Vetting Hutchinson

[Wickerman]

... 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?

Why wouldn't they?
A police station is open to the public regardless of their attitude towards police. Are you trying to suggest the police employed a discrimination policy to only admit members of the press who are "yes men"? (yes sir, no sir, three bags full, sir)?
Thats a joke Ben, really!

... 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”.

There's an open-door policy Ben, they are not allowed to discriminate.
This is not some third-world Dictatorship, it's a principal Metropolitan Police Station. Everyone is treated with a degree of respect, regardless of their private thoughts on the various members of the press.

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.

But this is double-talk Ben, "they can't have been putting the newspaper in the picture"?
Now who's living in their own private world?

First you invent a story, and because it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, you change your mind and claim the police must have lied to the press?
Thats funny Ben, it reads more like an admission that your invented story failed miserably.

The Echo simply did not obtain any information from 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,...

Yes, but you are failing to observe the conclusions within "whole" paragraph (not the first line) are attributed to press articles already published previously. The police had nothing to do with it.

For example, the morning papers were possibly confused into thinking that the 13th and 14th November accounts were from different sources,

Where do we read this?

What we do read is:
"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."

An obvious conclusion to anyone's eyes. Place the stories & descriptions side-by-side and anyone with a pulse can see they are very likely from the same source (a laborer, in Commercial St, on the morning of the 9th, etc.).
Who are you trying to kid Ben?


And finally, the one comment that blows your interpretation out of the water is this below (in bold):

... 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.

You are trying to say the police shared privileged information with the Echo, yet the Echo themselves write that the police did NOT regard this as important information.

The Echo say it was not regarded as "important", and I have tried to impress on you the same, - it was not important".
Yet, you on your own, (even without the support of the Echo) try to maintain this contrary view that it was important?

All your imaginary claims run contrary to what is written.

[Ben]

Jon, you've got to allow more time to elapse before responding to a post. I realise there are six active Hutchinson threads at the moment, and that the temptation is to make sure that you keep abreast of all of them, but you run the risk of delivering a knee-jerk response.

I look forward to responding your points quite a bit later, when time permits, and I can properly digest your argument.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I’m afraid I’m at a loss as to know where to start here, such is the vastness of your confusion.

“A police station is open to the public regardless of their attitude towards police. Are you trying to suggest the police employed a discrimination policy to only admit members of the press who are "yes men"? (yes sir, no sir, three bags full, sir)?”

So it is exactly as I feared? You really can’t get your head around the basic reality that the police were quite capable of being selective about which journalists they chose to communicate with, just as they are today? I’m not “trying” to suggest that this is happened; I’m succeeding in pointing out the well-known fact that it does – all the time.

“There's an open-door policy Ben, they are not allowed to discriminate”

Please don’t be preposterous, Jon. They most certainly were “allowed” to discriminate. What on earth prevented them from doing so? Who told the officers on the ground that they had to invite every pressman into the station, and then sit each one down to discuss the case? Nobody. If a representative of the Star, for instance, turned up requesting information, the police could easily have turned him away, citing his paper’s known hostile attitude towards the police and, if applicable, the ugliness of his face.

“Everyone is treated with a degree of respect, regardless of their private thoughts on the various members of the press.”

You mean like the Echo supposedly showed the police (according to you) when they lied about their treatment of a witness?

“First you invent a story, and because it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, you change your mind and claim the police must have lied to the press?
Thats funny Ben, it reads more like an admission that your invented story failed miserably.”

I couldn’t care less what you think it “reads more like”. The story is not in the least bit “invented”, and it holds up very well indeed “to scrutiny”, especially yours. The police were evidently happy to outline the general nature of their problems with Hutchinson’s account, i.e. its credibility, without wishing to go into detailed specifics, and perhaps fobbing them off with a “reason” that only touched upon those problems. Not too taxing a concept, I wouldn’t have thought.

“The Echo simply did not obtain any information from the police.”

They absolutely, irrefutably, provably did.

“Yes, but you are failing to observe the conclusions within "whole" paragraph (not the first line) are attributed to press articles already published previously. The police had nothing to do with it.”

Wrong. Annoyingly so.

The “whole paragraph” was concerned with using the information they had just received from the police to repudiate the false assumptions made in the “morning papers”.

“Me: For example, the morning papers were possibly confused into thinking that the 13th and 14th November accounts were from different sources,

You: Where do we read this?”

Here:

“Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contemporaries, we learned on inquiry at the Commercial-street Police-station to-day 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”

The Echo, 14th November.

According to the Echo, the “morning papers” were placing undue “importance” on Hutchinson’s press interview, mistakenly believing it to offer corroboration for an earlier description from a separate witness, when it fact this "earlier description" was provided by Hutchinson himself.

“The importance of this description lies (so says the morning papers) in the fact that it agrees with that furnished to the police yesterday”.

Whether the morning papers actually made such a goof, or the Echo misread them and assumed they had, is irrelevant.

“You are trying to say the police shared privileged information with the Echo, yet the Echo themselves write that the police did NOT regard this as important information.”

Show me where I used the term “privileged”.

I used the expression “case-related”, thank you very much. I’m quite sure that the discrediting of yet another bogus witness wasn’t considered of particular “importance” in the grander scheme of things, which is why it was no skin of the noses of the police to relate as much to a newspaper they could trust not to depict them in a poor light.

“The Echo say it was not regarded as "important", and I have tried to impress on you the same, - it was not important".”

It was Hutchinson’s statement that the police did not “attach so much importance to”, which is hardly surprising after it was considered to be a probable fabrication.

Bad post, Jon.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Reporters can get turned away, or ignored, or even fed cok-n-bull stories (like they did with the Echo) due to their actions, or their attitude on the street.
Though the reporter seeking a story was not always the one solely responsible the article in the paper. Besides, stories were not signed in those days.

When the police take issue with the tone of any article, it is the head office they deal with, not the reporter on the street.

Oh, and "case-related" information was "privileged" information. Neither of which was shared by the police with the Echo, as I detailed out.

[Michael W Richards]

JON:
A police station is open to the public regardless of their attitude towards police. Are you trying to suggest the police employed a discrimination policy to only admit members of the press who are "yes men"? (yes sir, no sir, three bags full, sir)?
Thats a joke Ben, really!

Jon..............(long pause),......Jon, please tell me that you are aware of how the police manipulated the press by offering provably false information during these investigations. You don't actually believe that the relationships the police had with supportive press vs critical press were equally open and honest? Or that the senior investigators would just leave their cloak and dagger existences and tendencies to mislead, misinform and obfuscate behind them, just to catch an imagined ghoul using nothing but "good policing"?

All the best

[Wickerman]

Did you skip post #469, Michael?

[Michael W Richards]

Did you skip post #469, Michael?

Somehow I did Jon. Sorry mate.

Cheers

[Ben]

Did you skip post #469, Michael?

I spotted it, Jon, and I'm afraid it consisted of little more than repetition of previously challenged inaccuracies. The police did disclose case-related information to the press, and indeed the disclosure of such material is a well-known feature of any major police investigation, then and now. I'm pleased, though, that you've progressed from insisting that the Echo made everything up, to acknowledging that the police provided the Echo with the information published by the latter on the 13th and 14th, even if you still wrongly claim that it was "cok-n-bull".

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

You're embarking on another lost cause Ben.
When the Echo themselves admit the police tell them nothing, the fact you insist that you are convinced this is not true changes nothing.

[Ben]

The police withheld information from the Echo concerning one aspect of the case on one particular occasion prior to November. That's not the same as never giving them any information about anything, ever.

[Wickerman]

The police withheld information from the Echo concerning one aspect of the case on one particular occasion prior to November. That's not the same as never giving them any information about anything, ever.

Well lets see then, here are a few random selections.

The police, however, refuse to give any details about the matter. 10 Sept.

The arrests were [effected] by the Metropolitan police. These men were conveyed to the Leman-street Police-station, where the officials on duty absolutely refuse to give any information whatsoever to journalists. 2 Oct.

Up to the present the police refuse the Press any information. Two stalwart constables guard the entrance to the court. The members of the Press are even denied admittance to the court. 9 Nov.

The Echo consistently complained for three months that we know of. Not "one" aspect, on "one" occasion.

Accept the reality Ben, the police treated the Echo the same way they treated all the press.

[Ben]

Jon,

Interesting decision to revive this discussion, but you persist in the same misunderstanding.

The police, however, refuse to give any details about the matter. 10 Sept.

The police refused to divulge information on that one particular "matter". Not every single "matter" that had ever arisen - or would ever arise again - between the police and the Echo during the course of each other's existence; just one isolated "matter" on one particular occasion. Same with your other examples, which were relevant "matters" only to the events of those particular reporting days.

Not a particularly gruelling concept to take on board, I wouldn't have thought.

The Echo consistently complained for three months that we know of. Not "one" aspect, on "one" occasion.

No, they didn't.

They complained on three entirely isolated occasions, all of which occurred before the 13th November when we know for a fact that the police imparted case-related information to Echo with regard to Hutchinson.

But please, please, give me the excuse I crave to repeat the entire Echo/Hutchinson argument again. The domination of Casebook by Hutchinson threads will happen, Jon, with or without your help - but "without" will take a little longer.

[Wickerman]

Jon,

Interesting decision to revive this discussion, but you persist in the same misunderstanding.

The police refused to divulge information on that one particular "matter". Not every single "matter" that had ever arisen - or would ever arise again between the police and the Echo during the course of each other's existence; just one isolated "matter" on one particular occasion.

I'm sure you will make the same excuse about the next one...

"What he said further is reserved by the police. They refuse to divulge any other facts". 27 Sept.

Oh,...and another one...

"Of course, no information as to what has transpired is afforded by any of the officers, who-as evidenced by their attitude towards the Press in the East-end during the past few days-very zealously obey the stringent orders they have to "give nothing to reporters." 3 Oct.

Shall we go on?

"They refuse to satisfy any inquiries or to describe the second discovery". 17 Oct.

Three months of continuous complaints.

But please, please, give me the excuse I crave to repeat the entire Echo/Hutchinson argument again.

Since when did you need an excuse?

The domination of Casebook by Hutchinson threads will happen, Jon, with or without your help - but "without" will take a little longer.

I see you have bought into the Aussie George proposal, predictable

[Ben]

I'm sure you will make the same excuse about the next one...

It's not an excuse.

It's a fact that on some occasions the police refused to share information with the Echo, but on others they provided case-related information. If you paid proper attention to the points I've been making, you wouldn't be wasting your time posting these irrelevant examples that aren't remotely damaging to anything I've ever argued.

I'll try writing in the increasingly popular bold typeface, and with any luck the message will sink in this time:

It doesn't matter how regularly the Echo complained about the refusal of the police to divulge case-related information on very specific issues over the months prior to mid-November. The fact is that on the 13th and 14th November, the police did take that newspaper into their confidence.

In fact, if anything, you're making a pretty compelling case for the police granting the Echo an audience in order to assuage the latter's publicly expressed dissatisfaction with the previous atmosphere of non-communication.

I see you have bought into the Aussie George proposal, predictable

I've addressed some of the crapper arguments that have been raised against that proposal, if that's what you mean.

Shouldn't you be over there by now, incidentally, talking about Isaacs or something?

[Wickerman]

It's not an excuse.

It's a fact that on some occasions the police refused to share information with the Echo, but on others they provided case-related information. If you paid proper attention to the points I've been making, you wouldn't be wasting your time posting these irrelevant examples that aren't remotely damaging to anything I've ever argued.

You have repeatedly made the same claim. What you also consistently fail to realize is that because you make that claim does not mean your claim is correct. Repeating a belief does not legitimize that belief.

It is clear you believe press claims which suggest 'they' have an inside source (ie; "authorities"?), but because 'they' say so, does not make it so.
Neither does your choice to believe those claims, make it so.

The Echo continuously made the same claim that the police tell them nothing, and they have never written anything to indicate the police changed their treatment of the Echo, or indeed the press in general.

I really do suggest you read up on the history of 19th century journalism. If for no other reason that you may gain a better insight on how journalists 'sell' a story by being suggestive on content but vague on sources.

They can plant a thought in the mind of the reader without actually committing to naming the source of that information - it helps to sell copy.
The fact they can do this, and do do this, never has and never will constitute evidence of what they say.
Unsourced claims are not evidence of anything, except perhaps, a creative imagination.