Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by DJA 34 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by Paddy 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by cobalt 5 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by DJA 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (8 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (7 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre Sq, The demise is almost complete - (7 posts)
Visual Media: London 1924 in colour - (6 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - (6 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (5 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Hutchinson, George

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #231  
Old 12-18-2017, 01:11 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,261
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
From this sequence of events it can be seen that the controversial claim by the Star on the 14th was another exaggeration.
It might also mean that the order in which stories appeared in the papers, even the same paper, was not necessarily in the correct chronological sequence. I can well imagine an editor, on a "quiet news day", using a story from a few days previously, and I can imagine a journalist missing a deadline on one day only for his article to be carried a day or two later.

That aside, the very fact that the Echo on the 19th was saying that the police were divided as to Blotchy vs Astrakhan indicates that some no longer favoured Hutchinson's suspect at that point. Seen in that light, the Star's report of the 14th might not have been much of an exaggeration after all.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 12-18-2017, 01:20 PM
Robert St Devil Robert St Devil is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: North Kilttown, Scotland
Posts: 819
Default

Hi Jon, and no I wasn't aware that they were that new. Thanks and I'll look into the Echo and the Evening News when I get home tonight. This was how I read the slant against Hutchinson in the The Star and a preference for Cox's suspect [my emphasis]:

15th
Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson... As we have already said, the only piece of information of any value which has yet transpired is the description given by the widow Cox of a man

16th
Mr. Galloway, a clerk employed in the City, and living at Stepney, has made the following statement : "...I then informed the constable of what I had seen, and pointed out the man's extraordinary resemblance to the individual described by Cox. The constable declined to arrest the man, saying that he was looking for a man of a very different appearance."

19th
...excitement was caused in London yesterday by the circulation of a report that a medical man had been arrested at Euston... somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been seen in company with Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered

21st: Attack on Annie Farmer
A Star reporter got hold of Frank Ruffell, and he made [a] statement... This description given, from Ruffell's manner with evident truth, tallies remarkably with that given by the Widow Cox at the inquest on the Dorset-street victim."
__________________
there,s nothing new, only the unexplored
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 12-18-2017, 04:45 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post

That aside, the very fact that the Echo on the 19th was saying that the police were divided as to Blotchy vs Astrakhan indicates that some no longer favoured Hutchinson's suspect at that point. Seen in that light, the Star's report of the 14th might not have been much of an exaggeration after all.
There are no half measures in a discredited story, it either is discredited or it isn't.

The division between the two suspects more likely reflects the beliefs of the two forces involved. The City Police pursuing one suspect while the Met. pursue the other. Their respective suspects had different descriptions after all.

If a story is discredited it cannot be relied on by anyone, but if one detective, department or force believe the story, then it is not discredited.
It's a case of all or nothing.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 12-18-2017, 04:52 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,504
Default

Hello Robert.

I follow your line of reason, though the report of the 19th - quoted below, does not fit your argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert St Devil View Post

19th
...excitement was caused in London yesterday by the circulation of a report that a medical man had been arrested at Euston... somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been seen in company with Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered
This suspect was in the company of Kelly "early on the morning", yet Blotchy was seen with Kelly at 11:45 pm Thursday night. The early morning sighting was Hutchinson's at 2:00 am.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 12-18-2017, 05:09 PM
jerryd jerryd is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
There are no half measures in a discredited story, it either is discredited or it isn't.

The division between the two suspects more likely reflects the beliefs of the two forces involved. The City Police pursuing one suspect while the Met. pursue the other. Their respective suspects had different descriptions after all.

If a story is discredited it cannot be relied on by anyone, but if one detective, department or force believe the story, then it is not discredited.
It's a case of all or nothing.
Jon,

Evening News
London, U.K.
16 November 1888

At about ten o'clock this morning, a man answering every description to the particulars furnished to the police by G. Hutchinson, as seen by him on the night of the murder of the woman Kelly, attracted attention in Queen Victoria-street, Blackfriars. Finding himself being watched, he immediately hurried his footsteps, and without giving time for any action to be taken, entered the Underground Railway station near by, and escaped.

The Echo 17 Nov 1888

There is some news this morning, however, of the man "with the blotchy face and carroty moustache," He is averred to have been seen at a late hour, yesterday, in Battersea Park Road, at a period subsequent to that in which he is said to have been seen in Queen Victoria Street. The police were at once on the alert, but without any result.



These two news clips are talking about the same man in Queen Victoria Street. Are they talking about A-Man or Blotchy? The first clip says Hutch's suspect but uses the same street sighting as the Blotchy man in the second clip. Who are they talking about?

Last edited by jerryd : 12-18-2017 at 05:38 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 12-18-2017, 05:42 PM
Robert St Devil Robert St Devil is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: North Kilttown, Scotland
Posts: 819
Default

I was focusing in on the "declared... at the inquest" part of the report/sentence. Could only think of Mary Ann... no wait... sorry... just hit me... they use the word "witnesses" in that sentence. The Star must be talking about Mrs. Cox and Mrs. Maxwell, and letting 11:45p slide for "early morning". Really, who else from the inquest is left who matches the criteria?

I saw the press reports that have some police chasing this guy while others chase that guy, mystery within a mystery. "Police" can be a banner term too often; maybe it was a divisional thing.

The tone in some newspapers downplay the value of Hutchinson's description to the police, as though it already matched the police's general composite. I'm wondering if they were more interested in his statement because they were working off a 3-to-4 am time of death
__________________
there,s nothing new, only the unexplored
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 12-18-2017, 06:08 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,504
Default

Hello Jerry.

I have been going through the BNA to see what the earliest newspapers reported on that account.
It appears the wording in the earliest accounts say, "who answered the published description of the man wanted for the murder, etc".

Blotchy's description was never published as the wanted man. The description of the Hutchinson suspect was widely published on the morning of the 13th.
So it would appear the Echo inserted the wrong details in their account of the same story.

Do you have any thoughts on your question?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jerryd View Post
Jon,

Evening News
London, U.K.
16 November 1888

At about ten o'clock this morning, a man answering every description to the particulars furnished to the police by G. Hutchinson, as seen by him on the night of the murder of the woman Kelly, attracted attention in Queen Victoria-street, Blackfriars. Finding himself being watched, he immediately hurried his footsteps, and without giving time for any action to be taken, entered the Underground Railway station near by, and escaped.

The Echo 17 Nov 1888

There is some news this morning, however, of the man "with the blotchy face and carroty moustache," He is averred to have been seen at a late hour, yesterday, in Battersea Park Road, at a period subsequent to that in which he is said to have been seen in Queen Victoria Street. The police were at once on the alert, but without any result.



These two news clips are talking about the same man in Queen Victoria Street. Are they talking about A-Man or Blotchy? The first clip says Hutch's suspect but uses the same street sighting as the Blotchy man in the second clip. Who are they talking about?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 12-18-2017, 06:18 PM
jerryd jerryd is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Hello Jerry.

I have been going through the BNA to see what the earliest newspapers reported on that account.
It appears the wording in the earliest accounts say, "who answered the published description of the man wanted for the murder, etc".

Blotchy's description was never published as the wanted man. The description of the Hutchinson suspect was widely published on the morning of the 13th.
So it would appear the Echo inserted the wrong details in their account of the same story.

Do you have any thoughts on your question?
I guess anytime we have conflicting press reports I have questions. lol

So you are saying it would be a man with an astrakhan coat seen in Battersea and Queen Victoria Street and not the blotchy faced man, correct? I don't know either way. I was thinking the other way around, but now I'm not sure.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 12-18-2017, 06:40 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,504
Default

Hi Robert.

Ok, now I see where you were coming from.
It would appear to be an error in their choice of wording in the article from the 19th.
As to the subsequent points you make, it may be well to mention the Echo also claimed the two forces (City & Met) were following two different suspects.

Here, on the 13th, they wrote:

(Ref: a 'shabby-genteel' looking man with a 'sandy' moustache)
"The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox. The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement."
Echo, 13 Nov.

[Note: Personally, I suspect the Star used this prior report by the Echo to speculate that Hutchinson must have been discredited for the Met to have been "induced" to attach more significance to the Cox suspect.
This is the reason, in my opinion, why the Star give no reason for their "discredited" story which they published the next day.
They obtained irinformation from a written source (the Echo), not a direct source in person (the police), where they could ask questions.
The Met police were not talking to the Star reporters, these reporters were complaining in print on that very point. And, when comparing some articles from the Star we can see they robbed them from other newspapers]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert St Devil View Post
I was focusing in on the "declared... at the inquest" part of the report/sentence. Could only think of Mary Ann... no wait... sorry... just hit me... they use the word "witnesses" in that sentence. The Star must be talking about Mrs. Cox and Mrs. Maxwell, and letting 11:45p slide for "early morning". Really, who else from the inquest is left who matches the criteria?

I saw the press reports that have some police chasing this guy while others chase that guy, mystery within a mystery. "Police" can be a banner term too often; maybe it was a divisional thing.

The tone in some newspapers downplay the value of Hutchinson's description to the police, as though it already matched the police's general composite. I'm wondering if they were more interested in his statement because they were working off a 3-to-4 am time of death
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 12-18-2017, 07:04 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerryd View Post
I guess anytime we have conflicting press reports I have questions. lol

So you are saying it would be a man with an astrakhan coat seen in Battersea and Queen Victoria Street and not the blotchy faced man, correct? I don't know either way. I was thinking the other way around, but now I'm not sure.
Hi Jerry.

Official descriptions issued by the police are very brief and to the point. Here are a few from the Double-event:

"At 12.35 a.m., 30th September, with Elizabeth Stride, found murdered at one a.m., same date, in Berner-street - A man, aged 28, height 5ft 8in, complexion dark, small dark moustache; dress, black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, collar and tie; respectable appearance; carried a parcel wrapped up in a newspaper.

At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street, a man, aged about 30, height 5ft 5in, complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.

"Information to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Police Office, Great Scotland-yard London, S.W.

"At 1.35 a.m., 30th Sept., with Catherine Eddows, in Church-passage, leading to Mitre-square, where she was found murdered at 1.45 a.m., same date, a man, age 30, height 5ft 7 or 8in., complexion fair, moustache fair, medium build; dress, pepper-and-salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap, with peak of the same material, reddish neckerchief tied in knot; appearance of a sailor.

"Information respecting this man to be forwarded to Inspector M'William, 26, Old Jewry, London, E.C."




The official description of Hutchinson's suspect published on the 13th Nov. is presented in the same fashion.

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.

The Cox suspect - Blotchy, never received the same attention.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.