The Red Handkerchief...

[Wickerman]

Jon,
There was no ambiguity in your post 1574.It is clear there you infer 'Going to the court',meant Hutchinson went into the court.Pleased to see you no longer see it that way.

No need for ambiguity when the context is readily available.

Police Statement: I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not.
Press Statement: I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not.

Context is explained in the press version:
I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise.

Without the context there is ambiguity, but with the context there is no ambiguity.

[Abby Normal]

Hutch told the press the same story as he told police, the blue section in this post is almost the same as his police statement.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=338604&postcount=1578

If you want to compare both statements line for line, look at this link.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=297301&postcount=536

So he didn't change his story.

Extra detail provided in the press statement clarifies what he meant in his police statement, that he walked up the court.
We know the 45 minute vigil was while he stood out on Dorset St. Even in the press version he says he waited for them to come down again, so clearly he is not inside the court on this vigil.

I really do not see why there is an issue.

Its only an issue for you and your twisted logic, because its clear in both accounts that after his sentence of going to the court-which is into the court in your twisted logic-he stood THERE for 45 minutes.

And you have the gall to patronize me.

Your quotes:

That has to be one of the most amusing objections ever put forward.
"I went to the court" - means he stood outside the entry?

You likely need to look further than the end of your nose.

Heres a suggestion for you Wick. For once, just once, pretend the ripper wasn't your beloved well dressed man and take another look at the evidence with fresh eyes. You might actually come up with a good idea for once.

[martin wilson]

Hi all

I suppose that's the question. If Hutchison had no suspicion he was looking at a murderer, why did he stand outside the court for 45 minutes?
Committing the murder while naked is not a bad theory, after all disrobing (to some extent) to have sex would be familiar to a prostitute.
All the best.

[John G]

Hi,
Common sense suggests, that whoever the man with Kelly was, he was unlikely to have been her killer, unless the act was premeditated ..
Anyone who has the inclination to dress in decent clothing , is not about to cut up a person with knives..
Regards Richard,

Ah, not necessarily so. In respect of the intriguing Wallace murder the police had to explain how the accused, Mr Wallace, could have avoided getting blood on his clothing. They argued that he must have stripped naked to carry out the murder and noted that this was a strategy that has been employed before by murderers. That might also explain the need for a blazing fire!

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Common sense suggests, that whoever the man with Kelly was, he was unlikely to have been her killer, unless the act was premeditated ..
Anyone who has the inclination to dress in decent clothing , is not about to cut up a person with knives..
Regards Richard,

[martin wilson]

Hi all.

'My suspicions were aroused by seeing a man so well dressed, but I had no suspicion he was the murderer.'

'I stood there for three quarters of an hour to see if they came down again but they did not'

Something doesn't make sense here.
All the best.

[harry]

Jon,
There was no ambiguity in your post 1574.It is clear there you infer 'Going to the court',meant Hutchinson went into the court.Pleased to see you no longer see it that way.

[Wickerman]

Well I thought your whole argument was hutch didn't change his story about going into the court, because you said all his statements where consistent with him going into the court?

Hutch told the press the same story as he told police, the blue section in this post is almost the same as his police statement.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=338604&postcount=1578

If you want to compare both statements line for line, look at this link.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=297301&postcount=536

So he didn't change his story.

Extra detail provided in the press statement clarifies what he meant in his police statement, that he walked up the court.
We know the 45 minute vigil was while he stood out on Dorset St. Even in the press version he says he waited for them to come down again, so clearly he is not inside the court on this vigil.

I really do not see why there is an issue.

[Abby Normal]

No, no need to connect the latter with the former.

Well I thought your whole argument was hutch didn't change his story about going into the court, because you said all his statements where consistent with him going into the court?

[Wickerman]

I’m talking about police leaks and clandestine disclosures that happen all the time over the course of your average investigation, quite contrary to your startling declaration that it never happened at any stage during the ripper investigation.

Why don't you read what Sugden had to say about it.
"The attitude of the police to the press, moreover, exacerbated the already strained relationship between the two. On the part of the police it implied mistrust which the responsible press found galling. And journalists, unable to satisfy their inquiries at the police stations, were reduced to all manner of dubious practices in order to fill their columns - trying to loosen the tongues of police constables with drink and bribes, shadowing detectives to discover and interview their witnesses, scavenging gossip, and hearsay about the streets and, of course, romancing shamelessly."
Sugden, p 75.

Isn't that just what I have been trying to impress on you for years now, it isn't just me. It is blindingly obvious to anyone who studies the press.

For crying out loud, Jon, the reason the police didn’t publish the Cox description themselves was because they knew full well that virtually every newspaper had already published their coverage of the inquest, which included a full description of the Blotchy suspect.

Interesting, so why the delay?
You keep raising the issue of the "delay" with Hutchinson coming forward, yet the police interviewed Mary Cox on Friday, so they obtained Blotchy's description on Friday, yet they waited four days, until Tuesday for the press to publish this description as a result of the inquest?

Why the delay?
In your opinion, the police did not publish Blotchy's description because...four days down the line the inquest coverage will do it for us?, .....geeze, we can save 2d on printed space - wow!
Really, Ben....

This is infuriating nonsense.

To you maybe, but you are not a detective working on the case. This is precisely what they would do.

Nope, it was due to the fact that he was discredited as a time-waster and never considered in the capacity of suspect.

Ah, the Circular Argument again.
It must be so, because the press said it is so.
(Hint - Sugden)

I double-dare you to repeat the “automatic suspect” argument – go on!

Anytime it is necessary - you know there is nothing to be gained by you daring me. Whatever and whenever, it will be done.

Says you, but according to what evidence? And how is it realistically possible to turn “pale” into its polar opposite, “dark”, by pure accident? And don’t you think it’s an interesting coincidence that the very same “errors” – which, according to you, were “not Hutchinson’s fault” – also appeared the next day in the report of Hutchinson’s interview with a press agency journalist?

What do you mean?
Are you suggesting the description published on the 13th came directly from Hutchinson? - I hope not.

The detail included within the press version of his story on the 14th is like a 'cut and paste' of what was published on the 13th.

.... why, if Hutchinson had visited Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning and had seen the same suspect again, did he mention nothing of the episode to the police?

Here's a hint.
Take a look at the police statement by Sarah Lewis.
Now compare that with the extended version she gave at the inquest.
Then go away and figure out by yourself how she came up with the extra detail.
Was she lying in her police statement?
According to your version of logic she must have been, otherwise she would have given every single detail the first time around.

Of course, there could be a very reasonable and logical explanation why the latter statement is more complete than the former. Take your time Ben, I will not rush you.

So, let me attempt to get my head around what you’re suggesting here:

If you have a home and work address, you’re free to do as you please, regardless of how suspicious you might otherwise appear.

You really do not know how the police operated at the time do you.

All you have to take on board is that police information gets leaked to the press occasionally, particularly in high-profile investigations. Everyone agrees with me on that score. Nobody agrees with you. Sorry to have to play that card again, but come on, it must tell you something.

Nobody, except Sugden?
More people than you think, but most do not enjoy mindless argy-bargy which goes nowhere - me, I'm different, I find it entertaining.

You suggest that the latter paper gained their information from the streets, but then that was your excuse for dismissing the Echo’s claim with regard to the loss of interest in Hutchinson. “It’s probably false because it came from the streets”, says Jon of the Echo, but then “it’s probably true because it came from the streets”, says Jon if the IPN. You are awash with inconsistency.

Why don't you quote me, then you might get it right.
Press opinion is false because the police tell them nothing.
Reporters get their info from the streets, ..do us both a favor, just re-read what Sugden wrote - then commit it to memory.

The relevant point, which you keep trying to bury in more and more rubble, is that the police imparted accurate information to the Echo after receiving them at Commercial Street police station.

No matter how often you repeat it, you will not make it true.
This kind of assertion can be proven by a detailed quote, so easy when you have one. Your problem is, you don't, and you never will, because this is all in your mind.

The "morning papers" are the ones declaring that there is not the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity, despite the fact the police had "considerably discounted" Hutchinson's statement "because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner".

The "morning papers" is a reference to the Daily News, which wrote:
"It will be observed that the description of the supposed murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police, and published yesterday morning. There is not the slightest reason to doubt Hutchinson's veracity, and it is therefore highly probable that at length the police are in possession of a reliable description of the murderer."

No mention of police opinion, or anything being discounted by police. That snippet was embedded by the Echo, within a paragraph taken from the Daily News.

[Garry Wroe]

The extra details provoke an obvious question. The policeman he saw in Commercial street. If he had suspicions about the man then why didn't he report them to the policeman?

That's the issue, Martin. Hutchinson claimed not to have been suspicious of Astrakhan. His interest, he asserted, was stimulated because the obviously well-heeled Astrakhan looked out of place consorting with Kelly.

[Garry Wroe]

It was never 'explained' Harry.
The comment is ambiguous, it could be taken either way. It is encouraging to see that you at least acknowledge this.
I did ask why no-one was prepared to accept the meaning is not exclusive, but as is typical, no-one wanted to admit it could be taken either way.

There's a simple reason why your assertion gained little to no traction. Hutchinson not only provided a police statement, he was questioned prior to pen going to paper. On top of this he was 'interrogated' by Abberline. Had there been any suggestion that he'd stood directly outside Kelly's room we'd know about it. Any even semi-competent investigator would have sought to determine whether he'd noticed any light or sound emanating from the room. He would have been asked if he'd seen or heard anyone else in the court. Any number of questions would have required answers. Yet we have nothing. Not a single reference to Hutchinson having been within touching distance of what had already become the most notorious murder scene in British criminal history.

You either do not understand the nature of a police witness statement or are disregarding reality in order to sustain an unsustainable assertion. The simple fact of the matter is that Hutchinson's police statement was a written account detailing a continuous sequence of events pertaining to the death of Mary Jane Kelly. Had Hutchinson mentioned being outside her room at a time critical to her death, such a claim would, by necessity, have been included in the statement.

Odds-on you'll dispute even this glaring reality.

[Wickerman]

The extra details provoke an obvious question. The policeman he saw in Commercial street. If he had suspicions about the man then why didn't he report them to the policeman?
All the best.

Policemen were on Point Duty at the Market, they are not supposed to leave their post.

The Constable may have suggested he go to the police station, but he may not have been able to. It is quite possible that Hutchinson was working at the market, he was after all an unemployed laborer.
He can't run off at a moments notice and leave his job, so by the end of the day he likely thought there is no point anymore.

Who knows, we can only speculate.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wicky
So is your interpretation that hutch stood inside Millers court, near Mary's apartment, for 45 minutes, when he describes his "waiting for them to come out " vigil?

No, no need to connect the latter with the former.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman,
I thought this going to business had been explained.For instance, I might say I went to my friend's house last night.Might be we sat in the garden and had a drink,but doesn't mean I had to go into the house to legitimise the expression.It's an ambiguous statement.Going to the court does not mean Hutchinson had to enter.It explains what happened after he left the corner of Dorset Street.He could have said he was at Crossingham's.Didn't mean he had to be inside Crossingham's.

It was never 'explained' Harry.
The comment is ambiguous, it could be taken either way. It is encouraging to see that you at least acknowledge this.
I did ask why no-one was prepared to accept the meaning is not exclusive, but as is typical, no-one wanted to admit it could be taken either way.

Hutchinson does clarify what he meant in the press statement. He first repeats what he told police, "I went to the court" - which could have two meanings - then presumably in response to a question he expands on this to the reporter, that he went up the court to see if he could see or hear anything.

What is astonishing to me is that someone would try to use this as an excuse to claim he changed his story.
Are some people that desperate to incriminate him that they will manipulate common English?