Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[harry]

Jon,
What is the source for a detective informing Aberline of Hutchinson's involvement?,and no,I am not relying on Gary for my understanding a telegram was sent.How by the way,did the detective become a messenger.Did he by chance receive a telegram which was conveyed to Aberline?Was the detective present when Hutchinson first made his appearance?You are so adamant,surely you can answer my questions.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
What is the source for a detective informing Aberline of Hutchinson's involvement?,and no,I am not relying on Gary for my understanding a telegram was sent.How by the way,did the detective become a messenger.Did he by chance receive a telegram which was conveyed to Aberline?Was the detective present when Hutchinson first made his appearance?You are so adamant,surely you can answer my questions.

Yes Harry, you deserve that much at least.

I do not doubt a telegram may have played a role in the communication, this was normal. A recent example was the arrest of Isaacs, when a "Come quick" telegram was sent from Bow Street to Leman St., requesting Abberline's presence.

Here though the possibility of a telegram is guesswork, though it was offered in this topic as if it was a known fact, and the press report I used was criticized as being "uncorroborated".
Yet what was offered to me was an "uncorroborated" guess - I'm not sure how that logic works.

Which only goes to show you cannot trust what you read.


Ok, I'll give you my take, and I'm not talking about "proof", so lets not go off on another tangent.

Abberline had just returned from an unsatisfactory inquest, the Coroner had left the police with a problem, no established time of death. So, the field of potential suspects is wide open.
In such circumstances, the Chief Inspector (Abberline) will return to Headquarters and call a meeting. First to review the outcome of the inquest with his team, second to decide on a strategy going forward.

(Possibly), a telegram arrives from Commercial St., with a brief message of a new witness who has made a statement. Abberline replies that he is in a meeting, cannot come now, please hand deliver statement ASAP.

The reporter at Commercial St. witnessed a detective being given paperwork with a brief message on a cover sheet. The Detective is taken by carriage to Headquarters.

As can be seen, the existence of this "possible" telegram has no effect on the overall story as published by the Echo (which I quoted earlier).
We can remove this telegram entirely, and we will not affect the overall sequence of events as read in the press. Meaning, it really does not matter if the telegram existed, or not.

Does this answer your question?

[Wickerman]

What - you mean like you have with Isaacs?

I have gone further than press reports.

[Wickerman]

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.

A question covered in the interrogation no doubt, shame it has not survived.

[Wickerman]

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?

Yes, well lets explore this.

Sarah Lewis's police statement is the parallel of Hutchinson's police statement.

Sarah Lewis's inquest testimony is the parallel of Hutchinson's interrogation by Abberline.

In both cases their police statement is explored and expanded through questioning - agreed?

There is no parallel for Hutchinson's press statement, as we know, Sarah Lewis did not give an interview to the press. What was reported in the press attributed to Hutchinson is less certain to be reliable, for obvious reason's.

The point you are trying to explore, the press coverage of Sarah Lewis's inquest testimony, is an expanded version of what transpired at the inquest. It can be verified that the original inquest version is incomplete, so it is beneficial to collate the principal press versions to obtain a more complete picture.

[Garry Wroe]

Here though the possibility of a telegram is guesswork, though it was offered in this topic as if it was a known fact, and the press report I used was criticized as being "uncorroborated".
Yet what was offered to me was an "uncorroborated" guess - I'm not sure how that logic works.

You used this self same argument with regard to the Victoria Home admissions policy. You were wrong then and are wrong now. I leave the guesswork masquerading as fact to yourself, Jon - you know, like your claimed unique knowledge of Anderson's thinking regarding Kelly's time of death.

[Garry Wroe]

The point you are trying to explore, the press coverage of Sarah Lewis's inquest testimony, is an expanded version of what transpired at the inquest. It can be verified that the original inquest version is incomplete, so it is beneficial to collate the principal press versions to obtain a more complete picture.

Simple fact: only one source, official or otherwise, claimed that Sarah Lewis saw a couple enter Miller's Court as she made for the Keylers. Despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, this is the source you choose to believe above all others. Why? And why do you then insist that official sources should always take precedence over unoficial information carried by newspapers and suchlike? Seems to me to be a case of do as I say, not as I do.

[Wickerman]

You used this self same argument with regard to the Victoria Home admissions policy. You were wrong then and are wrong now. I leave the guesswork masquerading as fact to yourself, Jon - you know, like your claimed unique knowledge of Anderson's thinking regarding Kelly's time of death.

All this could be avoided if one poster who is sufficiently interested in the debate to contest another poster, would also be sufficiently interested to provide his source.

[Wickerman]

Simple fact: only one source, official or otherwise, claimed that Sarah Lewis saw a couple enter Miller's Court as she made for the Keylers. Despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary,....

Evidence to the contrary of her walking up the court, would be evidence that she walked on down Dorset St., or never went out at all after the Blotchy liaison.

Since when has anybody offered evidence to show either of these scenario's occurred?

Hutchinson already said she walked up the court, you just refuse to accept it at any cost.

[harry]

Jon,
Your answer to me is rather confusing.You say you have no doubt about a telegram,then add it is only guesswork.Then you say you should not trust what you read,and immediately base your argument on something you did read.You further add you are not talking about 'Proof'(That at least is obvious),after years of castigating others for not producing proof of claims.No wonder you wish to go off on another tangent.

Now this detective messenger,and his message. Why, if he was present at Commercial Street police station when Hutchinson arrived,did he not take over the interview,and take a witness statement.You were lecturing me sometime ago on the code of police officers,and police procedures,and de partment policy.Surely the code,procedure and policy dictated that such an important witness,should have immediately been passed on to the investigation department officer(detective) who was present.Or do you think he also took a witness statement? For interest how long do you believe a three or was it four page witness statement would take?

[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.

Something's way beyond rational, Ben, that's for sure.

How do you know for a fact that the police supplied any information to the Echo, or that the paper reported it accurately if they did? Because the Echo said so? Or because you have unearthed a previously unpublished police document saying so?

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.

Is that your evidence? Your personal opinion concerning what the Echo enjoyed and how they would have continued to enjoy it?

What the Echo chose to print regarding Hutch's rapidly fading credibility did nothing to compromise the investigation, whether they got their facts right or not. Why would the police not let them think they were on the right track? If they were correct in their surmise, no damage done. Hutch's suspect was now way down the police priority list, if he even existed. If the Echo guessed wrong, and Hutch's suspect was still being urgently sought, do you seriously imagine the police would rush to correct them and let this man – potentially the killer - "read all about it" and either change his appearance or scarper? Far better if the papers are giving the impression that he is virtually in the clear because of major concerns with Hutch's story. And that would be the case whatever level of importance the police were now giving this lead: high, medium or low. Until they could find and eliminate the suspect, or prove he was a figment of Hutch's imagination, the Echo would be playing into police hands by claiming inside knowledge that he was all but forgotten.

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?

See above. The police were simply not obliged to tell any members of the press which leads they were actively pursuing or why – and it would have been insane to do so, and announce it all to the killer in the process. I can't believe you think otherwise.

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.

Hang on, Ben. You have yet to show that the police confirmed the Echo's speculation in so many words. They may have gone to Commercial St nick to try and substantiate it and got a dismissive "If you say so" for their pains. To the press, a failure to categorically deny or correct something is often as good as confirmation. But the police were never going to deny or correct that one, for reasons outlined above, and they were under no obligation to confirm it either. If they saw fit to confirm that the search for Astrakhan Man was no longer a priority, why would that be 'dangerous' misinformation if the search was ongoing? Are you suggesting that many 'Astrakhan types' inhabited the murder zone, and the message to prostitutes would be "go out and get 'em girls, the ripper's not one of them"? Otherwise, if he was the one-off (or extraordinary to the point of non-existent) character you usually insist he was, don't you think the ladies would know him immediately if they spotted him and avoid him like the plague - if they didn't die of surprise first – whatever the papers said? Only in your world would a prossie say "Oh, you must be Astrakhan Man, for there can be only one of you in this neck of the woods at night, but I'm perfectly safe with you because I read it in the Echo."

Far more dangerous to let him know he was still wanted, and give him a chance to change his appearance and blend in with the crowd.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“How do you know for a fact that the police supplied any information to the Echo, or that the paper reported it accurately if they did?”

On the 13th November a condensed version of Hutchinson’s statement appeared in several newspapers (probably via Central News) without his name attached, and when the more detailed account appeared the next morning (again in several papers) including the name “George Hutchinson”, it was erroneously surmised that they originated from two separate sources; that the latter provided independent support for the former. It was precisely because of this confusion that the Echo approached the police and ascertained what we now know to be the truth:

“Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contemporaries, we learned on inquiry at the Commercial Street police station today that the elaborate description given above is virtually the same as that previously published. It is a little fuller, that is all. But it proceeds from the same source.”

It did proceed from the same source, and this information could only be confirmed by the police.

That is how we know for a fact that the police did supply “inside” information to the Echo, who did report it accurately. And if we have no reason to dispute that – and we definitely don’t – why would we have any reason to dispute the detail, obtained on the very same visit, concerning Hutchinson’s account being “considerably discounted”? We don’t need any smoke and mirrors excuses for the latter information being somehow wrong, or “guessed” or lied about if we know for certain that the police were faithfully imparting accurate information on a semi-related issue. You keep insisting that the Echo “guessed” and “surmised”, without any evidence of guesswork, and in direct contrast with their statement on the 13th that the authorities had attached a “very reduced importance” to his statement because he hadn’t come forward earlier.

How are you seriously expecting the police to have reacted to an Echo reporter marching into the station and saying, “we were floundering in soggy mess not knowing anything, so we decided to guess that you had ditched Hutchinson’s account, and then publish lies about obtaining this information from you. Can you help us out please”? Would the police supply factual information to them on one issue, and then lie themselves about Astrakhan man being no longer sought, despite the potentially fatal consequences it could have?

No, the fact that the Echo stated on the 13th November that they had gained their information from the "authorities" tells us – short of fanciful conspiracy theories – that they were in contact with the police before the following day's visit to the station, with the latter being merely to ascertain conformation.

“If the Echo guessed wrong, and Hutch's suspect was still being urgently sought, do you seriously imagine the police would rush to correct them and let this man – potentially the killer - "read all about it" and either change his appearance or scarper?”

As if it required that for Astrakhan to figure out, all of a sudden, that dressing to the nines in such an environment wasn’t a clever move! And as for “scarpering”, I think he had rather missed his cue in the form of Hutchinson staring at his mug at close quarters and then not-so-discreetly following him to his intended murder destination.

“The police were simply not obliged to tell any members of the press which leads they were actively pursuing or why – and it would have been insane to do so, and announce it all to the killer in the process.”

Nor were they required to pretend to all and sundry that any old crap purporting to be eyewitness evidence might be a valuable lead worth pursuing. It wasn’t as if it was any great secret that Packer and Violenia had been ditched as worthwhile leads, so why would Hutchinson be any different? High profile investigations are deluged with bogus information, making it hopelessly impractical for the police to sustain the pretense that all accounts provided potentially genuine sightings of the actual perpetrator.

“If they saw fit to confirm that the search for Astrakhan Man was no longer a priority, why would that be 'dangerous' misinformation if the search was ongoing? Are you suggesting that many 'Astrakhan types' inhabited the murder zone, and the message to prostitutes would be "go out and get 'em girls, the ripper's not one of them"?”

It wasn’t just a “message to prostitutes” though, was it? What about ordinary members of the public who may have been deterred from reporting the presence or activities of Astrakhan types by the “false” information that an account involving a suspicious Astrakhan type last seen with Kelly had been discredited? What if one of these was the actual murderer, and managed to avoid capture as a direct result of the misinformation that Astrakhan types were no longer being sought? Ironically, members of the public did continue to report such men, who were very quickly released – obviously because the police weren’t still seeking them.

There was always the possibility that the police rejected Hutchinson’s account in error (i.e. in the absence of final proof that he lied), which is why they didn’t make an official declaration that Hutchinson was discredited, preferring instead to impart the detail to more reputable press sources.

“Far more dangerous to let him know he was still wanted, and give him a chance to change his appearance and blend in with the crowd.”

As if this was this the first tip-off Astrakhan required that doing the precise opposite of “blending in with the crowd” was not the cleverest idea…

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

While we're on the subject of press reports, I do hope that those insisting that the statement was conveyed by cop-ogram on a silver platter understand that this appeared in a press report, and that the double-standards approach to the use of "uncorroborated press reports" is the issue here, as opposed to any actual concern over the actual method of conveyance. It could have been sent by carrier pigeon for all I care. The point is that those who rely on this uncorroborated press report have absolutely no business treating it as gospel whilst at the same time attempting to castigate those who support the accuracy of other press reports, unless they don't mind the hypocrisy being spelled out.

This report has no more "support" than the Echo and Star articles relating to Hutchinson's discrediting, or the Lloyds Weekly article referring to Isaacs being in prison at the time of the murder.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
Your answer to me is rather confusing.You say you have no doubt about a telegram,then add it is only guesswork.

Harry.
I can't imagine why you would embroil yourself in this Hutchinson silliness.
If you choose to query what I wrote, then please use the actual words.

This is what I said:
"I do not doubt a telegram may have played a role in the communication"

This line referred to Garry:
"Here though the possibility of a telegram is guesswork, though it was offered in this topic as if it was a known fact,..."

So what is it you do not understand?

You further add you are not talking about 'Proof'(That at least is obvious),after years of castigating others for not producing proof of claims.

If you had been following the debates, I castigate those who claim they have proof, but refuse to show it. And, these have always been from the "Hutchinson-the-liar" camp.

If you choose to pick a fight Harry, get your facts right first.

Now this detective messenger,and his message. Why, if he was present at Commercial Street police station when Hutchinson arrived,did he not take over the interview,and take a witness statement.

No-one said he was present when the interview was conducted.
We know Abberline wasn't, if he had been present his name would have been listed between Badham & Arnold, as witnesses.

You were lecturing me sometime ago on the code of police officers,and police procedures,and de partment policy.Surely the code,procedure and policy dictated that such an important witness,should have immediately been passed on to the investigation department officer(detective) who was present.

There is nothing in the Code along those lines.

[Wickerman]

While we're on the subject of press reports, I do hope that those insisting that the statement was conveyed by cop-ogram on a silver platter understand that this appeared in a press report, and that the double-standards approach to the use of "uncorroborated press reports" is the issue here, as opposed to any actual concern over the actual method of conveyance. It could have been sent by carrier pigeon for all I care. The point is that those who rely on this uncorroborated press report have absolutely no business treating it as gospel whilst at the same time attempting to castigate those who support the accuracy of other press reports, unless they don't mind the hypocrisy being spelled out.

This report has no more "support" than the Echo and Star articles relating to Hutchinson's discrediting, or the Lloyds Weekly article referring to Isaacs being in prison at the time of the murder.

Where would the criticism of Hutchinson be without these press reports?