Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Wickerman]

All Hutchinson said was he had known her "about 3 years".

Which could easily mean he first met her three years ago, and three years ago she was living at Breezers Hill.
- There is no implication that he has seen her frequently since.
- No cause to assume Kelly was anything special to him.
- No cause to assume he should know her wardrobe intimately.

This has all the markings of another straw man argument.

[Garry Wroe]

This has all the markings of another straw man argument.

Hutchinson claimed to have known Kelly 'very well', had given her money on several occasions and had been 'in her company' many times.

[Garry Wroe]

The good news is that we now have three active threads' worth of the stuff.

The problem being, though, Ben, Isaacs puts in more appearances than Hutchinson.

[GUT]

To be honest, Ben, I think it likely that Hutchinson would have been asked about Kelly's clothing, if only to add inferential weight to the assumption that the woman killed in Miller's Court was indeed Kelly. The point, however, is that if Hutchinson really was a longstanding associate of Kelly, he would have been perfectly aware of the clothing she normally wore, and could thus have given an accurate description of her attire without having seen her at all on the night of the murder.

What's more, based on reports of what was found in her room, and what we know of people of that social class and time, if he'd only seen her in the street twice he had a pretty good shot at describing what she was [likely to be] wearing.

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson claimed to have known Kelly 'very well', had given her money on several occasions and had been 'in her company' many times.

When an official police statement is available, I tend to go with that over newspaper 'gossip'.

[Ben]

When an official police statement is available, I tend to go with that over newspaper 'gossip'.

So you reject as "gossip" anything that appeared in press versions of his account that didn't appear in the police statement? So I guess that's the "Sunday policeman" out of the equation then, along with the claim that he told a fellow lodger about the Astrakhan episode?

That's all just "gossip" according to you.

That's good to know.

[Ben]

To be honest, Ben, I think it likely that Hutchinson would have been asked about Kelly's clothing, if only to add inferential weight to the assumption that the woman killed in Miller's Court was indeed Kelly.

Indeed, Garry, this certainly makes more sense as a motivation to quiz Hutchinson over the clothing issue. As a means of gauging his truthfulness, however, it was essentially useless to my mind.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

So you reject as "gossip" anything that appeared in press versions of his account that didn't appear in the police statement? So I guess that's the "Sunday policeman" out of the equation then, along with the claim that he told a fellow lodger about the Astrakhan episode?

That's all just "gossip" according to you.

That's good to know.

Correct, and I'm sure you will also agree, that we should resist any attempt to build a theory on press reports.

[Sally]

Correct, and I'm sure you will also agree, that we should resist any attempt to build a theory on press reports.

What - you mean like you have with Isaacs?

[caz]

What, the Manchester Guardian?

No, not that funny really.

Not when we remind ourselves that they had incorrectly assumed that the police were still pursuing Hutchinson on the basis of the Galloway sighting, which even now is drastically misunderstood. The blotchy man who sparked Galloway’s interest was a plain-clothes detective, and in order to prevent his cover being blown, the nearest copper on beat fobbed him (Galloway) off with a bogus excuse about blotchy-looking suspects not being sought anymore. Nothing at all to do with a non-existent preference for Astrakhan types.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

But I said nothing about a police 'preference' for one witness sighting over another. That was my whole point: when the press 'incorrectly assumed' who the police were 'still pursuing', or who they had practically given up on, and why, it was based on a lack of accurate information from the horse's mouth and an incorrect assumption that the police would not juggle two or more conflicting leads at once and give them equal attention.

And if one police officer could dish out a 'bogus excuse' about one particular suspect not being sought any more (a lie, in other words), in order to protect police interests, that ought to tell you all you need to know about the police not revealing the secrets and results, successes or failures, of their enquiries to every Tom, Dick and Harry, and only telling the press what they (the police) wanted the public to know.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I thought I'd made it clear that it wasn’t a “yes, of course”, but rather an acknowledgement that Abberline “might” have asked the question.

Yes, you made it crystal clear, Ben. Keep up, sunshine. You made it clear that "yes, of course" Abberline might have asked the question. I didn't for one moment think - and I certainly didn't imply - that you meant "yes, of course" Abberline did ask it.

I know you don't believe he asked anything beyond what is reflected in his brief report, but at least you conceded that "yes, of course" he might have done.

I don’t recall “ridiculing” anyone who insists that there was a conveniently destroyed “full interrogation report”, although I have argued very vehemently to the contrary.

Oh come on, Ben. Your powers of recall are not that poor. They are better than mine if you can recall anyone insisting there was once a "full interrogation report", which hasn't survived. And your attempt to ridicule persists with your use of the word 'conveniently'. It is in fact very inconvenient for the truth not to have every blessed word that was said between Abberline and Hutch. But it is convenient for your theory that nothing of the oral interrogation survives (apart from Abberline's opinion that Hutch's statement was true), that could have undermined it further.

Whatever later investigations turned up, the result was that a “very reduced importance” was attached to Hutchinson’s credibility because of his failure to come forward before and present his evidence at the inquest. Don’t keep saying that it was an explanation the Echo themselves “came up with”, because that is absolutely not the case.

Believe it if you must, Ben, but it is a total crock. The logic is fatally flawed and if you still can't work that out for yourself, then there is no hope for you.

Let’s examine the quote instead:

Ooh yes, let's:

“Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?”

Not the Echo themselves, but the “authorities”.

So you reckon the authorities are asking the Echo? Or themselves? Or Hutch (rather belatedly, since they knew he hadn't come forward before, when he first set foot in the cop shop)? Or none of the above?

Of course the authorities asked why Hutch hadn't come forward before, and of course he gave his reasons. It was guessed by one report elsewhere that it would have been imprudent (for the authorities) to state those reasons.

The Echo were just a little behind and got the timing arse about face.

If you’re worried about the cagey terminology used by the Echo on the 13th...

Not worried in the slightest, Ben, but you ought to be.

...reflect that it was still very early days as far as assessments over Hutchinson’s credibility went. That article was only published 12 hours after Hutchinson made himself known to the police. Fortunately, its conclusions are cemented the very next day (14th) when the same observations are quite literally “echoed”, observing specifically that the account had been:

“considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest in a more official manner”.

No “seems to be” or “appears that”, but rather an unsensational statement of fact. If there was any vagueness the previous day, it was all cleared up “on inquiry at at the Commercial-street Police-station to-day” (Echo, 14th November). Gone is the need to “guess”, along with any temptation to lie about what the police told them (that is, if they had any hope of being supplied information at the police station again). Moreover, if the Echo had said anything the previous day that the police considered inaccurate or offensive, they would hardly have confided in them on the 14th. Evidently, the police were happy with the Echo's reporting, and confirmed to them at the station that they had understood matters correctly with regard to Hutchinson.

Ever wondered why the police might have been happier to let the Echo get on with it, and think they had guessed correctly, whether they had or hadn't, rather than give away the slightest information that might impede their ongoing enquiries? The police have always thrived on certain press inaccuracies, to keep their private investigations out of harm's way.

I must say you seem quite naive about this aspect, Ben.

"I read it in the Daily Mail so it must be true."

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

“That was my whole point: when the press 'incorrectly assumed' who the police were 'still pursuing', or who they had practically given up on, and why, it was based on a lack of accurate information from the horse's mouth and an incorrect assumption that the police would not juggle two or more conflicting leads at once and give them equal attention.”

I’m afraid it’s a deeply wrong point, Caz

It is entirely beyond rational dispute that the police supplied information to the Echo on the 14th November that we know for a fact to accurate. Would the Echo enjoy rare access to the police headquarters and then lie about what they had been told there? The answer is obviously no, unless they were happy with being denied that rare access in the future. They did not have a “lack of accurate information from the horse’s mouth”. The “horse” was right there at Commercial Street police station providing a relevant if unsensational update on eyewitness credibility. If the truth had been as simple as two leads being "juggled" at the same time and being given "equal attention", what on earth was preventing the police from saying so? Or if they did say so, what on earth is the proposed motivation for the Echo supposedly twisting this into Hutchinson’s account being rejected just because they could not – for some unfathomable, mysterious reason - get their brains around two leads being pursued at the same time?

I respectfully submit that instead of projecting convoluted and illogical mindsets onto both the Echo and the police, we ought to accept that the police imparted the simple, unremarkable, unsensational detail that later investigation had cast doubt on the credibility of Hutchinson, and that his account was subject only to a “very reduced importance”. We tend to exaggerate the newsworthiness of such stories, and forget that we’re dealing with people who aren’t deeply embroiled in the nitty-gritty of “Hutchinsonia”. We shouldn’t envisage either party having any conspiratorial agendas over the issue – which would have been a relatively mundane one for them – just because some of us harbour theories that hinge on the “discrediting” detail being true or untrue.

“And if one police officer could dish out a 'bogus excuse' about one particular suspect not being sought any more”

One policeman on beat talking to one member of the public (probably on the former’s own initiative) is very different to lies on a senior scale that get published to the paper-reading public.

“Yes, you made it crystal clear, Ben. Keep up, sunshine.”

I’m keeping up just fine thanks, cupcake. I’m not the one only just responding to messages that were posted nearly a year ago.

“They are better than mine if you can recall anyone insisting there was once a "full interrogation report", which hasn't survived.”

Jon very much insists this, I’m afraid.

If he doesn’t, and I’ve somehow misread him, I will be the first to apologise, but I’m not hopeful.

“But it is convenient for your theory that nothing of the oral interrogation survives (apart from Abberline's opinion that Hutch's statement was true), that could have undermined it further.”

Yes, but it could also have enhanced it.

It works both ways.

The difference is that you won’t hear me saying that there was once a full police report attesting to the fact that Hutchinson was discredited, but those pesky German bombs got to it before I could use it in support of my “theory”.

“The logic is fatally flawed and if you still can't work that out for yourself, then there is no hope for you.”

I’m afraid you’ve failed spectacularly to demonstrate any such “flaw” in the “logic”. On the contrary, it requires extraordinarily complicated and illogical attitudes (coupled with weird, aimless subterfuge) from the police and the Echo to warp this into anything other than the simple transition of unremarkable information from police to press.

“So you reckon the authorities are asking the Echo? Or themselves? Or Hutch (rather belatedly, since they knew he hadn't come forward before, when he first set foot in the cop shop)? Or none of the above?”

It was a rhetorical question.

In other words, the absence of an adequate reason for Hutchinson’s delay in coming forward was a contributory factor in his account receiving a severely diminished “importance”. If Hutchinson had previously provided a “reason” that was originally accepted by the police, it is clear that “later investigation” had undermined its credibility.

“It was guessed by one report elsewhere that it would have been imprudent (for the authorities) to state those reasons.”

That came from the Press Association, which made other false claims. It was also very much “behind the times”, unlike the Echo, because they were still claiming on the 14th November that his name was being withheld to protect him.

“Ever wondered why the police might have been happier to let the Echo get on with it, and think they had guessed correctly, whether they had or hadn't, rather than give away the slightest information that might impede their ongoing enquiries?”

What – let them “guess”, then tell them falsely in person that their “guess” had been correct, then allow them to publish the potentially dangerous misinformation that Astrakhan types were safe?

No, I’ve never “wondered” that.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Jon very much insists this, I’m afraid.

If he doesn’t, and I’ve somehow misread him, I will be the first to apologise, but I’m not hopeful.

Insisting that it was required in the Police Code to put witness/suspect responses in writing and, insisting that it was purely common sense, and good practice, to commit important replies to writing, is not the same as insisting that this specific interrogation was recorded.

Based on the requirements of the job, and the fact the interrogation was in the capable hands of an experienced officer, there is simply no justification for believing otherwise.

[Garry Wroe]

What's more, based on reports of what was found in her room, and what we know of people of that social class and time, if he'd only seen her in the street twice he had a pretty good shot at describing what she was [likely to be] wearing.

Precisely, GUT.

[Garry Wroe]

When an official police statement is available, I tend to go with that over newspaper 'gossip'.

So where exactly in Sarah Lewis's official police statement did she mention seeing a man and woman pass up Miller's Court as she made her way to the Kelylers?