Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Wickerman]

Hi Garry,

The "Sunday policeman" claim (related only to the press, apparently, as you note) might even have been a factor in Hutchinson's ultimate discrediting, especially if it were established, for instance, that no policeman was present at the time and location that Hutchinson claimed to have encountered one.

Cheers,
Ben

Constable were stationed at Markets. There is even a contemporary photo confirming this.

[Garry Wroe]

The "Sunday policeman" claim (related only to the press, apparently, as you note) might even have been a factor in Hutchinson's ultimate discrediting, especially if it were established, for instance, that no policeman was present at the time and location that Hutchinson claimed to have encountered one.

I've suspected as much for quite some time now, Ben. Remember that Hutchinson spent several hours with two detectives on the abortive night search for Astrakhan. These men would have first put Hutchinson at ease, then sought to elicit further information by engaging him in casual conversation. I imagine it might have gone along the lines of:-

'The thing is, George, what I don't understand, is why you didn't come forward sooner?'

'Well, I did tell a policeman about it, and I assumed he'd pass on the information.'

'You did?'

'Yes'

'When?

'Er, I think it was Sunday ... Yes, Sunday morning ... You know, in the market'

'Petticoat Lane?'

'That's right. I told him about the woman Kelly and he said he'd pass it on later at the station.'

'Was that the beat policeman, George?'

'Yes. I fancy I've seen him in the area before.'

'Oh, I see. Bloody uniformed mob. Worse than useless, the lot of 'em. Don't worry, George. I knew it'd be something like that. Tell you what, mate, there's a place up the road where we can get a brew and something to eat. Fancy it?

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.

On this basis Hutchinson's story could have undergone a 'diminution' without any definitive evidence that it was untrue. The detectives who accompanied Hutchinson to the mortuary on the Tuesday morning and then on another search for Astrakhan later in the day would have been tasked with probing Hutchinson as discreetly as possible for yet more information, with the result that the Astrakhan story was discredited rather than suspected.

Certainly, this is largely surmise. But whatever the truth of Hutchinson's fall from grace it appears to have been a gradual process rather than a single definitive event.

[Ben]

“Anytime you choose to abandon press reports, let me know.
If press accounts equals 'no evidence' for the pursuit of Astrachan, then equally 'no evidence' exists for a discrediting of Hutchinson”

There aren’t any press accounts indicating a continued police pursuit of Hutchinson’s “suspect” into late November, so I don’t need to “abandon” anything, less still conjure up fanciful scenarios involving the press “lying” about the issue for some unfathomable reason. 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", or the Rutland Review, or the Minehead Mirror, or whatever obscurities you occasionally wheel in), but I’ve seen no evidence of deliberate falsehoods being published.

“So long as it demonstrates to you that Scotland Yard refused to get involved once they had dismissed a witness as unreliable.”

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. Just so with equally discredited Hutchinson.

“Incredible how you like to exaggerate a fiction to force the issue, likely to disguise the fact you know how weak your assertions are.”

Incredible how you’ve become so obsessed with Hutchinson debates that you frantically invent one terrible new theory after another in order to combat his supposed “accusers” (in spite of all the good you could have been doing, and have done, on threads that aren’t quite so Hutch/Kelly-centric).

“Discounted, due to the statement not been sworn to, not discounted because the witness was determined unreliable, as with Packer.”

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”.

“…"Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache."
Echo, 19 Nov.

Are you sure your Echo did receive inside information now?”

Quite sure, thanks.

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, evidently in spite of the fact that the statement had been “considerably discounted” (Echo, 14th November). What isn’t specified is just who amongst the authorities towed this line, and more importantly, how much influence their beliefs had on the direction of the investigation. My strong suspicion would be not much, 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.

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. If any of the authorities continued to believe in Astrakhan man after mid-November, it could only have been an uninfluential minority, and it evidently had no effect on the actual direction of the investigation. Unless, of course, you have evidence to the contrary?

“By far the simplest interpretation is that the constable was telling the truth, and that the police are still pursuing the suspect who "was of a very different appearance" - the Hutchinson suspect.”

It is by far the most obscenely ludicrous attempt at an “interpretation”.

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, which, in turn, equated to the total abandonment of Dr. Bond’s suggested time of death for Kelly. A bobby on beat would only ignore a man fitting Cox’s description if he had received proof positive that the man in question could not possibly be the killer, and that consequently all eyes were on stupid Astrakhan. But there is no way on earth he could have procured such proof, which means he would have been a negligent monster if he behaved as you described, and so would the seniority of the Met by extension.

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.

“The police do not abandon any line of inquiry, not until the question is resolved, one way or the other.”

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; just as they would have been compelled to “abandon” Cox’s evidence if they were no longer seeking men fitting her suspect’s description.

Hurry up and understand.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Garry,

The "Sunday policeman" claim (related only to the press, apparently, as you note) might even have been a factor in Hutchinson's ultimate discrediting, especially if it were established, for instance, that no policeman was present at the time and location that Hutchinson claimed to have encountered one.

Cheers,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

We don't know whether Abberline knew of the claim, Andy. We do know that it appeared in print following Hutchinson's press interview, but there is no mention of it in the official record. Even if there was, it remains doubtful that Abberline could or would have checked it before compiling the summary report in which he expressed his belief in Hutchinson's story.

[andy1867]

I reckon Abberline believed Hutchinson because he had checked Hutchinsons story about relating it to a policeman before..
I find it hard to believe Hutchinsons story about telling a Bobby would not have been checked out...would have been no trouble at all .surely?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
There is absolutely no evidence that the police were actively pursuing Astrakhan men based on Hutchinson’s description after mid-November,...

Anytime you choose to abandon press reports, let me know.
If press accounts equals 'no evidence' for the pursuit of Astrachan, then equally 'no evidence' exists for a discrediting of Hutchinson.

Thanks for that extract regarding Matthew Packer, though, which usefully demonstrates that the police were “bound to investigate” his story even though it had clearly been discredited,

No problem. So long as it demonstrates to you that Scotland Yard refused to get involved once they had dismissed a witness as unreliable.

In fact, the Echo established a nigh-on identical pattern on the 14th November, when they obtained accurate, up-to-date, factual information from Commercial Street police station.

Incredible how you like to exaggerate a fiction to force the issue, likely to disguise the fact you know how weak your assertions are.

They observed that even though the statement had been “considerably discounted”, the police still made it the subject of “careful inquiry”.

Discounted, due to the statement not been sworn to, not discounted because the witness was determined unreliable, as with Packer.
And, the proof of the pudding as stated quite clearly by your Echo, 6 days later is that the Hutchinson suspect is still being pursued.

"Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache."
Echo, 19 Nov.

Are you sure your Echo did receive inside information now?

Not sure quite what trouble you’re having with the concept of members of the public reporting Astrakhan types to the police – oblivious to news of Hutchinson’s discrediting – with the same Astrakhan types being set at liberty very shortly afterwards.

So now you choose to promote the idea that no-one read this 1/2d newspaper, their claim to be the largest...
"Largest Circulation of Any Evening Paper in the Kingdom."
was another lie?
Interesting the lengths you will go to in an attempt to force your theory.

Provide your evidence, please, that the policeman Galloway approached had informed him they were looking for a “respectably dressed” suspect...
The policeman LIED to Galloway about not looking for Blotchy types because he wished to protect the identity of the man he (Galloway) was following.

"The constable declined to arrest the man, saying that he was looking for a man of a very different appearance."

By far the simplest interpretation is that the constable was telling the truth, and that the police are still pursuing the suspect who "was of a very different appearance" - the Hutchinson suspect.
Confirmed by your Echo, as already quoted above.


"The police state that the man who aroused the suspicion of Mr. Galloway by frequently crossing and recrossing the road, is a respectable citizen, and that he was, as a matter of fact, acting in concert with them in his "mysterious movements."

The Police (the Met.), LIED, to the press, but not to hide the identity of anyone, the police are under no compulsion to tell the press anything.
The Met. had been known to lie to the press before.

Because they would have been required to “abandon” the possibility of Bond’s suggested 1.00am time of death being correct if they decreed that an “alibi” for 3:30am absolved that person of guilt.

The police do not abandon any line of inquiry, not until the question is resolved, one way or the other. Ever heard of multiple lines of inquiry?
You, want them to pursue one suspect at a time, which shows how little you know about police work.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

There is absolutely no evidence that the police were actively pursuing Astrakhan men based on Hutchinson’s description after mid-November, when his account was discredited. Thanks for that extract regarding Matthew Packer, though, which usefully demonstrates that the police were “bound to investigate” his story even though it had clearly been discredited, as occurred with Hutchinson. In fact, the Echo established a nigh-on identical pattern on the 14th November, when they obtained accurate, up-to-date, factual information from Commercial Street police station. They observed that even though the statement had been “considerably discounted”, the police still made it the subject of “careful inquiry”. It is no coincidence, of course, that when the Star reported on the 15th that Hutchinson was “now discredited” as a “worthless story”, Packer was lumped into the same category.

Oh but do remind me, the proposed motivation for the Star telling the truth about Packer but mysteriously lying about Hutchinson is…?

Not sure quite what trouble you’re having with the concept of members of the public reporting Astrakhan types to the police – oblivious to news of Hutchinson’s discrediting – with the same Astrakhan types being set at liberty very shortly afterwards.

“Clear examples exist of the press finding out about the Met pursuing Hutchinson's story well into November, then finally arresting the man in December.”

Nope, no “examples exist” of any such thing, and what “man” are you talking about? I do hope you’re not attempting to dress up as fact your very controversial theory that Isaacs was Astrakhan? It would undermine your recent claim that it was only a “working hypothesis” (or NOT working, more like).

Provide your evidence, please, that the policeman Galloway approached had informed him they were looking for a “respectably dressed” suspect. I’m very confident you won’t be able to provide any, and yet worryingly, you wrapped “respectably dressed” in quotation marks. Who exactly are you quoting? The policeman LIED to Galloway about not looking for Blotchy types because he wished to protect the identity of the man he (Galloway) was following. “Respectably dressed” had not a single thing to do with any aspect of that encounter.

“I don't use them, no-one who needs to promote a credible story uses memoirs as evidence.”

So people like Paul Begg, Martin Fido and Rob House were just fumbling about in the dark when what they should have been doing all along is coming to you for advice on the subject of Anderson? I’m sure this will be a revelation to them!

It isn’t just about “memoirs”. The use of a Jewish witness in attempts to identify suspects in preference to Hutchinson - who alleged a far better and far more detailed “view” than either of the Jewish witnesses claimed to have acquired – is another obvious indication that the contemporary reports of Hutchinson’s discrediting were accurate. There is no other realistic explanation for the non-use of Hutchinson in such a capacity, unless you mean to suggest that the silly pillocks lost track of him completely, thus compelling them to lie to the public with the pretence that the “only person to get a good view of the murderer” was Jewish. But then that takes us straight back to the annoyingly silly fallacy that everyone apart from Hutchinson was dishonest and/or incompetent.

“Scotland Yard are not going to abandon a line of inquiry on such a slender thread as a medical 'estimate”.

Good, so no alibi for Isaacstrakhan, then?

Because they would have been required to “abandon” the possibility of Bond’s suggested 1.00am time of death being correct if they decreed that an “alibi” for 3:30am absolved that person of guilt.

Glad we got there eventually!

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

So where does this leave your contention that Anderson dismissed Hutchinson's story on account of Dr Bond's projected 1:00am time of death? This is of especial relevance when you then go on to say:-

Why do you rely so much on unreliable memoirs?
I don't use them, no-one who needs to promote a credible story uses memoirs as evidence. Look for yourself, how many uncertainties are explored with his Kozminski theory - nothing to date has been confirmed, its all conjecture.
So, I think you waste your time using a highly dubious source to defend your Hutchinson theory.
Even at the time of the murders, Anderson gets the Schwartz thing all screwed up, in writing that Schwartz attended the inquest.
We must serious ask if Anderson actually 'knew' anything?

So were they or were they not hunting Astrakhan? If they were, your Anderson/Bond theory is blown out of the water.

I've explained how that works to Ben.
Medical opinion, though much preferred by police at the time is also known to contain an element of caution. Dr. Bond's estimate was only that, an estimate, it depended on factors not proven. In short, it could have been out by a couple of hours - we only need to see the caution of Dr. Phillips when he estimated Chapman's time of death.

Scotland Yard are not going to abandon a line of inquiry on such a slender thread as a medical 'estimate'. They have no confirmed time of death for Mary Kelly, so all lines of inquiry are open to investigation.

[Wickerman]

They were obliged to investigate all leads provided by members of the public. Remember Packer and the furore that arose out of his allegation that police hadn't bothered to interview him and follow up on what he claimed was important case-related information?

Indeed I do, though once the Met. had determined that he changed his story, he lost credibility in their eyes, and the Met. lost interest in him.
Exactly what would have occurred with Hutchinson if the police had discredited him. Thankfully we have press accounts that show his story was still under investigation well into November, ergo, he had never been discredited.

As for Packer, even though he appeared in the press through October & November with more 'stories', we do not read that the Met. were investigating them.
In fact what we do read is that it was the City Police who reacted.
"Sir William Fraser immediately acted on the information and sent Detective sergeants White and Mitchell to investigate it."

Predictably, we read:
"The police authorities, though bound to investigate the story of the fruiterer Matthew Packer, attach no importance whatever to his statement."

Scotland Yard, who had previously determined that Packer was untrustworthy made no investigation of his subsequent claims to the press. It was the City who took up the challenge, with predictable results.

Once again, you fail to appreciate the distinction between those men who fell under genuine police suspicion and those who the police were obliged to investigate as a result of civilian information.

What do you mean by 'genuine police suspicion'?
As most, if not all, investigations came about in response to tips or allegations from the public, then the distinction if it exists must be small.

What I see here is you are confusing the random, one-off, tips by various citizens, which the police were obliged to investigate, with your belief that the police should also continue to investigate the story of a witness whom they have already discredited - your example being Packer, actually proves my case adequately.
They did not.

Investigators were not searching for Astrakhan types. Members of the public wrongly believed they were and reported such men accordingly.

Thats only your opinion, again. As is often the case here, we have press indications of one line of inquiry, yet you contest it with your 'opinion'.

Clear examples exist of the press finding out about the Met pursuing Hutchinson's story well into November, then finally arresting the man in December.
Yet we get the proverbial ostrich response, of sticking the head in the sand and claiming "no it didn't happen that way" - "I see no ships!", "the press are wrong", etc. etc.

The Galloway incident illustrates this point perfectly.

Mr Galloway thought he saw a Blotchy-type character, when it was explained to him the Met. were looking for the 'respectably dressed' suspect - what could be clearer.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“So you asserted that people were still reporting Astrakhan types, in spite of what the Echo had said about the police rapidly losing interest, but you 'dunno' where any of these sightings actually were, except that not one was in the East End? How does that work?”

I could not recall off-hand where these sightings of men supposedly resembling Astrakhan man took place, except insofar as they did not occur in the East End. If I’m misremembering, and there were indeed reports of East End "Astrakhan types", I would be interested to see the evidence. St Paul's rang a vague bell, which is why I used it as an example. 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.

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. They didn’t exactly keep the offerings of Packer and Violenia buoyant purely out of a desire to prevent the real offender from “changing his appearance” (or whatever), so why would Hutchinson be any different?

“That implies they gave the Echo nothing resembling a formal statement to that effect, but presumably resorted to a hint or a nudge in that general direction.”

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).

“But what about the potentially dangerous consequences of giving the public (via the Echo) chapter and verse on who merited further investigation and who didn't?”

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.

“But it only undermines your case for the police telling the Echo about it (albeit unofficially and in as little detail as possible), since they had no way to eliminate Astrakhan Man without proof that Hutch had made him up.”

That’s precisely why the police said nothing to the Echo about Astrakhan Man being "eliminated". The words they so cautiously used – in the absence of proof that Hutchinson lied – were “very reduced importance”.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Alternately, if, as can be demonstrated, the police were still interested in the Hutchinson suspect, then any & all men wearing an Astrachan coat may be investigated. This is what we apparently read in the press through November.

So where does this leave your contention that Anderson dismissed Hutchinson's story on account of Dr Bond's projected 1:00am time of death? This is of especial relevance when you then go on to say:-

Had the police decided, on or before the 15th, that Hutchinson's story was of no value, then you & I both know that with the work load they already have, the police are not about to investigate every man wearing an Astrachan coat, when the story implicating this man has been found defective.

So were they or were they not hunting Astrakhan? If they were, your Anderson/Bond theory is blown out of the water.

[Garry Wroe]

Had the police decided, on or before the 15th, that Hutchinson's story was of no value, then you & I both know that with the work load they already have, the police are not about to investigate every man wearing an Astrachan coat, when the story implicating this man has been found defective.

They were obliged to investigate all leads provided by members of the public. Remember Packer and the furore that arose out of his allegation that police hadn't bothered to interview him and follow up on what he claimed was important case-related information?

Alternately, if, as can be demonstrated, the police were still interested in the Hutchinson suspect, then any & all men wearing an Astrachan coat may be investigated. This is what we apparently read in the press through November.

Once again, you fail to appreciate the distinction between those men who fell under genuine police suspicion and those who the police were obliged to investigate as a result of civilian information.

I find it interesting that you are prepared to accept the police were showing an interest in men wearing Astrachan coats, yet Ben is quite adamant the police were not interested, and why would they be if Hutch had been discredited?

Investigators were not searching for Astrakhan types. Members of the public wrongly believed they were and reported such men accordingly. The Galloway incident illustrates this point perfectly.

I don't see how recently finding old press reports means the public of the day were unaware of what the Star & Echo reported.
You, were not aware until recently, that you have admitted, but how does your situation reflect in any way on the public of the day?

Perhaps because I am better informed about these murders than was an overwhelming majority of the Victorian public. Locating the Echo and Star references to Hutchinson's 'diminution' was akin to finding a needle in a haystack. Very few people around at the time appear to have been aware of this development, so it should come as no great surprise that most continued to believe that Astrakhan remained in the frame.

How many arrests did not originate from a tip-off, or a query, from a member of the public?

Your guess is as good as mine. However, many policemen who wrote of the case made mention of individuals who attracted suspicion. The truth of the matter will never be known.

[Wickerman]

This distinction between official and civilian 'suspects' is critical if we are to make sense of what happened in the weeks following Hutchinson's rejection as a credible eyewitness. The interest in these so-called astrakhan men was not a reflection of official police thinking at the time, it was the result of a public reacting to what had been published in the newspapers.

No question about it, the police went to great lengths to investigate the smallest of clues, leaving no stone unturned.
However, I think your suggestion is more suited to my scenario, than to your own.

Had the police decided, on or before the 15th, that Hutchinson's story was of no value, then you & I both know that with the work load they already have, the police are not about to investigate every man wearing an Astrachan coat, when the story implicating this man has been found defective.

Alternately, if, as can be demonstrated, the police were still interested in the Hutchinson suspect, then any & all men wearing an Astrachan coat may be investigated. This is what we apparently read in the press through November.


I find it interesting that you are prepared to accept the police were showing an interest in men wearing Astrachan coats, yet Ben is quite adamant the police were not interested, and why would they be if Hutch had been discredited?

Given that it wasn't until fairly recently that press reports relating to Hutchinson's 'diminution' were uncovered, it should come as no surprise that the Victorian public was unaware of Hutchinson's fall from grace and continued to report Astrakhan types well into December.

I don't see how recently finding old press reports means the public of the day were unaware of what the Star & Echo reported.
You, were not aware until recently, that you have admitted, but how does your situation reflect in any way on the public of the day?

Now, if someone could provide the details of an Astrakhan arrest that did not come about courtesy of information derived from a member of the public ...

How many arrests did not originate from a tip-off, or a query, from a member of the public?

[caz]

There was no rule asserting that if Astrakhan man was real, he couldn’t venture into more affluent parts of London, and as such my point still stands: if the real Astrakhan man was spotted wondering around – I dunno – St. Pauls (?) in late November, and the “spotter” had been deterred from reporting the matter because of what he had read in the Echo, it would have been as a direct of the police supplying that paper with false information, according to your recent suggestion.

Hi Ben,

So you asserted that people were still reporting Astrakhan types, in spite of what the Echo had said about the police rapidly losing interest, but you 'dunno' where any of these sightings actually were, except that not one was in the East End? How does that work?

I don't actually believe the police needed to supply the Echo with any inside information about their Astrakhan enquiries, true or false, despite your insistence that if they merely confirmed two stories had the same source they would also have been free and easy with the results of their latest investigations.

The above offers a good illustration of the potentially dangerous consequences of lying to a newspaper about which pieces of eyewitness evidence were no longer being taken seriously, especially if that newspaper was able to prove that they had obtained their information “on enquiry at Commercial Street police station”.

'If'? Surely you are not suggesting the police would have lied to the Echo and provided written proof of where this false information came from. You observed in a previous post that the police did not officially declare the alleged discrediting of Hutch's account in case they were wrong. That implies they gave the Echo nothing resembling a formal statement to that effect, but presumably resorted to a hint or a nudge in that general direction. But why would they even have done that, if it could leave them vulnerable to later criticism? I'm still not sure I follow your reasoning here, so proof that they did say something about it would be a step forward.

But what about the potentially dangerous consequences of giving the public (via the Echo) chapter and verse on who merited further investigation and who didn't? I just don't accept the police went in for this open exchange of information with any newspaper, and why the hell would they?

The evidence is that Hutchinson's evidence was discredited, which is not the same as being proven false. The distinction is rather a crucial one. Even if overwhelming evidence and common sense indicated that here was another time-wasting publicity-seeker, they couldn’t completely rule out the possibility that he was honest (any more than they could with Packer and Violenia), which is why you’ll encounter no official declaration that his account was “officially” false.

Yeah, I get all that. But it only undermines your case for the police telling the Echo about it (albeit unofficially and in as little detail as possible), since they had no way to eliminate Astrakhan Man without proof that Hutch had made him up.

Love,

Caz
X