The Red Handkerchief...

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
At the very least Abby Normal, this scenario, should not be dismissed out of hand,I do not see Hutchinson as a killer, but more,.. as one scared individual.
Richard

[Abby Normal]

Hi.
The reason Hutchinson was able to determine the colour, was because it was his, and he wanted the police to find that item in Kelly's room, and he could place its ownership onto Mr A..
Regards Richard..

Hi Richard
The red hanky part has always seemed particularily odd to me, even more so since your recent posts and the more I think about it the more I think it might have been Hutch's.

Several possible scenarios occur to me if this is the case:

1. Hutch does see mary out that night. After waiting for her return(Lewis waiting man), she shows up and asks him for money("Huchinson, can you lend me sixpence."). He dosnt have it but offers his hanky in return. she accepts and they retire to her room. Later he realizes he may have left it in her room, and incorporates it into his false story about A man.

2. Hutch doesn't see Mary out that night, goes to her room, but shes preoccupied with blotchy, so he waits until Blotchy leaves (again lewis) then goes to her room and knocks on her door, she answers and then all else follows as same as in #1.

3. Hutch again waits for Blotchy to leave, knocks on her door,but this time she blows him off and he attacks her("oh Murder"). Or he Knocks, gets no answer,peers through the window and sees her passed out and slips his hand through the window and lets himself in and attacks her. Or he is initially blown off by her, waits for her to pass out then sneaks in and kills her. Blotchy long gone in these last two. Later he realizes he may have left it in her room and incorporates into his Aman story.

In scenario 1. and 2. he may or may not be her killer, but if not then he still lies about Aman etc.

In scenario 3. hes her killer, but never offers the hanky in lew of not having money, just thinks he left it there in the course of murdering her.

In all three though the red hanky is his.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
The reason Hutchinson was able to determine the colour, was because it was his, and he wanted the police to find that item in Kelly's room, and he could place its ownership onto Mr A..
Regards Richard..

[harry]

Two oclock in the morning,wheres the red handkerchief.Turn the light out to see it.

[Wickerman]

Yes, let's!

Let's bloody do it, Jon.

Let's have several very repetitive and very protracted Hutchinson debates running at the same time. In fact, next week, when I have a little more time, I'm going to kick-start about four or five more and ensure that not a single one of them has "Wickerman" named as the last poster.

If you think about it a little deeper, you will likely find that the time of day has more to do with it than me having the last word. Most English members are going to bed by the time I get to the computer, on a weekday at least.
But hey, if you want to sit up through the night waiting for my 'last post'.

Can you whistle "The Last Post" Ben?

Doubts which evidently did not prevent Swanson from considering him the most important witness of any to emerge from the Whitechapel investigation,

Where did he say that Ben?
Or is this another assumption?

But your "point of view" is entirely predicated upon Abberline being equally "inadequate" for failing to redress Badham's "inadequacies".

Sometimes I get the impression you are arguing with yourself. You push these conclusions that do not reflect what I wrote at all.
If you had bothered to read my argument, you would know that the statement was deficient compared with today's standards, it may well have been consistent with 19th century policing.

Your "point of view" demands that Abberline forwarded the original statement either knowing it to be inadequate, or without even recognising those inadequacies.

He can't alter it, and he has no cause to keep it.
The statement is filed regardless of any errors or inadequacies - it IS Hutchinson's statement, in all its glory & deficiencies.

No, it isn't.

And stop this "merely" nonsense.

There was nothing remotely "mere" about a signed statement from a brand new and potentially crucial witness. This was the subject of his report, with other "daily" activities being thrown in as incidentals. This is you once again attempting to diminish the value of the statement itself, and hoping for some lost-to-history extra report that explains everything and undiscredits Hutchinson.

That is how you choose to see it, but if that were the case it would begin with Hutchinson, not the Inquest.

Daily Reports were a requirement.
"Every morning at ten o'clock a "morning report" is sent in to Scotland yard by each divisional superintendent, stating the particulars of all crimes within his territory during the preceding twenty four hours. These reports - representing perhaps from sixty to a hundred crimes every morning - are laid before the Assistant Commissioner who has now taken control of the Criminal Department instead of the "Director." "
(This was from early September, pre-Swanson)

I said nothing about Abberline being "suspicious" of anything. Abberline was required to conduct an interrogation even if he harboured no suspicions whatsoever. Even if it all sounded hunky-dory to Abberline, his duty dictated that he should still attempt to find flaws in the story.

"Required to conduct an interrogation"?
So you are coming around to accepting this interrogation?
Earlier you told me he only used the term to impress his superiors, now you tell me he was required to interrogate the witness.

Keep switching horses in mid-stream Ben, and sooner or later you'll fall off.

But as I've explained on an obscene number of occasions already, this counts for absolutely nothing if the "witness" in question is a half-decent liar,

No-one said anything about proving it, all we have is Abberline believing him.
So, an impression is sufficient for him to draw that conclusion, true or false.

I'm afraid that only a very stupid, very inexperienced officer would assert that an absence of a shifty or nervous "temperament" or "attitude" must indicate that the witness is telling the truth.

Arguing with yourself again?
That bit I hi-lited in bold, where do I say that?

David Canter observed that it was "nonsense" to claim that body language and presentation can always tell a liar from a honest person.

David Canter was not around in 1888 to advise Abberline.

The best way to ascertain this, he argues, is by listening to what they actually say – the content rather than the presentation, in other words. Since we have this at our disposal, we’re at no disadvantage when compared to Abberline.

Good grief Ben, Abberline DID listen to Hutchinson, but YOU do not accept that Abberline could have drawn his conclusion from words alone - now you say it the best way???

Previously, you have insisted the story had to be proven, which he had no time to do on Monday night.

So, my question now becomes, is Ben Holm right, or is David Canter right?

I've checked them, and no, they don't support your contention at all, unless you have very funny ideas concerning what is, and isn't, "of importance".

You are being rather vague, my contention was, "Witnesses are not summonsed in order of importance".

Whereas your contention was:
"..the idea that the most important witness would have been withheld from the first “sitting” is quite clearly nonsense".

How important is testimony bearing on time of death?
Both Mrs Long and Albert Cadosch only appeared on day 4 of the Chapman inquest - DAY 4 Ben!
Oh, and Lawende & Levy, the only ones to presumably see Eddowes - DAY 2!

Be honest, you did not check, did you.
Point proven, I take it.

What do you mean "no-one else"? Do you have any idea how many people agree with me that Hutchinson probably told lies?...

Are we getting too anxious Ben?
If you read my point again, slowly this time:

"Ben thinks he has found "lies" told by Hutchinson that no-one else was able to find a hundred or so years ago".

Lies no-one else noticed a hundred years ago!

These so-called "lies" are a modern interpretation, and are due to two causes:
1 - insufficient information (missing data, files, etc.), and
2 - fabrication.

[Ben]

Hi Ben, I had not realized one post was left unfinished, having only replied to the first paragraph...so lets continue.

Yes, let's!

Let's bloody do it, Jon.

Let's have several very repetitive and very protracted Hutchinson debates running at the same time. In fact, next week, when I have a little more time, I'm going to kick-start about four or five more and ensure that not a single one of them has "Wickerman" named as the last poster. It might be considered "childish", and that's probably what it is, but it's the correct and ultimately successful antidote to your omnipresence and monomania concerning Hutchinson.

(If this message comes across as stroppy, you might wish to revisit your posts #1692 and #1693 and wonder if they might have had something to do with it.)

Notable by it's absence is any mention by yourself that Swanson also expressed doubts about the reliability of Lawende's sighting.

Doubts which evidently did not prevent Swanson from considering him the most important witness of any to emerge from the Whitechapel investigation, unless you have evidence of discord between Anderson and Swanson on the value of the Jewish witness who was supposedly the "only" person to get a "good" look at the murderer? Or unless you have an alternative candidate for that witness?

From Stewart's point of view, Hutchinson's statement is entirely inadequate when compared with today's methods.

But your "point of view" is entirely predicated upon Abberline being equally "inadequate" for failing to redress Badham's "inadequacies". Your "point of view" demands that Abberline forwarded the original statement either knowing it to be inadequate, or without even recognising those inadequacies. You completely fail to avoid tarnishing Abberline with the same accusations of incompetence that you level at Badham, but then it's impossible to avoid.

Abberline is merely reporting on his day, and provides the statement as a supplement, then mails it to C.O.

No, it isn't.

And stop this "merely" nonsense.

There was nothing remotely "mere" about a signed statement from a brand new and potentially crucial witness. This was the subject of his report, with other "daily" activities being thrown in as incidentals. This is you once again attempting to diminish the value of the statement itself, and hoping for some lost-to-history extra report that explains everything and undiscredits Hutchinson.

First you tell me it does NOT imply he held suspicions, then you give YOUR reason for the interrogation, that Abberline WAS suspicious - that Hutchinson may be lying!

I said nothing about Abberline being "suspicious" of anything. Abberline was required to conduct an interrogation even if he harboured no suspicions whatsoever. Even if it all sounded hunky-dory to Abberline, his duty dictated that he should still attempt to find flaws in the story.

Even though clinically, we can admit that you cannot truly determine if a witness is lying, an experienced interrogator can come away with the impression (ie; attitude, temperament, body language, disposition) that this witness is being honest.

But as I've explained on an obscene number of occasions already, this counts for absolutely nothing if the "witness" in question is a half-decent liar, as opposed to a lousy one. I'm afraid that only a very stupid, very inexperienced officer would assert that an absence of a shifty or nervous "temperament" or "attitude" must indicate that the witness is telling the truth. Let’s not perpetuate the fallacy that one is always capable of judging from body language whether someone is lying or not. In a recent documentary entitled “Crocodile Tears” - which explored cases of killers “helping the investigation” by going on organized search parties with police and giving tearful interviews to camera - David Canter observed that it was "nonsense" to claim that body language and presentation can always tell a liar from a honest person. The best way to ascertain this, he argues, is by listening to what they actually say – the content rather than the presentation, in other words. Since we have this at our disposal, we’re at no disadvantage when compared to Abberline.

Witnesses are not summonsed in order of importance, you can check that by looking over the extant inquests and noting who appeared and when.

I've checked them, and no, they don't support your contention at all, unless you have very funny ideas concerning what is, and isn't, "of importance". There is absolutely not one glimmer of a possibility that Kennedy's evidence would not have been published either at the inquest or by the police if she was considered the last witness to have seen Kelly alive at 3.00am, as your controversial theory asserts. Even in the frighteningly unlikely event that someone of such perceived importance was deliberately kept for a non-existent "second sitting", there would at least have been a mention of her in the Police Gazette.

Lets not forget, it is not me who is claiming Kennedy HAD to be a witness, it is you who is claiming she SHOULD have been summonsed.

No, it is me who is claiming that Kennedy was rightly excluded from the inquest once she was discovered to have been passing Sarah Lewis's experience off as her own.

Ben thinks he has found "lies" told by Hutchinson that no-one else was able to find a hundred or so years ago, and not even keep them a secret, but have his lies published in the press for all the world to see!!!

What do you mean "no-one else"? Do you have any idea how many people agree with me that Hutchinson probably told lies? I'll give you a subtle hint: it's the majority of people who research the subject. How many people agree with your views on the Kelly murder? Another subtle hint: no-one. So I really wouldn't go down the patronising route; it'll backfire pretty badly. As for the press contradictions, I'm quite sure they were "blatant enough" to be spotted by the police shortly after they were published, and formed the basis for his ultimate discrediting.

Good luck with that Caz, I have been beating Ben over the head with that glaring fact for years now.

And I've been bludgeoning yours with the "glaring fact" that even if the "delay" was not the primary reason for reducing Hutchinson's importance, as they definitely claimed to the Echo, the real reason must have been connected with a loss of faith in Hutchinson's credibility or else they would not have painted him in such a poor light.

All police statements are unsworn. Police investigations do not rely on sworn statements, something the Echo forgot to mention in their eagerness to fire up the imagination of their readers.
And that, after all, is all this journalistic deception is about.

But you haven't even begun to suggest a half-credible motive for "journalistic deception" in the Echo's case, yet alone provide one shred of evidence that it occurred.

It was the description contained within the press story that was copied from the police press release, not his whole story, the police never released that. The 42? points were enumerated between the story and the description, not just the description alone.

No.

Once you take away the copy-and-pasted description that was erroneously thought by some to represent "points of corroboration" repeated to the journalist by Hutchinson himself (thanks for putting us all right on that, Jon!), you're left with significant alternations and embellishments, and what little remains in terms of "corroboration" cannot be described, on anyone's planet, as "impressive".

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“Banging your head against this particular brick wall is not a good look. As Garry and I have taken pains to explain to you, the word 'because' doesn't belong in that sentence. If the police gave this as a reason to 'considerably discount' Hutch's statement, they were clearly fobbing the Echo off.”

It’s hardly an “if”, Caz.

The suggested alternative to the police providing the Echo with this information – whether as a “fob-off” or otherwise – is that Echo themselves invented the detail because they supposedly found it so unfathomable that two witness leads, Cox’s and Hutchinson’s, could be pursued simultaneously. The fatal flaw in this proposal, though, is that the police granted the same newspaper an interview at the Commercial Street police station the following day, i.e. after being made fully aware that the same journalists had brazenly falsified the police position regarding Hutchinson’s evidence. If we do the sensible thing and reject such a palpably absurd scenario, we’re obliged to accept that the police informed the Echo that Hutchinson’s discrediting was due to the late presentation of his evidence, even if it was "disinformation".

I don’t see how it can be suggested that a failure to come forward for three-days is not a “problem” that relates to the witness’s credibility. If an account suffers a “very reduced importance” for that very reason, as claimed by the police to the Echo, what other inference can there be besides the obvious one – that the lateness of the evidence invited suspicion that the story might be bogus?

Even if it was a fob-off – and I totally agree that the “delay” alone cannot have been anything like the most important reason for discarding Hutchinson – the true reason(s) must have been concerned with the witness’s credibility, or else they would not have maligned him publicly. The “honestly mistaken” excuse goes straight out of the window for this reason, along with the suggestion that the police wanted to conceal the faith they still retained in star witness Hutchinson. The subterfuge tactics occasionally adopted by the police to lull the offender into a false sense of security would not have extended to making a genuine, honest witness appear as dodgy and worthless as possible, which is unquestionably the impression created by the Echo on 13th and 14th.

I’m afraid the comparison with Lawende is a flawed one, to my mind. Lawende was merely a passer-by on the other side of the road, who evidently paid the couple scant attention. He didn’t see the woman’s face, and did not know the victim. The reverse is true for Hutchinson on almost every point. He had known Kelly for three years, had seen her on the morning of her murder, and took an unusually active and persistent interest in her movements. He also lived a few hundred yards from the murder site, and would have learned of the murder very shortly after the discovery of the body, unlike Dalston-based Lawende who would have relied on press accounts. A “delay” in the presentation of Hutchinson’s evidence is therefore far more extraordinary then Lawende’s, given the hugely different circumstances.

“Would he really have given Abberline and co the distinct impression that he went no further than the entrance on Dorset St, only to admit to the world and his wife that he had in fact gone right into the court - as he must have done if he murdered Kelly?”

The first option is that he wasn’t the best liar in the world, and it’s a credible option, seeing as nobody has ever suggested otherwise. It’s a bit of fallacy that X or Y suspect/witness can only be a liar if they lied brilliantly. The other is that the risk associated with a failure to mention his little excursion “up” the court – in case anyone spotted it at the time – outweighed the risk of being caught in a contradiction. The advantage of the latter course of action is that he could simply blame any embellishment or contradiction on the interviewing journalist. In the event, of course, the police did spot the contradictions, with the result being Hutchinson’s discrediting as a publicity-seeking witness, without being turned into a suspect.

“If the police seemed to be on the hunt for Blotchy, despite him being seen with Kelly a good two hours before Hutch claimed to see her with a completely different man, I can see how the press may have misinterpreted this as a considerable lessening of the latter's initial importance”

To the point of inventing a bogus reason for that “considerable lessening”? Not if they wanted to continue receiving information from the police. That’s the trouble with the outright invention suggestion; any newspaper resorting to it would inevitably extricate themselves from any potential receipt of information from the police. Quite a bold and risky move, I would have thought; to show their hands as police adversaries, effectively, and all because of their confused assumptions over witness prioritization.

By the way, the “trail growing cold” is not a valid reason for considering any witness less “important”. If the police believed a witness to have seen the real killer, it hardly becomes that witness’s fault that the killer hasn’t been caught. The trail went cold for Lawende too, but that didn’t stop the police from using him to look over Sadler, Grainger and probably Kosminski, instead of Hutchinson, who alleged a far better view and description of the presumed killer than Lawende did.

“And again, unless the police had time to read the papers and notice any glaring contradictions in Hutch's statements, they wouldn't have noticed the papers making up 'audiences' with them at the nick either, or claiming semi-educated guesswork as exclusive inside knowledge.”

There is next to no chance of the police “not having time” to read the papers. On the contrary, the press output would have been very meticulously monitored, as it always is during high-profile investigations. The police evidently did notice the “glaring contradictions in Hutch’s statements", which is why Hutch himself was discredited shortly after they were published. The Echo certainly did not “make up” their visit to the police station, or else they would not have relayed information that was only obtainable from the police, which we know they did.

All the best,
Ben

[harry]

There is a deal of difference between a trained observer,such as a policeman,and a person of the labouring class.
There is no doubt that had a policeman been the witness,instead of Hutchinson, the witness statement,should and would have contained more detail.A policeman would have made notes at the earliest opportunity,on which to refresh his memory.A policeman would have been alerted at the first sighting of Kelly,and this alertness would have increased,when she met and walked back with AM.A policeman would have reported as soon as possible'
So Hutchinson's account can be expected to be inferior,and the exclusion of detail merely one of inexperience on his part.He may have been asked questions he was not able to answer.
What was of the most importance however,is not missing.That is a connection of a victim with a suspect,and evidence of being together in the room in which she was killed.Aberline and Badham cannot be faulted on that.

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben, I had not realized one post was left unfinished, having only replied to the first paragraph...so lets continue.

... an unfortunate by-product of this is a tendency to trivialise genuine sightings of the likely ripper; Lawende’s in particular is pooh-poohed by you all-too-frequently, owing to the not-so-“respectable” appearance of the man he described.

Notable by it's absence is any mention by yourself that Swanson also expressed doubts about the reliability of Lawende's sighting.
Your criticism is only half the story, but that is your intention isn't it, to make it appear I alone make this observation.
I am agreeing with Swanson, not inventing an otherwise unheard of scenario.

No, I’m simply observing that the circumstances under which Sarah Lewis was compelled to provide evidence (i.e. confined within the same court in which the brutal murder of her near neighbour had been committed hour earlier) were not present when Hutchinson came forward, and the latter’s embellishments in no way compare to Lewis’s in terms of detail and quantity.

Just to help me understand your thinking, how/where do you draw the line between extra detail, and embellishments?

Oh, and Lewis attended the inquest and was never discredited, at least not as far as anyone is aware, unlike Hutchinson.

Still attached to that circular argument I see.

Which would make the latter desperately incompetent, and Abberline equally so for forwarding an incomplete and largely worthless document to his superiors. Interesting theory. Badham has become your convenient whipping boy, I notice.

Seeing as how this is an older post, I imagine you have been put straight on that point by now.

It reflects that particular poster’s valuable and knowledgeable opinion with regard to the likely “methods” adopted in 1888, and you do him a great disservice by implying that he offered an entirely irrelevant, non-applicable piece of information.

Isn't this the post you are talking about?

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=335046&postcount=87

And with apologies to Colin, this is the paragraph of concern:
"It's been said many times, but it bears repeating, that a statement taker elicits an account from a witness by means of a series of questions. The Officer then formulates the wording based on the account given and makes a decision as to what needs to be included. There is, therefore, no significance, in terms of his veracity or otherwise, to the fact that Hutchinson's statement doesn't include a description of MJK."

The question then becomes, is this an example of the procedure in use today, or the procedure in use at the time.

Whereas Stewart has remarked:
"Only hard earned experience and many years of development has resulted in the high standard of most witness statements to be found today. They have been honed to a fine art by the knowledge of the possible defences that may be raised, the nature of the evidence as regards relevance and the information needed as a result of case law."

And in summary:
"I guess that the police have now come a long way with their statement taking since those dark, far-off days of 1888,..."

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-witness.html

From Stewart's point of view, Hutchinson's statement is entirely inadequate when compared with today's methods.

And this obviously wrong assertion is based on what knowledge, Jon?

The content, it is superficial.

If the sole purpose of Abberline’s report was to “account for his time”, as per your hilarious suggestion, then why would he forward an original document such as the actual statement of George Hutchinson? Please think about it. All paperwork was fed up the hierarchal chain which, shockingly enough, did not stop at Abberline.

I don't see the problem. Police mail was picked up three (I think) times a day.
Abberline is merely reporting on his day, and provides the statement as a supplement, then mails it to C.O.

The use of the word “interrogate” does NOT imply that he “held suspicions”. It was necessary to interrogate anyone presenting themselves as a witness in order to separate genuine informants from fame-seekers, and since the latter had been particularly prevalent throughout the investigation, it was all the more essential to ensure that Hutchinson did not belong in that category.

First you tell me it does NOT imply he held suspicions, then you give YOUR reason for the interrogation, that Abberline WAS suspicious - that Hutchinson may be lying!
How does that make any sense Ben?
He was interrogated because Abberline had suspicions, it doesn't matter what those suspicions were.

Hutchinson’s claims could only have been accepted on faith.

I do not doubt that in the slightest.
Even though clinically, we can admit that you cannot truly determine if a witness is lying, an experienced interrogator can come away with the impression (ie; attitude, temperament, body language, disposition) that this witness is being honest.

Says you without any evidence, but even if you were right, the idea that the most important witness would have been withheld from the first “sitting” is quite clearly nonsense.

Witnesses are not summonsed in order of importance, you can check that by looking over the extant inquests and noting who appeared and when.

Lets not forget, it is not me who is claiming Kennedy HAD to be a witness, it is you who is claiming she SHOULD have been summonsed.
And, due to the inquest abruptly terminating, we shall never know if Kennedy was slated to appear.
This means your objection is unfounded for lack of information.

[Wickerman]

... If the police gave this as a reason to 'considerably discount' Hutch's statement, they were clearly fobbing the Echo off. They had been aware from the start that it hadn't been made at the inquest, yet they initially considered it an important lead.

Good luck with that Caz, I have been beating Ben over the head with that glaring fact for years now.
The police had already taken his statement, unsworn, and it was seemingly good enough to pass up the chain of command.

All police statements are unsworn. Police investigations do not rely on sworn statements, something the Echo forgot to mention in their eagerness to fire up the imagination of their readers.
And that, after all, is all this journalistic deception is about.

[Wickerman]

I think Caz is pointing out the weakness inherent in Ben's argument. In other words, even if we take Ben's argument at face value....(if we accept a contradiction)....any contradiction was apparently not blatant enough, etc. etc.

Ben seems to want to identify potential lies given by Hutchinson, that only Ben could see, not Abberline, nor any member of the force who reads newspapers.
(point of trivia: There was one person assigned to look through newspapers)

Ben thinks he has found "lies" told by Hutchinson that no-one else was able to find a hundred or so years ago, and not even keep them a secret, but have his lies published in the press for all the world to see!!!


Only in Ben's mind I'm afraid.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Ben,

Banging your head against this particular brick wall is not a good look. As Garry and I have taken pains to explain to you, the word 'because' doesn't belong in that sentence. If the police gave this as a reason to 'considerably discount' Hutch's statement, they were clearly fobbing the Echo off. They had been aware from the start that it hadn't been made at the inquest, yet they initially considered it an important lead. Lawende didn't come forward late – he didn't come forward at all. The police had to go to him, yet this affected his credibility not one whisker. As Garry said, Hutch's lateness could not have been a genuine reason for discounting his story – not even one of the reasons. It was a 'red herring', or 'window dressing', because the police had no intention of giving the Echo any useful information on the subject.

You wrote to Jon:



But not, apparently, a blatant enough contradiction to make the police sit up and take notice. You will no doubt argue that they had no time to scour the newspapers for such things, but why would a guilty Hutch have taken that risk? Would he really have given Abberline and co the distinct impression that he went no further than the entrance on Dorset St, only to admit to the world and his wife that he had in fact gone right into the court - as he must have done if he murdered Kelly? Having pulled the wool so successfully over Abberline's eyes, why would he have gone out of his way to contradict his police statement like that?



I know you fail to see, Ben, but that's your problem, not mine or Jon's. The Echo's cited reason has not only been 'considerably discounted' by Garry and me; this red herring has been blown out of the water. How can Hutch's lateness have had any bearing on his personal credibility, when Lawende's failure to come forward voluntarily most certainly didn't?



Right, so if the Echo didn't dare make things up, or contradict anything said during these alleged conversations with the "authorities", lest the police read all about it and react accordingly, would that not have applied with knobs on to Hutch, if he had killed Kelly and needed the police to believe he could tell a straight story?



Well I think there's evidence in certain newspaper reports that this is precisely what some members of the press couldn't 'get their noggins around'. Sam (Gareth) posted one such article a while back, which had the wrong end of the stick by assuming one witness sighting had been ditched in favour of another, on account of conflicting timings. If the police seemed to be on the hunt for Blotchy, despite him being seen with Kelly a good two hours before Hutch claimed to see her with a completely different man, I can see how the press may have misinterpreted this as a considerable lessening of the latter's initial importance – any story being better than none.



What 'character assassination'? The "problem", assuming there was one, was not with Hutch's evidence being volunteered late. Once again, that was either the police fobbing the Echo off, or the Echo being left to reach their own faulty conclusion. From this tiny piece of non-information, you have invented a problem with Hutch's personal credibility which is not defined in print anywhere outside the narrow confines of modern suspectology. I'm not saying the police secretly carried on considering Hutch an important witness – whatever happened the trail must have gone cold with time, as with Blotchy and all (or almost all) other witness sightings. But concealing information is not quite the same as not revealing it, so if one newspaper report suggested Hutch's suspect was still being sought, while another suggested he had been ditched (and we know there were unresolved inconsistences like this), the police were under no particular obligation to issue corrections or clarifications – assuming they had time to absorb what was being printed of course.



I'm not surprised, when you put it like that. But nobody is suggesting smoke-and-mirror tactics as such (unless you count Garry's 'red herring' dangled in front of the Echo instead of a genuine reason); just a bit of natural discretion over how much the public – via the press - deserved or needed to know. And again, unless the police had time to read the papers and notice any glaring contradictions in Hutch's statements, they wouldn't have noticed the papers making up 'audiences' with them at the nick either, or claiming semi-educated guesswork as exclusive inside knowledge.

Whatever next? A newspaper claiming semi-educated guesswork as exclusive inside knowledge? Shock, horror, gasp.

Love,

Caz
X

hold on a second Caz

But not, apparently, a blatant enough contradiction to make the police sit up and take notice. You will no doubt argue that they had no time to scour the newspapers for such things, but why would a guilty Hutch have taken that risk? Would he really have given Abberline and co the distinct impression that he went no further than the entrance on Dorset St, only to admit to the world and his wife that he had in fact gone right into the court - as he must have done if he murdered Kelly? Having pulled the wool so successfully over Abberline's eyes, why would he have gone out of his way to contradict his police statement like that?

I thought you and wick have been arguing there was no contradiction between Hutchs police and press version? and whos his "wife"?

[caz]

They couldn’t provide a “firm statement” in the absence of proof that Hutchinson fabricated his story, as I’ve explained a great many times. But if the necessary caution exhibited on 13th doesn’t quite do it for you, there is always the much “firmer” statement that appeared in the same newspaper the following day, presumably in light of even later “investigation”, which observed that Hutchinson had been:

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

Hi Ben,

Banging your head against this particular brick wall is not a good look. As Garry and I have taken pains to explain to you, the word 'because' doesn't belong in that sentence. If the police gave this as a reason to 'considerably discount' Hutch's statement, they were clearly fobbing the Echo off. They had been aware from the start that it hadn't been made at the inquest, yet they initially considered it an important lead. Lawende didn't come forward late – he didn't come forward at all. The police had to go to him, yet this affected his credibility not one whisker. As Garry said, Hutch's lateness could not have been a genuine reason for discounting his story – not even one of the reasons. It was a 'red herring', or 'window dressing', because the police had no intention of giving the Echo any useful information on the subject.

You wrote to Jon:

The misinterpretation is all yours, and yours (reassuringly, and as-per-usual) alone, if you think going “to the court” meant he actually went through the Miller’s Court passage. As others have sought to impress upon you, Hutchinson made a clear distinction between “to the court” (outside the entrance on Dorset Street) and “up the court” (entering the court itself). Just read the original statement again:

“I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away”

Are you suggesting that Hutchinson stood inside the court for three quarters of an hour? And what do you mean the press “cleared that up”? Cleared what up? According to press versions of his account, Hutchinson went “up” the court and stood there for “a couple of minutes”. To almost everyone else, this is a blatant contradiction, but do explain why you think the two accounts correlate.

But not, apparently, a blatant enough contradiction to make the police sit up and take notice. You will no doubt argue that they had no time to scour the newspapers for such things, but why would a guilty Hutch have taken that risk? Would he really have given Abberline and co the distinct impression that he went no further than the entrance on Dorset St, only to admit to the world and his wife that he had in fact gone right into the court - as he must have done if he murdered Kelly? Having pulled the wool so successfully over Abberline's eyes, why would he have gone out of his way to contradict his police statement like that?

What the Echo articles do reveal, however, is that the diminished importance was due to doubts about his credibility. If a failure to come forward in time for the inquest is cited as a reason for according a witness a “very reduced importance”, I fail to see how it cannot concern the issue of credibility.

I know you fail to see, Ben, but that's your problem, not mine or Jon's. The Echo's cited reason has not only been 'considerably discounted' by Garry and me; this red herring has been blown out of the water. How can Hutch's lateness have had any bearing on his personal credibility, when Lawende's failure to come forward voluntarily most certainly didn't?

Of one thing we may be certain, and that is that the police informed the Echo – rightly or wrongly - that it was Hutchinson’s late presentation of his evidence that resulted in the reduced importance alluded to. It wasn’t the Echo rushing to their own erroneous assumptions and passing them off as accepted police wisdom, as you’ve recently suggested, or else there wasn’t a hope in hell of the police receiving them the following day at Commercial Street police station, (after they brazenly lied about the opinions of, and actions taken by, the “authorities”), and supplying them with accurate information.

Right, so if the Echo didn't dare make things up, or contradict anything said during these alleged conversations with the "authorities", lest the police read all about it and react accordingly, would that not have applied with knobs on to Hutch, if he had killed Kelly and needed the police to believe he could tell a straight story?

It would also be decidedly odd if the Echo extrapolated from the ongoing Blotchy-hunt that Hutchinson had been ditched, unless they couldn’t get their noggins around the idea of more than one eyewitness account being treated as important, which is extremely unlikely.

Well I think there's evidence in certain newspaper reports that this is precisely what some members of the press couldn't 'get their noggins around'. Sam (Gareth) posted one such article a while back, which had the wrong end of the stick by assuming one witness sighting had been ditched in favour of another, on account of conflicting timings. If the police seemed to be on the hunt for Blotchy, despite him being seen with Kelly a good two hours before Hutch claimed to see her with a completely different man, I can see how the press may have misinterpreted this as a considerable lessening of the latter's initial importance – any story being better than none.

If they secretly considered Hutchinson the star witness but wished to conceal that information for whatever reason, there were surely better ways of going about it than character assassination; inventing a “problem” with Hutchinson’s late evidence and then allowing a newspaper to publish that fictional gripe at the expense of Hutchinson’s credibility. If I was innocent old Hutch in that situation, I’d be ruing my decision to help the police!

What 'character assassination'? The "problem", assuming there was one, was not with Hutch's evidence being volunteered late. Once again, that was either the police fobbing the Echo off, or the Echo being left to reach their own faulty conclusion. From this tiny piece of non-information, you have invented a problem with Hutch's personal credibility which is not defined in print anywhere outside the narrow confines of modern suspectology. I'm not saying the police secretly carried on considering Hutch an important witness – whatever happened the trail must have gone cold with time, as with Blotchy and all (or almost all) other witness sightings. But concealing information is not quite the same as not revealing it, so if one newspaper report suggested Hutch's suspect was still being sought, while another suggested he had been ditched (and we know there were unresolved inconsistences like this), the police were under no particular obligation to issue corrections or clarifications – assuming they had time to absorb what was being printed of course.

No, the modern rejection of the Echo reports seems to rely on the idea of the police resorting to highly irrational smoke-and-mirrors tactics (when the discrediting of yet another bogus witness was no biggie in the grander scheme of things), or the press lying about the decisions taken by the “authorities” and then being inexplicably invited back for another audience with the police. Neither explanation works for me.

I'm not surprised, when you put it like that. But nobody is suggesting smoke-and-mirror tactics as such (unless you count Garry's 'red herring' dangled in front of the Echo instead of a genuine reason); just a bit of natural discretion over how much the public – via the press - deserved or needed to know. And again, unless the police had time to read the papers and notice any glaring contradictions in Hutch's statements, they wouldn't have noticed the papers making up 'audiences' with them at the nick either, or claiming semi-educated guesswork as exclusive inside knowledge.

Whatever next? A newspaper claiming semi-educated guesswork as exclusive inside knowledge? Shock, horror, gasp.

Love,

Caz
X

[DJA]

Gaiters or spats.

Worn both, the latter with a Gordon's Highlander Kilt. Ceremonial kit.

Each hide the buttons on button up boots.Which I've never worn.

Nifty little hook device which is almost essential for both spats and those boots.

Almost an antique these days.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Well, I cheerfully admit defeat on one point at least. It appears that the 14th November press version of Hutchinson’s account had indeed copy and pasted, so to speak, from the police-circulated description that appeared in the papers the previous day. With the exception of “gaiters” being substituted for “spats”, it does appear to be a verbatim quote, and I chastise myself severely for having failed to notice it until now.

That doesn't quite sound right Ben.
It was the description contained within the press story that was copied from the police press release, not his whole story, the police never released that. The 42? points were enumerated between the story and the description, not just the description alone.
That said, I appreciate you taking the time to make a comparison.
Learning something new is always a plus, right Ben