Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mister Astrakhan's Moustache

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ben
    replied
    The press did not see George Hutchinson in the flesh.
    Sure they did, Simon.

    The Pall Mall Gazzette specifically mentioned that Hutchinson had imparted his account to a "reporter". I'm not sure why a paucity of personal detail should be construed as an indication that he did not speak to the press. 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.

    If he had been, why didn't the press ask him one direct question?
    They would have done, simply by incorporating his answers into the body of the account rather than reprinting the interview as a "question and answer" session.

    Best,

    Ben

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi David,

    GH did not talk to the press.

    The police 'talked' to the press.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • DVV
    replied
    Hi all,
    some questions here. In some newspapers, the name of "Hutchinson" wasn't doesn't appear - for security reasons, ias it says.
    So how did the police react when Hutch talked to the press?
    Is it possible that Hutchinson was an alias suggested by the police? Is there any press reports saying that Hutch was living in the VH? I don't think so, but I may be wrong. Usually, the witnesses' adresses were given, no?

    Amitiés, David

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    Hi Simon,

    Why are you so vehemently in denial to police complicity regarding GH?
    I'm not. I just feel there's a much simpler explanation in this case. While I cannot completely rule out the possibility of the police deliberately altering Hutchinson's original account and somehow managing to keep the press away from him (rendering GH a rarity in contrast to all other witnesses), I consider it more likely that a bogus witness gave conflicting accounts to police and press.

    Best wishes,
    Ben

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Ben,

    Why are you so certain that the cops wore white hats?

    Why are you so vehemently in denial to police complicity regarding GH?

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    It's called 'making fantasy fill the facts'.

    Why are you 'pretty certain that Hutchinson was interviewed by the press himself'?
    To be fair, I think Ben's explained why, Simon - in that the press reports give additional detail over and above what Hutchinson's police statement contained, and furthermore they describe the appearance of Hutchinson himself. This is as good an indicator as any that Hutchinson was personally interviewed by at least one member of the press.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    Hi Simon,

    Why are you 'pretty certain that Hutchinson was interviewed by the press himself'?
    For reasons outlined above, plus the fact that at least one newspaper specifically mentioned that Hutchinson had communicated with a reporter. The alternative explanation would have the police deliberately changing the particulars of Hutchinson's description, which is very difficult to swallow.

    Best regards,
    Ben

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Sam,

    Simes? Who he?
    ...I've always used "Simes" as an abbreviation for Simon, Simes - er, Simon. Sorry

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Ben,

    You're starting to exhibit all the symptoms of someone wanting to believe the Authorized Version of JtR.

    It's called 'making fantasy fill the facts'.

    Why are you 'pretty certain that Hutchinson was interviewed by the press himself'?

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    Hi Simon,

    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. Even the Pall Mall Gazzette of 14th November stated that Hutchinson himself had provided the account to a reporter.

    According to a missive from Warren (I believe) it wasn't unusual for press representatives to hover outside police stations and pounce on anyone who emerged in the hope of securing an early scoop on the latest details, so an early communication between Hutch and press wouldn't be very surprising.

    Best regards,
    Ben

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Sam,

    Simes? Who he?

    GH wasn't interviewed by the press. His story was delivered to the press via a police communique [vide Albert Pigott].

    The press would have torn GH to shreds.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Sam,

    I doubt that GH slipped on his own BS.

    His original story was telegraphed, sub-edited, hot-lead typeset and on the presses within a few hours of his arrival at Commercial Street nick.
    But had he read those particular papers before being interviewed by the press himself, Simes? I have my doubts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Sam,

    I doubt that GH slipped on his own BS.

    His original story was telegraphed, sub-edited, hot-lead typeset and on the presses within a few hours of his arrival at Commercial Street nick.

    Unless GH had unusual press contacts/a publicity agent/media manager etc., only one organization could have substantially altered his original statement.

    And that organization was the police.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    Agreed, Gareth.

    Interestingly, a few very early press offerings of his account gave the "pale complexion, pale 'tache" original version, suggesting that they obtained their information directly from the police. I think the "dark complexion, dark 'tache" version crept in as soon as Hutchinson himself was in direct communication with the press. One clue can be gleaned from the fact that the "dark" version often came with a reference to Hutchinson's "military appearance". The press could only have known this from meeting him directly.

    Best regards,
    Ben
    Last edited by Ben; 11-07-2008, 07:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X