Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hutchinson statement to the press - As I passed Thrawl-street I saw a man standing at the corner of the street. And - She then walked on towards Thrawl-street, saying, 'I must go and look for some money.' The man who was standing at the corner of Thrawl-street then came toward her.

Wasn't there a police officer on fixed point duty every night on the corner of Thrawl St and Commercial St from H Division between the hours of Seven in the evening to Seven in the morning. So following on from this wouldn't he have likely seen Astkaran, Hutch or Mary?

[Wickerman]

Fixed Point duty ran from 9:00 pm - 1:00 am., but yes the corner of Comm. St. & Thrawl St. was a F.P. location.

[Simon Wood]

A point of order.

Hutchinson never gave a statement directly to the press.

[Sam Flynn]

Closer to paperback fiction, than demonstrable reality.

It should be patently obvious that what gets reported in the press can end up on the lips of other witnesses, and can influence their testimony. Indeed, we've got contempt of court laws that aim to mitigate against, if not eliminate, this very phenomenon.

I never read any theorist offer a true crime case where a witness admitted to offering a made-up description with details taken from the newspapers.

See my post about close encounters with UFOs. It's not true crime, but precisely the same principle applies: memes, circulated by the press and popular media, can and do end up being reported by a host of different people.

[Wickerman]

A point of order.

Hutchinson never gave a statement directly to the press.

Are you saying the Central News is not the press?
We know it's an agency that sold its stories to the press, but most people don't make an issue of the distinction.

[Simon Wood]

Okay, find me one unique question asked by the press about GH's Mr. Astrakhan story.

[Wickerman]

It should be patently obvious that what gets reported in the press can end up on the lips of other witnesses, and can influence their testimony. Indeed, we've got contempt of court laws that aim to mitigate against, if not eliminate, this very phenomenon.
See my post about close encounters with UFOs. It's not true crime, but precisely the same principle applies: memes, circulated by the press and popular media, can and do end up being reported by a host of different people.

UFO's now?
There is an actual crime involved in providing a fake description to police in a murder case. Not from what I recall about a fake UFO sighting.
Lets keep this grounded shall we?

[Wickerman]

Okay, find me one unique question asked by the press about GH's Mr. Astrakhan story.

Ah, so you say the interview never happened at all?
The press version does not provide any questions.

Ok, well you are not the first to compare the police statement with the press statement, but differences do exist. I mean the "Sunday morning policeman" comes to mind, to begin with.
I'd be interested why you think there are no differences, or are you only referring to the details of the description, not the statement itself?

[Abby Normal]

Perhaps because it's eminently plausible, and appears to be supported by parallels found in published descriptions of suspects which preceded Hutchinson's statement by days, if not weeks.

bingo Sam
not only the description of Aman, but even the wording and phrases hutch uses.

someone a while back did a comparison of the press releases and compared them to Hutches statement and there were many phrases that were verbatim from the press stories. "the murdered woman Kelly" etc.

[Joshua Rogan]

Ah, so you say the interview never happened at all?
The press version does not provide any questions

Accorring to the press, Hutch did not give an interview, but made a statement. Hence, no doubt, the lack of questions.

Pall Mall Gazette
"Last evening a man named George Hutchinson, a groom, who is now working as a labourer, made the following statement to a reporter"

St James' Gazette
"Last evening a groom named George Hutchinson, who is now working as a labourer, made the following statement to the reporter of a news agency:-"

[Simon Wood]

Any textual differences are down to sub-editors on the various newspapers.

See The Pall Mall Gazette and St. James' Gazette introductions. Both said the same thing, the latter adding the "of a news agency" detail.

As to differences of detail in the reporting of GH's story—

[Darryl Kenyon]

Sorry to be pedantic about the fixed point Pc. But after the Chapman murder, Henry Holland encountered a fixed point Pc around six in the morning near Spitafields market I believe. So if that Pc wasn't on fixed point between the hours of 9 pm and 1 in the morning perhaps others weren't. Are there any records for fixed-point duty times?

[Wickerman]

Sorry to be pedantic about the fixed point Pc. But after the Chapman murder, Henry Holland encountered a fixed point Pc around six in the morning near Spitafields market I believe. So if that Pc wasn't on fixed point between the hours of 9 pm and 1 in the morning perhaps others weren't. Are there any records for fixed-point duty times?

Thats ok, questions are good.
This well known example has always been a problem. A Fixed Point station at the Spitalfields Market is not listed in the 1889 Police Book. Though it is known that short-term or periodic F.P. locations did occur from time to time that were not deemed permanent, so not listed in the official record.

There is another consideration. Police were often assigned to private property if the owner was willing to pay for that special service. If this was the case at Spitalfields Market then this is another reason why the spot is not on the official list.
Spitalfields Market may have payed the Met. to assign them a constable on market days. Which would answer the question as to why he did not leave when Henry Holland approached him about Chapmans murder. This constable would also work times requested by the Market, which will be different to the regular police times for a F.P. assignment.

We do know other constables did leave their F.P. location when the need arose. Take for example the Stride murder, there was a constable on F.P. duty on Commercial Rd. at Christian St. (which is listed in the 1889 Police Book) and he left his assigned spot when his presence was needed.

[Joshua Rogan]

Thanks Jon, very interesting.
Weren't the pubs around the market allowed to open outside normal licencing hours, to accommodate the early start of market workers? If so, could the fixed point duty also be extended in the area to cover this?
Otherwise, I have read that fixed points were manned from 9am to 1am.

With regard to the PC at the Christian St FP, I've always wondered if he had just finished duty when he learned of Stride's murder, so felt free to leave.
Anyway, I believe that if a pc had to leave his fixed point (and murder is a pretty good reason) then the next beat pc to arrive there was supposed to man it until he returned.

[Wickerman]

Any textual differences are down to sub-editors on the various newspapers.

See The Pall Mall Gazette and St. James' Gazette introductions. Both said the same thing, the latter adding the "of a news agency" detail.

As to differences of detail in the reporting of GH's story—

[ATTACH]18706[/ATTACH]

Thankyou Simon.
So your main concern was just the description, not the statement as a whole.

Your middle column, you entitled Press Report 13-11-88, seems to refer to what reads like an official Scotland Yard press release. This sentence is brief, terse and limited in its detail. It appeared in most morning papers on the 13th which indicates they all obtained the same release at the same time.
Nearly all press versions worked this release into a paragraph of their own individual creation, which was also normal.
It seems to be the official 'wanted' release by Scotland Yard, likely released through an agency which was their normal procedure.

So the story goes that a Central News reporter tracked Hutchinson down at his Victoria Home address and took a statement from him which then appeared the next morning. Which leads us to your 3rd column entitled, Press Reports 14-11-88.

Yes we see differences.
Which is not surprising given that Hutchinson had been interrogated by Abberline - after giving his first statement (column 1) but before giving his 2nd statement (column 3).
Abberline would naturally draw out further details from the witness. That is the purpose of an interrogation officer. Even the witness comes away realizing more of what he saw that he originally thought.

But I take it you think something is amiss?