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

[DVV]

Hi Jon

A dog?

It has been "seriously" suggested.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

So a Sailor with a sharp knife, a kid with a piece of chalk, and a dog with a taste for kidney are behind the whole mystery?

Sounds like an episode from Tin-Tin, to me.

[Ben]

The Morning Advertiser was no less reliable than any other newspaper of the time.

This is just ridiculous.

Still ridiculous.

Look, the more reliable newspapers - or at least the ones who had access to up-to-date information - were those that published Hutchinson's press interview on the 14th November and included his name with it. These included, among others, the Times, the Daily Telegraph and - yes, I'm afraid so - the Star. The less reliable, less informed newspapers (The Morning Advertiser and one or two others) were the ones who published the eye-watering dross about Hutchinson's name being withheld to protect his safety. It's such nonsense. If that were truly the case, why were the Morning Advertiser's senior colleagues reporting on an interview that took place between George Hutchinson and a reporter? And why wasn't the Morning Advertiser reporting on that same story?

Evidently, they didn't get the memo.

And they didn't get the memo because they were out of the loop.

And they were out of the loop because they weren't one of the more mainstream, better informed newspapers.

It's as simple as that.

Interestingly, the Echo made the point on the evening of 14th November that the police do not attach as much importance to Hutchinson's account as some other newspapers do. It's possible that Echo were referring to the Morning Advertiser and any other newspaper that published the same inaccurate out-of-date information.

But wait!

Look what I've found from the Daily Telegraph, 13th November.

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.

My emphasis.

How interesting! So on the one hand we have a mainstream, reputable newspaper informing its readers that Hutchinson's late appearance had NOT been accounted for, and another newspaper (the Echo) with a proven relationship of communication with the police attesting to the same observation; while on the other, we have a brewery-financed pub trade publication claiming that Hutchinson's late appearance HAD been satisfactorily explained (but kept all hush-hush, of course!)

I wonder who I'm going to listen to…

Let's focus on some more entertainingly bogus claim made in the same 14th November Morning Advertiser article:

“It is now conclusively proved that Mary Jane Kelly, having spent the latter part of Friday evening in the "Ringers," otherwise the "Britannia" public-house, at the corner of Dorset-street...”

Really? It’s just that the more reliable mainstream newspapers all say that despite exhaustive efforts on the part of the police, nobody could be found to confirm or deny the theory that Kelly had been drinking in a pub on the night of her death. Oops..

“In consequence of the recent crimes his suspicions were aroused by the man's appearance”

Were they indeed? It’s just that Hutchinson's statement said the precise opposite; that he had NO suspicion that the man was the murderer. Oops..

I could go on, but it should be apparent to all that the Morning Advertiser’s informers were seriously misinformed.

“And to your 'secondly', need I remind you that the police only confirmed knowledge that was already in the public domain.”

"Need I remind you" that the revelation that the 14th November description attributed to "George Hutchinson" emanated from the same source as the 13th November account attributed to "a man, apparently from the labouring class but with a military appearance" certainly qualified as "inside information". The account from the 14th was not sanctioned by the police, unlike the account from the 13th, and as such the police would not have wished it to be "public information" that both came from the same source.

This may shock you but police generally work with facts (which might be alien to you), but they will make damn sure the witness is either trustworthy, or untrustworthy

But in cases where they can't be sure - which occur very frequently in police investigations - the police are obliged to use their own not inconsiderable powers of discernment in separating the wheat from the chaff. It is perfectly acceptable for a police force to dismiss a witness statement because they don’t consider it reliable, even if they can't prove it false. Emanuel Violenia is another example. They couldn't prove that he was lying but they certainly suspected it, which is why he too was discredited. The reverse approach is to endorse as accurate every single piece of evidence, irrespective of how obviously bogus it seems, simply because it can't be proven false. Is this the approach you favour? It certainly isn't how the police operate, then or now.

if they later find reason to doubt anything which he has told them he will be brought in for a further interview and given the opportunity to explain himself.

Any news of Hutchinson being hauled in a second time?

I think you help me out yourself here, when you suggest:

You believe that because it has not survived that it never existed?

Cheers for that.

So whenever you cite the lack of evidence for Hutchinson being re-interviewed to argue that it never happened, I'll simply counter it with your own argument. Ka-boom.

Discredit only exists if the police confirm he lied. If the police could not confirm this then the police did not discredit him, plain and simple.

No.

Wrong.

The police can discredit a witness purely on the belief that s/he lied, as evinced by proven examples of this occurring during the course of the Whitechapel investigation.

Plainer and Simpler.

And no, there is no evidence that any connection was ever made at the time between Hutchinson and the wideawake man mentioned by Lewis. That's just a fact. Had the connection been made, it is inconceivable that the press would not have latched onto it, especially given their demonstrated willingness to pass their own commentary on eyewitness evidence. It is extremely likely that the other man mentioned in Lewis’ testimony (the Bethnal Botherer) very quickly became the focus of her account, and thus a suspicious person of interest. The wideawake man was consequently overlooked in terms of potential significance, apparently.

There is not a scrap of evidence that this clearly overlooked aspect of Lewis’ testimony was ever compared to Hutchinson’s account. Unless you have actual EVIDENCE to the contrary?

The only reason such an omission might seem so surprising to some of us is because we have many years at our disposal in which to assess the evidence, to focus the spotlight on one very specific aspect of one of the murders. We're not a beleaguered police force having to sift through many hundreds of leads, most of them bogus, and being pressured from all sides.

I'd appreciate it if you would cease bringing up this ridiculous Violenia argument.

Tough.

I'm going to bring up Violenia again, because his case offers an interesting parallel with Hutchinson - irrefutably so.

Violenia claimed to have been near a crime scene at a time relevant to Chapman's time of death. The police dismissed him as a false witness but did not consider him a suspect. Since the exact same details were true of Hutchinson, it logically follows that he never became a suspect either. The precedent for the treatment of false witness had been established way in advance of Violenia coming forward, and Hutchinson was almost certainly dismissed as a publicity/money-seeker, without the possibility of his culpability in the crimes ever being considered.

Packer was not the last person to see Stride alive, therefore he is no suspect.

Nor was Hutchinson. According to his ultimately discredited account, it would have been the Astrakhan man who was the "last person" to see Kelly alive.

The publication of a suspect description in Duke St., three in Berner St, another in Dorset St, and in the future, another in relation to the attack on Annie Farmer?

"Suspect descriptions" were released, yes, not actual identities of those suspected. Do you not see the colossal difference here? The latter, unlike the former, was practically guaranteed to send the suspect running because it named him specifically, and would have been a foolish exercise in Hutchinson's case when all they had to do was investigate him discreetly while allowing him to believe he was still being treated as a valuable witness.

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

I'm not talking about relative workloads. I'm talking about the utter futility of expecting to find anything incriminating as a result of turning the Victoria Home "inside out".

Nobody, and I mean nobody with an informed opinion (ie; that knows what they are talking about) has ever tried to single out this paper for inaccuracy.

I'd cut back on some of those personal insults, Jon.

They don't work either.

And all you're doing is insulting other people who aren't participating in the thread. For instance, Gareth Williams (aka Sam Flynn) once cautioned me not to pay any attention to a particular claim made in the Morning Advertiser's report on the Kelly inquest, citing the newspaper's obvious lowly status as a booze-financed rag, and I had to concede the point.

[Ben]

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

Exactly, Dave, and I appreciate and applaud the commonsense approach.

There has been so much inaccurate nonsense written recently about who stood where and when on the night of the Kelly murder that many unnecessary easily avoidable misunderstandings arise. For instance, the location of the wideawake-wearing loitering man is simply not open to discussion because she provided it unambiguously, and with no room for doubt, in her signed police statement which read as follows:

"When I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset Street"

"Against the lodging house"

"On the opposite side in Dorset Street" i.e. the opposite side from where she was, which was the entrance to Miller's Court.

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Lewis saw her man standing against Crossingham's lodging house on the opposite side of Dorset Street to Miller's Court. She clearly meant "opposite side" in the sense that the vast majority of people understand the phrase, i.e. on the other/contrary side to where she was standing at the time of the sighting, i.e. as she was "came up the court".

It is an unarguable certainty, therefore, that "opposite" for Sarah Lewis did not mean "in front of" or "adjacent to".

So certain are we of the loiterer's location - thanks to her police statement - that the necessity to conduct any "press-collating" is completely nullified. The only positive and productive outcome of conducting such an exercise would be to establish which newspapers were talking utter nonsense. In other words, any newspaper which had the loitering man in an appreciably different location to that provided in her police statement.

I have to wonder just who would even contemplate prioritizing the Morning Advertiser and the Irish Times above a written police statement.

Note: Prater refers to the back of Millers Court as the back of the lodging house

No she doesn't, Jon.

She was referring to Crossingham's, which she could see from her first floor front room window.

The second time she saw the loiterer was when she saw him outside Kelly's door.

Sarah Lewis DID NOT see the loiterer a second time.

It is never suggested, anywhere, ever, that Lewis saw the loiterer more than once, not even in the most hilariously under-informed of newspapers.

Sarah Lewis DID NOT see anyone in Miller's Court.

That claim appeared in the Daily News and nowhere else in the press. It is proven 100% false by Lewis' police statement.

[DVV]

But wait!

Look what I've found from the Daily Telegraph, 13th November.

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.

My emphasis.

How interesting! So on the one hand we have a mainstream, reputable newspaper informing its readers that Hutchinson's late appearance had NOT been accounted for, and another newspaper (the Echo) with a proven relationship of communication with the police attesting to the same observation; while on the other, we have a brewery-financed pub trade publication claiming that Hutchinson's late appearance HAD been satisfactorily explained (but kept all hush-hush, of course!)

I wonder who I'm going to listen to…

I'm also totally undecided, Ben.

[Ben]

It's a tricky one isn't it, Dave?

But after much considered afterthought, I'm going with the best newspaper out there:

The Wheeling Register!

[Sally]

The Wheeling Register???

I'll take the Morning Advertiser any day...

Actually, there's not that much to choose between them

However batting for the defence of the MA might suit some arguments; it was actually routinely inaccurate.

And however denying it may also suit some arguments; the context in which the paper functioned is relevant.

It appears (again, routinely) that the MA were more interested in a good story than the bare, ungarnished facts.

Not very surprising considering its circulation.

[Ben]

Right you are, Sally.

If I wanted to find out who won West Kent Camra Pub of the Year, I'll visit the pages of the Morning Advertiser all day long.

But when it comes to accurate presentation of the facts pertaining to a 100+ year old murder case, I probably won't.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Even Wikipedia tells us that the MA was 'devoted to trade interests' - and as we can see, it still is.

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/

[DVV]

It's a tricky one isn't it, Dave?

A terrible one.
J'en ai mal au cigare.

[Wickerman]

Look, the more reliable newspapers - or at least the ones who had access to up-to-date information - were those that published Hutchinson's press interview on the 14th November and included his name with it.

This is not an issue of reliability among the media, it is more an issue of the source.

Your suggestion of access is a false ploy. The papers bought their copy from the telegraph agencies (if you pay attention to what you read, you would know this), therefore they all had the same access.
The difference is in which source was used.

We do read that the private interview with Hutchinson was undertaken by a Central News reporter. No doubt the papers who bought their telegraph communications from the Press Association, as with The Morning Advertiser, receive a different version than those who bought their copy from the Central News, as did the Times, The Star, etc.
The fact the Press Association version differs from the Central News version is a matter of reliability between the telegraph agencies not, the purchasing media.

If you take the trouble to study the differences between sources, albeit not always stated, you will realize that quite often this is where the fault lies with deviations in the various stories.
In this specific case we know we are not dealing with stories written by the reporters from the Morning Advertiser or The Times.

Interestingly, the Echo made the point on the evening of 14th November that the police do not attach as much importance to Hutchinson's account as some other newspapers do. It's possible that Echo were referring to the Morning Advertiser...

No, its not possible, the version which the Echo referred to did name the source of the story, the Morning Advertiser had not. Did you forget this?

Look what I've found from the Daily Telegraph, 13th November.

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.

My emphasis.

Which is what we already know, that the police were not divulging to the press the reason given by Hutchinson. It is the press who are unable to ascertain the reason, not the police.
The Daily Telegraph and the Echo both acknowledge this and The Morning Advertiser explains the fact in more detail. That the police do know (as a result of the interview with Abberline), but choose not to share.

Let's focus on some more entertainingly bogus claim made in the same 14th November Morning Advertiser article:

“In consequence of the recent crimes his suspicions were aroused by the man's appearance”

Only if you choose to question the source, once again you quote from the Press Association release.

The overall question concerning the reliability of newspaper stories is inherently tied to the sources they used. Where it can be determined that the story emanated from their own reporters then by all means question the reliability. In many cases this cannot be done, but in others it is clearly the case.
In your haste to question everything I write please be sure you are selecting the correct sources and not erroneously laying blame where blame is not warranted.

"Need I remind you" that the revelation that the 14th November description attributed to "George Hutchinson" emanated from the same source as the 13th November account attributed to "a man, apparently from the labouring class but with a military appearance" certainly qualified as "inside information".

Why do you keep repeating this?, both stories were issued by the Central News Agency, this is what is meant by “public domain”, of course the police can provide an answer, it is not "inside" knowledge.

But in cases where they can't be sure - which occur very frequently in police investigations - the police are obliged to use their own not inconsiderable powers of discernment in separating the wheat from the chaff. It is perfectly acceptable for a police force to dismiss a witness statement because they don’t consider it reliable, even if they can't prove it false.

Not at all, not in a case where another witness confirms his presence at the scene of the murder. The more uncertain the police become the more certain we are of the need to bring him in a second time to explain himself.
With the media broadcasting the event in no uncertain terms.

Emanuel Violenia is another example. They couldn't prove that he was lying but they certainly suspected it, which is why he too was discredited.

His inability to identify the victim is a good start, then when he failed the subsequent interrogation, they knew alright.
Neither of which applies to Hutchinson – as I have made clear before.

Quote:
if they later find reason to doubt anything which he has told them he will be brought in for a further interview and given the opportunity to explain himself.

Any news of Hutchinson being hauled in a second time?
I think you help me out yourself here, when you suggest:
Quote:
You believe that because it has not survived that it never existed?
Cheers for that.

If this is getting too confusing for you I'll understand.
Your attempt at merging two separate issues certainly suggests this is the case.

Had Abberline used the statement of Sarah Lewis to confirm Hutchinson's story this would only exist in police files & police reports, the press would not be informed. As no police files have survived then we cannot be sure either way.
The likelyhood though is very strong.

On the other hand, had the police searched for Hutchinson a second time (under your assumption that he lied), which no doubt would include questioning residents at the Victoria Home, and as always, with the press hounds in full pursuit, we would read about it in the papers. Which still do exist and, notably, do not make any reference to a second interview or even subsequent interest in Hutchinson by police.

Any clearer?

"Suspect descriptions" were released, yes, not actual identities of those suspected. Do you not see the colossal difference here? The latter, unlike the former, was practically guaranteed to send the suspect running because it named him specifically,

Interesting, because it was the former (and ever so vague), not the latter, which you claim prompted Hutchinson into action in coming forward to the police. So, isn't it self evident by your own previous claims that this argument you offer above is wrong?
Interesting how you change horses in midstream.

and would have been a foolish exercise in Hutchinson's case when all they had to do was investigate him discreetly

Discreetly, at the Victoria Home?
That isn't going to happen.

Quote:
Nobody, and I mean nobody with an informed opinion (ie; that knows what they are talking about) has ever tried to single out this paper for inaccuracy.
I'd cut back on some of those personal insults, Jon.

They don't work either.

And all you're doing is insulting other people who aren't participating in the thread. For instance, Gareth Williams (aka Sam Flynn) once cautioned me not to pay any attention to a particular claim made in the Morning Advertiser's report on the Kelly inquest, citing the newspaper's obvious lowly status as a booze-financed rag, and I had to concede the point.

The Morning Advertiser was considerably more than a rag (read up on the definition). No “rag” enjoys the broad circulation, second only to The Times, the envy of London.

I repeat, no-one with an informed opinion on the accuracy of the media in reported coverage of the Whitechapel murders has ever, nor has any reason, to target the Morning Advertiser.

What is known, is that the Morning Advertiser was considered along with the more prominent Conservative backed newspapers of the day, without the need for their support. You only need to digest the extensive political coverage to realize this, a subject rarely given space in any “rag”. The definition of which was more suited to the Star & Pall Mall Gazette.

But, I don't need to go down that road, the unreliability and radical stance of these two newspapers is a matter of historical fact. It must be greatly appreciated that regardless of your contrary opinions, history, is something you cannot change.

[Wickerman]

"On the opposite side in Dorset Street" i.e. the opposite side from where she was, which was the entrance to Miller's Court.

The pre-inquest, confused, statement was cleared up at the official Inquest, due to questioning.

No she doesn't, Jon.

She was referring to Crossingham's, which she could see from her first floor front room window.

Read this with me, ALSO, from the pre-inquest statement:

Sarah Lewis:
"I did not take much notice of the cries as I frequently hear such cries from the back of the lodging house where the windows look into Millers Court"

I guess that settles that!

[Fisherman]

Sarah Lewis:
"I did not take much notice of the cries as I frequently hear such cries from the back of the lodging house where the windows look into Millers Court"

I guess that settles that!

Of course, Jon, that was Prater saying that, not Lewis!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

The papers bought their copy from the telegraph agencies

I think you'll find I've acknowledged this, Jon.

See my previous post:

"it should be apparent to all that the Morning Advertiser’s informers were seriously misinformed."

There is no misunderstanding here as to who was responsible for the howlers that appeared in the Morning Advertiser and a few other papers. The Press Association clearly goofed. It still doesn't invalidate the observation that the Morning Advertiser was a non-mainstream publication that came under the auspices of booze and boozers, and was responsible for a great many errors and inaccuracies. It also remains interesting (and in my opinion, rather revealing) that the very few papers that went with the Press Association's hopelessly inaccurate and out-of-date report tended to be the rather obscure, less high-profile ones, whereas the more established, more respected papers (Times, Daily Telegraph etc) went with the actual interview with Hutchinson himself, as circulated by the Central News.

No, its not possible, the version which the Echo referred to did name the source of the story

Where is it stated that the "contemporaries" in question had all published Hutchinson's name?

Which is what we already know, that the police were not divulging to the press the reason given by Hutchinson. It is the press who are unable to ascertain the reason, not the police. The Daily Telegraph and the Echo both acknowledge this

No, they most certainly did not acknowledge any such thing.

The Echo stated the polar opposite, that Hutchinson's statement had been "considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner."

Focus on that word "because" and ask yourself if it is really credible to argue that the Echo "acknowledged" that the police were satisfied with Hutchinson's "explanation" for his failure to contact the police earlier. Similarly, the Daily Telegraph were clearly referring to the police, not themselves, who had not yet "ascertained" why Hutchinson did not alert the police upon first hearing of the murder. What we have here are two reliable newspapers saying that the the police were still in the dark about Hutchinson's tardy appearance, versus one dodgy newspaper with an ill-informed press agency as its source saying that the police had a special secret reason for his late appearance that they weren't sharing.

Why do you keep repeating this?, both stories were issued by the Central News Agency, this is what is meant by “public domain”, of course the police can provide an answer, it is not "inside" knowledge.

The police did not sanction the interview conducted with Hutchinson himself, as it provided his name (which the police were evidently keen to suppress) and included numerous embellishments that contradicted and compromised his initial police statement. They would not, therefore, have been anxious to have it published abroad that this version "proceeded from the same source" as their own police-sanctioned release on the 13th November.

Not at all, not in a case where another witness confirms his presence at the scene of the murder.

But there's no evidence that the police - or indeed anyone else prior to the latter half of the 20th century - ever considered that another witness confirmed his presence at a crime scene. Even if he was hauled in a second time on suspicion of being a bogus witness (not a potential murderer), there is no reason to suppose that any subsequent interview would establish for a certainty whether or not he was lying. In the real world of police investigations, there isn't a magic wand with which to determine for certain whether or not a witness is honest, or whether a suspect is innocent or guilty. Thus, in a great many cases, the absence of concrete evidence ensures that the police have recourse only to opinion and deduction, and to that end, a witness may be dismissed - with considerable justification and standard police procedure - on the belief that he or she is lying.

It happened with Packer, it happened with Violenia, and it happened with Hutchinson.

His inability to identify the victim is a good start, then when he failed the subsequent interrogation, they knew alright.

No, they didn't "know". That's the whole point. They arrived at the conclusion that he was lying in the absence of proof that he was.

Had Abberline used the statement of Sarah Lewis to confirm Hutchinson's story this would only exist in police files & police reports, the press would not be informed

Says who?

What sense was there in concealing it?

The press didn't need to be "informed". They were perfectly capable of registering the Hutchinson-wideawake connection for themselves, and yet they didn't. Not a single solitary newspaper. Which suggests that the potential link was overlooked, and it was overlooked because they didn't have endless leisure time at their disposal to examine sources and focus esoterically on one particular aspect of long passed murder case.

On the other hand, had the police searched for Hutchinson a second time (under your assumption that he lied), which no doubt would include questioning residents at the Victoria Home, and as always, with the press hounds in full pursuit, we would read about it in the papers.

Only if the police went about the process of re-interviewing Hutchinson in such an eccentrically heavy-handed fashion. If they wanted to avoid spooking Hutchinson, all they needed to do was ask him back to the station in order to clarify certain aspects of his statement. This would not have been achieved very smoothly if the police adopted the "all guns blazing" approach you describe. "Where's Hutchinson the lying bastard!? Send in A-Squad, trash the Victoria Home!"

No need.

If Hutchinson was reinterviewed there is A) no reason to think we would have read about it in the press, and B) no reason to think that any subsequent interview would have confirmed or denied police suspicions that he was lying.

Interesting, because it was the former (and ever so vague), not the latter, which you claim prompted Hutchinson into action in coming forward to the police. So, isn't it self evident by your own previous claims that this argument you offer above is wrong?

No.

I've argued that Hutchinson came forward to pre-empt the possibility of being considered a suspect, let alone being named and shamed in the press as one. Whether or not he was the killer, the ploy appear to have worked. I'm suggesting that if the ploy didn't work, his had the option of bolting if the police were stupid enough to publish his name and description and present him as a potential murderer the moment they suspected him of lying. Had they so suspected him, there were more prudent and discreet ways of going about things.

I repeat, no-one with an informed opinion on the accuracy of the media in reported coverage of the Whitechapel murders has ever, nor has any reason, to target the Morning Advertiser.

Thing is - even if that wasn't complete nonsense, which it definitely is, how can you possibly know what everyone has ever said about the Morning Advertiser?!

The pre-inquest, confused, statement was cleared up at the official Inquest, due to questioning

But there was nothing remotely "confused" about her crystal clear placement of the loiterer on Dorset Street, so no "clearing up" was necessary on that point.

"I did not take much notice of the cries as I frequently hear such cries from the back of the lodging house where the windows look into Millers Court"

But Crossingham's did look into Miller's Court - well, onto it is strictly speaking more accurate, but that's obviously what she meant. She also referred to the lodging house light being out before 4.00am, and the only lodging house light which would have been visible from Prater's front-facing window would have been the one outside Crossingham's.

[Michael W Richards]

Jon,

Something Im wondering about your position on this matter...why would you think that the Police would initiate an investigation into Hutchinson if they disbelieved his story...which is a matter of record by the way.

Did they investigate every hoax letter to the nth degree? There were thousands. Did they batter Pearly Poll after her misadventure id attempt? Was Mathew Packer thoroughly investigated ? Do you imagine they had time, the manpower or the money to investigate everyone who they felt wasted their time?

It would appear by the existing data that they did not use him after that week, they did not recall him for a lineup, they didnt continue investigating the Millers Court murder based on his very alleged sighting. I personally have doubts whether he was there at all, or whether he was just an attention seeker like Mrs Maxwell, or Ms Malcolm, ..regardless, in this instance I see no reason why they would waste time investigating what they believed was a dead end lead source.

All the best