Vetting Hutchinson

[Ben]

Do you ever wonder why you've failed to find a single person to share in your utter delusion that the police never share case-related information with the press? Just try to reflect on these things, as it might prove somewhat instructive some day. There has not been a single major police investigation in history that has not involved an instance of the police divulging important and potentially sensitive information to the press. There has not been a single major police investigation that has not involved an instance of the police mildly flouting the rules.

We can regurgitate the entire "discredited or not" argument again if you wish, but at the moment there is nothing more worthless than your pre-November examples of the Echo complaining about the refusal of the police to disclose details of specific, isolated issues. That is all they are, and yet for some fascinating reason, you've mutated that into some factoid that the police never divulge important information to the press at any point ever.

It is entirely beyond dispute that the police did divulge the "considerably discounted" nature of Hutchinson's statement to the Echo, which means that whatever atmosphere of reticence might have existed over the previous months with regard to the release of information, it was broken in mid-November when this communication occurred.

Politicians will continue to lie.

Nice boys will continue to fart noisily.

And the police will continue to disclose naughty, sensitive, "case-related" information to the press.

Get over it.

[Wickerman]

Do you ever wonder why you've failed to find a single person to share in your utter delusion that the police never share case-related information with the press?

Since when was it open to debate?
When the press, en masse, all complain in print that the police continue to tell them nothing, there is no counter argument, no vote is required a hundred years later - that's it.

You are the one who chooses to come up with excuses that it wasn't so, therefore the burden of proof lies firmly at your doorstep.

There has not been a single major police investigation in history that has not involved an instance of the police divulging important and potentially sensitive information to the press. There has not been a single major police investigation that has not involved an instance of the police mildly flouting the rules.

Relationships between police & the media today are nothing like comparable to the 19th century.
Apples and Oranges.

It is entirely beyond dispute that the police did divulge the "considerably discounted" nature of Hutchinson's statement to the Echo, which means that whatever atmosphere of reticence might have existed over the previous months with regard to the release of information, it was broken in mid-November when this communication occurred.

What you choose to believe is not what we read in print. And what exists in print is permanent, and will outlive your temporary opinions.

[Ben]

When a press source claims that the police refused to divulge information relating to a specific issue, you treat it as absolute gospel, whereas when precisely the same source claims that the police have divulged information relating to a specific issue, you insist on spurious grounds that it must be false. There's just no consistency to your arguments.

Relationships between police & the media today are nothing like comparable to the 19th century.
Apples and Oranges.

Let's have some evidence then, please, for this mutual loathing and distrust that existed in the 19th century between all policemen and all journalists, which magically evapourated with the arrival of the 20th century. It's sounding suspiciously like nonsense to me.

[Wickerman]

When a press source claims that the police refused to divulge information relating to a specific issue, you treat it as absolute gospel, whereas when precisely the same source claims that the police have divulged information relating to a specific issue, you insist on spurious grounds that it must be false. There's just no consistency to your arguments.

The inconsistency belongs to the Echo themselves.

On the one hand the Echo claim the police tell them nothing, then they claim to be informed by "authorities", so which is it?
It is the Echo who are being inconsistent, yet you choose not to criticize them for being so - how very interesting.

Given that the rest of the press also make the same claim, that the police tell them nothing. On balance it appears this is the true situation, which suggests the Echo are then making false claims attributed to some unidentified "authorities".

Let's have some evidence then, please, for this mutual loathing and distrust that existed in the 19th century between all policemen and all journalists, which magically evapourated with the arrival of the 20th century. It's sounding suspiciously like nonsense to me.

The City Police had an amicable relationship with the press. You must be sure when providing press quotes that their source was not the City, as opposed to assuming it was the Met. or Scotland Yard, but we've been over this before too.
The rather sour relationship between the Met. and the press in covering crime is a matter of historical record, readily available to anyone who should bother to read-up on it.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

On the one hand the Echo claim the police tell them nothing, then they claim to be informed by "authorities", so which is it?

You still appear to be struggling with the concept of basic chronology, and I'm at a loss at to understand why. Try to imagine that the Echo were responsible for reporting the arrival of the first man on the moon as follows:

January 1969 - "Man has not landed on the moon".

February 1969 - "Up to present, there is no man on the moon."

May 1969 - "Man obstinately refuses to land on the moon"

July 1969 - "Man lands on the moon, and it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to the theory that it is made of Wensleydale cheese."

According to your reasoning, the Echo would have been guilty of inconsistency in their moon-related reporting.

According to your reasoning, the July entry must be false because it said something different to the preceding three entries.

But such reasoning is as far away from our planet as the moon is.

The Echo were being no less consistent in their 1888 reports on police communication than they would have been in my hypothetical moon-landing entries. They were simply reporting on a development; a change. Yes, the police had previously been in the habit of withholding information relating to specific issues prior to November, but on the 13th November, the police did impart information to that particular newspaper on that particular issue (Hutchinson).

The City Police had an amicable relationship with the press.

You lump the press into one camp, but don't seem able or willing to do the same with the police, which is quite unreasonable. If one police force can have a different attitude to the other, why can't the same be true of individual newspapers? Why couldn't the City and Metropolitan police have had "amicable relationships" with different members of the press?

Regards,
Ben

[Paddy]

Gold Seal Stealer

I apologise for butting in here but can anybody tell be if this chap has been examined on Casebook before?

George Hutchinson 33 was tried on 24th October 1887 and sentenced to 3 months at Wandsworth prison for Larceny.
He stole a gold seal belonging to an Albert Manwaring.
I thought it interesting as A man had a very exposed seal, supposedly.

Thanks
Pat......

[Paddy]

More details of above

Sorry name was Hutchison not Hutchinson...He was tried at Newington and was said to be a Dealer aged 33 . He was received into custody on 9th September 1887.

Pat...

[RockySullivan]

When a press source claims that the police refused to divulge information relating to a specific issue, you treat it as absolute gospel, whereas when precisely the same source claims that the police have divulged information relating to a specific issue, you insist on spurious grounds that it must be false. There's just no consistency to your arguments.



Let's have some evidence then, please, for this mutual loathing and distrust that existed in the 19th century between all policemen and all journalists, which magically evapourated with the arrival of the 20th century. It's sounding suspiciously like nonsense to me.

Might be more similar than you think in serial murder investigations. In the NY SK case the police gave the press nothing...except once when they said they had a POI...then nothing for years

[Wickerman]

Thats correct, the police enlist the help of the media once they have identified a suspect. Prior to that they tell the media nothing.
The police are always conscious that what they tell the media is also informing the killer.

We just had a murder case where the victim was shot with an arrow while jogging in the early morning. True to form, the media hounded the police for information, and equally true to form the police told them nothing.
The first communication by police to the media was once they had obtained a identy-kit picture of the suspect.

[Wickerman]

Why couldn't the City and Metropolitan police have had "amicable relationships" with different members of the press?

Asking the question, why something couldn't have happened is not the same as establishing it did.

[caz]

Catching up from way back last year…

I wrote:

‘While Abberline asked extra questions to help him assess the truthfulness of [Hutch’s] statement, it was the meat of his account as a witness that was important.’

To which Ben responded:

Hi Caz,

Absolutely, but ideally only after the grounds for accepting the statement was true had been communicated to the upper echelons of the police, whose business it was to be informed of such things, and for whom “are you sure this witness is telling the truth?” would have been a far more pressing question than “are you sure it was Kelly that this man saw?”. It would also have been extraordinarily short-sighted of Abberline to assume that his bosses weren’t remotely interested in the reasons behind his “opinion that the statement is true”, and only bothered about the length of time Hutchinson knew Kelly.

Hi Ben,

If you see this post, could you describe the ‘grounds’ you think Abberline had for accepting the statement was true? And if he should have put those grounds in his report, following the interrogation, because the upper echelons would have expected it, why did he neglect to do this, and where is the evidence that his bosses asked him for any clarification? You don’t like others invoking ‘missing’ paperwork, so where do you get the idea that any grounds for Abberline’s belief were communicated to his superiors?

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.

"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.

The inconsistency belongs to the Echo themselves.

On the one hand the Echo claim the police tell them nothing, then they claim to be informed by "authorities", so which is it?

Given that the rest of the press also make the same claim, that the police tell them nothing. On balance it appears this is the true situation, which suggests the Echo are then making false claims attributed to some unidentified "authorities".

I would also like to ask you, Ben, how the above fits with your usual argument that the Echo wouldn’t have risked printing unsupported speculation as fact and claiming ‘the authorities’ as its source, because doing so would have pissed off the police and closed off the channel of communication you insist had opened up between them. In short, they needed to keep the police sweet in order to keep that channel open.

Do you see anything in Jon’s quotes above that smacks of a diplomatic attempt to open such a channel, let alone keep one open? To me, the repeated, strident complaints (however specific) about the lack of information coming from the police would seem designed to have the opposite effect, and to make ‘the authorities’ dig their heels in and be even more determined to release only what they considered vital to share with the public.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

"If you see this post, could you describe the ‘grounds’ you think Abberline had for accepting the statement was true?"

They would have amounted to little more than a face-value judgement, presumably after Hutchinson performed "well" under interrogation in the sense that he stuck confidently to his story, without making a self-incriminating mess of things, as other more overtly bogus witnesses, such as Emmanuel Violenia, had done previously.

Remember that Abberline submitted his report very shortly after conducting his "interrogation", before there had been any window of opportunity to investigate Hutchinson's claims. In an ideal world, of course, Abberline would not have submitted his approval without first having done so, but time was of the essence in the ongoing hunt for the killer. As such, there was a pressure to circulate the description as soon as possible and ask questions later, as opposed to sitting on it for days while its veracity is established; meanwhile the killer - if Astrakhan - alters his appearance and scarpers.

"Do you see anything in Jon’s quotes above that smacks of a diplomatic attempt to open such a channel, let alone keep one open?"

An important unifying fact about these quotes is that they all originate from before 13th November, before anyone had heard of George Hutchinson. I have no idea at what stage prior to this a "channel of communication" was established between police and Echo. I might even be tempted to speculate that Warren's replacement by Monro as commissioner may have "coincided" with a more compromising, less defiant attitude to certain members of the press. Generally speaking, it's not considered a wise move for a beleaguered police force to antagonise a critical or hostile press by "digging their heels in", especially if the latter are treated collectively as the enemy, without any acknowledgement that there are good papers/editors/journalists as well as bad ones. The implicit risk, of course, is that such behaviour could jeopardise what might have been a mutually beneficial relationship.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Caz,

They would have amounted to little more than a face-value judgement, presumably after Hutchinson performed "well" under interrogation in the sense that he stuck confidently to his story, without making a self-incriminating mess of things, as other more overtly bogus witnesses, such as Emmanuel Violenia, had done previously.

Remember that Abberline submitted his report very shortly after conducting his "interrogation", before there had been any window of opportunity to investigate Hutchinson's claims. In an ideal world, of course, Abberline would not have submitted his approval without first having done so, but time was of the essence in the ongoing hunt for the killer. As such, there was a pressure to circulate the description as soon as possible and ask questions later, as opposed to sitting on it for days while its veracity is established; meanwhile the killer - if Astrakhan - alters his appearance and scarpers.

Hi Ben,

That kind of dodged my question. You previously suggested that the grounds for Abberline accepting the truth of Hutch's statement would/should have been communicated by him to 'the upper echelons of the police', who would want to know what those grounds were, because this information would have been considered far more pressing than questions concerning the relationship between witness and victim. Yet the report Abberline submitted said nothing about his grounds for believing the statement but did go into a bit of extra detail regarding Hutch and Kelly. If Abberline really would have been 'extraordinarily short-sighted' to assume his bosses weren’t remotely interested in the reasons behind his “opinion that the statement is true”, he nevertheless failed to mention that it was because the witness had 'performed well' under his interrogation or had 'stuck confidently' to his story, without ringing any duff bells, for example.

An important unifying fact about these quotes is that they all originate from before 13th November, before anyone had heard of George Hutchinson. I have no idea at what stage prior to this a "channel of communication" was established between police and Echo. I might even be tempted to speculate that Warren's replacement by Monro as commissioner may have "coincided" with a more compromising, less defiant attitude to certain members of the press. Generally speaking, it's not considered a wise move for a beleaguered police force to antagonise a critical or hostile press by "digging their heels in", especially if the latter are treated collectively as the enemy, without any acknowledgement that there are good papers/editors/journalists as well as bad ones. The implicit risk, of course, is that such behaviour could jeopardise what might have been a mutually beneficial relationship.

So you say.

I'm not personally convinced. The police only ever need to tell the press what they consider the public has a need or a right to know. They don't do it out of charity, good will or the kindness of their hearts. The newspapers have always had to fight for crumbs of reliable information, or they wouldn't spend so much time speculating, inventing, juicing up stories or having to issue corrections and apologies.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

I wrote that "ideally" Abberline would have provided his reason for opining that the statement was true.

Obviously, the situation was far from "ideal" inasmuch as Abberline's report was penned very shortly after the "interrogation" itself occurred. This is not a criticism of Abberline or contemporary police practices - they simply couldn't afford to "wait" for full confirmation of Hutchinson's claims to arrive. That would have taken hours, if not days, and if the statement really was "true", it would have been precious time squandered that ought to have been spent putting every effort into pursuing the suspect (i.e. before he altered his appearance and/or scarpered).

The situation demanded that the police act first and ask questions later - a reality that Swanson et al must surely have appreciated. It would have been quite unnecessary, therefore, for Abberline to state the obvious and inform his boss that his "opinion" was based on first impressions (faith) - as if it could realistically have been anything else.

My observations were primarily aimed at those who insist that Abberline must have had a secret, off-record "better" reason for accepting Hutchinson, which, for some reason, he failed to disclose in his report. The reality is that he had no earthly reason not to disclose such a thing, had it existed, and instead only provide relatively trivial peripherals such as the length of time he had known Kelly.

"They don't do it out of charity, good will or the kindness of their hearts".

No, but they might well do it to keep certain pressmen sweet if they foresee a possibility of "using" them to their advantage at a later date. It is not remotely uncommon for police and press to come to certain arrangements - clandestine or otherwise - if is considered beneficial to the investigation (which it demonstrably has been on a number of occasions over the decades).

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

No, but they might well do it to keep certain pressmen sweet if they foresee a possibility of "using" them to their advantage at a later date. It is not remotely uncommon for police and press to come to certain arrangements - clandestine or otherwise - if is considered beneficial to the investigation (which it demonstrably has been on a number of occasions over the decades).

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

Since when did the police ever need to keep the press 'sweet' by offering titbits of information they wouldn't have revealed by choice? The press will print anything and everything they can lay their hands on relating to a sensational subject matter. They don't fold their arms and say "Shan't" out of spite for previous failures by the police to give them chapter and verse on the progress of their investigations. It's their livelihood at stake.

All I've been saying is that the police only need to release to the world (via the media) what they decide is beneficial to their investigation and/or in the public interest. Even if one newspaper were to go into an extraordinary sulk and refuse to print new info from a police source on the grounds you imagine, there are always dozens more falling over themselves to use the story.

Since I can see no obvious benefit to the police or the public in the revelation that Hutchinson's account had been considerably reduced in importance because he didn't give it to the inquest (as if the police didn't know that right from the start ), I can see no reason and no evidence for this information coming directly from 'the authorities'. In fact, the only conceivable benefit might have been to lull the killer into a false sense of security, with the authorities pretending they were no longer taking Hutch's account seriously.

Love,

Caz
X