The Red Handkerchief...

[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

[Ben]

Bookmarked.

Busted, Garry!

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

[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

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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?

[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

[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.