Would we have known?

[Garry Wroe]

As Garry has pointed out, both the Morning Advertiser and the Irish Times were clearly the recipients of the same telegram from the Press Association. Unfortunately for those who believe that these two papers were singled out, for some unfathomable reason, to receive the most accurate details, this is the description supplied by the Irish Times on the basis of that same telegram:

Precisely, Ben. More to the point, the information in question was clearly gathered on the Tuesday prior to Hutchinson's 'night' interview at the Victoria Home.

As I said, The Morning Advertiser was patently dealing in 'old news'.

[sleekviper]

So again we have the police doing nothing? Look at what Jon has identified; they allowed the wrong description to hit every paper on the 13th, without saying a word even though that information clearly came from someplace beyond what the actual report clarifies. Then on the 14th, two smaller papers get the correct information, and nobody notices the changes? Just me, but if I had it as a strong possibility that the killer has left the area, and I have no idea who it may be, and I worried about the life of my strongest tie to his identity, that would be a brilliant play. One of the two sources is in the hands of those that they may figure has the best chance to corroborate what Hutch has said, the pubs. Meanwhile the killer, if he has left the area of London, will see the wrong information from what Hutch has reported. Again, great find!

[Ben]

Then on the 14th, two smaller papers get the correct information, and nobody notices the changes?

They got the correct description, Sleeks, but unfortunately, it was old news by that stage, and also happened to contain several bogus claims, such as it having been established that members of the public had unwittingly sheltered the Astrakhan man; that Kelly had been "conclusively proven" to have spent the evening prior to her death in Ringers; and that some Miller's Court witnesses had signed sworn statements to the effect that Kelly was in Dorset Street between 2.00 and 3.00 on the morning of the 9th. Moreover, these two papers were clearly not supplied with details of Hutchinson's own meeting with a journalist at the Victoria Home, unlike the vast majority of other newspapers who provided the story on the 14th.

[Wickerman]

As I said, The Morning Advertiser was patently dealing in 'old news'.

I don't mind in the slightest that you make such a claim, except that you hold back in forwarding precisely where these "old news" details previously appeared in print:
- complexion pale.
- collar and cuffs trimmed astracan.
- Light waistcoat.
- Button boots and gaiters with white buttons.

Please show me your source and you have proven your case.

Thankyou, Jon S.

[sleekviper]

But what they have in the small papers, is what the police have, so it is only old in the sense that it is the actual description that Hutch told the police. If Hutch is at fault for the change, then he has passed an interrogation, and can't keep his story straight for 24 hours. That would be odd, but that also brings me back to why the police would allow a story to run that was clearly wrong? Someone reports to the police that they were shot at by a male, then hits nightly news saying a female, it would seem odd that the police would not say something. Hutch could have been crushed like a bug, and the Abberline interrogation story "lost" all within 48 hours, but it just plays on. The people with money become targets for poor, since his story seems to have someone not exactly begging for money. Letting that ride in 1888, for who was the actual victims seems hard to grasp for me if this was his folly. I would see them making an example of Hutch by some serious jail time, and stating this is what happens with false statements, so to me, this is not his doing.

[Garry Wroe]

I don't mind in the slightest that you make such a claim …

How extraordinarily magnanimous of you, Jon.

… except that you hold back in forwarding precisely where these "old news" details previously appeared in print:
- complexion pale.
- collar and cuffs trimmed astracan.
- Light waistcoat.
- Button boots and gaiters with white buttons.

Complexion pale. Perhaps, Jon, this was another of those phonetic slips to which you referred in an earlier post.

Collar and cuffs trimmed astracan. On the Tuesday The Morning Advertiser stated that the wanted man was ‘wearing a long dark coat, trimmed with astrachan’. The following day it asserted that he was ‘wearing dark long overcoat, trimmed on collar and cuffs with astrachan’. Please reassure me, Jon, that you’re not seriously claiming that the addition of ‘on collar and cuffs’ was representative of new and meaningful information.

Light waistcoat. As Ben has already indicated, The Irish Times (using what was undoubtedly the same source) reported that the waistcoat was ‘high’ rather than ‘light’, a discrepancy which ultimately beggars the question: was The Morning Advertiser promulgating new information or misinformation?

Button boots and gaiters with white buttons. If you’d care to revisit the source material, Jon, you’ll find that The Morning Advertiser made no mention of white buttons in its report of Wednesday, 14 November. It did, however, state that Astrakhan wore ‘button boots with gaiters and light buttons.’ The previous day, it had avouched that he’d sported ‘a pair of dark gaiters, with light buttons, over button-boots’. So no mention of white buttons, and nothing regarding buttons or gaiters that hadn’t already been reported.

But you really are missing the point, Jon. Whilst the Wednesday edition of The Morning Advertiser may have mentioned a pale complexion and introduced some minor qualificational information regarding Astrakhan’s coat trim, it failed to mention Hutchinson by name; failed to include any direct quotations from him; failed to mention the soft felt hat, the kid gloves, the watch chain seal and the red stone hanging from it. It failed to mention Kelly’s state of sobriety or the alleged conversation with the Petticoat Lane policeman. Most importantly of all, it failed to mention Hutchinson’s admission that he wandered into Miller’s Court itself and spent a couple of minutes directly outside Mary Jane’s room.

These elements and many more besides were detailed by the major newspapers but were conspicuous by their absence in The Morning Advertiser. Thus it is these omissions, Jon, to which I principally refer when stating that The Morning Advertiser was dealing in ‘old news’ in its edition of Wednesday, 14 November. And no amount of minor quibbling will change that obvious reality.

[Wickerman]

In other words you do not have a source to back up your claim. And, incidently, I had already made reference to the differences in post #45, that they can easily be the result of a verbal exchange due to their obvious phonetic resemblance, "light"="white", "dark"="hard", etc.

Regards, Jon

[Garry Wroe]

In other words you do not have a source to back up your claim.

I clearly cited my sources in the preceding post, Jon. Perhaps you overlooked or misconstrued them as with your 'white buttons' claim.

[Ben]

It should be patently obvious that there is a phonetic similarity between "high" & "light" (waistcoat), "dark" and "check" (trousers), and "dark" and "hard" (felt hat).

So, according to this logic, "check" is phonetically similar to "hard".

Interesting theory!

[Sally]

Wickerman

In other words you do not have a source to back up your claim.

And your source for this obvervation would be?

It should be patently obvious that there is a phonetic similarity between "high" & "light" (waistcoat), "dark" and "check" (trousers), and "dark" and "hard" (felt hat). Which is a clear indication that the transference of information was verbal at some point during the creation of the second account.

This is pure conjecture. You berate others for inadequate sourcing (in your opinion) yet apparently feel quite free to speculate at will without any 'source' other than your own opinion.

Interestng.

[sleekviper]

What source is missing? Hutch walks into the station, and tells his story. That is given as the unpublished report. Detectives are called over, and an interrogation takes place, that is the Abberline memo. In the period of a few hours, a story has been told, an interrogation has taken place, so he can recite the same story twice under pressure by detectives. All the papers come out with the news the next day, and the story has been changed. What source is missing, who changed the story, and why did the police allow it to go as it went if it was not in their knowledge that it would change? From the time that Hutch walks in the police station, until the story hits the street is only 12-15 hours isn't it? By the 14th, Hutch should have been branded a liar, and made an extreme example of to all to prevent this type of conduct from happening again, but he was not. What is his motivation in changing the story? If it was to deflect attention, he has just drawn it in a huge way. He has changed it before the police can look like fools; all they have done is listen, and reacted quickly to a potential witness. By the 14th, the police come down hard on Hutch, charge him with interference in a police investigation, people think twice before altering statements, no one is chased for appearing to look as if the bogus words were still active. As always, this is just me, but I do not see how Hutch is even seen as a possible witness, how anything is old, and how he escaped from jail time for a bogus story if this is his doing.

[Bridewell]

What about Maxwell & Lewis?

Do we need to worry unduly about the credibility or otherwise of George Hutchinson?
I am more concerned about the fact that Caroline Maxwell & Maurice Lewis both claim to have seen (& in Maxwell's case spoken to) Mary Kelly six or seven hours after the Hutchinson incident. If it were just one witness making such a claim it would be easy to ascribe error to their sightings, but surely not to both?
I am not aware that either Maxwell or Lewis has ever been discredited, and Walter Dew, in his memoirs, was quite insistent that Caroline Maxwell was a wholly credible witness of impeccable character.
I think it dubious to argue that Hutchinson saw the detail he claimed from a brief look, at night, on streets inadequately lit by gas lamps. His sighting though, even if genuine, is much too early, in my view, to be one of the killer.

[Wickerman]

Hi Bridewell.
Apparently enquiries were made (by press or police?) in order to establish her story:

"..When asked by the police how she could fix the time of the morning, Mrs. Maxwell replied, "Because I went to the milkshop for some milk, and I had not before been there for a long time, and that she was wearing a woollen cross-over that I had not seen her wear for a considerable time". On inquiries being made at the milkshop indicated by the woman her statement was found to be correct, and the cross-over was also found in Kelly's room."

So Maxwell did not confuse the day. However, was the woman she saw really Mary Kelly? - there was a young woman who knocked at Kelly's door about 7:30 am that morning.

"A flower girl, named Catherine Pickell, residing in Dorset street, states that at about 7.30 on Friday morning she called at Kelly's house to borrow a shawl, and that, though she knocked several times, she got no answer."

Was this the woman Maxwell saw that morning?

I don't know what to make of it, but a case of mistaken identity is the least controversial solution I can think of.

Regards, Jon