Mister Astrakhan's Moustache

[Ben]

Hey Fish,

Absolutely, Ben. But who fed that "reporter"?

The representative from the press agency would be my guess; the same journalistic source that fed some, if not all, of the newspapers that ran the Hutchinson story.

And what asserts us that he ever met Hutchinson? Nothing. Nothing at all

The fact that it was explicitly stated that Hutchinson made his statement to a reporter. If he was "apparently" of the labouring class, it was because his "appearance" suggested as much. This and the "military appearance" detail would be an understandable impression formed by the press having direct contact with him, but very unusual if the police passed on this random physical detail directly to the press.

...unless these embellishemnts were provided by our "reporter", that is.

I doubt very much that a member of a press agency would conjur up his own embellishments, especially if there was no question of the "scoop" being attributed to any one source (which, as you note, it apparently wasn't). The absence of any "scoop" factor simply dispensed with any logical motive for adding American cloth and red stone seals when there weren't any in the initial account. Other press versions of his account clearly weren't from the same press agency, which may explain why there differed markedly in detail from most other press versions, and why some of them have more of a "question and answer" type format.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Since identical versions of his account appeared from 14th November onwards, it is likely that the original source was a member of a press agency which circulated articles for publication, hence the absence of any one newspaper claiming the scoop."

Absolutely, Ben. But who fed that "reporter"? And what asserts us that he ever met Hutchinson? Nothing. Nothing at all.

"...it is clear that a Hutchinson must have communicated with more than one reporter"

I know a thing or two about reporters and newspapers, Ben - and that is a contention I don´t share with you.

"Which leaves us with Hutchinson creating the embellihsments themselves as false witnesses tend to do quite often, or the police being responsible. As I've mentioned, I can't rule out the possibility of the police churning out "dark" as an accidental substitute for "pale", but it isn't remotely plausible to have them sanction the printing of wholesale invention of several details, such a "red stone seal" and "American cloth".

...unless these embellishemnts were provided by our "reporter", that is. The "military appearance" may well have had it´s source in that manner, as far as I can see. And a thing that must be pondered very seriously here is why it seems that all these journalists, hungry for scoops, seem to have let Hutch feed them at will, instead of asking away. I will point you to the fact that nothing at all is said when i comes to describing Kelly - just as is the case in Hutch´s written statement, and that is beyond belief; not a single journalist wants to know anything about the victim of the whole affair?
I think that is a very important thing to keep in mind, since that is not the way journalists function - that is what is more often than not the result of a central source feeding the papers the same story, more or less, perhaps slightly altered versions to different papers, thereafter embellished on by the journalists themselves.

Fisherman

[Ben]

If the reporter that got the Hutch scoop was NOT from the Gazette - and I am willing to bet a fair amount he was´nt - then what paper DID he represent?

I don't know, Fish, but the salient point is that Hutchinson must have spoken to a reporter at some stage for the comment in the Pall Mall Gazzette to have made any sense. Since identical versions of his account appeared from 14th November onwards, it is likely that the original source was a member of a press agency which circulated articles for publication, hence the absence of any one newspaper claiming the scoop. However, since other newspapers reporting the account made claims that contrasted markedly with the others - perhaps most notably the claim to have heard signs of "merriment" from within - it is clear that a Hutchinson must have communicated with more than one reporter.

The embellishments that appear on 14th are most probably the result of elaboration on the part of Hutchinson. Despite some versions of his account originating from a press agency and others not, it's clear that several of these embellishments are common to all press versions of his account, so unless all journalists in question decided, independently, to invent the same obscure details, it's very difficult to apportion blame to them.

Which leaves us with Hutchinson creating the embellihsments themselves as false witnesses tend to do quite often, or the police being responsible. As I've mentioned, I can't rule out the possibility of the police churning out "dark" as an accidental substitute for "pale", but it isn't remotely plausible to have them sanction the printing of wholesale invention of several details, such a "red stone seal" and "American cloth".

I tell you Ben, this affair may well be even more fishy than many of us think...

Absolutely, Fisherman, but I know where I'd throw my 2p when it comes to the source of the whiff...

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Bne writes:

"It's possible that the statement wasn't taken by a representatve of the Pall Mall Gazzette, that's true, but that statement to the effect that Hutchinson gave a statement to a reporter is clearly indicative of knowledge that the account reached the press that way, and not from a police official. Your explanation as to how the account may have changed in key particulars may be viable for the reports that appeared on 13th (see Simon's black column), but they would hardly have sanctioned the rather extreme embellishments that appeared the next day; such as red stone seals, American cloth and all the rest of it."

One thing we must ask ourselves here is this: If the reporter that got the Hutch scoop was NOT from the Gazette - and I am willing to bet a fair amount he was´nt - then what paper DID he represent? Where is the original report, where a paper proudly takes credit for it´s succesful trophy-hunting? Where?

As long as we can´t find that source, my money is on the notion that there actually never WAS such an article. Instead it all seems to have originated within the police, just like Simon suggests.

The thing about the embellishments from the next day, Ben, is that they seem not necessarily to have come about by a reporter meeting Hutch either. To be honest, the more interesting thing in it all is that - just like you say - my explanation to at least parts of the differences in the descriptions is a viable one.

No Hutch in the censuses, no succeful journalist tracking him down, no description of him but the one that seemingly may have originated within the police, no follow-up interrogations of a very important witness, nobody coming forward to say they knew the man - not a single shred of evidence that George Hutchinson existed in the real world. I tell you Ben, this affair may well be even more fishy than many of us think...

Fisherman

[Ben]

It's not just a couple of minor details you want Hutch to have screwed up without the cops smelling a rat. They were his neck-saving suspect's essential physical features, as opposed to items of clothing that need never be worn again.

And?

Who ever claimed that a desire or an intention to create a realistic bacon-saving whopper was directly proportional to the ability of an individual to create one? The more detail you bombard a lie with, the greater the chance of that lie slipping up in several key areas. Unfortunately, in Hutchinson's case, those areas related to the man's physical features. For some bizzarre reason, you're trying to equate this to an indication that his statement is all the less suspicious for it. Good grief. It was a lie that goofed because it was too detailed, not that anyone has ever claimed that Hutchinson must have been a brilliant liar.

In your absolute anxiety to try to argue the opposite or whatever stance I hold, you're actually more prepared to believe that the police "knowingly furnishing the press with these radically altered features". For what possible reason?

Hi Fisherman,

It's possible that the statement wasn't taken by a representatve of the Pall Mall Gazzette, that's true, but that statement to the effect that Hutchinson gave a statement to a reporter is clearly indicative of knowledge that the account reached the press that way, and not from a police official. Your explanation as to how the account may have changed in key particulars may be viable for the reports that appeared on 13th (see Simon's black column), but they would hardly have sanctioned the rather extreme embellishments that appeared the next day; such as red stone seals, American cloth and all the rest of it.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

One more thing: Have you noticed the rather untidy state on the PDF of the lines where Hutch´s statement is written?
Where it says "complexion pale. dark eyes and eye lashes" we have no capital letter on the d in "dark". Moreover, the k in the same letter has not come out very well - in fact, it can be interpreted as if there was a dot after the word "dark".
What if the police misread it when giving the information to the police, thinking that the word "dark" was connected to the description of the complexion? If it seemed to say "pale dark", chances are that the one who read it to the press went for dark - "hugely small" means tiny, not gigantic, and "reddishly green" is a green colour, not a red on, essentially.
If you ask: -But would not that take away the word "dark" in "dark eyes and eye lashes"?, there is actually an other thing to take into account: After "eyes and eyelashes" there is another "dark" - but it has been crossed over! That means that an erring police could have read, from the start: Complexion ... dark. Eyes and eye lashes dark.

And it gets better: The crossed-over "dark" is positioned immediately before the wording "slight moustache. curled up each end.", meaning of course that it could have produced a "dark" to be coupled to EITHER the eyes and eyelashes OR the moustache.

I think Simon may well be on to something here - though I am not sure that a conscious misleading on behalf of the police is involved. To me it seems that it could all owe to a messy handwriting and understandable errors when informing the press. But it seems very plausible that the self same press never saw Hutch in the flesh, having melted these things.

The best, all!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi all!

What about this: In The Pall Mall Gazette, it says: "Last evening a man named George Hutchinson, a groom, who is now working as a labourer, made the following statement to a reporter..."

What I would like to know is why it does not say that he made the statement to "our" reporter instead. It would have been a scoop, and scoops are not displayed by anonymizing where the reporter that got it had his desk. "Our reporter", "our correspondant", "The Gazettes reporter" ... any of those choices would have been an understandable one - just writing "a" reporter is not. I think that casts at least some serious doubts on the question whether the Pall Mall Gazette´s reporter ever saw Hutch.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

That's just ridiculous, Ben. Where did I suggest that if someone gives polar opposite descriptions of the same man's face it means he's telling the truth?? (Suzi's "FFS" is rather appropriate at this point.)

It's not just a couple of minor details you want Hutch to have screwed up without the cops smelling a rat. They were his neck-saving suspect's essential physical features, as opposed to items of clothing that need never be worn again. From the cops' point of view, they were looking for a man whose murder attire may well have become unwearable, and that would have reduced Hutch to trying to find a man based on nothing but polar opposite facial details.

I can see why you are so opposed to the police knowingly furnishing the press with these radically altered features. But the cops were not such complete idiots that they would not have noticed Hutch doing so and realised that he had taken them round the district on a fool's errand.

Love,

Caz
X

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

It's good to know that it's not just me who smells a rat with George Hutchinson.

Here's the three descriptions we have of Mister Astrakhan [only two of which were in the public domain at the time]—



The Star, 15th November 1888

"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 . . . etc etc."

It's Israel Schwartz all over again, the common denominator being Abberline.

Regards,

Simon

[Ben]

If Hutch alone was responsible for ‘radically altering’ the complexion and moustache of the character who was only supposed to be there to get him out of the poo, what do you believe caused him to screw up this badly, this quickly?

An entirely normal and all-too-human inability to always remember every detail of an extended lie, Caz. It's really as simple as that. If he fabricated the entire description with all its Astrakhanian appendages, the very strong probability is that an invention on that scale was bound to slip up in one or more areas in the re-telling. That's just obvious, and the more complicated and detailed your initial lie, the far greater the chance of you slipping up in the re-telling. You've simply got more to remember. In his zeal to create a tangible false-lead, he went overboard and goofed.

I'm not sure what else we're supposed to read into it, but certainly not: Hmmm, he gave polar opposite descriptions of the man's moustache and complexion, and a liar wouldn't do that because liars always repeat their lies with exactitude...so somehow, in a weird and roundabout way, that means he's telling the truth!"

It's not remotely plausible that Hutchinson deliberately gave conflicting 'tache and complexion details, and by extension, not very logical to assume that his slip-ups occured because he was "unconcerned about maintaining his initial status as a trustworthy witness".

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

Hi All,

…George Hutchinson made his statement at Commercial Street police station on the evening of Monday 12th November.

Signed by four police officers (Abberline, Arnold, Ellisdon and Badham) and entered into the record as official evidence, Hutchinson’s statement reported that Mister Astrakhan had "a pale complexion and a slight moustache . . .”

But the following morning, Tuesday 13th November, in a report ‘furnished by the police’, the press reported:

“He (Mister Astrakhan) had a dark complexion and a dark moustache turned up at the ends . . .”

Did Hutchinson go out with the police until three in the morning looking for a man with a pale complexion and a slight moustache, or a man with a dark complexion and dark moustache turned up at the ends?

Big difference. Small wonder they didn’t find Mister Astrakhan…

Small wonder indeed.

…I think it's pretty certain that Hutchinson was interviewed by the press himself. His story might initially have been communicated directly from police to press - hence the "pale complexion/tache'" congruity - but it would seem that Hutchinson came into direct contact with the media very shortly afterwards, hence the "military appearance" observation, the red stone seals, the radically altering complexion and moustache…

So Ben, tell me. If Hutch alone was responsible for ‘radically altering’ the complexion and moustache of the character who was only supposed to be there to get him out of the poo, what do you believe caused him to screw up this badly, this quickly?

Did he forget that he was meant to have total recall?

Was he really so unconcerned about maintaining his initial status as a trustworthy witness, who had supplied the police with an impressive wealth of useful detail, that he effectively ‘helped’ them look for a man whose complexion was either pale or dark, and whose moustache was either slight or turned up at the ends?

Something ain’t making any sense here. And not for the first time.

Love,

Caz
X

[DVV]

Hi Ben,

GH wasn't allowed anywhere near the press. If he had been, why didn't the press ask him one direct question?

Also, the press didn't give any personal details over and above those supplied by the cops.

The Times, 13th November 1888 [GH—sight unseen]—

"A man, apparently of the labouring class, with a military appearance . . ."

Note "apparently".

The Times, 14th November 1888—

" . . . a labourer . . ."

The Star, 14th November 1888—

"a groom by trade, but now working as a labourer . . ."

Nice 'n' vague.

The press did not see George Hutchinson in the flesh.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,
the more I'm thinking about, the more I think you could be right.
At least, I'd like your point to be discussed again...

Amitiés,
David

[harry]

Note how quickly the press picked up on Schwartz,interviewing him that same day.I believe they would have been on to Hutchinson just as quickly,once his name was known.Maybe it was from them he received the five pounds?

[DVV]

Hi David,

GH did not talk to the press.

The police 'talked' to the press.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,
as far as I can make out, there was a first "wave" of info about Hutch - without naming him - on Monday night. The details given mostly agree with the police statement.
Then, on Tuesday, it really seems that Hutch has talked to some journalists, as some clues indicate, including the PMG. At least, there is a second wave.
If that came from the police, why did the complexion of the suspect change? And the moustache. And would have the police said "GH, a labourer of military appearance"? I doubt. This said, I agree there is very little details about Hutch in the newspapers... Why have we only the "military appearance"?
One possibility is that Hutch talked to the press in order to get rid of the police. Being the crucial witness and searching AM on the streets at night with policemen was certainly a heavy and boring task.


Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

"a groom by trade, but now working as a labourer . . ."

Nice 'n' vague.

I don't see that as vague at all, Simon - quite the contrary, it's pretty darned specific. The sort of thing that only the person in question - in this case, Hutchinson - would have come out with. Is it not natural that such detail should have come about through this sort of exchange:

Hack: What's your name, sir?
Hutch: George Hutchinson.
Hack: And what's your job?
Hutch: Who wants to know that?
Hack: Oh, nothing personal, sir. It just adds a bit of background. For my readers.
Hutch: I see. Well, I'm a groom by trade, but right now I work as a labourer.


...why should a police spokesman elaborate to that extent?