Discrediting Hutchinson, does the Echo agree?

[Hunter]

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.

They didn't make more of Schwartz either. And his story was certainly one to jump on. In each case I suspect the lead detectives got a handle on the leaks to the press and the press moved on to something else.

[Abby Normal]

They didn't make more of Schwartz either. And his story was certainly one to jump on. In each case I suspect the lead detectives got a handle on the leaks to the press and the press moved on to something else.

Pretty much agree.
Plus with no new developments related to the sightings I imagine they move on to something else new pretty quickly. Kind of like today.

[Ben]

Hi GUT,

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!"

Then you obviously missed this one from the Graphic, 17th November:

“It is true that on this last occasion a man has given a very precise description of the supposed murderer. The very exactitude of his description, however, engenders a feeling of scepticism. The witness in question admits that at the time he saw him he did not suspect the person he watched of being the Whitechapel assassin; yet, at two o'clock in the morning, in badly-lighted thoroughfares, he observed more than most of us would observe in broad daylight, with ample time at our disposal. A man who in such a hasty survey notes such points as "a pair of dark 'spats,' with light buttons, over button boots," and "a red stone hanging from his watch-chain," must possess the eyes of a born detective”

...and this from Washington’s Evening Star, 14th November:

“Unless the story told by the man Hutchinson is made out of whole cloth-a question which it ought not to take a competent detective two hours to settle-there is now a shadow of hope of capturing the miscreant who has been committing so much butchery. But, in the meantime, it would be just as well to keep a sharp eye upon Hutchinson himself. He may be a convenient person to have about at a critical stage of the investigation which is soon to follow. The man popularly known as "Jack the Ripper" is full of devices, and it would not be surprising if it were found necessary later to put Hutchinson in his turn on the defensive.”

...and this from the Star, 15th November:

“Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson, who said that on Friday morning last he saw Kelly with a dark-complexioned, middle-aged, foreign-looking, bushy-eyebrowed gentleman, with the dark moustache turned up at the ends, who wore the soft felt hat, the long dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, the black necktie, with horseshoe pin, and the button boots, and displayed a massive gold watch-chain, with large seal and a red stone attached.”

In case the Star’s journalist was too subtle for some, the obvious intention behind the reeling off of the full description (again) was to illustrate its absurdity.

Hi Jon,

“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.”

It has nothing to do with “favourites” versus “non-favourites”. Hutchinson’s evidence came along later, that’s all. The police already knew that Mary Cox’s description of the blotchy character would appear in the papers the next day as details of the inquest emerged, and that it would therefore be superfluous for them to circulate her description. In the case of three-day-late Hutchinson, however, his no-show at the inquest ensured that his description would not be circulated in the press unless they put in there themselves (or if Hutchinson blabbed himself, which he subsequently did). That is why we see that “rather clinical description” (as you put it) appear in the morning papers on the 13th, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the police liking Hutchinson’s evidence more than Cox’s.

The only reason that description appeared there at all was because it was placed there at a time when the police trusted him. By the end of Tuesday 13th, however, “later investigations” had undermined Hutchinson’s credibility to the point where his account was being treated only with a “very reduced importance”. You seem to be arguing that this only occurred because the police suddenly realised (?) they ought to be investigating Blotchy too, having been so bedazzled by Astrakhan, but that's a long way from the actual reason, as sent down unambiguously in print.

“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.”

But why do you place any value at all in the Echo reports if you still insist that they were lying – for some inexplicable, unfathomable reason – about obtaining from “the authorities” the detail that Hutchinson’s late appearance and no-show at the inquest was the primary reason behind the “very reduced importance” attached to his account? This is what I mean about consistency. Either accept what they wrote or reject it, but don’t pretend they didn’t write what they are recorded in black and white as writing.

[Ben]

Cont...

If you remember, Jon, I’ve addressed each of those articles (post #12) already, but I’ll happily do so again.

The Daily News report was obviously in reference to Blotchy – “the man with whom Kelly was last seen”. They didn’t mean Astrakhan, who had by that time already been “considerably discounted". The Evening News was in reference to the Galloway encounter; Galloway was a member of the public who alerted a policeman to the presence of a blotchy-looking man on the streets. The policeman, however, was aware that the blotchy man in question was in fact working “in concert with the police”, and not wanting to blow this man’s cover, fobbed Galloway off with a false excuse for not apprehending him. Absolutely nothing to do with Hutchinson and Astrakhan man.

The Sheffield Independent, meanwhile, were working with outdated information. The 16th November was still early days as far as news of Hutchinson’s discrediting was concerned, and it shouldn’t be surprising that a few newspapers were ever so slightly behind the times, especially those based in the north of England, who were relying on press agencies, as opposed to personal visits to the Commercial Street police station, Echo-style.

You often quote that extract from the Echo, 19th November, but all it tells us is that "some" of the authorities continued to place “most reliance” on the Astrakhan description supplied by Hutchinson, evidently in spite of the fact that the statement had been “considerably discounted”. What isn’t specified is just who amongst the authorities towed this line, and more importantly, how much influence their beliefs had on the direction of the investigation. My strong suspicion would be not much, considering that none of the senior police officials, such as Abberline, Anderson and Swanson, placed "most reliance” upon Hutchinson's description. Quite the reverse, in fact.

What you absolutely won’t find is a single instance of the police actively looking for Astrakhan types on the basis of Hutchinson’s description, at least not after mid-November, and until you find one, I’m afraid my “interpretation” smashes right through that not-so-scary “brick wall”.

“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.”

No.

The reason they “came up with” – or, rather, were informed about by the police – was absolutely spot on. He was considerably discounted because he sat on his evidence and did not present his evidence “on oath”. What “evidence” are you talking about, anyway? And don’t say Bond’s time of death, which, as we’ve discovered, had absolutely nothing to do with Hutchinson’s discrediting, and which was not, apparently, treated as correct or even likely.

“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.”

They didn’t offer it as an “explanation”. They pointed out that if Hutchinson had presented his evidence as soon as he heard about the murder, he would have appeared at the inquest, where his evidence would have appeared “on oath”.

“No Ben, we are not talking about 'years later'.”

I am, thank you very much.

I include the events of “years later” (i.e. less than a decade) because they are relevant to the issue of which witnesses continued to be taken seriously as truthful and accurate. For instance, we know that Lawende was used subsequently in attempts to compare new suspects with the man he saw in Church Passage, whereas Hutchinson, who got a far better look than Lawende, was not. Does this become invalidated because the press didn’t feel obliged to report in January 1889 “Just a reminder, everybody – the police still think Lawende’s a good witness!”. No, of course it doesn’t.

If superior sources than the press assure us that various witnesses continued to be treated as truthful and accurate, we have no reason to dispute them. If Hutchinson is conspicuously absent from all press reports and all subsequent interviews, memoirs, and suspect ID attempts, that tells its own story. We have it on the authority of Robert Anderson that the only person to get a good view of the murderer was Jewish, and yet Hutchinson – who got a far better “view” of Astrakhan man than any of the Jewish witnesses did of their “suspects” – was not Jewish, and therefore cannot have been this “only person”. Like it or not, this accords remarkably well with the reported “discrediting” of Hutchinson back in 1888.

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

You reckon it’s “only me” who accepts the known and proven reality that police inevitably and invariably discuss case-related information with the press on occasion. Haha!

“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.”

I’m not trying to “debate the precise working”. I’m saying that the entire essence of the quote is likely a load of gnu poo, and that Abberline would have been idiotic in the extreme to think such a thing, let alone say it. Sounds like obvious invention to me, and even if it wasn’t, his inexplicable optimism that Isaacs was the ripper (???) would not have had any anything to do with silly Astrakhan man, whose attire and bling didn’t mesh up with Isaacs in the slightest.

Best if we don’t do Isaacs again here, unless you want your own thread derailed, which would be unfortunate.

“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, it doesn’t mean that at all, any more than an acknowledgement on my part that Liz Long and Hutchinson both mentioned a dark foreigner “means” I believe the latter told the truth.

All the best,
Ben

[GUT]

G'day Ben

Not one of those reports you posted addresses the way he was said to be dressed.

Then you obviously missed this one from the Graphic, 17th November:

“It is true that on this last occasion a man has given a very precise description of the supposed murderer. The very exactitude of his description, however, engenders a feeling of scepticism. The witness in question admits that at the time he saw him he did not suspect the person he watched of being the Whitechapel assassin; yet, at two o'clock in the morning, in badly-lighted thoroughfares, he observed more than most of us would observe in broad daylight, with ample time at our disposal. A man who in such a hasty survey notes such points as "a pair of dark 'spats,' with light buttons, over button boots," and "a red stone hanging from his watch-chain," must possess the eyes of a born detective”

Talks of his "eagle eye".

...and this from Washington’s Evening Star, 14th November:

“Unless the story told by the man Hutchinson is made out of whole cloth-a question which it ought not to take a competent detective two hours to settle-there is now a shadow of hope of capturing the miscreant who has been committing so much butchery. But, in the meantime, it would be just as well to keep a sharp eye upon Hutchinson himself. He may be a convenient person to have about at a critical stage of the investigation which is soon to follow. The man popularly known as "Jack the Ripper" is full of devices, and it would not be surprising if it were found necessary later to put Hutchinson in his turn on the defensive.”

Asks was Hutch the Ripper.

...and this from the Star, 15th November:

“Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson, who said that on Friday morning last he saw Kelly with a dark-complexioned, middle-aged, foreign-looking, bushy-eyebrowed gentleman, with the dark moustache turned up at the ends, who wore the soft felt hat, the long dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, the black necktie, with horseshoe pin, and the button boots, and displayed a massive gold watch-chain, with large seal and a red stone attached.”

In case the Star’s journalist was too subtle for some, the obvious intention behind the reeling off of the full description (again) was to illustrate its absurdity.

Or was t to question his powers of observation.

My point is not one of them says no one in the area would dress this way. The closest is your interpretation of the Star. Which as I say is open to another interpretation.

[Ben]

Hi GUT,

It would obviously have been superfluous for the papers to mention the unlikelihood of a man parading horseshoe tip pins and red stone seals into small-hours Whitechapel if the gist of their observation was that Hutchinson didn't even see those things. If I claimed I saw the ghost of Titanic's Captain Smith, you surely wouldn't protest on the grounds that he only mingles in nautical circles.

[GUT]

Hi GUT,

It would obviously have been superfluous for the papers to mention the unlikelihood of a man parading horseshoe tip pins and red stone seals into small-hours Whitechapel if the gist of their observation was that Hutchinson didn't even see those things. If I claimed I saw the ghost of Titanic's Captain Smith, you surely wouldn't protest on the grounds that he only mingles in nautical circles.

And Ben

what of all the other papers?

[Ben]

Most of them didn't venture an opinion either way, GUT. They simply reproduced the interview conducted by the Central News agency, although some, like the Echo and Daily Telegraph, specifically queried the late presentation of his evidence.

[GUT]

Most of them didn't venture an opinion either way, GUT. They simply reproduced the interview conducted by the Central News agency, although some, like the Echo and Daily Telegraph, specifically queried the late presentation of his evidence.

And that is exactly my point most, as you put it, don't say that description is BS a couple say he was too observant, or he came forward late but no one says such a person would never be in the area.

[Ben]

The fact that most papers are silent on the subject does not mean they all supported Hutchinson's description as accurate, and most weren't privy to the police's ultimate opinion of his statement to the extent that the Echo evidently were. I don't think anyone has suggested that "such a person would never be in the area", but on the other hand, a population without any experience of mutilating serial killers might well have made allowances for extremes (of dress, behaviour, skin pallor) that they would not have extended to the ordinary person.

[GUT]

The fact that most papers are silent on the subject does not mean they all supported Hutchinson's description as accurate, and most weren't privy to the police's ultimate opinion of his statement to the extent that the Echo evidently were. I don't think anyone has suggested that "such a person would never be in the area", but on the other hand, a population without any experience of mutilating serial killers might well have made allowances for extremes (of dress, behaviour, skin pallor) that they would not have extended to the ordinary person.

G'day Ben

I'll try and find some, I'm hopeless at searches' but can assure you I've seen it said many times that such a person would never be in the area. Usually it goes on to say something like "He would be mugged on sight." But neither Abberllne nor the newspapers seems to have taken this view. Yes his believability may have taken a hit but no one expresses doubts [and yes they may have had them without expressing them] that such a person, in that location and at that time is impossible.

[Ben]

Hi GUT,

It is extremely unlikely that anyone would wander those particular streets dressed in that fashion, at that hour of the morning, and depart them without receiving unwanted attention from local wrong-uns, and the idea of the real killer sauntering around so attired is even more absurd. Please note my observation from the last post: it is not unreasonable to surmise that the "extraordinary" was considered acceptable in the context of the real killer, i.e. a person who engages in some extreme activities might be "extreme" in other respects too.

Having said that, it is clear that the more vocal journalists DID express serious misgivings about the physical description provided; specifically, some of them doubted that Hutchinson even saw the items he claimed to have seen, which is a far more serious objection that the incongruity of real items with their environment (see my ghost analogy again).

[Wickerman]

It is extremely unlikely that anyone would wander those particular streets dressed in that fashion, at that hour of the morning,

No Ben.
It is simply, and clearly, your opinion, and only your opinion, nothing more.