Would we have known?

[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

[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]

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]

.... 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]

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

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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]

“Had that been the case the police would never have released the description he gave them in the first place.”

The police later discovered that this was the case, Jon, which was why the Echo commented on what had transpired after the police had released the Astrakhan description. The Echo was an evening paper, and the police circulated Hutchinson's description to the press in time for the morning edition. It seems that some people are getting awfully confused as to the sequence of events.

“ would love to see your 'cited' source, just to be sure we are not dealing with your opinion”

If you had studied the relevant discussions, you would have understood precisely what I was talking about, which wasn’t “my opinion” at all. The Echo stated that Hutchinson’s account was “considerably discounted” because of the late arrival of his evidence. We know that this was a legitimate and correct police communication because the Echo ascertained the truth about the origin of the Astrakhan account directly from the Commercial Street police station.

The Star were not attempting to embarrass the police in stating that Hutchinson’s account was discredited. The Star had been enthusiastic about the account the previous day, and they would certainly not have poured cold water on their own early report unless they had ample reason to conclude that Hutchinson was genuinely discredited, otherwise they would only have been embarrassing themselves. The he "discredited" reference agrees with the both the Echo articles AND all subsequent police memoirs that tackle the issue of eyewitness evidence. So the idea that the Star “made up” the idea of Hutchinson being discredited is unutterably galling nonsense.

[Wickerman]

If the police considered Hutchinson a liar, the publication of that fact could potentially have embarrassed them.

Had that been the case the police would never have released the description he gave them in the first place.

Instead, what really happened was that Hutchinson’s late arrival and failure to appear at the inquest “on oath” was cited specifically as a reason for his discrediting

I would love to see your 'cited' source, just to be sure we are not dealing with your opinion .....again.

The Star’s report was not “inflammatory” at all. Who were they “flaming”, anyway? The police? No. Because when Hutchinson’s account first appeared in the press, they were very enthusiastic about it. The next day, however, they reported that the same account had been discredited. The Star would hardly have undermined their previous day of reporting unless that had very good reason to believe that the “discredited” reference was accurate.

You are apparently unfamilar with the Star's track record.

re: Star 12 Nov.
"At this point, a subhead assured readers that 'No part of the body is missing' because the surgeons had identified every organ and replaced each one in its original position. Only a day later, however, the Star reversed its stance by announcing emphatically, 'some portions of the body are missing'. No source was cited for this claim"
Jack the Ripper and the London Press, Curtis, 2001.

Just off the top of your head Ben, what comes to mind from the Star that you have been recently touting as 'fact' for which also had no cited source!

Ben, the Star could not cite the police as a source because they had stupidly made enemies of the police. In their eagerness to sell copy by being controversial they had "bitten off the hand that fed them".

Right at the start of Kelly's murder investigation, on the 9th the press in general were claiming the police were not communicating with the press.
However, the Star may have been singled out for special treatment.

"A Star man went to Commercial-street Police station to learn some further particulars, but was politely but firmly referred to Scotland-yard."

And again, the Star complained...

"From the police, who, in uniform and plain clothes, simply swarm all over the place, nothing whatever can be gleaned."

And again, the Star...

"The police, however, refuse to supply information of any kind to certain of the reporters,..."

Certain reporters, were the Star reporters!

The Star were NOT informed of any "discrediting" by the police because the police were NOT talking to them! The Star made up the "discrediting" claim, as we can all see, and as their press contemporaries could see, which is perhaps why the story was not repeated by their morning contemporaries. They knew it was false, and they had reputations to maintain.

The Star had once again resorted to Tabloid Journalism, and 123 years later you believe this rubbish, ....their contemporaries didn't!

Regards, Jon S.