The Red Handkerchief...

[Wickerman]

Hi Garry,



They could also prove that they had obtained some, as the following extract from the Times, 2nd October clearly demonstrates:

"The following is a description of a man seen in company with a woman who is supposed to be the victim of the murderer in the City. The man was observed in a court in Duke-street, leading to Mitre-square, about 1:40 a.m. on Sunday. He is described as of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak."

Evidently, this description was not provided by the Jewish trio or else the rest of their accounts would have been provided along with their names. Since this description was only supposed to have been released for the first time in the police-sanctioned Police Gazette on 19th October, it is perfectly clear that a police source communicated with the Times directly (unless this description appears in any other paper?), resulting in the premature release of the Lawende description.

I'm afraid the idea that the police never shared case-related information with the press on a senior level is right up there with "politicians never lie" or "nice boys never blow bubbles in their milk" in terms of sheer delusional value. Fortunately, I don't know of anyone besides Jon who subscribes to this view.

All the best,
Ben

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.

[Wickerman]

No it wasn't, Jon.

It might have been a public assumption, but according to the Echo, some of their morning contemporaries were still under the impression that the accounts published on the 13th and 14th November "proceeded" from two separate sources.

"According to the Echo".

Have you actually read what these morning contemporaries did write?

Here is an example:
"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."

I have not found any morning paper suggesting the initial description, as published on the 13th, was from a different source than the later version.
What the Echo claim is not substantiated by these morning contemporaries.

So, it appears the Echo are making a false claim in order to present their findings as exclusive, but of course, anyone who actually read the morning papers would see that for themselves.

[Wickerman]

Must? An objective investigator is not the same as a diligent investigator. Were policemen to adhere to such bizarre logic they’d never solve a single criminal case.

Must, as in the case of giving him the benefit of the doubt, "if he is telling the truth, he must have seen it as Astrachan passed under his nose".

Quite frankly, the colour of the handkerchief is not a critical issue in a murder inquiry. The fact 'some' choose to make a mountain out of a mole hill does not elevate this item in overal importance. What it likely does do is high-lite the desperation of 'some' to paint Hutchinson in a negative light by picking on an issue of no importance.
All that was required to see the colour of this item was a local light source, and one existed attached to the wall beside the Millers Court passage.
So, if Hutch didn't see it by the lamp of the Queens Head, then he could have seen it by the lamp of Millers court.

First of all, ‘gentlemen’ did not walk about with handkerchiefs dangling from pockets, partly through etiquette and partly because of the risk of theft.

A Gentleman?, for someone who was dressed in morning attire, at night, how sure are you he would know whether to wear a handkerchief in an inside or outside pocket?
What if Astrachan was a poser (a confidence trickster), who liked to look the part, but was not acquainted with the niceties of the upper class?
What then?

Secondly, Hutchinson’s mention of the handkerchief occurred whilst he was describing watching Kelly and Astrakhan from a distance of some thirty yards. Whilst there is no certainty on the issue, one might assume that this was the juncture at which the handkerchief first came into view.

And, it may only have been mentioned due to him "pulling it out". He doesn't say, "at this point I noticed a red handkerchief", what he does say was that, "...he then pulled his handkercheif a red one out and gave it to her".
It was the action, not the appearance, that caused him to mention it.

Frankly this is a none-issue as far as I’m concerned, which is why I didn’t explore it to any depth in my book. I have simply responded to your claims regarding normal human visual acuity, a subject with which I’m familiar given my background in psychology.

I hope you bookmarked the bit about how "a local source of light" can benefit the optics in total darkness
It might come in useful.

A far better approach for you, I would suggest, would be the argument that Hutchinson saw a handkerchief from distance and assumed it to have been red. This is what people do. Much of human perception is driven by interpolation. The brain simply fills in perceptual gaps. But the argument that the handkerchief must have been visible from a pocket is unpersuasive because it demands a leap of logic that cannot be justified given Hutchinson’s subsequent rejection as a credible witness.

But your premise is the assumption that he was "subsequently rejected". You appear to judge everything from this predetermined position.
It is an assumption that you continually fail to establish, .....er, beyond that proverbial "opinion".
Don't feel bad, Ben also failed to establish this important fact. In fact the whole 'team' who choose to criticize Hutchinson have also failed to establish this minor lynch-pin to the whole charade.

[Wickerman]

It does nothing of the kind.

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

You mentioned it directly to me with reference to a discussion that was specific to your claims on the ‘What the Press Knew’ thread. Ben had nothing to do with it.

Ben & I have talked about this before.

Most considerate. It would have been unfortunate had readers jumped to the conclusion that you’d resorted to smoke and mirrors merely to avoid the issue at hand. Glad we’ve got that sorted out.

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

[Ben]

Hi JohnG,

But what of Edward Spooner? In the pitch black darkness of Dutfield's yard he stated that there was a "red and white flower" pinned to Stride's jacket.

I strongly suspect that instead of registering the colour at the time of the initial encounter, Spooner merely registered the presence of a flower on Stride's body which he later discovered was red with white fern. Such a luxury would not have been available to Hutchinson, of course, considering that nobody else appeared to have seen the Astrakhan man at the time of his alleged encounter; and unlike Stride, whose body was conveyed to the mortuary where her clothing was examined, Astrakhan did not stick around for others to inspect after the murder.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Bookmarked.

Busted, Garry!

I expect that "troublesome post" will come back to "haunt" me in the future.

[Ben]

As both versions are in the public domain, the first given by police to the Central News, the second given by Hutchinson to the Press Association, I fail to see how 'the police' in confirming that they both came from the same source constitutes the Echo being in receipt of inside information.

It was public knowledge on the date the Echo posed their question.

No it wasn't, Jon.

It might have been a public assumption, but according to the Echo, some of their morning contemporaries were still under the impression that the accounts published on the 13th and 14th November "proceeded" from two separate sources. The fact that the police were able to tell them otherwise and confirm a detail which only they had the knowledge and authority to confirm, certainly qualifies as a release of inside information.

Would the police supply this information to them on the one hand, then allow them to publish lies about their treatment of Hutchinson? No. And would the Echo publish such lies knowing the police had taken them into their confidence and provided accurate case-related information? No.

It is a fact that the police shared inside information with the press, and the naivity of any assertion to the contrary is frankly a scary thing to behold.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Look at this from an objective investigators point of view.
If Astrachan had not passed anywhere near Hutchinson, that the distance between him and Astrachan was never nearer than say, 30ft or so. It is quite reasonable to ask, how, across the darkened street was he able to see the true colour of the handkerchief? … Given the scenario above, any objective investigator is going to ask, did Astrachan come any closer to Hutchinson to enable him to see the colour of the handkerchief?

Agreed.

And the answer is, yes.

That depends.

Not only were they at one time a matter of feet apart, but Hutchinson was standing beneath a gas lamp when Astrachan passed right under his nose.
Therefore, in the mind of the objective investigator, the question of how he was able to identify the colour is solved.

How so?

The handkerchief must have been protruding from the pocket and was seen as he passed in front of Hutchinson.

Must? An objective investigator is not the same as a diligent investigator. Were policemen to adhere to such bizarre logic they’d never solve a single criminal case.

So, please explain why, in your mind, any objective investigator is going to dismiss this close encounter which does provide the solution to the question, in favor of an interpretation that does not provide the solution to the question.
Explain the rationale to that.

First of all, ‘gentlemen’ did not walk about with handkerchiefs dangling from pockets, partly through etiquette and partly because of the risk of theft. Secondly, Hutchinson’s mention of the handkerchief occurred whilst he was describing watching Kelly and Astrakhan from a distance of some thirty yards. Whilst there is no certainty on the issue, one might assume that this was the juncture at which the handkerchief first came into view.

Frankly this is a none-issue as far as I’m concerned, which is why I didn’t explore it to any depth in my book. I have simply responded to your claims regarding normal human visual acuity, a subject with which I’m familiar given my background in psychology.

A far better approach for you, I would suggest, would be the argument that Hutchinson saw a handkerchief from distance and assumed it to have been red. This is what people do. Much of human perception is driven by interpolation. The brain simply fills in perceptual gaps. But the argument that the handkerchief must have been visible from a pocket is unpersuasive because it demands a leap of logic that cannot be justified given Hutchinson’s subsequent rejection as a credible witness.

[Garry Wroe]

Exactly, we were/are talking about the Met. and the observation still holds.

It does nothing of the kind.

I mentioned the City as a source due to Ben in an earlier debate on this topic posted a City source to contest what I wrote, but my comment concerns the Met.

You mentioned it directly to me with reference to a discussion that was specific to your claims on the ‘What the Press Knew’ thread. Ben had nothing to do with it.

The City may well have provided the press with some information, I thought it worth mentioning to avoid you making the same mistake.

Most considerate. It would have been unfortunate had readers jumped to the conclusion that you’d resorted to smoke and mirrors merely to avoid the issue at hand. Glad we’ve got that sorted out.

And to get back to your "Commercial St." source, you still have not clarified exactly what the Met. are supposed to have told the Echo.

Then I would suggest that you check your bookmarks. I’ve expressed my opinions regarding such on a number of occasions and on several different threads.

[Wickerman]

I don't know about briefer, Ben, but the distance and light level involved render the Astrahankie sighting an impossibility as far as I'm concerned.

The above, is where I see your approach as being defective.

Look at this from an objective investigators point of view.
If Astrachan had not passed anywhere near Hutchinson, that the distance between him and Astrachan was never nearer than say, 30ft or so. It is quite reasonable to ask, how, across the darkened street was he able to see the true colour of the handkerchief?

I know there was a gas lamp adjacent to the Millers Court passage, but we will leave that aside for now

Given the scenario above, any objective investigator is going to ask, did Astrachan come any closer to Hutchinson to enable him to see the colour of the handkerchief?

And the answer is, yes.
Not only were they at one time a matter of feet apart, but Hutchinson was standing beneath a gas lamp when Astrachan passed right under his nose.
Therefore, in the mind of the objective investigator, the question of how he was able to identify the colour is solved.
The handkerchief must have been protruding from the pocket and was seen as he passed in front of Hutchinson.

So, please explain why, in your mind, any objective investigator is going to dismiss this close encounter which does provide the solution to the question, in favor of an interpretation that does not provide the solution to the question.

Explain the rationale to that.

[Wickerman]

Nine out of ten for effort. The problem, however, is that you're moving the goalposts. The origin of this discussion was your refusal to believe that the Echo had obtained Hutchinson-related information from the police, whether on an official or unofficial basis. Hutchinson was a Metropolitan Police witness. Astrakhan was a Metropolitan Police suspect. The Echo claimed to have obtained information from Commercial Street, which was a Metropolitan Police establishment. Thus the discussion had nothing whatever to with the City Police. It related to Hutchinson, the Echo and the Metropolitan Police.

Like I said, nine out of ten for effort.

Exactly, we were/are talking about the Met. and the observation still holds.

I mentioned the City as a source due to Ben in an earlier debate on this topic posted a City source to contest what I wrote, but my comment concerns the Met.
The City may well have provided the press with some information, I thought it worth mentioning to avoid you making the same mistake.

To use the generic 'police' in London today naturally means the Met. but it is necessary make the distinction for those who are not aware.


And to get back to your "Commercial St." source, you still have not clarified exactly what the Met. are supposed to have told the Echo.
One popular quote for Ben is that from the 14th:

"...we learned on inquiry at the Commercial Street Police station to-day that the elaborate description given above is virtually the same as that previously published...........but it proceeds from the same source".

As both versions are in the public domain, the first given by police to the Central News, the second given by Hutchinson to the Press Association, I fail to see how 'the police' in confirming that they both came from the same source constitutes the Echo being in receipt of inside information.

It was public knowledge on the date the Echo posed their question.

[Garry Wroe]

I'm afraid the idea that the police never shared case-related information with the press on a senior level is right up there with "politicians never lie" or "nice boys never blow bubbles in their milk" in terms of sheer delusional value. Fortunately, I don't know of anyone besides Jon who subscribes to this view.

Bookmarked.

[Garry Wroe]

A point I admittedly hadn't considered, Garry, for which thanks.

My pleasure, Ben. I've long been puzzled by the fuss surrounding Lawende. Here was a man who doubted that he would recognize Church Passage man again, and yet he was able to furnish a fairly detailed description. The two positions are mutually exclusive to my way of thinking.

I would be tempted arrive at a similar conclusion in Hutchinson's case, were it not for the fact that the sighting involved a much longer distance than Lawende's, and a far briefer sighting of the alleged item.

I don't know about briefer, Ben, but the distance and light level involved render the Astrahankie sighting an impossibility as far as I'm concerned.

[Ben]

Hi Garry,

Absolutely, Ben. A number of journalists made reference to their inside police sources.

They could also prove that they had obtained some, as the following extract from the Times, 2nd October clearly demonstrates:

"The following is a description of a man seen in company with a woman who is supposed to be the victim of the murderer in the City. The man was observed in a court in Duke-street, leading to Mitre-square, about 1:40 a.m. on Sunday. He is described as of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak."

Evidently, this description was not provided by the Jewish trio or else the rest of their accounts would have been provided along with their names. Since this description was only supposed to have been released for the first time in the police-sanctioned Police Gazette on 19th October, it is perfectly clear that a police source communicated with the Times directly (unless this description appears in any other paper?), resulting in the premature release of the Lawende description.

I'm afraid the idea that the police never shared case-related information with the press on a senior level is right up there with "politicians never lie" or "nice boys never blow bubbles in their milk" in terms of sheer delusional value. Fortunately, I don't know of anyone besides Jon who subscribes to this view.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

The argument still holds, and so it will until you offer anything more substantial than your opinions. Opinion, is all you seem to have in this case, and opinion is easy to dismiss.

Some more than others.

One detail that is not always clarified, as I mentioned to Ben some months ago. The City Police had a better rapport with the press than the Met., who did not have any. Which was the cause of the press in general complaining about the treatment they received.

The City Police were quite accommodating to reporters, not so the Met., and it was the Met who the press were always complaining about.

The rule which forbade any policeman from sharing case related information with members of the press was a Metropolitan Police rule.

Nine out of ten for effort. The problem, however, is that you're moving the goalposts. The origin of this discussion was your refusal to believe that the Echo had obtained Hutchinson-related information from the police, whether on an official or unofficial basis. Hutchinson was a Metropolitan Police witness. Astrakhan was a Metropolitan Police suspect. The Echo claimed to have obtained information from Commercial Street, which was a Metropolitan Police establishment. Thus the discussion had nothing whatever to with the City Police. It related to Hutchinson, the Echo and the Metropolitan Police.

Like I said, nine out of ten for effort.

If you choose to contest what I write then first make sure which force you are dealing with.

Er ... yeah ... right.