The Red Handkerchief...

[John G]

Hello Garry,

Just to correct my last post. Hutchinson's sighting was, of course, at 2am not 2.30am, as I earlier implied. However, Dr Bond believed the latest Kelly had been killed was 2am, and he was also of the opinion that she was probably asleep at the time she was attacked, implying that she entered her lodgings, with her killer, well before Hutchinson's sighting. If Anderson accepted that, and as noted in my earlier post he seemed to place great reliance on Dr Bond's opinions, then I would submit that alone would probably have been sufficient enough to rule Hutchinson out as a witness, at least in Anderson's mind. Plus Kosminski looked nothing like Astrakhan Man!

[John G]

Hello Garry,

I would agree that a reason for not utilizing Hutchinson as a witness would be that the serious suspects that were considered at the time, such as Saddler and Kosminkski, didn't remotely resemble Astrakhan man. In fact, they probably didn't resemble Blotchy either, which might explain the lack of evidence for Cox being subsequently utilized in the investigation.

Furthermore, I am firmly of the opinion that the police effectively decided to put all of their eggs in one basket by relying, possibly exclusively, on their prime witness Joseph Lawende. And the driving force seems to be proximity of sighting to time of death. I mean, how else can Anderson's comments, almost certainly in relation to Lawende, "I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer..." be explained? Thus, in addition to Hutchinson, Cox, Schwartz and Pc Smith all clearly had better sightings of a suspect.

And, in respect of Kelly, the authorities clearly had no firm evidence of the likely time of death. Maxwell, suggested she could have been alive as late as 8:30, and the medical evidence is extremely uncertain, with Dr Bond calculating that time of death could be anywhere between 2am and 8am. Okay, screams of "oh murder" were heard at around 4am, but such screams were commonplace in the neighbourhood. Moreover, this time doesn't remotely accord with Dr Bond's best guesstimate of time of death: between 1 and 2am.

In fact, it's with noting that Anderson placed great reliance on Bond's opinions: in respect of Rose Mylett, for instance, he asked Dr Bond to reconsider his opinion, that she was murdered, and he subsequently decided that her death was due to natural causes. This is despite the fact that four other doctors believed she'd been murdered and that was the conclusion of the coroner Wynne Baxter. Nonetheless, even in The Lighter Side of My Official Life (1910), Anderson was still expressing a firm view that Mylett's death was one of natural causes. And, of course, crucially, Dr Bond believed that the latest Kelly had been murdered was 2am, half an hour before Hutchinson's sighting.

[Garry Wroe]

I couldn't agree more. Quite often the 'solutions' to the evident problems with Hutchinson's account are so preposterous as to be vaguely amusing - but the real problem is of course that it does distract from the real issues, as you say. I also think that the rather obsessive attempts of a vocal minority to 'exonerate' Hutchinson are bound to discourage any new debate. Perhaps that's the intention.

Couldn't agree more, Sally.

[Garry Wroe]

But didn't the Echo update its report on the 19th by stating that some of the authorities were inclined to support Hutchinson's account over Cox's, suggesting opinions were divided?

For what it’s worth, John, I’ve long believed that the Echo had one or more inside police sources who sold case-related information and that the visit to Commercial Street Police Station occurred in an attempt to secure confirmation of information received from one such source. When looked at from this perspective it is possible to understand how the Echo stole a march on its rivals with respect to the Hutchinson ‘diminution’, and why it printed the more equivocal piece of the 19th. My feeling is that the ‘authorities’ cited in the piece were detectives engaged on the case. Whereas some had dismissed Hutchinson as a viable witness, others remained more open minded. We see similar differences of opinion when in later years ‘inside’ comments began to surface. Abberline was clearly of the opinion that Chapman was the Ripper. Macnaghten was convinced of Druitt’s guilt. Anderson opted for Kosminski. Others spoke of ‘a certain doctor’, and another thought it likely that the killer might have been found in the Victoria Home. On this basis, therefore, I think it more than plausible that a few of those engaged on the case were still not convinced that Hutchinson was a time-waster and that this uncertainty was reflected by the Echo in its piece of the 19th. The opinion that really counted, however, was that which prevailed amongst those leading the investigation, and the available evidence is overwhelmingly indicative that Hutchinson had been jettisoned, as indeed had Packer and Violenia before him.

I sense that the police were becoming increasingly frustrated at their lack of progress. Thus, on the face of it they had in Astrakhan Man the first highly detailed description of a suspect. However, despite their best efforts they were unable to find astrakhan or any other witnesses that recalled seeing Kelly in the company of such a man … The problem is, much the same could be said of Blotchy. And it's worth pointing out that Cox also quickly disappears from the enquiry, as does Schwartz for that matter, possibly as the result of a failure to find BS man.

The point here, John, is that after their initial contact with police, witnesses were only ever going to be of use once a viable suspect was in custody. Hence I do not share your view that Cox, Schwartz and others were cast aside. They would have been utilized with the emergence of any realistic suspect. The fact that some believe that Lawende alone was used during the Saddler affair is a misapprehension in my view. The likelier scenario is that the press never got wind of other attempted identifications. But of one thing you may be certain: investigators would never have neglected any witness who might have helped to identify and later convict Jack the Ripper.

I'm inclined to think that there was no proof that Hutchinson actually lied but that lack of progress simply meant that the investigation into Kelly's murder eventually just ground to a halt.

And that would be perfectly fine, John, were it not for Anderson’s contention (and Swanson’s tacit agreement) that the only witness who ever got a good view of the Ripper was Jewish, and that the person he saw was the wretched Kosminski. So the witness was not Hutchinson and the suspect was certainly not Astrakhan. Thus we may conclude that Hutchinson’s Astrakhan account had been rejected.

[Wickerman]

Doesn't this article perfectly illustrate that there were Whitechapel residents, apart from Astrakhan, who could afford some of the finer things in life, such as expensive gold watches? If so, perhaps Astrakhan's presence in Whitechapel wasn't quite so incongruous as it might first appear.

Hi John.
If you recall, Hutchinson did not see a watch, only a watch chain.

Joseph Isaacs used to wear an imitation gold watch chain, but only the chain. He couldn't afford a watch either - he used to steal them.

[Ben]

Hi John,

Doesn't this article perfectly illustrate that there were Whitechapel residents, apart from Astrakhan, who could afford some of the finer things in life, such as expensive gold watches?

No, not really.

"Afford" implies that M'Lachlin had paid for the watch himself, which may not have been the case. It might have been in the family for years, and he merely inherited it. Also, it is one thing to own an expensive watch, but quite another to parade it around the worst area in London in the small hours, and since there is no evidence that M'Lachlin himself did any such thing, he doesn't offer much of a comparison with the antics of Astrakhan man.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“Dr. Bond's estimated 'time-of-death' for Kelly, will have exactly the same effect.”

But it didn’t “have the same effect” because the police did not prioritise Bond’s estimated time of death to the exclusion of all other evidence that might have been at odds with it, such as the mutually supportive evidence of Prater and Lewis with regard to the cry of “murder”, which was heard much later than 1.00am. I never said anything about the Echo receiving “crucial information”. It is only “crucial” to those of us who obsess on a daily basis over the minutiae of anything and everything that might relate, however tangentially, to Hutchinson – you being by far the most extreme example at the moment. To the police and press of 1888, however, the dismissal of yet another time-waster was hardly a bombshell on the newsworthiness scale, and certainly not the sort of detail that necessitated elaborate subterfuge to conceal.

“If what you claim is true the Echo had no cause to consistently write this:
"Up to the present the police refuse the Press any information".”

They did not "consistently write" any such thing. You conveniently omit a date for that “up to present” quote, but I’ll bet you any money it originates from before 13th November, when the police most assuredly passed on some information. I've explained before; the fact that the police were generally reticent at providing the press with information does not permit us to conclude that they never provided any information to any journalist at any point.

“Had they been able to obtain quantifiable and reliable case related information what was stopping them from saying so in unrestricted detail?”

That’s obviously a very silly argument. So, according to you, the police were only capable of providing every single detail pertinent to the reporter’s enquiry or no information at all, and if the police supply a journalist with only some details, they must be lying about it? That is crazy-talk yet again, Jon. What’s wrong with the simple, logical explanation that the police informed the Echo of the “very reduced importance” they had lately attached to Hutchinson’s account, and provided a broad explanation for “considerably discounting” his story? Why does it have to be all or nothing? If the Echo pressed the police for more information, and the latter had responded with “Sod off, that’s all you’re getting, and you ought to count yourselves lucky that you’re getting anything at all” (which would have been a very good point), does it follow that the police were lying? You need to understand that neither the police nor the press can be blamed for failing to make allowances for your irrational scepticism 120 years later.

“The police have no cause to inform the press, so today, interested parties like yourself are left to guess what this explanation was, along with the press of the time.”

But the police do inform the press time and time again during the course of investigations of this nature, regardless of whether you think they had “cause” to or not. What’s this “dark light” you’re talking about? Abberline might well have obtained an “explanation” for Hutchinson’s delay (a completely unverifiable one at that stage, I hope you understand?), but the “later investigations” conducted by the authorities obviously cast doubt on that explanation to the extent that his failure to come forward earlier was a renewed problem.

“It might appear distinctive to you, or anyone today, but when you take into account how the poor did dress in those days, it is pretty common.”

So all poor people were 36 years old, 5’5” in height, with fully carroty moustaches and blotchy complexions, and because the police realised this, they completely abandoned the hunt for anyone who might fit that description? Please don’t ever, ever seek professional employment in an investigative capacity, Jon. Promise me.

“The police are not interested in proving a story false, they only care about it being verified as true.
If they can't, he will stay there until they do, or until he comes up with another version, but, Hutchinson isn't going anywhere.”

This is shockingly ludicrous nonsense.

Firstly, the very notion of keeping a witness in detention indefinitely until his/her is proven correct is utterly absurd and completely illegal. Can you imagine what a deterrent it would have created for any potential witness had that been the criminal policy? – “come forward with any information you might deem helpful by all means, but you must expect to become our prisoner until such time as we can verify your story”. And if that verification is not forthcoming, what happens? They are prisoners for life, presumably? Is that what happened to Packer and Violenia when their stories couldn’t be verified? Did they die in captivity?

“Check the papers, lots of suspects were held until their stories checked out - they were HELD, Ben, not sent away.”

Hutchinson was not a suspect in the minds of the police, just a witness, unless of course you want to repeat the “automatic suspect” nonsense again? Just let me know, and I’ll copy and paste my “bookmarked” objection yet again. I’m looking for an excuse.

“- The police were aware that Packer changed his story, not so with Hutchinson.”

YES so with Hutchinson.

If a polar opposite description doesn’t qualify as a “change”, I don’t know what does. Hutchinson’s initial statement described the man as having a “pale” complexion, and yet in the police-endorsed release of his description circulated in the press on the 13th, that complexion had changed to “dark”, which is the complete opposite. Unless the police were blind or oblivious, they would have been well aware that he “changed his story”. That’s just one example of a change – there are numerous others in press versions of his testimony. If you want these changes to have been the work of a lying Central News reporter (lying for what possible reason?), I’m afraid you no longer get to use these “embellishments” in support of your other highly controversial arguments. Gone is the Sunday policeman and the Petticoat Lane sighting because, according to you, these are press embellishments.

“Not only that, in your preferred Ripper source, the Star, we read that two suspects were arrested in connection with Schwartz's story.
Their statements could have implicated Schwartz or exonerated him, as the case maybe.
Apparently, the police had no cause to suspect him - though not due to guesswork.”

Huh?

The “two suspects (who) were arrested in connection with Schwartz’s story” obviously came to the attention of the police because they were suspected of being either “Broad-shoulders” or “Pipeman”, but turned out not to be. How on earth would this “implicate” or “exonerate” Schwartz himself? I’m quite sure the police never considered Schwartz in the capacity of a suspect, but it had nothing to do with him being “proven innocent” of the Stride murder.

“That is precisely what their separate accounts do, they alibi each other.”

No they don’t. That’s just silly. It’s like saying Bonnie “alibis” Clyde.

“But as for accurate case related inside information, no, they have no idea.”

Stop repeating yourself.

It’ll just lead to counter-repetition.

They most certainty had “accurate case related inside information”, even if it wasn’t detailed, and what’s more, every single high-profile investigation in history has involved the disclosure of “accurate case related inside information” from police to press. The idea that it never occurred in this particular case is horribly naïve.

“The IPN was of interest, like so many other reports through November, because the press can see the investigation in progress on the streets”

Wow, so no attempt at subtlety with that complete U-turn on your previously stated position. So the IPN was in possession of “accurate case related inside information” of the type that no other newspaper had, despite it not even professing to have used any police source, unlike the Echo who made direct inquiries at Commercial Street police station? I love the double-standards too – if the Astrak-hunt is no longer happening it’s “accurate case related inside information”, but if it’s ongoing, it isn’t. Lovely consistency there.

“Your "Commercial-street" reference is only with respect to the Echo learning what was already public knowledge, that both descriptions came from the same source”

Repetition again. Stop it. You’ll lose. It was not public “knowledge” that both descriptions came from the same source. It was an assumption that could only be confirmed by the police. And the Commercial Street visit was not “only” regarding this detail; they also extracted the information that Hutchinson’s account had been “considerably discounted” because it had not been made at the inquest and in the proper manner.

Best regards (but getting more than a bit cross now),

Ben

[John G]

This is an interesting article from The Times, 2 September, 1887: "At the Thames police- court , George Hutchinson, 33, respectably dressed....was charged on remand, with stealing a gold watch, value £5 , the property of Walter M'Lauchlin, of 49 , Wellclose- Square, Whitechapel."

Now disregarding the misleading reference to George Hutchison, this GH lived in Bow, what I find interesting is the reference to a Whitechapel resident owning an expensive gold watch. I mean, £5 would be the equivalent of £550 in today's money, and this was a time when a skilled occupation, such as a London bricklayer, payed around £2 a week.

Doesn't this article perfectly illustrate that there were Whitechapel residents, apart from Astrakhan, who could afford some of the finer things in life, such as expensive gold watches? If so, perhaps Astrakhan's presence in Whitechapel wasn't quite so incongruous as it might first appear.

[Sally]

The problem with the Hutchinson threads over the last few years is that they have been permeated by oddball ideas which not only distract from the real issues, they can also prove misleading to some of the newer posters. Anyway, keep up the good work. Common sense will prevail in the end.

Hi Garry,

I couldn't agree more. Quite often the 'solutions' to the evident problems with Hutchinson's account are so preposterous as to be vaguely amusing - but the real problem is of course that it does distract from the real issues, as you say. I also think that the rather obsessive attempts of a vocal minority to 'exonerate' Hutchinson are bound to discourage any new debate. Perhaps that's the intention.

[John G]

Which is precisely, John, why readers should do their own thinking rather than trusting to the opinions of authors. I began researching Hutchinson in the mid-1980s and have never seen the slightest evidence to support Mr Sugden's contention. Moreover, within days of Hutchinson's appearance at Commercial Street Police Station investigators were swooping on common lodging houses and casual wards in their search for the killer. Since Astrakhan was never going to be found at any such establishment we may safely conclude that it was Blotchy who was the focus of the manhunt rather than the man described by Hutchinson. Perhaps this sheds some light on what for me is Mr Sugden's curious interpretation of events. Maybe he'd concluded that Astrakhan had dressed down and was hiding in one of the local hell-holes. If so, he had clearly overlooked the reality that those with whom Astrakhan had long come into everyday contact would have recognized him from the newspaper descriptions of Kelly's alleged companion and provided police with his details.

It's about the chronology of events, John. Hutchinson was interviewed by journalists at the Victoria Home on the Tuesday evening - by which time the Echo had already printed its 'diminution' piece. Thus Hutchinson was clearly the focus of police scepticism twenty-four hours before his newspaper interview(s) saw the light of day.

Hello Gary,

But didn't the Echo update its report on the 19th by stating that some of the authorities were inclined to support Hutchinson's account over Cox's, suggesting opinions were divided? I sense that the police were becoming increasingly frustrated at their lack of progress. Thus, on the face of it they had in Astrakhan Man the first highly detailed description of a suspect. However, despite their best efforts they were unable to find astrakhan or any other witnesses that recalled seeing Kelly in the company of such a man.

The problem is, much the same could be said of Blotchy. And it's worth pointing out that Cox also quickly disappears from the enquiry, as does Schwartz for that matter, possibly as the result of a failure to find BS man. In fact, the police seemed to have no luck in finding any suspects seen by witnesses in the company of the victims. In respect of Stride, for instance, as well as BS man suspects seen in her company by Brown, Marshall and PC Smith were not found.

I'm inclined to think that there was no proof that Hutchinson actually lied but that lack of progress simply meant that the investigation into Kelly's murder eventually just ground to a halt.

[Wickerman]

Hello Ben.

A “brush-off” in the sense that the police did not divulge the full details to Echo, perhaps, but they at least imparted the crucial information that it was doubts surrounding Hutchinson’s credibility that lay at the heart of their decision to attach only a “very reduced importance” to his account.

It doesn't imply anything of the sort.
Dr. Bond's estimated 'time-of-death' for Kelly, will have exactly the same effect.
There is no evidence of the Echo receiving "crucial information", however, some medical men were not so reticent.

If your fantasy world were a reality, and the Met never divulged any case-related information to the police at any stage during the investigation, the police need only have slammed the door in the face of the Echo’s journalists, and yet that obviously didn’t happen.

If what you claim is true the Echo had no cause to consistently write this:
"Up to the present the police refuse the Press any information".


As it stands, all we read in the Echo are vague references. Had they been able to obtain quantifiable and reliable case related information what was stopping them from saying so in unrestricted detail?
What?
You want us to believe they knew something, while actually reporting nothing.
If they knew what the "later investigations" unearthed (assuming it is true), why are they not telling us?
Maybe, because they are guessing? - Yes.

... if a witness comes forward three days late and conveniently soon after the termination of the inquest, it begs a good explanation, ...

And we can be assured that Abberline obtained his explanation.
The police have no cause to inform the press, so today, interested parties like yourself are left to guess what this explanation was, along with the press of the time.
And naturally, you prefer to cast it in a dark light rather than giving the benefit of the doubt. Whatever explanation was given, Abberline was satisfied with what he heard.

Because 'you' do not know, 'you' are making it an issue, just like the press of the time. They didn't know either.
What cause do you have to believe that the police didn't know?

The police do not simply abandon their search for a suspect just because his appearance might fit many others. The man was described as being about 36 years old, 5ft 5ins tall with a fresh complexion and blotches on his face. He had small side-whiskers, a thick, carroty moustache and dressed in shabby dark clothes, dark overcoat and a black felt hat. That’s pretty detailed as far as non-discredited witness descriptions go – far more detailed than Lawende’s in the facial department.

It might appear distinctive to you, or anyone today, but when you take into account how the poor did dress in those days, it is pretty common.
Average height, middle-aged, "dark" clothing, black hat - take a look at photo's of the period.

I’m saying that they couldn’t PROVE IT FALSE, Jon. That’s all.

The police are not interested in proving a story false, they only care about it being verified as true.
If they can't, he will stay there until they do, or until he comes up with another version, but, Hutchinson isn't going anywhere.
Check the papers, lots of suspects were held until their stories checked out - they were HELD, Ben, not sent away.

This is the basic flaw in your theory.

In reality, of course, Hutchinson was no less discredited than Packer, and just like the greengrocer, Hutchinson’s story contained numerous contradictions and embellishments between his police and press statements. If anything, Packer fares just that bit better inasmuch as he was at least proven to have been where he said he was at the time, unlike Hutchinson.

Wow, such a lot of assumptions here.
- The police were aware that Packer changed his story, not so with Hutchinson.
- Hutchinson's story contains no contradictions, these are all your inventions. Sugden said much the same, you should read it sometime. In fact I showed you a line-by-line comparison, so I know you are being untruthful here.
- Any embellishments in the press version could easily be the reporters doing, like we suspect with Schwartz's press account.
- Where do we read that Hutchinson was not proven to be where he said he was?

Unless the police were able to rule out the possibility of Mrs. Schwartz being wrong in her estimation of the time, asleep, or covering up for her husband, she would have been a pretty poor alibi-provider for Schwartz.

Not only that, in your preferred Ripper source, the Star, we read that two suspects were arrested in connection with Schwartz's story.
Their statements could have implicated Schwartz or exonerated him, as the case maybe.
Apparently, the police had no cause to suspect him - though not due to guesswork.

I love the idea that Harris, Levy, and Lawende providing alibis for each other. I wonder if Fred West ever provided an “alibi” for Rose? (No, I’m not suggesting any of these men were involved. I’m highlighting the senselessness of arguing that they “alibi” each other).

That is precisely what their separate accounts do, they alibi each other.

It doesn’t matter if Violenia wasn’t the man seen by Long

That doesn't make any sense. I said nothing about Mrs Long seeing Violenia.

– it is quite clear that the police did not especially cling to Long’s man as a likely killer, or even accept that Long was correct in her estimation of the time.

It is clear, is it?
I'd be interested in what makes you think it is clear.

I will be revisiting this point every single time I catch you talking nonsense about Hutchinson becoming an “automatic suspect”. I just hope you’re as anxious to have duplicate arguments on multiple threads as I am.

That is precisely how he would be viewed in the real world, but apparently in your world he is just sent home as a naughty boy.

Because you were trying, without success, to demonstrate that the IPN was in possession of accurate police information regarding the imaginary ongoing search for the Astrakhan suspect. There is no evidence of any active pursuit of Astrakhan after mid-November. If you’re capable of demonstrating that actual investigation continued after that stage, that would be a start, but don’t even think about quoting from the 19th November Echo edition again, which merely tells us that some unnamed, unknown, and evidently uninfluential policemen still wondered if the real Jack the Ripper went around with a tightly grasped black parcel, dark eyelashes and a devilish horseshoe tie-pin.

Accurate?
The press only have indications, they know the direction of some investigations by following the detectives around, and questioning the witnesses after the detectives leave.
But as for accurate case related inside information, no, they have no idea.

The IPN was of interest, like so many other reports through November, because the press can see the investigation in progress on the streets. They know what line of inquiry is being followed, they talk to the people spoken to by the police.
This demonstrates how false your theory is, that the Hutchinson suspect was still being investigated - much to your chagrin.

They didn’t. They obtained their information “on inquiry at Commercial Street police station”, which I somehow doubt means they asked Abberline’s pet lizard.

You are confusing press reports now.
One report has the Echo using "the authorities" as their reference, which is the one we are talking about.
Your "Commercial-street" reference is only with respect to the Echo learning what was already public knowledge, that both descriptions came from the same source.
No great revelation there.

Considering you think the Echo had an inside source with police, they sadly lack anything close to accurate detailed information.

[Wickerman]

... In contrast, the less dramatic official police version of "I then went to the court to see if I could see them, but I could not", could mean that he didn't even enter the court, but merely waited on the fringes.

The pertinent word being "could".
In recent differences of opinion on Casebook it was like trying to pull teeth to get some people to admit that the police version "could" mean either scenario.
Yet the press version only has one interpretation.

That being the case it is false for some to claim that Hutchinson told police he didn't enter the court - his statement can be taken either way.

That is one reason why I would contend that the press version was more dramatic and may have been elaborated;...

The press interview with Schwartz is another example, ie; the "pipe" changed into a "knife".
It is in the press interest to spice it up, but that doesn't mean they did. Just that they "could" have.

..... if the Police believed that he was exaggerating his evidence, thus undermining his credibility as a witness.

That, I doubt.
What you are suggesting is that the police are going to believe everything they read in the press, without any doubt. This is totally untenable.

The police are not naive, they know press stories are a mixture of fact & fiction, so they wouldn't care less what he told the press, it's what he tells the police that matters.

The police did keep abreast of the news, we have statements to that effect. But if the police had any concern about what they read attributed to a witness, they will bring the witness in for a second interview.

I would suggest that what appeared initially to seem like a very promising lead probably just gradually fizzled out, just like Blotchy, resulting in both Hutchinson and Cox disappearing from the enquiry.

Yes.

[Wickerman]

Philip Sugden in his book, seemed to believe Hutcinson's story. This is an interesting quote, regarding Hutchinson's decision to go the press: "We cannot tell because the police records have almost all been lost. But the CID view at the time seems to have been that it blighted Abberline's efforts to trace the suspect alerting him to the hunt and perhaps encouraging him to change his appearance." (Sugden, 2002)

Hi John.

That quote by Sugden comes across as a little strange, it is as if he was not aware that the police were the first to issue a press release giving the description of the latest suspect.

So, why Sugden suggests that Hutchinson's press story may have caused the suspect to change his attire is a mystery.
All the mainstream papers carried the rather brief official release directly on the morning of the 13th.

This is from the Times:
" He was about 5 ft. 6 in. in height, and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache turned up at the ends. He was wearing a long, dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, a white collar with a black necktie, in which was affixed a horse-shoe pin. He wore a pair of dark gaiters with light buttons, over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain."

Each newspaper added a brief preamble of their own choosing to this description, but the content remained the same.

Just by way of comparison, this description below is taken directly from Hutchinson's statement:

"Description age about 34 or 35. height 5ft6 complexion pale, dark eyes and eye lashes slight moustache, curled up each end, and hair dark, very surley looking dress long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed astracan. And a dark jacket under. Light waistcoat dark trousers dark felt hat turned down in the middle. Button boots and gaiters with white buttons. Wore a very thick gold chain white linen collar. Black tie with horse shoe pin."

Scotland Yard appear to be the source as the above details were sent to A.S. (All Stations), likely distributed by Telegram, and to one of the Agencies, who sold it on to the press, who reworded it as they each saw fit.

Sugden's comment doesn't seem to fit what we know.

[Garry Wroe]

There is no evidence of any active pursuit of Astrakhan after mid-November. If you’re capable of demonstrating that actual investigation continued after that stage, that would be a start, but don’t even think about quoting from the 19th November Echo edition again ...

Echo?

... which merely tells us that some unnamed, unknown, and evidently uninfluential policemen still wondered if the real Jack the Ripper went around with a tightly grasped black parcel, dark eyelashes and a devilish horseshoe tie-pin.

Which couldn't have been the case owing to the (Jon) fact that the police never revealed case-related details to journalists. Especially those lying toe-rags at the Echo.

[Garry Wroe]

Philip Sugden in his book, seemed to believe Hutcinson's story. This is an interesting quote, regarding Hutchinson's decision to go the press: "We cannot tell because the police records have almost all been lost. But the CID view at the time seems to have been that it blighted Abberline's efforts to trace the suspect alerting him to the hunt and perhaps encouraging him to change his appearance." (Sugden, 2002)

Which is precisely, John, why readers should do their own thinking rather than trusting to the opinions of authors. I began researching Hutchinson in the mid-1980s and have never seen the slightest evidence to support Mr Sugden's contention. Moreover, within days of Hutchinson's appearance at Commercial Street Police Station investigators were swooping on common lodging houses and casual wards in their search for the killer. Since Astrakhan was never going to be found at any such establishment we may safely conclude that it was Blotchy who was the focus of the manhunt rather than the man described by Hutchinson. Perhaps this sheds some light on what for me is Mr Sugden's curious interpretation of events. Maybe he'd concluded that Astrakhan had dressed down and was hiding in one of the local hell-holes. If so, he had clearly overlooked the reality that those with whom Astrakhan had long come into everyday contact would have recognized him from the newspaper descriptions of Kelly's alleged companion and provided police with his details.

Could it therefore be possible that the police lost confidence in him because, by going to the press, they believed that he had undermined their efforts to find the suspect, and assumed that the alerted suspect would either of fled the locality or radically changed his appearance? This annoyance towards Hutchinson may have been compounded if they had specifically asked him not to go to the press.

It's about the chronology of events, John. Hutchinson was interviewed by journalists at the Victoria Home on the Tuesday evening - by which time the Echo had already printed its 'diminution' piece. Thus Hutchinson was clearly the focus of police scepticism twenty-four hours before his newspaper interview(s) saw the light of day.