The Red Handkerchief...

[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

[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

[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.

[harry]

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

[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..

[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,
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

[Wickerman]

The handkerchief was no doubt easily seen due to the lamp on the wall directly adjacent to Millers Court passage.

"Dorset street is a fairly wide thoroughfare, and at night, owing to the lamps in the windows and over the doors of the numerous lodging-houses, it may be described as well-lighted. Miller court is approached by an arched passage not more than three feet wide, which is unlighted, and from this passage open two doors leading into the houses on each side. The house on the left hand side is kept as a chandler's shop by a respectable man named M'Carthy, to whom also belongs the house in the court in which the crime was committed. The court is a very small one, about 30 feet long by 10 broad. On both sides are three or four small houses, cleanly whitewashed up to the first floor windows. The ground floor of the house to the right of this court is used as a store, with a gate entrance, and the upper floors are let off in tenements, as is the case also with M'Carthy's house. Opposite the court is a very large lodging-house, of a somewhat inferior character. This house is well lighted and people hang about it nearly all night. There is another well frequented lodging-house next door to M'Carthy's, and within a yard or two to the entrance to the court is a wall lamp, the light from which is thrown nearly on to the passage."
Irish Times, 10 Nov. 1888.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Are you suggesting that Swanson did not share Anderson’s conviction that the only person to have gained a “good view of the murderer” was the Jewish witness who supposedly identified Kosminski? If so, don’t you consider it slightly odd that Swanson wrote those “marginal” notes in support of that conclusion; alluding to the fact that no ripper-like murder occurred again in London after the suspect’s incarceration? I’m sure you would much prefer Swanson to have written: “All this Kosminski nonsense is irrelevant, despite what my silly boss asserts, since the Jewish witness in question didn’t even see the real ripper, whereas star witness Hutchinson – who we’re mysteriously not using for identification purposes – did.”

But I’m afraid it just didn’t happen that way.

“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.”

Which is far more persuasive argument, Jon, and I agree with it entirely.

But I’m afraid you can’t then argue that it was only the statements that weren’t quite up to it in “olden times” whereas the interrogations conformed to “today’s standards”. Maybe the latter were also “consistent with 19th century policing” but would be considered “deficient” today, just as you suggest occurred with written statements? If you agree with me, as you appear to, that Abberline did not recognise any deficiency with Badham’s statement-taking efforts, then you’ll accept that he had no cause to redress these non-existent deficiencies; which, in turn, neatly accounts for the absence of any juicy Hutch-exonerating bombshells from the report.

“He can't alter it”

No, but he could have used the interrogation to clear up any grey areas or problematic issues with the statement had he detected any, and these “clarifications” would have appeared in the post-interrogation police report.

“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)”

Firstly, the missive sent by Abberline was not a “morning report” – it was a very late evening report. Secondly, the document in question was most assuredly not a list of “the particulars of all crimes within his territory during the preceding twenty four hours”, otherwise it would have been full of other crimes unrelated to the ripper murders: “cat got burgled, policeman got punched, Hutchinson made this statement, idiot got mugged for dressing too flashily etc”. That was clearly not the nature of the report, which was concerned exclusively with the Whitechapel murders investigation.

“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.”

I use “interview” and “interrogate” interchangeably, and only selected the latter in this context because it was the word Abberline used. Yes, I continue to suspect that his choice of expression was governed by a desire to convey a strong impression to his superiors, and not because he treated Hutchinson’s statement with any more scepticism than previous witnesses.

“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.”

Fair enough, just as long as we’re not using Abberline’s impression of Hutchinson’s demeanour as any sort gauge for assessing the latter’s honesty or otherwise. If Hutchinson performed convincingly during this interview/interrogation/chinwag, it was because he was either telling the truth or a half decent liar (as a minimum requirement).

“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.”

Drawing a conclusion is not the same as procuring proof, Jon. Abberline may have concluded, initially, that Hutchinson was telling the truth - ideally on the basis of what Hutchinson said, not how he said it – but he was still a very long way off from proving it accurate. I conclude, on the basis of the evidence, that Hutchinson lied to the police out of self-preservation after he realised he had been seen by Sarah Lewis, but I’m not claiming to have proved it.

“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.”

Your point being what, exactly? Mrs. Kennedy didn’t appear at the Kelly inquest at all, despite the certainty that hers would have been by far the most important eyewitness testimony had it been treated as truthful and accurate. So important would her evidence have been that even if it didn’t appear at the first “sitting”, for whatever reason, the authorities would have ensured that a second “sitting” occurred if only to facilitate the taking of her statement on oath. If they decided to truncate the Eddowes inquest (again, for whatever reason) – as opposed to stretching it out over more than on session – do you think the authorities would have permitted a situation in which Lawende’s evidence did not appear at all? The answer is very obviously no.

“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!”

I’ve read your point again, very slowly, and I’m afraid it is very wrong.

The lies in question were very much “noticed a hundred years ago”, and evidently resulting in Hutchinson being discredited as a publicity or money-seeker; not a particularly unusual or noteworthy phenomenon during the investigation, believe it or not.

“The handkerchief was no doubt easily seen due to the lamp on the wall directly adjacent to Millers Court passage.”

Um, well, I doubt it very much, actually.

“Well-lighted” in comparison to other streets at night-time in Victorian London, perhaps, but it would not be considered so in isolation. Hutchinson claimed to have been standing at the corner of Dorset Street at the time of the alleged hanky sighting; too far away to register the colour red on such a small surface area, in poor lighting conditions, and for such a fleeting moment.

All the best,
Ben

[Rosella]

But Ben, Hutchinson doesn't claim to have been standing at the corner of Dorset St. In his statement he says 'They both went into Dorset St. I followed them. They both stood at the corner of the court for about 3 minutes'.

Then comes the exchange which Hutchinson claimed to have observed and overheard of Mary assuring her client that he would be comfortable, him kissing her and, afterwards giving her his red hanky.

We don't know where Hutchinson was during this exchange. He may have been on the corner, he may have been lurking much nearer, though he probably tried to be inconspicuous, he might have been over the other side of the street. We just don't know.

However, if Hutchinson is to be believed, he must have standing within eye and earshot. After they disappear up Millers Court he says he went to the court to see if he could see them but could not, so he must have been nearby but not in the immediate vicinity if Mary had time to whisk Astrakhan Man indoors.

[caz]

hold on a second Caz

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

Jon has kindly explained for me, Abby, but I would just add that if a cunning murderer had deliberately kept secret from the police that he had been right outside his victim's window the night she was killed, I submit that wild horses and journalists could not have dragged that detail from his lips for the world and his wife to read about over breakfast.

and whos his "wife"?

It's an expression - the world and his wife, meaning the world and the world's wife, as in everyone on the planet.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Hi Harry,

Good observations there. Hutchinson was just a witness and, as Stewart similarly observed in his dissertation, witnesses - not being policemen - often need to be coaxed into providing details they didn't think to include unbidden. Also, many innocent witnesses only come forward after a deal of soul-searching, or not at all, especially if their own presence near a crime scene could compromise them in any way, Blotchy being a prime example if he was an innocent punter or companion of Kelly's.

So there's nothing inherently suspicious about Hutchinson not initially thinking to mention his futile two-minute venture into the court, which produced no new info. Whether Abberline coaxed this detail from him under interrogation, or he only thought to add it for the reporter's benefit, is anyone's guess. Either way, the police saw nothing suspicious about it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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".

It's hardly an "if" here then, Ben. I'll settle for the police fobbing off the Echo with disinformation if you really prefer that to the paper indulging in unaided and illogical guesswork.

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?

Blimey Ben, how many more times? His account did not suffer for 'that very reason'. If it wasn't the Echo making it up as they went along, it was the police fobbing them off with a bogus reason - Garry's 'red herring' of a reason - that was self-evidently no reason at all. Hutch came late with his evidence, while Lawende, and Robert Paul before him, both stayed away until tracked down, yet all three gave what was initially considered to be important evidence, despite its lateness, so it's nonsense to believe this factor subsequently 'invited suspicion' that Hutch's story alone had been invented. If the police subsequently came to doubt his credibility, they didn't say a blessed word to the Echo or anyone else about what had changed between Abberline believing his statement to be true and the authorities in general doubting it.

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.

You're doing it again, Ben. How did the police publicly 'malign' Hutch? He was the one who came late to the party and that was no secret. If, as you prefer, it wasn't the Echo creating impressions of their own, the police merely gave them what everyone already knew. It was the paper's silly fault for thinking the lateness of his evidence would have reduced its initial value overnight from gold to dust.

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.

Ah, so it was an impression 'created by the Echo', that Hutch was 'dodgy and worthless'. As you were then.

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...

And you know all this how?

...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.

Right, so the police spotted that Hutch had omitted to tell them he had been right outside the victim's window that night, but they still never made any connection with Sarah Lewis's lurking man, and automatically presumed this sensational new detail meant he had been nowhere near the scene at all that night, rather than thinking for one tiny second that they ought to investigate such an admission and reassess his claimed status as a mere witness? Do you really think this is a likely scenario, never mind the likeliest?

To the point of inventing a bogus reason for that “considerable lessening”?

Er, it was a bogus reason, Ben. Keep up. Any "considerable lessening" was not due to Hutch's timing, for bleedin' obvious reasons, which Garry and I should not have needed to explain the first time, let alone the twentieth. Let's see if I can make it any simpler for you. Hutch comes forward before the inquest but attends in filthy clothes and smells of rotten cabbages. His evidence is considered truthful and important and enquiries get under way. Not long afterwards the Echo reports that the authorities now consider his evidence to be much less important because he gave it while 'looking like a tramp and humming to high heaven'.

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.

First you have to prove the police did consider Hutch less important, before the trail could go cold, and you lack a valid reason, from an official police source, for this reduction in importance. Hutchinson was no good to the police for identification purposes unless or until a suspect could be found who resembled the man he described with Kelly. Clearly he wouldn't have been able to identify the man Lawende described, while Lawende would have been useless if faced with Hutch's suspect. Even if such a suspect had eventually come to their attention, the police could have done nothing if Hutch had been moving from place to place without keeping them informed. They would hardly have been able to keep tabs on him indefinitely.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

3. Hutch again waits for Blotchy to leave, knocks on her door,but this time she blows him off and he attacks her...

Seems a bit harsh, Abby. (Another problem with British expressions I think.)

Or he is initially blown off by her, waits for her to pass out then sneaks in and kills her.

Even harsher. She passed out because he didn't wash it first, presumably.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Jon,

...I’m sure you would much prefer Swanson to have written: “All this Kosminski nonsense is irrelevant, despite what my silly boss asserts, since the Jewish witness in question didn’t even see the real ripper, whereas star witness Hutchinson – who we’re mysteriously not using for identification purposes – did.”

Why would it be 'mysteriously' Ben? Hutch could only have been used to try and identify the person he described with Kelly. No good if the suspect they were seeking to charge or eliminate was clearly not that man. I do hope you can get your own 'noggin' round the idea that the police could investigate more than one witness sighting, involving different suspects, at the same time.

Love,

Caz
X