Stride Bruising

[Wickerman]

Well, Jon, I'm not sure quite what else you expect when you keep trying to goad me into arguments, like this for instance (post 431):

I seem to recall someone putting faith in the IPN (Nov. 24th) when they posted about the sketch of Hutchinson watching Astrachan.

You know full well that "someone" was me.

I deliberately avoided mentioning a name because I was not sure whether the article was mentioned by two people, who occasionally play with the same deck.

[Ben]

Ben follows me around like a shadow

Well, Jon, I'm not sure quite what else you expect when you keep trying to goad me into arguments, like this for instance (post 431):

I seem to recall someone putting faith in the IPN (Nov. 24th) when they posted about the sketch of Hutchinson watching Astrachan.

You know full well that "someone" was me.

So I'll take the bait and address this business about the Hutchinson sketch and the IPN (again!) before we return - immediately and without a fuss - to the topic of Stride's bruising.

The drawing of Astrakhan and Kelly was evidently based on reports of their appearances (as described by Hutchinson in the former's case), and the same might reasonably be said of the Hutchinson sketch. It doesn't matter in the slightest if the individual reporters or sketchers from the IPN didn't see any of the depicted individuals in the flesh. They were perfectly capable of working on the basis of descriptions supplied. It's obvious nonsense to suggest that only descriptions of people who attended the inquest can be considered accurate. The IPN sketch of Astrakhan evidently sought to be as accurate as possible with regard to Hutchinson's description of the Astrakhan man, and with Kelly too there was an obvious attempt to incorporate other eyewitness descriptions, such as Mary Cox's description of a shawl or pellerine. Logically, therefore, they would have done the same with Hutchinson himself, who was also depicted in the sketch, and it is surely no coincidence that it tallies very well indeed with the description provided by Sarah Lewis of a man; apparently not tall, stout, and wearing a wideawake.

Regards,
Ben

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Jon

Yet, either way, it might well be if it were typically lazy second-hand spacefiller reporting...in which I suspect a reporter working for a weekly rag just might have indulged...but at this distance, (as you suggest), who can tell?

Dave

[Wickerman]

An interesting observation Dave, lets compare reports.

Dark brown spots were on the anterior surface of the left chin. There was a deformity in the bones of the right leg, which was not straight, but bowed forwards.
Times, 4th Oct.

Dark brown spots on anterior surface of left shin, and slight ulceration scab in front of skin on right leg. There is a deformity in the lower fifth of the bones of the right leg, which are not straight, but bow forward; there is thickening above the left ankle.
Morning Advertiser, 4th Oct.

Is the context referring to her face, or her leg?

Nothing is ever so clear cut

[Cogidubnus]

Decomposition had commenced in the skin. Dark brown spots were on the anterior surface of the left chin.

The above is from the post-mortem as quoted in the 4th October edition of The Times...although the report subsequently records Bagster Phillips as saying there was no bruising of the scalp, could the reports of bruising to the left side of the face in the Illustrated Police News be perhaps derived from a misunderstanding of this part of the evidence?

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

If I say 'black', Ben will say 'white', when I say 'up', Ben will say 'down'.

I think there´s every chance that Ben may disagree with that, Jon ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

...well except Ben because you two can't agree on anything

We have what might be described as a 'black and white' relationship.

If I say 'black', Ben will say 'white', when I say 'up', Ben will say 'down'.

Ben follows me around like a shadow, though that is where any similarity ends. A shadow agrees with you in every way

[DRoy]

Jon,

Agreed. It takes a bit of research to determine what should be deemed truthful and what shouldn't be. Because it was printed doesn't necessarily make it so. I don't think too many would argue with you...well except Ben because you two can't agree on anything

Cheers
Droy

[Wickerman]

Sketches of persons from life which we might deem reliable are those of people present at the Inquest, where we know the reporters were also present.

Sketches which might be deemed unreliable are those done from written reports, like Hutchinson's description of Astrachan.

And, as no reporter was present when Hutchinson claimed to see him then any sketch of how Hutchinson appeared that night is entirely questionable.

Not at all in the same league as the first example.

[Garry Wroe]

I seem to recall someone putting faith in the IPN (Nov. 24th) when they posted about the sketch of Hutchinson watching Astrachan.

Correct, Jon. And there are very good grounds for so doing. But then I'm able to recognize the subtle distinction between sketches which were ordinarily reliable and outdated information that wasn't.

[Garry Wroe]

I don't think Garry meant they were completely out of the loop. They have provided us with some excellent drawings which means they weren't completely incapable of research a/o stories. If i'm interpreting Garry correctly then we can insinuate some of their work as legit but not all then it's not all wrong or bad. All depending on when they wrote and when they published could make a difference. I'm sure that could be said for most publications.

Forgive me if i'm wrong in that interpretation.

Your interpretation is correct, DRoy. Because the IPN was a weekly publication much of its 'current' information wasn't current by dint of the fact that it had been gathered in the immediate aftermath of a crime when misinformation was rife. In other respects, however, it is an excellent researching source since it covered case-related areas that were often ignored by the dailies, a factor which prompted me to use it extensively when writing my book.

[Wickerman]

Garry,

Yes but where would they have got their 'wrong' info from in the first place? I guess if the article was written immediately and no follow up or edits through the week it would make sense. Wouldn't give them much credibility though if they didn't make changes as new info came to light.

Cheers
DRoy

I should say in all fairness, the Coroner's summary was only after the IPN published about the bruises on her face. However, both comments I posted from Dr Phillips were in print on the 4th, the IPN published their outdated opinion 2 days later.
They seem to have followed the Star, and although Phillips had corrected the erroneous observations we see in the press, the IPN made no attempt to do so.

[DRoy]

Jon,

I don't think Garry meant they were completely out of the loop. They have provided us with some excellent drawings which means they weren't completely incapable of research a/o stories. If i'm interpreting Garry correctly then we can insinuate some of their work as legit but not all then it's not all wrong or bad. All depending on when they wrote and when they published could make a difference. I'm sure that could be said for most publications.

Forgive me if i'm wrong in that interpretation.

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

Agreed.


The IPN was a weekly publication, DRoy, meaning that its news was often a week out of date and thus inaccurate.

I seem to recall someone putting faith in the IPN (Nov. 24th) when they posted about the sketch of Hutchinson watching Astrachan.

[DRoy]

Garry,

Yes but where would they have got their 'wrong' info from in the first place? I guess if the article was written immediately and no follow up or edits through the week it would make sense. Wouldn't give them much credibility though if they didn't make changes as new info came to light.

Cheers
DRoy