The Red Handkerchief...

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I have no problem with the basic contention that the City police may have had a better relationship with the press than the Met did, but that's a million miles away from the suggestion that the latter force never divulged any case-related information at any point during the Whitechapel murders investigation.

Never?
Care to quote me saying "never"?

What you have read, and in this thread too, was that it is quite conceivable that an underpaid constable may have imparted what he has seen or heard, for the price of a whiskey. And, who knows what exaggerations he could conjure up when he realizes that he could entice from this naive reporter, a second whiskey.

There is more than one issue here.
First is the question, "How reliable was this (hypothetical) information?"
Second, from what source did it transpire?

Without anything by way of evidence, or example, Garry has offered his belief that the press had a source inside Scotland Yard. And yes, it is merely a belief.
"Belief", seems to be the only tool Garry has.

While you, yourself, appear to believe inside information came from the uniform division(s), at the Police Station, and again, it is merely a "belief".

Seeing as how, in every instance that we have discussed, the opinion expressed in print could just as easily been obtained from the streets - as observed by Warren.
Or, in one specific case, Commercial St. confirmed a detail that was already public knowledge, then you have provided no true evidence of the Met. sharing "reliable", "inside", "preferential", case related information to the press.

[Ben]

What you have read, and in this thread too, was that it is quite conceivable that an underpaid constable may have imparted what he has seen or heard, for the price of a whiskey. And, who knows what exaggerations he could conjure up when he realizes that he could entice from this naive reporter, a second whiskey

Ah yes, that was it - it must always be the lowly, downtrodden "constables" who are compelled to "conjure up" and "exaggerate" and basically lie to the press, derailing a manhunt for a mutilating serial killer of woman in the process, and all for the sake of procuring that precious whisky. Meanwhile, the upper police echelons were whiter than white, never succumbing to bribery and never breaking the rules, presumably because they were all very well catered for in the whisky department. It's a well known fact (on Jon's planet, apparently) that the larger the whisky cabinet, the more reduced the chance of that whisky cabinet's owner being a liar. In fact, people who occupy senior positions never break rules - it's only the smelly and disgruntled lower orders.

Please try to cultivate some sort of awareness of just how terribly badly this stuff reads, Jon. You're not an elitist snob, you're not a delusional fantasist, and you're not insane, but you're cornering yourself into such scarily untenable positions - courtesy of your constant embroilment in any Hutchinson debate going - that an unwary and unfamiliar observer might be forgiven for thinking that your arguments betray all of those things.

Yes, we all accept that bribing constables with whisky was one way for the press to extract case-related information, but another, far more common and far more reliable means of extracting such information involved obtaining information from the police at senior detective level, as provably occurred during the course of the investigation. It certainly occurred in the case of the Echo on the subject of Hutchinson, when the police divulged to them that a) the 13th and 14th November accounts proceeded from the same source (a fact that only the police could have confirmed), and that Hutchinson's account had been "considerably discounted" because of his failure to come forward earlier. Would the Echo enjoy a rare audience with the police at the Commercial Street station on the 14th, and then blow any possibility of subsequent visits to $hit by publishing unnecessary and pointless lies about their treatment of a bogus witness?

The answer is obviously no.

Please don't keep wrapping the word "belief" in quotation marks as though you were referencing the comments of a specific poster. It is a fact that the police divulged case-related "inside" information to the press on occasion. Bookmark it if you like, but don't regurgitate the entire contents of the "What the press knew..." thread, as though you seriously anticipate a more positive Hutch-friendly outcome than occurred previously.

[Wickerman]

Ah yes, that was it - it must always be the lowly, downtrodden "constables" who are compelled to "conjure up" and "exaggerate" and basically lie to the press,

So who is the one now suggesting that all constables were honest?

...derailing a manhunt for a mutilating serial killer of woman in the process,

Derailing a manhunt?
Who do you think is conducting this manhunt, the police or the press?

Would the Echo enjoy a rare audience with the police at the Commercial Street station on the 14th, and then blow any possibility of subsequent visits to $hit by publishing unnecessary and pointless lies about their treatment of a bogus witness?

You're correct, the answer is "no", because the audience never happened.

[Pcdunn]

Interesting information, thanks!

It was mentioned previously that this man seen by Hutchinson at 2:00 am, could have been dressed the same on the Sunday morning, where he claimed to see him once again in the market (as stated to the press).
So yes, some of the more detailed points may have been added from the daylight sighting.
It's a possibility, but it is not necessary in order to accept his account.

There are older threads on Casebook where a retired policeman who had taken "hundreds of witness statements" said that the detail offered by Hutchinson is not unusual at all.
Some witnesses are extremely observant, others are not so good. That is only to be expected, we are dealing with people, and everybody is different.
I do not recall any policeman coming on here and contesting that.

There is another point that nobody appears to consider. Sgt Badham was an experienced officer, he would have known the Witness Description form off by heart. This form is very detailed, here is a portion of it.



An experienced officer can ask the witness about those details; eyes, nose, hair, moustache, etc. and the end result will be a very detailed description.
The content is provided by Hutchinson, certainly, but the attention to detail of the list is mostly due to the experience of the interviewing Sergeant, who knows his job.

That look at the Witness Identification Form is fascinating, thank you for sharing it. I wasn't aware that Hutchinson's walk around had succeeded in finding the man he had described (I thought I had read it had failed); but today I just reached a point in Rumbelow's book in which he mentions that the man's description was perhaps that of
"a street trader, somebody Hutchinson knew by sight, if not by name, and giving his description was an act of spiteful resentment or jealousy on his part at the man's sexual friendship with Kelly. This suspect seems to have been identified, and both he and Hutchinson are quickly dropped from the investigation." -- The Complete Jack the Ripper, by Donald Rumbelow, p.105, Virgin paperback, c.2013.

Makes sense to me.

[GUT]

That look at the Witness Identification Form is fascinating, thank you for sharing it. I wasn't aware that Hutchinson's walk around had succeeded in finding the man he had described (I thought I had read it had failed); but today I just reached a point in Rumbelow's book in which he mentions that the man's description was perhaps that of
"a street trader, somebody Hutchinson knew by sight, if not by name, and giving his description was an act of spiteful resentment or jealousy on his part at the man's sexual friendship with Kelly. This suspect seems to have been identified, and both he and Hutchinson are quickly dropped from the investigation." -- The Complete Jack the Ripper, by Donald Rumbelow, p.105, Virgin paperback, c.2013.

Makes sense to me.

G'day Dunny

Does Rumbelow give a reference for that.

[Pcdunn]

G'day Dunny

Does Rumbelow give a reference for that.

Good evening, GUT,

Not specifically, and from the way it is phrased, some of it may be Rumbelow's opinion. However, the bibliography for this book includes "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Source Book" by Evans & Skinner, (Robinson, 2000)-- which, I hear, is highly recommended for newspaper reports and other documentary sources.

[GUT]

Good evening, GUT,

Not specifically, and from the way it is phrased, some of it may be Rumbelow's opinion. However, the bibliography for this book includes "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Source Book" by Evans & Skinner, (Robinson, 2000)-- which, I hear, is highly recommended for newspaper reports and other documentary sources.

I've never noticed it in Source book, but will have another look and Rumbelow has gone walksies.

[Ben]

Hi PCDunn,

I can assure you that not a shred of evidence exists to support the contention that Hutchinson's suspect was found and exonerated, not least because it couldn't possibly have happened. If the "real" Astrakhan ever found himself in police custody, he had no conceivable means of providng an "alibi" for the very uncertain time of death. Could Lewis and Prater prove that the cry of murder occurred at a specific time, and that it definitely signalled the time at which the murder was committed, and that anyone who might have departed the scene before that moment must be innocent? Of course not. It's impossible. Which means that in the scarily unlikely event that Astrakhan was positively identified, he would have earned himself perpetual suspect status in the absence of any proof of guilt and the certain absence of any alibi with which to prove him innocent.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

So who is the one now suggesting that all constables were honest?

Not me.

I'm the one suggesting that it is fallacious to pretend that only those at the lowest end of the police hierarchy were capable of breaking the rules or succumbing to bribery.

You're correct, the answer is "no", because the audience never happened.

So the Echo even lied about visiting the police station?

Because it was so important to them to resort to subterfuge and fabrication over the mundane, boring detail that yet another false "witness" lead had been discredited?

That'll be it. Gotta be.

What bastards.

[Sally]

Wait a minute - what's this?

There is another point that nobody appears to consider. Sgt Badham was an experienced officer, he would have known the Witness Description form off by heart. This form is very detailed, here is a portion of it.
An experienced officer can ask the witness about those details; eyes, nose, hair, moustache, etc. and the end result will be a very detailed description.
The content is provided by Hutchinson, certainly, but the attention to detail of the list is mostly due to the experience of the interviewing Sergeant, who knows his job.

A Witness Description form no less! So, Jon, are you suggesting that Sgt Badham would have led Hutchinson through the Witness Description form?

I'm curious.

[Wickerman]

Hi PCDunn,

I can assure you that not a shred of evidence exists to support the contention that Hutchinson's suspect was found and exonerated, not least because it couldn't possibly have happened.

Personally Ben, I don't think it is PCDunn who needs any "assuring". That would be Don Rumbelow. Why don't you contact him and assure him where he went wrong?
Better still, just ask him what he meant, you never know, he just may know something you don't.

I think you're concerned he just might be referring to the most likely person, the one you hate talking about.

[Pcdunn]

Hello, Ben

Hi PCDunn,

I can assure you that not a shred of evidence exists to support the contention that Hutchinson's suspect was found and exonerated, not least because it couldn't possibly have happened. If the "real" Astrakhan ever found himself in police custody, he had no conceivable means of providng an "alibi" for the very uncertain time of death. Could Lewis and Prater prove that the cry of murder occurred at a specific time, and that it definitely signalled the time at which the murder was committed, and that anyone who might have departed the scene before that moment must be innocent? Of course not. It's impossible. Which means that in the scarily unlikely event that Astrakhan was positively identified, he would have earned himself perpetual suspect status in the absence of any proof of guilt and the certain absence of any alibi with which to prove him innocent.

Regards,
Ben

Hi, Ben,

Thank you for the regards.
I think the facts we know are these: Hutchinson claimed he saw a man with MJK on the last night of her life. He waited awhile before mentioning this man to the police, and offered an amazingly detailed description of him to both the police and the press. Despite initial interest in this supposed suspect, eventually the police discounted the lead and dropped the witness.

Why? Well, only two things could have caused this: either they found the flashily dressed man and he had absolutely nothing to do Miller's Court, which was ascertained to the police's satisfaction -- or they realized Hutchinson was not a good witness and was wasting their time. I don't know why Rumbelow is speculating on the former, rather than the latter, but perhaps he has his reasons.

Best,
Pat D.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I think you're concerned he just might be referring to the most likely person, the one you hate talking about.

I'd be deeply, deeply concerned if Rumbelow ever nailed his colours to your "Isaacstrakhan had an alibi" theory, but fortunately, there is no indication of that happening. I don't "hate" talking about Isaacs, incidentally. I would very much welcome discussion of him as a worthy area of study in his own right. It's when he infests every Hutchinson thread going as some sort of imaginary saviour of Hutchinson's credibility that irritation levels (as distinct from "hate") tend to rise a bit.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi PCDunn,

Why? Well, only two things could have caused this: either they found the flashily dressed man and he had absolutely nothing to do Miller's Court, which was ascertained to the police's satisfaction -- or they realized Hutchinson was not a good witness and was wasting their time.

The latter option has contemporary evidence on its side in the form of a proven communication between the police and certain members of the press. A major objection to the first explanation is that if the police accepted that Hutchinson told the truth about the Astrakhan episode, and later found Astrakhan man himself, there was no means by which the latter could secure an "alibi". There is no evidence that he left after 3.00am - when Hutchinson allegedly departed the scene to embark on mysterious small-hours walkabout - and the alleged cry of "murder" happened very shortly afterwards, making it very unlikely (if not impossible) for Astrakhan to pop out and secure a cast-iron alibi in time for someone else to arrive and kill her, especially given the uncertainty over the time of death.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Just a word of warning for anyone reading this...

The latter option has contemporary evidence on its side in the form of a proven communication between the police and certain members of the press.

Ask to see this "proven communication".

A major objection to the first explanation is that if the police accepted that Hutchinson told the truth about the Astrakhan episode, and later found Astrakhan man himself, there was no means by which the latter could secure an "alibi".

There most certainly is a way for him to have an alibi.
Until he is identified, any potential alibi will have to wait.

There is no evidence that he left after 3.00am - when Hutchinson allegedly departed the scene to embark on mysterious small-hours walkabout - and the alleged cry of "murder" happened very shortly afterwards, making it very unlikely (if not impossible) for Astrakhan to pop out and secure a cast-iron alibi in time for someone else to arrive and kill her, especially given the uncertainty over the time of death.

There is equally no evidence that he stayed after 3:00am, either.

And if Astrachan lived right around the corner, then an alibi is within reach, depending on what time the police accept Kelly to have died.
And that critical time is a detail we do not know.
Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that no alibi could be found.