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

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

"The Star had no relationship with Scotland Yard, nor the Metropolitan Police in general."

Holy baloney, you really have grasped the wrong end of the greasy straw.

Happy days,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Here we go again.

You come up with the utterly wrong and hopelessly naive assertion that detectives never divulge case-related information with the press, and when that assertion is inevitably proven false, ...

The Star had no relationship with Scotland Yard, nor the Metropolitan Police in general.

A newspaper like the Star who frequently criticize police officials and present them as inept fools will not find a sympathetic ear at Leman-street, Commercial St. nor the Central Office itself.
And this is precisely the situation that we find when we read their columns, they are ignored and left to invent their own story lines.

What access the Star do have is to purchase stories and opinions of the case from agencies like The Central News and The Press Association, inquest testimony, an occasional medical man, word on the street and, from their own reporters who make a nuisance of themselves touting along behind the detectives.

Among the more affable media outlets there may well be a handful of reporters who have made a friend on the inside. Those who might have developed contacts are papers like, Globe, or The Morning Post who present the police in a positive light in their endeavours to catch the murderer. These papers have earned their privilege because they support authority, not so with the Star who did their best to embarrass the police, and were regarded as more like a thorn in their side.

The Star earned no privilege with Scotland Yard or the Met.

[Wickerman]

Ben.
I hope you don't mind me taking the liberty of correcting your introductory line.

I think it may be in order to have a recap of what I believe for an absolute certainty during the course of this thread.

I much prefer to keep the exchange grounded in reality.

Detectives shared case related information with certain members of the press.

It did happen, it's absolutely irrefutable, and we have proven instances of it happening during the course of the Whitechapel murders investigation.

I see it is absolutely clear that you are convinced of this, but your opinion is not what I am looking for. I have suggested to you alternative means by which any journalist did with absolute certainty, obtain information about police activity.
Where you are lacking is in being unable to demonstrate, by any means available, just why in those instances you specify, the information had to be obtained directly & illicitly from detectives and not by the established means I suggest.

As we stand today, contrary to your introductory line, you have established nothing for an absolute certainty.

Nobody is suggesting for a moment that it happened all the time, or that it in any way constituted standard police practice, but it certainly happened, ...

And I have not claimed that it never happened. Certainly an individual PC's lips could be loosened by the offer of a free whisky or two.
How reliable is information obtained in such a fashion? How thick will the icing on the cake be once the PC realizes he can obtain another whiskey for the sake of a little creative embellishment?

The Echo truthfully and accurately reported the detail that Hutchinson had been discredited, and that this, as we learn, was due in part to the late presentation of his evidence and his failure to appear at the inquest where he would have been questioned under oath.

If you read the Echo article with care, you will realize they merely pose a question, not in any way do they prove, demonstrate, or even establish, a connection between his late appearance and the perceived diminuation of his story.

In other words, he was discredited for reasons that related to his credibility. This has been proven beyond reasonable doubt many times during the course of this thread.

There you go again. Certainly you have insisted, and asserted, but never once have you proved Hutchinson was ever discredited. It is something you cannot prove for the simple reason you cannot prove something which never happened.

The police would not still be pursuing that line of inquiry a week later if they had dismissed him as a liar on the 13th. The Echo knew he was never discredited. The Star were intentionally fanning the flames with misinformation.

.......Straight from the horse's mouth.....

Thats the bit we are missing, the paragraph in the Echo reads “From latest inquiries”, which means absolutely nothing as regards talking directly to Scotland Yard.

Reduced importance (Echo), does not mean Discredited (Star), and as the Star appear to have realized their mistake in never mentioning the subject again then we can dispense with this Discrediting nonsense once and for all.

The Star appear to have enjoyed the same access to inside information, ....

They do?
Well, lets take a look at a few recent comments by the Star about the police refusal to talk with them.

A Star man went to Commercial-street Police station to learn some further particulars, but was politely but firmly referred to Scotland-yard. 9 Nov.

The police, however, refuse to supply information of any kind to certain of the reporters, 9 Nov.

The police had orders to refuse the newspapers every information,... 10 Nov.

But, however much or little they know, the police have devoted themselves energetically to the task of preventing other people from knowing anything. 10 Nov.

The result of the police reticence has been the creation of a market for false news, and the actual facts of this latest horror differ with each narrator of the revolting details. 12 Nov.

False News!

This one I particularly like..
We have only probabilities to go upon, and we must piece these together as best we may. 10 Nov.

The truth is out!
The Star, being unable to obtain any reliable information from the police on the progress of the investigation are reduced to making it up as they go!

Now.... what was you saying about the Star enjoying access to inside information? They don't appear to think so, neither do they make any such claim.

(The Star)... They had reported enthusiastically on Hutchinson just two days previously, and would hardly have back-peddled so drastically

Oh yes they do, we have previous examples, in fact I have posted them.
The Star were known for promoting a story one day only to downplay it the next. It was a tactic employed by Ernest Park to attract readers.


Now this I am particularly interested in...

The "Birmingham suspect" referred to on the 19th November in the Star and several other papers including the Echo was described as being similar to a description of a "gentleman" provided at the inquest, which can only have been a reference to Sarah Lewis - the only inquest-attending Kelly witness who had mentioned a "gentleman".

You will agree that Sarah Lewis only saw three men that night.

We both know this “gentleman” was not the loiterer in the wideawake hat, so which one of the other two was it?
The first man Lewis mentioned was the Britannia man who she passed at the corner of Dorset St. The second was the man she saw walk up the court with a woman, though you say this couple were only in Dorset St.
Which one was it Ben?

Before you answer, let me just remind you that the “Birmingham” suspect was described as resembling the man “seen with Kelly”!

I'll make it even easier for you, Sarah Lewis did not see Mary Kelly standing talking with the Britannia man, that was Mrs Kennedy a good half hour later.

So we are left with the only contender, remember what the Daily News reported that Sarah Lewis saw?

“I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.”

As I showed you months ago, Sarah Lewis was witness to Astrachan with Kelly pass up the court. You have just told me that the Birmingham suspect resembles someone “seen with Mary Kelly” (as the article makes clear), and we both know neither of the other two men seen by Lewis, not the Britannia man nor the Loiterer were “seen with Mary Kelly” by Sarah Lewis.

Whether you choose to accept what I posed to you before, or remain confident about the Sarah Lewis sighting (as above), the answer remains the same.
The Birmingham suspect was said to resemble Astrachan, you have no way around that.

I think you backed the wrong horse again.

If it's poor form to construct a case around a suspect on the basis of imaginary reports and non-existent interviews, it's much worse to attempt to exonerate suspects on the basis of same.

Thats rich coming from someone who's entire case against Hutchinson is based on unsubstantiated slander.

No, it most assuredly does not follow that Hutchinson would automatically be treated as a suspect. Firstly, he came forward as witness, and was liable to be treated as such,

No, we are not talking about a guest at the Ritz. The police will determine how the witness is to be viewed depending on his story and how it checks out.

Secondly, the police had no guarantee that he was the "last person" to the see the victim alive. Hutchinson had merely claimed to have seen her that night,...

And that is precisely why they cannot believe him until they check out his story. They have no need to pin a lable on him. You can wrestle with him being a witness or suspect, but he will not leave the station until Abberline is satisfied he is telling the truth. And that is a sure indication of the position he is in.

[Ben]

I think it may be in order to have a recap of what we have ascertained for an absolute certainty during the course of this thread.

Detectives shared case related information with certain members of the press.

It did happen, it's absolutely irrefutable, and we have proven instances of it happening during the course of the Whitechapel murders investigation. Nobody is suggesting for a moment that it happened all the time, or that it in any way constituted standard police practice, but it certainly happened, and to argue otherwise is to waste time fruitlessly attempting to convince oneself and others of the patently false. What irritates me most is when when people think that if they repeat the same provably false assertion over and over, others will eventually get worn out and bored of refuting the nonsense.

The Echo truthfully and accurately reported the detail that Hutchinson had been discredited, and that this, as we learn, was due in part to the late presentation of his evidence and his failure to appear at the inquest where he would have been questioned under oath. In other words, he was discredited for reasons that related to his credibility. This has been proven beyond reasonable doubt many times during the course of this thread. Forget any of the nonsense about a "gradual shift" in the investigation being responsible for Hutchinson being dropped as a credible witness, and certainly dispense with the suggestion that Bond's suggested time of death rendered Hutchinson's account irrelevant. The police did not endorse Bond's too-early time of death, and nor were they duty-bound to. It has no bearing whatsoever on Hutchinson's discrediting.

The Echo did not "assume" anything, and they were certainly not left in the dark with regard to the reason for the "reduced importance".

They didn't need to.

Because they knew the reason full well.

They approached the police directly, and the police told them, specifically and unambiguously, that they queried Hutchinson's failure to come forward earlier and cited this failure as a significant factor in the "reduced importance" that they were now attaching to his statement. Straight from the horse's mouth. No "guessing", no "assuming", and certainly no outright fabrication (which, as Garry points out, would be completely illogical), just simple, basic acquisition of the pertinent facts directly from the police, with whom they were unquestionably in communication.

The Star appear to have enjoyed the same access to inside information, since they also reported that Hutchinson's account was "now discredited" in an article entitled "Worthless Stories Lead Police on False Scent" published on the 15th November, in which Matthew Packer was also mentioned. As with the Echo article, the inference is that Hutchinson was discredited due to doubts surrounding his credibility. They had reported enthusiastically on Hutchinson just two days previously, and would hardly have back-peddled so drastically (eschewing the chance to milk that particular cow for all it was worth) unless the "discredited" detail was true, which we know it was.

The "Birmingham suspect" referred to on the 19th November in the Star and several other papers including the Echo was described as being similar to a description of a "gentleman" provided at the inquest, which can only have been a reference to Sarah Lewis - the only inquest-attending Kelly witness who had mentioned a "gentleman". It had nothing to do with the ludicrous dandified Astrakhan invention conjured up by the thoroughly discredited Hutchinson. The police had long since lost interest in him. The description of the man who resembled the Birmingham suspect appeared at the inquest, which virtually all newspapers knew full well Hutchinson didn't attend.

Finally, there is still no evidence that Hutchinson was ever considered a suspect, less still interviewed in the capacity of one...less still cleared of all involvement during the course of a few hours at a police station (which is just impossible). It's one thing for modern day hobbyists to invent a non-existent police suspicion of Hutchinson as a suspect, but quite another to claim that the he could have been exonerated as one during an evening's interview. If it's poor form to construct a case around a suspect on the basis of imaginary reports and non-existent interviews, it's much worse to attempt to exonerate suspects on the basis of same.

No, it most assuredly does not follow that Hutchinson would automatically be treated as a suspect. Firstly, he came forward as witness, and was liable to be treated as such, in lieu of any precedent for actual killers approaching the police under the guise of witnesses in 1888. Secondly, the police had no guarantee that he was the "last person" to the see the victim alive. Hutchinson had merely claimed to have seen her that night, and with so many bogus "informers" doing the rounds at the time, the only real question the police had to contend with was; is this witness truthful or a publicity-seeker? NOT; is this witness truthful or the actual killer. The latter is not remotely likely to have occurred to them.

[Wickerman]

Certainly so, Jon.
Problem is that Abberline has been quickly satisfied.

All the best

Right or wrong Dave, one of the realities we have to accept is that policing standards of the 19th century were less 'clinical' than today.
Abberline was placed in that position for a reason, he had a reputation, he knew people, he knew the East End.
Because Abberline was convinced Hutchinson was being truthful, then that was all that is necessary.

The same could also be said about Schwartz, he claimed to have been at the murder scene minutes before a murder took place. Was he also regarded as a suspect?
On the same premise, yes, and he will have been treated the same way as Hutchinson was later. The difference with Schwartz is, the police have his address and no doubt interviewed his wife, especially as to the time he arrived home that night and his condition.
Of course, no paperwork survives pertaining to this followup, so we simply don't know.

One thing is for certain, what we read in the papers is only the tip of the iceberg as far as police investigations go. The press never knew the half of it, and consequence of that, and a lack of police files, neither do we.

[DVV]

This is why Hutchinson is regarded as a potential suspect until Abberline is satisfied to the contrary.

Certainly so, Jon.
Problem is that Abberline has been quickly satisfied.

All the best

[Wickerman]

Exactly, Sally, and how would they know when to stop searching the area for more witnesses? Did they just give up at a certain point and go, "ah sod it, that's me done for today. 53 so far, but hey, let's call it 53 total and call it quits"...!

On the contrary, the number of witness statements can be obtained from anyone employed at the Coroner's office.

[Wickerman]

.....but we know from Abberline himself that Hutch was not, in his opinion, the last person to have seen MJK alive.

Dave, there is a priority to be observed here.

Consideration as a suspect towards any witness who claims to have been at the scene himself, takes priority over who that witness claims to have seen.

This is why Hutchinson is regarded as a potential suspect until Abberline is satisfied to the contrary.

[Wickerman]

Okay, then, Jon. Let’s try again. Your contention is that The Star and the Echo concocted stories about Hutchinson’s devaluation as a witness – concocted because, according to you, there is no possibility that either newspaper could have elicited such information whether by legitimate means or otherwise.

Are you with me so far?

Garry, 'we' may have been further ahead if you had only asked what my contention was rather than trying to describe it yourself.

I am looking at an occasional sentence, or paragraph, in these papers which represents an opinion, not what I would describe as a story. Be that as it may, lets press on.

My contention is that neither of these newspapers knew the facts because the police quite simply are not prepared to inform the killer about the progress and direction of the investigation. And, informing the press is informing the killer.

We both agree that Hutchinson's rise to preeminence as a witness began on the evening of the 12th.
Within 24 hrs though, the press began to detect hints of a devaluation of his sudden importance. In this short time it appears the Met. Police were shifting gears by showing more interest for the suspect described by Cox. The City Police however, were favoring the 'well-dressed' suspect as opposed to the shabby looking Blotchy character.

The reason for this sudden change by the Met. was most likely due to the opinion of Dr Bond (in collaboration with Dr. Phillips) who, rightly or wrongly, provided an estimated time of death for Mary Kelly between 1:00-2:00am on Friday morning.

Neither the Echo nor the Star were privy to these internal developments at Scotland Yard. So, quite naturally once their reporters notice a shift in focus among the detectives working the case they assume the worst, that the police have dismissed Hutchinson for some unknown reason.
The problem for both these papers is that their reporters cannot identify a reason, and the Met, as usual, are not telling them what has occurred.

The response by the Echo on the 13th is simply to report what they see, an apparent "reduced importance" is being shown towards the story provided by Hutchinson. Though at the same time the Echo continues to report that the police are still pursuing the Hutchinson suspect.
The 'weakest link', observed by the Echo is the failure of Hutchinson to come forward before the Inquest, so they promote this as the potential reason for the change in focus by the Met.
The Echo realize the police have not dropped the Hutchinson line of inquiry altogether, and continue to report what they learn on the streets up until the 19th. Though the investigation does fizzle out slowly, as happens to all inquiries eventually.

The Star however, following the Echo's lead, took a different approach. On the 15th they denounce Hutchinson as "discredited" without the slightest idea as to why this might be the case.
The Star are guessing by throwing out a negative and assertive opinion to grab the attention of readers. They appear to have realized their "goof" by not returning to the subject again.

In fact, it is not until the 19th where we read of further coverage in the Star concerning the Kelly murder. They report on an incident concerning a 'Birmingham suspect' who, "...somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been seen in the company with Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered".

The Star falsely attribute the description to the witnesses who appeared at the inquest. Avoiding any reference to what they described as the 'discredited' Hutchinson suspect.

Neither the Echo nor the Star had any reliable sources, nor any inside information. What they published was incorrect and misleading for the very reason we are all aware of, the Met. were not sharing the details of their investigation with the press.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

both Turner and Morse are right, but we know from Abberline himself that Hutch was not, in his opinion, the last person to have seen MJK alive.
Since he believed Hutch was telling the truth, the suspect/last man to have seen MJK alive became ipso facto Astrakhan.

All the best

There are no buts in this case, David - I only made the point that - just like Jon says - far from being a nonsensical suggestion, it is a fact that the last person to have seen a murder victim alive is normally counted as a suspect unless known circumstances clears him or her. I leave the rest of the discussion to you gentlemen.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Fish,

both Turner and Morse are right, but we know from Abberline himself that Hutch was not, in his opinion, the last person to have seen MJK alive.
Since he believed Hutch was telling the truth, the suspect/last man to have seen MJK alive became ipso facto Astrakhan.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Ben:

It's not a well known fact. It's nonsense. A witness will continue to be treated as such until they give police a good reason to treat them differently.

Here´s a snippet written by Barry Turner, a Lincoln University lecturer on criminal investigations, that may apply to this particular part of the discussion you are having with Jon, Ben. The snippet comes from a text where Turner discussed the McCann case in Portugal.

"We don’t formally allocate suspect status in our criminal justice systems but we do nevertheless treat all witnesses as in some way ‘suspect’ and the last person to see the victim alive is usually included in the list of suspects.

Barry Turner
Lecturer in Criminal Investigation
Department of Forensic and Biomedical Sciences
University of Lincoln"

Of course, there will always be exceptions, where the circumstances rule persons out as suspects for any reason. But to blatantly claim that it is nonsense, Ben ...? You need to consult inspector Morse, who consistently claimed that in 50 per cent of the murder cases, the last person known to have seen the victim alive is the killer.
Of course, Endeavour Morse is a fictional character.

Barry Turner, however, is not.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

So you keep saying but you are having a devil of a time coming up with anything that could not have been discovered by determined reporters following the detectives.

Here we go again.

You come up with the utterly wrong and hopelessly naive assertion that detectives never divulge case-related information with the press, and when that assertion is inevitably proven false, you hop from one weak explanation to another in order to dismiss the content of the Echo article. No, the information in question could not have been obtained by "following detectives", and nor could Lawende's full description, for obvious reasons. It would have been contained in a report at the police station, and I don't see any pressman finding access to that unless a detective chose to show it to him.

The Echo claimed it was a factor, only because they did not know the answer.

They knew it was a factor because they obtained the information directly from the police, as demonstrated conclusively.

If it was such a significant factor, why is the subject not mentioned in the Central News interview with Hutchinson published in the press on the 14th?

Because, if you remember, Hutchinson attempted to account for the tardy presentation of his evidence when he concocted his tall tale involving the second Astrakhan sighting and his alleged communication with a lazy policeman who did nothing about it. That's why it wasn't queried by the news agency. As far as they were concerned, there was no grey area surrounding his late appearance because he'd already "accounted" for it.

You are backed into a corner, unable to verify your beliefs so you keep repeating the same tired, empty assertion.

Yeah, Jon, you've really got me so scared and on the ropes with this one...

It's an accurate assertion, actually, and I'll repeat it for as long as you keep repeating the "same, tired empty assertions" to the contrary.

The last person to admit to seeing the murder victim is an automatic suspect, and that well known obvious fact needs no justification.

It's not a well known fact. It's nonsense. A witness will continue to be treated as such until they give police a good reason to treat them differently. Was Elizabeth Long treated as a suspect, or Israel Schwartz or Mary Cox? If the police operated as foolishly as you describe, no witness would ever come forward.

Ah, and that is because Hutchinson was the only man in town wearing a wideawake hat?

No, it's because he may have recognised himself as the man Lewis passed on Dorset Street and thereafter sought to legitimise his presence at a crime scene, thus pre-empting the possibility of him being spotted subsequently and hauled in as a suspect without a prior explanation for his loitering antics near a crime scene. But you run along now to a more appropriate thread if you wish to get embroiled in a long drawn-out discussion about Hutchinson as a suspect.

Is this another one of your assertions, or just a cheap dime novel plot from an author with no imagination?

Meow! Saucer of milk for Jon over here, someone!

Seriously, though, if your "imagination" is such that you're ill-equipped even to embrace the possibility of detectives supplying press with information, I'm not likely to be saddened by your view of mine.

But let's have a look at your selective reading from the Echo. For instance, here's the somewhat crucial bit you left out from the 14th November edition:

'What is said to be a full and accurate description of the man last seen with Kelly is asserted to be in the possession of the authorities. That description was given them the other night by George Hutchinson, a groom by trade, but now working as a labourer. The importance of that description lies (so say 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 (i.e. by rival morning papers), the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity.

And incidentally, even a highly questionable account is going to be made the subject of a "very careful enquiry", if only to ensure that a potentially important clue isn't dismissed out of hand. There is, however, no evidence that Astrakhan was still being pursued after 15th November. I think we can reasonably conclude that the "Sheffield Independent" were publishing out-of-date information, and as I've explained before, it can't have been anyone of any seniority who continued to invest credence in Hutchinson's account following its discrediting.

[Garry Wroe]

Okay, then, Jon. Let’s try again. Your contention is that The Star and the Echo concocted stories about Hutchinson’s devaluation as a witness – concocted because, according to you, there is no possibility that either newspaper could have elicited such information whether by legitimate means or otherwise.

Are you with me so far?

Let’s forget for a moment that, contrary to the overwhelming belief of the general press, these two newspapers correctly reflected the scepticism of investigators with regard to Hutchinson. Let’s forget that Anderson, Dew, Macnaghten and others demonstrate beyond any shadow of doubt that Hutchinson’s story came to be disregarded by those hunting the Whitechapel Murderer. Thus my question is simple. Why would The Star and Echo have downplayed Hutchinson’s role in the events surrounding the Kelly murder? Why if these two newspapers had resolved to fabricate a story (presumably for circulation purposes) did they not sensationalize Hutchinson’s claims and state, for example, that he’d heard a stifled scream emanating from Kelly’s room twenty or thirty minutes after commencing his Dorset Street vigil? Or better still, that he’d seen Astrakhan depart the room with what appeared to have been bloodsmears staining his hands and face?

The issue is perfectly straightforward, Jon. The Star and Echo published their ‘diminution’ stories at a time when it was generally believed that Hutchinson was an extremely important witness. As such, it makes no logical sense that two circulation-hungry newspapers would have fabricated stories that poured scorn on his claimed version of events. The opposite would have been true. Any fabrication would have sensationalized his story, introducing elements that would have overshadowed the details carried by their competitors. But they didn’t. They effectively throttled the goose that was in the process of laying the golden egg.

I’m sorry, Jon, but newspapers didn’t operate in such a fashion. They milked a story for all it was worth. And yet, despite the fact that there was still plenty of mileage in the Hutchinson story, The Star and Echo killed it off. Since such a decision would have made no sense from a business perspective, the only sensible conclusion is that they did so on the basis of concrete information – intelligence that must have emanated from a reliable police source.

It aint rocket science.

[Wickerman]

... The idea that no detective ever divulged case-related inside information to the press is a fantasy that only you continue stubbornly to invest in, and long after it has been proven totally false. ...

So you keep saying but you are having a devil of a time coming up with anything that could not have been discovered by determined reporters following the detectives.

In your foot-stomping efforts to evade this obvious reality, you jump from one bad excuse to another. First it was the Echo lying for no reason, then the police lying to the Echo, and now we have an irrelevant extract from Ruggles-Brise's assistant reminding us of a detail that nobody has ever disputed, i.e. that pressman sometimes followed detectives. We know all that, but it is definitely not what happened in this case.

Yes they consistently follow the detectives, not just sometimes, and allow me to complete the sentence you avoid acknowledging, that it is due to these activities that the press are able to....:

"......compile the paragraphs which fill the papers..........and moreover keeps alive the excitement in the district & elsewhere."

The sources the press use are clearly identified.

It was Hutchinson's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for this "delayed appearance" that proved a factor in his eventual discrediting.

The Echo claimed it was a factor, only because they did not know the answer. If it was such a significant factor, why is the subject not mentioned in the Central News interview with Hutchinson published in the press on the 14th?

The C.N. had him at the Victoria Home to provide all the answers they wanted to know, yet not a word about it, not even a comment that he refused to provide that detail.
Clearly, there was nothing suspicious about it at all, it was not even worth putting down in print.

They're reporting faithfully on information supplied to them by the police.

You're in denial Ben.
You are backed into a corner, unable to verify your beliefs so you keep repeating the same tired, empty assertion.

Hutchinson wasn't their captive. He approached the police station as a witness and was treated accordingly.

The last person to admit to seeing the murder victim is an automatic suspect, and that well known obvious fact needs no justification.

As for your suggested reasons for Hutchinson's failure to alert the police earlier, the very few that aren't completely ludicrous fail to take into account Michael's point that Hutchinson came forward very soon after the termination of the inquest. Of all the times (and days) he could have broken his silence, he just happened to break it when the inquest terminated, just after it became publish knowledge that an actual witness had seen a man in a wideawake hat loitering in front of of the court shortly before the murder; a man who was most probably Hutchinson himself.

Ah, and that is because Hutchinson was the only man in town wearing a wideawake hat?
I don't recall reading of a line-up of Wideawake-hat wearing 'suspects' lined up outside Commercial St, station, I must have missed that bit.

Is this another one of your assertions, or just a cheap dime novel plot from an author with no imagination?