Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Wickerman]

Ben.

Some years ago we discussed that documentary on the Star newspaper.
I recall seeing it at the time but I can't remember the name to search for it.
Do you have a link or know where it can be found?

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

But they didn't have CCTV, good lighting, distinctive clothing/hairstyles, low population density, personal (identifiable) transport, fixed addresses or a close sense of community

Exactly, which ought to make coming forward a more enticing prospect in the days when none of the above were in existence, and the act of derailing the investigation from right under the hapless police’s noses could be achieved with comparatively little risk.

Hi Jon,

You might be referring to Jack the Ripper: Tabloid Killer with Kelvin McKenzie:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JBRmy4le0ao

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Exactly, which ought to make coming forward a more enticing prospect in the days when none of the above were in existence, and the act of derailing the investigation from right under the hapless police’s noses could be achieved with comparatively little risk.

In the absence of easy ways of identifying/tracking someone down - a situation which applied in the 1880s London slums, but not to the modern world - why would a killer bother to come forward in the first place?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

You might be referring to Jack the Ripper: Tabloid Killer with Kelvin McKenzie:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JBRmy4le0ao

All the best,
Ben

Thankyou Ben.

For some reason I was under the impression it was a history of the Star newspaper, I must be thinking of a different documentary.
However, this does look like the one we spoke about some time back, so thanks again.
No wonder I couldn't find it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does Hutchinson’s description of Astrakhan Man specifically describe a Jewish man rather than just a well-to-do man? Yes I know that he said ‘Jewish appearance’ but the rest of the description to me doesn’t exactly scream out ‘Jewish.’ The point I’m raising is that if Hutchinson for anti-Semitic reasons was trying to blame the Jews for the Ripper murders couldn’t he have made a better job of it by picking out some form of dress item or some accessory specific to Jews? Also why didn’t he add an incriminating accent to his description as he heard him speak to Mary?

The fact that, in the briefest of snatched glances where he had to duck down to look into his face as he passed by, at night, he managed to describe AM’s eyelashes, must surely set alarm bells ringing as to the genuineness of his claim?

[Wickerman]

We know that Abberline initially endorsed Hutchinson despite the latter only making himself known after the closure of the inquest,...

Ah, "initially"?, like if I wrote that in this thread you "initially" believed G.H. was a timewaster.
The implication being you later changed your mind, but you have not changed your mind, and I never actually said you did.

....but unfortunately the buck did not stop with Abberline. He wasn’t the sole voice of the “authorities”, nor was he anything like the most senior amongst them.

He was the most important voice, as no other police official above him spoke to Hutchinson, only Abberline.
Being "senior" has nothing to do with this apparent 'division' within the authorities.

You’re the one always going on about “divisions” within the police, and here may be another case in point. Regardless of Abberline’s initial non-issue with Hutchinson’s three-day tardiness, it is clear from the Echo’s proven correspondence with the police that it was very much an “issue” in the ultimate judgement of Scotland Yard.

I don't see how you can criticize my reference to reported "divisions" within the authorities when one of your favorite sources - the Echo - were responsible for raising the issue in the first place.
I would have expected you to throw your support behind the notion, not object to it.
But then, you would have to admit the Hutchinson story was still a viable clue in the eyes of the police, which must stick in your throat just a little.

You keep insisting the Echo had an internal and reliable source, yet you choose to dismiss what they report when it suggests Astrachan was still being hunted four days after the Star falsely suggested his story was discredited.
What a tangled web you find yourself in when you choose to ignore basic evidence.

Alternatively, Abberline might have given Hutchinson the benefit of the doubt initially, only to do an about-turn “in light of later investigation” reported by the Echo. Who knows precisely what that betokened, but it’s possible that Hutchinson slipped up when on walkabout with detectives in search of the non-existent Astrakhan man. Whatever occurred, it would only have been compounded by the numerous embellishments he made in his unsanctioned press interview.

I'm encouraged that you are open to alternatives when talking about his story being of reduced importance, which is how the Echo described the situation. Not that the story was rejected altogether, which being "discredited" would require.

Speaking of “terrible arguments”, to borrow your phrase, are you now suggesting that Hutchinson supplied Abberline with a candid, clandestine “reason” for coming forward late, which the latter didn’t bother to mention in his report to his superiors?

He certainly would need to tell Abberline, and the Morning Advertiser implied an actually reason was given (...but for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state...). The only question for us today is, what was this reason?

Even if this mystery policeman was the incompetent buffoon that you and RJ would have us believe (but can’t), whose commitment to his professional duties only went as far as aligning himself with the latest press speculation, there were plenty of reports indicating an “earlier” time of death circulating on Saturday...

Now here you are most certainly repeating a falsehood.
There are not "plenty of reports" indicating an earlier time of death in the Saturday press.

The Times did report:
"..during the early hours of yesterday morning another murder.....took place...etc."

Yet the Daily Telegraph reported:
"Still, the crime had apparently been but recently committed at the time of its discovery.."

The Pall Mall Gazette subtitled their coverage with:
"The Murder committed after 9.00 AM"

Yet the Echo wrote:
"....the poor woman's life was taken - as in the previous cases - during the night..."

All of these newspapers reported both Maxwell's & M.Lewis's statements that Kelly was still alive after 9:00 am Friday morning.
Reports concerning the later time of death far outnumber the occasional report to the contrary.
Your choice to cling desperately to falsehoods exposes an untenable theory.

.... As a mere constable on beat, all professional wisdom regarding the likely time of Kelly’s death would have been passed down from his superiors, not from a handful of newspapers.

True after the inquest, except this was two days before the inquest when Scotland Yard had no theory to pass on to the lower ranks, besides, that is not the role of Scotland Yard. They keep their conclusions to themselves, which means the frontline constables in direct contact with the public had no inside knowledge from internal circulars. Their only source was the newspaper, just like the general public.

In the form of actual police statements and inquest testimony, or confused press accounts?

The same source as your "discredited" article, one would presume.

[Ben]

Ah, "initially"?, like if I wrote that in this thread you "initially" believed G.H. was a timewaster

No, Jon, not like that at all; like an inspector giving an informant an initial approval based on an early, face-value impression (and a readiness to clutch at any straw in the face of mounting public pressure and an absence of any other lead) that quickly diluted to doubts about that informant’s credibility.

He was the most important voice, as no other police official above him spoke to Hutchinson, only Abberline

I appreciate that, but it didn’t mean that Swanson et al were incapable of arriving at their own conclusions, even if they happened to be at variance with those of the original subordinate who interviewed him.

You keep insisting the Echo had an internal and reliable source, yet you choose to dismiss what they report when it suggests Astrachan was still being hunted four days after the Star falsely suggested his story was discredited.

But the Echo never suggested any such thing at any point, unless you can finally provide that oft-requested evidence? You do understand the distinction, I hope, between “hunting” for a suspect described by a witness, and a handful of less than influential police officers pondering the possibility of that discredited witness being legit after all? It was the latter reality that the Echo observed and reported on the 19th November, quite different to actively investigating the suspect, which, as the same newspaper reported on the 13th and 14th, was no longer occurring owing to the “considerable discounting” of Hutchinson.

Not that the story was rejected altogether, which being "discredited" would require.

No, it wouldn’t.

This is one of your major misconceptions. “Discredited” does not mean “proven false”. It means “very reduced (in) importance” and “considerably discounted”. The expressions used by the Star and the Echo are perfectly interchangeable.

He certainly would need to tell Abberline, and the Morning Advertiser implied an actually reason was given (...but for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state...).

The Morning Advertiser article is nonsense, as we’ve discussed and as I’ve demonstrated many times already. Unless you’re implying that the Morning Advertiser was made privy to details that were withheld from the police seniority?

Reports concerning the later time of death far outnumber the occasional report to the contrary.

This “outnumbering” nonsense has gone far enough. You’re doing that thing you do again - assuming that everyone else, including the 1888 subject of the discussion, was in the habit of collating and stockpiling newspaper references, and then tallying them up to see which version “wins”.

Hutchinson probably did what most normal people do and read one newspaper. Let us, for the sake of argument, assume it was one of the more mainstream ones like the Times, freely available at the Victoria Home. If he read Saturday’s edition from beginning to end, he would have read reports of an early time of death and a later one.

What he certainly would not have done is grab himself a whole bundle of newspapers, sit down and count the number of “early time of death” reports versus the number of “later time of death” reports, and claim that whoever has the most is the “winner”. That activity is strictly the reserve of message board combatants, keyword-searching the Casebook newspaper archives in order to score imaginary points.

They keep their conclusions to themselves, which means the frontline constables in direct contact with the public had no inside knowledge from internal circulars. Their only source was the newspaper, just like the general public

This is crazy craziness, Jon.

What do you mean “they keep their conclusions to themselves”? So if Abberline, struggling on the front line, requested a modicum of guidance from top brass as to what aspect of the case warranted immediate investigative focus, the latter would have responded with “We’re not telling you. Read the papers instead”? The direction of the investigation was obviously dictated by Scotland, whose instructions would have been filtered down to the divisional detectives, thence to the lower ranks.

You’re essentially claiming that the mystery policeman’s inaction was entirely the fault of the Met seniority for failing to pass on their collective knowledge and wisdom to their subordinates, forcing the latter to rely on contradictory press reports. I can’t wait to see who else must be tarred irrational and incompetent in order for Hutchinson to smell of roses.

Glad I was able to help with the tabloid documentary. Hope it proved of interest!

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hutchinson probably did what most normal people do and read one newspaper. Let us, for the sake of argument, assume it was one of the more mainstream ones like the Times, freely available at the Victoria Home

Even more freely available, whether at the VH or on the streets, was news that a young woman - possibly naming Kelly herself - had been horribly murdered that morning, just up the road in Miller's Court. Hutch wouldn't have had to wait to "read all about it" in the papers, irrespective of what time(s) of death they were reporting.

[rjpalmer]

"A man, apparently of the labouring class, but of a military appearance, who knew the deceased, last night lodged with the police a long and detailed statement of an incident which attracted his attention on the day in question. The following is a summary of the statement, and it may be said that notwithstanding examination and re-examination by the police, the man's story cannot be shaken, and so circumstantial and straightforward were his assertions that the police believe they have at length been placed in possession of facts which will open up a new line of investigation..."

--Daily News 13/10/88

It sure doesn't sound as though the police quickly and easily accepted Hutchinson's story; on the contrary, he was grilled repeatedly, but stuck to his guns. Obvious support for this exists in the MEPO files. A statement to Badham wasn't enough; Abberline came over and grilled Hutchinson as well. It also raises the spectre that Hutchison's story would have been quietly investigated for confirmation, since it was initially doubted.

Further, there is no direct evidence Hutchinson's story was quickly disgarded or debunked for the simple reason that the relevant MEPO files no longer exist. If we merely went by the press reports, it would similarly appear as though the witness Israel Schwartz had his 5 minutes of fame and then was dropped like a hot penny, never to be mentioned again; in reality, in the MEPO files, Schwartz is still being discussed by Swanson nearly 3 weeks later, as he muses about the two men Schwartz described and wonders which is a better suspect.

Often claims in the press about this or that incident being dismissed is merely the police trying to put a 'lid' on a story that they are still actively investigating. It can't be taken at face value unless there is some sort of confirmation in an actual internal report. I put no stock whatsoever in the claim Hutch was debunked. If he had been shown to have been lying he would have been slapped with at least 14 days with hard labor for making a false statement to the police.

[Varqm]

It does not matter.The more important fact is in front of him a woman passed and went inside the court - his main focus,just a second or rvery few after he was looking up the court as if waiting for someone,and he did not see her which clearly points to it was the wrong day.He mentioned the policeman passed by Commercial St. end of Dorset St. passed by,why did he not mention the woman?
That woman could have been a good witness because she was the last person seen going inside the court by Hutch.Surely he wanted to forward this sighting,she could help,Hutch wanted the murderer caught,did he? Something is wrong with the picture.
I gather you believe in Caroline Maxwell who's story also cannot be shaken,ignoring the doctor's estimated time of death and the "murder" cry".


----

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hutch had three days to rehearse his story over and over in his head [note the little details]. On another thread, it was mentioned on what evidence could the Police get to secure a conviction? Well, short of being caught in the act the police had to put great stock on eyewitness testimony. It would have been foolhardy of them to discount Hutch straight away. Of course, they would have investigated him, but after all, if he didn't go back to the lodging house till early morning who was there to prove him wrong? He probably knew that there were no sightings of Mary between 2 and 3 due to the inquest earlier and possibly no witnesses in the newspaper reports beforehand. The fact that the police grilled him, and his story cannot be shaken, to me suggest they themselves had it in their minds that his story might be a little too good to be true.

[Varqm]

Hutch had three days to rehearse his story over and over in his head [note the little details]. On another thread, it was mentioned on what evidence could the Police get to secure a conviction? Well, short of being caught in the act the police had to put great stock on eyewitness testimony. It would have been foolhardy of them to discount Hutch straight away. Of course, they would have investigated him, but after all, if he didn't go back to the lodging house till early morning who was there to prove him wrong? He probably knew that there were no sightings of Mary between 2 and 3 due to the inquest earlier and possibly no witnesses in the newspaper reports beforehand. The fact that the police grilled him, and his story cannot be shaken, to me suggest they themselves had it in their minds that his story might be a little too good to be true.

Did'nt Hutch said he saw a policeman in Commerical st,a lodger going inside one of the lodging houses and saw no one else?



--

[Darryl Kenyon]

Did'nt Hutch said he saw a policeman in Commerical st,a lodger going inside one of the lodging houses and saw no one else?
--

He did, of course, a lodger going into a lodging house in a street where there were numerous lodging houses would be hard to disprove. As probably seeing a policeman walking past the far end of Dorset Street. He only lived a few hundred yards further down the street and would probably know the police patrolled said street at night.

[Varqm]

You posted this earlier in the thread:

Daily News
United Kingdom
14 November 1888

When I left the corner of Miller's court the clock struck three o'clock. One policeman went by the Commercial street end of Dorset street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset street. I saw one man go into a lodging house in Dorset street, but no one else.

---


"On another thread, it was mentioned on what evidence could the Police get to secure a conviction? Well, short of being caught in the act the police had to put great stock on eyewitness testimony."

I agree.The police were desperate.But later on the dust settled so to speak.

---

[Wickerman]

There's nothing to be gained by Hutch mentioning a woman walking down Dorset street. Women out at that hour are often unfortunates anyway. There's no reason to mention her at all.

The more likely candidate to confirm Hutch's story is the constable he saw in Commercial street, though why that constable should remember Hutch is another question.
The reason the lodger & the constable are mentioned by Hutch is because they were male, and in his opinion not suspicious characters.