Would we have known?

[sleekviper]

That is interesting, good eye Wickerman!

[Wickerman]

The sequence of events appears to have been that the Press Association circulated information relating to Hutchinson’s account on the Monday evening or Tuesday morning that was taken up by the larger circulation newspapers in their Tuesday editions.

The flaw in that conjecture Garry is that the details of the description are not only different in the Morning Advertiser & Irish Times (14th), different from the other daily sources (13th), both in content and presentation that this argues strongly that they had a unique source, namely the Press Association, which none of the other Tuesday sources named.
I think you need another explanation.

The original unpublished written statement to the police reads:

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. Respectable appearance walked very sharp. Jewish appearance. Can be identified.

Morning Advertiser, 14th.
"....age is about 35 years, height 5 feet 6 inches, pale complextion, dark hair, curly dark moustache. He was wearing dark long overcoat, trimmed on collar and cuffs with astrachan, dark short coat beneath, light waistcoat, check trousers, white collar, black necktie with horseshoe pin, hard felt hat, and button boots with gaiters and light buttons. He also displayed from his waistcoat a gold chain.


Whereas, the mass produced descriptions on the 13th, read:
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.

This is the strongest argument that the Morning Advertiser gained it's source on the 14th from a different source than what had been issued both by itself and the major daily's on the previous day (13th).
The details I highlite are not published anywhere I can see, and the construction of phrasing while not being precisely the same is extraordinarly similar to the original while being in contrast with that of the 13th.
Which is what I was pointing out previously.

Regards, Jon

[Garry Wroe]

The problem as I see in connecting the Morning Advertiser (14th) account with the Pall Mall Gazette account (suggested to be from the same reporter?), is still that there are details within the Morning Advertiser account that were not published by the press anywhere that we can see.

Having rechecked the various Hutchinson-related press coverage, Jon, I’m now inclined to the view that The Morning Advertiser’s edition of Wednesday, 14 November, was actually dealing in old news – information that was gathered prior to Hutchinson’s interview at the Victoria Home on the evening of Tuesday, 13 November. This is confirmed to a certain extent by The Irish Times of Wednesday, 14 November, which carried a report based upon a Press Association telegraph. Such is the similarity of wording between this and The Morning Advertiser’s piece of the same date that one is bound to conclude that they emanated from a common source.

The sequence of events appears to have been that the Press Association circulated information relating to Hutchinson’s account on the Monday evening or Tuesday morning that was taken up by the larger circulation newspapers in their Tuesday editions. At this point, Hutchinson’s name had not been disclosed. On the Tuesday evening, however, Hutchinson was located and interviewed at the Victoria Home, the details of which appeared in the larger circulation newspapers on Wednesday, 14 November. But The Morning Advertiser did not cover this new information in its edition of 14 November. Instead, it related information that the larger newspapers had broadcast the previous day, and thus made no reference to Hutchinson’s name or the embellished description that emerged via the Victoria Home interview.

This being the case, it’s fairly evident the The Morning Advertiser was a low-budget operation which lacked the resources of its larger rivals to undertake very much in the way of proactive news gathering of its own. Since it was effectively feeding off the crumbs left by others – and stale crumbs at that – it should not, in my view, be accorded undue weight if one is attempting to elicit reliable case-related information.

[Ben]

Regardless of the Morning Advertiser’s source, it was evidently not nearly as well informed as the source that supplied the vast majority of other newspapers, such as the Times, Echo, Pall Mall Gazette and most others. The latter had clearly communicated with Hutchinson directly, and were thus able to provide his name amongst other details. It also didn’t contain bogus information relating to other witness evidence, such as it being “conclusively proven” that Kelly spent the evening of her death in Ringer’s pub, or that some Miller’s Court residents had signed sworn statements that Kelly was seen in Dorset Street between 2.00 and 3.00 on the night of her death.

It is hardly surprising, then, that the vast majority of newspapers went with the better-informed version that communicated with Hutchinson correctly, included his name, and contained none of the dubious details contained in the version supplied to the Irish Times and Morning Advertiser.

It’s worth reiterating that we only have it on Hutchinson’s questionable say-so that he was persuaded to visit the police station on the advice of a fellow lodger, and it’s rather convenient that it just happened to occur to the lodger to impart this advice when the inquest had just recently terminated, where the details of the loitering wideawake man were made public for the first time.

[Wickerman]

Garry.
Thankyou for the reply.
If you recall my point was that there is no evidence that the police did, or even would, give the name of their informant to the press.

Your reply does not contest that point.

What is more, it appears you are suggesting a connection between the Morning Advertiser account of the 14th with the Pall Mall Gazette of the same date.
I agree that although the reference to "here" could refer to the Victoria Home, it is not explicitly stated so it will remain an assumption, a reasonable one - granted, but still assumed.

The problem as I see in connecting the Morning Advertiser (14th) account with the Pall Mall Gazette account (suggested to be from the same reporter?), is still that there are details within the Morning Advertiser account that were not published by the press anywhere that we can see.
These differences, minor though they are, only existed on the original police statement given at the station. The implication is that they had access to a different source through the Press Agency.

Also, the Morning Advertiser account is presented "considerably" different than those of the Pall Mall Gazette, Star, St James Gazette & Daily News. These four papers run stories which are essentially duplicates of each other and, the descriptions given are essentailly the same.

Not so with the Morning Advertiser who, as I suggested, appear to have had a different source, ie; the Press Agency, therefore the other four papers cannot have used the Press Agency for their versions.
None of those four papers mention their source, specifically the Press Agency.

So I cannot agree with your final conclusion, nothing is confirmed, on the contrary my point stands, there are three different sourced accounts:

Specifically:

- 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.

As Hutchinson told a fellow boarder what he had seen, we can safely assume this same boarder knew Hutch had gone to the police.
We may also be safe in assuming that the rumor mill churned the next morning when Hutchinson's account hit the press and tens, if not dozens of his fellow boarders gathered over a variety of newspapers to read the account.
Although the police would not give an informers name to the press there must have been dozens in the Victoria Home who knew where it came from. Not a difficult task for any reporter with a shilling to spare to uncover.

Regards, Jon S.

[curious]

Hi Ben.


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.


All the best, Jon S.

The fact that the length of stories in various newspaper was different might simply be a space situation.

Now, wire stories are normally written to be chopped from the bottom (final paragraphs are the least important) to accommodate the fact that fitting stories on a page is like working a jigsaw puzzle and stories have to fit together to fill a page.

Everyone subscribing to the press association gets the same story --- now, don't know about in 1888. Individual editors at each newspaper then makes the story "fit" their own needs -- which may mean some chopping, or rewording slightly to cut down the number of characters in a sentence or two throughout the article.

There's a famous quote that goes something like: "It's not all the news that is fit to print, it is all the news that fits."

curious

[Garry Wroe]

The Morning Advertiser, 14th November:-

‘The Press Association says that since the termination of the coroner's inquest on Monday the police have become possessed of a most important link in the chain of evidence in the case of the murder of Mary Jane Kelly ...’

Several other newspapers confirm that Hutchinson was interviewed by the Press Association.

Pall Mall Gazette, 14th November:-

‘I could swear to the man anywhere. I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen, but did not go to the police station. I told one of the lodgers here about it on Monday, and he advised me to go to police station, which I did at night.’

The emboldened word confirms that Hutchinson was interviewed in the Victoria Home.

The Times, 14th November:-

‘The following statement was made yesterday evening by George Hutchinson … I was out last night until 3 o'clock looking for him … I went down to the Shoreditch mortuary to-day and recognized the body as being that of the woman Kelly, whom I saw at 2 o'clock on Friday morning.’

Confirmation beyond question that Hutchinson was interviewed on the evening of Tuesday, 13th November – the day after he dictated his official police statement.

[Wickerman]

The police did not release their informant’s name?

In which case, Jon, how is it that Press Association reporters located and interviewed George Hutchinson at the Victoria Home on the Tuesday?

And this source would be?

[Ben]

“The police did not release their informants name, "a" press agency conducted their own interview with Hutchinson, however they came together is not recorded, but the release of his name was therefore unofficial (sic)”.

Of course it was unofficial.

The police evidently did not wish for Hutchinson to communicate with the press directly, and yet this is precisely what happened. A news agency cleared tracked down (or were approached by) Hutchinson who provided them with an embellished version of his original account. If the police did not sanction this action, it was understandable that the agency in question should have been reticent in disclosing their identity. But the point is that the agency did track down Hutchinson, who reported to them directly. It should hardly come as any surprise, therefore, that the vast majority of newspapers reported this version, which can had come straight from the horse’s mouth and disclosed the identity of the witness concerned.

It is clear, incidentally, that the news agency in question was the Press Association, as Garry has pointed out. The St. James Gazette detailed their communication with the Press Association in an article that appeared directly above the Hutchinson account.

I’m sorry for the raggier newspapers that were less well informed by the Press Association, such as the Morning Advertiser, who were compelled to resort to misinformation and hyperbole to compensate for their lack of information, but there it is.

All the best,
Ben

[babybird67]

obviously, Garry...

they made a jolly good guess.

[Garry Wroe]

The police did not release their informants name, "a" press agency conducted their own interview with Hutchinson, however they came together is not recorded, but the release of his name was therefore unnofficial.

The police did not release their informant’s name?

In which case, Jon, how is it that Press Association reporters located and interviewed George Hutchinson at the Victoria Home on the Tuesday?

[Wickerman]

This same release also claimed that Hutchinson's name had been suppressed in the interests of his own safety. This is obviously nonsense, since the vast majority of newspapers that reproduced Hutchinson's account in the morning 14th November papers included his name,

You just don't get it do you!
The police did not release their informants name, "a" press agency conducted their own interview with Hutchinson, however they came together is not recorded, but the release of his name was therefore unnofficial.
The police withheld his name for the reason specified, the agency obviously felt no such compunction.

and most of these newspapers were considerably more respected and higher profile than the Morning Advertiser, which was a publication for pubs.

The Morning Advertiser conducted itself as a regular newspaper carrying the same stories with it's own reporters just the same as any other newspaper. Of course its advertising would be more towrds the brewing industry. It had been founded & financed by the Licenced Victuallers Association.

I have no idea what you're trying to insuinuate with your references to "unspecified press agencies",

No idea? - ok, which agency was it, the Central News Agency, the Liberal Press Agency? - any other?

I think it might have to be back to the Stride threads for you, because you're out of luck here.

We've all had an earfull of what you think, the problem we have is getting you to prove what you know.

Likely another one with the "Anderson Syndrome", you only think you know....
No surprise there....

[Ben]

"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."

This same release also claimed that Hutchinson's name had been suppressed in the interests of his own safety. This is obviously nonsense, since the vast majority of newspapers that reproduced Hutchinson's account in the morning 14th November papers included his name, and most of these newspapers were considerably more respected and higher profile than the Morning Advertiser, which was a publication for pubs. The release also claimed that it had been "conclusively proved" that Kelly had spent a large part of the evening of her death in Ringers' pub, a detail that appears nowhere else. (Gosh, I wonder why?). There is no realsitic possibility of the police singling out the Morning Advertiser to deliver the goods to, whilst allowing the vast majority of considerably more reputable press sources to suffer a less reliable version.

The obvious explanation here is that the MA were not provided with the full details, and added a dose of sensationalist "cover-up" reasons to account for their failure to be properly informed.

It was the Echo, not the MA, who communicated directly with the police, as has been proven from the former's observations in their 14th November edition. At least the MA never claimed to have spoken to the police, contrary to your baseless assertion that they did. To make matters worse, the MA evidently did not make any connection between the 13th and 14th Astrakhan accounts, unlikely the clearly more meticulous Echo journalists. I have no idea what you're trying to insuinuate with your references to "unspecified press agencies", but unless you're suggesting that the original 13th November morning release of the Astrakhan description was NOT police sanctioned, it is clear that it came from a police-approved agency.

"So what are we to make of these baseless aspersions you choose to invent about a reliable newspaper ?"

You make of them what you want, providing you don't expect anyone to care. We've already established from earlier discussions that you delight in reviving some of the worst press tittle-tattle around and attempting to mutate them into genuine sightings of Jack the Ripper in his shiny black bag and top hat!

Unfounded allegations certainly show your true colours Ben.

And pathetic little character attacks like the above show yours.

I think it might have to be back to the Stride threads for you, because you're out of luck here.

[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.

[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!