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

[Ben]

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.

Don't tell me what I have or haven't "realised", please. I knew full well that the silly nonsense puked out by the Morning Advertiser originated from a press agency, as an additional comment of mine further demonstrates.

"Whatever the Morning Advertiser's source, they can't have obtained their information directly from the police station (as the Echo did) because we see the same bogus claims in a near identical article in another fairly obscure B-team newspaper (I forget which). It indicates instead that they obtained their information from a less informed, behind-the-times agency."

From post 265 on page 27.

This does not abrogate the fact that the Morning Advertiser published glaring inaccuracies on a regular basis, and that they were a publication for the pub-trade. If Sally and I fancy voicing criticisms of this lesser rag that don't relate to their commentary on the Hutchinson sage, we will do so, especially when we remind ourselves that this is not a Hutchinson thread.

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

Not with regard to Hutchinson they didn't.

They went directly to Commercial Street Police Station - fact.

If they relied on the Press Association for their Hutchinson information, you'd see them publish the same pitiably nonsensical article that the Morning Advertiser and a few other "also-rans" published on the 14th November.

Blissfully, however, that never happened.

Ben, that is not the reason.

Yes, it is.

Yes, it definitely is.

The "reason" was published on the very same day (14th November) that the Echo accurately and truthfully reported on the result of an accurate and truthful tipping-off from the police at Commercial Street Police Station. There is, therefore, no possibility that the "reason" given for Hutchinson's "considerably discounting" was wrong. The fact that the police circulated the description on the morning of the 13th November tells us only that they were satisfied with his account - and whatever bad excuse he may have given for his three-day lateness - at that early stage. Come the evening, however, and Hutchinson's statement suffers a "very reduced importance" as a result of "later investigations"

Evidently, the "later investigations" alluded to had drastically undermined the credibility of whatever weak excuse Hutchinson had provided at the initial interview for his lateness in coming forward.

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

No.

They were reporting that the police had not "ascertained why" Hutchinson didn't come forward earlier, otherwise they would have said "we" have not "ascertained why"...

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

Huh?

Look at the quote again:

Why, ASK THE AUTHORITIES, did the informant not come forward before?

The Echo weren't "mystified" at all. They were simply reporting that "the authorities" were mystified over Hutchinson's late appearance.

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."

But we've already established that this quote, circulated by the Press Association and printed in the few lousy B-team, also-ran newspapers amounted to provably inaccurate, filthy, filthy nonsense - to be laughed and laughed and laughed and laughed and laughed at, not taken seriously and certainly not to be endorsed as accurate. Again, the newspapers that were considered respectable and mainstream and who were in communication with the police reported the precise opposite; that Hutchinson's failure to put himself immediately "in communication with the police" had NOT been satisfactorily explained, and that his evidence had been discarded for that reason.

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.

No, it is not possible.

Or else Abberline would have included, at the very least, the alleged second sighting of Astrakhan in his accompanying report to his superiors. But we've discussed this many pages back, and wouldn't it be tedious to have a duplicate discussion.

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.

There was every point, actually. As the Echo observed, certain newspapers were still labouring under the delusion that the 13th and 1th November accounts proceeded from "different" sources, and the police would have preferred this delusion to persist, for reasons I've provided already - the 14th November account was not sanctioned by the police, it included Hutchinson's name, and it drastically compromised his original police statement.

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.

Actually....no.

Your contention, remember, is that Hutchinson told the truth.

Hutchinson told the press that he only saw one policeman pass the Commercial Street end of Dorset Street, so I'm afraid that if you want there to have been another policeman passing down Dorset Street who spotted Hutchinson, you must also accept that Hutchinson lied about there being no such policeman.

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?

Abso-bloody-lutely, Jon.

Hence, if no paper was interested in the lodger because they had no reason to suspect him of being the killer, it is perfectly plausible and understandable that the press should have overlooked a potential connection between Hutchinson and the "uninteresting" loiterer. Had they made the connection, however, it is utterly unthinkable that they would not have sought to take credit for noticing it ahead of the police. You can dispense permanently with the suggestion that they would not have "bothered to publish their conjecture".

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.

But you know full well I'm not remotely alone in my criticisms of the Morning Advertiser, so it's probably best to accept that you're simply in the minority of opinion. We can all play the "Nobody who knows what they're talking about agrees with you" game, but I choose not to because it necessitates resorting to personal insults of the type this forum prohibits. So you're probably better off trying an alternative debating strategy.

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

The windows of Crossingham's look onto Miller's Court.

That's obviously what Prater was talking about.

There is no lodging house I know of with windows looking strictly into Miller's Court.

Ben, Hutchinson was n_o_t standing outside Crossinghams!

Yes, he W_A_S

"Outside Crossingham's" and "outside Miller's Court" were practically interchangeable given that they were separated by a few meaningless feet on a narrow street. If Hutchinson really spent 45 minutes in that area, it is likely that he moved about a bit, rather than cementing his feet to just one spot like a sphinx with hemorroides the entire time. However, when Sarah Lewis saw the loiterer at around 2:30am, he was:

"standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset Street"

If you accept, as I do, that Hutchinson was Lewis' loiterer, then that's where he was standing - against Crossingham's. Yes, the Thanet silly Advertiser says differently, but who cares? It's a written police statement versus the Thanet Advertiser.

Tricky one.

[Wickerman]

2. The police welcomed any info concerning MJK (where was she that night ? Has somebody seen her in a pub ? etc etc)

Hi Dave.

What the police might want is not always the same as what a witness thinks is relevant. Any policeman will confirm that.

[Wickerman]

Wow, Mike, I think we're in trouble here.

In order to demonstrate the indisputable validity of your argument that Hutchinson was discredited, it is now necessary to demonstrate as much to "every living breathing soul on the face of this Earth"!!

In the Amazonian rain forest there are tribes of Indians as yet untouched by civilisation, but I'll guess we'll have to recruit their support somehow in order to meet Jon's request. I think we'll have a devil of a trouble convincing the new born babies from Mongolia, and as for the feral goats that inhabit the Marquasas Islands of French Polynesia, many of them probably haven't even heard of Hutchinson.

But that's not going to stop us trying!

You'll have a devil of a time convincing anyone outside of the 'fringe' element.

But, the offer is always open. I haven't seen Michael (Perry Mason) since I asked him to bring me the "matter of record", he felt so sure existed.

Could you be a good chap and go help him find it?

[Wickerman]

This does not abrogate the fact that the Morning Advertiser published glaring inaccuracies on a regular basis, and that they were a publication for the pub-trade.

Let me help you out here. Fortunately, we can provide all the 'Trade and Commercial' listings from the period.

Not at all surprising that the Morning Advertiser is not listed as a Trade paper, but, WE know this don't we Ben.

I hope this comes out large enough to settle the matter for you.



These exchanges are never a waste of time, so long as one of us learns something every now and then
That is what constitutes 'proof'.

[Wickerman]

No, it is not possible.

Or else Abberline would have included, at the very least, the alleged second sighting of Astrakhan in his accompanying report to his superiors. But we've discussed this many pages back, and wouldn't it be tedious to have a duplicate discussion.

And avoiding duplication is key, and precisely why details were kept to a minimum in the daily report to his superior. The report is a brief summary of the days events, it is not a report of the interrogation.

Your contention, remember, is that Hutchinson told the truth.

Hutchinson told the press that he only saw one policeman pass the Commercial Street end of Dorset Street,

Exactly, PC 63L.

But you know full well I'm not remotely alone in my criticisms of the Morning Advertiser,....

Two uninformed opinions amount to what, exactly?

If you bothered to do a little research and come up with someone like Lewis P. Curtis, who had actually studied the subject, and wrote a book about Newspaper coverage of the Whitechapel murders. And, if this someone does criticize the Morning Advertiser for inaccuracy, then you would have an informed opinion which confirms your conjecture, then, and only then, would you have something for me to consider.

There is no lodging house I know of with windows looking strictly into Miller's Court.

It is abundantly clear that Mrs Prater refers to McCarthy's rents as a 'lodging-house'. The windows which overlook the court can be seen above Mary Kelly's window.

If Hutchinson really spent 45 minutes in that area, it is likely that he moved about a bit,..

There's no hope for you Ben.

[Abby Normal]

Wow, Mike, I think we're in trouble here.

In order to demonstrate the indisputable validity of your argument that Hutchinson was discredited, it is now necessary to demonstrate as much to "every living breathing soul on the face of this Earth"!!

In the Amazonian rain forest there are tribes of Indians as yet untouched by civilisation, but I'll guess we'll have to recruit their support somehow in order to meet Jon's request. I think we'll have a devil of a trouble convincing the new born babies from Mongolia, and as for the feral goats that inhabit the Marquasas Islands of French Polynesia, many of them probably haven't even heard of Hutchinson.

But that's not going to stop us trying!

C'mon Ben everybody knows feral goats don't have souls. They have hoofs.

[Ben]

Hi Dave,

I agree entirely with your thoughts on Hutchinson's press account, with its dubious "second sighting" of Astrakhan on Sunday. If Hutchinson's man truly existed and appeared as Hutchinson described, he stood out like a sore thumb and was readily identifiable anywhere. That's just obvious. Moreover, if he existed, it meant Hutchinson must have acquired one heck of a good look at him in order to have recorded the minutest details of the man's face, lower body and upper body. To allege all this, and then claim that a man he saw on Sunday might have been the same person is quite clearly ridiculous.

Equally ridiculous is the idea that Hutchinson should have been satisfied with only a brief glance in Petticoat Lane, if indeed that's all he gained. So great was his curiosity in the small hours of the 9th that he followed this same man from Flower & Dean Street to Miller's Court and then waited outside in miserable conditions for 45 minutes just to see if he would come out again. Why would he warp into "disinterested" mode when confronted with a possible second sighting of the same man?

With regard to the suggestion that Hutchinson hadn't heard of the murder by Sunday, I regard that as fantastically outlandish and, frankly, borderline impossible. Here's what I wrote on the subject on the "Innocent, By George!" thread a couple of years ago:

Even if he ventured miles out of London, it is not plausible that he managed to find a mysterious location where he didn’t learn of the murder until Saturday or when he found himself on Petticoat Lane on the Sunday after the murder, unless he ventured out into the countryside after allegedly aborting his Miller's Court vigil and shoved his head down a rabbit hole for two days. Even the Manchester Guardian had got wind of the murder and reported on the subject in time for the morning of the 10th, and it wasn't just rumours of another ‘orrible murder either, it referred specifically to Mary Jane Kelly of Dorset Street, Spitalfields.

Even if we accept that he returned to the Victoria Home after "walking about all night" on the morning of the alleged Miller’s Court episode, he must have emerged from it at some point, and when he did, it is inconceivable that he did not hear the gossip in the nearby streets and in the building itself at some point relatively early on Friday. There’s the rest of that day, the whole of Saturday and the early part of Sunday in which to discover news of the murder. The murder happened in Dorset Street, virtually on his doorstep.

And no, Jon...

There is no realistic possibility of Hutchinson being swayed by a significant minority of newspapers claiming that Mary Kelly was killed later in the morning. Unless Hutchinson was extremely selective in his newspaper reading, he would have picked up on the vast majority coverage of the murder which suggested Kelly had been killed in the small hours, i.e. during the night. Even if, for some unfathomable reason, he had been influenced by the reports pointing towards a later time of death, his Astrakhan sighting was still of pivotal value had it been true, and yet he failed to raise any sort of alarm in the wake of this alleged "second sighting".

And no, Jon...

Hutchinson's discrediting had absolutely sod all to do with Bond's time of death. The police did not endorse Bond's time of death, and nor were they duty-bound to. Here is an extract from the Star, 13th November:

"As to the time of the murder, it is now generally admitted that Kelly could not, as some have stated, have been alive on Friday morning. The police have come to the conclusion that the woman who made the most positive statement to this effect must have been mistaken as to the day. Dr. Phillips's evidence, together with that of Mary Ann Cox, Elizabeth Prater, and others, proves that the murder was committed SHORTLY AFTER THREE O'CLOCK- a fact which brings into startling relief the murderer's coolness, caution, and tenacity of purpose."

There is nothing remotely wrong with the Star’s reporting. They didn’t lie for the sheer, deeply illogical thrill of it. They obtained their information from the police, who clearly believed – as the vast majority of modern commentators believe (including you, ironically!) – that Kelly was murdered later than Bond’s estimate. Do you believe the murder was committed at 1.00am? My guess is that you don’t. My guess is that you’ve reasoned out that the best evidence supports a later time of death. What, then, is so unusual about the contemporary police arriving at precisely the same conclusion that the vast majority of “ripperologists” have arrived at since, and the Star simply finding out about this and commenting on it at the time?

If anyone really wishes to contend any of the above, can I ask that they do so on the Hutchinson threads? Or better still, check there to see if these very discussions haven't been agonized over billions of times already in painful, wordy detail, and then if they have, ask yourself if it's really worth the bother. If you decide it is, great! Let's have at it all over again! But don't be surprised if you see me simply dip into the archives and go "here's what I said before when that one came up".

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

And no, Jon...

There is no realistic possibility of Hutchinson being swayed by a significant minority of newspapers

You have not done your homework Ben, I said "all" (not a minority), I quoted from all the papers which were available to an East Londoner which gave opinions (except Irish Times, Manchester Guardian, and foreign press).
You do yourself no credit by misrepresenting the words of another poster.

Go back to the 10th Ben and read them ALL.

I'm in no position to lie, the papers are there for everyone to read.
I gave the prevailing opinions, as vague as they were.

[Wickerman]

And no, Jon...

Hutchinson's discrediting had absolutely sod all to do with Bond's time of death. The police did not endorse Bond's time of death, and nor were they duty-bound to.

Being assertive over an issue which you cannot possibly know anything about only weakens your position.

On the other hand, claiming the authorities did endorse the idea of a lying witness, which you have no credible evidence for, only weakens your position even further.

Your entire position is one of empty claims and fictional scenario's.
If you ever manage to raise your argument above the level of "your opinion", then let me know.

Here is an extract from the Star, 13th November:

"As to the time of the murder, it is now generally admitted that Kelly could not, as some have stated, have been alive on Friday morning. The police have come to the conclusion that the woman who made the most positive statement to this effect must have been mistaken as to the day. Dr. Phillips's evidence, together with that of Mary Ann Cox, Elizabeth Prater, and others, proves that the murder was committed SHORTLY AFTER THREE O'CLOCK- a fact which brings into startling relief the murderer's coolness, caution, and tenacity of purpose."

I exposed that quote already by proving that neither Cox, nor Prater, nor even Dr Phillips EVER said anything about a "Time of death SHORTLY AFTER 3:00 am".

This is, once again, pure fiction.

[Fisherman]

There is nothing that I could call "knowledge" in your post, Fish.
You are merely guessing that Hutch has given plausible reasons for his coming forward after the inquest.
But Abberline did not clear this point in his report. And neither did the press.
Again, you cannot "know" that Hutch had alluded to the Sunday sighting on Monday, in front of Abberline.
And I guess he had not.

All the best

What I said we know was that Hutch gave a very trustworthy impression. We know it because it is in the papers, in Abberlineīs acceptance and in Dewīs memoirs.

I donīt care if you donīt want to acknowledge this. It is written in black and white, end of story.

I did not say that we know that he gave a reasonable explanation to his tardiness in coming forward. We donīt know this, but we can deduce that if he had no sensible explanation at all, then that would have not worked in his favour when it comes to the impression he gave. Nor would it helped to have Abberline accept his story as true. Therefore, by reasoning, it at the very least seems he DID give an acceptable explanation.

I am perfectly capable to distinguish between knowledge and guesswork, David. That was what made me enter the discussion.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"To allege all this, and then claim that a man he saw on Sunday "might" have been the same person is quite clearly ridiculous.
Equally ridiculous is the idea that Hutchinson should have been "satisfied" with only a brief glance in Petticoat Lane, if indeed that's all he gained.

Who are you quoting with the "satisfied" quotation, Ben? Did I say that Hutchinson was satisfied with the view he got in Petticoat Lane?

I donīt think I did, to be perfectly honest. But hey, let me go back and check! Letīs see here ... hmmm ... nope ... no ... njet ...no, itīs not there. So it would seem you are not quoting me. Then who ARE you quoting?

What you seem to say is that you know that Hutchinson would have taken a very big interest in the man at Petticoat Lane. You take your own preconceived notions, and you ask Hutchinson to follow your lead. Whenever you cannot substantiate things, you simply deduce that you are right anyway.

Letīs try another logic than yours, Ben. You claim that it would be ridiculous for Hutchinson not to be able to identify the man with certainty, since Hutch was adamant that he would be able to swear to the man anywhere.

To me, this tells us one thing and one thing only - that the quality of the observation was not good enough for Hutchinson to identify the man.

I could swear to my best friend anywhere. I have seen him thousands of times, and I know him extremely well. And still, I can imagine many situations where I would not be able to say with certainty that it was him I saw: If I only had a fraction of a second to work with and if the distance was such as to make it hard to see the features, if he was half turned away from me etcetera - then I would perhaps not be able to be absolutely certain. It is anything but rocket science, right?

But if I did get close to him, and if I did get a good view, then I would be dead certain. The best guess is therefore, that Hutchinson did NOT get close to the man and that he did NOT get a good enough view. If he had, he would have been able to swear to the man, just as he assured the police.

But you will have none of this logic. You only allow for your own. Hutch MUST have had a good enough view, and if he did not, he MUST have followed the man to make sure. He WOULD have had that opportunity, and the man could NOT have disappeared in the crowd on a market day. Suggesting otherwise is ridiculous - for some unfathomable reason.

With regard to the suggestion that Hutchinson hadn't heard of the murder by Sunday, I regard that as fantastically outlandish and, frankly, borderline impossible.

Once again, your logic applies. Nobody elseīs. Outlandish, you claim, apparently a freak show feature, more or less.
And still we know how these things work: the news is reported in the papers and by word of mouth, and it seeps down the layers of society, informing more and more people as time passes, until it reaches a saturation point where a maximum amount of people are informed. At that stage, there will be a number of people in the know and a number of people that do not know.
Those who do not know, are people with poor information channels, low perceptibility, people isolated physically from the information sources, people that have been unable to take the information in for whatever medical reason, people who have heard the news but misinterpreted it in some manner etcetera, etcetera. The possibilities not to get informed come in thousands, Ben. That does perhaps not apply to your set of logic, but it can be proven nevertheless.

Even if he ventured miles out of London, it is not plausible that he managed to find a mysterious location where he didn’t learn of the murder until Saturday or when he found himself on Petticoat Lane on the Sunday after the murder, unless he ventured out into the countryside after allegedly aborting his Miller's Court vigil and shoved his head down a rabbit hole for two days.

Plausible? It would have been more plausible that he had heard of it than not, that is self-evident. But "plausible" does not translate into "established" by a long stretch.
We do not know where he was.
We do not know what he did.
Therefore, how plausible it was for him to miss out cannot be established.

Thatīs MY logic, and it works eminently. Tell me where he was and what he did, and we will get a closer verdict on the plausibility note. That too is my logic and it is unshakable. Unless you are of a different opinion? You perhaps think that we can establish the level of plausibility without any information at all about where Hutchinson was and what he occupied himself with? Is that the kind of logic you suggest we should use?

Even the Manchester Guardian had got wind of the murder and reported on the subject in time for the morning of the 10th, and it wasn't just rumours of another ‘orrible murder either, it referred specifically to Mary Jane Kelly of Dorset Street, Spitalfields.

"Even" the Manchester Guardian, Ben? Heard of telegraph wiring? Iīd say that the Manchester Guardian SHOULD know these things pretty damn quick. Unless they had their head down a rabbit hole, that is.

What a very strange comparison - a pennyless working man in an untechnological society versus a wired up, finacially strong newspaper...? If such a paper could find out, then the working man MUST have known, sort of? Logic ā la Ben, is it?

Even if we accept that he returned to the Victoria Home after "walking about all night" on the morning of the alleged Miller’s Court episode, he must have emerged from it at some point, and when he did, it is inconceivable that he did not hear the gossip in the nearby streets and in the building itself at some point relatively early on Friday.

No, it is not inconceivable. It is unlikely, but that is not the same thing. And since I ascribe to the idea that he muddled the days, Iīd say itīs pretty damn certain that he heard not a iota of the murder if he emerged form the Victoria home on THURSDAY morning...

But how that adheres to your logic, I dare not think of! I suppose it starts with "utterly", "nauseatingly" or "arse-numbingly", but do correct me if I am wrong. After all, we are speaking of my logic here, and Walter Dewīs logic - and what are we, compared to you, Ben?

Logical, perhaps ...?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

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, wasnīt that my bro?", sort of.

Hutchinson never said he got a good look at the man from a short distance, did he? So letīs 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

Ben:

"To allege all this, and then claim that a man he saw on Sunday "might" have been the same person is quite clearly ridiculous.
Equally ridiculous is the idea that Hutchinson should have been "satisfied" with only a brief glance in Petticoat Lane, if indeed that's all he gained.

Who are you quoting with the "satisfied" quotation, Ben? Did I say that Hutchinson was satisfied with the view he got in Petticoat Lane?

I donīt think I did, to be perfectly honest. But hey, let me go back and check! Letīs see here ... hmmm ... nope ... no ... njet ...no, itīs not there. So it would seem you are not quoting me. Then who ARE you quoting?

What you seem to say is that you know that Hutchinson would have taken a very big interest in the man at Petticoat Lane. You take your own preconceived notions, and you ask Hutchinson to follow your lead. Whenever you cannot substantiate things, you simply deduce that you are right anyway.

Letīs try another logic than yours, Ben. You claim that it would be ridiculous for Hutchinson not to be able to identify the man with certainty, since Hutch was adamant that he would be able to swear to the man anywhere.

To me, this tells us one thing and one thing only - that the quality of the observation was not good enough for Hutchinson to identify the man.

I could swear to my best friend anywhere. I have seen him thousands of times, and I know him extremely well. And still, I can imagine many situations where I would not be able to say with certainty that it was him I saw: If I only had a fraction of a second to work with and if the distance was such as to make it hard to see the features, if he was half turned away from me etcetera - then I would perhaps not be able to be absolutely certain. It is anything but rocket science, right?

But if I did get close to him, and if I did get a good view, then I would be dead certain. The best guess is therefore, that Hutchinson did NOT get close to the man and that he did NOT get a good enough view. If he had, he would have been able to swear to the man, just as he assured the police.

But you will have none of this logic. You only allow for your own. Hutch MUST have had a good enough view, and if he did not, he MUST have followed the man to make sure. He WOULD have had that opportunity, and the man could NOT have disappeared in the crowd on a market day. Suggesting otherwise is ridiculous - for some unfathomable reason.

With regard to the suggestion that Hutchinson hadn't heard of the murder by Sunday, I regard that as fantastically outlandish and, frankly, borderline impossible.

Once again, your logic applies. Nobody elseīs. Outlandish, you claim, apparently a freak show feature, more or less.
And still we know how these things work: the news is reported in the papers and by word of mouth, and it seeps down the layers of society, informing more and more people as time passes, until it reaches a saturation point where a maximum amount of people are informed. At that stage, there will be a number of people in the know and a number of people that do not know.
Those who do not know, are people with poor information channels, low perceptibility, people isolated physically from the information sources, people that have been unable to take the information in for whatever medical reason, people who have heard the news but misinterpreted it in some manner etcetera, etcetera. The possibilities not to get informed come in thousands, Ben. That does perhaps not apply to your set of logic, but it can be proven nevertheless.

Even if he ventured miles out of London, it is not plausible that he managed to find a mysterious location where he didn’t learn of the murder until Saturday or when he found himself on Petticoat Lane on the Sunday after the murder, unless he ventured out into the countryside after allegedly aborting his Miller's Court vigil and shoved his head down a rabbit hole for two days.

Plausible? It would have been more plausible that he had heard of it than not, that is self-evident. But "plausible" does not translate into "established" by a long stretch.
We do not know where he was.
We do not know what he did.
Therefore, how plausible it was for him to miss out cannot be established.

Thatīs MY logic, and it works eminently. Tell me where he was and what he did, and we will get a closer verdict on the plausibility note. That too is my logic and it is unshakable. Unless you are of a different opinion? You perhaps think that we can establish the level of plausibility without any information at all about where Hutchinson was and what he occupied himself with? Is that the kind of logic you suggest we should use?

Even the Manchester Guardian had got wind of the murder and reported on the subject in time for the morning of the 10th, and it wasn't just rumours of another ‘orrible murder either, it referred specifically to Mary Jane Kelly of Dorset Street, Spitalfields.

"Even" the Manchester Guardian, Ben? Heard of telegraph wiring? Iīd say that the Manchester Guardian SHOULD know these things pretty damn quick. Unless they had their head down a rabbit hole, that is.

What a very strange comparison - a pennyless working man in an untechnological society versus a wired up, finacially strong newspaper...? If such a paper could find out, then the working man MUST have known, sort of? Logic ā la Ben, is it?

Even if we accept that he returned to the Victoria Home after "walking about all night" on the morning of the alleged Miller’s Court episode, he must have emerged from it at some point, and when he did, it is inconceivable that he did not hear the gossip in the nearby streets and in the building itself at some point relatively early on Friday.

No, it is not inconceivable. It is unlikely, but that is not the same thing. And since I ascribe to the idea that he muddled the days, Iīd say itīs pretty damn certain that he heard not a iota of the murder if he emerged form the Victoria home on THURSDAY morning...

But how that adheres to your logic, I dare not think of! I suppose it starts with "utterly", "nauseatingly" or "arse-numbingly", but do correct me if I am wrong. After all, we are speaking of my logic here, and Walter Dewīs logic - and what are we, compared to you, Ben?

Logical, perhaps ...?

All the best,
Fisherman

Hi fish
I would have to disagree with the whole recognition argument you make. You either recognize someone or you don't. I can't remember any single time I told (or thought about)someone hey I thought that was you but I wasn't sure. You either pin it in your brain that that's the person but if your not sure you don't . You disregard it as not being who you thought it was and forget about it. Yes your argument seems reasonable in a logical way but I don't think that's what happens in reality. It's just not how the brain works.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Anything particularly disagreeable about my polite request to avoid dredging up old Hutchinson debates on an unrelated thread?

Who are you quoting with the "satisfied" quotation, Ben? Did I say that Hutchinson was satisfied with the view he got in Petticoat Lane?

If you didn't, that's very commendable because it would have painted a bizarre and implausible picture of Hutchinson; inexplicably fascinated with Astrakhan on one occasion and casually disinterested the next. That's nothing to do with my "preconceived notions", and everything to do with the simple recognition of implausibly inconsistent behaviour, and thus an unconvincing argument.

To me, this tells us one thing and one thing only - that the quality of the observation was not good enough for Hutchinson to identify the man.

But he had the opportunity to make it good. That's my point. What was preventing him from following the man with the view to obtaining a better look? Such was his fascination with the man just a few days earlier that he followed him and maintained a 45-minute solitary vigil in the small hours in the hope that he would emerge from Kelly's room. It doesn't make the slightest sense that he'd lose all interest in Astrakhan man, especially after learning of the murder and the major significance of his sighting. The man in question had ceased to be just a flashily-dressed punter of Kelly's (which was apparently more than interesting enough for Hutchinson), and was now a potential Jack the Ripper.

That should have increased the fascination factor, not decreased it.

It wasn't as if Astrakhan was a blend-into-the-crown sort of chap, so I think we can dispense with the ides that he could surreptitiously "disappear" and prevent Hutchinson from taking his curiosity any further.

Those who do not know, are people with poor information channels, low perceptibility, people isolated physically from the information sources, people that have been unable to take the information in for whatever medical reason, people who have heard the news but misinterpreted it in some manner etcetera, etcetera.

And does any of this remotely apply to a man who lived a coupe of hundred yards down the road from the scene of the crime? No, of course it doesn't. There is no realistic possibility of Hutchinson emerging from the Victoria Home on Friday morning and remaining oblivious to the talk of other lodgers in the home, oblivious to the word on the street, oblivious to the police presence, oblivious to the curious crowds around Dorset Street.

It's just not possible.

Anyone living that close to the crime scene would have heard the news.

Saying "we don't know what he did or where he went" fails to take into account the fact that he must have woken up and left the Victoria Home at some point on Friday, and when he did, the chances of him bypassing news of Kelly's murder were effectively zero. I realise that "we don't know for certain" is a useful means of keeping buoyant the most unconvincing and unworkable of suggestions, but even that one won't avail here.

What a very strange comparison - a pennyless working man in an untechnological society versus a wired up, finacially strong newspaper...?

He wasn't "pennyless". He can't have been, as a regular user of the fourpence per night Victoria Home. I only brought up the Manchester Guardian to illustrate the shortcomings of the suggestion that disappearing out of London would have ensured that he heard nothing of the Kelly murder.

And since I ascribe to the idea that he muddled the days, Iīd say itīs pretty damn certain that he heard not a iota of the murder if he emerged form the Victoria home on THURSDAY morning...

Okay, but let's not have any of that here!

We're off topic enough as it is. As I've already noted, there are over 11,000 posts in the Hutchinson forum, and the "When did Hutchinson hear of the murder?" business is certainly included amongst them.

So it's back on topic time.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

You'll have a devil of a time convincing anyone outside of the 'fringe' element.

Nah, Jon, it turns out that the "fringe element" have been the toughest nuts to crack on this issue, but that's hardly surprising when some of its members are prepared to accept that the actual ripper was a well-dressed man who carried his weapons in a black man, that Astrakhan was Joseph Isaacs, and that the best witnesses were not those who attended the inquest and were taken seriously (permanently) by the police, but rather the attention seekers who blabbed to the press about spooky-looking men before being swiftly discredited.

So it's an uphill struggle there!

Not at all surprising that the Morning Advertiser is not listed as a Trade paper, but, WE know this don't we Ben.

It is very well established and acknowledged that the Morning Advertiser was "devoted to trade interests", specifically the pub trade. It was founded by the Society of Licensed Victuallers. A pub trade publication is precisely what the Morning Advertiser was, and it has been described in these and similar terms throughout history.

And avoiding duplication is key, and precisely why details were kept to a minimum in the daily report to his superior.

Yep, it would have included only the essential details that were missing from the body of the statement, and the revelation that Hutchinson had possibly seen the suspect a second time would certainly have qualified on that score. Its absence therefore assures us that Hutchinson made no reference to this second sighting at the Abberline interview....as we've already discussed many pages back.

Exactly, PC 63L.

Don't think so. PC 63L was reportedly on duty in Dorset Street, if memory serves. Hutchinson's man wasn't, assuming he even existed.

And, if this someone does criticize the Morning Advertiser for inaccuracy, then you would have an informed opinion which confirms your conjecture, then, and only then, would you have something for me to consider.

But it's proven, Jon.

It's a done deal.

The Morning Advertiser did print inaccurate information on successive days, whether it was down to their their own sloppiness or an errant, behind-the-times press agency. I don't need L. Perry Curtis or anyone else to hold my hand and nod in acquiescence when I'm simply stating facts.

It is abundantly clear that Mrs Prater refers to McCarthy's rents as a 'lodging-house'.

Errmm...no.

Prater was most assuredly not referring to Miller's Court as the "back of the lodging house". That's just crazy. McCarthy's rents consisted of single rooms which overlooked Miller's Court. It certainly wasn't a lodging house, and given the small number of occupants, it is extremely unlikely that cries of murder could "frequently" be heard from Miller's Court. She was obviously referring to the grotty, busy lodging house across the road from Miller's Court. Prater further stated that she noticed the "lodging house light was out", and since her only window faced Dorset Street, it is clear that the lodging house she mentioned could only have been on Dorset Street. Once again Crossingham's is the obvious location, and it actually WAS a lodging house.

On the other hand, claiming the authorities did endorse the idea of a lying witness, which you have no credible evidence for, only weakens your position even further.

Says you.

But realistically speaking, when a witness is "considerably discounted" because he failed to present himself earlier, and to be questioned at the inquest "on oath", the inescapable deduction is that this "considerably discounting" happened for reasons that are irrevocably tied to the question of honesty and credibility.

I exposed that quote already by proving that neither Cox, nor Prater, nor even Dr Phillips EVER said anything about a "Time of death SHORTLY AFTER 3:00 am".

You "exposed" nothing.

The fact that the Star specified "shortly after 3.00 o'clock" is irrelevant. A minor error which still demonstrates at the very least that they did NOT support the 1.00am-2.00am suggested by Bond. Anyway, "shortly after 3.00 o'clock" isn't remotely inconsistent with Cox's evidence. She passed the house at 3.00am before returning home, at which point she was in no position to determine whether or not a murder was being committed "shortly" thereafter. The fact that she didn't hear a cry is only evidence that it wasn't loud enough to travel further than her nearest neighbours above (Prater) and Lewis (opposite). Cox lived at the opposite end of the court.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

The fact that the Star specified "shortly after 3.00 o'clock" is irrelevant. A minor error...

Oh, really!
Let me take you back to post No.241, we were quoting the Star again, this time with reference to them stating the Birmingham suspect was "seen with Kelly", what was your response then?

Forget "the seen with Kelly" bit. It's wrong.

Funny thing is Ben, I've been trying to impress on you how inaccurate the Star was.

It seems like you are getting the message.