Possible reason for Hutch coming forward

[Wickerman]

Hello Jerry.

I have been going through the BNA to see what the earliest newspapers reported on that account.
It appears the wording in the earliest accounts say, "who answered the published description of the man wanted for the murder, etc".

Blotchy's description was never published as the wanted man. The description of the Hutchinson suspect was widely published on the morning of the 13th.
So it would appear the Echo inserted the wrong details in their account of the same story.

Do you have any thoughts on your question?

Jon,

Evening News
London, U.K.
16 November 1888

At about ten o'clock this morning, a man answering every description to the particulars furnished to the police by G. Hutchinson, as seen by him on the night of the murder of the woman Kelly, attracted attention in Queen Victoria-street, Blackfriars. Finding himself being watched, he immediately hurried his footsteps, and without giving time for any action to be taken, entered the Underground Railway station near by, and escaped.

The Echo 17 Nov 1888

There is some news this morning, however, of the man "with the blotchy face and carroty moustache," He is averred to have been seen at a late hour, yesterday, in Battersea Park Road, at a period subsequent to that in which he is said to have been seen in Queen Victoria Street. The police were at once on the alert, but without any result.



These two news clips are talking about the same man in Queen Victoria Street. Are they talking about A-Man or Blotchy? The first clip says Hutch's suspect but uses the same street sighting as the Blotchy man in the second clip. Who are they talking about?

[Robert St Devil]

I was focusing in on the "declared... at the inquest" part of the report/sentence. Could only think of Mary Ann... no wait... sorry... just hit me... they use the word "witnesses" in that sentence. The Star must be talking about Mrs. Cox and Mrs. Maxwell, and letting 11:45p slide for "early morning". Really, who else from the inquest is left who matches the criteria?

I saw the press reports that have some police chasing this guy while others chase that guy, mystery within a mystery. "Police" can be a banner term too often; maybe it was a divisional thing.

The tone in some newspapers downplay the value of Hutchinson's description to the police, as though it already matched the police's general composite. I'm wondering if they were more interested in his statement because they were working off a 3-to-4 am time of death

[jerryd]

There are no half measures in a discredited story, it either is discredited or it isn't.

The division between the two suspects more likely reflects the beliefs of the two forces involved. The City Police pursuing one suspect while the Met. pursue the other. Their respective suspects had different descriptions after all.

If a story is discredited it cannot be relied on by anyone, but if one detective, department or force believe the story, then it is not discredited.
It's a case of all or nothing.

Jon,

Evening News
London, U.K.
16 November 1888

At about ten o'clock this morning, a man answering every description to the particulars furnished to the police by G. Hutchinson, as seen by him on the night of the murder of the woman Kelly, attracted attention in Queen Victoria-street, Blackfriars. Finding himself being watched, he immediately hurried his footsteps, and without giving time for any action to be taken, entered the Underground Railway station near by, and escaped.

The Echo 17 Nov 1888

There is some news this morning, however, of the man "with the blotchy face and carroty moustache," He is averred to have been seen at a late hour, yesterday, in Battersea Park Road, at a period subsequent to that in which he is said to have been seen in Queen Victoria Street. The police were at once on the alert, but without any result.



These two news clips are talking about the same man in Queen Victoria Street. Are they talking about A-Man or Blotchy? The first clip says Hutch's suspect but uses the same street sighting as the Blotchy man in the second clip. Who are they talking about?

[Wickerman]

Hello Robert.

I follow your line of reason, though the report of the 19th - quoted below, does not fit your argument.

19th
...excitement was caused in London yesterday by the circulation of a report that a medical man had been arrested at Euston... 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

This suspect was in the company of Kelly "early on the morning", yet Blotchy was seen with Kelly at 11:45 pm Thursday night. The early morning sighting was Hutchinson's at 2:00 am.

[Wickerman]

That aside, the very fact that the Echo on the 19th was saying that the police were divided as to Blotchy vs Astrakhan indicates that some no longer favoured Hutchinson's suspect at that point. Seen in that light, the Star's report of the 14th might not have been much of an exaggeration after all.

There are no half measures in a discredited story, it either is discredited or it isn't.

The division between the two suspects more likely reflects the beliefs of the two forces involved. The City Police pursuing one suspect while the Met. pursue the other. Their respective suspects had different descriptions after all.

If a story is discredited it cannot be relied on by anyone, but if one detective, department or force believe the story, then it is not discredited.
It's a case of all or nothing.

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Jon, and no I wasn't aware that they were that new. Thanks and I'll look into the Echo and the Evening News when I get home tonight. This was how I read the slant against Hutchinson in the The Star and a preference for Cox's suspect [my emphasis]:

15th
Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson... 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

16th
Mr. Galloway, a clerk employed in the City, and living at Stepney, has made the following statement : "...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
...excitement was caused in London yesterday by the circulation of a report that a medical man had been arrested at Euston... 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

21st: Attack on Annie Farmer
A Star reporter got hold of Frank Ruffell, and he made [a] statement... This description given, from Ruffell's manner with evident truth, tallies remarkably with that given by the Widow Cox at the inquest on the Dorset-street victim."

[Sam Flynn]

From this sequence of events it can be seen that the controversial claim by the Star on the 14th was another exaggeration.

It might also mean that the order in which stories appeared in the papers, even the same paper, was not necessarily in the correct chronological sequence. I can well imagine an editor, on a "quiet news day", using a story from a few days previously, and I can imagine a journalist missing a deadline on one day only for his article to be carried a day or two later.

That aside, the very fact that the Echo on the 19th was saying that the police were divided as to Blotchy vs Astrakhan indicates that some no longer favoured Hutchinson's suspect at that point. Seen in that light, the Star's report of the 14th might not have been much of an exaggeration after all.

[Wickerman]

I posted that The Star had a slant against George Hutchinson in favor of Mary Cox's suspect. I would need the full newspapers to verify 100% but I don't see similar discrediting coming from The Times, Daily Telegraph or Morning Advertiser in the days after he came forward.

Hi Robert.

I'm not sure if you are aware but the Star was a new paper in 1888, they were known to make controversial claims in order to sell copy. They needed their paper to make money right out of the gate, so to speak.
Their contemporaries (Times, Telegraph, etc.) looked on this new upstart as notorious and unreliable as regards to accuracy in their reporting.
John Pizer threatened to sue the Star over their exaggerated claims that he was Leather Apron. The Star settled out of court.

With respect to this issue of "discrediting" Hutchinson by the Star, we see more of the same cavalier approach towards the truth.
What had transpired was that as a result of Hutchinson's appearance on Monday night following the inquest, this new suspect - Astrachan, was immediately vaulted up to being suspect No. 1. This was reported as such on the morning of the 13th, the day following his interview with police.

Also on the 13th, in the evening edition of the Echo, they report that Hutchinson's statement is now of seemingly of "reduced importance", without providing any reason why.

The next day, on the evening of the 14th, the Echo report that the police are making this statement the subject of careful inquiry.
However, in contradiction to this the Star of the 14th report that the story by Hutchinson "is now discredited".
The story can't be discredited, if they are still making it the subject of careful inquiry .

Then on the 16th the Evening News & the Star both report that one Met. constable was not looking for the Cox suspect, but "someone of a very different appearance" - presumably alluding to Hutchinson's suspect - Astrachan.

Then on the 19th, the Echo report that the police "have not relaxed their endeavours" to hunt down the murderer - though they are now divided between looking for both Blotchy & Astrachan.

From this sequence of events it can be seen that the controversial claim by the Star on the 14th was another exaggeration.
That Hutchinson had suddenly been elevated to a star witness, only to be downgraded to being of parallel importance with Cox. That the police are pursuing two equally important suspects. Hutchinson had not been discredited at all, the police were still pursuing Hutchinson's suspect four days later, on the 19th.

[Abby Normal]

An "open mind" means you are open to alternate theories, you wouldn't be so caustic in your dismissal of Hutchinson if that were true.

I don't need to twist anything, the contemporary belief in the "well-dressed" suspect was widespread and well reported in the press.
Again, you choose to ignore this. The defective approach lies with yourself, not Caz, c.d., myself nor anyone else who has shown you why your arguments don't stand up to scrutiny.

no wick, I am open to alternate theories and scenarios-and theres nothing wrong with a well dressed suspect per se, its your constant, misleading twisting of the meaning and veracity of the reports where your theory becomes crackpot.

and stop always trying to drag anyone else(Caz, CD, "authors" who don't post here anymore LOL) when trying to get back up for your arguments.
Its so childish, and too easy to see right through your desperate attempts to win the argument with the "everyones on my side" bullshit.

[Robert St Devil]

GH's statement itself gives us reason to question his story, because if he had a relationship with the woman he wouldn't have waited 4 full days and until after the end of the Inquest to come forward. If the glorious descriptive elements of his story weren't enough. And the fact that the press reports that Wednesday that his story is discredited.

I wonder if the Inquest had lasted a few days when he might have come in.

Hi Michael. After following this thread, I'm not convinced George was acting deceptively, but I get the suspicion around his "4-day wait".

>I wonder if it was the police action in the wake of his statement that is partly behind this suspicion:
Morning Advertiser, 13 Nov 1888
The police apparently attach some importance to the man's story, and the statement was forwarded to the headquarters of the H division by a special detective.

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 posted that The Star had a slant against George Hutchinson in favor of Mary Cox's suspect. I would need the full newspapers to verify 100% but I don't see similar discrediting coming from The Times, Daily Telegraph or Morning Advertiser in the days after he came forward.

>As for the inquest, he narrowly missed having to attend a 2nd inquest:
The Star, 14 Nov 1888
A second inquest would have been held on Kelly's body had it been removed into the Whitechapel district for burial. But the double inquiry has been averted by the action of Mr. H. Wilton, parish clerk and keeper of the Shoreditch mortuary. He has undertaken to inter the body at his own expense, assisted by contributions which may be received, and yesterday he obtained from the coroner's officer an order to prepare a coffin.

[Wickerman]

Blind approach? No wick, I keep an open mind, that’s why I always view things as likelihood of different scenarios. Unlike you who twist everything to fit your pre conceived well dressed man scenario

An "open mind" means you are open to alternate theories, you wouldn't be so caustic in your dismissal of Hutchinson if that were true.

I don't need to twist anything, the contemporary belief in the "well-dressed" suspect was widespread and well reported in the press.
Again, you choose to ignore this. The defective approach lies with yourself, not Caz, c.d., myself nor anyone else who has shown you why your arguments don't stand up to scrutiny.

[Wickerman]

See, this is typical of why much of the criticism against Hutchinson is both self induced, and a bit of a fantasy.

The newspapers after the murder, over the weekend, were full of press theories about Kelly being murdered after 9:00 Friday morning. Around 7 hours after Hutchinson spoke to her at 2:00. Yet a handful of modern theorists expect him to rush to police to tell them he saw Kelly with a man 7 hours before she is presumed murdered?
What conceivable use would his sighting be to police in their investigation if the press theories were correct?

Then there is this preoccupation with the apparently false claim by the Star on Thursday, 15th, where it is claimed Hutchinson's story is discredited.
We can see how false the claim is by the fact the Star make no further mention of their claim, yet the very next day, the 16th, Galloway's story appeared in the press where we learn the police are looking for Astrachan.

Then again, three days later, on the 19th, the press report how the police are divided between pursuing both suspects, blotchy & Astrachan.

So, it is patently clear the report by the Star on the 15th was false, yet the alternate reports which demonstrate the police were still actively investigating Hutchinson's story are ignored.

Self-induced fantasy.
This, as one other member might recognize, is a perfect example of cherry-picking.
You refuse to accept the evidence as a whole, but prefer to only recognize what fits your own personal theory.

[Michael W Richards]

Gotcha. Nothing really sticks out to me against Hutchinson, and it seems like it was the police who put George in the spotlight when they forwarded his statement up the chain of command post haste. It seems to me like he was just offering the piece of information that he knew to the police station; next thing he knows, he's talking with Abberline and his name's in the press a few days later. One thing, The Times have him stating that he identified Mary at the Shoreditch mortuary. Would he have had to offer some proof of acquaintance (ie general description) before he gained that type of access from the authorities?

GH's statement itself gives us reason to question his story, because if he had a relationship with the woman he wouldn't have waited 4 full days and until after the end of the Inquest to come forward. If the glorious descriptive elements of his story weren't enough. And the fact that the press reports that Wednesday that his story is discredited.

I wonder if the Inquest had lasted a few days when he might have come in.

[Abby Normal]

I "use" news reports. You "reject" news reports.
That is not cherry-picking, are you sure you even know what cherry-picking is?

When these same reports identify a respectably dressed man, then obviously it isn't me who is forming the theory, the issue existed at the time.

As Macdonald demonstrated a specific interest in that Britannia-man, and this same Britannia-man is identified in the press as one of the three suspects, along with Blotchy & Astrachan, then this is just another example of your blind approach to the problem, or you are not as well informed as you pretend to be.

Blind approach? No wick, I keep an open mind, that’s why I always view things as likelihood of different scenarios. Unlike you who twist everything to fit your pre conceived well dressed man scenario

[Sam Flynn]

Well, your opinion is not the result of empiricism as you have no firsthand experience, and you seemingly reject alternative explanations for Hutchinson's story, so you cannot be accused of being objective, so what is left?

The fact that I find the bull$hit interpretation of Hutchinson's story the more probable. That may be incorrect, but it is NOT guesswork nor idle dismissal.