Originally posted by Fisherman
View Post
Wickerman:
"The quote above, are you referring to this?
'What is said to be a full and accurate description of the man last seen with Kelly is asserted to be in possession of the authorities. That description was given them the other night by George Hutchinson, a Groom by trade, but now working as a labourer.
The importance of this description lies (so says the morning papers) in the fact that it agrees with that furnished to the police yesterday, but which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner. There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity."The Echo, Nov 14, 1888."
Yes, I am.
"I think the 'discounted statement' (above) does not refer to Hutch, because he was not at the Inquest."
I was of the same sentiment originally, but as I think you will admit, the phrasing "...which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner" could potentially point to BOTH Bowyer and Hutchinson.
"Rather, the complaint is aimed at someone else (ie; the informant) who did appear at the Inquest but failed, or omitted, to offer the sighting in the official manner.
That someone could well have been Bowyer."
That too was my original thought, Jon! But I have since come to think that Debra Arif has the correct solution - the Echo article of the 14:th was aimed at a mistake made by the morning newspapers, namely the belief that there was a parallel testimony, seemingly establishing a corroboration for Hutchinsons Astrakhan man.
Have a look again at the whole first passage in the text, and try and read it as a mildly taunting phrasing, aimed at the morning papers: "What is said to be a full and accurate description of the man last seen with Kelly is asserted to be in possession of the authorities", it says. But the Echo knew - and published! - one day before that this description had been furnished to the police by Hutch. And already the day before, they had pointed out that there was reason to doubt itīs value!
They now renew this sentiment on the 14:th by writing that "the police do not attach so much importance" to it.
So! Apparently the Echo was well aware that there was cause for doubt, whereas the morning papers knew nothing about this, which is - I think - why the Echo says that it "is said" that there is a "full and accurate description" of the man last seen with Kelly at hand, and why they go on to say that it "is asserted" (by the ones NOT in the know, that would be - the morning papers!) to be in possession of the authorities.
Moving on, they add more salt into the wounds of the morning press by writing that the importance of the testimony lies - "so says the morning papers" - in itīs corroboration of the freshly arrived description, which was discounted because of the failure to present it at the inquest. "So says the morning papers" - but we know better, that is the Echoīs stance.
It goes on to say that "there is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinsonīs veracity". Taken in this context, I fear that there is a measure of irony in this passage too; the Echo would here be mocking the morning papers who draw the conclusion that there are two corroborating testimonies about, both speaking of astrakhan man and thus putting Hutchinson beyond any possible accusations of being wrong - whereas the Echo knows that BOTH testimonies belong to Hutchinson.
Further down in the article, this is borne out very clearly: "Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contemporaries, we learned on inquiry at the Commercial-Street Police-Station today that the elaborate description ... is virtually the same as that previously published..." ... "it proceeds from the same source".
And that source, Jon, would be George Hutchinson.
This is, I believe, the best interpretation of things. There are few sloppily worded passages that makes one wonder, but that does not change the overall picture for me.
"The quote above, are you referring to this?
'What is said to be a full and accurate description of the man last seen with Kelly is asserted to be in possession of the authorities. That description was given them the other night by George Hutchinson, a Groom by trade, but now working as a labourer.
The importance of this description lies (so says the morning papers) in the fact that it agrees with that furnished to the police yesterday, but which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner. There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity."The Echo, Nov 14, 1888."
Yes, I am.
"I think the 'discounted statement' (above) does not refer to Hutch, because he was not at the Inquest."
I was of the same sentiment originally, but as I think you will admit, the phrasing "...which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner" could potentially point to BOTH Bowyer and Hutchinson.
"Rather, the complaint is aimed at someone else (ie; the informant) who did appear at the Inquest but failed, or omitted, to offer the sighting in the official manner.
That someone could well have been Bowyer."
That too was my original thought, Jon! But I have since come to think that Debra Arif has the correct solution - the Echo article of the 14:th was aimed at a mistake made by the morning newspapers, namely the belief that there was a parallel testimony, seemingly establishing a corroboration for Hutchinsons Astrakhan man.
Have a look again at the whole first passage in the text, and try and read it as a mildly taunting phrasing, aimed at the morning papers: "What is said to be a full and accurate description of the man last seen with Kelly is asserted to be in possession of the authorities", it says. But the Echo knew - and published! - one day before that this description had been furnished to the police by Hutch. And already the day before, they had pointed out that there was reason to doubt itīs value!
They now renew this sentiment on the 14:th by writing that "the police do not attach so much importance" to it.
So! Apparently the Echo was well aware that there was cause for doubt, whereas the morning papers knew nothing about this, which is - I think - why the Echo says that it "is said" that there is a "full and accurate description" of the man last seen with Kelly at hand, and why they go on to say that it "is asserted" (by the ones NOT in the know, that would be - the morning papers!) to be in possession of the authorities.
Moving on, they add more salt into the wounds of the morning press by writing that the importance of the testimony lies - "so says the morning papers" - in itīs corroboration of the freshly arrived description, which was discounted because of the failure to present it at the inquest. "So says the morning papers" - but we know better, that is the Echoīs stance.
It goes on to say that "there is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinsonīs veracity". Taken in this context, I fear that there is a measure of irony in this passage too; the Echo would here be mocking the morning papers who draw the conclusion that there are two corroborating testimonies about, both speaking of astrakhan man and thus putting Hutchinson beyond any possible accusations of being wrong - whereas the Echo knows that BOTH testimonies belong to Hutchinson.
Further down in the article, this is borne out very clearly: "Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contemporaries, we learned on inquiry at the Commercial-Street Police-Station today that the elaborate description ... is virtually the same as that previously published..." ... "it proceeds from the same source".
And that source, Jon, would be George Hutchinson.
This is, I believe, the best interpretation of things. There are few sloppily worded passages that makes one wonder, but that does not change the overall picture for me.
That could have come straight from me, Fisherman! That's exactly the way I read it too...exactly. Thanks!
Hi Abby, thanks for the comments on the article find. Obviously I think the interesting bit is Bowyer placing himself at Miller's Court on the morning of MJK's death, and definitely worth looking further at!
Comment