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

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Harry: That he was outside Crossingham's
,is not contested...[/QUOTE]

As a matter of fact, it is, Harry. At least if the suggestion is that he was standing directly outside Crossinghams.
My contention is that he was standing at the corner of the court; on the northern side of Dorset Street, as it were. That, at least, is what he seems to say himself. He never once mentions standing by the dosshouse.

I also think he stood where he stood on Thursday, not on Friday - but that is another question altogether...

All the best,
Fisherman

[harry]

My opinion.

What I think,is that the latter reason to distrust Hutchinson,w as probably not his explanations of his activities the day and night of Kelly's death.but a general gleaning of information,that Hutchinson was not a person to be trusted.Of anything,and I believe the press at least,would have considered and sought information to that end.They sometimes do,and considering the importance of the information given by him,the papers,at least,w ould surely enquire into the general reliability of Hutchinson.

[Fisherman]

What I think,is that the latter reason to distrust Hutchinson,w as probably not his explanations of his activities the day and night of Kelly's death.but a general gleaning of information,that Hutchinson was not a person to be trusted.Of anything,and I believe the press at least,would have considered and sought information to that end.They sometimes do,and considering the importance of the information given by him,the papers,at least,w ould surely enquire into the general reliability of Hutchinson.

The only assessments we have of Hutchinson´s reliability are all very much in favour of him, Harry. Granted, most of these assessments were made early in the process, but when it comes to the press, they all say the same thing - he never wavered, he was steadfast and not shaken and he gave a very trustworthy impression.
Abberline trusted him too, remember.

So that leaves us with your suggestion that this impression was a faulty one, and that Hutchinson had skeletons in the closet that were discovered and that made the police drop his story.
Myself, I think that the police would give most people the benefit of a doubt, even if they DID have a closet that contained the odd skeleton. Such things should not categorically rule out that they told the truth when giving evidence in a case.

But we actually do have an assessment of Hutchinson´s veracity that came a long time after the murders. Dew wrote about him in 1938, and it belongs very much to this errand:

"I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong."

People with the best of intentions, thus!

"And if Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also? This, without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view."

Without reflecting on either witness, Harry!

So, fifty years on and not a blemish on the man´s character.

What I would say about the press is that yes, they would dig into the character of the man to see if they could find something unsavoury. And if they did, they would definitely tell their readers - it would sell copies of their paper. Can you really imagine a paper that takes on the task to establish the character of a man as important to the investigation that Hutchinson seemingly was, who finds a juicy chunk of unreliability to sink their teeth into - and who hushes it up...? Who has the goods to sell their paper but refrain from telling?

If they found nothing at all, however, THEN they would stay silent on the subject. So the answer to the riddle lies in what was printed - or not. If you ask me, that is.

That is how the press works. They are muckrackers, or so I´m told - and muckrackers are not discreet.

George Hutchinson was in the clear for the longest time, not having had one single malicious word spoken and recorded about him, not by the press, not by the police, not by anybody.

Then along came Ripperology ...

All the best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
I used to remain staunch in my belief that Hutchinson would not have mistaken the day, along the lines of ''How could anyone be mistaken''?
Now I am retired , it surprises me, that because I lead a quiet and uneventful life[ compared with the previous 50 years] I find myself having to think on many occasions when I am asked by my wife ''what day is it?]
So its because of this, I can no longer dismiss the possibility of Hutchinson being out by a day, although I still have reservations obviously.
The Victoria homes entry records..which must have had been confirmed.
The initial acceptance of his account, and questions asked [ that we should assume were] at the ''interrogation ''[ as it was put]
The alleged payment to G.H..[ Which I do not discount] not without due care surely?
As for Mrs Maxwell.
Again I find myself shifting from ''she could not have mistaken the day'' to the right day..wrong person.
''The description of ''seeing the victim about the lodging house'' could be a indicator of mixing up with young Lizzie A.[ Albeit we have a report from lodging house occupants of frequently giving MJK money]
So that would not be conclusive.
To conclude.
I feel we should not readily dismiss witnesses, without giving them the benefit of the doubt, and be open to alternative suggestions where applicable.
I guess the older one gets, the more open minded one becomes.
Regards Richard.

[Garry Wroe]

Some good points have been raised on both sides of the argument since my previous post, but the fact remains that Hutchinson was dismissed as a viable witness. Logic dictates that he wouldn't have been cast aside by investigators on a whim. He was too important a witness for that to have happened. Hence the police must have discovered something of a palpable nature that either mediated against his story or his credibility. As to what that 'something' might have been, we can only guess. But it couldn't have been anything trivial.

[harry]

Haste

Fisherman,
I am of the opinion that Aberline's judgement was,in the circumstances,too hasty.First impressions often are,and if left without some attempt at verification,of little importance,So no,I do not agree that as it stands,Aberlines remarks guarantees the honesty of Hutchinson. What the police came to believe later, and so too the papers,suggests a different opinion might have been entertained.
We do not know the intentions of Maxwell or Hutchinson.That the papers at least showed a reluctance to accept their accounts as legitimate,and reported so in the immediate aftermath of the crime,shows,to me at least,some attempt to gain an insight into the character of the two persons, and while Dew might have his doubts about days and dates,it seems to have been a lone voice from among the many police involved.Perhaps it was he that time w as playing tricks with.
Regards.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Albeit you all only have my word for the radio show I heard many years ago, but I can state hand on heart, that the words spoken by the alleged son of George Hutchison the witness[ either by the son , or on behalf ] stated.
''It was my fathers big regret, that despite his efforts , nothing came of it''
That of course does not make Hutchinson tale a truthful one, but it does not make him a rogue either.
I have said before, that until recent times, the Witness Hutchinson was simply someone who gave a description of a man seen with Kelly , he could only give an description of the man he saw, regardless of the media's comments.
And furthermore we have three sources of payment.
a] The radio show
b] Reg in the ''Ripper and the royals[ some 18 years later]
c] The wheeling sheet published in 1888.
All three sources gave a payment figure, A and B a exact. and C 5 times the average wage [ labourers].
I therefore maintain that it is extremely likely that he received a payment from the police , and would have been. seen to be genuine, and helpful.
He simply faded out of the picture when the culprit was not apprehended, and in my opinion nothing more sinister then that..
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:
Some good points have been raised on both sides of the argument since my previous post, but the fact remains that Hutchinson was dismissed as a viable witness.

I prefer to make a distinction here that is very important to my way of seeing things. I don´t think that Hutchinson was dismissed as a viable witness at all. I think he was instead recognized as a completely trustworthy witness. It was not Hutchinson himself that was the weak link - it was his story. Just like Dew says, I think we are dealing with somebody on whom no accusations of lying should be cast - I wish to reflect on the man´s honesty as little as Dew did.
I think he told the truth - but mistook the day. That discredited his story - but not the man himself.

This, as you will have to agree with, would tally very well with the actions taken afterwards and the impression Hutchinson gave. He was honest, but mistook the day, and so the importance of his testimony did not crumble totally, but - understandably - it was not the same hot lead as it would have been if it belonged to the murder morning.
Likewise, no shadow fell upon Hutchinson, he remained a man with "the best of intentions", as Dew put it.
And, as I pointed out earlier, there was nothing for the press to report - it was a trivial mistake, with no foul intentions at all.

It works this way, quite simply.

Logic dictates that he wouldn't have been cast aside by investigators on a whim. He was too important a witness for that to have happened.

He would never have been cast aside on a whim - God forbid! He was the key to the case, seemingly.

Hence the police must have discovered something of a palpable nature that either mediated against his story or his credibility.

Ah, yes, exactly so; his story OR his credibility - there is no certainty that his creibility was ever called into doubt, whereas there are clear pointers to the opposite.

As to what that 'something' might have been, we can only guess. But it couldn't have been anything trivial.

Absolutely correct. It would not have been any general feeling caused by any discovery of Hutchinson being known to the police in a less than flattering manner. In such a case, the press would have reported about it if they got wind of it - and if the man had a record, they would. Likewise, if this had ever happened, Dew would reasonably not have appraised the man the way he did. What we are looking for is hard evidence, since it must have been there, just like you say.
It could have been that PC that covered Dorset Street - if he did not admit to having seen a man outside the court, then Abberline would have wondered; Hutch stood there for three quarters of an hour, so he would not have gone unnoticed if the police was up to their task.
It could have been a denial that any woman ever passed into the court.

At the end of the day, you don´t pick a suggestion that somebody has muddled the days out of thin air - Dew must have had a factual reason to suggest this shortcoming on Hutchinson´s behalf.

When it´s has all simmered down, we have a man who´s honesty is not questioned in any paper or any memoirs, but instead Hutchinson is hailed as honest by the one person that mentions him in retrospect. The sheer fact that he was met with such total uninterest and who caused no controversy at all back then, by the signs of things, should tell us that his was a case of a trivial, honest mistake.

If he had lied to the police, the papers would have reported on it, and Dew would have been very unhappy with him - and he would have been a much better choice for the killer´s role. As it stands, the exact opposite is what´s on the table.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry: Fisherman,
I am of the opinion that Aberline's judgement was,in the circumstances,too hasty.First impressions often are,and if left without some attempt at verification,of little importance,So no,I do not agree that as it stands,Aberlines remarks guarantees the honesty of Hutchinson. What the police came to believe later, and so too the papers,suggests a different opinion might have been entertained.

Of his story - absolutely! Of himself? Not at all, I´d say. If he had been deemed malicious, then we should have at least some scrap of evidence saying so, but we don´t. But we DO have Dew, who confirms that he was always looked upon as a man of the best of intentions. Until somebody, somewhere finds something that tells us that Hutchinson was not regarded as a straightforward witness with good intentions, that is what will have to stand.

We do not know the intentions of Maxwell or Hutchinson.

Well, we DO know that Dew spoke about "the best of intentions", when he described the affair.

That the papers at least showed a reluctance to accept their accounts as legitimate,and reported so in the immediate aftermath of the crime,shows,to me at least,some attempt to gain an insight into the character of the two persons, and while Dew might have his doubts about days and dates,it seems to have been a lone voice from among the many police involved.Perhaps it was he that time w as playing tricks with.

Perhaps Dew was the Ripper´s (Hutchinson´s) accomplice? We can´t be sure he was not. But at the end of the day, we cannot distrust a detective that worked the case in favour of a hunch of our own. Nothing can be ruled out - but as it stands, Dew is what we have. And we have nobody nowhere voicing any distrust of Hutchinson - only a clear pointer that something in his story did not pan out. It was not, however, something that had him crucified and branded a liar, was it?

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
Malicious?.Certainly not,self saving might be a better description.No,there is no evidence as such,either of guilt or innocence,but most likely there was/is opinions based on experience,and quite likely on investigative measures by journalists at the time.It is doubtful if Aberline's opinion w as communicated to the press, whose doubt(the press) about the validity of Hutchinson's statement began soon after the first press interview?Yes,his story w as doubted at the time,and the fact that the word liar was not in itself expressed,does not signal an intent to portray him(Hutchinson)as truthful.It's not a case of distrusting Dew or anyone else,just a realisation that anyone,policeman or not,can sometimes be at fault,and killers sometimes lie to conceal their guilt.

[DVV]

But we DO have Dew, who confirms that he was always looked upon as a man of the best of intentions. Until somebody, somewhere finds something that tells us that Hutchinson was not regarded as a straightforward witness with good intentions, that is what will have to stand.[/B]

We do not know the intentions of Maxwell or Hutchinson.

Well, we DO know that Dew spoke about "the best of intentions", when he described the affair.

Fisherman[/B]

Hi Fish,

No. Clearly no. Dew meant something like "even people with best intentions can be mistaken, and perhaps Hutch and Maxwell were mistaken."
He never said : "I remember very well Hutchinson and Maxwell and swear to God they came to us with the best intentions."

By the by, Maxwell and Hutch do not belong to the same category :
MJK was dead when Maxwell said she talked to her.
But she was (probably, possibly) alive when Hutch said he saw her.

All the best

[BTCG]

Hi Fish,

No. Clearly no. Dew meant something like "even people with best intentions can be mistaken, and perhaps Hutch and Maxwell were mistaken."
He never said : "I remember very well Hutchinson and Maxwell and swear to God they came to us with the best intentions."

By the by, Maxwell and Hutch do not belong to the same category :
MJK was dead when Maxwell said she talked to her.
But she was (probably, possibly) alive when Hutch said he saw her.

All the best

MJK doesn't fit the Ripper killings scenario: done inside a residence, the killer taking a lot of time, and doing many things that were more personal: i.e., destroying clothing. Methinks the boyfriend may have known more than history records.

[Ben]

Some excellent points raised by Garry, David and Harry here.

I must admit I'm a little bemused to see this "date confusion" being dredged up again. This was a purely speculative proposal based on a few remarks made in the late 1930s memoirs of Walter Dew, which were "riddled with mistakes" on the subject of the Whitechapel murders. It should not be misconstrued as being in any way representative of contemporary police opinion, because it was nothing of the sort.

Dew said nothing about Hutchinson being "out by a day", and he certainly never implied that his alleged experiences related to Thursday morning instead of Friday. That is a completely modern idea, perhaps a year old. All Dew suggested was that Hutchinson and Maxwell "erred" because some people get confused as to time and date. The reason he made this suggestion was because he was evidently aware that Hutchinson's statement had been dismissed, but like many policemen of lower rank at the time, was not told why. Being relatively junior and not on a need-to-know basis, he would have been told simply that the Astrak-hunt was off, leaving him to speculate many years later as to the reason why. Clearly his speculations were wrong. Understandable perhaps (and tempting after so many decades to lump Maxwell and Hutchinson into the same category), but wrong.

There is absolutely no mystery as to the true reason behind Hutchinson's discrediting. He was "considerably discounted" owing in part to the fact that he had failed to present his evidence until three days after the murder, bypassing the opportunity to be questioned "on oath" at the inquest. In other words, a reason that related directly to his honesty, or lack thereof. This was reported in a newspaper that had a proven relationship of communication with the Commercial Street Police Station, and absolutely no logical reason to invent this detail (and destroy this relationship in so doing) for the hell of it. Should anyone wish, tiresomely, to challenge this, please be aware that we've spent the last pages or so debating this very detail over some extremely lengthy posts.

It is therefore nonsense to say that nobody at the time mistrusted Hutchinson.

But even if we disavow the above, it is hardly surprising that Dew's date/time confusion haven't been revived - except by Fisherman - as the correct explanation for Hutchinson's discrediting. The objections are obvious. Why would Hutchinson confuse the date of an event that coincided with the Kelly murder, the Lord Mayor's Show, and (allegedly) a 13 mile hoof from Romford in the small hours?

It is therefore nonsense to say that "Dew is what we have".

Finally, let us dispense with the suggestion that his honesty "was not questioned in any paper". Besides the Echo's report on the authorities discounting Hutchinson for precisely that reason, we have the Star reporting that his statement was "discredited" as a "worthless story" that had led the police on a "false scent". Then there's the Graphic, who reported that the level of detail in Hutchinson's description of the Astrakhan man "engenders a feeling of scepticism", and perhaps most damningly of all, we have Washington's Evening Star whose comments made clear that they regarded Hutchinson as a potential suspect.

Fisherman - If you're going to criticise my use of strong, uncompromising adjectives in dismissing certain theories of yours (and you seem to be chastising me for words I used years ago), it is perhaps a bit hypocritical to then accuse mine of being "laughable" and "preposterous", especially when you miss my point completely. I brought up the Manchester Guardian to illustrate the fact that news of the murder was readily available everywhere, and that a mythical, hypothetical excursion out of London was very unlikely to render Hutchinson oblivious to news of the Kelly murder.

Regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

MJK doesn't fit the Ripper killings scenario: done inside a residence, the killer taking a lot of time, and doing many things that were more personal: i.e., destroying clothing. Methinks the boyfriend may have known more than history records.

Patricia Atkinson was killed indoors and sustained injuries which were unique in context of the Yorkshire Ripper murders. Yet we know that Patricia's boyfriend was not responsible for this crime. It was committed by Peter Sutcliffe. In short, there is no foundation for the belief that anyone other than Jack the Ripper killed and mutilated Mary Kelly. None whatever.

[Abby Normal]

Some excellent points raised by Garry, David and Harry here.

I must admit I'm a little bemused to see this "date confusion" being dredged up again. This was a purely speculative proposal based on a few remarks made in the late 1930s memoirs of Walter Dew, which were "riddled with mistakes" on the subject of the Whitechapel murders. It should not be misconstrued as being in any way representative of contemporary police opinion, because it was nothing of the sort.

Dew said nothing about Hutchinson being "out by a day", and he certainly never implied that his alleged experiences related to Thursday morning instead of Friday. That is a completely modern idea, perhaps a year old. All Dew suggested was that Hutchinson and Maxwell "erred" because some people get confused as to time and date. The reason he made this suggestion was because he was evidently aware that Hutchinson's statement had been dismissed, but like many policemen of lower rank at the time, was not told why. Being relatively junior and not on a need-to-know basis, he would have been told simply that the Astrak-hunt was off, leaving him to speculate many years later as to the reason why. Clearly his speculations were wrong. Understandable perhaps (and tempting after so many decades to lump Maxwell and Hutchinson into the same category), but wrong.

There is absolutely no mystery as to the true reason behind Hutchinson's discrediting. He was "considerably discounted" owing in part to the fact that he had failed to present his evidence until three days after the murder, bypassing the opportunity to be questioned "on oath" at the inquest. In other words, a reason that related directly to his honesty, or lack thereof. This was reported in a newspaper that had a proven relationship of communication with the Commercial Street Police Station, and absolutely no logical reason to invent this detail (and destroy this relationship in so doing) for the hell of it. Should anyone wish, tiresomely, to challenge this, please be aware that we've spent the last pages or so debating this very detail over some extremely lengthy posts.

It is therefore nonsense to say that nobody at the time mistrusted Hutchinson.

But even if we disavow the above, it is hardly surprising that Dew's date/time confusion haven't been revived - except by Fisherman - as the correct explanation for Hutchinson's discrediting. The objections are obvious. Why would Hutchinson confuse the date of an event that coincided with the Kelly murder, the Lord Mayor's Show, and (allegedly) a 13 mile hoof from Romford in the small hours?

It is therefore nonsense to say that "Dew is what we have".

Finally, let us dispense with the suggestion that his honesty "was not questioned in any paper". Besides the Echo's report on the authorities discounting Hutchinson for precisely that reason, we have the Star reporting that his statement was "discredited" as a "worthless story" that had led the police on a "false scent". Then there's the Graphic, who reported that the level of detail in Hutchinson's description of the Astrakhan man "engenders a feeling of scepticism", and perhaps most damningly of all, we have Washington's Evening Star whose comments made clear that they regarded Hutchinson as a potential suspect.

Fisherman - If you're going to criticise my use of strong, uncompromising adjectives in dismissing certain theories of yours (and you seem to be chastising me for words I used years ago), it is perhaps a bit hypocritical to then accuse mine of being "laughable" and "preposterous", especially when you miss my point completely. I brought up the Manchester Guardian to illustrate the fact that news of the murder was readily available everywhere, and that a mythical, hypothetical excursion out of London was very unlikely to render Hutchinson oblivious to news of the Kelly murder.

Regards,
Ben

As usual Ben, well said.

The idea that someone with the apparent memory of a supercomputer who could remember every little detail about the appearance of Mr. Astrahkan, could also forget which day it was, is in my honest opinion, frankly ridiciculous.