Payment to George Hutchinson as per the Wheelers Directory - More Info?

[Bridewell]

I thought it said "furiously drunk", which seems even more unlikely. Especially as the coroner did remark at the end that "You have given your evidence very well indeed."

I stand corrected. It does say furiously.

[Bridewell]

I can't see anyone being sworn to testify if they are drunk, especially in front of Macdonald.

I agree.

[mpriestnall]

You're very welcome.
I intended to add that my take on that second account (18th) is a reference to the police employing an artist who must have drawn Hutchinson's suspect.
The writer clearly knew Hutchinson's story, his London source was the 14th.
Hutchinson was unemployed so had no salary, that piece has been used to discredit Hutchinson precisely because is seems so outrageous to pay Hutchinson such a large sum of money. The article clearly, to my mind, refers to the police employing a professional artist who "invented" (created) an actual portrait of the suspect.

What a shame the portrait of Hutchinson's suspect is unknown to us. I would have loved to have seen it to compare it to my suspect for Aman. He matches Hutchinson's description of Aman very closely.

[Curious Cat]

Yes, it was taken from Brisbaine's usual column in The New York Sun, usually printed under the title "News from Europe" or "Week in Europe."

The Wheeling Register version is just an excerpt; the original Sun piece began with two long paragraphs about the Parnell Commission and Lord Randolph Churchill, before giving the remarks about the Whitechapel Murders.

His remarks are chatty and (in my opinion) more akin to gossip and opinion pieces than serious journalism.

For instance, following his dubious claim that Joe Barnett was 'furiously drunk' at the inquest, he mentions some recent election news:





The pamphlet 'Parnellism in Crime' is the same piece that nearly cost Sir Robert Anderson his pension when it was discovered that he had contributed two sections. Anderson claimed he had the permission of James Monro to write the piece (civil servants were forbidden to write for the press unless given explicit permission) but Monro denied this.

Anyway, Brisbaine's remarks --such as "that most obnoxious Unionist-Mugwump---make it clear that his columns were chatty, free flowing opinion pieces. If he is indeed referring to George Hutchinson, I doubt he had any real information, and this is just his "take" on what he believes went down. Personally, I don't think it is a credible claim, though of course there are plenty of people who do argue that Hutchinson made it all up.

Could Brisbaine have mistaken Joseph Barnett's stuttering for drunkenness?

Who was Brisbaine suggesting Barnett was living with?

[Wickerman]

Not only drunk but "famously drunk" which, as no other commentator alludes to it, seems highly unlikely especially as, had he been so, the coroner would no doubt have remarked upon it.

I can't see anyone being sworn to testify if they are drunk, especially in front of Macdonald.

[rjpalmer]

Do you mean Arthur Brisbane is the writer of the second article Wickerman posted (post #3)?

The writer of that article suggests Joseph Barnett was drunk at the inquest, but I haven't seen any other reports suggest that he'd been drunk while giving evidence. Barnett did reportedly have a pronounced stutter while speaking at the inquest so the writer of the article may have taken that as him being drunk. This would mean that the writer was in attendance at the inquest.

But who are they suggesting Barnett was living with since the inquest? The suggestion is someone who was a notorious individual in Whitechapel who had also given evidence at the inquest? Even if its made up, who is the writer intending to refer to?

Yes, it was taken from Brisbaine's usual column in The New York Sun, usually printed under the title "News from Europe" or "Week in Europe."

The Wheeling Register version is just an excerpt; the original Sun piece began with two long paragraphs about the Parnell Commission and Lord Randolph Churchill, before giving the remarks about the Whitechapel Murders.

His remarks are chatty and (in my opinion) more akin to gossip and opinion pieces than serious journalism.

For instance, following his dubious claim that Joe Barnett was 'furiously drunk' at the inquest, he mentions some recent election news:





The pamphlet 'Parnellism in Crime' is the same piece that nearly cost Sir Robert Anderson his pension when it was discovered that he had contributed two sections. Anderson claimed he had the permission of James Monro to write the piece (civil servants were forbidden to write for the press unless given explicit permission) but Monro denied this.

Anyway, Brisbaine's remarks --such as "that most obnoxious Unionist-Mugwump---make it clear that his columns were chatty, free flowing opinion pieces. If he is indeed referring to George Hutchinson, I doubt he had any real information, and this is just his "take" on what he believes went down. Personally, I don't think it is a credible claim, though of course there are plenty of people who do argue that Hutchinson made it all up.

[Joshua Rogan]

Not only drunk but "famously drunk" which, as no other commentator alludes to it, seems highly unlikely especially as, had he been so, the coroner would no doubt have remarked upon it.

I thought it said "furiously drunk", which seems even more unlikely. Especially as the coroner did remark at the end that "You have given your evidence very well indeed."

[Bridewell]

Do you mean Arthur Brisbane is the writer of the second article Wickerman posted (post #3)?

The writer of that article suggests Joseph Barnett was drunk at the inquest, but I haven't seen any other reports suggest that he'd been drunk while giving evidence. Barnett did reportedly have a pronounced stutter while speaking at the inquest so the writer of the article may have taken that as him being drunk. This would mean that the writer was in attendance at the inquest.

But who are they suggesting Barnett was living with since the inquest? The suggestion is someone who was a notorious individual in Whitechapel who had also given evidence at the inquest? Even if its made up, who is the writer intending to refer to?

Not only drunk but "famously drunk" which, as no other commentator alludes to it, seems highly unlikely especially as, had he been so, the coroner would no doubt have remarked upon it.

[Wickerman]

Wicks, wow! Christmas has come early!

I forgot to say why I was interested in the Wheeling Registry article.
I wanted to see the actual source(s) to validate the references mentioned in
the other threads to help my appreciation of how Hutchinson was treated by
the police and press.

Thank you very much for these helpful and interesting posts.

You're very welcome.
I intended to add that my take on that second account (18th) is a reference to the police employing an artist who must have drawn Hutchinson's suspect.
The writer clearly knew Hutchinson's story, his London source was the 14th.
Hutchinson was unemployed so had no salary, that piece has been used to discredit Hutchinson precisely because is seems so outrageous to pay Hutchinson such a large sum of money. The article clearly, to my mind, refers to the police employing a professional artist who "invented" (created) an actual portrait of the suspect.

[Curious Cat]

Hello M. Priestnall

A couple of points. I think it might have been Chris Scott who first posted this story, but at the time it struck me as very unlikely that this article originated in Wheeling, Ohio County, West Virginia--a rather 'backwoods' location for an accurate 'scoop.' Even now the population of Wheeling is less than 29,000.

This got me to poke around for the original source. The column actually first appeared in the New York Sun, which kept a journalist in London. His name was Arthur Brisbane, who wrote a regular column about London news for the benefit of his American readers. These were entertaining, sometimes caustic and humorous, but not necessarily very accurate reflections on London life. What we are actually looking at was a kind of "gossip column" and Brisbane went on to become known as the "king of yellow journalists." Some historians have blamed Brisbaine for a series of inflammatory articles that helped launch the Spanish-American war.

Anyway, this article has been used to discredit George Hutchinson, but some people (myself included) aren't convinced that it evem refers to Hutchinson. Another suggestion (more plausible in my opinion) is that it is a belated and rather garbled reference to Matthew Packer, who was yarded around by Batchelor and Le Grand.

Whatever the case, since the only source for this claim comes from a gossip column that might not even have been referring to Hutchinson, I tend to view it with considerable skepticism. But to each his or her own.

RP

Do you mean Arthur Brisbane is the writer of the second article Wickerman posted (post #3)?

The writer of that article suggests Joseph Barnett was drunk at the inquest, but I haven't seen any other reports suggest that he'd been drunk while giving evidence. Barnett did reportedly have a pronounced stutter while speaking at the inquest so the writer of the article may have taken that as him being drunk. This would mean that the writer was in attendance at the inquest.

But who are they suggesting Barnett was living with since the inquest? The suggestion is someone who was a notorious individual in Whitechapel who had also given evidence at the inquest? Even if its made up, who is the writer intending to refer to?

[mpriestnall]

Hello M. Priestnall

A couple of points. I think it might have been Chris Scott who first posted this story, but at the time it struck me as very unlikely that this article originated in Wheeling, Ohio County, West Virginia--a rather 'backwoods' location for an accurate 'scoop.' Even now the population of Wheeling is less than 29,000.

This got me to poke around for the original source. The column actually first appeared in the New York Sun, which kept a journalist in London. His name was Arthur Brisbane, who wrote a regular column about London news for the benefit of his American readers. These were entertaining, sometimes caustic and humorous, but not necessarily very accurate reflections on London life. What we are actually looking at was a kind of "gossip column" and Brisbane went on to become known as the "king of yellow journalists." Some historians have blamed Brisbaine for a series of inflammatory articles that helped launch the Spanish-American war.

Anyway, this article has been used to discredit George Hutchinson, but some people (myself included) aren't convinced that it evem refers to Hutchinson. Another suggestion (more plausible in my opinion) is that it is a belated and rather garbled reference to Matthew Packer, who was yarded around by Batchelor and Le Grand.

Whatever the case, since the only source for this claim comes from a gossip column that might not even have been referring to Hutchinson, I tend to view it with considerable skepticism. But to each his or her own.

RP

Hi RP

I noticed a few obvious mistakes in the reports and thought they may have occurred because they were so soon after the murder. However,
I agree there is a "gossipy" feel about reports and agree, that as such, they should be treated with caution.

Thanks for adding to my understanding and appreciation of the Wheeling material.

[rjpalmer]

Hello M. Priestnall

A couple of points. I think it might have been Chris Scott who first posted this story, but at the time it struck me as very unlikely that this article originated in Wheeling, Ohio County, West Virginia--a rather 'backwoods' location for an accurate 'scoop.' Even now the population of Wheeling is less than 29,000.

This got me to poke around for the original source. The column actually first appeared in the New York Sun, which kept a journalist in London. His name was Arthur Brisbane, who wrote a regular column about London news for the benefit of his American readers. These were entertaining, sometimes caustic and humorous, but not necessarily very accurate reflections on London life. What we are actually looking at was a kind of "gossip column" and Brisbane went on to become known as the "king of yellow journalists." Some historians have blamed Brisbaine for a series of inflammatory articles that helped launch the Spanish-American war.

Anyway, this article has been used to discredit George Hutchinson, but some people (myself included) aren't convinced that it evem refers to Hutchinson. Another suggestion (more plausible in my opinion) is that it is a belated and rather garbled reference to Matthew Packer, who was yarded around by Batchelor and Le Grand.

Whatever the case, since the only source for this claim comes from a gossip column that might not even have been referring to Hutchinson, I tend to view it with considerable skepticism. But to each his or her own.

RP

[mpriestnall]

I also found an article in the Wheeling Sunday Register - Nov. 11, 1888
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/l...11/ed-1/seq-1/

Wicks, wow! Christmas has come early!

I forgot to say why I was interested in the Wheeling Registry article.
I wanted to see the actual source(s) to validate the references mentioned in
the other threads to help my appreciation of how Hutchinson was treated by
the police and press.

Thank you very much for these helpful and interesting posts.

[Wickerman]

I also found an article in the Wheeling Sunday Register - Nov. 11, 1888

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86092523/1888-11-11/ed-1/seq-1/

[Wickerman]

If you're having a slow day, here is the Wheeling Register on-line, and it's free.
You can search & download a pdf of the page.
I found articles on pg.10, 12, 14,15 & 19, (two of which are posted above) but there may be more.
I posted this link at Nov. 10, 1888, just for starters..
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/l...10/ed-1/seq-1/