Possible reason for Hutch coming forward

[Sam Flynn]

[Note: Personally, I suspect the Star used this prior report by the Echo to speculate that Hutchinson must have been discredited

Note that the Star article says that the STORY was discredited (possibly meaning "disbelieved") , not that Hutchinson himself had been found wanting as a witness. It's an important distinction, which I was at pains to point out to Ben, amongst other Hutch-as-Ripper enthusiasts.

[Michael W Richards]

IOW, George had no clue that his statement was going to make the evening news or get him an interview with Abberline. He probably didn't know where his info was going to fit in with the police investigation; it just so happened the police attached some importance to his statement and forwarded it up the chain, making his name forever more part of Ripperology.

[/I]

Hi Robert,

I differ with that opinion. I think George Hutchinson had access to all the information publically available to him as early as Saturday morning, and knew well that a Blotchy faced person was the last seen with Mary Kelly. That is by witnesses who resided in that court on that night.

I think his statement was purposefully given, but not to aid the investigation. It was to misdirect it. Wideawake Man was the most pertinent fact that went into the decision for the pardon offer, imho. This character was seen by the police as someone who likely had ties with the goings on in the courtyard. To step into those shoes figuratively is a daunting proposition, so one would think that it must have been an important reason for him to do it. The notion it was to help find the killer of a friend is again, dispensed with, based on the delay.

I believe it was to diffuse the suspicions about Wideawake, I don't think that person wanted to be exposed to scrutiny.

As an aside, Ive often wondered just what in the fireplace ashes might remain hidden through 1 sieving, and require a second one Saturday morning by no less than Abberline Himself, I believe Reid, and a few others that reported to Abberline from close quarters. Might it be related to this Wideawake character? Could the thing in the ashes be tiny fragments of stamps?

[Wickerman]

Note that the Star article says that the STORY was discredited (possibly meaning "disbelieved") , not that Hutchinson himself had been found wanting as a witness. It's an important distinction, which I was at pains to point out to Ben, amongst other Hutch-as-Ripper enthusiasts.

Yes, I do remember you making that point to Ben more than once.
We have to remember though, the press didn't know the details of the investigation. Then there is the fact that we read of the continued interest by police in the Hutchinson suspect over the next several days, from this it is apparent that Hutchinson's story as a whole was still believed.
So either way you look at it the claim by the Star was false. If they had meant that only part of his story was deficient, then we might be able to give them the benefit of the doubt, as we are in no position to question the entire report.

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, I do remember you making that point to Ben more than once.
We have to remember though, the press didn't know the details of the investigation. Then there is the fact that we read of the continued interest by police in the Hutchinson suspect over the next several days, from this it is apparent that Hutchinson's story as a whole was still believed.
So either way you look at it the claim by the Star was false. If they had meant that only part of his story was deficient, then we might be able to give them the benefit of the doubt, as we are in no position to question the entire report.

If they disbelieved any component of his story...in particular the lavishly detailed suspect description, then the Star article would be valid. People like yourself trash the Star at any opportunity, but it was following this story as eagerly as The Times and was more likely to publish stories that could not be validated by secondary sources. They, unlike most of the rest, didn't just rely on Central News.

I think most everyone can see that there was an agenda with his coming forward, after all it had been planned for over 4 days.

[Wickerman]

If they disbelieved any component of his story...in particular the lavishly detailed suspect description, then the Star article would be valid.

Like I've already explained. There are no half measures in a discredited story, it's either all or nothing. Had they said the story was "partly discredited" then your point would be true, but they didn't. So moving the goal posts in defense of your own theory is another indication of desperation to salvage an argument.

People like yourself trash the Star at any opportunity,..

People better qualified than myself have trashed the Star, because unlike you, they have actually researched the 19th century press and know all about the politics of how this newspaper came into being, and what the agenda of their chief Editor, the Irish Nationalist, T. P. O'Connor was.
He had also been a journalist for the Pall Mall Gazette, another controversial newspaper of the time.
Controversy gets attention and attention sells copy. Truth doesn't always put food on the table.

.....but it was following this story as eagerly as The Times and was more likely to publish stories that could not be validated by secondary sources. They, unlike most of the rest, didn't just rely on Central News.

The Star being an evening paper often lifted their evening stories from the dailies, like Telegraph, or the Times. So don't be deceived if you read the Star covering the same story as the Times, check the wording verbatim, in both versions. The Star have copied Times articles, which doesn't mean they have "eagerly" pursued the story, just copied it.

I think most everyone can see that there was an agenda with his coming forward, after all it had been planned for over 4 days.

What 'plan' is this?
Or, is this more speculation?

[Michael W Richards]

What 'plan' is this?
Or, is this more speculation?

I think discarding a primary source of the time altogether based on some predjudiced opinion of their integrity isn't wise, but that's your choice. As to the "plan", surely youre not taking another indefensible position that he decided spontaneously at 4pm Monday to come forward? Had the encounter and sighting been authentic he surely would have been planning on coming forward at some point...in this case, just not early enough to be of any value to the investigation.

[Michael W Richards]

By the by, it is pure speculation that the Canonical Group were all murdered by a single individual nicknamed Jack the Ripper....so you and oh so many others live in the same glass house I do. The only difference is that your belief has been tested for over 125 years and still remains unproven. Mine hasn't been vetted by anything more than modern opinions.

[Wickerman]

I think discarding a primary source of the time altogether based on some predjudiced opinion of their integrity isn't wise, but that's your choice.

But I'm not discarding it, thats the point, it was already discarded.
It's just yourself and a handful of others who turn a blind eye to the fact.

The claim by the Star was already redundant by their own reporters the very next day when they reported the Galloway sighting and the response that the constable was "looking for a man of a very different appearance". Very Different to Blotchy - Astrachan, he was the only other prime suspect.

Michael, answer this question - how can the Star write on the 15th that Hutchinson's story is discredited, then on the 16th write that a Met. constable is looking for the Hutchinson suspect?
Hutchinson cannot be dismissed as a viable witness, and accepted as a viable witness, at the same time.

And, just to rub it in, on the 19th, the Echo report the police are equally interested in both suspects - Blotchy & Astrachan.
This isn't me rejecting a viable source (the Star), the source was not trustworthy by their own admission, and the claim by the Star was superseded by the Echo four days later.

I'm the one who is following the evidence, as it transpires, in sequence, whereas you are the one who is rejecting later sources.
Why is that Michael?

As to the "plan", surely you're not taking another indefensible position that he decided spontaneously at 4pm Monday to come forward? Had the encounter and sighting been authentic he surely would have been planning on coming forward at some point...in this case, just not early enough to be of any value to the investigation.

We have Hutchinson's own words that a fellow lodger talked him in to coming forward, so he doesn't say he suddenly decided to go to police himself.

[Wickerman]

By the by, it is pure speculation that the Canonical Group were all murdered by a single individual nicknamed Jack the Ripper....so you and oh so many others live in the same glass house I do. The only difference is that your belief has been tested for over 125 years and still remains unproven. Mine hasn't been vetted by anything more than modern opinions.

Absolutely, there are many issues in this case that can only be addressed by modern assumptions. We need to assume when there are no clear indications to guide us. This is not the case with this "discredited" nonsense.
The Star themselves contradict their own story of the previous day, plus we have a different newspaper confirming that contradiction.

Why would you support the claim by the Star, on the 15th, when they contradict their own story on the 16th?

[Varqm]

There was a large lodging-house directly opposite the entrance to Miller's Court, so it's not inconceivable that the man seen by Lewis was one of the lodgers, or perhaps a member of staff, who'd nipped outside for a breath of air.

Highly unlikely.The police did a house-to-house search,that's how they come upon Mary Cusins(?) and story of Joseph Isaacs.And at least
one reporter went to dorset st.,Echo London, U.K 10 November 1888 IN A DORSET-STREET "DOSS-HOUSE"(which was kind of similar to Hutch's
story -time and giving money).More likely the lodger's story/rumors would come out.

---

It's hard to discuss with some posters, whose logic is off,Kennedy and Lewis not the same,even an 16 year old would know they were.

[Sam Flynn]

Highly unlikely.The police did a house-to-house search

I don't think it at all unlikely that a dosser would have nipped out for a breath of fresh air by standing outside the entrance to his lodging-house.

Besides, perhaps they did find him during the house-to-house search. If he hadn't reported seeing anything of note, then it wouldn't be surprising if we hadn't heard anything about him. After all, there were other protagonists in the case (e.g. the men tending to their horses in Hanbury Street, Pipe Man in Berner Street) about whom we hear nothing more at all.

[Varqm]

And stories/rumors abound...


Echo
London, U.K.
10 November 1888

There was, of course, a crowd before the entrance to McCarthy's-court - or as it is popularly known, Miller's-court - in which stands the house where
the unfortunate woman was murdered. The body had been taken away in the afternoon to the mortuary, which is attaining the celebrity almost of the Paris
Morgue; but the crowd still hung opposite the entrance to the court discussing the murder. Over the way, the occupants of the Commercial-street-chambers
were looking out upon the crowd, their noses glued to the window panes.

[Varqm]

I don't think it at all unlikely that a dosser would have nipped out for a breath of fresh air by standing outside the entrance to his lodging-house.

Besides, perhaps they did find him during the house-to-house search. If he hadn't reported seeing anything of note, then it wouldn't be surprising if we hadn't heard anything about him. After all, there were other protagonists in the case (e.g. the men tending to their horses in Hanbury Street, Pipe Man in Berner Street) about whom we hear nothing more at all.

Did not have to know the person himself only that the lurking man seen was accounted for.

[Sam Flynn]

Did not have to know the person himself only that the lurking man seen was accounted for.

Sadly, we don't know one way or another whether that happened, as the surviving records are woefully sparse.

[Wickerman]

Michael, if you can answer the questions posed below, it might help clarify your position.

Michael, answer this question - how can the Star write on the 15th that Hutchinson's story is discredited, then on the 16th write that a Met. constable is looking for the Hutchinson suspect?
Hutchinson cannot be dismissed as a viable witness, and accepted as a viable witness, at the same time.

And, just to rub it in, on the 19th, the Echo report the police are equally interested in both suspects - Blotchy & Astrachan.
This isn't me rejecting a viable source (the Star), the source was not trustworthy by their own admission, and the claim by the Star was superseded by the Echo four days later.

I'm the one who is following the evidence, as it transpires, in sequence, whereas you are the one who is rejecting later sources.
Why is that Michael?