The Red Handkerchief...

[GUT]

Good evening, GUT,

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

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

[Pcdunn]

G'day Dunny

Does Rumbelow give a reference for that.

Good evening, GUT,

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

[GUT]

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

Makes sense to me.

G'day Dunny

Does Rumbelow give a reference for that.

[Pcdunn]

Interesting information, thanks!

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

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

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



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

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

Makes sense to me.

[Wickerman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ben]

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

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

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

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

The answer is obviously no.

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

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

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

Never?
Care to quote me saying "never"?

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

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

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

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

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

[Garry Wroe]

I know Ben, I apologize for that. If it was not for Garry's highly selective, often failing, memory I wouldn't have needed to.

In June of 2013, on The Press, and what they knew... thread, you an I visited this very same debate, in which Garry was present. So much for Garry's charge that I am moving goal posts, or using smoke and mirrors.

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

Thanks, Ben. The argument has never been about the City. That's an element Jon introduced as a diversionary tactic when his double-edged contention that the Met (a) never conveyed case-related information to the press, and (b) comprised no individual officers who provided information unofficially to journalists, was proven to be historically inaccurate. The rest is irrelevant prolix. Or, to put it another way, smoke and mirrors.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I have no problem with the basic contention that the City police may have had a better relationship with the press than the Met did, but that's a million miles away from the suggestion that the latter force never divulged any case-related information at any point during the Whitechapel murders investigation. So untenable is the latter suggestion that even I've lost the will to come up with a litany of amusing adjectives to convey just how bad and unlikely it is, and that's saying something.

I'm not sure quite what you're attempting to illustrate with your Reynolds News extract, but the suggestion seems to be that the lack of money "found in the pockets of her clothing" offers some sort of indication that Kelly went out again post-Blotchy and spent it. Unfortunately, it completely overlooks the more obvious logical explanation that the killer himself made off with it, whether he was Blotchy or someone who arrived later.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

It is an irrefutable (yes, you’re getting that word again, because it applies) fact that the Metropolitan and City police forces shared case-related information with the press...
...You have been provided with proof that the Met divulged such information to the Echo, with the City police doing likewise with the Times.

Press opinions are not, and never have been proof.

If you accept press opinions, try this on for size.

The Police Theory as to the murder.

"The Police theory is that the murders are the work of a homicidal maniac....
The inquiries hitherto made indicate that the man who was seen to enter the house with the woman about twelve o'clock was not the murderer. It is believed that the victim went out subsequently and spent whatever money she may then have had, as no money was found in the pockets of her clothing."
Reynolds News, 11 Nov. 1888.

The Police believe that Kelly went out again after her liaison with Blotchy?
We can't have that can we Ben, good grief, it means Hutchinson may have seen her after all.
And nothing transpired at the inquest to cast doubt on that belief.

So, what about Press opinion now?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Can you do me a whopping great favour and avoid peppering your responses to Garry with details of my supposed transgressions? Thanks in advance.

I know Ben, I apologize for that. If it was not for Garry's highly selective, often failing, memory I wouldn't have needed to.

In June of 2013, on The Press, and what they knew... thread, you an I visited this very same debate, in which Garry was present. So much for Garry's charge that I am moving goal posts, or using smoke and mirrors.

Post No. 206.
"It is no secret how the press held the City police in high regard when compared with the reluctant Met. concerning the need for 'certain' information. The City were considerably more receptive than the Met."

Then, a reminder, due to you referring to a City witness to bolster your argument, - post No. 242.
"Lawende was a City witness, the press had a more amicable relationship with the City force, but I have explained that to you before."

And again, after using a quote identifying a City police source, on post No. 268.
"The City Police?
This is not an issue with the City Police, you know this already."

You were a means towards an end, and if Garry had only bothered to look, he would have found no need to contest what was in fact an old debate.
I had previously stated the City did have a rapport with the press, whereas, Scotland Yard specifically, and the Met. in general did not.

[Wickerman]

Don't need to. Your contention was that the Echo received no information from the police.

Still out of touch I see.
If you had done your homework you would read that this was the contention of the Echo themselves, over and over again.

Who better to know than the Echo themselves.

I have no need to make anything up, but you may have need to read up.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Can you do me a whopping great favour and avoid peppering your responses to Garry with details of my supposed transgressions? Thanks in advance.

“There are several quotes in the press sourced from the City Police, there is no issue with the City as a source for the press.”

Nor is there any “issue” with the Metropolitan police as a “source for the press”, despite your perpetually unsuccessful and peerless attempts to create one. It is an irrefutable (yes, you’re getting that word again, because it applies) fact that the Metropolitan and City police forces shared case-related information with the press, as I’m prepared to repeat for so much longer than you’re capable of protesting to the contrary (as you seem intent on winning some sort of stamina war). You have been provided with proof that the Met divulged such information to the Echo, with the City police doing likewise with the Times. Moreover, it is almost certain that the “Inspector Harris” who discussed the case with a reporter in 1889 was Edmund Reid of the Met.

If you think the red handkerchief issue is a mountain being made out of a mole hill, don’t pick the fight. No, Hutchinson would not have been able to make out the colour red from the distance spanning the eastern end of Dorset and the entrance to Miller’s Court – not in the lighting conditions available, and not for the fleeting moment Astrakhan supposedly produced the small item. He clearly did not notice it protruding from his Astrakhan coat pocket because a) all but the most laughably clueless of toff-impersonators would consider that an appropriate location for a handkerchief, and b) it would have been listed in the description appended to the statement had it been seen at that juncture and not later, as the pair allegedly stood at the Miller’s Court entrance.

At least stick to the arguments that have a glimmer of hope of helping Hutchinson out, like for instance Garry’s suggestion that “Hutchinson saw a handkerchief from distance and assumed it to have been red”.

The reality that Hutchinson's evidence was rejected is wholly supported by the evidence from the period and thereafter, when Hutchinson's complete absence from any report, interview or memoir begs a more convincing explanation that the completely impossible suggestion that Astrakhan was identified and magically cleared because of some magic "alibi". The fact that you reject this reality and substitute it with a set of agreed-with-by-nobody theories involving Kennedy, Isaacs and other assorted friends counts for very little.

Have a pause from Hutchinson debates.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

The Mitre Square murder was a City case.
There are several quotes in the press sourced from the City Police, there is no issue with the City as a source for the press.

The issue was always Scotland Yard & the Met. Sir Howard Vincent had been the head of C.I.D., a Metropolitan police department. The charge "not to share case related information with the press", was instituted by Sir Howard Vincent.
Nothing to do with City Police.

Priceless.

[Garry Wroe]

The reason it still holds is, you have not once provided anything to substantiate your 'belief' that the press had an inside source.

Don't need to. Your contention was that the Echo received no information from the police. They clearly did. My 'belief' is that Anderson's return to duty makes it unlikely that any meaningful information was imparted to the press. If so, the Echo in all likelihood had an inside source.

Your claim that it must be naive to claim otherwise is seen as an excuse for the fact you have found nothing to support your 'belief'.

I and others asserted that it would be naive to believe that journalists didn't have their inside police sources. You demurred. In fact you stated quite categorically that the Echo received from the police no Hutchinson-related information, official or otherwise. Anyone who is even remotely interested can check the 'What the Press Knew' thread and decide for themselves.

It's not my fault you fail to realize the City conducted their investigations more openly that Scotland Yard.

The discussion had no bearing on the policies of the City Police. It related to Hutchinson, Astrakhan and the Echo. You introduced the City element only recently in order to deflect attention from the absurdity of your original contention. It's smoke and mirrors. Pure and simple.

I have never contested the City being a source, but in your ignorance you resort to claims of "smoke & mirrors", why?, because you didn't get the whole picture.

Same old pattern. Make a ludicrous claim, introduce a diversionary tactic once the folly of your argument is exposed, and when that fails to work begin castigating those who disagree with you.

Small wonder so many have drifted away from this site.