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

[Wickerman]

Hello Ben, a more suitable location for this debate.

Hi Jon,

The second press publication of Hutchinson's account was obviously not sanctioned by the police.

By 'second' I assume you mean the Star version?
Agreed, it was not sanctioned by the police.

It wasn't just published by The Star either. Hutchinson evidently gave his account to a member of a press agency, which is why we see it duplicated more or less exactly in several newspapers.

Well, you have no doubt noticed that within each of those brief press reports on the 13th (approx. 9 examples), the basic description given in each is for the most part, identical.
It is in the type of format typical of a police release, ie:

"A man, apparently of the labouring class, with a military appearance, who knew the deceased, stated that on the morning of the 9th inst. He saw her in Commercial-street, Spitalfields, in company with a man of respectable appearance. He was about 5 ft. 6 in. in height, about thirty-four or thirty-five years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache turned up at the ends. He was wearing a long, dark coat, trimmed with astrakhan, a white collar with black necktie, in which was affixed a horse-shoe pin. He wore a pair of dark gaiters with light buttons, over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain."

Your Star appears to think the police were the source for this release.

"Finally, we have the statement by an anonymous witness which has found its way into the morning papers, and which makes the suspected individual an elegantly-dressed gentleman about 5ft. 6in. in height, "with a dark complexion, and a dark moustache curled up at the ends." Why this statement has been made public at this particular juncture is one of those mysteries in the police management of the case which no one out of Scotland-yard can understand."
Star, 13 Nov.

"Why this statement has been made public......police management....&...Scotland Yard" all suggest it emanates from an official source, that is to say, the police themselves, and very likely through their normal channels, an agency, not directly from the witness.

More than likely, either The Central News or The Press Association received the release by wire from Scotland Yard, and sold copy to the papers, as was the usual procedure.

The Star then, likely hunted the source down and gained an interview with him. It is noticeable that they also chose to insert the previously mentioned description into their own story:

"My suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well-dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer.
The man was about 5ft. 6in. in height, and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache, turned up at the ends. He was wearing a long dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, a white collar, with black necktie, in which was affixed a horseshoe pin. He wore a pair of dark 'spats' with light buttons over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain. His watch chain had a big seal, with a red stone, hanging from it. He had a heavy moustache curled up and dark eyes and bushy eyebrows. He had no side whiskers, and his chin was clean-shaven."
Star, 14 Nov.

Who was responsible for embellishing the story with the "big seal" & "red stone" is anyone's guess.

As the Echo observed, several of their "press contemporaries" believed that they were authored by two separate Astrakhan-spotters, and that it took a visit to the police station to ascertain that this was not the case.

No, that is not what we see.
The morning papers appeared to know that the police had other witness descriptions available which were very similar to this new one.
We also know this to be the case because both Bowyer & Kennedy had spoken to the police and had each given a description of a respectably dressed man seen with Kelly. So the press were quite correct in this assumption, but naturally this information was readily available on the street.

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?

Two points.
First, it is not necessary for the Met. police to share proprietary information with the press to see that a change of direction was evident.
Although neither Scotland Yard nor the Met. were inclined to share anything, this was not apparently the case with the City police.
While we have plenty of examples of the Met. refusing to talk with the press, we also have a handful of comments about how accommodating the City police were.

Second, the assumption in your quote (where I emphasize) by the Echo, is mistaken.

The Coroner is not conducting a murder investigation.
The police do act on all statements regardless of whether they are 'sworn to', or not.
The police have an abundance of witness statements to work on, only a very few were heard at the Coroners Inquest, so obviously this cannot mean all the other statements not heard are worthless.
It is not the responsibility of the Coroner to evaluate the worth of every witness statement held by the police.
So clearly this assumption by the Echo is wrong.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Apologies for the woefully late reply!

By 'second' I assume you mean the Star version?
Agreed, it was not sanctioned by the police.

Not just the Star; The Pall Mall Gazette, St. James' Gazette, Evening News, the Times and many other newspapers. According to the first mentioned, Hutchinson had given his account "to a reporter", and since the wording is virtually identical in all the aforementioned papers, it's a safe bet that the reporter Hutchinson spoke to was from a news agency. Just to be clear, I'm referring to the more elaborate, embellished version of the Hutchinson account which appeared on the 14th November, and which gave his name.

A day earlier, on the 13th, a much shorter version of the account was published without Hutchinson's name being provided, and the police were evidently responsible for the release of this. The reason we see these two different versions (the first without a name being revealed, and without embellishments, and the second with both) is that Hutchinson had evidently communicated directly with the press following their police-sanctioned release of the description on the 13th, resulting in the account we see on the 14th, which cannot have been police endorsed as it contained numerous elements that flatly contradicted his original version of events as provided in his police statement. This is why you'll see the 14th Nov version occasionally prefaced with "the description is confirmed by a man named George Hutchinson..." and similar comments.

The morning papers appeared to know that the police had other witness descriptions available which were very similar to this new one

Well, we know there were some bogus "black bag men" stories doing the rounds in the wake of the Kelly murder, but most had sunk without trace by then. The ludicrous "Mrs. Kennedy" had certainly been discredited, and the claim attributed to Bowyer with regard to a well dressed suspect was clearly false. The Echo were saying that their "press contemporaries" had mistakenly assumed that the two versions of Hutchinson's account (as published on the 13th and 14th November) were authored by different people. It took an actual visit to the police station by the Echo to extract the "proprietary information" that this was not the case; that the two versions "emanated from the same source".

Second, the assumption in your quote (where I emphasize) by the Echo, is mistaken.

No, it isn't.

The Echo communicated with the police directly (we know as much for a fact), and ascertained from them that Hutchinson's account was discredited in part because of his failure to attend the inquest or come forward earlier. Of course the police are duty bound to "act" on statements that were not produced at the inquest, but that doesn't mean they have to take them seriously or endorse them as accurate just because they can't be proven wrong.

The police have an abundance of witness statements to work on, only a very few were heard at the Coroners Inquest, so obviously this cannot mean all the other statements not heard are worthless

True, they might just be irrelevant, or not germane to the time and circumstances of the victim's death. I'm sure there were an "abundance of witness statements" at the police's disposal, but I'm equally sure that many of these amounted to little more than "I knew Kelly vaguely and had a drink with her last Tuesday" or similar information that didn't qualify as relevant eyewitness testimony. There certainly can't have been an "abundance" of the latter, as there weren't enough people up and about in the small hours of a miserable night at that specific location.

The Echo weren't "assuming", and they were certainly correct.

All the best,
Ben

[DRoy]

Ben,

I've asked it a couple times in different threads, perhaps you'd be kind enough to respond since nobody else has... when someone gives a statement to the press, what does that mean? Do they write a statement and hand it in? Do they give a verbal where someone writes it all down? etc.

Can you please also comment on witnesses who don't attend an inquest. Although Hutch couldn't attend because he didn't report his story until after it had ended, do you speculate he would have attended if told earlier? Why didn't Schwartz testify? Does not attending automatically discredit the witness?

Thanks
DRoy

[Ben]

Hi Roy,

In this case, it seems likely that Hutchinson outlined his story to a reporter who took notes and perhaps asked him specific questions after recording the bulk of the narrative, i.e. "what did he look like?" "did you suspect him of being the murderer?" "did you know the deceased?" etc. I imagine the same happened with Schwartz.

Although Hutch couldn't attend because he didn't report his story until after it had ended, do you speculate he would have attended if told earlier?

I believe he would never have come forward were it not for certain details that were publicly divulged at the inquest, specifically the revelation that Sarah Lewis had seen a man loitering opposite the court. I think Hutchinson heard about this, realised he'd been seen, and came forward with a bogus account designed to legitimise his presence there and deflect suspicion in the direction of the Astrakhan man, who he'd invented. He came forward just a few hours after the inquest's closure.

Schwartz is different in that he had communicated with the police prior to the Stride inquest, and for all we know, was perfectly happy to appear at it.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

A day earlier, on the 13th, a much shorter version of the account was published without Hutchinson's name being provided, and the police were evidently responsible for the release of this. The reason we see these two different versions (the first without a name being revealed, and without embellishments, and the second with both) is that Hutchinson had evidently communicated directly with the press following their police-sanctioned release of the description on the 13th, resulting in the account we see on the 14th, which cannot have been police endorsed as it contained numerous elements that flatly contradicted his original version of events as provided in his police statement. This is why you'll see the 14th Nov version occasionally prefaced with "the description is confirmed by a man named George Hutchinson..." and similar comments.

Precisely, Ben. Hutchinson was interviewed by a journalist or journalists at the Victoria Home on the evening of Tuesday the thirteenth, hence the coverage in the following day's papers.

[Garry Wroe]

I believe he would never have come forward were it not for certain details that were publicly divulged at the inquest, specifically the revelation that Sarah Lewis had seen a man loitering opposite the court. I think Hutchinson heard about this, realised he'd been seen, and came forward with a bogus account designed to legitimise his presence there and deflect suspicion in the direction of the Astrakhan man, who he'd invented. He came forward just a few hours after the inquest's closure.

I consider it more likely that he saw Sarah either enter or leave the inquest building, recognized her, and in his anxiety assumed that she knew more than she did and that investigators had recognized the importance of her 'wideawake' sighting. The likelihood of this scenario is increased if Hutchinson knew Sarah by sight via the neighbourhood drinking dens and feared that she had recognized him too and might be able to name or identify him.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Apologies for the woefully late reply!

Well Hello again Ben, to be honest I'd forgotten about this thread.

Not just the Star; The Pall Mall Gazette, St. James' Gazette, Evening News, the Times and many other newspapers.

The Star was the second version, this is what my previous post was clarifying.
Approx. 9 different papers published the first version on the 13th, all of them embellishing the initial report from the police?, to varying degrees.
This is the initial piece.

"A circumstantial statement was made last night by a labouring man who knew the deceased, which was very minute in its particulars regarding a man seen in company with the woman Kelly early on the morning of the 9th inst. According to this description the individual in question was of respectable appearance, about 5ft 6in in height, and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache curled up at the ends. He wore a long dark coat trimmed with astrachan, a white collar with black necktie, in which was affixed a horse-shoe pin, and he had on a pair of dark gaiters with light buttons over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain."

This brief but detailed account carries all the hallmarks of a police press release to one of the Agencies, not direct from Hutchinson. The press buy the release and incorporate into one of their own reports. This is what we see on the 13th.

The Daily Telegraph used it verbatim..

"It was stated late last night that the persons taken in custody on the previous day had been liberated, and it is doubtful if the constabulary have obtained new clues to assist their search. A circumstantial statement was made last night by a labouring man who knew the deceased, which was very minute in its particulars regarding a man seen in company with the woman Kelly early on the morning of the 9th inst. According to this description the individual in question was of respectable appearance, about 5ft 6in in height, and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache curled up at the ends. He wore a long dark coat trimmed with astrachan, a white collar with black necktie, in which was affixed a horse-shoe pin, and he had on a pair of dark gaiters with light buttons over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain. It has not been ascertained why the witness did not make this statement - so much fuller and so different from the others that have been given - immediately after the murder was discovered."


The Daily News, however, broke it up (along with the Morning Advertiser, Bournmouth Visitors Guide (14th), and the Irish Times)..

"Yesterday evening the police received information of a most important nature which not only establishes a clue to the perpetrator of the Dorset-street murder, but places the authorities in possession of an accurate and full description of a person who was seen in company with the murdered woman during the night on which she met her death. A man, apparently of the labouring class, but of a military appearance, who knew the deceased, last night lodged with the police a long and detailed statement of an incident which attracted his attention on the day in question. The following is a summary of the statement, and it may be said that notwithstanding examination and re-examination by the police, the man's story cannot be shaken, and so circumstantial and straightforward were his assertions that the police believe they have at length been placed in possession of facts which will open up a new line of investigation, and probably enable them to track the criminal. This man states that on the morning of the 9th instant he saw the deceased woman, Mary Janet Kelly, in Commercial-street, Spitalfields (the vicinity of where the murder was committed), in company with a man of respectable appearance. The man was about 5 feet 6 inches in height, and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache curled up at the ends. He was wearing a long dark coat trimmed with astrakhan, a white collar with black necktie, in which was affixed a horseshoe pin. He wore a pair of dark gaiters with light buttons, over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain. The highly respectable appearance of this individual was in such great contrast to that of the woman that few people could have failed to remark them at that hour of the morning. This description, which substantiates that given by others of the person seen in company with the deceased on the morning she was killed, is much fuller in detail than that hitherto in the possession of the police, and the importance they attach to this man's story may be imagined when it is mentioned that it was forwarded to the headquarters of the H Division as soon as completed by a special detective. Detectives Abberline, Nairn, and Moore were present when this message arrived, and an investigation was immediately set on foot."


However, the Star, the next day (14th), incorporated a part of this very same piece into an actual interview they appeared to have had with Hutchinson.

".... He pulled A RED HANDKERCHIEF out of his pocket, and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. 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. My suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well-dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer.
The man was about 5ft. 6in. in height, and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache, turned up at the ends. He was wearing a long dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, a white collar, with black necktie, in which was affixed a horseshoe pin. He wore a pair of dark 'spats' with light buttons over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain. His watch chain had a big seal, with a red stone, hanging from it. He had a heavy moustache curled up and dark eyes and bushy eyebrows. He had no side whiskers, and his chin was clean-shaven...."

Do you see what I mean?, the initial police release published on the 13th was picked up and used by about 9? different papers. The second mention came via the Star on the 14th where they incorporated a portion of that same initial release.

I'll just end this post here, as it is getting too long

.

[Wickerman]

The ludicrous "Mrs. Kennedy" had certainly been discredited, and the claim attributed to Bowyer with regard to a well dressed suspect was clearly false.

This thread is mainly to do with the press and how they knew what they reported.
So go ahead Ben, please demonstrate for me how we 'know' Mrs Kennedy was discredited, and how we 'know' Bowyer's claim was clearly false.
You'll forgive me if I get this 'same-old-Deja Vu' feeling again..

The Echo communicated with the police directly (we know as much for a fact),

Go ahead Ben, show me this fact. I have a whole thread of quotes from the press, including the Echo, who persistently complain about the police not sharing critical information with them about the progression of the case. THAT, is my proof, so by all means, please present yours.

.

[Wickerman]

I believe he would never have come forward were it not for certain details that were publicly divulged at the inquest, specifically the revelation that Sarah Lewis had seen a man loitering opposite the court. I think Hutchinson heard about this, realised he'd been seen, and came forward with a bogus account designed to legitimise his presence there and deflect suspicion in the direction of the Astrakhan man, who he'd invented. He came forward just a few hours after the inquest's closure.

In response to DRoy in questioning whether Hutchinson might have come forward earlier, I suggest the following.

Considering that prior to the Inquest on Monday the press had no idea when Mary Kelly died, anywhere from midnight through to 9 o'clock Friday morning, as evident in the weekend papers, Hutchinson had no way of knowing his liaison with her would be of great importance.
He only came forward after a friend of his advised him to do so. He himself learned nothing after the conclusion of the Inquest, not until the evening papers came out, but he came forward before this.

Sarah Lewis actually said "...I cannot describe him.", nothing could be clearer.
So then she add's:
"...He was not tall – but stout – had on a wideawake black hat.."
"...I did not notice his clothes"

No age, no height, no style of dress, no ethnicity, no moustache, no beard, nothing of value. I'm sorry to say this Ben, but to suggest any suspect could be concerned about what Lewis said is preposterous.
Both Schwartz and Lawende had given considerably more to the police than Sarah Lewis had and Hutchinson wasn't concerned enough to come forward then, was he!

.

[Ben]

Hi Garry,

Yes, what you outline above is perhaps more plausible.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

There still appears to be some confusion regarding the reporting of Hutchinson's account on the 13th and 14th. I'll sum it up as succinctly as possible:

The 13th November press reports were evidently circulated by a news agency after being supplied with the relevant information by the police. It was a police-sanctioned press release, and Hutchinson's name was withheld.

This appeared in several newspapers.

The 14th November press reports were the result of a direct communication between Hutchinson himself and the press, which is why we see Hutchinson's name included, along with various embellishments, "red stone seals" brown kid gloves and the like. This was evidently not police sanctioned.

This also appeared in several newspapers, not just the Star.

I'm not sure why you're focussing specifically on the Star as though they were responsible for the second version. They clearly weren't, or else the account would have appeared in that newspaper only, as occurred in Schwartz's case. Check the Times and St. James Gazette for instance, and you'll find a near verbatim duplicate of the Hutchinson account provided in the Star on the 14th November. Or there's the Pall Mall Gazette, which prefaced the account with the following:

"Last evening a man named George Hutchinson, a groom, who is now working as a labourer, made the following statement to a reporter, and his description of the murderer agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police and published yesterday morning"

So go ahead Ben, please demonstrate for me how we 'know' Mrs Kennedy was discredited, and how we 'know' Bowyer's claim was clearly false.
You'll forgive me if I get this 'same-old-Deja Vu' feeling again..

It's the "what's with these odd requests for endless unnecessary repetition of previous debates" feeling that worries me a little more. We've only recently finished a long drawn-out discussion on Kennedy, Bowyer and assorted chums on another thread ("Access to Mary Kelly..?") and I most certainly did "demonstrate for you" that Kennedy was discredited and Bowyer never said anything about a well-dressed suspect, but it's back to that thread for you if you're insistent on reviving that one, I'm afraid.

I have a whole thread of quotes from the press, including the Echo, who persistently complain about the police not sharing critical information with them about the progression of the case. THAT, is my proof

Proof of what? That the newspapers were dissatisfied with the police's general practice of not supplying them with crucial case-related information. That's great, but I never disputed this. I'm sure the police didn't make a regular habit of it, but it's hopelessly unrealistic to claim that it never happened; akin to saying that politicians never lie. It certainly did happen in this case, as I've explained in great detail on a great many threads. It would be great shame to copy and paste purely at your behest.

In response to DRoy in questioning whether Hutchinson might have come forward earlier, I suggest the following.

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to suggest it on a more appropriate thread. I thought you set this thread up to discuss press activities. I was responding to a brief question put forward by DRoy. If you want to have another repetitive debate about Hutchinson as a suspect, I'll gladly play, but you'd be derailing your own thread.

Considering that prior to the Inquest on Monday the press had no idea when Mary Kelly died, anywhere from midnight through to 9 o'clock Friday morning, as evident in the weekend papers, Hutchinson had no way of knowing his liaison with her would be of great importance.

How do you know? For all you know, Hutchinson knew precisely when Kelly was murdered and acted as he did because he knew that her true time of death would emerge publicly in time, and dispute an uninfluential minority of newspapers claiming that she was murdered later in the morning.

He only came forward after a friend of his advised him to do so

According to who? Just Hutchinson, in his uncorroborated three-day-late discredited account. It is suspicious - or at least reasonable and rational people ought to consider it so - that the alleged fellow lodger prompted him to come forward so soon after the termination of the inquest, as though it had been timed that way.

he himself learned nothing after the conclusion of the Inquest

No, that's not the case at all. As Garry suggests, he could easily have registered that Sarah Lewis was due to appear as a witness, and arranged to come forward after the inquest (when the opportunity to be quizzed in public had passed) to account for the loitering presence of the "wideawake man" (him) who he correctly assumed Lewis must have mentioned.

Sarah Lewis actually said "...I cannot describe him.", nothing could be clearer.

That only appeared in her police statement, which Hutchinson cannot have been privy too.

No age, no height, no style of dress, no ethnicity, no moustache, no beard, nothing of value. I'm sorry to say this Ben, but to suggest any suspect could be concerned about this is preposterous.

No, it isn't remotely preposterous. You're probably another one who needs to understand the distinction between a description and a sighting. Lewis might well have provided a weak or vague description, but that doesn't mean for one second that she would not be able to recognise the man if confronted with him again, and the latter is what Hutchinson had to fear if he was involved in the Kelly murder.

Both Schwartz and Lawende had given considerably more to the police than Sarah Lewis had and Hutchinson wasn't concerned enough to come forward then, was he!

He couldn't possibly have done, even if he wanted to. How could he have said, "Yes, that was me talking to Eddowes ten minutes before the discovery of her body, but Mr. Astrakhan must have snuck in after I left, and inveigled, dispatched and mutilated her at lightening speed"..? Or "Yes that was me assaulting Stride around the time of her death.."?

But meanwhile back on topic...your topic.

All the best,
Ben

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

George Hutchinson first went to the police at 6.00 pm on Monday 12th November.

His description of Astrakhan Man appeared in the press on Tuesday 13th November.

A fuller description of Astrakhan Man appeared in the press on Wednesday 14th November.

Belfast News Letter, 14th November [story datelined Tuesday 13th November] 1888 —



"This description exactly tallies with one already furnished to the police . . ."

Hardly surprising really. George Hutchinson was corroborating his own original description.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

There still appears to be some confusion regarding the reporting of Hutchinson's account on the 13th and 14th. I'll sum it up as succinctly as possible:

The 13th November press reports were evidently circulated by a news agency after being supplied with the relevant information by the police. It was a police-sanctioned press release, and Hutchinson's name was withheld.

This appeared in several newspapers.

The 14th November press reports were the result of a direct communication between Hutchinson himself and the press, which is why we see Hutchinson's name included, along with various embellishments, "red stone seals" brown kid gloves and the like. This was evidently not police sanctioned.

I'm not sure what you are confused about, you pretty much repeated what I already posted.

This also appeared in several newspapers, not just the Star.

I'm not sure why you're focussing specifically on the Star as though they were responsible for the second version....

It is not just the Star, in the previous thread which post #1 here sprouted from, we had been talking about the Echo and how they had not received proprietary information from the police.
Your other favorite being the Star, is why I mention them, because nothing they published was proprietary either.
I'm not saying they were the only source for the second article.

Proof of what? That the newspapers were dissatisfied with the police's general practice of not supplying them with crucial case-related information. That's great, but I never disputed this. I'm sure the police didn't make a regular habit of it, but it's hopelessly unrealistic to claim that it never happened; akin to saying that politicians never lie. It certainly did happen in this case, as I've explained in great detail on a great many threads. It would be great shame to copy and paste purely at your behest.

No, what you claimed on the other thread was that the police at Commercial St. agreed that the source for the second article was the same as the first.
What I am left wondering is why you seem to think this is proprietary information, it has no more value than gossip.

Both stories were public knowledge and the source for the second was in print. The Central News Office could have confirmed that the sources were the same (as they released both stories) not just the police. So clearly, this was not "something no-one else knew about".

I do not recall you claiming that the Echo obtained anything else which you might choose to argue was proprietary information. Have I forgotten something?

No, that's not the case at all. As Garry suggests, he could easily have registered that Sarah Lewis was due to appear as a witness, and arranged to come forward after the inquest (when the opportunity to be quizzed in public had passed) to account for the loitering presence of the "wideawake man" (him) who he correctly assumed Lewis must have mentioned.

Quizzed in public?
And exactly what difference do you see in Hutchinson being quizzed by Macdonald as opposed to being quizzed by Abberline?

Once he steps forward he knows the police could easily go pick up Sarah Lewis to confirm this was the man she saw.
Avoiding the inquest is not achieving anything if he comes forward anyway.
That was not thought through very well was it!

No, it isn't remotely preposterous. You're probably another one who needs to understand the distinction between a description and a sighting. Lewis might well have provided a weak or vague description, but that doesn't mean for one second that she would not be able to recognise the man if confronted with him again, and the latter is what Hutchinson had to fear if he was involved in the Kelly murder.

So then he goes to Abberline to fess up, who then has Lewis picked up for an I.D. against Hutchinson......go ahead, explain to me what happens next...

Have a good weekend Ben.

[Garry Wroe]

So then he goes to Abberline to fess up, who then has Lewis picked up for an I.D. against Hutchinson......go ahead, explain to me what happens next...

Hutchinson sticks to the Astrakhan story which cannot be disconfirmed by Sarah Lewis.

[Ben]

Hardly surprising really. George Hutchinson was corroborating his own original description.

Exactly, Simon...albeit with significant embellishments and contradictions in his press re-telling.

Hi Jon,

It is not just the Star, in the previous thread which post #1 here sprouted from, we had been talking about the Echo and how they had not received proprietary information from the police.

But the Echo most assuredly HAD received "proprietary information" from the police. The revelation that Hutchinson's account had suffered a "very reduced importance" most assuredly qualifies on that score. And before you argue that the Echo lied about this detail (for what possible reason?), 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 **** 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.

Quizzed in public?
And exactly what difference do you see in Hutchinson being quizzed by Macdonald as opposed to being quizzed by Abberline?

Well, crucially, one of those "quizzings" would have occurred in the privacy of an interrogation room at the police station, while the other necessitated a very public airing, which would not have been terribly desirable if Hutchinson had anything to hide. The crowds that attended (or tried to attend) the inquest were reportedly very large, and who knows what key witnesses from previous murders and attacks they may have comprised? Schwartz? Lawende?...Ada Wilson?

So then he goes to Abberline to fess up, who then has Lewis picked up for an I.D. against Hutchinson......go ahead, explain to me what happens next...

What happens next is that Hutchinson says "yep, that was me, exactly where I said I was...watching and waiting for Kelly and the scary-looking man to come out of Miller's Court, JUST AS I SAID in my voluntarily-offered witness account. Thanks for the corroboration, Sarah. Now how about that cup of tea, Abby-poo?"

Mission utterly accomplished for Hutchinson if his mission was to provide an innocent explanation for his presence opposite Miller's Court before he had a chance to be dragged in as a suspect and awkward questions asked of him.

I contend that the purpose of Hutchinson's visit to the police station and bogus "witness" account was to pre-empt the potentiality of a positive ID from Lewis. Now try to envisage a similar scenario, but one that involves Lewis IDing Hutchinson on the streets or in a lodging house before he'd made himself known to the police as an "innocent witness", and him then being dragged in as a suspect and asked to explain his loitering wideawake-wearing presence near a crime scene.

Much worse.

Have a great weekend yourself, Jon.

All the best,
Ben