Too Many Well-Dressed Men

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Star, 10th November 1888—

"There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that about half-past ten o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out any more, but would do away with herself.

"Soon afterwards they parted, and a man, respectably dressed, came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man then accompanied the woman home to her lodgings, and the little boy was removed from the room and taken to a neighbor's house."

Kelly and her "associate" parted company at some time after 10.30 pm, so who witnessed this latter encounter and reported it to the press?

The Sacramento [California] Daily Record Union, 10th November 1888, also received the story—



Incidental details aside, if this was the 2.00 am Mister Astrakhan sighting, how did the press get hold of the story three days before George Hutchinson walked into Commercial Street police station?

If not, who was this other respectably-dressed man?

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Simon

To be honest, if the first three sentences of the Sacramento Daily Record article are reported as accurately as the last two, I'm not sure there's a question to answer!

You could equally apply a similar argument to the Star article for that matter, relating to the first two sentences and the final one...

All the best

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dave,

I did say "incidental details aside."

I'm not defending the logic or even the truth of these reports. What I'm trying to get at is how they appeared in the first instance and in certain details chimed with subsequent accounts.

If we trust in the GH story, a respectably-dressed man should not have appeared on the scene until after 12th November.

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

What I'm trying to get at is how they appeared in the first instance and in certain details chimed with subsequent accounts.

And what I was implying in my usual quiet and understated way (!) was (a) they got there same way the earlier parts of both reports got there (creative journalism) and (b) they chimed with subsequent accounts by chance (spin enough bullshit and some of it will match)...

All the best

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dave,

Indeed. Just like Leather Apron.

And on that note I shall quickly scarper before admin steps in and slaps me about my nether regions for subverting this thread.

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

Which you could, with some validity, imply was the case with a great deal of the reportage throughout 1888 and beyond...

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

"Two of the witnesses have described the appearance of the man seen going into the house with the Kelley woman shortly before the killing, the descriptions being almost identical."

One of these witnesses is Hutchinson. But who's the other?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

One of these witnesses is Hutchinson. But who's the other?

Looking at the two reports overall, a further figment of the imagination perhaps?

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dave,

It's all the fault of an imaginative press.

The standard cop-out.

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Simon

Would that be the Evening Standard or the Morny Stannit?

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dave,

I love Eric and Ernie, but do you honestly believe the press dreamed up all this stuff and then sat around waiting for events to make it come true?

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

No Simon, I believe the press were a bunch of outright crooks who embellished as much as they thought they could get away with to sell more papers...Waiting round had nothing to do with it...and hey pssst don't let on...but nothing's changed...there's this guy Leveson....

Dave

[lynn cates]

twice as nice

Hello Simon, Dave, Tom. Is it at all possible that there really was an A-man?

It has often been alleged that if GH had seen A-man, why had no one else? Perhaps one had?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Or Not

And what I was implying in my usual quiet and understated way (!) was (a) they got there same way the earlier parts of both reports got there (creative journalism) and (b) they chimed with subsequent accounts by chance (spin enough bullshit and some of it will match)...

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave,

There is another (speculative) possibility which doesn't involve chance at all:

A journalist invents the well-dressed man encounter and writes it up as a factual news report. Hutchinson reads the press report and claims that he saw the same individual. This would give you a fictitious account apparently corroborated by a man who claimed to be the second witness to an event which never took place at all.

Alternatively, the report is genuine. Hutchinson went to the press with his story, instead of to the police. The police read The Star article and brought pressure to bear, resulting in GH's visit to the police station.

Apologies if the above makes little sense. It's late and I've been watching the England game.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Colin

It makes just as much sense as anything else mate...and actually I rather like the idea of a Hutch spurred into action by a bullshit article in the Star....trouble is, it'd only make sense if he could make money at it...oh...oops...perhaps he did...

Dave