The Red Handkerchief...

[Garry Wroe]

I ought to have clarified that I don't believe for a moment that Hutchinson's three-day "delay" in coming forward was the only reason for his account receiving a "very reduced importance", and not do I doubt that the "later investigations" alluded to in the Echo uncovered additional reasons for doubting his credibility. The only reason I've continued to stress the "late appearance" angle to Jon and chums is to illustrate the fact that whatever circumstances were ultimately responsible for Hutchinson's statement being "considerably discounted", they related directly to his credibility, as opposed to some of the more nonsensical "reasons" we've seen doing the rounds, such as "date confusion" or Bond's time of death being favoured to the exclusion of all other evidence.

I didn't doubt it for a moment, Ben. The problem with the Hutchinson threads over the last few years is that they have been permeated by oddball ideas which not only distract from the real issues, they can also prove misleading to some of the newer posters. Anyway, keep up the good work. Common sense will prevail in the end.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Sorry for the late reply.

“You like to think so, that is evident. Though apart from your irrepressible desire to make it so, there is not one shred of evidence that the Echo obtained anything beyond a brush-off from the Met. police.”

A “brush-off” in the sense that the police did not divulge the full details to Echo, perhaps, but they at least imparted the crucial information that it was doubts surrounding Hutchinson’s credibility that lay at the heart of their decision to attach only a “very reduced importance” to his account. If the police wanted to deter the Echo completely, they had only to turn them away at the entrance to the Commercial Street police station. They had no obligation to go through the rigmarole of inviting the Echo in and supplying them with dangerously misleading information regarding the direction of the investigation. If your fantasy world were a reality, and the Met never divulged any case-related information to the police at any stage during the investigation, the police need only have slammed the door in the face of the Echo’s journalists, and yet that obviously didn’t happen.

“Swearing to your statement does not make it true.”

I’m aware of that, but on the other hand, if a witness comes forward three days late and conveniently soon after the termination of the inquest, it begs a good explanation, and unfortunately for Hutchinson’s perceived credibility, it appears that “later investigations” conducted by the “authorities” had undermined or negated whatever “explanation” Hutchinson might initially have provided. I do hope you’re not repeating the fallacy that all eyewitness evidence should be accorded equal credibility, irrespective of its source. According to that “logic”, Lawende is on a par with the third-hand hearsay offerings of some woman who might have been called “Sarah Roney”, for instance.

(Jon thinks the latter is the more likely of the two to have seen the actual ripper, by the way – no, seriously, he does!)

“No point in telling the constable that, not when half the men in the East End look shabby. How old was this Blotchy, 20, 30 40 50?
And how many men had dirty brown hair, drink-sodden complexion, and a moustache?”

The police do not simply abandon their search for a suspect just because his appearance might fit many others. The man was described as being about 36 years old, 5ft 5ins tall with a fresh complexion and blotches on his face. He had small side-whiskers, a thick, carroty moustache and dressed in shabby dark clothes, dark overcoat and a black felt hat. That’s pretty detailed as far as non-discredited witness descriptions go – far more detailed than Lawende’s in the facial department. Are you claiming that the search for Lawende’s suspect was also abandoned for the same reason?

“But, at the same time watering down your "discredited" theory by now saying they didn't totally dismiss his story.”

I’m saying that they couldn’t PROVE IT FALSE, Jon. That’s all.

I totally dismiss the theory that Sir William Gull was the ripper, but I’m in no position to prove him totally innocent as I’m not in possession of any such proof. The difference is an important one, and shouldn’t be too problematic to grasp.

“Packer changed his story, first he saw nobody, and nothing. Then he saw somebody, and something. Plus, his times were all over the place.”

But worst of all was his failure to describe the sort of expensively-dressed black-bag carrying ghoul that Jon so desperately wants Jack the Ripper to have been. I think that’s where he really slipped up, don’t you? In reality, of course, Hutchinson was no less discredited than Packer, and just like the greengrocer, Hutchinson’s story contained numerous contradictions and embellishments between his police and press statements. If anything, Packer fares just that bit better inasmuch as he was at least proven to have been where he said he was at the time, unlike Hutchinson.

“I've addressed this diversion before, it failed then just as it fails now.”

I know you’ve “addressed” it, and I've "addressed" your very bad attempt to "address" it. In fact, if repetition seems to be something you enjoy, I may as well just repeat myself verbatim:

Unless the police were able to rule out the possibility of Mrs. Schwartz being wrong in her estimation of the time, asleep, or covering up for her husband, she would have been a pretty poor alibi-provider for Schwartz. I love the idea that Harris, Levy, and Lawende providing alibis for each other. I wonder if Fred West ever provided an “alibi” for Rose? (No, I’m not suggesting any of these men were involved. I’m highlighting the senselessness of arguing that they “alibi” each other). It doesn’t matter if Violenia wasn’t the man seen by Long – it is quite clear that the police did not especially cling to Long’s man as a likely killer, or even accept that Long was correct in her estimation of the time.

I will be revisiting this point every single time I catch you talking nonsense about Hutchinson becoming an “automatic suspect”. I just hope you’re as anxious to have duplicate arguments on multiple threads as I am.

“Why even mention it?”

Because you were trying, without success, to demonstrate that the IPN was in possession of accurate police information regarding the imaginary ongoing search for the Astrakhan suspect. There is no evidence of any active pursuit of Astrakhan after mid-November. If you’re capable of demonstrating that actual investigation continued after that stage, that would be a start, but don’t even think about quoting from the 19th November Echo edition again, which merely tells us that some unnamed, unknown, and evidently uninfluential policemen still wondered if the real Jack the Ripper went around with a tightly grasped black parcel, dark eyelashes and a devilish horseshoe tie-pin.

“Why then vaguely use "the authorities"?”

They didn’t. They obtained their information “on inquiry at Commercial Street police station”, which I somehow doubt means they asked Abberline’s pet lizard.

Regards,
Ben

[John G]

Hi Ben,

In my opinion the reference to going up the court, in the press report, coupled with the mention of not seeing any light or hearing any noise, might suggest that he was virtually standing directly outside Kelly's lodgings. In contrast, the less dramatic official police version of "I then went to the court to see if I could see them, but I could not", could mean that he didn't even enter the court, but merely waited on the fringes. That is one reason why I would contend that the press version was more dramatic and may have been elaborated; that could also help explain Hutchinson's "reduced importance", i.e if the Police believed that he was exaggerating his evidence, thus undermining his credibility as a witness. As, of course, could Hutchinson's failure to identify anyone resembling Astrakhan, despite the police's best efforts. I would suggest that what appeared initially to seem like a very promising lead probably just gradually fizzled out, just like Blotchy, resulting in both Hutchinson and Cox disappearing from the enquiry.

[Ben]

Hi JohnG,

As Abby points out, it is more than likely that Hutchinson's press embellishments played a part in his ultimate discrediting, and probably a significant one. The very act of communicating with the Central News reporter on 13th was probably against the wishes of the police too. It is doubtful, however, that the police were concerned about the suspect fleeing or "radically altering his appearance", or else they would not have informed the press themselves about the Astrakhan description. It will be remembered that prior to Hutchinson's own consultation with a journalist, the police had engineered the press circulation of Hutchinson's description, albeit without his name or any further details being included. They cannot, therefore, have harboured any serious concern that Hutchinson's behaviour had thwarted the hunt for his suspect.

Even if they were "annoyed" at Hutchinson for communicating with the press, that would not have been adequate grounds for abandoning the Astrakhan hunt altogether. If they trusted his account, the suspect was still out there to be found, and Hutchinson would have remained the best witness the police had; far better that any of the Jewish witnesses, who were used to identity later suspects, in preference to Hutchinson (significantly).

No, something led the police to believe that Hutchinson's suspect didn't even exist, and that something was almost certainly a conclusion that Hutchinson was probably just another time-wasting publicity-seeker.

It would strike me as very odd for a news agency journalist to fabricate details of Hutchinson's account and description, especially if it was already pretty sensational in terms of detail, and I don't see how the differences in the press versions necessarily make his account more "dramatic". On the other hand, Hutchinson's "very reduced importance", coupled with a complete absence from any report or memoir addressing the subject of eyewitnesses, would appear to tally perfectly with the alternative - and frankly more likely - explanation that Hutchinson himself was responsible for the embellishments.

I suspect Sarah Lewis was terrified, deprived of sleep, and detained within an enclosure in which the most brutal mutilation murder London had ever witnessed had just occurred. I further suspect that these factors, as opposed to an over-eagerness to "please", were responsible for the discrepancy you mention. It's difficult to see how the former circumstances could have applied to Hutchinson.

Regards,
Ben

P.S. Sugden argued that Astrakhan man resembled Klosowski, and that they may have been one and the same. This view is not a popular one these days, and that is to understate matters greatly.

[John G]

Hi Abby,

Stewart Evans, in his dissertation, argues that the elaborated press version of Hutchinson's account might have been the responsibility of the newspaper, rather than Hutchinson, to make the story seem dramatic. Thus, in the press version Hutchinson is described as going up the court, and it is stated that he saw no light in the house and heard no noise. This is in contrast to the official police report, where he is reported as simply saying "I then went to the court to see if I could see them but I 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."

It is also worth noting that Sarah Lewis also altered her statement. In her first written statement she said: " When I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset Street...but I cannot describe him". However, in her inquest statement she states:"He was not tall-but stout-he had on a black wideawake hat." Isn't this an example of another witness who is, perhaps, a little too eager to please?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Harry and JohnG
Agree.
Ive often felt that Hutch going to the press might have been a factor in his diminuation as a credible witness. It may given the police the impression he was just an attention seeker and looking for a quick buck, especially if he brought up payment for his walkabouts.

Compounded to that is that in his press account he now says he stood outside her apartment, a significant change to the story.

[harry]

Another way to look at it is this.If Hutchinson did go to the press against police wishes,and in the process,as we know, changed or elaborated on his statement to the police,then would not the police have become suspicious of him? As some of us do.

[John G]

Hi Garry,

I ought to have clarified that I don't believe for a moment that Hutchinson's three-day "delay" in coming forward was the only reason for his account receiving a "very reduced importance", and not do I doubt that the "later investigations" alluded to in the Echo uncovered additional reasons for doubting his credibility. The only reason I've continued to stress the "late appearance" angle to Jon and chums is to illustrate the fact that whatever circumstances were ultimately responsible for Hutchinson's statement being "considerably discounted", they related directly to his credibility, as opposed to some of the more nonsensical "reasons" we've seen doing the rounds, such as "date confusion" or Bond's time of death being favoured to the exclusion of all other evidence.

I share your view that Hutchinson might have slipped up when accompanying detectives on a search for the Astrakhan man, and that his press disclosures - specifically his claim regarding the Sunday policeman - might have undermined his credibility in the minds of the police. But if nothing else, the Echo's allusion to Hutchinson's late appearance - as a damning point, in the minds of the "authorities" - demonstrates that it was doubts over Hutchinson's credibility that formed the basis for his discrediting, as opposed to any of the far-fetched "reasons" that occasionally get aired.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

Philip Sugden in his book, seemed to believe Hutcinson's story. This is an interesting quote, regarding Hutchinson's decision to go the press: "We cannot tell because the police records have almost all been lost. But the CID view at the time seems to have been that it blighted Abberline's efforts to trace the suspect alerting him to the hunt and perhaps encouraging him to change his appearance." (Sugden, 2002) Could it therefore be possible that the police lost confidence in him because, by going to the press, they believed that he had undermined their efforts to find the suspect, and assumed that the alerted suspect would either of fled the locality or radically changed his appearance? This annoyance towards Hutchinson may have been compounded if they had specifically asked him not to go to the press.

[Ben]

Hi Garry,

I ought to have clarified that I don't believe for a moment that Hutchinson's three-day "delay" in coming forward was the only reason for his account receiving a "very reduced importance", and not do I doubt that the "later investigations" alluded to in the Echo uncovered additional reasons for doubting his credibility. The only reason I've continued to stress the "late appearance" angle to Jon and chums is to illustrate the fact that whatever circumstances were ultimately responsible for Hutchinson's statement being "considerably discounted", they related directly to his credibility, as opposed to some of the more nonsensical "reasons" we've seen doing the rounds, such as "date confusion" or Bond's time of death being favoured to the exclusion of all other evidence.

I share your view that Hutchinson might have slipped up when accompanying detectives on a search for the Astrakhan man, and that his press disclosures - specifically his claim regarding the Sunday policeman - might have undermined his credibility in the minds of the police. But if nothing else, the Echo's allusion to Hutchinson's late appearance - as a damning point, in the minds of the "authorities" - demonstrates that it was doubts over Hutchinson's credibility that formed the basis for his discrediting, as opposed to any of the far-fetched "reasons" that occasionally get aired.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

The timeline certainly appears suggestive of such, Abby.

I would consider that doubtful.

The accompanying detectives would certainly have attempted to elicit additional information, Abby. It would have been done in a subtle, friendly and non-confrontational manner. Perhaps Hutchinson said a little too much and gave himself away.

Oh, no, Abby. The delay in his coming forward is at best strange, and at worst suspicious. Remember, though, that Abberline would have questioned him closely on the issue and appeared to have been satisfied with Hutchinson's explanation. The point I was trying to make is that investigators would never have jettisoned a crucially important witness on the basis of the witness's failure to come forward as soon as he might have done. Lawende is a perfect example of such. This being the case, the 'late arrival' explanation for Hutchinson's diminution was merely window dressing. There must have been far more compelling reasons behind the police decision to sideline him.

So, yes, I think it more than possible that the detectives on walkabout would have gently broached the subject of Hutchinson's late appearance. My feeling is that this was the point at which Hutchinson mentioned the Sunday policeman. He perhaps attempted to excuse the delay in his coming forward with the claim that he'd informed a policeman of the Astrakhan episode. This would have been new information that could have been checked against a duty roster, thereby identifying a specific officer who would have been questioned. If that questioning revealed that Hutchinson had lied, he and his story would have been subjected to a rapid and rigorous reassessment.

I mention the Sunday policeman for one very good reason. Hutchinson neglected to reference him in his witness statement, and Abberline failed to note him in his summary report. The first we hear of him is in the newspaper reports several days after Hutchinson first presented himself at Commercial Street Police Station. To my mind this bears the hallmark of an afterthought - something introduced by Hutchinson to justify his failure to come forward. If so, then it may well be catalyst that resulted his fall from grace.

Thanks for the response Garry. Good post-I agree.

[Garry Wroe]

I too believe that hutchs diminished importance as a credible witness by the police probably came as a result of his walkabouts with them.

The timeline certainly appears suggestive of such, Abby.

It may have been that after two fruitless searches would in itself have been enough.

I would consider that doubtful.

But most probably it was that plus something Hutch said. two walkabouts is ALOT of time and opportunity for talking and explanation by hutch-a lot of rope for him to hang himself so to speak.

The accompanying detectives would certainly have attempted to elicit additional information, Abby. It would have been done in a subtle, friendly and non-confrontational manner. Perhaps Hutchinson said a little too much and gave himself away.

I know you downplay his late appearance to come forward as a reason-but could it have possibly been his explanation to the detectives why he came forward late during their walkabout that was the main reason for his discrediting?

Oh, no, Abby. The delay in his coming forward is at best strange, and at worst suspicious. Remember, though, that Abberline would have questioned him closely on the issue and appeared to have been satisfied with Hutchinson's explanation. The point I was trying to make is that investigators would never have jettisoned a crucially important witness on the basis of the witness's failure to come forward as soon as he might have done. Lawende is a perfect example of such. This being the case, the 'late arrival' explanation for Hutchinson's diminution was merely window dressing. There must have been far more compelling reasons behind the police decision to sideline him.

So, yes, I think it more than possible that the detectives on walkabout would have gently broached the subject of Hutchinson's late appearance. My feeling is that this was the point at which Hutchinson mentioned the Sunday policeman. He perhaps attempted to excuse the delay in his coming forward with the claim that he'd informed a policeman of the Astrakhan episode. This would have been new information that could have been checked against a duty roster, thereby identifying a specific officer who would have been questioned. If that questioning revealed that Hutchinson had lied, he and his story would have been subjected to a rapid and rigorous reassessment.

I mention the Sunday policeman for one very good reason. Hutchinson neglected to reference him in his witness statement, and Abberline failed to note him in his summary report. The first we hear of him is in the newspaper reports several days after Hutchinson first presented himself at Commercial Street Police Station. To my mind this bears the hallmark of an afterthought - something introduced by Hutchinson to justify his failure to come forward. If so, then it may well be catalyst that resulted his fall from grace.

[Abby Normal]

For what it's worth, Ben, I feel that the 'late arrival' explanation given by the Echo to justify Hutchinson's 'diminution' is something of a red herring. Certainly the delay in Hutchinson's coming forward given his professed pre-existing relationship with Kelly is strange, but I doubt that this in itself would have been sufficient for investigators to have lost faith in someone who was undoubtedly considered to have been a stellar witness. There had to have been something more.

Some maintain that the police refused to reveal case-related information to the press. This isn't true. Information was forthcoming, but only of a rudimentart nature. Journalists were informed, for example, as to how many men had been arrested overnight and whether any of these remained in custody. Sometimes information was volunteered with regard to ongoing inquiries, but again this was seldom anything more than perfunctory.

With this in mind I'm inclined to believe that one of two things happened in context of Hutchinson's diminution. Either the Echo received inside information from a paid police informant, in which case the reasons for the diminution were deliberately underplayed in order to protect the informant's identity, or the information was obtained from Commercial Street and, true to form, investigators were disinclined to reveal anything in the way of detail. Thus the late arrival was given as a convenient reason for Hutchinson's fall from grace.

Common sense alone ought to tell us that investigators would never have discarded a potentially case-breaking witness merely because he'd failed to come forward for three days. The value of his information would have remained undiminished. So too would his importance in the event of an arrest and any subsequent need for identification. Remember that Lawende didn't come forward. He was found during house-to-house inquiries. Despite this, however, he continued to be regarded as a truthful and important witness.

So, like I said, there had to have been something more than a late arrival to account for Hutchinson's diminution. It must have been something tangible, and it must have come to light before the Echo went to press on the Tuesday.

Which brings us to Hutchinson's Monday night walkabout with two detectives. This, I remain convinced, is key to understanding the sequence of events under scrutiny. We know that Hutchinson embarked on this search with Abberline having endorsed his Astrakhan claims. We also know that within hours the Echo was running its diminution story. Clearly, therefore, something happened in the interim which radically altered police perceptions of Hutchinson and the details contained within his witness statement. It couldn't have been the late arrival for reasons already explained. For my money Hutchinson must have said or done something which aroused the suspicions of his detective companions. Whatever it was it was sufficient to cast doubt on his story. Ultimately it led to his rejection as a viable witness, a step that investigators would not have taken on a whim.

It is for these reasons that I take the late arrival explanation with a pinch of salt. To my mind either the Echo was protecting a source or the police were acknowledging their disinterest in Hutchinson whilst revealing nothing in the way of detail. Either way, any attempt to rationalize these events based upon the late arrival explanation is futile. We need only look to Lawende to see that this must be so.

Hi Garry
I too believe that hutchs diminished importance as a credible witness by the police probably came as a result of his walkabouts with them.

It may have been that after two fruitless searches would in itself have been enough.

But most probably it was that plus something Hutch said. two walkabouts is ALOT of time and opportunity for talking and explanation by hutch-a lot of rope for him to hang himself so to speak.

My hunch is that hutch gave the detectives the impression that he was maybe TOO interested in if and how much he would be paid for his services.

I know you downplay his late appearance to come forward as a reason-but could it have possibly been his explanation to the detectives why he came forward late during their walkabout that was the main reason for his discrediting?

[Garry Wroe]

Sorry, John. I posted this reply to the wrong thread.

The difficulty I have is this:is there any evidence that the police spent much time investigating Blotchy or BS man as suspects? Isn't it the case that they became quickly "disinterested" in Scwartz, Cox and Lawende as witnesses after their initial investigations failed to bear fruit? Well, at least until years later when Kosminski/ Saddler were identified as suspects.

In the long term, John, witnesses were of use only once a viable suspect was in custody. We know of Lawende’s participation in the Saddler case because the press reported on it. The police played their cards close to their chest throughout the Ripper investigation – even more so once Anderson returned to duty. The chances are that more witnesses were utilized but journalists were kept in the dark.

Remember that Swanson averred that the identification of Anderson’s witness would have been sufficient to hang Kosminski. That’s the way in which it worked in those days. The lack of forensics meant that witness testimony was critical in securing convictions. Often it was a case of the more witnesses the better. This being so, investigators would hardly have discarded the likes of Cox, Schwartz, Lawende and Long. They were simply kept on hold until needed.

[Wickerman]

...For my money Hutchinson must have said or done something which aroused the suspicions of his detective companions. Whatever it was it was sufficient to cast doubt on his story. Ultimately it led to his rejection as a viable witness, a step that investigators would not have taken on a whim.

Two problems.
1 - Abberline's report of his duties on the 12th, as with any daily report is written on the 13th.
He cannot write his report until the day is over.

2 - All the subsequent press coverage right up until the 24th Nov. indicate ongoing police interest in Hutchinson's story. And, that includes reports by the Echo, especially, observations like: "...they think it sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry" (14th), and, "...Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion," (19th).

Very inconsistent, if your suggestion is serious.

[Wickerman]

It was the police who queried the late appearance of Hutchinson's evidence and non-attendance at the inquest.

Who were they asking, the Echo?
The police had already spoken with Hutchinson, and Abberline was quite satisfied.
If anything was not satisfactory, or left unanswered, Abberline would mention this in his report, that is irrefutable, Ben.

The Echo were merely the messengers. Unfortunately for your controversial new theories, the Echo were in direct communication with the police, and reported on the latter’s “later investigations”, not their own.

You like to think so, that is evident. Though apart from your irrepressible desire to make it so, there is not one shred of evidence that the Echo obtained anything beyond a brush-off from the Met. police.

I prefer to believe what the Echo themselves wrote, as opposed to what you insist. I think they knew the real situation, not you.
The Met. told them nothing, and continued to tell them nothing. That at least is provable and sustainable, as opposed to your self-serving opinion.

It’s one thing to supply crucial eyewitness evidence that isn’t “sworn to”, but quite another to sit on this evidence (for three days) and wait until to the opportunity to “swear to” that evidence had passed, and it is very clear from the Echo’s proven communication with the police that the latter considered it a damning point against Hutchinson's honesty.

He gained nothing by waiting, that is a fallacy.
Swearing to your statement does not make it true. Maxwell swore to her statement, and it was still contested, but what benefit did she gain?
So, it made no difference in the eyes of police when he actually came forward. The suggestion that it would belies ignorance on the part of the Echo, and on anyone who believes it.

…Whilst being told to keep no eye out at all for other individuals suspected of being responsible for Kelly’s murder, as Blotchy unquestionably was at the time? I hardly think so, somehow.

No point in telling the constable that, not when half the men in the East End look shabby. How old was this Blotchy, 20, 30 40 50?
And how many men had dirty brown hair, drink-sodden complexion, and a moustache?
Hundreds?
Pointless!

You seem to be having inexplicable trouble with the most basic of dictionary definitions.

What I am having trouble with Ben, is you insisting the police made no further inquiries after Astrachan, because Hutchinson was discredited. But, at the same time watering down your "discredited" theory by now saying they didn't totally dismiss his story.
You can't have it both ways, though due to desperation I can see you have no choice.

I’m not suggesting that the police “partially believed” Hutchinson, any more than they “partially believed” Packer. I’m simply pointing out that despite the complete inability of the police to prove either man a definite liar, they still discredited both of their statements because they totally didn't believe them.

Packer changed his story, first he saw nobody, and nothing. Then he saw somebody, and something. Plus, his times were all over the place.

Hutchinson, as has been pointed out numerous times, is not in the same league as Packer.
He stuck to his story, same time, same man, same details.
No similarity at all.

And please don’t even contemplate repeating that “automatic suspect” nonsense..... I’ve addressed this before, and frankly cannot be arsed to use different words, so here we go again:

Were Schwartz, Lawende, Harris and Levy treated as suspects at any point? Was Emanuel Violenia, who claimed to have been the last to see Annie Chapman alive, despite the fact that he was thought to have been telling porkies?

I've addressed this diversion before, it failed then just as it fails now.
Schwartz was witnessed running away, before the murder.
Lawende, Harris & Levy are their own alibi's.
And, how can Violenia "claim" to have been the last to see Chapman alive when Mrs Long saw her right outside No. 29?
Where was Violenia, in the back yard?, ...good grief.

You waste your time repeating this nonsense.
If you choose to argue, make it worthwhile.

You are aware, I hope, that the Illustrated Police News had absolutely nothing to do with the actual police and their opinions? Good.

Why even mention it?

Unlike the Echo, they provide no indication that they had obtained their information from a police source.

They "claim" to have a source.
When the City Police give them information the Echo identify their source.
Why then vaguely use "the authorities"? - surely you can figure that one out by yourself.