Vetting Hutchinson

[Wickerman]

Don't know what you've been reading over the past 100 years Jon, but Hutchinsons story historically is understood as being given by a witness who is later discredited.

Rather than keep repeating the same tired mantra Michael, why don't you provide these historical interpretations.

Lets say anything prior to 1980, for starters.

Go ahead, provide this 'history' that condemns Hutchinson's story as false.

[Wickerman]

On the contrary, Jon, it makes a huge difference.
One end of the passage afforded the witness an opportunity to look and listen for signs of movement and activity coming from Kelly's room,

But there wasn't any 'activity' to report, so this detail is of no consequence to the police.

I'm perfectly aware that he was "just as able to be involved" regardless of which end of the passage he happened to be stationed at, but the police were not investigating his potential culpability; they were assessing his worth as a witness.

Witness to what? He didn't hear or see anything "up the court".
So what was there to assess about that detail?
No point in mentioning it, or equally, no need for Badham to make the distinction in the statement, it did not lead anywhere.

Hutchinson informed the police that he stood "there", i.e. on Dorset Street outside the Miller's Court entrance,...

He may have, walking up the court and standing for two minutes does not detract from him standing out on Dorset St. for 45 minutes.
So long as he didn't say, that he did not walk up the court, then there is no contradiction.

This is another typical example of the confused state of the anti-Hutch arguments.
Hutchinson never said he did not go up the court, but you assume that because he did not tell police that he did walk up the court, then this means he was being evasive.

So then you create this abstract argument based on your assumption.
- He didn't say that he did, therefore he didn't, so when he told the press he did, he was lying, or,
- He didn't say that he did, so he was evasive, and when he told the press he did, then this proves he lied to police.
I can see a Monty Python script in the making...

Caz has already explained this to you, is Ben a slow learner or is it Ben just revels in repetition?

I'm afraid this is just bonkers, Jon. I don't know where you obtained the idea from that the word "acquainted" translates to a lack of "urgency",

Forwarding reports at the approved hour continued on throughout the murder enquiries.
If a report was deemed "Urgent", then there were special provisions for "Urgent" communications.
The statement of another witness, the results of which have yet to be fully investigated (is he a crank or a crook?), does not fall into that category.
It is sufficient to follow Warrens instructions and make Swanson aware (keep him acquainted), on how the case is proceeding.

So why forward the statement?

If it fell entirely to Abberline to "deal with" Hutchinson's account thereafter, why surrender the most important document associated with it? You do realise, I hope, that this was the entire narrative; the meat and veg of Hutchinson's actual story? Any notes he took on that story were very unlikely to outdo the story itself in terms of detail, unless we wish to revisit the implausible contention that Abberline scribbled down a brand new, improved "statement" at furious speed while Hutchinson fended off "interrogation" questions.

The statement was surplus, subsequent to the information obtained via the interrogation.

There is another consideration. In the Police Code it directly states that copies of reports/notes may be forwarded to headquarters in lieu of the originals.
Hectographs & Mimeographs were in use. The police did have need to copy documents from time to time. There were Duplicating machines, a Letter Press, and the old reliable Copyist (re-write by hand), I can't say what was available at Commercial St. but a copy could have been made and either one of them sent to H.Q.

[Wickerman]

Yep, the whole wealth of evidence in support of the contention that Hutchinson's evidence was discredited very shortly after it first appeared, ...

Here you go again, where IS this "wealth" of evidence, apart from in your imagination that is.
Isn't it about time you laid this evidence out for all to see?

When did the first books appear identifying Hutchinson as a suspect?, mid 1990's was it? (roughly).
That is about 20 years ago, for a hundred and seven years prior to that not a whisper of contention to the opinion of Abberline.
I know I've been out of school a long time, but in my day 107 years was considerably longer than 20 years.

And, lest you forget, the press at the time, while some mentioned a reduced importance of his story, not one accused Hutchinson of lying.
Hutchinson was never accused of anything by police nor press. All these accusations are late developments not more than 20 years old.

But I recall that both ventured their opinion based on their experience and wisdom, and don't recall either coming down in favour of the "uninterrupted monologue" theory.

Don't lose any sleep over that, it isn't important.
Whether Badham asked no questions, or very few, the result is the same.
The fact remains, certain points were not explored by Badham, yet were explored by the press, the reason for this will remain conjecture.

Where is the evidence of Lawende, Schwartz, Cadosche and Violenia all being assigned "automatic suspect" status simply by virtue of them being presumably the last people to see the victim alive?

This has been explained to you already, the comparison's you offer are not the same. Each one being a different case.

But still achieving nothing in terms of procuring an alibi for Hutchinson.

So long as portions of his story can be verified, an investigator can take the risk of giving him the benefit of the doubt.
It isn't only the responses obtained via the interrogation, but the mans character.

The distance between Lewis and the loitering man would not have been 25 feet.

Oh, so now 25 feet is an objection, but 22 feet isn't?, 21?, 20?
Just forget the 10, that's all you need to remember.

Hope so, Jon - bitter over lager is the deal-breaker! I research maritime history with a lot more passion that I do ripper studies, but I can't seem to extract any juicy combativeness from Titanic passenger discussions.

Ah, and my specialty is the End of the Late Bronze in the Eastern Med. (Sea Peoples, the Hittites and Egypt, etc.). Which does touch upon maritime history in a small way, but in the old world.

[Ben]

But there wasn't any 'activity' to report, so this detail is of no consequence to the police.

That's nonsense for a start, Jon. The fact that there was no activity to report was of tremendous value to the police. I've addressed this point before and copy and paste will suffice to demolish it again:

A claim to have stood immediately outside the window of a murder victim at around the time that victim was thought to have been murdered would have been of vital evidential importance, and a revelation that the room was silent and in darkness would have been just as significant as a claim that the pair were still chatting away in room #13. If anything, the former would have been far more incriminating towards Astrakhan, since it carries the obvious implication that he had already murdered Kelly by the time Hutchinson arrived outside her door. Prostitute-client encounters are not typically conducted in silence and darkness after all.

He may have, walking up the court and standing for two minutes does not detract from him standing out on Dorset St. for 45 minutes

It was a completely different vantage point which offered crucially different opportunities in terms of procuring eyewitness and "earwitness" evidence, and despite the nonsensical and irritating protestations to the contrary, Hutchinson's claim that Kelly's room was shrouded in darkness and silence would have been considered of critical importance. The notion, therefore, that Hutchinson had to wait to be asked to impart such a crucial detail reflects exceptionally poorly on both Hutchinson and the police.

Hutchinson never said he did not go up the court, but you assume that because he did not tell police that he did walk up the court, then this means he was being evasive.

Yes, I do assume that.

What sane person would conclude otherwise?

If he didn't impart the detail voluntarily - as we might assume a voluntary witness would obviously have done - he was unquestionably being "evasive".

If you want to get round that problem, you will have to do a lot better than fruitlessly and repetitively insisting that he would have imparted such a crucial piece of information if only the poor sod had been asked. I frankly doubt the honesty of anyone who claims to find this a convincing explanation for the absence of the "going up the court" detail from his police statement; so startlingly obvious is the reality that Hutchinson would have mentioned such a detail had it truly occurred and had he been an honest witness, as opposed to the discredited fame-seeker he was ultimately adjudged to be.

“Caz has already explained this to you, is Ben a slow learner or is it Ben just revels in repetition?”

If you wish to anger me, by all means persist with these sorts of goading attacks, but don’t even think about complaining when I respond with a comment that you consider “childish”.

“Forwarding reports at the approved hour continued on throughout the murder enquiries.
If a report was deemed "Urgent", then there were special provisions for "Urgent" communications.”

Yep, and this qualified as “urgent”, irrefutably so, which is presumably why Abberline forwarded the statement, with his approval, up the chain of police command very shortly after conducting the “interrogation”. If Astrakhan was the murderer, there was absolutely no time to waste; the priority lay in circulating the description and pursuing the suspect. Any further investigation into Hutchinson’s story would have occurred in parallel to the pursuit of the suspect he described. If you mean to suggest that the hunt for the suspect would only get underway once the story of the informant had been proven truthful or accurate, then you are miles off once again.

“The statement was surplus, subsequent to the information obtained via the interrogation.”

No, it wasn’t.

It absolutely was not “surplus”.

For that to be the case, Abberline would have been required to write down the entire story again during the interrogation, which would have been utterly pointless. The interrogation offered “filler” material for the statement, not the other way round. The statement was the most crucial Hutchinson-related document because it contained his actual story, not explanatory “notes” appended thereto.

“In the Police Code it directly states that copies of reports/notes may be forwarded to headquarters in lieu of the originals.”

But it wasn’t in this case, was it?

Abberline forward the original statement to Swanson. If you’re now suggesting Abberline had easy access to a “photocopier”, why didn’t he sent copies of what you keep wrongly describing as an “interrogation report” when he forward the statement? You’ve been arguing for too long that the interrogation notes had to “stay with Abberline”, but now you suggest that he had the means of sending them on and retaining copies simultaneously. And yet he didn’t; why not?

[Ben]

Here you go again, where IS this "wealth" of evidence, apart from in your imagination that is.
Isn't it about time you laid this evidence out for all to see?

I have.

Try looking through the thousands of posts in the Hutchinson forum where you know full well this subject has been discussed ad nauseam. You can disagree with my interpretation of the evidence if you wish, but please do not be so dishonest as to claim that I haven't discussed the evidence in support of Hutchinson's discrediting in considerable detail.

That is about 20 years ago, for a hundred and seven years prior to that not a whisper of contention to the opinion of Abberline.

Nonsense.

And you can forget "20 years ago", and try 24 hours after Abberline's initial vote of approval instead. The police informed the Echo of their doubts about Hutchinson's credibility less than 24 hours after Hutchinson himself first approached the police station. They then reiterated those doubts the very next day when journalists from that newspaper visited Commercial Street police station in person. Other papers evidently got wind of the developments, most notably the Star, who reported that both Packer and Hutchinson were "now discredited", and the latter sank without trace shortly thereafter.

He is also a conspicuous absentee from any subsequent police memoir or interview addressing the topic of ripper-related witnesses. Anderson stated that the only person to get a good view of the murderer was Jewish, whilst Macnaghten observed that nobody saw the murderer, unless it was the "PC from Mitre Square".

In other words, all the available supports the contention that Hutchinson was rejected as a witness at the time; making yours the revisionist stance, not mine. If Hutchinson made an apparent "come-back" in the 70s and 80s, it was because celebrity suspects were all the rage back then, with authors inevitably latching on to Hutchinson's suspect in support of their "well-dressed" candidate. Like it or not, all that nonsense (conjured up more for the purpose of creating titillation than understanding history) has been eschewed in recent years in favour of a more scholarly and criminological approach, which is why doubts over Hutchinson continue to be prevalent.

I don't know where you obtained the absurd idea that doubts about Hutchinson's credibility only originated with suggestions that he might have been the murderer, but that isn't true either.

The fact remains, certain points were not explored by Badham, yet were explored by the press, the reason for this will remain conjecture.

And your personal conjecture just happens to be that Badham was completely incompetent, and that the newsman who interviewed Hutchinson was more worthy of wearing the uniform than hapless Badham was.

This has been explained to you already, the comparison's you offer are not the same. Each one being a different case.

The comparisons I offer are very much the same. Violenia was a voluntary "witness" who despite claiming to have been on the streets where the Chapman murder was committed, and seeing the victim himself, was considered bogus. Much like Hutchinson, however, there is no evidence to indicate that he was ever considered a potential suspect.

So long as portions of his story can be verified, an investigator can take the risk of giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Which portions can be verified? And when did these verifications occur?

It isn't only the responses obtained via the interrogation, but the mans character.

Which counts for nothing if a man of bad character can do a half-decent job of passing himself off as a man of good character. Many liars have evaded detection that way, including a handful of serial killers, funnily enough.

Just forget the 10, that's all you need to remember.

All you need to remember is that your previous argument, that Lewis was too far away to register the face of wideawake man, does not hold water.

Ah, and my specialty is the End of the Late Bronze in the Eastern Med. (Sea Peoples, the Hittites and Egypt, etc.).

Interested to hear it, Jon! Have your studies prompted you to visit these places? Sounds like a good excuse to me.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

... You can disagree with my interpretation of the evidence if you wish, but please do not be so dishonest as to claim that I haven't discussed the evidence in support of Hutchinson's discrediting in considerable detail.

You repeatedly quote two press speculations, that is not evidence, they provide no source.
You cannot show that the police held any doubts about Hutchinson, so your "evidence" amounts to circular reasoning.
The press speculate that Hutchinson's importance has lessened, so you believe he was discredited, and your 'proof' of this is those same press speculations.
Circular reasoning.

And you can forget "20 years ago", ...

That is roughly when the first theories about Hutchinson came into print, the mid-nineties or thereabouts.

...and try 24 hours after Abberline's initial vote of approval instead. The police informed the Echo of their doubts about Hutchinson's credibility less than 24 hours after Hutchinson himself first approached the police station.

The police said no such thing.
The Echo invented a nonsensical scenario, as Caz & myself have detailed out to you. The fact you refuse to admit it does not mean the police gave them any info concerning their private beliefs about Hutchinson.
Your imagination at work again.

He is also a conspicuous absentee from any subsequent police memoir or interview addressing the topic of ripper-related witnesses. Anderson stated that the only person to get a good view of the murderer was Jewish, whilst Macnaghten observed that nobody saw the murderer, unless it was the "PC from Mitre Square".

And you know why, Hutchinson did not see the killer. I believe the police realized this, but only after mid December.

And your personal conjecture just happens to be that Badham was completely incompetent, and that the newsman who interviewed Hutchinson was more worthy of wearing the uniform than hapless Badham was.

Your words, not mine.
Why is it you never quote what I actually write, in preference to an exaggerated misrepresentation?

Which counts for nothing if a man of bad character can do a half-decent job of passing himself off as a man of good character. Many liars have evaded detection that way, including a handful of serial killers, funnily enough.

We are concerned with how Abberline arrived at his conclusion, not that he had to be correct. He was satisfied, you want to believe he was incompetent and merely rolled a dice, thats your choice.

All you need to remember is that your previous argument, that Lewis was too far away to register the face of wideawake man, does not hold water.

Really?
So why couldn't she describe him?

Interested to hear it, Jon! Have your studies prompted you to visit these places? Sounds like a good excuse to me.

It isn't temples and ruins that interest me. Its the 'stuff' that is being uncovered in excavations, and I think I am a little too long in the tooth to be swinging a pick & shovel...

[Ben]

You repeatedly quote two press speculations, that is not evidence, they provide no source.
You cannot show that the police held any doubts about Hutchinson, so your "evidence" amounts to circular reasoning.

You've raised these spurious objections before, and I'm frankly not interested in seeing you repeat them again. What's with the repetition? If that's the game you wish to play, I can "out-repeat" you any day of the week on account of the fact that I have more stamina and (no offense) greater longevity for such things. The press were not responsible for "speculation" in this case, since they were proven to have communicated with the police directly at Commercial Street station; the latter providing details which could only have been obtained from the police. Cut-and-pastes already at hand if you claim that the details in question were "already public knowledge", which they weren't.

That is roughly when the first theories about Hutchinson came into print, the mid-nineties or thereabouts.

Theories about Hutchinson as a suspect, yes, whereas theories about him as a probable liar originated from the 13th November 1888.

The Echo invented a nonsensical scenario, as Caz & myself have detailed out to you

But did you provide a single scrap of evidence for your assertion that the Echo "invented" the detail? No, you did not, but you continue to make such baseless assertions, flying in the face of the fact that the police did communicate with the Echo and divulged information that we know to be true.

And you know why, Hutchinson did not see the killer. I believe the police realized this, but only after mid December.

No, I think they realised it in mid-November actually, around the time he was discredited as a probable liar. If the the police accepted that Hutchinson told the truth, on the other hand, there was no possibility of them proving his Astrakhan suspect innocent of the Kelly murder.

Really?
So why couldn't she describe him?

Because he probably looked like every other average Joe in the district and there was nothing to "describe"; which is different from an inability to recognise the same man again.

It isn't temples and ruins that interest me. Its the 'stuff' that is being uncovered in excavations

Which I imagine is ongoing! Interesting stuff; have you written on the subject?

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

If that's the game you wish to play, I can "out-repeat" you any day of the week on account of the fact that I have more stamina and (no offense) greater longevity for such things.

You've been threatening that, for how many years?
I'm still here Ben. I have no doubt you may eventually have the last word, but only because you're likely half my age - if you get my meaning.

The press were not responsible for "speculation" in this case, since they were proven to have communicated with the police directly at Commercial Street station; the latter providing details which could only have been obtained from the police. Cut-and-pastes already at hand if you claim that the details in question were "already public knowledge", which they weren't.

Your often quoted line, "From latest inquiries...etc", makes no mention of a source, and has been pointed out to you that their claim that his statement should have been made at the inquest is demonstrably false.
Evidence of ignorance on behalf of the Echo, as the police had already accepted his statement as fact, and the police do not require a witness statement to be sworn for them to act upon it.
This is sufficient indication that they were speculating.

And your other preference, that the Echo had Hutchinson's story confirmed by Commercial St. as coming from the same source as the initial police releases, was public knowledge anyway.
Naming the source to the Echo does not constitute sharing inside information, both details were published in the press - pubic knowledge.

No, I think they realised it in mid-November actually, around the time he was discredited as a probable liar.

But no-one DID discredit him, the Star never offered a source for their conjecture, and the Star themselves do not constitute an "official" dismissal.

If the the police accepted that Hutchinson told the truth, on the other hand, there was no possibility of them proving his Astrakhan suspect innocent of the Kelly murder.

Their challenge is not to 'prove' him innocent, but to 'prove' him guilty.
In many cases circumstantial evidence is sufficient, but not in this case.

Which I imagine is ongoing! Interesting stuff; have you written on the subject?

Yes, some years ago - Whence & Whither the Sea Peoples, merely a dissertation. My archaeological sources, volumes of Monographs by an endless list of archaeologists, and yes, ever growing, far outweighs my 'Ripper' sources.

[Ben]

I'm still here Ben. I have no doubt you may eventually have the last word, but only because you're likely half my age - if you get my meaning.

So you fully intend to keep fighting until you're physically incapable of doing so? I don't know what it is about these Hutchinson debates, you know. There is just something about them; something that awakens utterly entrenched zealotry in otherwise sane human beings. Take you, for instance; how many years were you just a regular poster to Casebook, before you decided to eat, drink, and sleep Hutchinson? It's not a criticism - I'm just as "bad", and I'm glad of the company! But seriously, take any other contentious topic associated with the ripper murders, and see if you can encourage long-winded, fight-to-the-death debates on six threads, running concurrently. I bet you couldn't.

Hypnotic, isn't it?

And here was me thinking it was just my aftershave.

Your often quoted line, "From latest inquiries...etc", makes no mention of a source

Nor it is likely to, at least not with any specificity.

The Echo made it very clear, however, that they had obtained their information from the "authorities", and if, for whatever reason, you don't consider that sufficient, we know for a fact that they visited Commercial Street Police Station the next day and were provided with details that only the police would have known. It was on this occasion that the police reiterated their "considerable discounting" of Hutchinson's statement.

"their claim that his statement should have been made at the inquest is demonstrably false.
Evidence of ignorance on behalf of the Echo, as the police had already accepted his statement as fact"

It is not "evidence" of any such thing. There is no doubt that the police informed the Echo of this development, whether true of false. If you have trouble with the reason they provided - and I accept that Hutchinson's delay in coming forward can't have been the primary deciding factor in his discrediting - then you're compelled to accept that that the police gave a deliberately obfuscatory "reason" to the Echo because they were unwilling to provide full details of their doubts concerning his credibility.

I wrote:

Cut-and-pastes already at hand if you claim that the details in question were "already public knowledge", which they weren't

To which you, with rather boring predictability, replied:

"And your other preference, that the Echo had Hutchinson's story confirmed by Commercial St. as coming from the same source as the initial police releases, was public knowledge anyway."

So here goes, with that promised cut-and-paste:

Some of the morning papers observed that the newer description "agreed" with the one published the previous morning, which could easily imply to the casual observer that two people had seen the same individual, and that the two descriptions are “virtually” the same because the person being described was wearing exactly those clothes. The police would not have been anxious for it to become “public knowledge” that a description that they had been responsible for circulating had “proceeded from the same source” as an entirely unsanctioned press interview, which contained numerous embellishments. On the contrary, they would have sought to distance themselves from the 14th November account. The relevant point, which you keep trying to bury in more and more rubble, is that the police imparted accurate information to the Echo after receiving them at Commercial Street police station. Would they then publish lies about the reason for Hutchinson’s “very reduced importance”, knowing full well that the consequence of such action would have been an embargo on any future audiences with the police? The answer is absolutely no way.

And then that'll have to be you done with any further repetition, or I'll be dipping into the archives and reproducing the same responses that did the trick perfectly on the last occasion.

But no-one DID discredit him, the Star never offered a source for their conjecture, and the Star themselves do not constitute an "official" dismissal.

None of the bogus witness received an "official dismissal". What possible motive could the Star have had for inventing the detail that Hutchinson's story was "now discredited", especially after they lumped Packer in the same category in the same article. So you're saying they told the truth about Packer's discrediting, but invented an elaborate lie that Hutchinson had suffered a similar fate? And the suggested motivation for all this subterfuge is...?

Their challenge is not to 'prove' him innocent, but to 'prove' him guilty

But your very unique argument demands that Astrakhan (in the form of Isaacs!) was completely removed from all further consideration as a potential murderer, which could only realistically have occurred if he was proven innocent.

Yes, some years ago - Whence & Whither the Sea Peoples, merely a dissertation.

I would be very interested to read it, Jon. Is it available online?

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

... But seriously, take any other contentious topic associated with the ripper murders, and see if you can encourage long-winded, fight-to-the-death debates on six threads, running concurrently. I bet you couldn't.

There are other topics out there? I hadn't noticed...

The Echo made it very clear, however, that they had obtained their information from the "authorities", and if, for whatever reason, you don't consider that sufficient,

I don't, a vague reference like "the authorities" indicates to me their attempt to be evasive. If they can name Commercial St. as their source in one instance, then why not elsewhere, or Leman St, or Scotland Yard?
"The authorities" betrays their concern about being challenged on that particular story.

...we know for a fact that they visited Commercial Street Police Station the next day and were provided with details that only the police would have known. It was on this occasion that the police reiterated their "considerable discounting" of Hutchinson's statement.

But that is also false, demonstrably so.
The police have already accepted his statement, knowing it came after the inquest, so it wasn't discounted "because it was not given at the inquest".
That!, is their claim, and it is entirely wrong.
You keep repeating these debunked claims, which suggests to me you have run out of ammunition to defend your theory.

If you have trouble with the reason they provided - and I accept that Hutchinson's delay in coming forward can't have been the primary deciding factor in his discrediting - then you're compelled to accept that that the police gave a deliberately obfuscatory "reason" to the Echo because they were unwilling to provide full details of their doubts concerning his credibility.

On the contrary Ben, the issue is not with what police "are suggested" to have told the Echo but, whether the police told the Echo anything at all.
The very fact the reason provided by the Echo is false means their claim is false, so the question becomes one of, did the police truly give any information to the Echo on that point?

Besides, what you fail to observe is that the Echo actually claim that it is the morning press "so says the morning papers", who make the connection between Hutchinsons story and the initial details of the previous day.
The morning papers, not the police.

And, finally, it was NOT the police who cast doubts about the timing of this information ("considerably discounted"), but once again, the morning papers.

" It has not been ascertained why the witness did not make this statement - so much fuller and so different from the others that have been given - immediately after the murder was discovered. "
Daily Telegraph, Nov. 13.

So both the "importance" of the story, and the "suspicious timing"?, of the story are BOTH attributed to the morning papers, NOT the police.

...to be continued.

[Wickerman]

So here goes, with that promised cut-and-paste:

Some of the morning papers observed that the newer description "agreed" with the one published the previous morning, which could easily imply to the casual observer that two people had seen the same individual, and that the two descriptions are “virtually” the same because the person being described was wearing exactly those clothes. The police would not have been anxious for it to become “public knowledge” that a description that they had been responsible for circulating had “proceeded from the same source” as an entirely unsanctioned press interview, which contained numerous embellishments.

Ah, so the importance you claim for this exchange (between police & Echo) is based on your own belief that, "the police would not have been anxious....", yet they confirmed the source anyway?

How does that make any sense?
It isn't the police who are claiming this to be privileged, but you!

Then, because the police did share this (demonstrating your claim to be wrong), you insist that some bond of trust must have existed between the two?

That Ben, is a very distorted logic. The police, by their own response to the Echo, have proven your belief to be wrong!
What this instance does demonstrate is, that the police did not view that detail as privileged - which is what I have maintained all along.

Maybe I should adopt this cut-n-paste repetition in response to your consistent failure to provide a logical argument that fits the facts.

Your claim that "...it issued from the same source" must be privileged information, is proven wrong, by your own argument.

None of the bogus witness received an "official dismissal". What possible motive could the Star have had for inventing the detail that Hutchinson's story was "now discredited", especially after they lumped Packer in the same category in the same article.

Please read that paragraph again.
The Star mention Packer (as the discredited Berner St. witness), yes. But the "Worthless story" that the Star are referring to is his recent claim:

"... Now he says that two men came to him the other day and asked him to describe the man who bought the grapes, and that after he had done so one of the strangers expressed the conviction that the murderer was his cousin.."

Which the police were unable to verify, but were also unable to "discredit".
Neither Packer's recent story, nor Hutchinson story were actually discredited by police.
The Star are making controversial statements, likely to procure interest and sell more copy.

Your suggestion that Hutchinson is being paralleled with Packers grape story on the night of the murder is false. He is being paralleled with the more recent unverified claims of being approached by two strangers.
In so far as the press were concerned, both stories may have been unverified, but that does not mean they were bogus stories, or even proven false, so not discredited either.

But your very unique argument demands that Astrakhan (in the form of Isaacs!) was completely removed from all further consideration as a potential murderer, which could only realistically have occurred if he was proven innocent.

Not at all, he was thrown in the slammer for 3 months, not released on the streets. We cannot know what further investigations were pursued, the press were out of the loop.

I would be very interested to read it, Jon. Is it available online?

Coincidentally, I was on a History site just last week and a member mentioned it as a more realistic interpretation, or words to that effect, so it must be out there somewhere.
I have a copy anyway, but it needs an update, it was last updated in 2005.

[Wickerman]

Just for you Ben, this specific objection of yours might be in need of detailing out.

The claim by the Echo was:

The importance of this description lies (so says the morning papers) in the fact that it agrees with that furnished to the police yesterday, but which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner. There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity.
The police do not attach so much importance to this document as some of our contemporaries do; but they think it sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry.
Echo, 14 Nov.

So, to break this quote up for ease of understanding, the first line reads:
"The importance of this description lies (so says the morning papers) in the fact that it agrees with that furnished to the police yesterday,..."

Which is a direct reference to two reports (at least) from the morning press, where we read:

“...the police have become possessed of a most important link in the chain of evidence in the case “
Morning Advertiser, 14 Nov.

“It will be observed that the description of the supposed murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police, and published yesterday morning. “
Daily News, 14 Nov.

The Echo are borrowing on the opinions expressed in the morning papers, not expressed by the police.


Then, the second part of the quote from the Echo continues:

"...but which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner."

The above is a repeat and re-write of an observation made by the Daily Telegraph on the 13th.

"It has not been ascertained why the witness did not make this statement - so much fuller and so different from the others that have been given - immediately after the murder was discovered.”
Daily Telegraph, 13 Nov.

When all three previous observations are located, we can see the source for the remarks published by the Echo on the evening of the 14th.

Then we have the third sentence:
"There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity.

Most of the daily papers attached this observation to their stories.

And finally:

The police do not attach so much importance to this document as some of our contemporaries do; but they think it sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry."

So at best, the Echo, on being aware of the Hutchinson version will have approached the police to seek an opinion. Apparently, they were told this version is not of critical importance, but will be thoroughly investigated as is normal procedure.

So nothing to do with any close relationship between the Echo and the police, just a carefully worded re-write of press opinion already published, appended with the usual polite confirmation from police that they will do what is necessary.

[Ben]

There are other topics out there? I hadn't noticed...

Nor for much longer there won't be, Jon. Not if current symptoms persist (and boy, are we going to make damnably sure they do persist!)

“I don't, a vague reference like "the authorities" indicates to me their attempt to be evasive. If they can name Commercial St. as their source in one instance, then why not elsewhere, or Leman St, or Scotland Yard?”

Probably because the informant in question specifically requested not to be named - a request the Echo would have done well to adhere to if they were expecting to receive any more information from the police in the future, which is precisely what happened, and which brings me back to the point you keep ignoring; why would the police receive the Echo at Commercial Street station if they knew that they had published lies about Hutchinson, and the police treatment thereof, the previous day?

Forget that terrible argument you keep repeating that the police only provided the Echo with information that was “already public knowledge”; the question remains – why would the police invite them into the station and tell them anything when they knew full well that the same paper had flagrantly lied about their treatment of a witness? In such a case, the obvious response to a knock on the police station door from known lying journalists was “phuck off”, not, “gentleman, please do come in for tea, and let us confirm some of the assumptions doing the rounds”.

“The police have already accepted his statement, knowing it came after the inquest, so it wasn't discounted "because it was not given at the inquest"”

Yes, I know that.

I’ve acknowledged a million times that if the police informed the Echo that Hutchinson’s discrediting was purely because of his failure to provide evidence at the inquest, they can’t have been putting the newspaper fully in the picture about their full reasons for distrusting Hutchinson. That does not mean, however, that his late arrival played no part whatsoever. It is entirely possible, for instance, that Hutchinson provided an initial “reason” for his late appearance, which “later investigation” revealed to be bogus.

“On the contrary Ben, the issue is not with what police "are suggested" to have told the Echo but, whether the police told the Echo anything at all.”

No, Jon, that it is not “the issue”.

The notion that the Echo were responsible for inventing the “very reduced importance” was always a ludicrous and baseless argument – devoid of any rational motive on the part of that newspaper – long before it was proven impossible, so you’ll forgive me if I pay scant heed to your assertions as to what is and isn’t “the issue”.

“Besides, what you fail to observe is that the Echo actually claim that it is the morning press "so says the morning papers", who make the connection between Hutchinsons story and the initial details of the previous day.
The morning papers, not the police.”

Far from “failing to observe” this, I have pressed the point for years; yes, it was the “morning papers” who observed that the Hutchinson account published on the 14th November “agreed with” the description furnished on the 13th, but what the Echo were able to clarify – for the benefit of any morning paper who had yet to figure it out – was that the two accounts “proceeded from the same source”, as opposed to being two independently supportive accounts from two separate witnesses.

“And, finally, it was NOT the police who cast doubts about the timing of this information ("considerably discounted"), but once again, the morning papers.”

What the…?

No, Jon.

Huge misunderstanding from you here.

The “morning papers” had nothing remotely to do with the observation, provided by the police and supplied to the Echo, that Hutchinson’s account had been “considerably discounted”. The “morning papers” were generally very pro-Hutchinson at that stage, and it was their misunderstandings, or rather their initial over-enthusiasm for Hutchinson’s evidence, that the Echo - upon receipt of accurate information from the police - were seeking to disabuse the public of. For example, the morning papers were possibly confused into thinking that the 13th and 14th November accounts were from different sources, but it was the Echo were able to report otherwise on the basis of their communication with the police. The morning papers also made a big song and dance about how brilliant Hutchinson’s evidence was, but again, it was the Echo who were able to report that “the police do not attach so much importance to this document as some of our contemporaries do” – again on the basis of that meeting at Commercial Street station.

[Ben]

“Ah, so the importance you claim for this exchange (between police & Echo) is based on your own belief that, "the police would not have been anxious....", yet they confirmed the source anyway?”

Yes, that’s right, and it wouldn’t have been such a taxing concept to take on board had you not chosen to entrench yourself in that fantasy notion that case-related information never gets divulged to the press, or that there are no such things as police informants operating at a senior level. It is obvious – very obvious, in fact – that the police did not sanction the press interview that occurred between Hutchinson and a Central News journalist. Equally obvious is the fact that they did not wish it to be published far and wide that this entirely unsanctioned press article had anything to do with their own publication of Hutchinson’s statement, minus his name, on the 13th.

They might, however, have divulged the detail (that the two accounts had a common origin) to a trusted press source with no history of anti-police agenda. Top brass may nor may not have approved of such information being provided, but then we live in the real world, not the one you appear to inhabit, in which “inside” information is never released – naughtily or otherwise. The detail that the two accounts “proceeded from the same source” did not receive an official public airing for the same reason that Hutchinson’s discrediting didn’t.

“Maybe I should adopt this cut-n-paste repetition in response to your consistent failure to provide a logical argument that fits the facts.”

Do it! Please! Do a cut-and-paste and let’s see what’ll happen as a result.

“Your suggestion that Hutchinson is being paralleled with Packers grape story on the night of the murder is false.”

Where did I say a single word about a “grape story”? Nowhere. Yes, I can perfectly accept that the Star were referring to “more recent unverified claims of being approached by two strangers” as opposed to the original Berner Street episode, but that doesn’t affect my point in the slightest. If you agree with the Star’s dismissal of Packer’s account of the strangers as a “worthless story” that has led the police on a “false scent”, why do you disagree with their dismissal of Hutchinson’s account on a similar basis? Why would they faithfully report the status of one bogus witness and tell porkies about another? You’ll have a heck of a job trying to account for such bizarre selectivity, especially as “they wanted to make the police look bad” makes no sense as an explanation, in light of this selectivity (you’ll remember that the Star had been very enthusiastic about Hutchinson’s statement when it first appeared, so they were only undermining their own reports if they wanted to pretend that the story had been ditched).

“Not at all, he was thrown in the slammer for 3 months, not released on the streets.”

Three months was utterly meaningless if the police were entertaining serious considerations that the man might be Jack the Ripper. What would happen when those three months were up? What would have toppled him from prime suspect status to the never-to-be-mentioned-again irrelevance he ended up being? What was the police plan of action for when their suspected “Astrakhan man” emerged from prison and still couldn’t provide an alibi for the Kelly murder? According to you, they had identified their probable Astrakhan and potential ripper in the form of Isaacs, so what was police’s next move? Forget about him forever, with Macnaghten failing even to name him in his memoranda, sticking with Ostrog instead?

[Ben]

“Then, the second part of the quote from the Echo continues:

"...but which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner."

The above is a repeat and re-write of an observation made by the Daily Telegraph on the 13th.

"It has not been ascertained why the witness did not make this statement - so much fuller and so different from the others that have been given - immediately after the murder was discovered.”
Daily Telegraph, 13 Nov.”

No, it absolutely isn’t anything of the sort.

The Daily Telegraph said nothing about Hutchinson’s statement being “considerably discounted”, and nor did any other morning paper. The DT may have learned from the police, as the Echo did later that day, that an adequate reason for Hutchinson’s late appearance “had not been ascertained”, but not a word about discounting or diminishing or discrediting or reducing Hutchinson’s importance was written until the evening of the 13th November. You may thus dispense with the notion that the Echo were referencing the opinions of the “morning papers” when they reported that Hutchinson’s statement had been “considerably discounted”. In order to clear up the confusion, I’ve added my own writing in bold to the 14th November quote. Hopefully, it will clarify their intended meaning:

“The importance of this description lies (so says the morning papers) in the fact that it agrees with that furnished to the police yesterday, but these morning papers were wrong to bestow it with such importance because it was considerably discounted, because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner.”

The morning papers mistakenly accorded the statement “importance” because it “agreed with” the previously published description – their misconception being that Hutchinson’s account had corroborated an existing description provided by someone else, which obviously wasn’t the case.

“Then we have the third sentence:
"There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity.”

Yes, “so it is declared”, i.e. wrongly, by the morning papers whose misunderstandings concerning Hutchinson the Echo were specifically addressing. Go back and check the morning papers, and you’ll notice that they wrote words to that effect; that there isn’t the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson’s veracity.

“The police do not attach so much importance to this document as some of our contemporaries do; but they think it sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry."

So at best, the Echo, on being aware of the Hutchinson version will have approached the police to seek an opinion. Apparently, they were told this version is not of critical importance, but will be thoroughly investigated as is normal procedure.”

What?! They were talking about the “statement” – which is a “document” – not the interview published in the press (which no same person would describe as a "document"). Read the article again, and note that the last Hutchinson related document they mentioned was the statement:

“but which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner…The police do not attach so much importance to this document as some of our contemporaries do”.

“So nothing to do with any close relationship between the Echo and the police, just a carefully worded re-write of press opinion already published, appended with the usual polite confirmation from police that they will do what is necessary.”

Nonsense.

The 14th November article was written with the purpose of using information supplied to them by the police to repudiate some of the ill-informed claims made by the “morning papers”.

Now then, Jon, that's three posts that are longer than your three, which, according to rules of Stamina Warfare (Uthållighet Krigföring) as employed in Hutchinson debates, means I win.

Regards,
Ben