Are the reports in the contempory newpapers sufficient to discredit Hutchinson?

[DVV]

In which case, Simon, they were stupid.
If you're right, the suspect would have been described in the press as 88 years old, one-eyed, with a Japanese face.

Amitiés,
David

[Simon Wood]

The police knew what was in the newspapers about GH because they put it there.

[DVV]

Not exactly, Tom.
We know the police knew what was in the papers.

Amitiés,
David

[Tom_Wescott]

I think we're missing the point here. Although it would be nice to know why Hutch was discredited, what really matters is that he was. We don't know what the police knew.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

Indeed, Norma,

...and still, some wonder why Hutch has been discredited...or worse, wonder if he has been at all...

Amitiés,
David

[Natalie Severn]

---you have refreshed my memory David! Quite right-the "search" became useless.
Cheers
Norma

[DVV]

I understood that the reason George Hutchinson"s statement was discredited was simply because the description he gave to the police at the police station became useless as soon as Hutchinson gave his interview to the press a few days later.

It's worse than that.
The search became useless.

Amitiés,
David

[Natalie Severn]

I understood that the reason George Hutchinson"s statement was discredited was simply because the description he gave to the police at the police station became useless as soon as Hutchinson gave his interview to the press a few days later.The police had only circulated it to police stations but when the press got hold of it it became useless to them as they believed ,if Hutchinson"s man was really the ripper he would have disguised his appearance on seeing himself "described".
Best

[DVV]

I mean the two suspects are too different for Schwartz and Hutch to be put within the same category.

BSM seems real. A rough and half drunk East-Ender...something like that.
Astrakhan Man comes from outer space.

Amitiés,
David

[Tom_Wescott]

What do you mean, DVV, each man claimed to have seen a suspicious man in the company of a Ripper victim (as they saw it). The odd man out is Lawende, who stated he wouldn't know him again. Yet, of these men, he's the one called 'the only one who saw the Ripper', and is the only one we've seen used as an identifying witness later on.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

I think it says something about what the police thought of Schwartz and Hutchinson that they put more faith in Lawende.

Tom Wescott

They obviously put more faith in Lawende, but I don't think the police considered Schwartz and Hutch as examples of the same category.
This can be the conclusion of a modern researcher (right or wrong, it's not the point), but perhaps not that of the 1888 investigation.

Amitiés,
David

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Simon!

A nice comparison indeed, thank you!

Just wondering, that what made the cloth precisely American?!

All the best
Jukka

[Tom_Wescott]

Monty,

I know Lawende saw the man's face. My post was poorly worded, I merely met like Long he wouldn't be able to identify him again. I think it says something about what the police thought of Schwartz and Hutchinson that they put more faith in Lawende.

Simon,

Good stuff. You've obviously put a lot of work into Hutch.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Simon,

Looks like the Foreign Office Press Department again... oh dear, what silly billy's.

Seriously, I agree.

Like I have always said, and said constantly, and no doubt will have it thrown back at me again in numerous different ways... Something is totally WRONG with this from start to finish. Sometimes the Press are bang on/can't trust the press/ The Times is best/The Times is wrong...
Has anyone seen the colour of the rat? Rattus Norvegicus, in Blue.
And the sting in the tail is that lovely, obviously "wrong" comment from the...

Evening Star [Washington DC], 14th November 1888—

Important Testimony of a Groom at the Inquest in London Yesterday.

"At the inquest on the last victim of the murderer yesterday George Hutchinson, a groom, who had known the victim for some years and saw her with a male companion shortly before 2 o'clock on the morning of the murder, testified that he saw a well-dressed man, with a Semitic cast of countenance, accost the woman . . ."

Nah, must be wrong....right? 'Cos we all know Hutch gave his evidence to the Police at 6 in the evening AFTER the inquest... STRAIGHT after the inquest..... wonderful timing... beautiful plumage... The Norvegicus Blue prefers kipping on its back.

Umm, anyone for disinformation?

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Here's Mister Astrakhan in all his various guises—



The Times, 13th November 1888—

The police yesterday evening received an important piece of information [see GH police statement, column 1].

This description [see column 2], which confirms that given by others of the person seen in company with the deceased on the morning she was killed, is much fuller in detail than that hitherto in the possession of the police.

The Times, 14th November 1888—

"The description of the murderer given by Hutchinson [see column 3] agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police and published yesterday morning [compare with column 2]."

Hutchinson's Tuesday description was being used as confirmation of the unattributed Monday description, making it sound like two witnesses had seen Mister Astrakhan, and the original Monday description had been "furnished by the police" who amongst other amendments removed the Jewish reference.

Meanwhile, the US press was reporting a completely different series of events.

Evening Star [Washington DC], 14th November 1888—

Important Testimony of a Groom at the Inquest in London Yesterday.

"At the inquest on the last victim of the murderer yesterday George Hutchinson, a groom, who had known the victim for some years and saw her with a male companion shortly before 2 o'clock on the morning of the murder, testified that he saw a well-dressed man, with a Semitic cast of countenance, accost the woman . . ."

Note the return of the originally removed Jewish reference.

. . . " The witness who testified yesterday to having seen the woman enter the house with a man with a blotched face was evidently mistaken as to the night, as his description of her companion is totally unlike that of Hutchinson's in every particular.

Decatur Daily Republican, 15th November 1888—

"The witness who testified Monday to having seen the woman enter the house with a man with a blotched face was evidently mistaken as to the night, as his description of her companion is totally unlike that of Hutchinson's in every particular.

"London, Nov. 14.
The police consider they are on the track of the Whitechapel murderer. Two witnesses at the inquest yesterday described the appearance of the man seen going into the house with the Kelly woman shortly before the killing, the descriptions being almost identical."

By now you should be smelling a giant rat.

Regards,

Simon