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

[Wickerman]

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...

Michael.
The police required a second interview with Packer due to the fact he told lies. Its pretty much procedure, not just because I think so. And Packer was not the last person to see Stride alive.

If you lie to the police in a murder investigation you get a second opportunity to explain yourself, whether you agree to one or not!

....which is a matter of record by the way.

What, is a matter of record?
Hutchinson's interview IS a matter of record (it exists on paper), what is it you are calling a matter of record?

What do hoax letters have to do with anything?

.....they didnt continue investigating the Millers Court murder based on his very alleged sighting.

According to who?
Apparently the Echo still believed they were up to the 19th.

[Wickerman]

... 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.

This is not correct either, we have a photo of Dorset St. with large lamps outside McCarthy's hanging off the wall.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael.
The police required a second interview with Packer due to the fact he told lies. Its pretty much procedure, not just because I think so. And Packer was not the last person to see Stride alive.

If you lie to the police in a murder investigation you get a second opportunity to explain yourself, whether you agree to one or not!



What, is a matter of record?
Hutchinson's interview IS a matter of record (it exists on paper), what is it you are calling a matter of record?

What do hoax letters have to do with anything?



According to who?
Apparently the Echo still believed they were up to the 19th.

Jon,

The hoax reference was to illustrate that they were inundated with cranks that they did not investigate for providing false leads...just like they believed Hutch did. That was my point.

And although I dont have Bens stamina for rebuttal...its a matter of record that Hutchinson was discredited,... whether you think he should be or not isnt the issue here,... you refuse to accept that singular reality.

Since no-one saw Mary outside her room after 11:45... that wasnt warned they were contradicting every other witness, or that wasnt discredited, it seems to be a fit dismissal.

Cheers Jon

[Wickerman]

And although I dont have Bens stamina for rebuttal...its a matter of record that Hutchinson was discredited,... whether you think he should be or not isnt the issue here,... you refuse to accept that singular reality.

Michael.
I am perfectly willing to accept the reality once it is shown to me.
To date, no-one is able to provide the reality, it is all in the imaginations of those who choose to believe in something they cannot substantiate.

Like I said, Hutchinson's statement is what "a matter of record" looks like. An official record.

Please put an end to this fallacy by demonstrating to every living breathing soul on the face of this Earth just what this 'record' you allude to looks like.

Since no-one saw Mary outside her room after 11:45... that wasnt warned they were contradicting every other witness, or that wasnt discredited, it seems to be a fit dismissal.

No-one saw Cox outside her room either, do you likewise, using the same logic, insist she did not go out either?

[Garry Wroe]

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

Precisely, Ben. And the same could be said of Packer.

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.

Personally, Ben, I would have difficulty in accepting that Hutchinson was sidelined on suspicion alone. He was a potentially critical eyewitness whose narrative could have broken the case and led to the conviction of the Whitechapel Murderer. To my mind, therefore, initial doubt must have arisen regarding either his Kelly claims or the delay in his coming forward. This uncertainty probably resulted in a more rigorous investigation which in turn unearthed evidence indicating that either Hutchinson or his story was not to be trusted. In other words investigators must have uncovered something of a tangible nature in order that Anderson and Macnaghten could have dismissed him as a viable witness. I really don’t see any plausible alternative that might account for such an abrupt and unexpected fall from grace.

[DVV]

His press interviews at the very time they were looking for the suspect and the laughable Sunday sighting may well explain that fall from grace, Garry.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Precisely, Ben. And the same could be said of Packer.

Packer is a prime example of a witness who told untruths, and in consequence was re-interviewed by police.
Precisely what would have occurred to Hutchinson if the police had found he had also told any untruths.
But it never did.

Personally, Ben, I would have difficulty in accepting that Hutchinson was sidelined on suspicion alone. He was a potentially critical eyewitness whose narrative could have broken the case and led to the conviction of the Whitechapel Murderer.

Maybe Ben will listed to you.

To my mind, therefore, initial doubt must have arisen regarding either his Kelly claims or the delay in his coming forward.

If you don't mind me asking, rather than ignore the estimated time of death provided by Dr. Bond. Can you give me a reason why this suggestion would not be given a high priority by Anderson?

I understand your reluctance to accept it, but I don't think you have given a satisfactory reason why Anderson 'would not' (in your opinion) follow Dr. Bonds advise.

Why is this, in your opinion, "not plausible"?

It reality, this is the only plausible solution.
All the other solutions require leaps of faith in the development of circumstances for which no evidence exists.




Michael must still be looking for the "record".

[Wickerman]

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."

Had you realized what you wrote, that the criticisms you selected were all contained within a story purchased by the paper, then you would not have been so gung-ho about attempting to prove them unworthy.
As it happens, we can all see who goofed

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.

I'm not at all surprised that you are unaware the Echo themselves use the Press Association.

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

Their contemporaries, of course.

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."

Ben, that is not the reason. The police knew when they released the news on the 13th (through Central News) that his statement had not been given at the inquest, they released it with their support regardless.
So no, 'that' was not the reason.

As you already quoted the Daily Telegraph could not ascertain why:
" It has not been ascertained why..."

Likewise, the Echo were just as mystified:
"Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before"

Making the situation candidly clear, is the Morning Advertiser:
"For obvious reasons certain particulars are withheld."

Exactly, the police withheld certain particulars, among them:
"He afterwards heard of the murder, but for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediately put himself in communication with the police."

There you have it, in black and white, the fact the police withheld certain details, which is what the Echo & Daily Telegraph alluded to.

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.

First of all, we have no idea what Hutchinson told Abberline in the subsequent interview, that paperwork has not survived. It is quite possible he told them everything we read in the press interview.

And yes, it is obvious the police withheld his name on the 13th, but when the Central News located him and sold their interview to the press then, there was no point in maintaining their silence. The source, like the story, was public knowledge.

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.

Actually, we have just been discussing PC 63L, who was on duty that night.
Abberline could have received confirmation from this PC on his beat, which would be a detail he would obviously not share with Hutchinson.
So, apart from Sarah Lewis, we have PC 63L, as another potential source to confirm Hutchinson.

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.

No paper is interested in the identity of the loiterer, they are all interested in the identity of the killer. No-one suggested the loiterer was the killer, so why should they even make the connection?

Not a single solitary newspaper. Which suggests that the potential link was overlooked,

Because the press did not bother to publish their conjecture on this point, you believe the police were unable to think of it for themselves?
You seem to express a very belittling view of the police.

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?!

I'm trying to coax you into locating some quote from a reliable source (one who has studied the subject & published the results), which dismisses the Morning Advertiser for inaccuracy. Something trustworthy to substantiate your smear campaign.

But Crossingham's did look into Miller's Court - well, onto it is strictly speaking more accurate, but that's obviously what she meant.

Ben!
Prater heard the cries from the back of the lodging-house, where the windows look into Millers Court!

What on earth does Crossinghams, over the road, have to do with Prater hearing cries in the court behind where she lived?

[Wickerman]

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.

Ben, Hutchinson was n_o_t standing outside Crossinghams!
In Hutchinson's statement to the police he stated:

" I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away."

What does the Echo report?

"She saw a man at the entrance to the court. He was not talking to anyone."

And the Thanet Advertiser:

"She saw a man, apparently stout, standing at the entrance to the court."

The St. James Gazette:

"She saw a stout looking man standing at the entrance to Miller's court."

Then Hutchinson, this time in the press:

"When I left the corner of Miller's-court the clock struck three o'clock."

Where was he stood Ben?, come on, tell me!

[Garry Wroe]

His press interviews at the very time they were looking for the suspect and the laughable Sunday sighting may well explain that fall from grace, Garry.

I've long suspected, Dave, that the claimed Sunday exchange with a policeman was a fabrication uttered in haste during the Monday night walkabout with detectives who were probing for additional information couched in idle conversation. If so, and Hutchinson was caught out in a demonstrable lie, we have a simple yet plausible explanation for the manner in which he came to be discredited within a day of Abberline's belief in his importance and integrity.

[Garry Wroe]

Packer is a prime example of a witness who told untruths, and in consequence was re-interviewed by police.
Precisely what would have occurred to Hutchinson if the police had found he had also told any untruths.
But it never did.

Apples and oranges, Jon. Investigators only followed up on Packer as a consequence of press statements in which he criticized police and claimed to have new information on the Ripper. And apart from that, how can you be certain that Hutchinson wasn’t reinterviewed?

Maybe Ben will listed to you.

In my experience, Jon, Ben listens to reasonable, cohesive arguments. All too often where Hutchinson is concerned, however, the arguments are anything but reasonable and cohesive.

If you don't mind me asking, rather than ignore the estimated time of death provided by Dr. Bond. Can you give me a reason why this suggestion would not be given a high priority by Anderson?

I don’t ignore it, Jon. But it was predicated in no small measure upon an assumption relating to the time at which Kelly took her final meal, an assumption for which there was not a shred of corroborative evidence.

I understand your reluctance to accept it, but I don't think you have given a satisfactory reason why Anderson 'would not' (in your opinion) follow Dr. Bonds advise.

It would make life easier, Jon, if you could specify the post containing the quote to which you refer. In context of your point, however, I believe that the weight of evidence is indicative that investigators believed the cry of ‘Murder!’ did indeed emanate from Mary Kelly, in which case Bond’s estimated time of death was unsustainable. Remember too that Anderson disagreed with Bond’s ‘profile’ of the killer. Compare Bond’s conclusions with Anderson’s extant and continuing conviction that the killer was a low status local Jew and it is plain that Anderson didn’t automatically concur with Bond’s thinking.

It reality, this is the only plausible solution.
All the other solutions require leaps of faith in the development of circumstances for which no evidence exists.

With respect, Jon, these are precisely the criteria which exemplify your ‘Bond solution’. Not that I’m criticizing you. Like most of us, you are doing your best to make sense of the enigma that is the Ripper case. But your arguments aren’t anything like as compelling as you appear to believe. If they were, you’d have a great many more adherents.

And I’d be amongst them.

But I’m not.

[Wickerman]

Apples and oranges, Jon. Investigators only followed up on Packer as a consequence of press statements in which he criticized police and claimed to have new information on the Ripper.

Packer's initial story to Sgt. White was that he saw no-one, then gave the press a detailed description of the man he saw.
You know this well enough, so you also know why they re-interviewed him.
He lied to the police.

And apart from that, how can you be certain that Hutchinson wasn’t reinterviewed?

Two reason's. First, the hungry press on the street will have been the first to know about a second interview with 'the man of the moment'.

Second, I have been assured (albeit, without sufficient evidence), that the press had inside sources to enable them to know these important developments.

I don’t ignore it, Jon. But it was predicated in no small measure upon an assumption relating to the time at which Kelly took her final meal, an assumption for which there was not a shred of corroborative evidence.

The police were the ones who will inform the doctor where & when Kelly may have last taken her meal. We have no paperwork from this investigation, therefore, claiming "not a shred of evidence" exists is only true today, but not necessarily at the time.
Like everything else, we are in no position to judge. All we know is the result of the analysis. Clearly, Bond could not have arrived at his conclusion without some information.

In context of your point, however, I believe that the weight of evidence is indicative that investigators believed the cry of ‘Murder!’ did indeed emanate from Mary Kelly, in which case Bond’s estimated time of death was unsustainable.

The cry of 'murder' was only one consideration, and we do know that a precise time for this event had not been pinned down. It was by no means a certainty. Not when compared with medical opinion.

Remember too that Anderson disagreed with Bond’s ‘profile’ of the killer.

Do you have a copy of Anderson's 'profile' from November 1888?
I suspect you are referring to his memoirs, a collection of vague and likely confused recollections. Hardly sufficient to contest an opinion expressed at the time of the murders.
Yes his opinion may have shifted over the years away from that of Dr Bond. But, unless you can provide an example of Anderson's opinion from the fall of 1888 then you are in no position to suggest he was in disagreement with Dr Bond at the time.

With respect, Jon, these are precisely the criteria which exemplify your ‘Bond solution’. Not that I’m criticizing you. Like most of us, you are doing your best to make sense of the enigma that is the Ripper case. But your arguments aren’t anything like as compelling as you appear to believe. If they were, you’d have a great many more adherents.

To that point, the offer is still open for anyone to substantiate this "Hutchinson disgraced" scenario with anything beyond surmise.

It appears to me we both might view each others theories equally, but the difference is I have the reason for the "diminution" in writing, and in the hands of the police. Whereas, the theory that Hutchinson lied, or was discredited by police is purely hypothetical, and I fear will forever remain that way.

It is far preferable to acknowledge something tangible, like Bonds analysis, than (to quote yourself), "to believe in unsubstantiated press reports".

[DVV]

Liars shouldn't talk too much

I've long suspected, Dave, that the claimed Sunday exchange with a policeman was a fabrication uttered in haste during the Monday night walkabout with detectives who were probing for additional information couched in idle conversation. If so, and Hutchinson was caught out in a demonstrable lie, we have a simple yet plausible explanation for the manner in which he came to be discredited within a day of Abberline's belief in his importance and integrity.

That's a possibility, Garry.
However, having re-read The Times 14 Nov, I think it's also possible that Hutch had directly talked to the press.
Indeed, after Hutch's long account (which includes the Sunday sighting), the newspaper adds the following remark :

"The description of the murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police and published yesterday morning."

By the by, Hutch's narrative contains this striking contradiction :

"I could swear to the man anywhere".

But thereafter :

"I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning but I was not certain."

[Fisherman]

By the by, Hutch's narrative contains this striking contradiction :

"I could swear to the man anywhere".

But thereafter :

"I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning but I was not certain."

I could swear to my brother anywhere, David. But I could well be uncertain about it being him if I only got a quick glimpse of him from a distance in a crowd. Like in Petticoat Lane, for example. "Wait a sec, wasn´t that my bro?", sort of.

Hutchinson never said he got a good look at the man from a short distance, did he? So let´s not build any "striking contradictions" into what could well be very understandable, shall we? That would paint Hutchinson out as an unreliable, dodgy man. And we would not want to do that, would we?

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Ah, but my dear Christer, we're talking of George "Hawkeye" Hutchinson...! who supposedly knew MJK enough to follow the guy in Petticoat Lane - after all, that would have been a good and hutchinsonian idea. Didn't he wait 45 minutes in the cold before the murder ? Other reports say he even talked to a policeman, or search one but couldn't find any - can't remember exactly, he told so many things...

All the best