Possible reason for Hutch coming forward

[Abby Normal]

Speaking of the Echo...
It's not as mild as "not as important", though, is it? The Echo says "a very reduced importance". That, in itself, is congruent with Hutchinson's story being discredited by at least some of the officials, and that more than one paper got to hear about it.

HI Sam
considering all the other embarresments the police faced over this case, including BS witnesses like packer and violenia, I'm sure they wouldn't want to shout it from the roof tops that they had been duped yet again if they thought they had.

Merry Christmas BTW, hope your feeling better!

[Abby Normal]

At least your tone is more mature.

Thank you Mr Wickerman(said in mature tone).

[Sam Flynn]

Speaking of the Echo...

"From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder."
Echo, 13 Nov.

The above is the only indication we have of any caution being applied to the story by Hutchinson. Not that his story was discredited, or dismissed, but it is now not as important as first thought.

It's not as mild as "not as important", though, is it? The Echo says "a very reduced importance". That, in itself, is congruent with Hutchinson's story being discredited by at least some of the officials, and that more than one paper got to hear about it.

[Sam Flynn]

:-) did you read the whole post Gareth?

You asked, "why would they make it up?", but I didn't say they made it up.

I wasn't suggesting that you did, Jon. My point was that the Star was unlikely to have made it up, so it was either a mistake or somebody told them that they no longer believed Hutchinson's story.

I'd suggest that the latter possibility seems likely, because there is at least some evidence - from both the Star and the Echo - that police opinion was somewhat split on this matter.

[Wickerman]

Another one of your little twisty turnies--coal in the stocking for you!!

At least your tone is more mature.

[Wickerman]

Agreed that the Star "discredited" report should be scrutinised like any other, but why would they make it up? Perhaps it was an error but, on the other hand, perhaps they got it from a reputable source. Police opinion, it seems, was divided along Blotchy vs Astrakhan lines,was it not?

:-) did you read the whole post Gareth?

You asked, "why would they make it up?", but I didn't say they made it up.
Ok, lets just take these brief comments...

The Echo wrote on the 13th:
"..very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement".

But the Star had reported on the same day - 13th:
"the police are said to attach a good deal of importance to the man's statement."

It's the opposite, right!, someone is out of step with the investigation.

Then again on the 14th, the Echo wrote:
"..The police do not attach so much importance to this document as some of our contemporaries do...."

But on the 14th, the Star are publishing the Central News interview with Hutchinson - out of step again?

There was a sudden change by the Star on the 15th, and the Star offer no justification for that change.

This is not unusual for the Star, we can read several stories published by the Star which have been borrowed from the dailies, or they publish conclusions to stories first published by their contemporaries - in this case it's the Echo.

We have the Echo reporting of doubt on the 13th, but on the same day the Star wrote that the police did believe the story.
Then again on the 14th the Echo express more doubt, so now the Star realizing they are not ahead of the game conclude - Ha, the S.O.B. lied!
so they come up with the claim his story is "discredited".
A complete reversal of their position as reported on the 13th and 14th.

The Star didn't make anything up, they reversed their position and followed the Echo, but tried to jump ahead by making an exaggerated claim.

The Echo were consistent, the Star are inconsistent, and as a result make an exaggerated claim, but not based on any privy information, just the need to appear to be on top of the story.
But it failed, Hutchinson's story was still being followed for the next several days.

[Abby Normal]

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?




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.

wicker
your being naughty again:

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?

he dosnt say hes looking for the hutch suspect, hes says

"I then informed the constable of what I had seen, and pointed out the man's extraordinary resemblance to the individual described by Cox. The constable declined to arrest the man, saying that he was looking for a man of a very different appearance."


Another one of your little twisty turnies--coal in the stocking for you!!

[Sam Flynn]

Agreed that the Star "discredited" report should be scrutinised like any other, but why would they make it up? Perhaps it was an error but, on the other hand, perhaps they got it from a reputable source. Police opinion, it seems, was divided along Blotchy vs Astrakhan lines,was it not?

[Wickerman]

Assuming that the articles, and the snippets of info put together to create them, followed a strict chronological sequence between, or even within, the papers.

It is perfectly reasonable and justified to question press reports. It's just that those who like to point this out are not usually prepared to question the reports they adhere to.
So, why should we not also question the Star claim of "discredited"?

After all, they give no reason for this claim, and no other newspaper makes a similar claim - and as we can see, quite the reverse.

In fact, the only reason for such a claim that we can see, when looking at all the prior reports in sequence is the report by the Echo on the 13th by declaring...

"From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder."
Echo, 13 Nov.

The above is the only indication we have of any caution being applied to the story by Hutchinson. Not that his story was discredited, or dismissed, but it is now not as important as first thought.

So, the Star, (or the Editor - O'Connor?) took this opportunity to once again criticize the authorities who had placed so much faith in this story when first obtained. Can now ridicule the police by over emphasizing the diminished importance of the story, that it is discredited. Which demonstrably was not true.

The change of importance can be traced.
On the morning of the 13th Hutchinson's story provided the police with a principal suspect - Astrachan.
By the evening of the 13th it seems the singular importance of this story had diminished to there now being two principal suspects - Blotchy & Astrachan.

The Star then report on the 15th that his story had been discredited. Yet we read on the 16th & also on the 19th further stories that the police are still pursuing the Astrachan suspect, but along with another suspect - Blotchy.

From this we can see the claim by the Star was nothing more than an exaggeration of the shift in the investigation, from one main suspect, to two equally viable suspects.

And, as I have pointed out before, the reason for this change of importance, in my opinion, was the report by Dr. Bond who theorized that Kelly had died between 1:00-2:00 am., which firmly introduces the Cox suspect into the frame as a prime suspect.

The importance of this conclusion would first need to be discussed between Bond and Anderson before any direction is given to Swanson's department. The meeting would likely involve Dr Phillips too as this was his case, but there had been some embarrassing question over the victims time of death in the Chapman case. The police would need to know how trustworthy is this estimate given by Dr. Bond.
All this would take place on Monday, as Sunday being a day of rest, I doubt Anderson would make himself available.

Any change of direction in the investigation may not have reached Abberline until Tuesday, as he was at the inquest on Monday, then occupied with Hutchinson for the rest of the day.
So there was a delay of several days between Bond writing his report, and any direction being given to Swanson's department. In the meantime Hutchinson had shot to number one with his prime suspect, only for this apparent certainty to be diminished within 24 hrs?, to the police now dealing with two equally important suspects.

[Sam Flynn]

Clearly then, the police had not discredited Hutchinson's story if they are still looking for his suspect on the 19th.

Assuming that the articles, and the snippets of info put together to create them, followed a strict chronological sequence between, or even within, the papers.

[Wickerman]

No Michael, you had the wrong article for the 19th.

This is the one.
The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; but so far they remain without any direct clue. Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache. Others are disposed to think that the shabby man with a blotchy face and a carrotty moustache described by the witness Mary Ann Cox, is more likely to be the murderer.
Echo, 19 Nov.

You then wrote:

On the 15th it clearly states that the story is now discredited. On the 16th, a police constable says that despite Galloways conviction that the man he saw matches the Cox description, "he" is looking for some-one of a very different appearance". Not "they", or "we".

Galloway was not addressing the police department as a whole, he was talking directly to one constable. Galloway wanted to know why this one constable would not arrest Blotchy. So lets not sidestep the issue by claiming the Met constable should reply to Galloway by answering for the whole department.

What you have read, in sequence, is that the Star on the 15th claimed Hutchinson's story was discredited, only to publish another article the next day, the 16th, where a constable advises Galloway he is "looking for a man of a very different appearance" (different to Blotchy).

So now you have read the next article by the Echo, dated the 19th, where we read the police are looking for both Blotchy & Astrachan.
Clearly then, the police had not discredited Hutchinson's story if they are still looking for his suspect on the 19th.

It is no more difficult than that Michael.

[Michael W Richards]

15th; " Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson, who said that on Friday morning last he saw Kelly with a dark-complexioned, middle-aged, foreign-looking, bushy-eyebrowed gentleman, with the dark moustache turned up at the ends, who wore the soft felt hat, the long dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, the black necktie, with horseshoe pin, and the button boots, and displayed a massive gold watch-chain, with large seal and a red stone attached. As we have already said, the only piece of information of any value which has yet transpired is the description given by the widow Cox of a man - short, stout, with a blotchy face and a carroty moustache - who at midnight on Thursday went with the murdered woman into her room."

16th: " Mr. Galloway, a clerk employed in the City, and living at Stepney, has made the following statement :- "As I was going down the Whitechapel-road in the early hours of Wednesday morning, on my way home, I saw a man coming in the opposite direction, about fifty yards away. We both crossed the road simultaneously, and came face to face. The man had a very frightened appearance, and glared at me as he passed. I was very much struck with his appearance, especially as he corresponded, in almost every particular, with the man described by Mary Ann Cox. He was short, stout, about 35 to 40 years of age. His moustache, not a particularly heavy one, was of a carroty color and his face blotchy through drink and dissipation. He wore a long, dirty brown overcoat, and altogether presented a most villainous appearance. I stood still and watched him. He darted back almost immediately to the other side of the road, and then, apparently to avoid a group of women a little further on, crossed the road again. I determined to follow him, and just before reaching the coffee-stall past the church he again crossed the road. On nearing George-yard he crossed over and entered a small court. He reappeared in a couple of minutes, crossed Whitechapel-road for the sixth time, and proceeded up Commercial-street. Up to this time he had walked along briskly, but directly he got into Commercial-street, he slackened speed and accosted the first woman whom he met alone, but was repulsed. On approaching Thrawl-street a policeman on point duty suddenly appeared. The man was evidently startled, and for a moment it looked as though he would turn back or cross the road. He recovered himself, however, and went on. I then informed the constable of what I had seen, and pointed out the man's extraordinary resemblance to the individual described by Cox. The constable declined to arrest the man, saying that he was looking for a man of a very different appearance."

19th: " Considerable excitement was caused in London yesterday by the circulation of a report that a medical man had been arrested at Euston, upon arrival from Birmingham, on a charge of suspected complicity in the Whitechapel murders. It was stated that the accused had been staying at a common lodging-house in Birmingham since Monday last, and the theory was that if, as was supposed by the police, he was connected with the East-end crimes, he left the metropolis by an early train on the morning of the tragedies. The suspected man was of gentlemanly appearance and manners, and somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been seen in company with Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered. Upon being minutely questioned as to his whereabouts at the time of the murders, the suspect was able to furnish a satisfactory account of himself, and was accordingly liberated".

Those are your referenced segments, correct?

On the 15th it clearly states that the story is now discredited. On the 16th, a police constable says that despite Galloways conviction that the man he saw matches the Cox description, "he" is looking for some-one of a very different appearance". Not "they", or "we". On the 19th in Euston a man is detained on the basis of a description furnished to them by The Met Police, perhaps in a telegram or letter that was issued nationwide on the 14th. There is no indication how current the Euston information was, there is no indication that the constables reply to Galloway represented the official police position adopted by anyone but himself, and the first report we quote states clearly that the story is discredited.

What these reports suggest is that its quite possible Hutchinsons statement allowed the actual last person seen with Mary to flee, and misdirected attempts inside and outside London to keep an eye out for the correct suspect.

[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?

[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.

[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.