The press, what they knew and how they knew it.

[Wickerman]

Astrakhan was not Isaacs.

Isaacs was in prison when the alleged sighting occurred.

Isaac's may not have been Astrachan, we have no proof either way. So equally, he just may have been Astrachan.

And, incidently, Isaac's was not in prison on the night of Mary Kelly's murder. The story related by Mary Cusins remains unchallenged.

Isaac's was in tried at Barnet Police Court on Nov. 12th and sentenced to 21 days hard labour, being released on Dec. 3rd.

The Whitechapel crime that occured while Isaac's was in prison was the attack on Annie Farmer, not that of Mary Kelly.

So, as we have already learned, Isaac's...
"...whose appearance certainly answered the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat.", was known in the area of Dorset St., was on the streets, and in consequence provides the best confirmation we have that the man seen by Hutchinson really existed.

Like it or not, and I know you don't, the reality is we possess reasonable confirmation that Hutchinson was telling the truth.

And no, I do not think Astrachan was the Whitechapel murderer.

[Wickerman]

Absolutely, Jon. The other thing is that, when a witness makes a statement it is the officer taking the statement who decides what to include and how to word it. The officer gets the account from the witness and formulates the structure of how the statement will be worded. The witness's evidence is written in the officer's choice of words.

Thankyou Colin, most helpful. However may I draw your attention to the statements given to Abberline on the day of Mary Kelly's murder.
For the most part they are all given in the first person, "I saw", "I went", "I knew", etc.
Interestingly, to me at least, is the fact that Bowyer's statement, also taken by Abberline is written in the third person, "He saw", "he went", "he knew", etc.
Also, after taking the statement from Sarah Lewis, in the first person, Abberline provides a final sentence in the third person, almost as an after thought. This is a detail concerning an earlier sighting of a suspicious man, not directly relative to events of Friday morning.
Hutchinson's statement is also given in the first person. This being the case I wondered if the choice of words were those of the witness not the investigating officer?

A second sighting of the same individual would be of interest, but not necessarily evidentially relevant at that stage. That detail could be left out of an initial statement with a view to obtaining a second statement at a later date, should it be necessary to do so.

Agreed. I think it has been effectively demonstrated that as no record of what Hutchinson told Abberline has survived, it is quite misleading for anyone to claim that Hutchinson did not tell the police about Sunday.
The sighting of this man on Sunday could easily have been included in the missing interrogation.

I see nothing untoward in the fact that Hutchinson's second sighting isn't mentioned in his statement; it may not have been his decision to omit it.

Quite reassuring coming from someone with experience.

[Wickerman]

On the subject of well-dressed men frequenting the East end, William Fishman provides a few examples.
One of particular note is mentioned while on the subject of Common Lodging Houses.

"Not only the criminal, but that curious declasse figure, the gentleman 'slummer', was a frequent inhabitant. Initially drawn to the East End for his first experience of cheap and easy sex, and to savour the colour and vibrancy of the pub and music hall, he stayed, permanently hooked."

Fishman then provides a quote from the East London Advertiser, 12 May, 1888.:

"Reports on death at the London Hospital of one John Boyle, alias Benjamin Ryan, aged 40, said to be a gentleman of considerable means, who was discovered lying in an unconscious condition outside a common lodging house in Brick Lane, Spitalfields on Sunday last and who died in hospital. A witness who knew the deceased said that he lived at various common lodging houses in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel and Aldgate. Some time ago he had a fortune left him. He belonged to a good family, his sisters occupy a large house in Cavendish Square. When he wanted to see his friends, he used to dress up stylish and appear respectable. Death, it was found, was due to alcoholism accelerated by acute pneumonia."
East End 1888, Fishman, 1988, pp-28/9.

Fishman also mentions other examples of the well-to-do who have fallen from grace and now choose to reside among the destitute in common lodging houses in the East End.

[Bridewell]

"Finding a chain of some sort" is easier said than done, especially one that gave the appearance of gold. I really, really don't think polishing up a "small pebble" and hoping it looked like a convincing "red stone seal" would have worked very well!

As I said, the chain wouldn't need to be gold or even to have the appearance of gold. If you return to my original post you'll see that I made reference to the tendency, especially in poor light, to see what the viewer expects to see. The usual reason for dismissing Hutchinson is that he couldn't possibly have seen what he claims to have seen. If that's the case, how could he possibly tell a gold chain from a gilt one? A gilt chain would be cheap, would look like a gold one in poor lighting conditions and would be readily obtainable in places like the Petticoat Lane market where Hutchinson claims to have seen Astrakhan Man on the second occasion. I have no axe to grind either way where Hutchinson is concerned. He may have been telling the truth as he saw it or he may have been lying. There is insufficient evidence to discard either possibility IMHO.

[Wickerman]

... He did not simply provide the statement,

Ben, I never said anything about "simply providing a statement".

....he accompanied it with with an explanatory covering letter essentially "introducing" Hutchinson and offering additional relevant information that was not to be found in the body of the statement taken down by Badham.

By "he" you mean Abberline, and no, the report is most certainly not a "cover letter".

The report is a summary of the days events in which Abberline took part. It begins with the Inquest, then the interview with the witness, subsequent arrangements made for the next day, and finally the status of people arrested and either detained or released.

It is a report of the days proceedings in which Abberline played a role.
It is not a cover letter for Hutchinson's statement.

Why you think Abberline would be sending it anywhere is not clear. Abberline is the detective responsible for interviews and interrogations, the statement will stay with him, as will the results of his subsequent interrogation of Hutchinson. All a detective is required to do is make a report in brief, as we see he did.
This report is what would cross Swanson's desk, but the actual files are retained by Abberline.

The revelation that he had perhaps seen the suspect for a second time and told a policeman about it would indisputably qualify as an example of "additional relevant information", certainly more so than the detail that he had given Kelly "a few shillings occasionally". It is inconceivable that Abberline should have withheld such information had Hutchinson supplied it.

No Ben, you are wrong on both counts.

First, a 'possible' second sighting, in a market on Sunday, is not a detail that the police can work with, not unless he was adamant about it, and clearly he was not. It may have potential value, but not immediate value.

Secondly, no-one said it was withheld, thats you again blowing it out of proportion. The suggestion is that the Sunday morning sighting was likely detailed within the interrogation paperwork which no longer exists.

The police in those days patrolled a delineated beat. Hutchinson had only to state the time and location of the sighting in order for the policeman to have been identified and questioned accordingly about this alleged sighting.

And so Abberline makes enquiries, locates which PC was on duty at the market and questions him. The PC informs Abberline that a man did come to him with a story and that he said he thought he saw the man briefly but lost him in the crowd. There was no trace of the man that I could see so I told him I cannot leave my post but if you are sure then go to Commercial St. station and report to the Inspector what you saw.

This is your definition of shocking negligence?

There was nothing preventing such an officer from taking, at the very least, Hutchinson's name and address.

And what, you need to see evidence that he did?

Quite clearly, the "policeman" never existed....

No, what is clear Ben, is the level of desperation in your argument. You castigate anyone who did not act the way you (incorrectly) think they should have. And any witness who's statement demonstrates the infallibility of your hypothesis is branded a liar.

[Bridewell]

There are numerous press accounts of men being accosted by mobs for looking only slightly well-dressed and out-of-place for the area, and this can hardly have escaped the notice of the actual killer.

I admit to a bit of extemporaneous brainstorming in my previous post. However:
The area was Commercial Street. Why was Astrakhan Man out of place for Commercial Street, one of the main London thoroughfares? Are there examples of well-dressed men being accosted by mobs on the main thoroughfares, as opposed to the back streets?

[Bridewell]

I couldn't disagree more strongly.

A second sighting would have been of considerable interest to Abberline's superiors, not least because it provided an additional location for the suspect (Petticoat Lane in this case)

Cheers,
Ben

I didn't say it wouldn't have been of interest! I said that it would but that, evidentially, it wouldn't, at that stage, have been relevant.

[Ben]

A second sighting of the same individual would be of interest, but not necessarily evidentially relevant at that stage

I couldn't disagree more strongly.

A second sighting would have been of considerable interest to Abberline's superiors, not least because it provided an additional location for the suspect (Petticoat Lane in this case), which could have an obvious influence on the prioritization of areas in which to escort Hutchinson on the Astrak-hunt that was to come. It doesn't matter if the detail was "left out of the initial statement" since Abberline had only to mention it in his covering letter (where he mentioned far less relevant details). He had no reason whatsoever to leave it out.

Cheers,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Bridewell,

I realise you were only offering the above as a possibility, and not necessarily your preferred version of events, but in all honesty I can't think of anything less plausible than the above scenario. If the investigative activity on the ground had been hotting up considerably since the "double event", with the temptation being strong amongst vigilantes (either wannabes or members of an actual organisation) to accost anyone who looked remotely out of place, the very worst thing the real killer could have done is attire himself conspicuously, and in a style that closely approximated many of the bogeyman physical descriptions of the supposed killer that had been doing the rounds in the press from the early days.

There are numerous press accounts of men being accosted by mobs for looking only slightly well-dressed and out-of-place for the area, and this can hardly have escaped the notice of the actual killer.

Unless the killer was seriously unstreetwise (which, for numerous reasons, I find impossible to accept) he'd know full well that passing himself off as a "man of substance" was likely to deter his intended victims and attract the very characters he didn't want to be pestered by - plainclothes officers, members of vigilance committees, muggers. In other words, the very people that particular locality was rife with. No police officer was going to "leave alone" a walking amalgamation of bogeyman attributes with a black parcel of knife-shaped dimension just because he looked wealthy. It just wouldn't happen.

I also don't think it's anything like as easy as some people are making out for a working class local to procure even a vaguely convincing "Astrakhan" outfit. "Finding a chain of some sort" is easier said than done, especially one that gave the appearance of gold. I really, really don't think polishing up a "small pebble" and hoping it looked like a convincing "red stone seal" would have worked very well!

Why not? Why did Astrakhan Man try to hide his face?

He didn't. He had his hat down over his eyes, but then looked at Hutchinson "stern", which seems to be a contradiction in the same breath. If he really didn't want Hutchinson to see his face, he could have turned completely away.

If the real killer was a local man and dressed accordingly, there was no earthly need for any alteration of his appearance. There were already many thousands of people who dressed just like him, enabling him to blend into the crowd, and if the prostitutes felt safe with any type of client during that period in history in that district, it was the tried and tested, inconspicuous local.

Nope, try as I might to find credible alternatives, there's little escaping the most likely explanation is that Hutchinson lied and was accordingly discredited.

All the best,
Ben

[Bridewell]

Hutchinson quite possibly told Abberline all the same details he provided to the Central News reporter.
A voluntary statement given by a witness to the police will always contain fewer details than a subsequent interview with a detective. Once reminded of the smaller details after being questioned Hutchinson would come away from the interview fully-loaded, if you like, so of course the next time he gives his story it will contain more than his initial offering to Badham.
Thats just human nature

Absolutely, Jon. The other thing is that, when a witness makes a statement it is the officer taking the statement who decides what to include and how to word it. The officer gets the account from the witness and formulates the structure of how the statement will be worded. The witness's evidence is written in the officer's choice of words. A second sighting of the same individual would be of interest, but not necessarily evidentially relevant at that stage. That detail could be left out of an initial statement with a view to obtaining a second statement at a later date, should it be necessary to do so. I see nothing untoward in the fact that Hutchinson's second sighting isn't mentioned in his statement; it may not have been his decision to omit it.

[Bridewell]

Of course there were people capable of dressing smartly "in the East End", but that doesn't mean they'd flash their bling in the most inadvisable circumstances possible.

And yet, according to Hutchinson, someone did flash his bling in the Dorset Street area (although when Hutchinson claims to have seen him he was in the relative safety of a main London thoroughfare).

Three possible scenarios for me:

(1) Hutchinson invented Astrakhan Man.

(2) Astrakhan Man was the real deal but, for some reason, felt confident that he could walk through the area as he did without the risk of attack.

(3) Astrakhan Man was a fake - a local man of limited means who was able, with the aid of a few props, to pass himself off as a man of substance.

I'm reluctant to rule out (3). There had been no killing since 30th September. Was that because 'the Ripper' no longer felt the urge to kill? Apparently not. So why the long interval between killings? Heavy police presence? Prostitutes on their guard and reluctant to risk their lives for fourpence? So what do you do if you're a serial killer who's getting no opportunity to attack? Just shrug your shoulders and put it down to experience? Or do something to change the situation? Passing himself off as a man of substance would (a) make it more worthwhile for the prostitutes to take the risk and (b) make it less likely that he would be stopped by the police. Stick some fake fur on an old coat; find a chain of some sort - doesn't have to be gold under poor light conditions; add a stone - doesn't have to be a gem, just polish up a small pebble; stick some white cloth onto the tops of your shoes and act the part. Why not? Why did Astrakhan Man try to hide his face? He had nothing much to fear from his face being seen by the likes of Hutchinson if he was the real deal, but if he was a local working man passing himself off as one of his 'betters', recognition would expose him for what he really was.

I emphasise that I'm not claiming (3) to be the truth of the matter. I simply refuse to discount it. People see what they expect to see, especially in poor lighting conditions. Why would Hutchinson be any different? One thing I am sure of is that, if Astrakhan Man did exist and was flaunting his 'wealth' in the area, he was doing it for a reason and a near-suicidal desire to be mugged probably wasn't it.

[DVV]

Absolutely no way, Jon.

Indeed Ben.
Absolutely no way at all.

That would have made Abberline moronically incompetent, which I'm not buying into.

Certainly so. Not that I'm an Abberline's fan, but that would make his report stupidely incomplete. How could he write "He can identify the man, and arrangement etc etc", and make no mention of that (extraordinary) second sighting ?

Cheers, my Laphroaig friend

[DVV]

Hi Caroline

Considering how very close the Victoria Home was to where Smith, Tabram, Chapman, Kelly and McKenzie were all attacked, and to where Eddowes’s highly incriminating apron piece was discarded, Hutchinson would have had to be in the minority with virtually no ‘buffer zone’ at all around his ‘operational base’.
X

Except that it was a perfect place to hide, where people were "just numbers", as Henry Moore said.

Cheers

[caz]

Quote:
Similarly, if Hutch was not the killer (and therefore not one of a teeny-tiny minority of serial killers who come forward to try and shift any suspicion before it lands on them), the police still appear to have been looking in all the wrong places. They had no evidence of the killer's class or circumstances. None at all.

Until such time as the killer’s identity has been positively established, Caz, you cannot state with any certainty that investigators looked in ‘all the wrong places.’ As for the notion that there was no evidence indicative of the killer’s ‘class or circumstances’, the police had by the time of Kelly’s death three eyewitness sightings of the man believed to have been the murderer, neither one of which was even vaguely suggestive that the wanted man was anything but working-class.

Hi Garry,

Firstly, until such time as the killer’s identity has been positively established, you cannot argue that they were looking in the right places, which is precisely what you appeared to be doing. If not, I apologise for misunderstanding your original point on the matter. I appreciate they might have been looking in the right place but failed to find the killer for any number of plausible reasons, but the surest way for him to have escaped the net was if he was somewhere their searches never reached, which has to remain a distinct possibility.

Secondly, anyone above the very poorest section of society can appear working-class if that’s how they want or need to appear. It doesn’t tend to work the other way round. It wouldn’t have been so easy, for example, for a dirt poor, unemployed labourer to look anything but a dirt poor, unemployed labourer, which might have been a problem if one wanted prostitutes to go off with him after the first one or two had been murdered that year.

Quote:
So why could the ripper not have been one of a minority of serial offenders who prefer to put a bit of distance between their home and their playing field …

It is the serialist who kills on or close to his own doorstep who is in the minority, Caz. The majority kill beyond the psychological buffer zone constructed around their operational base in order to prevent any criminal investigation coming too close to home.

Music to my ears, Garry. I must have been taken in, against my better judgement, by what Ben has been insisting for years, that the vast majority of serial offenders will be found living or working right in alongside their victims and not at any distance from their playing field. Considering how very close the Victoria Home was to where Smith, Tabram, Chapman, Kelly and McKenzie were all attacked, and to where Eddowes’s highly incriminating apron piece was discarded, Hutchinson would have had to be in the minority with virtually no ‘buffer zone’ at all around his ‘operational base’.

Nice one. I agree that makes a lot more sense.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hutchinson quite possibly told Abberline all the same details he provided to the Central News reporter.

Absolutely no way, Jon.

That would have made Abberline moronically incompetent, which I'm not buying into. He did not simply provide the statement, he accompanied it with with an explanatory covering letter essentially "introducing" Hutchinson and offering additional relevant information that was not to be found in the body of the statement taken down by Badham. The revelation that he had perhaps seen the suspect for a second time and told a policeman about it would indisputably qualify as an example of "additional relevant information", certainly more so than the detail that he had given Kelly "a few shillings occasionally". It is inconceivable that Abberline should have withheld such information had Hutchinson supplied it.

No, the obvious reality is that Hutchinson mentioned nothing of the Sunday policeman episode until he spoke to the press, and presumably because he was conscious of the fact that his three-day-late presentation of his evidence was a sticking point. "I did try to come forward before, honest!"

An equally obvious reality is that had this policeman truly existed, he'd have actually done something about it, rather an deliberately allowing a potential serial murderer's trail to grow cold. The police in those days patrolled a delineated beat. Hutchinson had only to state the time and location of the sighting in order for the policeman to have been identified and questioned accordingly about this alleged sighting. The idea that such a policeman, had he existed, would not have taken the matter any further when faced with a witness who appeared to provide evidence relating to the most brutal murder in London’s history, and in an established pattern of serial murder, is quite clearly nonsense. Had the police tracked this duty-dodging copper down and discovered that he behaved in such a manner, he should have been hauled over the coals and booted off the force for shocking negligence. The policeman in question would clearly have expected this outcome (again because he'd know he was capable of being traced according to time and location), and accordingly would not have risked such eccentrically negligent behaviour.

"Go to the police station" or "I'm a fixed-point officer" would not have got him off the hook either, There was nothing preventing such an officer from taking, at the very least, Hutchinson's name and address.

Quite clearly, the "policeman" never existed. He was simply a handy spectre for Hutchinson to conjure up in order to "explain" his failure to alert the police earlier. Obviously he had to wait for the press to impart this tall tale, since he knew the police would ask awkward questions like "where did you see this policeman?" "at what time?" etc. It's so surprise, of course, that Hutchinson's discrediting coincided with the release of the "Sunday Policeman" account.

This was all that was needed to confirm this part of Hutchinson's story, ie, that it was not all made up.

I'm not suggesting Astrachan(if Isaac's) became a suspect, only that whoever Hutchinson claimed he saw did indeed exist, and was a local man.

But on what possible basis?

Astrakhan was not Isaacs.

Isaacs was in prison when the alleged sighting occurred.

Astrakhan cannot reasonably have looked anything like Isaacs in terms of clothing and accessories. Facial hair, complexion, height, age maybe, but that's your lot.

There is absolutely nothing about Isaacs that lends the remotest weight to Hutchinson's account.

Regards,
Ben