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

[Wickerman]

The newspaper assertion that Hutchinson the stellar witness was no longer regarded as such by the authorities.

On the 13th?

I suppose your use of 'stellar' may need qualification?

The next day the Echo published this thought.

The police do not attach so much importance to this document as some of our contemporaries do; but they think it sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry.
Echo 14 Nov.

And two days later..

"The police are now to a great extent concentrating their efforts upon an endeavour to find a man so vividly described by George Hutchinson.."
Sheffield Independent, 16 Nov.

Three days later...

The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; but so far they remain without any direct clue. Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache.
Echo, 19 Nov.

Clearly even a week after the first appearance of George Hutchinson, the authorities were not ready to drop this line of inquiry.
It slowly fizzled out as all the suspect inquiries do in press coverage, but as I have demonstrated, what the press thought they knew is not always the whole story, often not even the correct story.

[Ben]

Has anyone, anyone, seen these certainties that you speak of?

Pretty much anyone with a modicum of common sense and imagination, I'd dearly hope. Anyone who has studied the case or at the very least read through this thread. 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. 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.

The police were not, and never did, question Hutchinson's delayed appearance.

Yes they did.

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

They received all the answers they required on the 12th.

No, they didn't and couldn't possibly have done, but please keep annoying me by regurgitating the same erroneous claim over and over as though it had never been addressed and demolished (which it has many times), as it would make my year for this thread to go on forever in repetitive circular perpetuity.

The press are sensationalizing a detail to which "they" have no answers, not the police.

No, they're not.

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

Actually.

Without knowing why the police are not about to let him walk away.

According to who?

Just you.

And what nonsense.

Hutchinson wasn't their captive. He approached the police station as a witness and was treated accordingly. If he made a goofy, unconvincing impression at the time of the interview, the worst he would have received was a wrap on the knuckles for being yet another publicity-seeking time-waster.

Its just a matter of educating yourself on the subject Ben

You'd best get busy then.

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.

Whatever lie Hutchinson may have told the police in "explanation" for his late appearance, it was probably more convincing than any of the weird, far-fetched suggestions you've come up with. There is absolutely no way, for instance, that he did not hear of the murder until Sunday. "I only ever knew her as Ginger" is also very lame, and "Early reports suggest she was last seen with a respectably dressed man, so I thought there's no point in coming forward" is worse still.

the fact he came forward at all circumvents any suggestion of foul play on his part.

Get a bit of criminological insight under your belt and you'll appreciate that the above statement is plain wrong. Plenty of "foul players" have come forward as witnesses.

The melodrama which I referred to above is the press assertion in the Echo that the police were not able to obtain an explanation from Hutchinson as to why he delayed coming forward.

I maintain this assertion was false.

Well then you fly in the face of the evidence and the facts.

Your time to waste I guess.

[Ben]

Did Hutch try to "plant" a suspect in the Inspectors head...knowing that Abberline would recognize the description.

I think he tried to plant a type of suspect in the Inspector's head, Mike, certainly - one that was guaranteed to attract attention and deflect suspicion away from Hutchinson himself.

[Ben]

Besides which, would they really have gone to such canvassing lengths just so that they could state emphatically that as many as 53 persons had seen 'suspicious men'?

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"...!

[Garry Wroe]

I'm not sure what you are suggesting was "invented"

The newspaper assertion that Hutchinson the stellar witness was no longer regarded as such by the authorities.

[Wickerman]

Have you thought about this logically, Jon? Had the Echo or Star wished to concoct information relating to the then stellar witness Hutchinson, it is infinitely more likely that they would have invented a scenario wherein Hutchinson saw more than he had claimed rather than less. What would have been the point of alienating such a seemingly important and honest witness? Such a strategy would have done nothing for the credibility of either newspaper. Nor would it have done anything to improve circulation. So what would have been the point of such an apparently self-defeating exercise?

I'm not sure what you are suggesting was "invented", not Hutchinson's story that is for sure.
The melodrama which I referred to above is the press assertion in the Echo that the police were not able to obtain an explanation from Hutchinson as to why he delayed coming forward.

I maintain this assertion was false.

[Garry Wroe]

There is a short piece of melodrama (emotional plea) where they suggest "the authorities" are mystified as to why Hutchinson did not come forward earlier.
This is not inside information, it is merely conjecture on their part because the police are not telling them what they want to know. Abberline has already interviewed Hutchinson but true to form the police give no details away which causes the press once again to apply conjecture.

Have you thought about this logically, Jon? Had the Echo or Star wished to concoct information relating to the then stellar witness Hutchinson, it is infinitely more likely that they would have invented a scenario wherein Hutchinson saw more than he had claimed rather than less. What would have been the point of alienating such a seemingly important and honest witness? Such a strategy would have done nothing for the credibility of either newspaper. Nor would it have done anything to improve circulation. So what would have been the point of such an apparently self-defeating exercise?

[Wickerman]

I think one of the most critical aspects about our Mr H is why he insisted on only giving his story directly to Abberline. Giving it to anyone at that station would mean that Abberline would be informed,

Michael.
Where did you learn he "insisted" on giving his story to Abberline?

It was Abberline's job, he interviewed Schwartz too if you remember, in fact he was the interviewing officer, there was no avoiding that.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Hutch could go to the police anytime after he heard of the murder.
Would you contest that ?

Cheers

No Dave, I don't contest that.

What reason could he have had?
- I thought I might get the blame so I stayed away?
- I heard she only died around 9:00 am, long after I saw her.
- I was out of town Friday & Sat., only hearing about it on Sunday.
- Early reports suggest she was last seen with a respectably dressed man, so I thought there's no point in coming forward.
- I only ever knew her as Ginger, it was later when I learned the address while at the Market that I made the connection.
- I had a run-in with the police some time ago, I didn't feel comfortable coming forward.

Dave, the fact he came forward at all circumvents any suggestion of foul play on his part. Reluctant witnesses are a frequent feature of all manner of crimes.
He came forward, the police did not have to hunt him down.

That fact should be good enough.

[DVV]

Hi Mike

As you know, I have a completely different explanation about Hutch and Abberline (why did Abberline swallow Hutch's gross lies, I mean).

Cheers amigo

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Jon,

Hutch could go to the police anytime after he heard of the murder.
Would you contest that ?

Cheers

In fact David Mr Hutchinson waited 4 full days before coming forward, and did so almost immediately after the Inquest ended.

I think one of the most critical aspects about our Mr H is why he insisted on only giving his story directly to Abberline. Giving it to anyone at that station would mean that Abberline would be informed, and if he provided a real name and address, he could be contacted later by Abberline if desired.

Abberline...the man that rose to prominence doing intelligence work in Whitechapel on the Fenians, or rather.. the Irish Self Rule factions. The man that was assigned to these cases based on that knowledge of the area and of the criminal individuals living within it. Many obviously Irish.

Hutchinsons suspect description could be interchanged with that of General Millen quite easily and accurately.

Did Hutch try to "plant" a suspect in the Inspectors head...knowing that Abberline would recognize the description.

That Millen wasnt even in London at the time makes it even more interesting, if so.

Cheers

[DVV]

That is what you wish to believe, in truth, without knowing what the reason was you have no idea whether the reason was verified within the hour, or by the end of the evening.
Without knowing why the police are not about to let him walk away.

Hi Jon,

Hutch could go to the police anytime after he heard of the murder.
Would you contest that ?

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Oh, I see...so what you're suggesting now is that the police deliberately fobbed off the Echo with a pack of lies about Hutchinson which they knew full well they would publish. Never mind that these same lies publicly impugned the character of their secret star witness Hutchinson, it was worth besmirching him if only to send the pesky press on a false scent.

I'm afraid that one doesn't work either, Jon.

Anyway, you're citing an example from the City police, who you insist operated completely differently from the Met - the police force whose practices are under discussion - and are therefore irrelevant to this particular debate.

Well, I am able to insist because I have taken the trouble to read the press articles and pick up on the comments they espouse concerning the favorable reception they get from the City Police. In contrast to how they are treated by the Met.
Its just a matter of educating yourself on the subject Ben

[Wickerman]

... It is, as Sally points out, the simplest explanation by far, especially when we know for an indisputable certainly that detectives divulged inside information on the case to certain representatives of the press.

Has anyone, anyone, seen these certainties that you speak of?

The simplest solution is the one solution that we know to be true. Not something that exists in your own imagination, but one that appears in print.

From J.S. Sandars, assistant to Ruggles-Brice, Private Secretary.

"...(Ref: Charles Warren).. he remarked to me very strongly upon the great hindrance, which is caused to the efforts of the Police, by the activity of agents of Press Association & Newspapers. These "touts" follow the detectives wherever they go in search of clues, and then having interviewed persons with whom the police have had conversation and from whom inquiries have made, compile the paragraphs which fill the papers.
This practice impedes the usefulness of detective investigation and moreover keeps alive the excitement in the district & elsewhere."

There you have it!....the direct means by which the press create their home-grown stories about the direction of the Whitechapel murder investigation.

He may well have done, but it appears he cannot have been entirely satisfied with the answer, or else the police would not still be questioning his failure to come forward the next day, as they clearly were.

The police were not, and never did, question Hutchinson's delayed appearance.
They received all the answers they required on the 12th.
The press are sensationalizing a detail to which "they" have no answers, not the police.

Whatever Hutchinson may have claimed on the evening of 12th, it would have been impossible to verify...

That is what you wish to believe, in truth, without knowing what the reason was you have no idea whether the reason was verified within the hour, or by the end of the evening.
Without knowing why the police are not about to let him walk away.

You invent your own drama in much the same way as the Press, when you cannot find an answer, you invent a solution!

[Ben]

This is how a trusted source responds to the press. So what misinformation do you think the Echo might have expected to obtain from a 'hostile' force, if they obtained anything at all?

Oh, I see...so what you're suggesting now is that the police deliberately fobbed off the Echo with a pack of lies about Hutchinson which they knew full well they would publish. Never mind that these same lies publicly impugned the character of their secret star witness Hutchinson, it was worth besmirching him if only to send the pesky press on a false scent.

I'm afraid that one doesn't work either, Jon.

Anyway, you're citing an example from the City police, who you insist operated completely differently from the Met - the police force whose practices are under discussion - and are therefore irrelevant to this particular debate.