The Red Handkerchief...

[Garry Wroe]

It seems to be just the one poster (yep, that one!) who insists that "inside" information was never shared between senior police officials and the press. One need only read Inspector Littlechild's recollections about Central News' Tom Bulling to understand that it happened.

Absolutely, Ben. A number of journalists made reference to their inside police sources. I recall one who, though clearly exaggerating, stated that he was yet to meet a policeman who couldn't be bought off. One could be forgiven for thinking that Hutchinson was the only honest man in London at the time.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I agree entirely with Garry’s thoughts on the issue.

Really?

There really weren’t that many, especially if the search was restricted to actual police witnesses who gave evidence at the inquest, as opposed to all the press nonsense that circulated in the immediate aftermath of the Kelly murder. That isn’t to say Lewis’s wideawake man might not have been overlooked somewhat in favour of other “suspects”, such as Blotchy and Lewis’ Bethnal Green botherer, but as Garry points out, Hutchinson could not have banked on such an outcome, and had every reason to expect that the wideawake loiterer would have his turn in the investigative spotlight before long.

But what evidence is there that the police even tried to track down men such as Lewis's loiterer (who was supposedly under their very noses in the shape of Hutchinson)? He was there nearly nine hours before Kelly was found murdered, and had not been seen with her, but alone, merely as if waiting for someone - who could have been anyone. He wasn't seen close to the time when "Oh murder" was heard, was he? Previous witness sightings that were followed up and treated seriously concerned men seen talking to - or in one case assaulting - the previous victims, very close in time and place to their discovered corpses. If Hutch is meant to have been the man in each case, because he was the murderer, he'd have been a fool to come forward if he resembled one or more of the descriptions already given of him. If he didn't resemble any of them enough to put him off, isn't it rather doubtful it was him at all?

If Hutchinson responded to that question would “Errr..I dunno sir, I was just curious I guess. I’ve never seen ‘er with such a fellah before, that’s all”...

...If Hutchinson responded to the above with “Dunno sir, I can’t remember just now”...

You're doing it again - assuming he was guilty and therefore being as evasive as possible, and using that as your argument that Abberline had no choice but to accept what he was told initially and get on with following up the lead. But this ignores the possibility that Hutch gave far more satisfactory answers to begin with, which didn't need passing on at that point because they were deemed satisfactory, but also not directly related to his sighting of Kelly with the man. Had Hutch responded with a "dunno" or "can't remember" to questions about his own movements, when he had just given all but Astrakhan Man's inside leg measurement, that would have given Abberline more cause for concern, and therefore more reason to pass on such vague and unhelpful responses to his bosses. Had it come out later, after expressing his belief in Hutch's truthfulness, that he had managed to elicit virtually nothing about the witness himself and what he was doing there, apart from a series of "don't knows" and "can't remembers", how well do you think that would have gone down?

As far as the “public interest” went, I stress again that the rejection of yet another bogus piece of witness evidence was no biggie, and the police would have lost nothing by telling the Echo the truth about the current status of Hutchinson’s evidence.

But you said elsewhere that the police didn't give any newspaper an official declaration of that status for fear they might turn out to have spoken too soon. If you are right, they did stand to lose by making it plain to the Echo that Hutch and his Astrakhan Man were on the way out.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

Absolutely, Ben. A number of journalists made reference to their inside police sources. I recall one who, though clearly exaggerating, stated that he was yet to meet a policeman who couldn't be bought off. One could be forgiven for thinking that Hutchinson was the only honest man in London at the time.

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.

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.

Here is one example, the Pall Mall Gazette offering a City Police source, writing about a statement from Matthew Packer..
"The statement has been investigated by the police. Our representative was courteously received this morning by Inspector Detective McWilliams, who believes that nothing will come of it."

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

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

[Wickerman]

Really? It relates to a discussion from two or three years ago when you were attempting to convince all and sundry of Hutchinson's upright nature and strict adherence to the truth. At the time you were reluctantly coming round to the reality that he had been rejected as a police witness whilst still arguing for the truth of the Astrakhan story.

I was?, are you sure this isn't your imagination?
I haven't seen any evidence he was rejected as a witness, then or now.
I am not likely to though am I, as no evidence exists.

To overcome this particular difficulty you explicated upon Anderson's innermost thinking, presenting as fact a line of reasoning on Anderson's part that has never been published anywhere as far as I'm aware. Thus Anderson trusted to Bond's proposed time of death, meaning that Kelly had been murdered at approximately one o'clock in the morning. Again trusting to Anderson's innermost thoughts on the issue you explained how Anderson had concluded that, although an honest and sincere witness, Hutchinson must have been in error over the Astrakhan sighting, an outcome which explains the 'diminution' stories run by the Echo and Star.

Remember now?

That doesn't sound familiar, unless you mean that Anderson "thought" Hutchinson had been mistaken - I may have suggested that.

Anderson believed the principal witness, and the suspect, were both Jewish.
So naturally the Hutchinson suspect had to be eliminated if Anderson was correct in his belief.
- One solution to this is that he privately, or officially, accepted Dr Bond's estimate, as opposed to the statement given by Hutchinson.
- Alternately, his belief came about because the Hutchinson suspect was found, and was subsequently eliminated from their enquiries.

Either could have happened.

If so I'd appreciate any help you might be able to offer with a view to locating Anderson's published writings concerning Hutchinson and Dr Bond's projected time of death regarding the Miller's Court murder.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Don't waste your time on memoirs. All the personal beliefs about the various suspects in these memoirs are sorely short of anything like evidence.

[Ben]

Rather he assumed this to have been the case given the limited visual information he had available to him. It's simply what people do.

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

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.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“But what evidence is there that the police even tried to track down men such as Lewis's loiterer (who was supposedly under their very noses in the shape of Hutchinson)?”

There isn’t any that I’m aware of, but the fact remains that Hutchinson could not have relied on the police not making the hunt for the loiterer a priority, and even if they didn’t, it wouldn't have stopped them paying attention if Lewis alerted a police officer to the fact that she had seen the same man subsequently. Wideawake was still an obvious person of interest, even if he wasn’t a major priority owing to fact that he was not seen in the company of the victim.

“If Hutch is meant to have been the man in each case, because he was the murderer, he'd have been a fool to come forward if he resembled one or more of the descriptions already given of him.”

Not if the previous descriptions could apply to potentially thousands of men, which we know was the case. Obviously, it might not have been the cleverest idea for him to attend the station in a loose-fitting pepper and salt jacket and reddish neckerchief, but it wasn’t as if previous descriptions of a 30ish bloke with a moustache were likely to trouble him if he was the killer and "matched" that extremely broad description. He was far more likely to have been concerned about the possibility of the witnesses themselves recognising him at a later stage, and with Lewis living far closer to the Victoria Home than Lawende and Schwartz did, the chances of a subsequent meeting were markedly increased.

I’m not sure quite when this changed into a Hutchinson-as-ripper discussion, but still…!

“You're doing it again - assuming he was guilty and therefore being as evasive as possible, and using that as your argument that Abberline had no choice but to accept what he was told initially and get on with following up the lead.”

I’m not doing any such thing “again”. You’re the one who keeps introducing the “guilty” element. I’ve merely been discussing the treatment of the statement, and no, it is not just a “guilty” Hutchinson who might have had reason to provide inadequate explanations for both his failure to come forward earlier and his 45-minute vigil in Dorset Street. Even in the very unlikely event that he told the truth about the Astrakhan episode, he could still been “motivated” into giving evasive answers for other reasons, such as wanting to conceal a desire to sleep with Kelly. The point being that irrespective of Hutchinson’s possible motivation for giving insufficient explanations, the police could ill-afford to reject the entire account – and risk the almighty flak that went with it – because of them.

Abberline was very unlikely to withhold details from his bosses that supported his opinion that the statement was true, and if Hutchinson had provided satisfactory excuses for what we now consider grey areas, they would have warranted obvious inclusion in the report. But in the event if he did fail to include these supposedly sound explanations, it is clear that “later investigation” had injured their credibility less than 12 hours after they were initially made.

“Had it come out later, after expressing his belief in Hutch's truthfulness, that he had managed to elicit virtually nothing about the witness himself and what he was doing there, apart from a series of "don't knows" and "can't remembers", how well do you think that would have gone down?”

Not nearly as badly as it would have done had Abberline chosen to reject the entire account and not circulate the description purely because of those “don’t knows” and “can’t remembers”.

“If you are right, they did stand to lose by making it plain to the Echo that Hutch and his Astrakhan Man were on the way out.”

Not if they took the necessary precaution of clarifying that Hutchinson’s account had suffered a “very reduced importance” as opposed to being conclusively eliminated, which is precisely what they did.

All the best,
Ben

[John G]

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

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.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

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. The only light available to him would have been from a match, struck by one of the crowd who were milling around the body. However, it's worth pointing out that the Yard was so dark that, a few minutes earlier, Lave couldn't even see the side door to get back into the club. And when Louis D first looked down on Stride's body he thought he was looking at a heap of dirt. Even after striking a match he was only just able to make out the shape of a figure, and only the dim outline of a dress enabled him to ascertain that it was a woman.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.