Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Garry Wroe]

The FACTS Garry, are, as much as you try to manipulate them, that NONE of those sightings were dismissed by police - None!
Those are the FACTS.

Then someone is obviously posting under your name, Jon, because I distinctly recall you postulating that Anderson had dismissed Hutchinson's account on the basis of Dr Bond's estimation of Kelly's time of death.

So which is it ... this week?

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson?

According to whom?

Yes, ....according to Hutchinson.

Just like, Mrs Long's sighting of Chapman......according to Mrs Long.
And, Schwartz's sighting of Stride.......according to Schwartz.
Where are we assured that these sighting are a FACT?

To my mind they are all equal, if one is taken as fact, then they all are. If one is dismissed, they all are. We have no police dismissal of Long, or of Schwartz, or of Hutchinson.
Hey, why don't we go for broke, if we are going to be stupid about this then lets ask, since when was it a fact that PC Smith saw Stride?

The FACTS Garry, are, as much as you try to manipulate them, that NONE of those sightings were dismissed by police - None!
Those are the FACTS.

Investigators dismissed Hutchinson’s story and thus the claim that he’d sighted Mary Kelly shortly before her death.

Investigators dismissed Violenia’s story and thus the claim that he’d sighted Annie Chapman shortly before her death.

Stick to the facts, Jon, rather than the smoke and mirrors irrelevancies.

I wonder if you are another one who has your own version of what is factual...?

Ok, then seeing as we have police opinion on the dismissal of Violenia, shall we set the bar at that level?

Where is the police opinion that Hutchinson was dismissed?

If you stick to FACTS Garry, your Hutchinson theory will crash and burn.

[Garry Wroe]

Who was the last known person to see Mary Kelly alive? - Hutchinson.

Hutchinson?

According to whom?

Investigators dismissed Hutchinson’s story and thus the claim that he’d sighted Mary Kelly shortly before her death.

Investigators dismissed Violenia’s story and thus the claim that he’d sighted Annie Chapman shortly before her death.

Stick to the facts, Jon, rather than the smoke and mirrors irrelevancies.

[Wickerman]

Despite the examples of Packer and Violenia, however, there are still those who think that Hutchinson should and would have been treated as a special case. No evidence is offered in support of such a contention. Violenia is explained away with the assertion that he was ‘different’. He wasn’t.

Who was the last known person to see Mary Kelly alive? - Hutchinson.

Who was the last person known to see Annie Chapman alive? - Mrs Long.

Who was the last person known to see Liz Stride alive? - either Schwartz or PC Smith.

Do you see Packer or Violenia mentioned there anywhere?
Correct, and that's the difference Garry.

[Garry Wroe]

You see Ben, this is what makes no sense. The only possible reason why a mere sighting of a man who happened to resemble Hutch's description should have necessitated police interest (and presumably by 'interest' you mean actively following up the lead, rather than saying "Ooh yes, thank you Mrs Busybody, we'll be sure to look into it", before filing the note in the waste paper basket), would be that they had not given up the routine task of seeking to eliminate Hutch's suspect from their enquiries. You even acknowledged that with no proof he was an invention, the police could not 'officially' discredit Hutch's account in case they were wrong.

On the other hand, once they considered Astrakhan Man was no longer a realistic suspect, that would have been that, and any further sightings of such types would not have been followed up.

There are many examples of men who were given into custody merely because they carried a black bag. This item attained prominence courtesy of Fanny Mortimer's description of a man she saw hurrying down Berner Street shortly before the discovery of Stride's body. The man was identified as Leon Goldstein, and police enquiries cleared him of any involvement in the murder. Despite this, however, each and every man given into custody as a consequence of his black bag was processed in the normal way. Investigators were obliged to do as much, even in the knowledge that their efforts would lead nowhere. It was a case of procedure.

[Garry Wroe]

Very interesting, Garry. Microscopic scrutiny, eh? And Ben - true to form - agrees with your analysis.

Yes, Caz. Microscopic scrutiny. The degree of detailed analysis which helped to expose Violenia as a bogus witness.

Yet the police never even considered for a moment the possibility he was lying to cover his own tracks?

The police thinking at the time appears to have been that anyone who came forward with a concocted story was either an attention-seeker or profiteer. The Violenia episode bears striking similarities to that which involved Hutchinson. So far as can be determined Violenia was never held on suspicion.

Oh yes, because they had never experienced any criminals trying to pull the wool over their eyes before, only the odd liar or attention seeker.

Oh, but they had – which is why the policy relating to the offer of rewards was abandoned in 1884.

But this wasn't about just any criminal. It was about a man whose predations were beyond the experience of any of those engaged on the case. Officialdom aside, read the contemporaneous newspaper reports and you'll encounter example after example of supernatural references to the killer. The Fiend in Human Form, for instance. The Monster. The Ghoul. It was as though the magnitude of these crimes was such that their perpetrator came to be viewed as otherworldly rather than an outwardly normal human being who looked and for the most part behaved much the same as the majority of his compeers.

So this is about expectation. But the issue of expectation and its influence on perception is not confined to the Whitechapel Murders. Misperception regarding criminals and their crimes has arisen on countless occasions since 1888. During the course of the Yorkshire Ripper manhunt, for example, Dick Holland stated with absolute confidence that, even in a room filled with a hundred men, he and his detectives would know the killer in minutes. Unfortunately for Holland subsequent events exposed the folly of this claim. We now know that Peter Sutcliffe was interviewed by police on at least nine occasions before his eventual arrest and conviction. On not one of those occasions did he 'quickly give himself away' as Holland had predicted.

When viewed in these terms it must be considered overwhelmingly unlikely that Abberline would have entertained the possibility that Jack the Ripper might walk into the lion’s den and confront his police adversaries whilst masquerading as a witness. Thus Hutchinson would have been assessed under the expectation that he was either a truthful witness, a mistaken witness, a deranged witness or a publicity-seeker-cum-profiteer. Once the inconsistencies in his story had been exposed it would have been assumed that he was another Violenia or Packer and he would have been treated accordingly.

Despite the examples of Packer and Violenia, however, there are still those who think that Hutchinson should and would have been treated as a special case. No evidence is offered in support of such a contention. Violenia is explained away with the assertion that he was ‘different’. He wasn’t. The parallels between he and Hutchinson are remarkably similar, yet still the objections persist. Even the experiences of modern criminalists are dismissed as irrelevant by the objectors. Former FBI profiler John Douglas has confirmed that offenders do come forward under the guise of witnesses and that their subterfuge often goes unrecognized by police officers. Douglas, remember, is considered to be one of the world’s foremost criminological experts, but this seemingly counts for little amongst those who insist that Hutchinson would have been viewed with suspicion once his Astrakhan story came to be disbelieved.

Whilst incomplete, the evidence we have is relatively straightforward. Hutchinson’s Astrakhan story was at first believed by Abberline. Within a day, however, there emerged a newspaper report which cast doubt on Hutchinson’s credibility. Two days later another newspaper stated that the Astrakhan story had been discredited altogether. Coupled with this, other reports described how police had raided low lodging houses and casual wards in their search for the killer – the last places where one would have expected to find an individual such as Astrakhan. Much later, Anderson stated that only one witness had ever got a decent view of the killer. Whoever he was, this witness was not Hutchinson. Later still, Walter Dew confirmed Hutchinson’s fall from grace and speculated that he might have confused the time or date of his claimed Astrakhan sighting.

The evidence is compelling: Hutchinson’s story was discredited and there is not the slightest indication that he came under police suspicion as a consequence of such. But there again, neither did Violenia.

It would be helpful if those who dispute this conclusion would adduce some supporting evidence rather than positing baseless claims. Simply stating that Hutchinson was not discredited is not evidence. Nor is the assertion that Violenia was ‘different’ from Hutchinson. I’m simply looking for the truth, and any evidence that might help me get there would be welcomed with open arms.

Any evidence.

[caz]

It would have been a simple matter to identify the beat constable, question him, and determine whether Hutchinson's claim was true. If it proved to be a fabrication the rest of the Astrahan story would have been viewed with suspicion. His statement would have been subjected to microscopic scrutiny, which in turn would have revealed a number of inconsistencies.

Very interesting, Garry. Microscopic scrutiny, eh? And Ben - true to form - agrees with your analysis.

Yet the police never even considered for a moment the possibility he was lying to cover his own tracks? Oh yes, because they had never experienced any criminals trying to pull the wool over their eyes before, only the odd liar or attention seeker.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

...In each case, it was an ordinary member of the public who reported the man in question (not Echo readers, apparently!), which necessitated police interest even if they were no longer looking for men resembling Hutchinson’s description.

You see Ben, this is what makes no sense. The only possible reason why a mere sighting of a man who happened to resemble Hutch's description should have necessitated police interest (and presumably by 'interest' you mean actively following up the lead, rather than saying "Ooh yes, thank you Mrs Busybody, we'll be sure to look into it", before filing the note in the waste paper basket), would be that they had not given up the routine task of seeking to eliminate Hutch's suspect from their enquiries. You even acknowledged that with no proof he was an invention, the police could not 'officially' discredit Hutch's account in case they were wrong.

On the other hand, once they considered Astrakhan Man was no longer a realistic suspect, that would have been that, and any further sightings of such types would not have been followed up.

I’m not suggesting that the police “needed” to supply accurate information to the press, but it was heavily in their interest to ameliorate the hostility and heavy censure that the police were receiving from the press (and consequently the public), and if it was no skin off their noses to divulge the mundane detail that a witness was no longer being taken seriously, they may as well have taken a reputable newspaper with no obvious political agenda into their confidence on the issue.

Well that's a weakening from your previous position that the police would have felt obliged to supply the Echo with accurate details of their latest enquiries. They were trying to solve a string of murders first and foremost, and had clearly not been too concerned with keeping the press and public sweet to date, so why start after the latest? It's only your opinion that they chose to do so, and that it was 'no skin off their noses'.

I can’t imagine the police provided them with detailed specifics, no, but they did relate the basics, which were that Hutchinson’s account had received a “very reduced importance” for reasons concerning his credibility (i.e. as opposed to an “honest mistake”, or Mary Cox’s evidence being preferred, or Bond’s speculated time of death being championed etc).

Well no, Ben, again it's only your opinion that if the police told the Echo about Hutch's account now having a "very reduced importance", it was due to doubts about his credibility. You acknowledge that there are no specifics here, and this is evident from the Echo only being able to point the finger at Hutch's tardy appearance and absence from the inquest, which was presumably not exclusive inside police info.

We know full well that the police did not allow the press to believe that all “witnesses evidence” purporting to be same was legitimate, and in this particular case, the idea of using subterfuge to in order to prevent Astrakhan from “changing his appearance” just doesn’t make any sense. As if there was any chance of him being lulled into a false sense of security, and continuing to think it was a good idea to swan around the East End murdering prostitutes dressed in conspicuous and ostentatious garb, supposedly oblivious to the reality of a witness staring straight into his face and then following him from behind.

Hmm, well isn't it your contention that Hutch had been murdering the prostitutes, in which case what chance was there of him thinking it a good idea to carry on slaughtering, once he had shown his face as a witness and supposedly been discredited for his efforts? Talk about pissing on his own chips.

But the point is, since people were still reporting Astrakhan types as possible rippers, apparently oblivious to your reassurances that he wouldn't have been seen dead looking like that near deepest, darkest Dorset Street, never mind luring prossies to their death, and since these reports 'necessitated' police interest, it would also have been in the real ripper's interest not to look anything like Astrakhan Man, whoever he was, and certainly at that time. Just as it would have been in Hutch's interests, after coming forward, not to look like Hutch if he ever wanted to kill again in the area. So if the press were speculating, rightly or wrongly, that Astrakhan Man was no longer a credible suspect, it would arguably have been in the police's best interests to let them get on with it, so the police could get on with their job without the killer being any the wiser.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

“Yes, exactly. An "ill-informed agency" - which suggests an agency which does not, or cannot use on-scene reporters. How else could an entire agency be ill-informed?
Talking about "ill-informed", what do you know about these agencies Ben?”

Quite a bit more than you apparently, Jon, if you’re ill-equipped to understand that some agencies can have access to a greater wealth of accurate, up-to-date information than others. It is indisputable that the Press Association were behind the times, or else they would not have supplied the Morning silly Advertiser with the “revelation” that Hutchinson’s name was being withheld to protect him (and other inaccuracies), when we know full well that the more mainstream and reputable newspapers were fully aware (from the Central News agency) of Hutchinson’s real name.

“Any newspaper, any witness, and now any agency, in fact anyone who writes or speaks to something that shows how false your arguments are is denounced by you as liars, or ignorant, or "trade rags".”

But you’ve failed so abysmally in your attempts to “show” how my arguments are false, that’s the problem. If you wish to revive the Morning Advertiser’s provably false report on Hutchinson’s statement as accurate, it’s your time to waste, but don’t you dare accuse me of having “singular” support for the Star’s discrediting of Hutchinson when you know full well that I’m far from alone in accepting the report as accurate. You accuse it of being “tabloid journalism”, and yet the same article describes the evidence of Matthew Packer as a “worthless story”. Do we dismiss this claim too, and revive Packer as a truthful witness, or do we do a Jon and be grossly selective – endorsing what the Star reported of Packer, but dismissing their observations regarding Hutchinson? Neither option is a particularly good one, just to help you out.

“I would do a Search in the press websites, or here on Press Reports, before making any silly "ill-informed", observations.”

I would absent myself from Hutchinson debates, which you’re clearly having no success with, and become obsessed with an entirely different area of ripper research – one which you might have more luck with. If I were you, that is.

“Why do you think this reporter had to write to the Home Secretary, and to the Commissioner of the City Police?
No mention of the Met. or Scotland Yard, or Anderson, or Warren's office.
Det. Mitchell was a City detective who appeared at the Eddowes inquest”

All hopelessly irrelevant because you are quoting from a completely different article. I realise you keep trawling through the press section here on Casebook, but you’ve obviously come away with the impression that if the information is all contained on one “cyber” page, it must all belong to the same article in the original newspaper. In reality, the detail that the police were “bound” to investigate Packer’s statement in spite of its discrediting belonged to a different article, and referred unquestionably to the Metropolitan Police, who, unlike their City counterparts were “bound” to investigate a witness account that under their jurisdiction, however bogus it seemed to be. If they ignored it completely, they would have been guilty of gross incompetence. The only reason the City police became involved at all was because the journalist who spoke to Packer made a point of approaching that force.

“You will notice that the Star make no mention of knowing why Packer was discredited”

They never professed to know “why”. The salient point is that they knew he was, and reported as much on 15th, lumping Hutchinson into the same category as a fellow “discredited” witness who had provided a “worthless” story, sending the police on a false scent. No functioning human being has a problem understanding the distinction between a worthless story and two parallel leads being explored at the same time. It’s an entirely illogical inference. And since we may assume that the Star’s journalist were not insane, it follows that they were correct to report that both Packer and Hutchinson were discredited – just as reported in the Echo, and in accordance with all other evidence from police interviews and a memoirs (the stuff that you consider worthless and "never use", for some unfathomable reason).

“The same few names, time after time.”

So anyone who isn’t one of those “same few names” agrees with you, presumably? About squeaky-clean truth-telling Hutchinson, Isaacs, Kennedy and all? Yes?

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

No, Jon, I am not suggesting any such thing....
.
.
I observed that the newspaper headquarters situated miles out of London had little choice but to rely on press agencies, and that this put them at a potential disadvantage, especially if they found themselves being supplied with information by an ill-informed agency.

Yes, exactly. An "ill-informed agency" - which suggests an agency which does not, or cannot use on-scene reporters. How else could an entire agency be ill-informed?
Talking about "ill-informed", what do you know about these agencies Ben?


I see a frequent theme here.
Any newspaper, any witness, and now any agency, in fact anyone who writes or speaks to something that shows how false your arguments are is denounced by you as liars, or ignorant, or "trade rags".
And yet, you throw your singular support behind the Star, as a responsible, reliable, trustworthy newspaper - astonishing.
Tabloid journalism at its worst, and you soak it up hook line & sinker.

The Central News, as we know, communicated with Hutchinson directly. It was a reporter from that agency who interviewed Hutchinson and distributed it to several newspapers. The Press Association, on the other hand, were apparently reduced to picking up fag-ends from more reliable sources,

I would do a Search in the press websites, or here on Press Reports, before making any silly "ill-informed", observations.

Well, Detective Sergeant Stephen White definitely worked for the Met, but that is quite beside the point, which is that your two quotes originate from entirely separate articles.

There was more than one article on the subject, which I why I shared both with you. I didn't expect you to put yourself out by researching it yourself.

Here is the account in the Pall Mall Gazette. In this case, "the police" refers to the City Police, they are the only ones mentioned.
"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. It is true that a copy of the statement in question was sent to the City police office in Old Jewry, and Detective Downs was dispatched to investigate it, but now the police have reason to believe that it, like many other extraordinary stories which have been published with regard to the Whitechapel murders, is of a bogus character."

Then the Evening News.
"The reporter to whom the above statement was made at once sent off a copy of it to the Home Secretary, and also to Sir J Fraser, the Chief Commissioner of the City Police.

THE POLICE TAKE IT UP

Sir William Fraser immediately acted on the information and sent Detective sergeants White and Mitchell to investigate it."


Why do you think this reporter had to write to the Home Secretary, and to the Commissioner of the City Police?
No mention of the Met. or Scotland Yard, or Anderson, or Warren's office.
Det. Mitchell was a City detective who appeared at the Eddowes inquest.
Who Detective White was is unclear, another City detective, or perhaps Stephen White on loan to the City as the one who knew Packer the best. A liaison officer to assist the City evaluate Packer's new story.

The Star, makes brief mention:
" The reporter to whom Packer made his statement sent off a copy of it to the Home Secretary, and also to the Chief Commissioner of the City Police. This morning it was officially stated that the information has not led to any result. "

Nowhere do we read that the Met. are involved investigating these new claims. It would have been quite simple to mention them if, if they had been involved. Only the City Police are investigating the case.

So I ask again, what is the proposed motivation for the Star telling the truth about Packer but mysteriously lying about Hutchinson?

You will notice that the Star make no mention of knowing why Packer was discredited, they in fact mention the grape story as if this was the reason for Packer's dismissal as a witness.
The Star do not know why.

Likewise with Hutchinson, the Star know nothing.
Why then claim he was discredited?, because they observe the police pursuing two lines of inquiry, instead of what they think should be the story given by Hutchinson. They "assume" something is amiss.

Let’s have the full quote, please:

"The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree”

The “murderer”, Jon. Not Astrakhan man, just “the murderer”. In other words, the police are still interested in hunting Jack the ripper – a real earthshattering revelation there.

Exactly, so no reason to quote the first line, that is obvious.
We already know they are still looking for the "murderer", good grief Ben, lets not be silly about this.

Ah yes, how’s that evidence coming along for your assertion that Hutchinson’s doubters belong in any sort of “minority”?

The same few names, time after time.
Doesn't the evidence speak for itself?

[Ben]

Hi Garry,

And so on and so forth. It would have been a simple matter to identify the beat constable, question him, and determine whether Hutchinson's claim was true. If it proved to be a fabrication the rest of the Astrahan story would have been viewed with suspicion. His statement would have been subjected to microscopic scrutiny, which in turn would have revealed a number of inconsistencies. The claim, for example, that Kelly was sober when Hutchinson encountered her, an assertion that was in direct contradiction to the observations of Mrs Cox.

Yes, this is very much how I imagine it panned out.

I also agree that it was more than likely Hutchinson's walkabout with detectives which formed the basis for the "later investigations" alluded to by the Echo. The detectives in question might also have used this as an opportunity to conduct their own nocturnal observations regarding lighting conditions and distances associated with Hutchinson's statement, and came away sceptical.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“You are suggesting that Press Agencies, based in London, and distributing their stories nationwide, "had no realistic means of accessing information directly from the source"

No, Jon, I am not suggesting any such thing. You must read my posts more carefully, and not always be in such tremendous haste to respond to any Hutchinson post you think demands your immediate attention. I observed that the newspaper headquarters situated miles out of London had little choice but to rely on press agencies, and that this put them at a potential disadvantage, especially if they found themselves being supplied with information by an ill-informed agency. The Central News, as we know, communicated with Hutchinson directly. It was a reporter from that agency who interviewed Hutchinson and distributed it to several newspapers. The Press Association, on the other hand, were apparently reduced to picking up fag-ends from more reliable sources, and ended up supplying newspapers with outdated and inaccurate information. The point being that the more far-flung the newspaper locations, the more they were at the mercy of the press agencies, and this simply wasn't the case with the Echo, who were in a position to obtain accurate information straight from the horse’s mouth.

“You do know who Detectives White & Mitchell worked for don't you?”

Well, Detective Sergeant Stephen White definitely worked for the Met, but that is quite beside the point, which is that your two quotes originate from entirely separate articles. It is perfectly clear that it was the Metropolitan Police who were “bound to investigate” Packer’s statement despite its recent discrediting, as opposed to the City police, whose jurisdiction did not encompass St. George in the East where Packer's original "sighting" allegedly occurred.

“You were talking about the erroneous "Discredited" story from the Star, but they make no mention of "later investigations", nor that the "authorities" gave them this information.”

No, I guess it’s just one huge "coincidence" that the Star’s report agreed precisely with that of the Echo’s proven communication with the police, which did mention “later investigations”, and which did make clear that “the authorities gave them this information”. The Star described the offerings of both Hutchinson and Packer as “worthless stories” that were responsible for sending the police on “false scents”, and yet you selectively dismiss the bit about Hutchinson while endorsing the discrediting of Packer. So I ask again, what is the proposed motivation for the Star telling the truth about Packer but mysteriously lying about Hutchinson?

“Then, the very next day (14th), regarding the Hutchinson story, they write:
".....but they think it sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry."

They also wrote that his evidence had been “considerably discounted because the statement had not been made at the inquest and in the proper manner”. Yes, a discredited statement can still be the study of careful inquiry, as we learn from the Packer quote you provided. Thanks again for that.

“NOT relaxed their endeavours....in the slightest degree - as far out as the 19th!”

Let’s have the full quote, please:

"The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree”

The “murderer”, Jon. Not Astrakhan man, just “the murderer”. In other words, the police are still interested in hunting Jack the ripper – a real earthshattering revelation there. I’ve already acknowledged that in the absence of proof, the police could not declare Hutchinson’s statement an outright falsehood, and there may have been uninfluential factions within the police who still harboured suspicions that there might just be something to that horseshoe tie-pin and those surly dark eyelashes. But they had no influence on the direction of the investigation, as there is no evidence of any active pursuit of Astrakhan types after mid-November when Hutchinson’s statement was discredited. There just isn’t.

There is no disagreement between the Echo and the Star – Hutchinson’s statement was dismissed because of a police suspicion that he was yet another time-waster. You have an irrational aversion to the word “discredited”, I notice, presumably because you’ve misconstrued it to mean “proven false”, whereas it actually implies doubt and distrust. I hope the following will assuage your paranoia over the use of that particular word in the context the Star used it:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/discredit

“No change of mind here. The important point of this Galloway exchange is the fact the Constable let it be known who he was looking for. And it was not the Blotchy looking character.”

But that’s such hideous nonsense.

And it goes against everything you’ve spent years and years arguing on multiple threads, specifically that the police pursued parallel leads until your superstar Isaacstrakhan arrived in December with his amazing magical alibi. Remember all that? If the constable was not looking for the “Blotchy looking character”, it means they must have wholly abandoned Cox as any sort of lead, let alone a “parallel” one (way in advance of “Isaacs’s Alibi Day”), and yet we know that didn’t happen, and we know that the police were not quite as cretinously incompetent as that.

The constable merely put Galloway off the scent of a man who was working with the police in an investigative capacity, as faithfully reported by the press who had not the slightest reason to invent such silly, complicated subterfuge.

“An honest citizen playing detective under the watchful eyes of a Met. police Constable?”

So you think an honest citizen working in concert with the police would do better to avoid uniformed constables on the streets?

“Only rejected by the vocal minority who have sunk so much pride & passion into their own beliefs that anything offered which contests this "belief" is to be rejected. No surprise there.”

Ah yes, how’s that evidence coming along for your assertion that Hutchinson’s doubters belong in any sort of “minority”? And are you seriously suggesting that there is some sort of non-vocal majority of Hutchinson “defenders” who all secretly champion the Isaacs/Astrakhan cause?

“Hide behind the adjectives Ben, the theory is sound.”

Which is why nobody agrees with it, presumably.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

The crucial difference between the London-based Echo and newspaper headquarters situated much further afield is that the latter were obliged to rely on telegraphs from news agencies,...

Agencies, that were based in London.
You are suggesting that Press Agencies, based in London, and distributing their stories nationwide, "had no realistic means of accessing information directly from the source".

Really?, they had no reporters? , no reporters to interview witnesses like Cadoche, or John Pizer. Or the Central News had no reporters to interview Hutchinson, no reporters to occupy the Police Stations waiting for the latest on the murders?
Where do you get your ideas about these press agencies?

No it didn’t, Jon.

Definitely not.

Packer was not a City witness.

Read up:
"The reporter to whom the above statement was made at once sent off a copy of it to the Home Secretary, and also to Sir J Fraser, the Chief Commissioner of the City Police. THE POLICE TAKE IT UP Sir William Fraser immediately acted on the information and sent Detective sergeants White and Mitchell to investigate it."
Evening News, 15 Nov. 1888.

You do know who Detectives White & Mitchell worked for don't you?
This is a prefect example why no-one should pay any attention to your "assertions", you are guessing, and guessing wrong.

Factual information, Jon, not press opinion.

The Echo weren’t offering their own opinion on the subject, and made it perfectly clear that they were referencing the “later investigations” conducted by the “authorities”.

You were talking about the erroneous "Discredited" story from the Star, but they make no mention of "later investigations", nor that the "authorities" gave them this information.

The Echo, on the 13th, do say, "From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance...", but these are only press inquiries.
Then, the very next day (14th), regarding the Hutchinson story, they write:
".....but they think it sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry."

5 days later the Echo writes:
"The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; but so far they remain without any direct clue. Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson..."

NOT relaxed their endeavours....in the slightest degree - as far out as the 19th!

Yet, you choose to promote the false idea that Hutchinson was already discredited before the 15th?

It looks to me Ben, like one of your sources is not up to date.
Both the Star and Echo cannot be right. The police have either abandoned him by the 15th as stated by the Star (your assertion), and the Echo are therefore hopelessly underinformed, or the Star is wrong, and the police still think the story "sufficiently significant", to conduct, "careful inquiry".

Your proposal lacks conviction Ben, it is hopelessly contradictory.

...The City police were looking for Lawende’s suspect – the “rough and shabby” man with the peaked cap, neckerchief and loose-fitting jacket. The fact that they didn’t believe he was the same man described by Cox does not remotely imply that they thought he WAS the same man described by Hutchinson.

The meaning is confirmed in their subsequent paper of the 19th, it is spelled out quite clear.

The Echo were simply observing that Hutchinson’s description of a dark foreign-looking man meshed up with one or two dark-looking foreign men descriptions from previous crimes. “Respectability” doesn’t come into it.

The consistency is duly noted, by the Echo.

It certainly wasn’t the “truth” that Cox’s description had been abandoned completely, as you constantly remind me yourself with your “parallel lines of inquiry” spiel. Unless you’ve suddenly changed your mind about all of that?

No change of mind here. The important point of this Galloway exchange is the fact the Constable let it be known who he was looking for. And it was not the Blotchy looking character.

That was Galloway’s interpretation of the man’s behaviour. It is possible that the man in question was quizzing women about whether or not they had seen any suspicious characters about.

An honest citizen playing detective under the watchful eyes of a Met. police Constable?

In your highly controversial, universally rejected opinion perhaps, but not in reality.

"Universally", ah, that I should be so important?
Only rejected by the vocal minority who have sunk so much pride & passion into their own beliefs that anything offered which contests this "belief" is to be rejected. No surprise there.

Did the evidence of Long and Cadosche prompt the police to “realise” that Dr. Phillips suggested time of death for Annie Chapman was “in error”?

Dr. Phillips expressed his own caution regarding his estimate, the police were well aware of this. Which only serves to demonstrate how medical estimates were not always the final word.

In the absurdly unlikely event that Astrakhan was identified as Isaacs, there was no possibility of ruling him out as the killer, not unless they had a magic wand with which to cement the precise time at which Lewis and Prater heard the screams, and to ascertain whether or not Cusins was lying or inaccurate in her estimation of the time at which Isaacs supposedly arrived home (when she didn’t even see him!).

This is wacky, wacky stuff from you, Jon.

It is somewhat encouraging when I see you resort to colourful adjectives to dismiss an argument. It tells me you have nothing of value left to contest the theory.
Hide behind the adjectives Ben, the theory is sound.

[Ben]

Oh, right, I forgot, news distributed over the Telegraph gets less accurate the further it goes.

The crucial difference between the London-based Echo and newspaper headquarters situated much further afield is that the latter were obliged to rely on telegraphs from news agencies, and had no realistic means of accessing information directly from the source, as indisputably occurred with the Echo. It is evident that some such agencies, notably the Press Association, were out of date and often plain inaccurate with the information – the nonsense they supplied to the Morning Advertiser on the 14th November being an obvious example.

“The article stressed the interest of the City Police, Ben.”

No it didn’t, Jon.

Definitely not.

Packer was not a City witness.

The observation that the police were “bound” to investigate Packer’s stories in spite of the latter’s statement being discredited applied to the Metropolitan Police.

“Press opinion Ben, not factual information”

Factual information, Jon, not press opinion.

The Echo weren’t offering their own opinion on the subject, and made it perfectly clear that they were referencing the “later investigations” conducted by the “authorities”.

“That comment by the Echo on the 19th refers back to their earlier article from the 13th, where they explain in detail that the Met., have been induced to pursue the Cox suspect, but the City are more inclined towards the "respectably" dressed suspect.”

What on earth are you talking about?

There is not a squeak of evidence – anywhere, ever – that the City police were “more inclined towards the respectably dressed suspect”. What have you gone and misunderstood/misinterpreted now in order to come up with such an obviously wayward conclusion? And why do you insist on wrapping the word “respectably” in quotation marks as though it came from an actual source? The City police were looking for Lawende’s suspect – the “rough and shabby” man with the peaked cap, neckerchief and loose-fitting jacket. The fact that they didn’t believe he was the same man described by Cox does not remotely imply that they thought he WAS the same man described by Hutchinson.

“Which, incidentally, the Echo says they agree, by concluding their article with:
"The descriptions of the dark foreign-looking man mentioned in connection with the previous crimes are, however, as we say, in the description of the man seen with the victim on the morning of the 9th."

And which “dark-looking foreign men” from previous crimes would these be? Elizabeth Long’s is the only one that springs to mind, and there is no indication that he dressed anything remotely like Astrakhan man. The Echo were simply observing that Hutchinson’s description of a dark foreign-looking man meshed up with one or two dark-looking foreign men descriptions from previous crimes. “Respectability” doesn’t come into it.

“Up, until 6th December, Ben.
It's right there in black & white.”

Oh yeah – because of Isaatrakhan having an alibi.

Case closed, eh?

“This Constable merely told the truth. He made no comment about looking for a Blotchy-faced character, naturally to avoid a lengthy explanation, "yes Sir, he looks like the suspect, but it's not him I assure you, etc. etc."

But how was the constable in question remotely in a position to “assure” Galloway that the man who aroused his curiosity was definitely not the same person Cox described? The answer is only if the press report was true and accurate, and the man in question was a respectable citizen working in concert with the police. Otherwise, the constable had absolutely no business a) ruling out the possibility of Cox’s man’s involvement in the crime, and b) providing any “assurance” that Galloway and Cox had seen different men. It certainly wasn’t the “truth” that Cox’s description had been abandoned completely, as you constantly remind me yourself with your “parallel lines of inquiry” spiel. Unless you’ve suddenly changed your mind about all of that?

“By all means, please entertain me with a rationale (sic) explanation as to how this Blotchy looking character could possibly assist the police by zig-zagging across Whitechapel high Street accosting women?”

That was Galloway’s interpretation of the man’s behaviour. It is possible that the man in question was quizzing women about whether or not they had seen any suspicious characters about. Not that it is remotely incumbent on me to explain the inner workings of the police-vigilante committee relationship at the time.

“Once they found the actual man described by Hutchinson (6th Dec.), the same man described by Mrs Cusins (10-11th Nov.), they would then realize Mary Kelly had died after 3:00 am, and Dr Bond was in error.”

In your highly controversial, universally rejected opinion perhaps, but not in reality.

Did the evidence of Long and Cadosche prompt the police to “realise” that Dr. Phillips suggested time of death for Annie Chapman was “in error”?

In the absurdly unlikely event that Astrakhan was identified as Isaacs, there was no possibility of ruling him out as the killer, not unless they had a magic wand with which to cement the precise time at which Lewis and Prater heard the screams, and to ascertain whether or not Cusins was lying or inaccurate in her estimation of the time at which Isaacs supposedly arrived home (when she didn’t even see him!).

This is wacky, wacky stuff from you, Jon.

All the best, though.

Ben

[Wickerman]

There aren’t any press accounts indicating a continued police pursuit of Hutchinson’s “suspect” into late November,

A Rose, by any other name, as they say.

Certainly, there were indications that some press sources were behind the times with their information (usually those from well outside London, like the “Sheffield Independent",...

Oh, right, I forgot, news distributed over the Telegraph gets less accurate the further it goes.
How come the Agencies never figured that out

But your press quote demonstrated the precise opposite, remember?

It stated that despite the fact that the police did not invest any faith in Packer’s statement, they were “bound to investigate” his story anyway.

The article stressed the interest of the City Police, Ben.
Scotland Yard were not interested.

Concession appreciated.

So at least it is being acknowledged now that Hutchinson’s discounting was connected with his failure to alert the authorities before the inquest closed, which, in turn, is inextricably linked to the issue of his credibility and “reliability”.

Press opinion Ben, not factual information. Just what the press concluded in the absence of factual information.

You often quote that extract from the Echo, 19th November, but all it tells us is that "some" of the authorities continued to place “most reliance” on the Astrakhan description supplied by Hutchinson,....

Yes, that is because I expect you to see the connection, not that I need to point it out to you.

Ok, then here is the connection:
That comment by the Echo on the 19th refers back to their earlier article from the 13th, where they explain in detail that the Met., have been induced to pursue the Cox suspect, but the City are more inclined towards the "respectably" dressed suspect.

Which, incidentally, the Echo says they agree, by concluding their article with:
"The descriptions of the dark foreign-looking man mentioned in connection with the previous crimes are, however, as we say, in the description of the man seen with the victim on the morning of the 9th."

They are agreeing that the City are inclined towards the Hutchinson-type, suspect.
In reality, the police do not divide up their suspects in such a juvenile fashion. both forces are pursuing both suspects, equally.

..... considering that none of the senior police officials, such as Abberline, Anderson and Swanson, ultimately placed "most reliance” upon Hutchinson's description. Quite the reverse, in fact.

Correct, and we know why, don't we.

What you absolutely won’t find is a single instance of the police actively looking for Astrakhan types on the basis of Hutchinson’s description, at least not after mid-November...

Up, until 6th December, Ben.
It's right there in black & white.

Just how badly do you wish to undermine your own arguments? You’ve previously insisted on a number of occasions that the police pursued parallel lines of inquiry, and yet you now claim that as early as the 15th November, a supposed interest in Astrakhan man had led to the total abandonment of Cox’s man as a potential suspect,....

Never said any such thing.
This Constable merely told the truth. He made no comment about looking for a Blotchy-faced character, naturally to avoid a lengthy explanation, "yes Sir, he looks like the suspect, but it's not him I assure you, etc. etc."
The Constable simply cut Mr Galloway off with an explanation that would end his intrusion.
Galloway is not to know how the murder investigation is proceeding.

Meanwhile, back on the planet the rest of us inhabit, the police informed the press that Galloway’s Blotchy man was working in concert with the police because it was true, as opposed to being some sort of hilariously elaborate and pointless subterfuge designed to conceal the constable’s alleged incompetence and indiscretions.

By all means, please entertain me with a rationale explanation as to how this Blotchy looking character could possibly assist the police by zig-zagging across Whitechapel high Street accosting women?

Yes, but the police would have been compelled to “abandon” Bond’s suggested 1.00am time of death as a “line of inquiry” if they ended up giving a suspect an “alibi” on the basis of what that suspect was supposedly doing at 3.30am;...

This potential "alibi" was only discussed in early December.

Ben, the police had been pursuing (at least?) two lines of inquiry for almost a whole month - from 12th Nov. until 6th Dec., or thereabouts.

Once they found the actual man described by Hutchinson (6th Dec.), the same man described by Mrs Cusins (10-11th Nov.), they would then realize Mary Kelly had died after 3:00 am, and Dr Bond was in error.