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

[YomRippur]

Could JTR not have paid the victims at all? If the customary thing to do was to pay before sex, then Jack would never have to pay, since the murder would occur way before sex.

[Ben]

Please forgive the late reply, Jon.

And I repeat, the fact the two stories came from the same source was public knowledge.

No, it wasn't.

That would be totally impossible, for reasons already explained.

It might have been public assumption that they came from the same source, but the only people with actual "knowledge" that they had a common origin were the police (and Hutchinson himself, of course). That's an indisputable fact. For all anyone else knew, an opportunist could have claimed the story as his own - a la Kennedy - and approached the press under the false guise of its originator.

If this discussion is to be remotely productive, can you please address the above specific points, rather than always going back to your original claim as though it had never been challenged, or rather debunked in this case?

Statements obtained by the press always differ to statements given to police, I can safely assume you already know this.

Yes, but according to you, it is always some heroic lone journalist who manages to extract the most critical information from an investigative point of view. It implies that the police were frequently incompetent for failing to elicit such "statements" from their witnesses, which is neither fair nor credible.

All I know of are those used by the Coroner, I don't know of any others that survived, even the Echo reported as many as 53 statements had been given.

You and me both, Jon, and if anyone had seen Kelly in the Britannia pub that night with a stranger, it would logically have been included in the body of evidence "used by the coroner", because it might have provided very useful reinforcement of Cox's evidence. If you're so reliant on press reports, what objection do you have to the Echo's report that Kelly had not been drinking in that particular "beershop" on the night of her murder, as the vast majority of researchers accept was the case? Because a mysterious, unidentified "witness" had approached the police on the evening of 13th and "conclusively proved" (somehow??) that she had been in Ringers' that night. You're not even using a poor source this time; it's a complete non-source!

On the contrary, you are insisting that McCarthy would have mentioned something previously told to him, when questioned by police or at the inquest, without being specifically asked to do so.

So the fault lies, once again, with the rubbish old police, who might have made considerably better progress if only they had the gumption to ask the right questions? In this respect, they were hampered by the stupid, deferential, authority-respecting, cap-doffing, head-bowing, speak-only-when-spoken-to dunce that was McCarthy, who didn't think to volunteer such important information himself, despite being mysteriously able to do so when speaking to the press (according to just you)?

"They didn't ask" seems to be your consistent fail-safe (or rather fail-badly) explanation for every occasion in which the press attributed to a witness a claim not found anywhere in that witness's statement or inquest evidence.

There is no attribution in the second statement to show the “reason” was derived from the first statement.
By attribution we need to read a “therefore”, or “due to the above”, or “because of this”, something that attributes the opinion expressed in the latter sentence to the observation given in the former sentence.

Don't be ridiculous.

What senseless pedantry.

Let's examine the following sentence, and try to resolve whatever "attribution" problems you might still be having:

"Jon relies almost exclusively on long-discredited press tattle to formulate his opinions. There is not the slightest reason to consider his conclusions at all persuasive."

Nobody reading the above two sentences will be in the slightest doubt that the sentiment expressed in the second sentence is at least partially "attributable" to that expressed in the first. The journalists at the Echo - who were evidently better versed in the subtleties of Victorian "attributions" than either of us - clearly detected no ambiguity of expression from the morning papers. The Echo recognised that their morning contemporaries had "attributed" their faith in Hutchinson's veracity to the mistaken impression that Hutchinson's interview corroborated an existing Astrakhan description provided by someone else.

Now, as erroneous as that impression may have been, the rationale behind it is logical, at least. The credibility of an account is obviously bolstered if it can be shown to be supported by other evidence from an entirely independent source; unlike the claim that his assertions were "straightforward and circumstantial", which is a pretty ludicrously stupid reason for putting the "veracity" of an account beyond "question".

They stated that “the authorities” were querying his failure to come forward.

They weren't though, and we know they weren't – this was more guesswork by the Echo.

No, that's more nonsense by you. You have yet to offer even a vaguely credible reason for dismissing the Echo's very well-supported statement.

Proof of this can be recognised by the conclusion of the inquest, where the cries of murder had been addressed yet no resolution towards a time of death had been recognised.

But if there had been no "resolution", how were Hutchinson's claims supposed to lend additional support to the premise that the murder cry/cries signalled the time of death?

Lewis and Prater were physically a lot closer to Kelly's bed than Cox was - a fact which ought to eradicate any great mystery over her failure to hear the cry. Or can you - as a self-confessed supporter of the theory that the "cry" was Kelly's last - suggest a better explanation?

"Check your math"

...s.

Sorry to hear the train ride didn't quite strike on your box, but glad the missus enjoyed it! The scenery looks beautiful in that YouTube clip, although I certainly take your point that you'd need to be more "elevated" to get the most from it.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

I repeat: the only people capable of providing a reliable confirmation that the two Astrakhan accounts came “from the same source” was the police.

And I repeat, the fact the two stories came from the same source was public knowledge.
The drum you are beating is to promote the idea the Echo were in receipt of “inside” information from the Met., which demonstrably is not true.

But he did mention it to the press according to you, remember? He was quite happy to pass on hearsay on that occasion, wasn't he? He didn’t withhold it on the grounds that his mysterious informant would “be giving their own story”, so why would he have reasoned any differently when speaking to the police?

Statements obtained by the press always differ to statements given to police, I can safely assume you already know this. No mystery there.

McCarthy’s expectation (as per your suggestion) that the mystery witness would “be giving their own story” turned out to be misplaced anyway, since nobody gave a statement to the police testifying to Kelly’s presence in Ringers’ pub on the night of her death, and no mention was made of any such sighting at the inquest either. Why not? Almost certainly because nobody had seen Kelly there that night, as the more reliable evidence states.

You have a copy of all the witness statements obtained by police?
All I know of are those used by the Coroner, I don't know of any others that survived, even the Echo reported as many as 53 statements had been given.
Is this another example of you claiming to know something you don't?

But the “licensee” in this case made so such denial.

How do you know?

There was never any question that Kelly had been in there on occasion; just not on that particular night.

The licensee's said this did they? - would you be insisting on this? (bearing in mind what you wrote below).

I think you’ll find the accepted convention is that if you insist a certain “thing” happened, it is incumbent on you to provide evidence to that effect. Your evidence in this case is very weak because it is contradicted by more reliable sources, it did not appear at the inquest, and it amounted to second or third-hand hearsay. There is no onus upon me to “speculate on why something didn’t happen” if you’ve singularly failed to demonstrate that it did.

On the contrary, you are insisting that McCarthy would have mentioned something previously told to him, when questioned by police or at the inquest, without being specifically asked to do so.
That is what the issue is.

Yes, I have.

Yes I most certainly have.

You do know what “attribution” means, I'm sure you do, yet you avoided showing it.

Here we go again, and this time please pay close attention to the terminology used, which I’ll helpfully highlight:

"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" – The Daily News, 14th November

Of course, two separate statements.
There is no attribution in the second statement to show the “reason” was derived from the first statement.
By attribution we need to read a “therefore”, or “due to the above”, or “because of this”, something that attributes the opinion expressed in the latter sentence to the observation given in the former sentence.
What we do have is one observation:
"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”

Followed by another separate statement:
“ There is not the slightest reason to doubt Hutchinson's veracity”.

You claim they are connected, yet not one newspaper attributes the latter to the former.

I provided the reason given for belief in his veracity, it was widely reported:
“....notwithstanding examination and re-examination by the police, the man's story cannot be shaken, and so circumstantial and straightforward were his assertions that the police believe they have at length been placed in possession of facts which will open up a new line of investigation,...”

Without question the only opinion attributed to police as the reason for upholding his veracity is his steadfastness and assertiveness under interrogation, nothing whatsoever to do with the similarity of two published descriptions.

What do you mean “promote”? I was under the impression the papers were there to report the news, rather than “promote” it; and report it they did on 12th November, with no suggestion that her evidence was in any way unreliable or irrelevant.

The press certainly do promote their view of the evidence, but Cox's evidence was not in any way interpreted as of major significance on the evening of the 12th.

Show me where the Echo ever stated, or ever showed the slightest indication of contemplating the possibility, that Hutchinson’s “very reduced importance” had anything remotely to do with Cox’s evidence......

Let me remind you of what you said:
“....No sane police force accords a witness a “very reduced importance” purely because of the existence of another witness ...”

Try to stay on topic, it was the press who came up with the “very reduced importance” not any police.

They stated that “the authorities” were querying his failure to come forward .....

They weren't though, and we know they weren't – this was more guesswork by the Echo.

Because there wasn’t enough “convergence” before, in the form of two independent witnesses hearing a cry of murder at more or less the same time?

Precisely, and for the reason's already explained.
Proof of this can be recognised by the conclusion of the inquest, where the cries of murder had been addressed yet no resolution towards a time of death had been recognised.

In what way does Hutchinson’s evidence assist in pinpointing 3.30-4.00am as the likely time of death, anyway? It detracts from it if anything, considering how unlikely it is that the killer would “wait” for the best part of two hours before attacking. “One or two o’clock in the morning” would work a good deal better for Astrakhan-as-killer, considering that it was only shortly after 2.00am (Bond’s upper estimate) that Hutchinson alleged to have witness Kelly enter the court with Astrakhan.

Check your math, Ben.

Good point; I always shout "murder" when in need of attention.

I wouldn't doubt that for one minute.

Cox’s failure to hear the scream is perfectly explained by her room being situated further away from Kelly’s, whereas Prater and Lewis were situated above and opposite respectively. I have no idea how true it is that “murder” cries “typically” do not involve an actual murder, but in this case it did; in this case, the cry of murder emanated from the direction of the doorway of the woman who actually got murdered.

The broken window(s) faced the direction of Cox's room only some 25-30 ft away. Prater's room was overlooking Dorset St., while only Lewis's faced the open space behind No. 13, none of which tells us where the scream came from, and the police knew this.

Anyway, enjoy your time in the wilderness, Jon, and don’t talk to any strange skunks. I saved a one last year – it had fallen down a well in the Blue Mountains near Georgian Bay. It seemed grateful enough!

You might have been lucky there, though I'll bet the skunk didn't appreciate the gesture.

For us it was a thousand mile round trip drive, up to Sault Ste. Marie and back, and the purpose of the trip was a 228 mile Agawa Canyon train ride.

http://www.agawatrain.com/the-train/

I wasn't impressed, but so long as the wife enjoyed it then – happy wife, happy life, as they say.
If anyone see's a video of the train ride most of it was shot from the air, not from the train – therein lies a clue.

https://youtu.be/7qk6MKZDPd0

[Ben]

No, I managed to get away with it, Abby.

We became aware of a faint whiff of burning tyres coming from a well of sorts, and noticed a little skunk trapped at the bottom. So I slid a branch of a dead tree down at and angle, and then ducked for cover as it scurried up the branch using its claws. I was at the risk of being sprayed by its seven-foot jet of nastiness, but blissfully that didn't happen!

[Abby Normal]

No, the “premise of my scenario” is that only the police were able to confirm, to anyone’s satisfaction, that Central News’ interviewee was the same person who originated the description circulated by the police on the morning of the 13th. If the Central News were suspicious, for any reason, that Hutchinson was just a money/fame-grabber falsely claiming that the Astrakhan description originated with him, I don’t see how seeking “confirmation” from a fellow lodger would have assuaged those suspicions. “What I say is true – just ask the bloke down the pub!” doesn’t generally cut it. What if the “fellow lodger” was in on the scam?

I repeat: the only people capable of providing a reliable confirmation that the two Astrakhan accounts came “from the same source” was the police.



But he did mention it to the press according to you, remember? He was quite happy to pass on hearsay on that occasion, wasn't he? He didn’t withhold it on the grounds that his mysterious informant would “be giving their own story”, so why would he have reasoned any differently when speaking to the police? McCarthy’s expectation (as per your suggestion) that the mystery witness would “be giving their own story” turned out to be misplaced anyway, since nobody gave a statement to the police testifying to Kelly’s presence in Ringers’ pub on the night of her death, and no mention was made of any such sighting at the inquest either. Why not? Almost certainly because nobody had seen Kelly there that night, as the more reliable evidence states.



But the “licensee” in this case made so such denial. There was never any question that Kelly had been in there on occasion; just not on that particular night. I do love the fact that you’re prepared to accept an “anonymous” witness as having told the gospel truth. You’ve done worse than that, in fact; you’ve combined two sources of terrible provenance – both hearsay of unidentified origin, with no sources named – and decided that both equate to “conclusive proof”. You can’t profess a passion for history and still think along these fallacious lines, Jon. It's craziness.



I think you’ll find the accepted convention is that if you insist a certain “thing” happened, it is incumbent on you to provide evidence to that effect. Your evidence in this case is very weak because it is contradicted by more reliable sources, it did not appear at the inquest, and it amounted to second or third-hand hearsay. There is no onus upon me to “speculate on why something didn’t happen” if you’ve singularly failed to demonstrate that it did.



So maybe not supportive, in other words? Neither obscure press report has anything remotely to do with food or digestion, you’ll observe.



Yes, I have.

Yes I most certainly have.

Here we go again, and this time please pay close attention to the terminology used, which I’ll helpfully highlight:

"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" – The Daily News, 14th November

“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” – The Echo – 14th November.

“The slightest reason for doubting (to doubt) Hutchinson’s veracity”. It cannot possibly be coincidence that the two newspapers arrived at virtually identical terminology independently of one another. When the Echo wrote “so it is declared”, they very clearly meant declared by morning paper like the Daily News. The Echo were taking their “morning contemporaries” to task for expressing such a sentiment on the basis of a mistaken impression that Hutchinson’s interview description “agrees with” a separate Astrakhan description. That’s an indisputable fact, Jon, and you can waste your own leisure time pretending otherwise if you want, but I’d take the Canadian wilderness any day of the week.



What do you mean “promote”? I was under the impression the papers were there to report the news, rather than “promote” it; and report it they did on 12th November, with no suggestion that her evidence was in any way unreliable or irrelevant. I’m not sure what mind-reading powers enable you to state that “none of them saw the significance of Cox's statement”, but you certainly don’t provide evidence in that regard. The “significance” was implied by the fact that hers was the last sighting of the victim, in this case in the company of a mysterious stranger. Or do you think “significance” is only invested in cases where it is spelt-out and narrated for no good reason? Would you only have been satisfied if the Echo had written on the 12th: “And this is obviously really, really important because she was murdered, and the person she was with might have been the murderer”? No “investigation” – "later" or otherwise – was required for anyone with half a brain cell to appreciate the potential significance of her account.



What on earth are you talking about?

Show me where the Echo ever stated, or ever showed the slightest indication of contemplating the possibility, that Hutchinson’s “very reduced importance” had anything remotely to do with Cox’s evidence. They stated that “the authorities” were querying his failure to come forward – his credibility, if we’re to avoid beating about the bush; no “interpretation” required. I’ve told you before; you can either accept or reject the Echo report, but don’t pretend it said something it patently did not.



Because there wasn’t enough “convergence” before, in the form of two independent witnesses hearing a cry of murder at more or less the same time? You’re suggesting that without “help” from Hutchinson, there was not enough evidence to infer a likelihood that two mutually corroborative witnesses attesting to a cry of “murder” just might have had something to do with the woman who actually got murdered in the same court?

In what way does Hutchinson’s evidence assist in pinpointing 3.30-4.00am as the likely time of death, anyway? It detracts from it if anything, considering how unlikely it is that the killer would “wait” for the best part of two hours before attacking. “One or two o’clock in the morning” would work a good deal better for Astrakhan-as-killer, considering that it was only shortly after 2.00am (Bond’s upper estimate) that Hutchinson alleged to have witness Kelly enter the court with Astrakhan.



Good point; I always shout "murder" when in need of attention.

Cox’s failure to hear the scream is perfectly explained by her room being situated further away from Kelly’s, whereas Prater and Lewis were situated above and opposite respectively. I have no idea how true it is that “murder” cries “typically” do not involve an actual murder, but in this case it did; in this case, the cry of murder emanated from the direction of the doorway of the woman who actually got murdered.



…Which didn’t happen.

Anyway, enjoy your time in the wilderness, Jon, and don’t talk to any strange skunks. I saved a one last year – it had fallen down a well in the Blue Mountains near Georgian Bay. It seemed grateful enough!

All the best,
Ben

Did it not spray you?

[Ben]

The premise of your scenario being that only the police knew the name of the informer.

No, the “premise of my scenario” is that only the police were able to confirm, to anyone’s satisfaction, that Central News’ interviewee was the same person who originated the description circulated by the police on the morning of the 13th. If the Central News were suspicious, for any reason, that Hutchinson was just a money/fame-grabber falsely claiming that the Astrakhan description originated with him, I don’t see how seeking “confirmation” from a fellow lodger would have assuaged those suspicions. “What I say is true – just ask the bloke down the pub!” doesn’t generally cut it. What if the “fellow lodger” was in on the scam?

I repeat: the only people capable of providing a reliable confirmation that the two Astrakhan accounts came “from the same source” was the police.

“So no need to mention what anyone else said they saw, they'll be giving their own story.”

But he did mention it to the press according to you, remember? He was quite happy to pass on hearsay on that occasion, wasn't he? He didn’t withhold it on the grounds that his mysterious informant would “be giving their own story”, so why would he have reasoned any differently when speaking to the police? McCarthy’s expectation (as per your suggestion) that the mystery witness would “be giving their own story” turned out to be misplaced anyway, since nobody gave a statement to the police testifying to Kelly’s presence in Ringers’ pub on the night of her death, and no mention was made of any such sighting at the inquest either. Why not? Almost certainly because nobody had seen Kelly there that night, as the more reliable evidence states.

“Also, it's not unusual for the licensee of a pub to deny their premises are used by women of low repute.”

But the “licensee” in this case made so such denial. There was never any question that Kelly had been in there on occasion; just not on that particular night. I do love the fact that you’re prepared to accept an “anonymous” witness as having told the gospel truth. You’ve done worse than that, in fact; you’ve combined two sources of terrible provenance – both hearsay of unidentified origin, with no sources named – and decided that both equate to “conclusive proof”. You can’t profess a passion for history and still think along these fallacious lines, Jon. It's craziness.

“You seem to spend an awful lot of time speculating on why something didn't happen. Something that didn't happen, but in your opinion should have, is what is called "negative evidence".”

I think you’ll find the accepted convention is that if you insist a certain “thing” happened, it is incumbent on you to provide evidence to that effect. Your evidence in this case is very weak because it is contradicted by more reliable sources, it did not appear at the inquest, and it amounted to second or third-hand hearsay. There is no onus upon me to “speculate on why something didn’t happen” if you’ve singularly failed to demonstrate that it did.

“Maybe supportive – it cannot be known for certain.
The police/doctors needed to know if the victim had been in any premises that sold food, and an approximate time.”

So maybe not supportive, in other words? Neither obscure press report has anything remotely to do with food or digestion, you’ll observe.

What you have not done is offered a quote which directly states the veracity of the witness was due to the two duplicate descriptions.

Yes, I have.

Yes I most certainly have.

Here we go again, and this time please pay close attention to the terminology used, which I’ll helpfully highlight:

"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" – The Daily News, 14th November

“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” – The Echo – 14th November.

“The slightest reason for doubting (to doubt) Hutchinson’s veracity”. It cannot possibly be coincidence that the two newspapers arrived at virtually identical terminology independently of one another. When the Echo wrote “so it is declared”, they very clearly meant declared by morning paper like the Daily News. The Echo were taking their “morning contemporaries” to task for expressing such a sentiment on the basis of a mistaken impression that Hutchinson’s interview description “agrees with” a separate Astrakhan description. That’s an indisputable fact, Jon, and you can waste your own leisure time pretending otherwise if you want, but I’d take the Canadian wilderness any day of the week.

“The evening press were aware of Cox's evidence on the 12th, yet not one evening paper believed it important enough to promote.”

What do you mean “promote”? I was under the impression the papers were there to report the news, rather than “promote” it; and report it they did on 12th November, with no suggestion that her evidence was in any way unreliable or irrelevant. I’m not sure what mind-reading powers enable you to state that “none of them saw the significance of Cox's statement”, but you certainly don’t provide evidence in that regard. The “significance” was implied by the fact that hers was the last sighting of the victim, in this case in the company of a mysterious stranger. Or do you think “significance” is only invested in cases where it is spelt-out and narrated for no good reason? Would you only have been satisfied if the Echo had written on the 12th: “And this is obviously really, really important because she was murdered, and the person she was with might have been the murderer”? No “investigation” – "later" or otherwise – was required for anyone with half a brain cell to appreciate the potential significance of her account.

“What on earth are you talking about – that is press interpretation not the police.”

What on earth are you talking about?

Show me where the Echo ever stated, or ever showed the slightest indication of contemplating the possibility, that Hutchinson’s “very reduced importance” had anything remotely to do with Cox’s evidence. They stated that “the authorities” were querying his failure to come forward – his credibility, if we’re to avoid beating about the bush; no “interpretation” required. I’ve told you before; you can either accept or reject the Echo report, but don’t pretend it said something it patently did not.

“Once Hutchinson showed up they would see potential for his evidence to align with the reported scream of “murder” - this is what the police need, to see lines of evidence begin to converge on one particular time.”

Because there wasn’t enough “convergence” before, in the form of two independent witnesses hearing a cry of murder at more or less the same time? You’re suggesting that without “help” from Hutchinson, there was not enough evidence to infer a likelihood that two mutually corroborative witnesses attesting to a cry of “murder” just might have had something to do with the woman who actually got murdered in the same court?

In what way does Hutchinson’s evidence assist in pinpointing 3.30-4.00am as the likely time of death, anyway? It detracts from it if anything, considering how unlikely it is that the killer would “wait” for the best part of two hours before attacking. “One or two o’clock in the morning” would work a good deal better for Astrakhan-as-killer, considering that it was only shortly after 2.00am (Bond’s upper estimate) that Hutchinson alleged to have witness Kelly enter the court with Astrakhan.

“for the scream, if the police are acting on the evidence provided by Cox, there was no scream, at least that was what Cox claimed. And if there was, it is the experience of the police that screams of “murder” are not typically associated with an actual murder, it is just a means of getting attention”

Good point; I always shout "murder" when in need of attention.

Cox’s failure to hear the scream is perfectly explained by her room being situated further away from Kelly’s, whereas Prater and Lewis were situated above and opposite respectively. I have no idea how true it is that “murder” cries “typically” do not involve an actual murder, but in this case it did; in this case, the cry of murder emanated from the direction of the doorway of the woman who actually got murdered.

“The importance of the scream only becomes apparent once the police receive information that places the victim, a client, and the scream, at the same place at the same time.”

…Which didn’t happen.

Anyway, enjoy your time in the wilderness, Jon, and don’t talk to any strange skunks. I saved a one last year – it had fallen down a well in the Blue Mountains near Georgian Bay. It seemed grateful enough!

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Correct, and Hutchinson would have responded in the affirmative. But Central News had no way of knowing or confirming that Hutchinson was telling the truth about being the originator of the description “published in the morning papers of that same day”. Only the police did.

The premise of your scenario being that only the police knew the name of the informer.
Not necessarily true.
The informer told the journalist that he had discussed his story with another lodger before going to police. So the police were not the only ones who knew the informers name, and a “secret” can travel faster than common gossip in places like this, any number of lodgers could have shared this revelation, and likely did make the connection.
Public knowledge.

Only if Hutchinson had said “I told no-one”, would your premise be of value.

So who was this mystery witness? Why wasn’t s/he named? How was s/he able to produce “conclusive proof” of their sighting? And how did s/he manage to see Kelly in the pub when the management of same had already informed the police that she had not been drinking there that night? As if the landlady isn't going to notice!

I take it you have an issue with anonymity? - “I'll tell you what I saw but don't use my name”?
Also, it's not unusual for the licensee of a pub to deny their premises are used by women of low repute.

Questioned regarding, Jon, not just “comment on”. The police questioned the people who lived and worked in and around Miller’s Court. They would have entered into dialogue with them, in the same way that the pressmen who supposedly gathered this hearsay evidence from McCarthy would have entered in to a dialogue with him. “When did you last see the deceased alive?”, would have been one obvious question for the police to ask McCarthy, and he would have informed them of the very same thing he told the press (if the latter was accurate); that while he hadn’t seen her for some time,....

You're speculating again.
McCarthy knows what “when did YOU last see her?” means.
It is possible McCarthy knows the person responsible for the claim (if he knew their name), and was also being held in the court being interviewed by police. So no need to mention what anyone else said they saw, they'll be giving their own story.

You seem to spend an awful lot of time speculating on why something didn't happen. Something that didn't happen, but in your opinion should have, is what is called "negative evidence".
When such "negative evidence" comes from one opinion it does not constitute "evidence" at all.
I'm sure you heard that, "Absence of Evidence is not evidence of absence".

But your claim was that the two press reports that you favour are in some way supportive of Bond’s evidence concerning “digestion”. You have yet to explain how so.

Maybe supportive – it cannot be known for certain.
The police/doctors needed to know if the victim had been in any premises that sold food, and an approximate time.

Can you please quote your sources? Different papers arrived at different conclusions for why the police initially endorsed Hutchinson. Some of them reported that it was because of his “circumstantial and straightforward assertions” (because liars are never circumstantial or straightforward, as we all know); while some others were clearly of the erroneous impression that his “veracity” is not doubted because his story corroborated an already existing description involving a man in an Astrakhan coat.

I have no problem with sources, just as you have no problem high-liting any section of that quote and dropping it in the Press Search window. It's easy to find where it came from.
What you have not done is offered a quote which directly states the veracity of the witness was due to the two duplicate descriptions.
No such statement exists because it was not the case.

The investigation - which resulted in Hutchinson’s account receiving a reduced importance - had “turned up the fact” that there was a major question mark over his failure to come forward for three days after the murder.

Something you have convinced yourself of, thats all.

They were aware of her evidence long before they had ever heard of Hutchinson,

The evening press were aware of Cox's evidence on the 12th, yet not one evening paper believed it important enough to promote.
Likewise, of all the morning papers, none of them saw the significance of Cox's statement on the 13th except, the Daily Telegraph. The Echo only jumped on board later in the day (I've been over this before, or didn't you absorb what was written?).
Thus, plenty of time throughout the day for the journalists of the Echo to witness police investigating the Cox story – ie; their “later investigations.”

No sane police force accords a witness a “very reduced importance” purely because of the existence of another witness;

What on earth are you talking about – that is press interpretation not the police.
I wish you would avoid crediting the words used by the press as if they came from the police.

What is there not to be “confident” about?

The police are not confident about Kelly's time of death.

After leaving the inquest the police had no clue when she died, anywhere from 1:00 until after 9:00 am Friday morning.
Once Hutchinson showed up they would see potential for his evidence to align with the reported scream of “murder” - this is what the police need, to see lines of evidence begin to converge on one particular time.

This potential was disrupted when the T.o.D. estimate by Dr. Bond would filter down through the chain of command which effectively points to the previous client – Blotchy, assuming the estimate is accurate.
And, given the reluctance of Dr. Phillips to commit fully to his T.o.D. estimate in the Chapman case, any caution they had may have been justified.
Now they are split between two suspects and potentially, two times of death.

As for the scream, if the police are acting on the evidence provided by Cox, there was no scream, at least that was what Cox claimed. And if there was, it is the experience of the police that screams of “murder” are not typically associated with an actual murder, it is just a means of getting attention.
The police can't hang their hat on the clue of the “scream” in isolation. The importance of the scream only becomes apparent once the police receive information that places the victim, a client, and the scream, at the same place at the same time.

But it is belief based on the evidential assessment, or on highly questionable press reports in your case.

“highly questionable press reports” are the very basis of your “discredited” argument, as I have been at pains to explain over the last several years.


Any response by yourself may or may not be replied to. I'm not ignoring you, just heading off into the Canadian wilderness for a few days.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“The Central News reporter, when sitting down with Hutchinson, will have asked him if he was responsible for the description published in the morning papers of that same day”

Correct, and Hutchinson would have responded in the affirmative. But Central News had no way of knowing or confirming that Hutchinson was telling the truth about being the originator of the description “published in the morning papers of that same day”. Only the police did.

“…so any witnesses located by police after that time who say they saw Kelly in the Ringers Thursday night will not be known by Echo reporters.”

So who was this mystery witness? Why wasn’t s/he named? How was s/he able to produce “conclusive proof” of their sighting? And how did s/he manage to see Kelly in the pub when the management of same had already informed the police that she had not been drinking there that night? As if the landlady isn't going to notice!

“Sugden should have known a witness does not repeat hereasy unless specifically asked to do so. A witness is expected to comment on direct observation”

Questioned regarding, Jon, not just “comment on”. The police questioned the people who lived and worked in and around Miller’s Court. They would have entered into dialogue with them, in the same way that the pressmen who supposedly gathered this hearsay evidence from McCarthy would have entered in to a dialogue with him. “When did you last see the deceased alive?”, would have been one obvious question for the police to ask McCarthy, and he would have informed them of the very same thing he told the press (if the latter was accurate); that while he hadn’t seen her for some time, X or Y witness had apparently seen her in the pub with a man. The police would then have asked who “X or Y witness” was and tracked them down, and well in advance of the inquest. Simple police work of the type that was their professional duty to contact, and yet for some reason, you assert that only the press were capable of extracting the “goods” from these witnesses.

Statement were taken as part of a question and answer session, not a long, continuous recorded monologue, as I've told you before.

“The press report didn't have to mention food, the press wouldn't have known why the inquiries were being made or what questions the police were asking the witness.”

But your claim was that the two press reports that you favour are in some way supportive of Bond’s evidence concerning “digestion”. You have yet to explain how so.

“....notwithstanding examination and re-examination by the police, the man's story cannot be shaken, and so circumstantial and straightforward were his assertions that the police believe they have at length been placed in possession of facts which will open up a new line of investigation,...”

His veracity had nothing to do with the similarity of two descriptions,

Can you please quote your sources? Different papers arrived at different conclusions for why the police initially endorsed Hutchinson. Some of them reported that it was because of his “circumstantial and straightforward assertions” (because liars are never circumstantial or straightforward, as we all know); while some others were clearly of the erroneous impression that his “veracity” is not doubted because his story corroborated an already existing description involving a man in an Astrakhan coat.

“Any later investigation would only have turned up the fact that the police were now pursuing two suspects.”

Not remotely the case.

The investigation - which resulted in Hutchinson’s account receiving a reduced importance - had “turned up the fact” that there was a major question mark over his failure to come forward for three days after the murder. This, believe it or not, related directly to the issue of the witness’s credibility. What’s this “single line of Hutchinson inquiry” that you’re suddenly talking about? There was never any such thing. Where did you get the loopy idea from that the Echo had only just learned of Cox’s evidence, which was never in doubt? They were aware of her evidence long before they had ever heard of Hutchinson, so it's nonsense to claim she had anything remotely to do with the “later investigation” referred to. No sane police force accords a witness a “very reduced importance” purely because of the existence of another witness; in this case, a witness whose evidence doesn’t contradict the first witness’s in the slightest; and in this case, a witness they had known about for donkey’s years.

“The fact they now have two quite different suspects makes it clear to the press that the police are no longer so confident.”

What is there not to be “confident” about?

If Hutchinson’s evidence was not discredited, the sequence of events would have been quite simple: Kelly takes Blotchy home at 11.45pm, gets rid of him in the next couple of hours and ventures out again, this time encountering Hutchinson and (minutes later) Astrakhan man shortly after 2.00am. If the two statements were both true, they don’t contradict or interfere with one another in the slightest; one happened quite some time before the other, that's all. There would not be any credible reason to “reduce” either account in “importance” just because they both exist. That’s insanity. What would be a good reason for such a “reduction”? Well, if one of them was considered potentially bogus, of course. Which is precisely what was reported in Hutchinson’s case.

“Check the papers, there are several examples of erroneous cries of “murder”, just as Prater said, and the police, who have to respond to these false alarms, knew it.”

From which you conclude? What exactly are you trying to convince me of here? That because cries were common, we can dismiss the mutually corroborative evidence of Lewis and Prater concerning of a cry of “murder” that seemed to emanate from the direction of the deceased’s room? That we should listen to Bond instead, and treat his 1.00am time of death as correct? Or are you suggesting that the police wrongly arrived at this conclusion, and that had they been clever enough to figure out that which you’re clever enough to figure out, they have gone with the “murder” cry as the likely time of death – as you do – anyway?

“99% of what we talk about is “belief”…”

But it is belief based on the evidential assessment, or on highly questionable press reports in your case.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

No shortage of false cries of murder in the press, not that every false cry should even gain the attention of a reporter.

- "But," explained Mr. and Mrs. Hewitt in a breath, "the district round here is rather rough, and cries of 'Murder' are of frequent, if not nightly, occurrence in the district."

- The woman shouted "Murder" several times and soon alarmed the neighbours. .....Being taken to Leman-street Police-station, he accounted for his presence in the yard by the fact that he was paying a visit to a friend who is an inhabitant of it.

- Great excitement was created last night about a quarter past nine in Wentworth street, Commercial street, close to Dorset street, by loud cries of "Murder" and "Police" which proceeded from George yard buildings........The mistake, however, was soon explained, and quiet restored in the vicinity.

The police of the time knew this, it was their duty to respond. Prater's cry of "murder" didn't carry much weight without some supporting evidence that a crime took place at that hour.

[Wickerman]

Asked the police?

No Ben, for goodness sakes.
The Central News reporter, when sitting down with Hutchinson, will have asked him if he was responsible for the description published in the morning papers of that same day.

No.

True to form, another assertion you cannot justify.

So what “final conclusion” are you hoping for then, in this case?

The Echo go to press in the afternoon, so any witnesses located by police after that time who say they saw Kelly in the Ringers Thursday night will not be known by Echo reporters.

So he should have come straight to you first, in other words?

Sugden should have known a witness does not repeat hereasy unless specifically asked to do so. A witness is expected to comment on direct observation, what he/she saw, what he/she heard, not what someone told them.
Thats pretty basic.

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.

You say, ....based on what I can't imagine. Certainly not any legal requirement.

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.

The press report didn't have to mention food, the press wouldn't have known why the inquiries were being made or what questions the police were asking the witness.

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.

All conjecture.
We already have the reason for belief in his veracity, here is one example.

“....notwithstanding examination and re-examination by the police, the man's story cannot be shaken, and so circumstantial and straightforward were his assertions that the police believe they have at length been placed in possession of facts which will open up a new line of investigation,...”

His veracity had nothing to do with the similarity of two descriptions, but everything to do with how the police received his assertions and his ability to stick to his story.

The Echo were evidently basing their observations about Hutchinson’s “very reduced importance” on police wisdom ......

Any later investigation would only have turned up the fact that the police were now pursuing two suspects. In the opinion of the Echo for the police to depart from the single Hutchinson line of inquiry, to now dividing their investigation across two equally important lines of inquiry is being interpreted as reduced importance towards Hutchinson's story.
Still sufficiently important to investigate (per 19th Nov. article), but not of singularly prime importance as was first believed.

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

A police station is not private property.

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.

The scenario speaks for itself, when the police are confident about a suspect they do not need an alternate. The fact they now have two quite different suspects makes it clear to the press that the police are no longer so confident.
What the press do not know, is why.
What has caused this sudden turn of events. And the police as usual are not letting on.

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?

Check the papers, there are several examples of erroneous cries of “murder”, just as Prater said, and the police, who have to respond to these false alarms, knew it.
Dr. Bond's estimate warrants police interest in Cox's statement along with their new surprise witness, Hutchinson.

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.

Here we go again ....”it could have, therefore it did!” - sure Ben, if thats the best you can do.

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.

Unless it can be proved, it's a belief.
99% of what we talk about is “belief”, a fact that hasn't sunk into you yet Ben.

[Ben]

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. “

That is correct, Jon, but "divided" and "embarrassed" mean two very different things. There was never any suggestion on the 13th that the police were "divided" over which suspect - Blotchy or Astrakhan - to pursue.

It wasn't as if the two were mutually exclusive.

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.

But not the same "two suspects". The Echo reported on 13th November that the City were still pursuing the man described by witnesses from the "Orange Market", whereas the Met were inclined to investigate the Blotchy suspect. The 19th November Echo article never said a single word about what the police were "looking for", but rather which witness accounts "some" of the authorities continued to invest faith in. Is there are evidence that the remaining "authorities" who continued to endorse Astrakhan had any influence over the direction of the investigation? What evidence is there, for instance, that Astrakhan types were still actively pursued?

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.

...Because the police themselves did not have an answer to that question either, yes.

No indication they are repeating an incorrect 'mantra'. Clearly the Echo are on-board with this belief – they subscribe to it as well.

Clearly not.

Clearly not.

Otherwise, why would they have reported on the previous two consecutive days of reporting that Hutchinson's statement had been "very reduced" in importance and "considerably discounted"? I ask again, why do you think the Echo borrowed more or less the same terminology from their "morning contemporaries" when the latter reported enthusiastically about Hutchinson? To illustrate their folly; to highlight their misunderstanding; to demonstrate, by extension, that they were the better investigative journalists.

Remember that quote from the Echo, 14th November?

"There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity"

"So it is declared", i.e. wrongly, by the morning newspapers, who failed to appreciate that Hutchinson was not corroborating a pre-existing Astrakhan description, as initial appearances might have suggested.

Correct, and nowhere does the Daily News attribute the veracity of the witness to the fact both descriptions agree - two separate issues

No, not "two separate issues". Two very clearly related issues, with one conclusion forming the basis for the other, in the minds of the Daily News. Their erroneous perception that Hutchinson's description "agreed with" someone else's was the primary reason behind their declaration that his "veracity" was not "questioned", as the Echo correctly observed on the 13th.

The fact remains Hutchinson was cleared by Abberline, and the police had no intention of informing the press why he did not come forward

Which part of that is "fact"? Certainly not the second half, because it argues against the contemporary evidence - that the authorities were not satisfied with whatever reason he might have initially provided for his failure to come forward earlier. Believe it or not, and despite what Hollywood might caused you believe, Abberline was not the head of the investigation, and he was certainly not the only policeman capable of expressing an opinion regarding eyewitness evidence.

Regards,
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.

[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

[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.

[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.