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

[Scott Nelson]

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

[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.

[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.....

[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

[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]

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]

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

[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]

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]

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...

[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]

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?

Your use of “most people” is doubtful, when something is discredited it isn't merely doubted, it is shown to be false. In this case the Star's claim was totally false itself as Hutchinson's veracity was never in any doubt.
The Star's claim of “discredited” is actually discredited by the other contemporary press reports. A cruel irony I guess.

If someone tells a story to two people, one person believes the story, the other does not, then that story is not discredited. Both have to disbelieve the story for it to be discredited.
A story is not discredited unless at least some part of the story is shown to be false.

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;

It isn't what you regard, it is what the Echo claimed that matters. They did not write their story with you in mind, you seem to be saying you accept their claim but you do not accept their reasoning for that claim.
As their claim is based on their reasoning, and their reasoning is false, then their claim is also false – bingo!

...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.

First, you have no evidence the Echo ever spoke to the police about Hutchinson's story before the 13th. As their claim of “later investigation” came on the 13th, followed by reasserting Hutchinson's veracity on the 15th and affirming the police still believe Hutch on the 19th, then this is another argument of yours that does not withstand scrutiny.

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.

I think you need to brush up on the police service and who they are permitted to turn away from the front door for “literary mistreatment” in the press.
I'll give you a hint – no-one.

A witness description does not suffer a "very reduced importance" due to the existence of other witness descriptions.

In the eyes of the police no, of course not. This though is not police opinion, it is the opinion of an ill-informed press.

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.

There doesn't need to be any evidence, the fact the document exists is evidence enough.
On the other hand you make numerous outlandish claims for which you have no evidence at all, just an opinion, so it is demonstrated by you that you do not need evidence to believe in something.

But your little rulebook says that's not allowed, remember?

Official communication via the press agency, imparting details not shared with the general press, are sanctioned by the Commissioner. This is one of the reasons they only deal with an agency to avoid preferrential treatment among the general press.

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).

“Logical inference & evidentiary deduction” is not proof, so I think your mini celebration is premature.

[Ben]

“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.”

I’ve “cared” to do precisely as you’ve advised, and no, there is no mention whatever on the 13th November of any “division” over whether to pursue the Astrakhan or blotchy-faced suspect. The article stated that the City police were seeking the man described by witnesses from “the orange market” – obviously a confused reference to Lawende et al – which is somewhat understandable considering they were City witnesses to the potential beginnings of crime committed on City territory. The Met police, meanwhile, “have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement”.

How any of this is supposed to relate, even vaguely, to the latter force’s ultimate treatment of Hutchinson’s statement is a great mystery to me, and one I hope you’ll shed light on. Could you point out which specific reports from the 13th November morning papers were “borrowed by the Echo in the evening”? I’ve checked the morning papers you’ve cited, and I can find nothing about any later “investigation” resulting in a “very reduced importance” being attached to Hutchinson’s account. The Daily Telegraph did, however, make the following observation on the morning of the 13th:

“It has not been ascertained why the witness did not make this statement - so much fuller and so different from the others that have been given - immediately after the murder was discovered.”

It will now be interesting to see if your irrational denunciations of any press source that doesn’t favour Hutchinson extends to one of the most reputable press sources in the country. I imagine it will. You’ll notice that “it has not been ascertained” differs materially from “we have not ascertained”. The likelihood, of course, is that far from copying the Daily Telegraph, the Echo were merely working from the same source – the police.

“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?”

They weren’t.

What are you talking about?

They were repeating the mantra of their morning contemporaries – that Hutchinson’s veracity is not questioned, blah blah blah – and illustrating, with a subtlety evidently lost on you, just how badly that mantra squared up with the actual evidence, i.e. that Hutchinson appeared three days late, was not sworn, and nobody else saw or described anyone like Hutchinson’s Astrakhan man. One fact that you overlooked, with all your tired talk of “acrimony” between police and press, is that rivalries existed between press outlets too; if there was an opportunity for one paper to ridicule a rival for arriving at an over-confident conclusion on the basis of a false premise, they would pounce upon it. The fact that both descriptions “proceeded from the same source” was the knock-out blow for the “theories” of the Echo’s “morning contemporaries” which asserted, wrongly, that the descriptions proceeded from different sources. This total misunderstanding was what prompted the morning papers to conclude that Hutchinson’s veracity was not in question; whereas the Echo knew better, thanks to their visit to the police station, and were thereafter merciless in repeating the confused scribblings of their rivals.

“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.”

Are you serious?

When did you stop reading your favourite newspaper, the Daily News?

"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.”

The Daily News, or whoever supplied them with their information, were clearly of the erroneous impression that Hutchinson’s description - as printed on the morning of the 14th - corroborated a pre-existing, separate, independent sighting that also happened to describe a man in Astrakhan clothes. This erroneous impression led them to conclude, equally erroneously, that Hutchinson’s “veracity” was not questioned. It was lazy journalism and the failure of the morning papers to cross reference the “new” description with the “old” one that accounted for their mistaken impression, but it was one the Echo managed to disabuse them of, following a visit to the police station. You’ll notice that the Echo did not tar every morning paper with the same brush; they stated simply that “some” of their contemporaries attached more importance to Hutchinson’s statement than was warranted, owing to their confusion. Evidently, the Daily News and Morning Advertiser were two such offenders – and your two favourites, by interesting “coincidence”!

“So it is simply untrue to say the police would devalue a statement on those grounds – all witness statements are unsworn.”

But a witness who fails to come forward for three days after the murder is a completely different matter. If you think that doesn’t raise inevitable questions as to a witness’s credibility, you must promise to steer well clear of professional law enforcement, jury service, or anything vaguely related to criminology that might exist outside the limited realm of internet-based hobbyism. Yes, I realise that that Abberline gave Hutchinson the initial, short-lived thumbs-up, but “later investigation” had evidently re-introduced the fact of his late appearance as a problem; perhaps because his initial “excuse” for his “delay” – whatever that might have been – had been shot full of holes “in the light of” the later investigation referred to. Another possibility is that Abberline was satisfied with Hutchinson’s “excuse”, but his police superiors were not.

“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.”

Oh, I’m getting an education, Jon, believe me - an education into the absolutely necessity for some people to stay away from newspapers, the Kelly murder, or eyewitness evidence, and to stick to what they might have been vaguely good at before they made Hutchinson discussions their obsession.

[Ben]

The Central News reporter would have asked if his witness was the one who was responsible for the previous day's 'wanted' release.

Asked the police?

I’m afraid you’ve taken leave of any remaining senses, Jon. The Central News interview was conducted entirely without the knowledge or approval of the police. If Central had tracked Hutchinson down and then alerted the police of their intentions, the latter would have done everything in their power to prevent an interview with their as-yet-unnamed witness from being conducted. It’s utter absurdity to argue that the police supplied the press with useful information to conduct an interview with Hutchinson that they themselves would never have sanctioned. They might have asked Hutchinson if he was “responsible for the previous day's 'wanted' release”, and Hutchinson would have responded in the affirmative, but the press had absolutely no way of knowing if Hutchinson’s confirmation was genuine.

“The police are not concerned with what any reporter might suspect.”

Nor would they have been concerned about any reporter continuing to believe that Hutchinson was legit when the evidence indicated otherwise. It was no skin of the noses of the police to provide a newspaper, not known for having a hostile attitude towards the police, with the requested information regarding the common origin of the two Astrakhan descriptions. Nor was it any skin off their noses to relate the fact that yet another “witness” had been ditched. It’s only you who insists it was hush-hush, secret-squirrel “proprietary” information; in the way that Edmund Reid discussing police opinion regarding the number of likely perpetrators with the press was not, apparently!

“Explain why is her being a witness excentric ? (sic)”

No.

Go away and study previous threads on Kennedy; it’s usually a topic you introduce at random, and consequently derail all threads with.

“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”

So what “final conclusion” are you hoping for then, in this case? What do you suggest grabbed the attention of the press between the evening of the 13th, after the Echo reported on that day’s events, and the early morning of the 14th, when most other papers came out? Are you suggesting that someone paid a midnight visit to the police and reported that, despite the erroneous (?) statement of the people who actually ran the pub, Kelly was seen in Ringers’ that night? And the police were supposed to have been so impressed by this “new” (?) information that they regarded it as “conclusively proved” that she was there? No mention by the Press Association of any new source attesting to Kelly’s presence in the pub, and in total contrast to the previous evidence – clearly provided by Ringers’ management and others – to the effect that she had not been drinking there that night. Nae bother, says Jon, with his funky approach to source assessment; it’s “conclusively proved”.

“I wrote that the story came from him, the actual source was unnamed.”

Which makes it an unreliable source, not be treated as “proof”, doesn’t it? By George, you might finally be getting the hang of this after all. One can only dream the dream.

“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”

So he should have come straight to you first, in other words? Your arrogance and cluelessness on this subject is quite a thing to behold. I can’t believe you are seriously suggesting that a respected historian like Sugden “could easily” have arrived at the "correct" conclusion – yours, apparently – if “only” he had asked a solicitor? I’m going out on a crazy limb here, Jon, in assuming – without impugning your abilities, or "doubting your veracity" – that Sugden had a tinsy winsy bit more historical and legal insight than you do, and that he would find your unthinking denunciations of his conclusions to be quite, quite potty. Chris Scott argued precisely the same with regard to that Bowyer nonsense you keep trying to revive as accurate; should he have consulted a lawyer too? Since you profess to have more legal insight than either of these gentlemen, what exactly is yours?

If there had been any question of McCarthy being aware of evidence placing Kelly in Ringers on the night of her death, he would have alluded to it in his police statement. The coroner would than have ensured it received a mention at the inquest – no “ad-libbing” required.

“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.”

Alright Jon, I’ll bear them in mind. I’ll bear in mind that the sources in question invariably did not appear at the inquest, are in conflict with more reputable sources that did, appeared for five minutes in the press before sinking without trace, and amounted to second or third-hand hearsay. So we’ll “leave it at that”.

“In this case that report would be consistent with Dr. Bond using digestion as a means to determine Kelly's time of death”

No, it wouldn’t. The report contained no mention of Kelly eating or digesting anything; besides which, Bond’s suggested time of death - typically rejected by you as wrong anyway – has absolutely no bearing on the “returning home from pub with man” report, or vice versa.

“It was not that long ago you were insisting the Echo never complained about the police after Nov. 10th”

And I continue to insist as much, because it is true. At no stage was any criticism of the police implied for withholding specific pieces of information.

“Your use of “most people” is doubtful, when something is discredited it isn't merely doubted, it is shown to be false.”

Not the case, Jon.

Not remotely the case.

When most people wish to convey the message that something has been disproved entirely, they select an expression that leaves no room for doubt; “disproved” normally does the trick. Your noisy hysteria over the Star’s report – which doesn’t say anything materially different to the Echo reports – is based on your ignorance of what “discredited” actually means. If you think it always means “disproved” and that the Star definitely meant it in that sense, let’s see your evidence.

“If someone tells a story to two people, one person believes the story, the other does not, then that story is not discredited.”

Until, that is, the people endowed with authority to determine which stories are to be taken seriously cast that particular story aside; at which point “discredited” it most certainly would be. Such was the case with Hutchinson, and most of the press nonsense you keep clinging to at the expense of better respected sources.

“As their claim is based on their reasoning, and their reasoning is false, then their claim is also false – bingo!”

No, Jon. Unbingo.

Pay more attention to what I’m writing, and stop being in such tremendous haste to respond all the time. It is very doubtful that Hutchinson’s failure to come forward in time for the inquest was the man reason for his discrediting; however, the fact that this reason is inextricably linked to the question of his “veracity” is an obvious indication that this was in doubt. It painted Hutchinson in a poor light, and unless the ethics of the police were topsy-turvy, they cetainly would not have publicly impugned a genuine witness just to put the press off the scent.

“First, you have no evidence the Echo ever spoke to the police about Hutchinson's story before the 13th. As their claim of “later investigation” came on the 13th, followed by reasserting Hutchinson's veracity on the 15th and affirming the police still believe Hutch on the 19th, then this is another argument of yours that does not withstand scrutiny.”

This is all nonsense, and you’re simply repeating yourself now; eschewing the “life’s too short” approach I recently advised, and which you ought to embrace.

The Echo were evidently basing their observations about Hutchinson’s “very reduced importance” on police wisdom, or was it a complete coincidence that when they visited the Commercial Street police station the following day, they received information that entirely corresponded to the original report? Lucky guess, perhaps? They did not “reassert Hutchinson’s veracity on the 15th". They repeated the original claims of the morning papers; mocking them, in effect, for arriving at a false conclusion based on confusion. Were the Echo really being too subtle for you when they wrote that it was a “remarkable thing” that nobody else has seen such an “uncommon stranger” for the district? Were they really being too subtle when they used more or less identical terminology - “veracity is not questioned”, “veracity is not doubted” – to that used by the morning papers?

“I think you need to brush up on the police service and who they are permitted to turn away from the front door for “literary mistreatment” in the press.
I'll give you a hint – no-one.”

What??

The police were free as birds to turn away whoever they wished for whatever reason they liked. What has convinced you otherwise?

“This though is not police opinion, it is the opinion of an ill-informed press.”

And yet there is absolutely no trace of any press “opining” that a witness statement diminishes in value due to the existence of another witness statement. I’m afraid that crazy concept is yours alone.

“There doesn't need to be any evidence, the fact the document exists is evidence enough.”

“There doesn’t need to be any evidence”!! You’re hilarious, Jon – you should make that your motto. No wait, let's make it one for the “bookmark”! So the fact that Bond’s time of death “exists” is “evidence enough” that the police leaped upon it as accurate, discarding in the process any evidence that did not conform to it, cries of “murder” included?

“Official communication via the press agency, imparting details not shared with the general press, are sanctioned by the Commissioner. This is one of the reasons they only deal with an agency to avoid preferrential treatment among the general press.”

According to the little rulebook, yes, but what about in the big wide world of actual communication between police and press? Preferential treatment towards individual papers has been a reality of police investigation since the year dot. They didn’t go through a mini-phase in the late 1880s of deciding that was far too naughty.

“Logical inference & evidentiary deduction” is not proof”

But it’s a great deal more than just “belief”, which was the expression you used to describe your own opinion of the suggested Hutchinson-Wideawake identification, as well the expression you typically use, disparagingly and reductively, to describe my opinions. So celebration deserved.

Only three long posts from you, Jon. You're slacking. Can I have four next time, please?

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

I’ve “cared” to do precisely as you’ve advised, and no, there is no mention whatever on the 13th November of any “division” over whether to pursue the Astrakhan or blotchy-faced suspect.

I said – “Divided over two suspects”.

The section even begins with the fact there are now TWO suspects.
“The police are embarrassed with two definite descriptions of the man suspected of the murder. “
After which they proceed to detail out both suspects, Astrachan & Blotchy. Not TWO different descriptions of the same suspect, but TWO separate suspects.

The article stated that the City police were seeking the man described by witnesses from “the orange market” –

Yes, that whole article was lifted from the Daily Telegraph and republished in the Echo of that same evening.
Then, a week later on the 19th the Echo write that “some” authorities put more reliance on Hutch, and others on Cox. The police are still looking for two suspects after a week.
So nothing had changed.

You’ll notice that “it has not been ascertained” differs materially from “we have not ascertained”. The likelihood, of course, is that far from copying the Daily Telegraph, the Echo were merely working from the same source – the police.

What it tells us is that neither the Daily Telegraph nor the Echo were able to find out from police why the witness did not come forward.
True to form, the police are saying nothing.

They weren’t.

What are you talking about?

They were repeating the mantra of their morning contemporaries – that Hutchinson’s veracity is not questioned, blah blah blah...

Quote:
“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...”
Echo, 15th Nov. 1888. (My bold)

No indication they are repeating an incorrect 'mantra'. Clearly the Echo are on-board with this belief – they subscribe to it as well. Nothing there to indicate the Echo are distancing themselves from that determination, no attempt to poke fun at their contemporaries.
The Echo are merely including what they believe to be true, in clear contrast to the Star of the same date who poured scorn on the witness as being “discredited”.
The Echo and the Star do not agree.

Are you serious?

When did you stop reading your favourite newspaper, the Daily News?

"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.”

Correct, and nowhere does the Daily News attribute the veracity of the witness to the fact both descriptions agree - two separate issues.
The claim by the Echo that Hutchinson's truthfulness was determined as a direct result of those two descriptions being identical is erroneous.
That connection is never stated by anyone.

But a witness who fails to come forward for three days after the murder is a completely different matter......
Yes, I realise that that Abberline gave Hutchinson the initial, short-lived thumbs-up, but “later investigation” had evidently re-introduced the fact of his late appearance as a problem;

That is only your speculation which is of no interest here. The fact remains Hutchinson was cleared by Abberline, and the police had no intention of informing the press why he did not come forward. The statement given was not sworn because it did not need to be and the police had no cause to doubt his story.
Thats it.