Mister Astrakhan's Moustache

[Simon Wood]

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.

The police's mishandling of GH’s story is baffling. Why should they blab such a potentially valuable piece of evidence before investigating it?

The press asked a similar question.

THE STAR 13th November 1888

“Why this statement has been made public at this particular juncture is one of those mysteries in the police management of the case which no one out[side?] of Scotland-yard can understand.”

After reporting Hutchinson’s revised statement, The Times (14-11-88) remarked:

“The description of the murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police and published yesterday morning.”

Of course it did. The two basic descriptions were word-for-word.

But, unbeknownst to The Times, "the description of the murderer" didn’t fully agree with that in GH’s original statement (of which we have a signed copy).

Who changed Mister Astrakhan's complexion and moustache from pale to dark? Why didn’t the police release Hutchinson’s original description?

Regards,

Simon.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Simon,

I spotted this discrepancy a couple of years ago, when I commented on Sugden's observation that the press and police versions differed in only a few details. I felt (and still do) that Sugden understates quite a significant point - namely, that the descriptions of the man's face are practically polar opposites!

True, the moustache and complexion are only two details amongst many, but the discrepancy between the two descriptions is huge.

My take on it is that Hutchinson slipped up and fell in his own bullsh*t.

[Ben]

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

[Simon Wood]

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

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Simon Wood]

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

[Ben]

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

[Simon Wood]

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

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,

Simes? Who he?

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

[Ben]

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

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Simon Wood]

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

[Ben]

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

[Simon Wood]

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

[DVV]

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