View Single Post
Old 12-21-2017, 01:36 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 10,086

Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Agreed that the Star "discredited" report should be scrutinised like any other, but why would they make it up? Perhaps it was an error but, on the other hand, perhaps they got it from a reputable source. Police opinion, it seems, was divided along Blotchy vs Astrakhan lines,was it not?
:-) did you read the whole post Gareth?

You asked, "why would they make it up?", but I didn't say they made it up.
Ok, lets just take these brief comments...

The Echo wrote on the 13th:
"..very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement".

But the Star had reported on the same day - 13th:
"the police are said to attach a good deal of importance to the man's statement."

It's the opposite, right!, someone is out of step with the investigation.

Then again on the 14th, the Echo wrote:
"..The police do not attach so much importance to this document as some of our contemporaries do...."

But on the 14th, the Star are publishing the Central News interview with Hutchinson - out of step again?

There was a sudden change by the Star on the 15th, and the Star offer no justification for that change.

This is not unusual for the Star, we can read several stories published by the Star which have been borrowed from the dailies, or they publish conclusions to stories first published by their contemporaries - in this case it's the Echo.

We have the Echo reporting of doubt on the 13th, but on the same day the Star wrote that the police did believe the story.
Then again on the 14th the Echo express more doubt, so now the Star realizing they are not ahead of the game conclude - Ha, the S.O.B. lied!
so they come up with the claim his story is "discredited".
A complete reversal of their position as reported on the 13th and 14th.

The Star didn't make anything up, they reversed their position and followed the Echo, but tried to jump ahead by making an exaggerated claim.

The Echo were consistent, the Star are inconsistent, and as a result make an exaggerated claim, but not based on any privy information, just the need to appear to be on top of the story.
But it failed, Hutchinson's story was still being followed for the next several days.
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote