Discrediting Hutchinson, does the Echo agree?

[Wickerman]

Two paragraphs taken from the Echo, of 13th Nov. have been suggested to offer the opinion that the Echo also viewed the story given by George Hutchinson as being 'discredited'.


The police are embarrassed with two definite descriptions of the man suspected of the murder. The second description induced some particularly-sanguine journalist to declare that it "not only establishes a clue to the perpetrator of the Dorset-street murder, but places the authorities in possession of an accurate and full description of a person who was seen in company with the murdered woman during the night on which she met her death." A man, apparently of the labouring class, but of a military appearance, who knew the deceased, last night lodged with the police a long and detailed statement of an incident which attracted his attention on the day in question. The following is a summary of the statement, and it may be said that, notwithstanding examination and re-examination by the police, the man's story could not be shaken, and so circumstantial and straightforward were his assertions that the police at first believed they had - to again quote the journalist - "at length been placed in possession of facts which would open up a new line of investigation, and probably enable them to track the criminal." The importance which they then attached to it has since suffered diminution. That will be seen by the result of more recent inquiries.


From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before? As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin. The most remarkable thing in regard to the latest statement is, that no one else can be found to say that a man of that description given was seen with the deceased, while, of course, there is the direct testimony of the witnesses at the inquest, that the person seen with the deceased at midnight was of quite a different appearance.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18881113.html

[Wickerman]

In the Echo of 13th Nov. the first line we read on the story submitted by the informer is:
“The police are embarrassed with two definite descriptions of the man suspected of the murder.”

“Two definite descriptions”, the paragraph is already offering the interpretation that the police have two equally viable descriptions to contend with. The Echo then provides the details of each very different description. The first being that given by the informer, the second that given at the inquest by Mary Anne Cox.

At the end of the first paragraph on the Whitechapel Murder, we read,” The importance which they then attached to it has since suffered diminution.”.
Nothing by way of official opinion is offered, just the perception by the press that some internal reservations had surfaced between the publication of the morning papers, and the later evening press.

The Echo then cautions the reader to bear in mind the evidence given by Mary Anne Cox, in describing her “shabby” suspect, and that, “The man was, it was at first presumed, the murderer.”
It is here explained that the City police do not think Cox's suspect is the man they have been looking for. However, the Metropolitan force, “...have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement.”
In this the Echo disagree, they believe the suspect described by the informer (Hutchinson) is more in keeping with the previous descriptions of the man wanted.

Finally, in what appears to be confirmation of the informer's story being deemed less important than was first thought, we read:
“From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder.”

What is meant by, “in the light of later investigation” is hard to say, because the next day (14th) the Echo explain that the police are still pursuing inquiries on the matter. We read:
“The police do not attach so much importance to this document as some of our contemporaries do; but they think it sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry.”.
Echo, 14th Nov.

This clarification then removes any suggestion that the police have dropped the Hutchinson inquiry altogether. In fact the continued interest is reflected in the press, by at least four newspapers, over the next five days.

Even the Echo, on 19th Nov. provide an update:
“The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; but so far they remain without any direct clue. Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache. Others are disposed to think that the shabby man with a blotchy face and a carrotty moustache described by the witness Mary Ann Cox, is more likely to be the murderer.”

The dual pursuit of two prominent suspects continued for at least four days after the Star claimed Hutchinson had already been dropped as a reliable witness.

What we have then is as good an example of proof as we are ever likely to obtain, via the Echo themselves, that the Star was totally wrong in claiming, on the 15th, that Hutchinson, or his story, was discredited and dismissed, for any reason.

[The Good Michael]

Jon,

I think your reasoning is sound. Perhaps the reporter from the Star took sides over a description and imposed his own opinion onto the greater story.
In fact, it looks as if this article is a rebuttal against the very idea of choosing one description over another at this juncture.

Mike

[GUT]

G'day Jon

Sounds like two newspapers having a fight over who's intelligence is the better.

One saying Hutch is discredited the other, that the police are still reliant on his evidence.

Of course there is also the possibility that the two police forces were at loggerheads over which description to accept.

[Ben]

Jon has obviously recognised, as we all have, that there just aren't enough Hutchinson discussions out there.

Nothing by way of official opinion is offered, just the perception by the press that some internal reservations had surfaced between the publication of the morning papers

How can you possibly say this when after you've quoted the Echo so clearly in your opening post?

"from latest inquiries (i.e from the Echo) it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation (i.e. by the police) - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder...Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?"

That is not a "press perception". It is the result of accurate information obtained "upon enquiry at Commercial Street police station". There was no need to "perceive" that which was directly accessible from the source. The following day, the same paper related the same information, specifically that Hutchinson's statement had been:

"...considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest in a more official manner"

You didn't include that snippet among your extensive Echo quotes, and it isn't difficult to see why - it's an unambiguous reason for the considerably discounted nature of Hutchinson's statement, and it is one you don't like; one that inevitably impacts on the credibility of Hutchinson himself; and one than agrees entirely with the Star's observation that the statement was "now discredited". The latter described it as a "worthless story" that led the police on a "false scent", as Packer's equally discredited claims had done before him. We can argue semantics forever (and I will if anyone tries it), but "considerably discounted" and "discredited" mean very much the same thing. If the latter seems more damning, is because it appeared a day later, after Hutchinson's press interview had been published in full, undermining his credibility further in the minds of the police.

The Star had absolutely no motive for falsely claiming that Hutchinson was discredited. They put Matthew Packer into the same category - were they lying, motivelessly, about him too? No, of course they weren't. It's just that nobody seems to want to un-discredit Packer, presumably because he doesn't describe a well-dressed, black bag-carrying man of the type favoured by precious few theorists.

There is irrefutably agreement here between the Star and Echo, both in terms of Hutchinson's discrediting/discounting and, more importantly, the reason behind it, i.e. Hutchinson's failure to present himself earlier, as opposed to "waiting" three days to come forward. Nothing to do Mary Cox's evidence of the time of death suggested by Dr. Bond.

In the absence of "proof" that Hutchinson was yet another time-waster, the police could hardly have dropped him altogether, and it was obviously incumbent on them to make it the "subject of careful inquiry". What we don't see - or rather what the 19th November article doesn't remotely demonstrate - is any evidence of Astrakhan types being actively pursued by the police after mid-November. If these "some" of the police still favoured Hutchinson, why don't we see the slightest scrap of evidence for a sustained Astrak-hunt? Answer: because they evidently belonged to an unifluential minority whose opinions didn't dictate the course of any actual investigation.

If they could prove him a liar, they would have described him as "conclusively eliminated", or words to that effect, and only then would they have dropped him "altogether". As it stands, however, "discredited", "very reduced importance" and "considerably discounted" are precisely the expressions we should expect to see when used in the context of statements that were strongly suspected of being bogus, in the absence of proof.

I'm happy at least that you've finally dispensed with the suggestion that the Echo made it all up,

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

You made the following claim on the other thread, but it's more applicable to this one:

The City with the agreement of the Echo, were inclined towards the 'respectably dressed' suspect.

What are you getting this from?

The Echo?

Let's see:

About ten minutes before the body of Catherine Eddowes was found in Mitre-square, a man about thirty years of age, of fair complexion, and with a fair moustache, was said to have been seen talking to her in the covered passage leading to the square. On the morning of the Hanbury-street murder a suspicious-looking man entered a public-house in the neighbourhood. He was of shabby genteel appearance, and had a sandy moustache. The first of these descriptions was given by two persons who were in the orange market, and closely observed the man. The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox.

The City Police were looking for the "rough and shabby" man described by Lawende, NOT a "respectably dressed" suspect, and yet you assert that the Echo were in "agreement" with the City police in the latter's utterly nonexistent "inclination" towards such a suspect. The Echo weren't "inclining" other way. They were simply reporting that Hutchinson's "considerably discounted" description contained elements that were present in earlier descriptions, such as Liz Long's of a supposedly dark, foreign-looking suspect. They also observed that the City police did not believe Lawende's man was the same as Cox's man, despite their being some similarities between the two.

There is certainly no evidence that the City police supported Hutchinson's description, which couldn't be more different to Lawende's.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Jon has obviously recognised, as we all have, that there just aren't enough Hutchinson discussions out there.

Simply, that this contribution needs to be addressed in isolation.
Certain claims have been forwarded using these quotes as evidence, but in isolation we can see the Echo does not say what it has been credited as saying.

How can you possibly say this when after you've quoted the Echo so clearly in your opening post?

I think, if you step back you will see you have confused two separate quotes.
My comment was attached to the first quote, not the second.
That the suggestion of 'diminution' was not supported by official opinion.

"from latest inquiries (i.e from the Echo) it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation (i.e. by the police) - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder...Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?"

Who are the authorities asking?
The authorities already know, they have already spoken to Hutchinson, and let him go. Ergo, the authorities are not asking anyone.
This is theatrics Ben, you know all about that.

If you are so convinced, what exactly have the Echo been told?
You must admit, if the police had told the Echo anything 'juicy', wouldn't they print it? Exclusives, and all that...
The Echo tell us nothing....why? - because they have nothing.
This is theatrics Ben, make the reader think you know more than you do.

The following day, the same paper related the same information, specifically that Hutchinson's statement had been:

"...considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest in a more official manner"

Right, but as I pointed out on another thread, the police already accepted the statement "as is", they took it down, they signed it off, it was forwarded to Scotland Yard.
The police had already decided it was good enough.

Which tells us the comment by the Echo (your quote) is the result of ignorance on their behalf.

You didn't include that snippet among your extensive Echo quotes, and it isn't difficult to see why

I'm relieved you do see why (being gratuotous here), because THAT quote is from the following day (14th).
My first post in this thread was devoted to the 13th.

We can argue semantics forever (and I will if anyone tries it), but "considerably discounted" and "discredited" mean very much the same thing.

It's not a case of semantics, the Echo make it abundantly clear, when the next day they wrote:
"...but they think it sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry.”.
Which the police would not do if they had dismissed Hutchinson altogether.
Therefore we know the Echo's "discounted", and the Star's, "discredited" do not mean the same.

If these "some" of the police still favoured Hutchinson, why don't we see the slightest scrap of evidence for a sustained Astrak-hunt? Answer: because they evidently belonged to an unifluential minority whose opinions didn't dictate the course of any actual investigation.

How many times is Cox mentioned, how long did they look for Blotchy?
How many other significant witnesses are mentioned, or their suspects?
What are you suggesting Ben, the police shut up shop and went home?
Maybe, just maybe, the lack of further coverage is more due to the editors of the press, than police activity.
After all, the police were still telling the press nothing.

The media moves on Ben, how much have you read about flight MH370 in the last few weeks?

The media did return to the subject when Isaacs was finally arrested, and Abberline made some comment:
"Keep this quiet; we have got the right man at last. This is a big thing.”

Obviously Abberline still had Hutchinson on his mind as far out as Dec. 6th.

[Wickerman]

You had the right quote Ben, but I think you misread it.

Let's see:

About ten minutes before the body of Catherine Eddowes was found in Mitre-square, a man about thirty years of age, of fair complexion, and with a fair moustache, was said to have been seen talking to her in the covered passage leading to the square. On the morning of the Hanbury-street murder a suspicious-looking man entered a public-house in the neighbourhood. He was of shabby genteel appearance, and had a sandy moustache. The first of these descriptions was given by two persons who were in the orange market, and closely observed the man. The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox.

The City Police were looking for the "rough and shabby" man described by Lawende, NOT a "respectably dressed" suspect,

Ben, you missed this bit, ahead of your quote:
"The Hanbury-street victim was seen in company with a dark foreign-looking man, and a similar description was given of a suspected individual at the time of the Buck's-row murder."

The Echo wrote:
The descriptions of the dark foreign-looking man mentioned in connection with the previous crimes are, however, as we say, in the description of the man seen with the victim on the morning of the 9th.

The Echo suggest Astrachan is more aligned with the "dark foreigner" from Hanbury St. A strange comment to make if the Echo is dismissing the source (Hutchinson), clearly, the Echo are believing that Astrachan existed.

Let me rephrase, just to clarify.
The Echo are suggesting that Astrachan, the 'dark foreigner' & the Orange Market suspects are all of he same respectable class.
This is the same class suspect that the City is looking for.
Not the same person, but the same class.



Next, to your quote.
"the first" of these descriptions is this:
About ten minutes before the body of Catherine Eddowes was found in Mitre-square, a man about thirty years of age, of fair complexion, and with a fair moustache, was said to have been seen talking to her in the covered passage leading to the square.

The "shabby genteel", is the second:
On the morning of the Hanbury-street murder a suspicious-looking man entered a public-house in the neighbourhood. He was of shabby genteel appearance, and had a sandy moustache.

The first of these descriptions was given by two persons who were in the orange market, and closely observed the man. The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox.

The City police are not looking for Cox's shabby suspect (low class), but the 'Orange Market' suspect.
The Orange Market & 'dark foreigner' are of the same class (respectable).

This is suggested here:
"The first care of the police on receiving this statement on Friday was to compare it with the descriptions given by various people and at various times of men supposed to have been seen in company of the murderer's previous victims. Unfortunately the accounts do not tally in a number of important particulars; in fact, they are very much more consistent with the description they afterwards received."

The description they "afterwards received", is that by Hutchinson. The sentence is saying that Hutchinson's description is more consistent with the Orange Market & 'dark foreigner' from Hanbury St.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“Simply, that this contribution needs to be addressed in isolation.”

It was addressed in isolation - and in great detail - on the “what the press knew…” thread, but please don’t think for one moment that I’m complaining. I enjoy Hutchinson discussions and welcome their proliferation. In isolation (and out of it, for that matter) “we find” that the Echo said precisely what it appears in print as saying, i.e. that Hutchinson’s statement was “considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest in a more official manner”.

“The authorities already know, they have already spoken to Hutchinson, and let him go. Ergo, the authorities are not asking anyone.”

They “interrogated” him the same night he entered the police station, at which point there was no means of verifying his claims - one of which could well have been an “excuse” for his three-day inertia in coming forward. Since the termination of that interview, it was reported that “investigations” were conducted, and it was undoubtedly as a result of these that his “coming forward late” excuse was undermined or invalidated. It’s not “theatrics” at all, but simple investigative progress. I’m not suggesting that either the police or the Echo were in possession of anything “juicy” with which to discard Hutchinson. All the former needed to impart was that Hutchinson’s late appearance injured the credibility of his account, and that a “very reduced importance” was now attached to it. Even if the Echo wanted to get curious and ask why that wasn’t a problem at the time of the interrogation, they would have been told that these “later investigations” had made it a problem.

“Right, but as I pointed out on another thread, the police already accepted the statement "as is", they took it down, they signed it off, it was forwarded to Scotland Yard.
The police had already decided it was good enough.”

Again, it was just an “opinion” ventured shortly after meeting the man, before it was possible to verify the vast majority of his claims, whereas the Echo were reporting on the result of those subsequent attempts at verification, i.e. by the end of the following day, when it WAS possible.

“It's not a case of semantics, the Echo make it abundantly clear, when the next day they wrote:
"...but they think it sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry.”.
Which the police would not do if they had dismissed Hutchinson altogether.”

Exactly. They could only “dismiss Hutchinson altogether” if they could prove beyond doubt that he was lying, but they had no such proof. They only have suspicions, as they had with Packer and Violenia before them, and both of those accounts were made the “subject of careful inquiry” after their originators were suspected of being attention-seekers and time-wasters.

“How many other significant witnesses are mentioned, or their suspects?”

Oh, plenty.

We don’t have to rely on the press for them either, as several of them are mentioned (albeit not always by name) in later years by senior police officials as having been truthful witnesses whose evidence they relied upon, and Hutchinson is a conspicuous absentee from all of them.

“After all, the police were still telling the press nothing.”

Nope, that’s still not remotely the case.

“The media did return to the subject when Isaacs was finally arrested, and Abberline made some comment:
"Keep this quiet; we have got the right man at last. This is a big thing.”

Obviously Abberline still had Hutchinson on his mind as far out as Dec. 6th.”

Err…no.

Firstly, that quote is probably a load of nonsense (unless Abberline was a complete bell-end, which I don’t accept), and secondly, even in the absurdly unlikely event that the quote is accurate, there is not a squeak of a suggestion that Hutchinson or Astrakhan had anything to do with it.

“The Echo suggest Astrachan is more aligned with the "dark foreigner" from Hanbury St. A strange comment to make if the Echo is dismissing the source (Hutchinson), clearly, the Echo are believing that Astrachan existed.”

There is no evidence that the Echo “believed” any such thing, and nor do we see any of the any of the Echo’s journalists expressing their own opinions on the Hutchinson affair. They are neither dismissing nor endorsing him – they are simply reporting the findings and opinions of the authorities, with whom they were in communication. All they were saying was that earlier witnesses from earlier murders (only one, in actual fact) described a dark foreigner, just like Hutchinson. I accept this too – does that mean I believe “Astrakhan existed”?

“The Echo are suggesting that Astrachan, the 'dark foreigner' & the Orange Market suspects are all of he same respectable class.
This is the same class suspect that the City is looking for.”

No!

Most emphatically not, Jon.

I cannot fathom how you can have misconstrued this so badly. Firstly, there is no “Orange Market suspect”, let alone a high-class respectable one. They were simply confusing the details of the Lawende sighting, which was the only “suspect” sighting to emerge from the Eddowes murder investigation (not including his two companions). It is quite clear from the description provided that it was the pepper-and-salt, sailor-like suspect being described – “a man about thirty years of age, of fair complexion, and with a fair moustache, was said to have been seen talking to her in the covered passage leading to the square”. This is the man the City police were interested in tracing – a “rough and shabby” individual, certainly not from a respectable class, and certainly not a dark-complexioned foreigner.

Even the Liz Long suspect wasn’t “respectable” or from a higher class. His clothes were described as “shabby genteel”, and if you think that means from a higher class, you might need to familiarse yourself with the description of the man who entered Fiddymont’s pub, who was also described as “shabby genteel”. Absolutely nowhere is it suggested that the City police sought this man, less still considered him identical with Lawende’s man, a non-existent man from the Orange Market, or Astrakhan.

Here's what the Echo were actually saying:

- Hutchinson mentioned a foreigner, as other witnesses had done previously with their "suspects".

- Cox's description differs from others, but there are noteworthy similarities between hers, Fiddymont's and Lawende's (which there are).

- The City police sought Lawende's man (ignoring the "Orange Market" confusion), but did not believe he was identical with Cox's man.

That's all.

Best regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Jon,

I think your reasoning is sound. Perhaps the reporter from the Star took sides over a description and imposed his own opinion onto the greater story.
In fact, it looks as if this article is a rebuttal against the very idea of choosing one description over another at this juncture.

Mike

G'day Jon

One saying Hutch is discredited the other, that the police are still reliant on his evidence.

Hi Mike, Gut.

Yes, you both make good points.

What is missing of course from the Echo, being an evening paper, is the apparent importance of the new suspect provided by the informer (Hutchinson).
The Echo makes a comparison between the Cox suspect, and the informer's suspect, and suggests they are of equal importance. This may be so by the afternoon, but in the morning press the informer takes the spotlight, Cox is brushed aside.

On Monday evening, after the conclusion of the Inquiry, Cox's suspect was the main focus. By Tuesday morning this had all changed.

The Daily Telegraph, 13th, wrote:
"It is stated that the police attach weight to her description, and will circulate it in the usual manner."
Blotchy never received this high profile, the police appear to have replaced Blotchy with Astrachan.

A press agency circulated what appears to be an official police release.

A circumstantial statement was made last night by a labouring man who knew the deceased, which was very minute in its particulars regarding a man seen in company with the woman Kelly early on the morning of the 9th inst. According to this description the individual in question was of respectable appearance, about 5ft 6in in height, and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache curled up at the ends. He wore a long dark coat trimmed with astrachan, a white collar with black necktie, in which was affixed a horse-shoe pin, and he had on a pair of dark gaiters with light buttons over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain.

This rather clinical description was picked up and published by nine dailies on the 13th.
No comparative description was offered of the Cox suspect on Tuesday, yet Monday night this had been the favorite.
So yes, it is easy to see how any journalist with one eye permanently glued on the Met. for the next clue might be bewildered by this apparent shift of priorities.

Now, Tuesday morning, they have a new suspect in the limelight, but by the afternoon, if the press read it right, this new suspect was no longer alone at the top.
By Tuesday evening the police had decided to pursue a dual enquiry. They entertained two prominent suspects. A selection of reports over the next few days, at least up to the 19th, where our present sources end, bear this out.

So briefly, on Monday evening after the inquest Blotchy was the main suspect. Tuesday morning the police & press have a new 'surprise' suspect, then by the afternoon, both suspects shared equal prominence.

Any journalist who views this murder inquiry as a horse race might well ask if this new surprise front-runner, so sudden to hit the spotlight, might have stumbled on the home straight for some unknown reason.

What we have learned from looking at the Echo of the 13th, is that the paper does not promote the idea that Hutchinson was dismissed, quite the opposite.

[GUT]

G'day Jon

One thing stands out to me in all the reports in the press about Hutch's description.

Not one, that I've read, says anything like ...

"An astrachan trimmed coat and gold horseshoe tiepin in Dorset Street ... as if!"

Yet 125 years later that is exactly what some people come out with, I suspect that the papers would have jumped on it if it was so unlikely for a person to be in the area dressed in such a fashion.

[Wickerman]

They “interrogated” him the same night he entered the police station, at which point there was no means of verifying his claims - one of which could well have been an “excuse” for his three-day inertia in coming forward.

Yes, Ben, I get your point.
They at first accepted his story, but sometime on Tuesday/Wednesday?, they found out that he had not been altogether truthful, or whatever.

This would be fine if it were not for the fact we have at least four different newspapers all telling the same story, that for several days after the 'interrogation' (of the 12th), the police were still pursuing his story.

Yesterday the police were busily occupied in endeavouring to obtain a clue to the identity and movements of the man with whom the woman Kelly was last seen, and a detailed description of whom has been published.
Daily News, 15 Nov.

I then informed the constable of what I had seen, and pointed out the man's extraordinary resemblance to the individual described by Cox. The constable declined to arrest the man, saying that he was looking for a man of a very different appearance.
Evening News, 16 Nov.

"The police are now to a great extent concentrating their efforts upon an endeavour to find a man so vividly described by George Hutchinson.."
Sheffield Independent, 16 Nov.

The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; but so far they remain without any direct clue. Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache. Others are disposed to think that the shabby man with a blotchy face and a carrotty moustache described by the witness Mary Ann Cox, is more likely to be the murderer.
Echo, 19 Nov.

We can buy one mistake, with respect to one claim by one newsaper (Star & Weekly News come to mind), but four distinctly different newspapers all telling very different stories (ie; not a single press agency release), all cannot be brushed aside as mistaken.
Your interpretation runs flat into a brick wall, everything we read after the 13th supports the view that Hutchinson's story had not suffered any setback due to the police discovering him being untruthful.
The real reason (IMO) had nothing to do with Hutchinson.

What is left to explain this apparent setback is that the police had been given conflicting evidence completely unrelated to Hutchinson or his story.
This evidence was not released to the press which is why they had to speculate as to what the reason might be.
And the reason they came up with, was wrong.

Quite simply, if his statement "had" to be sworn to, then it wouldn't have been released in the first place. The fact it did not require being sworn to, as with all police statements, just shows how wrong the Echo was to offer that as an explanation.

Oh, plenty.

We don’t have to rely on the press for them either, as several of them are mentioned (albeit not always by name) in later years by senior police officials as having been truthful witnesses whose evidence they relied upon, and Hutchinson is a conspicuous absentee from all of them.

No Ben, we are not talking about 'years later'.
Let me be specific, how many other suspects were mentioned in the press from Nov. 9th up to the end of the year?
The answer, as you are well aware, is the same.
Once the press lost interest, we read no more about Schwartz suspect, Lawende's suspect, Mrs Long's suspect, PC Smith's suspect, Mrs Cox's suspect, all of them, gone from the public eye.
Hutchinson's suspect fared no better.
Evidently then, the lack of any mention of him is no indication he was not believed.
Unless you want us to believe that all the witnesses named above were equally discredited?

Nope, that’s still not remotely the case.

According to "only you". Happily we have the entire press opinion which clearly state otherwise.

Firstly, that quote is probably a load of nonsense (unless Abberline was a complete bell-end, which I don’t accept), and secondly, even in the absurdly unlikely event that the quote is accurate, there is not a squeak of a suggestion that Hutchinson or Astrakhan had anything to do with it.

We do not need to debate the precise wording. It is suffice to see that on Dec 6th the press within earshot heard Abberline voice his opinion that Isaacs was the man they had been searching for since he was so clearly described by Hutchinson.

All they were saying was that earlier witnesses from earlier murders (only one, in actual fact) described a dark foreigner, just like Hutchinson. I accept this too – does that mean I believe “Astrakhan existed”?

It means, like the rest of the publication, that the Echo do not believe Astrachan is an invention, nor that the witness who described him was a fraud.

No!

Most emphatically not, Jon.

I cannot fathom how you can have misconstrued this so badly. Firstly, there is no “Orange Market suspect”, let alone a high-class respectable one.

Yes, I think we can both get around that small mistake.
Take the paragraph apart line by line if you like.
Eventually you will see it.

[Wickerman]

G'day Jon

One thing stands out to me in all the reports in the press about Hutch's description.

Not one, that I've read, says anything like ...

"An astrachan trimmed coat and gold horseshoe tiepin in Dorset Street ... as if!"

Yet 125 years later that is exactly what some people come out with, I suspect that the papers would have jumped on it if it was so unlikely for a person to be in the area dressed in such a fashion.

Correct, no journalist, not even Abberline, who was well aware of the night life in Whitechapel.
Some lesser informed modern day enthusiasts have tried very hard to sell that view.

[Sam Flynn]

Evaporated Milk

Yet 125 years later that is exactly what some people come out with, I suspect that the papers would have jumped on it if it was so unlikely for a person to be in the area dressed in such a fashion.

What is remarkable is that the papers didn't make more of Hutchinson's story - they were, after all, "jumping on" all kinds of stories, in their efforts to sell more copy. Yet, despite its evident "milking-potential", coverage of Hutchinson's story seems to have evaporated almost as soon as it appeared. Why should this have been the case? Surely not because it was so unlikely that even the tabloids demurred from keeping it alive.

[GUT]

G'day Sam

I don't, here, argue that Hutch was not reduced in value simply that to say that someone dressed as Ash man is reported to have been is not as far fetched as some try to assert.