Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Garry Wroe]

You made yourself perfectly understood, Lesley. I was merely providing clarification of my intended meaning.

Hope you're enjoying Eurovision!

[curious4]

Hi Curious4,

I agree with your impression of Hutchinson as a person who “did not rush into things, but would think things through carefully before acting”, and I think this personality trait is suggested by his decision to invent the clearly bogus "Sunday policeman" encounter after his interview with the police. To my mind, he "carefully thought through" the potentially disastrous implications of a non-explanation behind the extremely late arrival of his evidence, and came up with the Sunday policeman in an attempt to claim that he had alerted the police before the inquest, which he clearly hadn't.



Absolutely, although the verification of a policeman passing Dorset Street at that time would only support Hutchinson’s contention that he was there, not why he was there.

Best regards,
Ben

Hello Ben,
Yes, true, but why say he was there at all in that case? By the time he made his statement there had been plenty of time for someone to come forward and say that they saw him there, if he felt the need to provide an excuse for being there.

Why assume that talking to the the policeman on Sunday morning was untrue? One on fixed point duty would have told him to go to the police station, presumably, and he then consulted a friend at the lodging house as to whether he should do so. Not acting fast but cogitating.

His description of the man was more detailed, but fitted with the description the police already had of the man - perhaps confirming that he stood out from normal customers Mary Ann would have had.

I don´t think we can assume that the police at the time were incompetent - they obviously had good reasons for believing him and someone admitting they were outside Mary Ann´s room at the time for the murder would have been at least suspect unless evidence weighed heavily in his favour.

Cheers,
C4

[Ben]

Hi Curious4,

“Yes, true, but why say he was there at all in that case?”

Most probably because he was, albeit not for the reason he provided. As I said, any verification of a policeman walking past the end of Dorset Street at the time Hutchinson alleged would only lend weight to his claim that he was there. It doesn’t verify any of his professed reasons for being there.

“By the time he made his statement there had been plenty of time for someone to come forward and say that they saw him there, if he felt the need to provide an excuse for being there.”

But he was unlikely to have heard about it on those occasions, in contrast to the public inquest, where any information divulged quickly became public knowledge. As has been discussed on other threads, it is likely that Hutchinson recognised himself as the man with the wideawake described by Sarah Lewis at the inquest, and came forward with a largely fabricated story that both legitimized his presence there and deflected suspicion in a false direction.

“One on fixed point duty would have told him to go to the police station”

But then what did this policeman do? Assume Hutchinson would do as he suggested without taking any notes of his name or account? I’m afraid that if you’re uncomfortable with the idea of the police being incompetent, it is even more essential to reject Hutchinson’s police encounter. It is unthinkable that a policeman should have behaved so negligently, as Garry and Frank have both expounded very eloquently. PC Lamb noted at the Stride inquest that fixed-duty officers went off-duty at 1.00am.

“His description of the man was more detailed, but fitted with the description the police already had of the man”

No, I’m afraid this isn’t the case at all.

If you look back through this thread, you'll see it was the Echo who was able to demolish this misconception.

In addition, none of the descriptions that the police "already had" looked anything like the Astrakhan man.

“they obviously had good reasons for believing him”

Again, clearly not, because his statement was discredited by the police, chiefly – it appears – on account of his late evidence and failure to attend the inquest. The “Not acting fast but cogitating” excuse clearly did not work; that is, if it was ever resorted to in the first place, which I very much doubt.

“someone admitting they were outside Mary Ann´s room at the time for the murder would have been at least suspect unless evidence weighed heavily in his favour.”

Or unless they considered him a time-waster who was never in Dorset Street at all that night, in which case he would not have become a suspect. Matthew Packer and Emanuel Violenia certainly weren’t suspected of murder, despite both men having claimed to be near a crime scene on the night of a murder. They were simply dismissed as bogus witnesses.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

...As has been discussed on other threads, it is likely that Hutchinson recognised himself as the man with the wideawake described by Sarah Lewis at the inquest, and came forward with a largely fabricated story that both legitimized his presence there and deflected suspicion in a false direction.

Hi Ben.
I Know we touched on this earlier, but come on, all Lewis said was:
"He was not tall, but stout, had on a widewake black hat..."

Thats hardly pointing the finger at anyone, you don't even know if Hutch wore a widewake, thats modern conjecture. And even if he did wear one, it was common enough headgear as to be largely useless as a means of identification.
Lastly, there's no suggestion at the inquest that this 'Mr Widewake' was the murderer, in fact the last person known from inquest testimony to be in a viable position to be a suspect, was Blotchy.

Only if Hutch was Blotchy would he have anything to worry about, so I think your argument is false on two points.
The first being my initial objection when I asked, "by what means?" in another post, and the second that he feared being identified as 'Widewake'.
Sorry Ben, neither are tangible in my opinion.

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

Hutchinson walked into Commercial St. police station by 5:00pm ish, because he was giving his statement by 6:00pm.

Didn't Hutchinson walk into Commercial St. station at about 6?

[Wickerman]

Didn't Hutchinson walk into Commercial St. station at about 6?

It's of no importance, the testimony states the time Abberline began to write the statement, not the minute Hutch walked in off the street. He could have been on the premises a while before Abberline sat down with him.
The point is once Hutch did walk in off the street he was no longer among people who may have been inside at the inquest, whenever that concluded.

I was arguing that the short time between the conclusion of the inquest at Shorditch Town Hall, and Hutchinson sitting down with Abberline at 6:00pm is hardly sufficient for Hutch to learn anything threatening him from the inquest and then hi-tailing himself to Commercial St. Station.

Besides, unless Hutch was Blotchy there was nothing learned at the inquest to threaten him.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

There is simply no realistic alternative to the premise that Hutchinson was the man seen by Sarah Lewis, and that it was her evidence that precipitated his appearance at Commercial Street police station shortly after he learned of it. The striking degree of similarity between Hutchinson’s report of his own movements and activity on the night in question and those recorded of the wideawake man by Sarah Lewis have been touched upon many times.

They were ostensibly both in the same location at 2:30am on 9th November, and doing precisely the same thing - watching and waiting for someone to emerge from the entrance to Miller’s Court. It would be one hell of an implausible coincidence if there were two people doing precisely that at the same time, and that they somehow managed to miss each other!

The other non-coincidence is Hutchinson’s decision to come forward so soon after the termination of the inquest. As I mentioned in my previous post, he could have come forward any time, and yet he chose to come forward just after the closure of the inquest, where Lewis’ wideawake-related evidence was publicly divulged. Unless we’re prepared to accept the outrageously implausible double-coincidence outlined here, Hutchinson came forward as a consequence of learning of her evidence, which he could easily have done between the inquest’s end and 6.00pm that evening (again see my previous post for examples of obvious avenues through which Hutchinson could have garnered this information).

I realise that the description itself was not specific enough to incriminate any particular individual, but a weak description does not allow us to conclude that Lewis was unable to recognise the man again, and if she did, it could very well have posed a “threat” to Hutchinson if he had anything to hide. Similarly, just because there was no obvious focus on wideawake man at the inquest, Hutchinson could hardly have taken comfort in the mere assumption that the man Lewis described would never be sought in connection with the crime.

All the best,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

there was nothing learned at the inquest to threaten him.

Regards, Jon S.[/QUOTE]

First of all it is entirely feasible that news of what was being said within the inquest was relayed quickly to the people outside.

If Hutchinson was 'wideawake Man' then he might have made a point of finding out whether he had been mentioned at the inquest -I think that he would have extremely interested.

In the sketch of Hutchinson that has reached us, he is wearing a wideawake hat.

He might have been worried that Mrs Lewis had given the police more information than had been made public.

Although Mrs Lewis had not recognised Hutch (as far as he knew), he might have recognised her as someone that he passed from time to time, and who's memory could be jogged by seeing him again -in which case it would look too suspicious if he had not volunteered his presence beforehand.

Whilst Blotchy had definitely been seen with Mary, he was a punter with a prostitute (so a believable reason for being with her) and he'd made no attempt to hide. Mary had been heard singing, so alive, whilst with Blotchy, although the Ripper always struck quickly.

Wideawake had been seen lurking and watching the victim's room with no apparent reason, and at a closer time to the murder.

[Rubyretro]

ps, Wickerman..

Don't forget that Wideawake Man must have seen alot more of Mrs Lewis, than she saw of him close up.

I believe that the comportment of a lone woman going into a dark street and seeing a lone man just standing there, would to be to watch him very closely from afar to judge whether or not he appeared to be a threat (this is why she could say that the man was looking up the Court as if waiting). However, when drawing close, she would avoid looking him in the face or making eye contact -which could be construed as an invitation (the reason why she couldn't give a description of his face).

Wideawake however, would be able to look at her closely.

Now put yourself in the shoes of Wideawake, if you were guilty of wrongdoing, and you knew that an acquaintance had passed right up close to you just before you committed a crime. Wouldn't you feel very worried about that person ? -not quite believe that she wouldn't 'remember' later that she'd seen you ? -even though she hadn't shown any sign of recognising you at the time ? I think that when replaying events over in your mind, doubts might creep in.

[Wickerman]

I think the principal difference here is you are intent on incriminating Hutchinson without a shread of evidence, whereas I refuse to accuse him of anything without justification.
This isn't Salem...

[Rubyretro]

I think the principal difference here is you are intent on incriminating Hutchinson without a shread of evidence, whereas I refuse to accuse him of anything without justification.
This isn't Salem...

But there is a justification for it Wickerman:

When looking for a suspect of a murder, it is natural to look at the last people that saw the victim alive.

Hutchinson, by his own statement, places himself outside the victims room
just before the murder. He even claims to have spoken to her.

This is after 'Blotchy' -in whose company Mary was heard singing.

The fact that Hutch was 'lurking' outside Mary's room at the time he said, can be corroborated by Mrs Lewis, and the timing of the Policeman's beat at the end of the road.

However, nothing else in Hutchinson's bears logical scrutiny -knowing what we now know of serial killers, Hutch would surely be the favourite suspect if the murder had been committed today.

[FrankO]

I realise that the description itself was not specific enough to incriminate any particular individual, but a weak description does not allow us to conclude that Lewis was unable to recognise the man again, and if she did, it could very well have posed a “threat” to Hutchinson if he had anything to hide. Similarly, just because there was no obvious focus on wideawake man at the inquest, Hutchinson could hardly have taken comfort in the mere assumption that the man Lewis described would never be sought in connection with the crime.

In addition to this, Ben, I'd say that if Hutchinson was Lewis’ loiterer and wished to try and deflect suspicion away from himself, then it would have been wise to do it before the police suspected Lewis’ loiterer, before any questions might be asked.

All the best,
Frank

[richardnunweek]

Hi Rubyretro,
I disagree with Hutchinson being the number one suspect in modern day interpretation, the main suspect until... proven not guilty has to be the last person seen by a witness with the victim , and that is the market porter seen with Mjk at 845am by Mrs Maxwell, remember she swore that under oath...
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

[

QUOTE=richardnunweek;174853]Hi Rubyretro,
I disagree with Hutchinson being the number one suspect in modern day interpretation, the main suspect until... proven not guilty has to be the last person seen by a witness with the victim , and that is the market porter seen with Mjk at 845am by Mrs Maxwell, remember she swore that under oath...
Regards Richard.

[/QUOTE]

Richard -everything indicates that Mary was already dead when Maxwell claimed to have seen her
-the estimated TOD by Police doctors
-the fact that she still had her stomach contents when Maxwell said she vomited
-the ashes of the burn't clothing
-the cries of 'oh,murder!, from a woman, heard coming from the Court at the estimated time of the murder
-no fresh milk in the room
-Mrs Maxwell's description does not match that of our Mary Kelly

[richardnunweek]

Hi Rubyretro,
A good case for the prosecution.so now the defence..
Lets start with the estimated time of death, the word ''estimated' says it all, without rectal temperatures, and the mutilation, no precise conclusion can be reached, we should really take modern day opinion on this and not just take Bond and co 1888 view.
As for the food content, clearly MJK ate some food at some time , but we simply do not know when, and we do not know the amount of vomit Kelly may have produced, so the fact that remains of fish and potatoes were found, is not a proven T.O.D.
The ashes?
According to Abberline the fire must have been ''Fierce'' so how long would it take to reduce those garments to ashes, again no T.O.D can be established.
The cry of ''Oh Murder'' has at least two two explanation other then Marys death cries,
a] Unlikely.. but another female looking through the broken pane around 4am
b] The most likely reason which I introduced to Casebook ie, a reocurrence of a bad dream that kelly had recently had, note.. Praters interpretaion, and kit watkins interview with Lottie .
The police doctors would have used the time of the cry [ without appreciating other explanations] to pinpoint T.O.D.. which is fair play, but not necessarily accurate in this case.
As for Maxwells sighting which has been disowned by many on Casebook.
Maxwell would have been asked to describe the woman she saw physically, and also the clothing she wore, for starters, the wrap around was found in room 13,
If the description differed from every other person who knew her, she would not have been entertained at the inquest, for she would have been clearly been mistaken on day/person.
As for the wrong day, she made her statement on the 9th that same day, and her visit to the milk shop was verified.
No fresh milk in kellys room... mayby the killer drank it.. or mayby Maurice Lewis saw Maxwell with her milk, and associated Mary with it.?
Look at that Times NOV 12th report and it clearly states the police are of the opinion that the murder was committed in ''daylight''.
So its not just my view.
Regards Richard.