Would we have known?

[Wickerman]

...The Echo stated that Hutchinson’s account was “considerably discounted” because of the late arrival of his evidence.

I think this comment just highlited the crux of your problem.
You do not understand what 'discounted' means.

As the police had already accepted his explanation which they choose to prudently keep quiet about, then they already knew the reason for his 'delay', before they released the description.

Therefore there is no reason to 'reject' his statement after the fact, which you appear to think is what 'discounted' means.

However, 'discounted' simply means 'of reduced importance' than if the statament had been given at the inquest (which is a fact even today) - this they already knew, so absolutely cannot be a retroactive reason - that argument makes no sense at all.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

You do not understand what 'discounted' means.

Yes, I do.

Here, look:

a. To leave out of account as being untrustworthy or exaggerated; disregard: discount a rumor.
b. To underestimate the significance or effectiveness of; minimize: took care not to discount his wife's accomplishments.
c. To regard with doubt or disbelief.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/discount

This is what "discount" means, and the above definition should serve as further reinforcement - not that it was needed - that Hutchinson was discredited because of doubts about his credibility.

As the police had already accepted his explanation which they choose to prudently keep quiet about, then they already knew the reason for his 'delay', before they released the description.

The police did not "already know" why Hutchinson came forward so late, let alone accepted it. The absence of a satisfactory explanation in this regard was one of the reasons that Hutchinson's statement was discounted, and we know that this information came straight from the Commercial Street police station, which is more than can be said for the nonsense that appeared in the Morning Advertiser, who also claimed it had been "conclusively proved" that Kelly spent a large part of Friday evening in the Britannia pub.

I accept that Abberline sent a report of a approval on the 12th in spite of knowing that it arrived post-inquest and considerably post-murder, but it is very clear that over the following days, the “authorities” came to discount the testimony, and his late appearance in providing his evidence was one of the reasons for this "discounting". The Echo was able to ascertain this as a result of direct communication with the police.

All the best,
Ben

[glyn]

Question for Ben,
This isnt a "trick question" by the way....Im not trying to put words in your mouth,but you appear to hold the view that Hutch could well have been the killer,which in part would explain away his actions.I.e presenting himself to the Police voluntarily ,his description of Astrakhan man and so on and so forth.And of course yoiur view that the description was bogus/no such person existed .
If, hypothetically speaking,it could be proven without a doubt that Hutchinson killed nobody,wasnt any kind of accomplice etc. What would your view be then on Hutchinsons motives for giving the description and all the rest.Would you then entertain the possibility that Hutchinson may have been telling the truth? ..or not?
Regards

[Ben]

Hi Glyn,

If it could be proven that Hutchinson was not responsible for the murder(s), it would follow, in my opinion, that he borrowed from Lewis' description of a man loitering opposite the court to lend gravitas to his fictional account and equally fictional suspect. This would suggest "publicity-seeking" as a motive for coming.

But I would be very surprised if this turned out to be the case.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

I think I have figured out the use and definition of the word "discount" in this debate.
Hutch was giving them a discount, charging less, than he usually did for his story.

[Lechmere]

Ben
I know we have discussed this ad nauseam before but I am pretty certain that Hutchinson could not have heard anything of Lewis’s testimony prior to his appearance at Commercial Street Police Station. This means he either was there and was seen by Lewis, or he made it up and it is a coincidence... or he was there the day before and Lewis may have seen someone else on the night in question on that over populated street. I wouldn’t pretend to know which.

[Ben]

I know we have discussed this ad nauseam before but I am pretty certain that Hutchinson could not have heard anything of Lewis’s testimony prior to his appearance at Commercial Street Police Station.

We have indeed discussed this ad nauseam, Lechmere, and I'm afraid I still disagree very strongly with this. There were numerous channels through which Hutchinson could have learned of Lewis' evidence. Word of mouth spread very rapidly in the district, and he could easily have discovered the detail this way. I consider it more likely, however, that he simply joined the crowds outside Shoreditch town hall and registered the fact that Lewis was one of the witnesses due to appear at the inquest. Whatever his source, he evidently heard of it through some avenue, or else we're forced to accept that his police appearance accidentally "coincided" with the termination of the inquest where her evidence was given a public airing.

[Lechmere]

For all sorts of reasons he may have deliberately avoided testifying at the inquest (eg he may have needed to find work). Or news of it may have reminded him to come forward. There are lots of explanations.

[Ben]

There are lots of explanations.

But surprisingly few that would account for his decision to come forward so soon after the termination of the inquest, and the striking similarity between his account and Lewis' observations re. the loitering man in the wideawake.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

.... I consider it more likely, however, that he simply joined the crowds outside Shoreditch town hall and registered the fact that Lewis was one of the witnesses due to appear at the inquest.

So let me ask you Ben, does this mean you choose to disregard the Press Association report which suggests the Police "prudently" witheld the reason Hutchinson gave them for his delay in coming forward?

I know all these reports are second-hand so do not constitute hard evidence but this 'release' tends to argue against your scenario.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

does this mean you choose to disregard the Press Association report which suggests the Police "prudently" witheld the reason Hutchinson gave them for his delay in coming forward?

It certainly does, Jon.

The reason being that the press association were clearly in contact with the vast majority of newspapers, and it was they who supplied them with the account that Hutchinson had given "to a reporter". Why would they withhold Hutchinson's name from the Morning Advertiser whilst supplying it to everyone else? And why would they divulge to this newspaper only - a pub trade paper - that the police were keeping his reasons for the late appearance secret?

It makes no sense, unless of course the MA were taking liberties.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

It certainly does, Jon.

The reason being that the press association were clearly in contact with the vast majority of newspapers, and it was they who supplied them with the account that Hutchinson had given "to a reporter".

The Press Association were a source for wired stories. The newspapers both local & national would be required to pay for any stories requested for their own use. Whether they would pay by word, by line, sentence or paragraph is not clear, however some stories with similar wording appear longer than others.

Why would they withhold Hutchinson's name from the Morning Advertiser whilst supplying it to everyone else?

Who's "they"?, if the Press Association is selling a story about the murder investigation then their source must be the police.
Therefore, it will be the police who have withheld the identity of the informer (Hutch) from the Press Association.
The Press Association appears to have reported that his identity was withheld for his own safety.

And why would they divulge to this newspaper only - a pub trade paper - that the police were keeping his reasons for the late appearance secret?

Why do you say "only", I've noticed a rather prejudiced reference to this paper by more than one person, but no-one has indicated what the reason for this is.
Have you read all the 100 articles on Casebook taken from the Morning Advertiser? - what precisely is it that you think the Morning Advertiser is incapable of?

It makes no sense, unless of course the MA were taking liberties.

Would you care to find any of their political reports, their inquest reports, or local news stories, or anything where they have "taken liberties"?

I would hate to think that you have decided to cast unwarranted aspersions against a newspaper just because they have actually reported something that was not payed for by most of their contemporaries.

Did you consider for a moment that because this paper was associated with the brewing industry that they just may have been able to afford to pay for the 'full' story whereas most papers were on a tighter budget?
You wouldn't be just making every attempt to squash anything that challenges your theory, would you?


I thought it worth mentioning, because when I suggested the Star were being less than honest I felt obligated to provide a few examples rathen expect people to just take my word for it.
Feel up to the challenge?


All the best, Jon S.

[Ben]

The newspapers both local & national would be required to pay for any stories requested for their own use.

But Jon, the press association clearly supplied many newspapers with Hutchinson's press account, hence the strikingly similar wording that is consistent to all "participating" papers on 14th November, such as the Times, Daily Telegraph, Pall Mall Gazette, St. James' Gazette and many others. Whatever information reached the Morning not-to-be-taken-seriously Advertiser, it was clearly of a more watered-down nature than that supplied to their press contemporaries, as is evident from the fact that Hutchinson's name was "withheld" from that particular paper only. Since we know for a fact that his name was not generally "withheld", is it clear that the MA were both under-informed and talking nonsense with their claim that this was done for the purposes of Hutchinson's own safety.

if the Press Association is selling a story about the murder investigation then their source must be the police.

Not at all.

It obviously originated from Hutchinson himself, who, equally obviously, delivered his account to a reporter from the press association, which had only been going for 20 years in 1888, incidentally. Nothing to do with the police at all, who would not have been very impressed that Hutchinson had blabbed to a reporter.

I've already explained why caution is so strongly urged in the case of the Morning Advertiser. It was merely a pub-trade publication and made various claims that are contradicted by other press sources. For example, it offered certain inquest “details” that appeared in no other press account, such as Mrs. Venturney hearing a “strange noise with some door” on the night of Kelly's murder, and later stated that it had been “conclusively proved” that Kelly had spent a large part of the evening prior to her death in the Britannia pub. The idea that the Times and Daily Telegraph were on a “tighter budget” than the Morning Advertiser is very obviously nonsense.

Don’t be tempted to invest this particular press source with more importance that its content warrants just because you consider it Hutch-friendly. Unlike the Echo, it clearly wasn't in direct communication with the police. I don’t know what you mean when you say that the Star were “less than honest”, but you haven’t demonstrated this at all.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

I've already explained why caution is so strongly urged in the case of the Morning Advertiser. It was merely a pub-trade publication

No, No - it still is pub-trade publication - although I believe it is now published weekly, and is no longer availble by subscription only:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourc...ing+advertiser

And these days in colour too!

[Wickerman]

But Jon, the press association clearly supplied many newspapers with Hutchinson's press account, hence the strikingly similar wording that is consistent to all "participating" papers on 14th November, such as the Times, Daily Telegraph, Pall Mall Gazette, St. James' Gazette and many others.

Ben.
There are three sources to contend with.

- On the morning of the 13th an unspecified press agency released a description provided we might suppose by the police.

- On the evening of the 13th we are told that Hutchinson spoke with a reporter of an unspecified press agency which was published on the 14th. This version included the "red seal" on the watch chain.

- On the morning of the 14th the Press Association released another description which we read in the Morning Advertiser & Irish Times which carry details more consistent with the original document taken down by police at the interview at the police station.

Contrary to your prejudiced aspersions the Morning Advertiser obtained a 'more direct' version than it's contemporaries, even better than that which it had itself previously published on the 13th from a different source.

What the Morning Advertiser are doing on the 14th is ignoring the 'street source' from the unspecified agency which contained the name of the informant and are still enforcing the police position (consistent with the 13th) of not releasing the name of the informant.

You choose to take it that "they were simply not within the loop", whereas a more objective interpretation allows that the Morning Advertiser "decided" not to follow the previous "Reporter/Hutchinson-red seal" story and go back to the police.

There were politics involved in the media world even then as there is today. Not every newspaper would take a story from just any of the six agencies. Conservative papers had their sources while Liberal papers stuck to their sources. And both might frown on some of the other up-start papers and sources who they believe were "low-brow", if you know what I mean.

The Morning Advertiser saw itself above such riff-raff as the Star & Gazette, and chose to ignore the monkey and talk straight with the organ-grinder.

Regards, Jon S.
(P.S. Inspector Reid saw it quite fitting to write directly to the Advertiser to debate the case in 1903. Today reliable Ripper authors, including Stewart Evans, have no reservations about quoting from the Advertiser.
So what are we to make of these baseless aspersions you choose to invent about a reliable newspaper ? (as reliable as any other).
Unfounded allegations certainly show your true colours Ben.

Regards, Jon S.