Commercial Street police station on the 14th if they had published brazen lies mere hours earlier about their treatment of a witness. But since they were received and supplied with information only the police were capable of imparting, we can dispense with your weak suggestion that the Echo themselves "invented" the reported grounds for "reducing" Hutchinson's importance, and consider a more rational explanation; that the police themselves informed the Echo - rightly or wrongly - that Hutchinson's failure to come forward earlier was the main reason for this "reduction". I don't dispute that it probably wasn't the whole story, and I don't dispute that it was a fob-off of sorts. But it was a fob-off that hinted at the nature of the problem - Hutchinson's credibility. If the problem was entirely unrelated to his credibility, the police would have been publicly besmirching a witness they considered genuine; not likely.

A witness description does not suffer a "very reduced importance" due to the existence of other witness descriptions. That doesn't make any sense at all. There was no mutual exclusivity between Cox's statement and that of Hutchinson, and despite your preposterous claims to the contrary, there is no evidence that the police preferred Dr. Bond's suggested time of death to the exclusion of any evidence that indicated a later time.

Why not, the police used the Central News to release circulars to the press, descriptions of wanted men and statements of witnesses, etc. Whomever their contact was at the C. N. would quite naturally be viewed as receiving preferential treatment.

But your little rulebook says that's not allowed, remember? And nobody ever broke the rules in your little rulebook, remember? According to your little rulebook, giving preferential treatment to the Central News was quite out of the question. It would be one thing if the CN enjoyed a reputation for being nicer, cleverer and more honest than all other journalists from all other independent newspapers, but the evidence suggests the reverse was the case.

The timing provided by S. Lewis c/w the timing provided by Hutchinson.

Interesting, Jon. I must say I'm very persuaded by this theory of yours. You described it as a mere "belief" before, but now you've made clear that your conclusion is based on logical inference and evidentiary deduction. So when you said it was only your "belief" that the man in the sketch was "the loiterer", there's actually quite a bit more to it than that, isn't there? (I did say it was a cunning trap, Jon).

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

As I keep maintaining, your challenge is to show it happened with the Echo in November 1888

And I thank you for that challenge, Jon. Great challenge! Very interesting and thought-provoking challenge, in fact.

But now that I've risen to that challenge and succeeded in demonstrating that the police discussed their treatment of witnesses with the Echo newspaper, it's time for an exciting new challenge. I wonder what that might be? To keep my temper, and to avoid becoming disagreeable through exasperation at your endless repetition of deeply flawed claims? In which case, I can only admit defeat and concede that you've done an admirable job of pissing me very successfully off. Call it one-all.

I do wish you would make your mind up, though. If you accept the Echo report of the 19th November as accurate, you must also accept that the police discussed their treatment of Hutchinson with that same newspaper; which would make an instant nonsense of your claim that "police protocol" ensured that police never discussed their treatment of witnesses with the press. You're either completely oblivious to your own glaring inconsistency, or hoping for it to pass unnoticed, which it hasn't.

My purpose in bringing up the press reporting of the Hillsborough disaster was to illustrate an entirely different point; that unsourced, uncorroborated hearsay doesn't make for the most reliable source material on which to base a judgement. It was a point that needed impressing upon you, I felt, in light of your bizarre preference for same, as published in the immediate aftermath of the Kelly murder, and as touted as accurate by nobody except you. Call it Reality Check #1. That was the discussion we were having before you did your usual and derailed the thread in the direction of the Echo and Hutchinson's discrediting, and we've consequently moved onto Reality Check #2; a reminder - as if anyone seriously needed it - that police have been disclosing sensitive case-related to the press from the inception of both parties to the present day. However repetitively you might claim otherwise, this long-established practice did not desist for a few months in 1888.

Yet your own source, the Echo, still repeated that Hutchinson's veracity (that is, truthfulness & accuracy) is not being questioned

That's right, and do you remember why they repeated the spiel about Hutchinson's veracity not being doubted or questioned? Not because they thought so themselves, or because the police had told them as much, but because their errant chums from the "morning papers" had originally reported, on the basis of their own misunderstanding, that there was no question mark over the "veracity" of the tale. But what caused the morning papers to think so? Back we go to the 14th November article that is the source of your daily anxiety:

"What is said to be a full and accurate description of the man last seen with Kelly is asserted to be in possession of the authorities. That description was given them the other night by George Hutchinson, a groom by trade, but now working as a labourer. The importance of this description lies (so says the morning papers) in the fact that it agrees with that furnished to the police yesterday, but which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner. There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity...

...“Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contemporaries, we learned on inquiry at the Commercial-street Police-station to-day that the elaborate description given above is virtually the same as that previously published. It is a little fuller, that is all. But it proceeds from the same source”.

Echo, 14th November

What was the theory of their "morning contemporaries"? That Hutchinson's story had corroborated ("agreed with") the Astrakhan description published the previous morning, indicating - in their minds - the presence of two separate Astrakhan spotters. It was on the basis of this misunderstanding, argued the Echo, that some of the morning papers "declared" that that his "veracity" was not questioned; they certainly weren't "declaring" it themselves. "Silly morning contemporaries for not checking their sources, and for enthusing about the "veracity" of a witness on the basis of a complete misunderstanding", they might otherwise have written.

Here are some examples of morning papers discussing the "veracity" of Hutchinson's statement.

"It will be observed that the description of the supposed murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police, and published yesterday morning. There is not the slightest reason to doubt Hutchinson's veracity" - "declared" the Daily News on the 14th November.

"The person who has had an opportunity of being within speaking distance of the supposed assassin is an individual whose veracity is not doubted for a moment" - "declared" the Morning Advertiser on the same date.

The Echo report of the 15th November was simply "echoing" the previous day's report; that Hutchinson's veracity - according to the wisdom of the morning papers, who mistakenly believed his story was corroborated by an independent Astrakhan-spotter - was not in doubt. They had already made abundantly clear that this was not the opinion of the police.

the press taking a second account from a plagiarist are not about to use a series of details previously attributed to another witness entirely.

But the press would not have known that their informant was a plagiarist; they would have taken it on complete faith that the informant was the source of the 13th description November. It was down to pure laziness on the part of the interviewing journalist that he merely lifted the previous description and plonked it into his piece. Whatever description Hutchinson provided was obviously sufficiently similar - with exciting additions! - to the existing one to justify copying-and-pasting, as opposed to obtaining a "new" description, quoted verbatim.

I can empathise!

I don't have a "plagiarist theory" involving Hutchinson, and I'll thank you not to misrepresent my position. My point, which you continue to ignore, is not that the 14th November interviewee was a plagiarist, but rather than for all anyone but the police knew, he might have been. Only the police had the power to confirm that he wasn't, and that both descriptions "proceeded from the same source". Call it an "outlandish claim" if you like, but it's also an indisputable fact.

Kennedy is another matter. Yes, the evidence strongly favours the conclusion that she plagiarised Lewis's account, although I concede an outside chance that she was Lewis using a pseudonym. What I don't concede, or remotely countenance for one moment, is the eccentric notion that she was a genuine witness who had a near-identical experience to Lewis, was the last person to see Kelly alive, and yet was not called to the inquest. It's pretty much just you who favours that third option.

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?

I have the basic ability to assess sources and their provenance, and I don't doubt that the police put their own evaluation powers to good use throughout the investigation. What I suspect they didn't do, at any stage, is adopt your hilarious approach of treating any old raggy press claim as gospel as long it can't be proven false.

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.

The Echo was an evening paper writing on events up to the afternoon of the 13th, whereas the morning papers, relying on press despatches from London (Irish Times etc), published their latest information on the morning of 14th; the source for which couldn't possibly have obtained their information any later than the afternoon of the 13th. The idea that the Irish Times were working on "newer" information is therefore nonsense. How long do you think it would have taken, in any case, to ascertain from Mr or Mrs Ringer whether or not Kelly has been in their pub on Thursday night? The very clear evidence is that she hadn't.

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.

"Fact"?? Are you familiar with the basic concept of source evaluation? As someone with a (presumably) decades-old interest in history, I would have assumed you would be, and yet the many indications to the contrary that I've encountered here are troubling to say the least. McCarthy was not the source for the alleged Kelly sighting - you do get that? There was never the faintest suggestion that McCarthy himself had seen Kelly in any pub with any stranger. Assuming the report wasn't wholesale journalistic intention, it would indicate that McCarthy had simply heard that someone else had seen Kelly in Ringers. But as Philip Sugden pointed out:

"...a sighting of Mary with a man on the night of her death would have been an observation of the greatest importance so it is difficult to understand why McCarthy made absolutely no reference to the incident in his statement to the police or in his testimony before the coroner".

Or was Sugden a card-carrying "Hutchinsonian"?

Since you consider it "conclusively proved" that Kelly spent her last evening in Ringer's pub with a man who accompanied her home around midnight, can you tell me what this man looked like? Your fascinating sources are at variance on this rather crucial point, and yet you claim they support each other.

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

There's that contemptible repetition of previously challenged nonsense again. My response to which was as follows: 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]

If there had been no discrediting, Astrakhan man would have been the prime suspect by many miles, and the fact that Hutchinson had provided such a detailed description would have generated a much-needed boost of confidence and optimism for the police. Instead, of course, we read this:

"Possessing no information likely to lead to the arrest of the murderer". This briefly describes the position of the authorities - at least, up to midnight - in regard to the Whitechapel atrocities. The police had then apparently no clue - at least, of a tangible character - and were as much at fault as in either of the preceding outrages. The "extraordinary statements", the "singular events", the "mysterious visitors" have produced, on investigation, no actual result or satisfaction. The visitors to the fruiterer's shop for a time created excitement in the neighbourhood; but now it is declared that Packer's statement, so far as it bears on the identity of the murderer, is worthless. So, too, with the great majority of others."

The Echo, 16th November.

My bold.

[Ben]

Hi Scott,

Don't put your wallet away quite yet. We're still very much on for pints! Jon's just about done here anyway, aren't you Jon? He's decided very sensibly that life's too short, and that there are more productive ways of spending one's autumnal years.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Of well, it looks like the Summit is off now, indefinitely. And the pints were going to be on me.

How lucky can you get.....

[Wickerman]

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.

What was that, another “absolutely”?
Here we have one of the meanings: “To prove or show to be false”.
There are a variety of meanings depending on context and whether it is a verb or a noun, So don't bother waving your “absolutes” around, as is often the case your interpretation is typically limited.

As I already showed you, on the same day (15th) the Echo repeated the fact that Hutchinson's “veracity” (truthfulness) was not in doubt, yet his story on a scale of importance had diminshed – nothing to do with being discredited. Another suspect had risen to the fore which appeared to some of the press that the police were divided on the subject.

Once the press realise the police are investigating two suspects after the previous yet brief sensation of just one major suspect, obviously speculation on the street will be that the importance of Hutchinson's suspect has diminshed – and that is all the Echo are implying, but for the wrong reason. The Echo were only wrong in the reason they gave, what they assumed to be the cause – was factually incorrect.

The cause suggested by the Echo for Hutch's story being reduced in importance is, in their opinion that “the story was not given at the inquest”. They certainly did not get that reason from the police as it is factually incorrect. Therefore, the Echo invented the reason - they were guessing. The Echo are standing by the view already expressed that Hutchinson's truthfulness was not being questioned.

Your view that Hutchinson was discredited because of doubts about his story is diametrically opposed to the view expressed by the Echo, as well as other press outlets. The Echo are upholding the belief in his truthfulness, being late in coming forward is not a reflection of the truthfulness of the witness.
The Echo and the Star are not in agreement.

If the 1888 police treated the press all equally, Littlechild would not have written that journalist Tom Bulling received preferential treatment from Scotland Yard.

Why not, the police used the Central News to release circulars to the press, descriptions of wanted men and statements of witnesses, etc. Whomever their contact was at the C. N. would quite naturally be viewed as receiving preferential treatment.

Show me where Packer's veracity was questioned at the inquest.

This had nothing to do with Packer's non-appearance at the inquest, you're heading down the wrong path with that one.

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

The timing provided by S. Lewis c/w the timing provided by Hutchinson.

Is it really "positive", Jon?

It really is Ben, yes – for the reason's I explained above.
The Echo are publishing a view that does not suggest Hutchinson's truthfulness is being questioned, which offers positive support for Hutchinson as opposed to the negative view expressed by the Star.

[Scott Nelson]

Of well, it looks like the Summit is off now, indefinitely. And the pints were going to be on me.

[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....

[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

[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.

[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.