The press, what they knew and how they knew it.

[Wickerman]

The Star find their niche.

Here is an article which shows the worth of the Star, when they provide first-hand street-level detailed information. In this case the breadth and depth of the Whitechapel murder investigation as experienced by those who are being interviewed, and it appears the co-operation from the City force.

WHITECHAPEL.
WHAT THE POLICE ARE DOING TO SECURE THE CRIMINAL.

A Sketch of the Leading Lines of their Energetic Investigations

The failure of the police to discover the Whitechapel murderer is certainly not due to inactivity. No one who has had occasion to visit the police offices whence the investigations are being conducted can escape the impression that everybody is on the move, and it is probably a fact that very few of the chief officials and detectives have had their regular rest since last Sunday morning. One hears no complaint against the demand for extra duty, except in instances where the pressure is unevenly applied, for the police are individually

MORE INTERESTED IN THE CAPTURE

of the murderer than any one else. The City police, though there has been but one of the series of murders committed within their bailawick, are no less active in their exertions than the metropolitan, and it is a mistake to suppose that there is too much friction between the two organisations for them to pool issues in this matter. Each office pursues its work according to its own methods, but there is a constant interchange of information, and a constant comparison of views on points affecting more than one case. In conversation with different officials a Star reporter has gathered some interesting facts as to the amount of work the police are doing. One prominent feature is in connection with

THE SLAUGHTERHOUSES.

It appears that the investigation of these establishments has been most thorough. Everyone in the whole East-end district, and some others, have practically been turned inside out. The proprietors and managers have in most cases heartily co-operated with the police, and every employee has been personally "pumped." Each man has been called upon to give an account of himself and his whereabouts not only on last Saturday night, but during the entire period over which the series of crimes extends. Every peculiar circumstance is made note of, and no one to whom the slightest suspicion attaches is lost sight of until the suspicion is completely allayed. Nor has the man's own word been accepted as conclusive. Each man has been asked if he knows of any one who has not been regular at his work or has played tricks on the timekeeper, for the time-book in each establishment plays an important part in the investigation. More than all this, in some cases, all men who can write have been called upon to make a statement in writing and sign their names, so that any possible question of handwriting may be more easily compared. The same thoroughness has characterised what has been done in

THE LODGING HOUSES.

Deputies were required to make a showing of all their regular lodgers, to point out their habits, their peculiarities, and their associates, and to furnish descriptions of all casual visitors who had attracted special attention. Frequenters of lodging-houses have been interviewed by hundreds, and detectives have been scattered all over the district disguised as men down on their luck in the hope of their picking up some information. But the police have pretty well made up their minds that the man they want is not to be found through the lodging-house channel. The fact that so many of the victims were themselves frequenters of these caravanseries has quickened the instinct, and aroused the spirit of the class, and it would be almost impossible for a murderer to be in their midst without someone giving him away. The attention that has been paid to

THE HOSPITALS,

has been quite as close, but the police have not always found the hospital authorities too eager to assist them. The ethics of medical etiquette appear to stand in the way of full and free investigation among medical students at least, for they are slow to tell what they know or suspect when it may affect one of their number. One police inspector told the Star man that he supposed there were over a hundred men who were being individually shadowed in his district alone, and if the same system is in vogue all over the East-end the number of detectives on the job must be something enormous. There is not a vacant building in the East that has not been thoroughly searched lest it might afford a hiding-place for the murderer; and in at least two instances the drain-pipes have been taken up for a long distance where suspicious matter was thought to have been deposited.

EVERY VESSEL

that has left the harbor since the hour of the commission of the last crime has been thoroughly overhauled, the workhouses have been visited for the examination of all new inmates, and even the prison authorities have been enlisted in the cause for the sake of keeping a close eye on prisoners who may have been glad to get put away for a time for trivial offences. It is estimated, roughly speaking, that there are at least 500 men engaged in these investigations who are not police officers, but who are directly instructed by the police officials.
Star, 4 Oct. 1888.

[Wickerman]

More so perhaps in the 19th century than today, the term "opposite" also meant "in front of". Today, we mostly use "opposite" to convey distance, on the 'opposite' side of the table, or the house 'opposite', etc.

The original Court record (GLRO), which reads:
"When I went in the Court I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House."

Can also be read:
"When I went in the Court I saw a man in front of the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House."

or, "When I went in the Court I saw a man outside the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House."

All three interpretations mean precisely the same.
And, not forgetting Mrs Prater, who does refer to the yard at the back of Millers Court as being at the back of the lodging house.

Only if we assume the use of "opposite" means across the street do we run into conflict with the other three reports below:

(SJG) She saw a stout looking man standing at the entrance to Miller's court.
(TA) She saw a man, apparently stout, standing at the entrance to the court.
(E) She saw a man at the entrance to the court. He was not talking to anyone.

When "opposite" is intended to mean "in front of" then all four statements are in harmony, and the loiterer is seen to have stood on the Millers Court side of Dorset St., not on the Crossinghams side.

[Wickerman]

Sorry Jon but I don't think I've missed the point at all...

All the best

Dave

Do you agree that more is to be gained in historical analysis by surveying the reports of the entire assembly of those who attended the inquest?

[Michael W Richards]

Just a quick question.....people are mentioning 2 doors at 26 Dorset that faced the street, if that is the case then they are misinformed. One door faced Dorset at #26...the door to the shed. The second door to access the inner building was inside the archway a few yards in from the court entrance.

All the best.

[Cogidubnus]

Sorry Jon but I don't think I've missed the point at all...

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Thankyou Colin, I appreciate your interest.


Sadly Dave, I think you missed the point.

If Hutchinson did not claim to stand opposite Millers Court - beside Crossinghams door, but did claim to walk up to Kellys door, which door do you think is being referred to?

Sorry Jon but neither of the two doors facing onto Dorset Street would qualify as the lodging-house door...one being the
entrance to the shed, the other to McCarthy's shop. In fact the door to the right, far down the passage, to the upstairs only is the first entrance proper to the lodging house proper on this side of the road...MJKs is the next.

Against this, on the opposite side of the road, fronting it, is Crossinghams...which do you really feel is the most likely?

Sorry too, to disagree with Colin, who's one of the most sensible posters on the site...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

(T) (LWN) ...and saw a man standing at the lodging-house door by himself.
(DN) In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing.
(ELA) When she went into the court she saw a man standing outside the lodging-house door.

Sorry Jon but neither of the two doors facing onto Dorset Street would qualify as the lodging-house door...one being the entrance to the shed, the other to McCarthy's shop. In fact the door to the right, far down the passage, to the upstairs only is the first entrance proper to the lodging house proper on this side of the road...MJKs is the next.

Against this, on the opposite side of the road, fronting it, is Crossinghams...which do you really feel is the most likely?

Sorry too, to disagree with Colin, who's one of the most sensible posters on the site...

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

Jon, that has to one of the best posts I've seen for a long time. Many thanks.

[Wickerman]

Where the loiterer stood.

Advantages of collating press articles covering the Inquest.

Sugden provides the traditional location where it is believed the loiterer was standing as Lewis passed up Millers Court that morning.

"In Dorset St. opposite Miller's Court, was a lodging house. As Sarah entered the Court she noticed, standing alone by the lodging house, yet another man"
(p.330)

Yet, when we review all the interpretations published by the press, the traditional location where we believe the loiterer was standing may not be correct.

The traditional assumption is taken from the original Inquest testimony kept at the GLRO.

(GLRO) When I went in the Court I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House. He was not tall - but stout - had on a wideawake black hat – I did not notice his clothes.

If we look at the Daily Telegraph & Reynolds News, the wording is ambiguous.

(DT) (RN) When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake.

Is it the court which is opposite the lodging house, or is it the man which is opposite the lodging house?
And which lodging house is being referred to, McCarthy's or Crossinghams?
(Note: Prater refers to the back of Millers Court as the back of the lodging house).

The location of the loiterer given by the St. James Gazette, Thanet Advertiser, and the Echo, is unambiguous:

(SJG) She saw a stout looking man standing at the entrance to Miller's court.
(TA) She saw a man, apparently stout, standing at the entrance to the court.
(E) She saw a man at the entrance to the court. He was not talking to anyone.



If the loiterer was Hutchinson, then we have his own statement to police to consider which is consistent with that given above by SJG, TA, E.

" I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away."

And his statement to the press agrees with the above.

"I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for threequarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away."



The Morning Advertiser, Irish Times, Standard, and Scotsman, only place him on the pavement (footpath) or on the opposite side of the pavement (by the curb?)- not, opposite side of the street.

(MA) (STD) In Dorset-street I saw a man with a wideawake on stopping on the opposite side of the pavement.

(IT) I saw a man standing on the pavement.

(SC) In Dorset Street I saw a man with a wideawake on, stopping on the opposite side of the pavement.


Then we have the Times, Lloyds Weekly News, the Daily News, and the East London Advertiser all placing the loiterer directly outside a "lodging house door".

(T) (LWN) ...and saw a man standing at the lodging-house door by himself.
(DN) In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing.
(ELA) When she went into the court she saw a man standing outside the lodging-house door.

These accounts of a man outside a "door" may be errors of interpretation. The entrance to Millers Court had no door, but the reporters should have known this. Reporters accompanied the jury to Millers Court just before the Inquest began. So, maybe there is some truth to these statements.
Do we have confirmation of him standing outside a door?

Hutchinson himself claims to have approached Kelly's door.

"I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise."


There are advantages in reviewing the press reports as a whole, as opposed to selecting just one interpretation, as if it were the only version worthy of note.
These news reports not only give a broader view of this very small incident but they also appear to describe two different sightings by Sarah Lewis.

It may be significant that nowhere is Lewis described as seeing the loiterer as she approached Millers Court. The street is very narrow, hardly wide enough for two carts to pass, is one description, so seeing a man waiting in the street at the entrance to Millers Court, or indeed even opposite on the other side of the road, should have been expected.

The first time she saw the loiterer was when she entered the Court.

There may be some missing detail here between her walking down Dorset St. (where she noticed no man), and her entering Millers Court (when the man was there).
Had Sarah Lewis stepped into McCarthy's shop for a moment, and it was not mentioned?
Before she stepped into the shop the loiterer had not arrived, but as she stepped out of the shop he was there?

The second time she saw the loiterer was when she saw him outside Kelly's door.
As the Keyler's lived upstairs, was this last sighting through an upstairs window?

After reviewing a broad cross-section of Inquest reports in the press we can see the traditional location ascribed to the position of the loiterer, opposite Millers Court - outside Crossinghams, may be wrong.
And, quite possibly, there are missing details from the account of Sarah Lewis.

[Wickerman]

Here's this from the 13th November edition of the Morning Advertiser:

"I heard a strange sound with some door, which was not like the way in which the deceased used to shut the door."

This is from Julia Venturney's evidence, and yet you won't see this claim appear in any other newspaper.

I reckon it's because the Morning Advertiser were just so super and brilliant that they pick up on stuff that everyone else inexplicably missed.

As well as the Morning Advertiser, try The Standard, The Scotsman, and the Irish Times.

The Morning Advertiser was no less reliable than any other newspaper of the time. All the press were reporting slightly different Inquest narratives. This only demonstrates is that none of them provided a complete version. Not even the original GLRO version is complete.
If you want a copy of the entire compilation I can send you one. It is comprised of coverage from 17 newspapers plus the GLRO, and is 68 pages long.

Oh, and the Daily News is included, so you can make an informed judgement for once.

The suggestion that the Echo "fabricated" the details of their 13th November article (well, not even an article, just an unremarkable side note) is beyond preposterous. Firstly, they had absolutely no logical motive in doing so, and secondly, you ought to reflect that they had already approached the police station to ascertain clarification regarding the origin of the 13th and 14th press accounts.

In response to your 'firstly', their motive is as always to create sales, in this case by presenting the image of a paper which has knowledge about the case.
And to your 'secondly', need I remind you that the police only confirmed knowledge that was already in the public domain.
Hence, no evidence of any relationship you keep trying to push.

Why on earth would the police have given them anything if they already knew that the same newspaper were printing lies about them just a day previously?

ALL, the press were printing guesswork. The police were well aware that the press knew nothing, that is how they intended to keep it. Not that this approach was right, it wasn't, but this was the avenue they chose to follow so they fully expect the negative reactions.

I've suggested that he lied about his reasons for being where he was when he was seen by Sarah Lewis, and I believe he invented the Astrakhan man in order to deflect suspicion away from his own loitering antics that night. I never said he was "discovered" to have lied about anything, with the possible exception of the transparently false "Sunday policeman" claim. I said he was suspected of lying, and that these suspicions resulted in his discrediting.

So you expect people to believe that the police treated him as a liar without knowing if he lied? That they suddenly shifted from belief, to disbelief, but only maybe, not sure?
I have to wonder just what image you have of the police.

This may shock you but police generally work with facts (which might be alien to you), but they will make damn sure the witness is either trustworthy, or untrustworthy. If you recall, Abberline had already established this to his satisfaction - he trusted him.

What they cannot substantiate about his story may be taken on trust, depending on his attitude and demeanor, but if they later find reason to doubt anything which he has told them he will be brought in for a further interview and given the opportunity to explain himself.

Any news of Hutchinson being hauled in a second time?

That only follows if the police continued to believe that Hutchinson really was there that night. The overwhelmingly strong likelihood, however, is that after his credibility was doubted and his account discredited,...

What a load of codswallop. The only detail that is 'overwhelmingly strong' is your desperate attempt to salvage your theory.
Discredit only exists if the police confirm he lied. If the police could not confirm this then the police did not discredit him, plain and simple.
Ben, I think your knees just buckled under the strain, you are not making sense.

So now the police did not discredit him, who was it, the press?

...he was adjudged to have been a mere two-a-penny publicity/money-seeker who wasn't there when he said he was.

This is your conjecture then, on the basis of nothing but your desire to maintain a theory.

Perhaps, but there is no indication that Hutchinson was ever connected to Lewis' wideawake man (as he ought to have been), ...

And where would you expect to see this connection, in the press? Or in any number of the hundreds of report pages that no longer exist?
You believe that because it has not survived that it never existed?

It is quite reasonable to suppose Abberline made that connection as part of his assessment of Hutchinson's story. Being the Detective he was, and being fully aware of all the witness statements, and being just one of a team of investigators, any one of whom could have made the connection, there is nothing imaginary about the 'team' making the connection as part of their overall determination of his viability.
If I can see it, trust me, Abberline and Co. would have seen it.

If we are able to make the connection today, with only the contemporary statements to go by, then it is rather pompous to suggest the investigators of the time could not make the same connection.
We know Abberline believed him what we don't know is why. This, as a contributing factor, is as good a reason as any.

I'd ask you to consider the case of Emmanuel Violenia.

I don't waste my time with Violenia, he failed to identify Chapman as the woman he saw, and he failed miserably under interrogation.
His circumstance is not at all comparative to Hutchinson, who did identify Kelly, and sailed through the interrogation. I'd appreciate it if you would cease bringing up this ridiculous Violenia argument.

There is no evidence that the transition was ever made from discredited witness into exonerated suspect. Not with Packer, not with Violenia, and certainly not with Hutchinson.

Packer was not the last person to see Stride alive, therefore he is no suspect. Besides, his wife would have kicked his ass if he'd approached Stride that night.

I'll remind you of something about Packer. Once the police realized he had told different stories, he was re-interviewed by police, just like I said would happen to Hutchinson, if he had lied, which he had not.

Incidentally, the police would never have been as comically heavy-handed as you suggest in the event that they did suspect Hutchinson. Putting a warrant out for his arrest and publishing his description would have sent him running for the hills,...

And your evidence for this opinion is supported by what?
The publication of a suspect description in Duke St., three in Berner St, another in Dorset St, and in the future, another in relation to the attack on Annie Farmer?
You are saying the police would not publish a description because the suspect will run?
Apparently, you are wrong again, they always published descriptions regardless of the fact the suspect may run. The long arm of the law – remember!

Turning the Victoria Home "inside out"? Good luck with one.

Considerably less work than a house-to-house incorporating several streets, which they had been known to conduct when necessary.

Are you sure about that?

I'll tell you what I am quite sure about, that this smear tactic against the Morning Advertiser is all Wind and Pi$$.

Nobody, and I mean nobody with an informed opinion (ie; that knows what they are talking about) has ever tried to single out this paper for inaccuracy.
The Star, on the other hand, has been ridiculed by many who do have an “informed opinion”, and more than three, and for well over a hundred years.

[Sally]

The other notoriously bad one for publishing nonsense at around the time of the Kelly murder was the Daily News. As with the Morning Advertiser, they didn't so much peddle known falsehoods as get the wrong end of the stick on several occasions, and boy did they come up with some howlers as a result!

All the best,
Ben

Yes - I think we need to think about the raison d'ętre for the Morning Advertiser. I reckon the clue could be in the name....

Maybe this specialist publication was more concerned with other matters than an accurate news story. And you know, the kind of stories the Advertiser was telling would've been great in the pub!

It's a mistake to view all publications as having equal weight in terms of reporting accuracy. No source is required - it's abundantly self-evident.

BW

S

[Ben]

From the above it looks like there is a need to clarify exactly how easy it is to be misguided when placing your trust in this fabricated paragraph by the Echo on the 13th.

Nope.

The suggestion that the Echo "fabricated" the details of their 13th November article (well, not even an article, just an unremarkable side note) is beyond preposterous. Firstly, they had absolutely no logical motive in doing so, and secondly, you ought to reflect that they had already approached the police station to ascertain clarification regarding the origin of the 13th and 14th press accounts. This implies that they must have enjoyed some sort of relationship of communication with the police that was denied to other, more obviously anti-police newspapers. There is no realistic possibility of the Echo truthfully imparting the result of a genuine communication with the police on one occasion, and then blowing that good relationship to smithereens on another by printing falsehoods that the police could easily read about. The Echo could forget about any further info-seeking trips to Commercial Street Police Station if the police caught them telling porkies about their treatment of a witness.

Clearly the Echo would NOT have jeopardized such a relationship, and equally clearly, they did NOT fabricate the detail that the "authorities" discredited Hutchinson's account because of the late presentation of his evidence.

Significantly, they obtained accurate information from the police after the publication of the 13th November claims. Why on earth would the police have given them anything if they already knew that the same newspaper were printing lies about them just a day previously?

Where we differ is you then suggest the police subsequently discovered him to have lied, but you can't decide on what it was he is supposed to have lied about.

Yes I can.

I've suggested that he lied about his reasons for being where he was when he was seen by Sarah Lewis, and I believe he invented the Astrakhan man in order to deflect suspicion away from his own loitering antics that night. I never said he was "discovered" to have lied about anything, with the possible exception of the transparently false "Sunday policeman" claim. I said he was suspected of lying, and that these suspicions resulted in his discrediting.

If, after later investigation it is determined that Astrachan was an invention, then Hutchinson, by his own admission, is the last person to see Mary Kelly alive within the suspected hour of her death.
Ergo – Hutchinson is now the prime suspect!

Ergo - no!

That only follows if the police continued to believe that Hutchinson really was there that night. The overwhelmingly strong likelihood, however, is that after his credibility was doubted and his account discredited, he was adjudged to have been a mere two-a-penny publicity/money-seeker who wasn't there when he said he was. Were they wrong in making that determination? Perhaps, but there is no indication that Hutchinson was ever connected to Lewis' wideawake man (as he ought to have been), and the precedent for fame-seeking witnesses had been very much set.

I'd ask you to consider the case of Emmanuel Violenia. He claimed to have been at the scene of the Chapman murder around the time it was committed, and yet when his account was discredited, he did not become a suspect. They didn't suspect him of lying about his reasons for being at the crime scene. They suspected him of lying about being at the scene of the crime altogether, and the same undoubtedly occurred with Hutchinson.

There is no evidence that the transition was ever made from discredited witness into exonerated suspect. Not with Packer, not with Violenia, and certainly not with Hutchinson.

So the only thing we've proven "totally and irrefutably wrong" is your attempt to dismiss my suggestions as such.

Incidentally, the police would never have been as comically heavy-handed as you suggest in the event that they did suspect Hutchinson. Putting a warrant out for his arrest and publishing his description would have sent him running for the hills, when all they needed to do was continue to interview him and keep him under surveillance while they conducted discreet investigations. Turning the Victoria Home "inside out"? Good luck with one. It was a doss house catering for 500 men a night, all sleeping in whatever bed or cubicle was available (which obviously meant a different one every night) with most carrying their only clothes and possessions with them at all times. I'm not sure what a ransacking exercise would have hoped to uncover.

But this really isn't a thread to discuss Hutchinson as a suspect. You can do that in the Hutchinson-suspects threads, although I'm doubtful that any argument you might raise in objection to that particular theory will not already have been addressed in and amongst the 11,258 posts you'll find there.

If, as you persistently claim, the overall outcome of the Hutchinson investigation was merely that the police dismissed him (your view), then whatever the reason was it was nothing to do with his role in the events that night.

Correction - it had nothing to do with any belief on the part of the police that he had any "role in the events that night".

Is the fact the police already knew when they released their information on the morning of the 13th to the press that the statement had not been introduced at the inquest. So the premise built into the above article is false.
Secondly, the point we have already addressed is that Hutchinson had to explain his delay to Abberline before he left Commercial St. station on the 12th.

No...

And no...

I've refuted this already in my previous post. Here, look: whatever bad excuse Hutchinson may have come up with at the time of the Abberline interview for not alerting the authorities earlier, it couldn't realistically have been verified by the time Abberline filed his report. Hence, the report must have been sent up the chain in the absence of any established, solid, verified "reason" for Hutchinson's delay. They simply didn't have one.

From what source do you derive the belief that the Morning Advertiser was any less reliable than, for example, the Times, or the Daily Telegraph, The Standard, etc. Essentially, worse than any other major newspaper?

Umm....the content?

That's usually our safest barometer!

Or the fact that the Morning Advertiser published erroneous, out-of-date information whereas the more reputable, mainstream papers didn't? That's a fairly strong indicator of journalistic merit too.

And the Morning Advertiser was only financed by the Brewery

Really? Well I'm so intensely reassured by this.

If the paper was financed by a brewery, then we may as well use all other newspapers to line our birdcages.

There's three of you now, so lets be knowing the basis of your claim.

Are you sure about that?

Just three people who think that maybe - just maybe - a subscription rag for the pub trade might not be as reliable and well-informed as some of the mainstream papers, such as the Times and the Daily Telegraph? Seems a fairly conservative estimate to me.

No, it demonstrates that the reporter will go through the motions that his job requires. He can hardly tell his boss that, 'they won't talk to us, so why bother', - he'd be fired

The point is that the "boss" is unlikely to send any journalists to Commercial Street police station unless they had been successful on previous occasions, even if those occasions were very few.

[Ben]

Here's this from the 13th November edition of the Morning Advertiser:

"I heard a strange sound with some door, which was not like the way in which the deceased used to shut the door."

This is from Julia Venturney's evidence, and yet you won't see this claim appear in any other newspaper.

I reckon it's because the Morning Advertiser were just so super and brilliant that they pick up on stuff that everyone else inexplicably missed.

[Ben]

Hi Sally,

I agree entirely.

The other notoriously bad one for publishing nonsense at around the time of the Kelly murder was the Daily News. As with the Morning Advertiser, they didn't so much peddle known falsehoods as get the wrong end of the stick on several occasions, and boy did they come up with some howlers as a result!

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
Firstly, the Echo did not merely claim that "his story is less important". They stated that a "very reduced importance" was attached to Hutchinson's claims.

The Echo article was the polar opposite of melodramatic or exaggerated. It was a reserved piece of journalism, wholly devoid of emotion, which simply commented on a witness who wasn't being taken seriously anymore. Hardly a newsflash. Yes, they did know precisely why his evidence suffered a "very reduced importance", and yes, we do know that the outlined reason for this is correct.

Hello Ben.
From the above it looks like there is a need to clarify exactly how easy it is to be misguided when placing your trust in this fabricated paragraph by the Echo on the 13th.

Bear with me here...
You and I appear to agree that at least initially Abberline accepted Hutchinson's story on the 12th.
Where we differ is you then suggest the police subsequently discovered him to have lied, but you can't decide on what it was he is supposed to have lied about.

Ok, so Abberline initially accepts him at his word (you say), so what could he have lied about?
Either, Abberline finds out that the person of Astrachan is a fabrication, or he finds out that whatever the reason offered by Hutchinson for his delay in coming forward, was false.

Agree?


Lets look at the first scenario.
If, after later investigation it is determined that Astrachan was an invention, then Hutchinson, by his own admission, is the last person to see Mary Kelly alive within the suspected hour of her death.
Ergo – Hutchinson is now the prime suspect!

The police issue an immediate warrant for his arrest, his name and description are published and his last known address, the Victoria Home, is turned inside out by the police.

None of which ever happened!
Therefore, we have proven this first scenario is totally and irrefutably wrong.
He was not found to have lied about Astrachan.


Lets look at the second scenario.
If, after later investigation it is determined that the reason he gave to police (which he was compelled to do), for the delay in coming forward was untrue, then automatically his complicity in the murder is suspect.

The question then arises, did he know the killer?, and if so, was the delay calculated to give the killer sufficient time to flee the city, or country?

The police issue an immediate warrant for his arrest, his name and description are published and his last known address, the Victoria Home, is turned inside out by the police.

None of which ever happened!
Therefore, we have proven this second scenario is also totally and irrefutably wrong.


If, as you persistently claim, the overall outcome of the Hutchinson investigation was merely that the police dismissed him (your view), then whatever the reason was it was nothing to do with his role in the events that night.
If it had been, at best, the police would have hauled him in for a second interview to explain himself, or at worst he would have been arrested.

This is how we know your suggestion is untenable. This is also how we know the story put about by the Echo is a complete fabrication.


The other point worth mentioning pertaining to this quote:
From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?

Is the fact the police already knew when they released their information on the morning of the 13th to the press that the statement had not been introduced at the inquest. So the premise built into the above article is false.
Secondly, the point we have already addressed is that Hutchinson had to explain his delay to Abberline before he left Commercial St. station on the 12th.
So, by the 13th, the authorities are not asking anyone, not even Hutchinson.
More evidence that the article is a fraud.

"The reporter to whom Packer made his statement sent off a copy of it to the Home Secretary, and also to the Chief Commissioner of the City Police"

...which constitutes a further example of a police-press communication with regard to "inside" information. As if we needed any more...

The City Police?
This is not an issue with the City Police, you know this already.

As for the Morning Advertiser, we've had this discussion before, if you remember.

Oh, I do remember quite clearly, but do you remember me asking both you and Garry to substantiate your claims that the Advertiser was 'less reliable'?
I never did receive a reply to that question.

So I ask a second time, only this time you have help, even Dave is under the misapprehension that the Morning Advertiser was 'less reliable' (than what?).
From what source do you derive the belief that the Morning Advertiser was any less reliable than, for example, the Times, or the Daily Telegraph, The Standard, etc. Essentially, worse than any other major newspaper?
And the Morning Advertiser was only financed by the Brewery, so not as politically aligned like its contemporaries.

There's three of you now, so lets be knowing the basis of your claim.
It's quite one thing to denounce any witness or newspaper which speaks against your opinions, but quite another when you are pressed to substantiate your claim.
Heaven forbid this is just another example of hot-air. Or possibly, just another example of the smear campaign against anything that proves you wrong?

... and a newspaper with a proven communication with the police,

Excuse me, “yet” to be proven.
You have by no means established anything to date.

Were it otherwise, and the extent of mutual antagonism and animosity between the police and Star was a great as you suggest, they would never have bothered even trying to gain access to the Commercial Street Police Station (as per your 21st November article). The fact that they did so indicates that they must have been successful on previous occasions, even if they were only very few and far between.

No, it demonstrates that the reporter will go through the motions that his job requires. He can hardly tell his boss that, 'they won't talk to us, so why bother', - he'd be fired.