The Red Handkerchief...

[Sally]

As an aside, I do wonder why these old discussions are resurrected - we did all this 'Hutchinson's Derivative Story' thing to death.ages ago.

Next thing we know, we'll have Joseph Isaacs on this thread as well

[Bridewell]

Sorry Colin, the 'associate' was a woman. - sorry if that wasn't clear from Caz's recent cut & paste job. The story was widely circulated. Here's the version from the Daily News, 10th November.

No need for any apology. The error was mine in failing to check!

[caz]

The Echo were not using "dodgy logic".

They were using accurate information obtained from a visit to Commercial Street police station. We know this for a fact because they reported other details that emerged from this police visit which were only obtainable from police sources. I can dredge up the specifics (again) if you wish...

Yes please, Ben, if it's not too much trouble. Specifically, the details themselves, and the police source that shows for a fact that they were accurate, only obtainable from the police and given directly to the Echo.

They made it perfectly clear that "later investigations" by the police had cast doubt on whatever excuse Hutchinson had originally provided for the late appearance of his evidence, and that its tardiness was now considered a major factor in the "very reduced importance" now accorded him.

Not in so many words, though. You are only assuming that these later investigations related to Hutch's (now missing) explanation for coming late to the party, and we are clearly also missing other factors leading to this alleged reduction in importance, if the lateness itself was a major, but not the only factor. I don't blame you for trying to fill in the gaps, but you need to acknowledge there are gaps (the missing information you are so fond of denying) and that the Echo did not have the full story, or they would have printed it.

They didn't need to speculate as to why the police were resuming their pursuit of Blotchy if they had already been provided with a perfectly good explanation as to why they weren't in pursuit of Astrakhan.

Fine, so where is this 'perfectly good explanation'? Surely the Echo would not have been content without asking what excuse Hutch had given, what the police had discovered to question it and what other factors had reduced his statement's importance. Seems the police weren't telling. There's a surprise. And that information has not survived. There's another one.

...quite unlike the Echo, who demonstrated conclusively that they were working on the basis of police information, not "guesswork".

Says who? The Echo and Ben.

Unless you can produce the original police documentation that says so too.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Yes please, Ben, if it's not too much trouble.

No trouble at all, Caz, but I do wonder why we're replicating t'other thread practically verbatim. Yes, it is a fact that the police supplied the Echo with what we now know to be factually accurate information. I refer you to my recent post in "Why did Abberline believe Hutch?".

I don't blame you for trying to fill in the gaps, but you need to acknowledge there are gaps (the missing information you are so fond of denying) and that the Echo did not have the full story, or they would have printed it.

I'm quite sure that the police did not supply the Echo with each and every specific problem they had with Hutchinson's account that led to its considerably reduced importance, but it is clear that among the reasons cited by "the authorities" (not the Echo's own guesswork) was Hutchinson's late post-inquest presentation of his evidence. I merely speculate these later investigations had cast doubt on Hutchinson's original excuse for this, but I'm not sure what the alternative is - unless Abberline never thought to ask and only just realised it was an issue.

Surely the Echo would not have been content without asking what excuse Hutch had given, what the police had discovered to question it and what other factors had reduced his statement's importance.

On the contrary, Caz, the Echo would have counted themselves very lucky indeed to get what they were given, considering that visits to the station itself were very much off limits to most other newspapers. All we know is that whatever "factors" resulted in his discrediting, they related to the issue of credibility, otherwise his failure to come forward earlier and be quizzed at the inquest "on oath" would hardly have been mentioned.

Says who? The Echo and Ben.

And the historical record.

And the sheer implausibility of the police lying to the Echo.

And the sheer implausibility of the police supplying the Echo with accurate information, knowing that the latter had been spreading lies about them the previous day.

I refer you again to the duplicate thread.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

I do wonder why we're replicating t'other thread practically verbatim

Yep, it's a veritable Hutch-fest at the moment eh? Why so many threads, do you suppose? Is Hutchinson looking particularly attractive at the moment - or is it the lure of that swanky Astrakhan coat the he was lucky enough to witness??

Makes a change from the Killer Carman I guess...

You could almost get to miss Ol' Murderin' Charlie.

But not quite

[Ben]

Makes a change from the Killer Carman I guess...

You could almost get to miss Ol' Murderin' Charlie.

Actually, Sally, one endearing quirk about those guys I do rather miss is their insistence on calling him "the carman" all the time.

"I'm of the meaning that the carman is the killer!! Everyone thought the carman merely discovered the body, but no, the carman was there under their noses all along, and since experts say the carman has a case to answer, the carman it must be".

Meanwhile, the maybe-groom-non-plumbing-labourer was discredited, whatever else he might also have been.

[Sally]

Actually, Sally, one endearing quirk about those guys I do rather miss is their insistence on calling him "the carman" all the time.

"I'm of the meaning that the carman is the killer!! Everyone thought the carman merely discovered the body, but no, the carman was there under their noses all along, and since experts say the carman has a case to answer, the carman it must be".

Oh, I'm sure the carman lives on, somewhere in cyberspace - and he'll be back, sooner or later

On second thoughts, maybe 'be careful what you wish for' would be appropriate here...

Meanwhile, the maybe-groom-non-plumbing-labourer was discredited, whatever else he might also have been.

Reader of the free newpapers at the VH, perhaps?

[Wickerman]

And the sheer implausibility of the police lying to the Echo.

Like this you mean?

The police at Leman-street refuse to give any information, and some officials who had come from Scotland-yard, denied that such an arrest had been made, but this statement was, of course, incorrect, seeing that the arrest is admitted by the prisoner's relatives.
Echo.

And the sheer implausibility of the police supplying the Echo with accurate information, knowing that the latter had been spreading lies about them the previous day.

The police, however, refuse to give any details about the matter.
Echo.

These men were conveyed to the Leman-street Police-station, where the officials on duty absolutely refuse to give any information whatsoever to journalists.
Echo.

Of course, no information as to what has transpired is afforded by any of the officers, who-as evidenced by their attitude towards the Press in the East-end during the past few days-very zealously obey the stringent orders they have to "give nothing to reporters."
Echo.

Up to the present the police refuse the Press any information.
Echo.

Remind me again Ben, where does your idea of preferential treatment towards reporters from the Echo come from?
Apart from the obvious, 'desperation to defend the theory'?

[Pcdunn]

Hutchinson described someone he'd seen in daylight?

I have been reading over the first few pages of this thread, with the discussion of how detailed GH was in his description of the man he supposedly saw with MJK, despite the poor lighting conditions, and I was wondering... Could Hutchinson have based his details on someone he'd seen in daylight, or in a lighted room, at an earlier time?

Was he trying to frame someone else, someone he knew, at least by sight, and perhaps had a dislike for?

[caz]

As an aside, I do wonder why these old discussions are resurrected - we did all this 'Hutchinson's Derivative Story' thing to death.ages ago.

Sorry, Sally, but 'we' were not all around to witness 'you' doing this thing to death. 2014 was a busy old year for me and I'm only just beginning to catch up with some of the topics that interest me nearly as much they must have interested you at the time, considering you happily joined in with the doing to death.

Incidentally, my 'cut and paste job' was as clear as your own, regarding Kelly's female associate, since you cut and pasted the identical article I began my post with.

Love,

Caz
X

[Bridewell]

I have been reading over the first few pages of this thread, with the discussion of how detailed GH was in his description of the man he supposedly saw with MJK, despite the poor lighting conditions, and I was wondering... Could Hutchinson have based his details on someone he'd seen in daylight, or in a lighted room, at an earlier time?

Was he trying to frame someone else, someone he knew, at least by sight, and perhaps had a dislike for?

I guess that's possible. These 'poor lighting conditions' though. So many people saying that it would be impossible for Hutchinson to have seen what he claimed. Their number, however, does not include Abberline or, for that matter, Badham, two men who knew well those lighting conditions which the 21st century poster can only guess at.

[Trevor Marriott]

I guess that's possible. These 'poor lighting conditions' though. So many people saying that it would be impossible for Hutchinson to have seen what he claimed. Their number, however, does not include Abberline or, for that matter, Badham, two men who knew well those lighting conditions which the 21st century poster can only guess at.

But they never put it to the test !

I have put it to the test and believe me you cannot distinguish a red stone from a blue stone from a black stone even in half light ! the same for a handkerchief.

I say again the witness statements were never tested yet many still treat the contents as being written in stone.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sally]

But they never put it to the test !

I have put it to the test and believe me you cannot distinguish a red stone from a blue stone from a black stone even in half light ! the same for a handkerchief.

I say again the witness statements were never tested yet many still treat the contents as being written in stone.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'd wonder when the police had the time to test witness statements to that degree, quite apart from anything else.

[Sally]

Sorry, Sally, but 'we' were not all around to witness 'you' doing this thing to death. 2014 was a busy old year for me and I'm only just beginning to catch up with some of the topics that interest me nearly as much they must have interested you at the time, considering you happily joined in with the doing to death.

Hi Caz, sorry you missed all the fun last year; but as I said, my comment was an aside. made in passing. I sometimes think life's too short to go round in circles.

Incidentally, my 'cut and paste job' was as clear as your own, regarding Kelly's female associate, since you cut and pasted the identical article I began my post with.

You're right. I'd missed that entirely. Honestly, I don't always read posts in detail if I'm pressed for time. I probably wouldn't have involved myself at all but for Colin's post, which I felt merited a response.

[Ben]

Like this you mean?

The police at Leman-street refuse to give any information, and some officials who had come from Scotland-yard, denied that such an arrest had been made, but this statement was, of course, incorrect, seeing that the arrest is admitted by the prisoner's relatives.
Echo.

No, Jon.

Not remotely like that.

That isn't evidence of the police lying to the Echo. It is evidence of them refusing to provide information on one particular issue. That extract doesn't even originate from an Echo journalist, but rather a press agency, which is why we see it reproduced verbatim in other newspapers, such as the Star and the Evening News.

You quote the Echo as follows, and highlight in bold the snippets that you wrongly believe come to the rescue of your argument, but I've taken all those highlights out and would like to draw your attention to the relevant bit:

"Of course, no information as to what has transpired is afforded by any of the officers, who-as evidenced by their attitude towards the Press in the East-end during the past few days-very zealously obey the stringent orders they have to "give nothing to reporters."

"During the past few days".

In other words, not all the time.

Surely you're not still struggling with the basic reality that sometimes the police would supply some information to some journalists? The fact that the police were adopting a tight-lipped attitude at one stage of the investigation does mean that they would never discuss any case-related information at any stage.

That's terribly obvious.

Regards,
Ben