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

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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"...!

[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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.