Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[glyn]

Spot on, Beebs.


If you consider it "gormless", I would strongly encourage you to study some other serial cases where you will discover that the offenders concerned have often resorted to very similar tactics in their efforts to evade justice.


Well its still gormless behaviour,some have used Ian Huntley as an example,but of course there is no comparison,and serial killers writing cryptic letters to the police is hardly comparable to Hutchinsons "escapade"He wouldnt have been so much evading justice,as inviting it surely?(if guilty of course)

Well no, it's not just "an opinion".

Hutchinson was discredited, and the police informed the journalists at the Echo that this was due to their doubts about his motivation for coming forward with his evidence three days after the murder. This can't have been the only reason, and there is no doubt that the police were reticent in providing the full details when communicating with the press, but the reason for Hutchinson's discrediting was undoubtedly and inextricably linked to the question of his honesty.


"Doubts about his motivation" Well doubts are only doubts,so thats hardly conclusive,and the rest is assumption.
Surely if Hutchinson was suspected of inventing Astrakhan man,he would have been arrested and charged with wasting police time,or some other charge?




Joseph Isaacs was arrested because of his behaviour, and not because of his appearance. The alleged Astrakhan similarity was observed by the press only, and the extent of that similarity must be doubted, considering Isaacs' impoverished circumstances at the time of his arrest.

Or was it a combination of both?Can you be certain that Isaacs dress had nothing whatsoever to do with his arrest?

[Ben]

Thanks for that, Lynn.

Yes, I have no doubt that Hutchinson "borrowed" from popular stereotypes when constructing his Astrakhan man.

[lynn cates]

astrakhan

Hello All. There were, no doubt, astrakhan men in 1888. The question is, what did they look like, who were they, of what race were they?

Here is a description of one with a somewhat earlier photo below. Who is he? What is his race?

Cheers.
LC

DESCRIPTION
Height 5 feet 8 in
Visage—red face, blotchy as if from excessive drinking—large nose
Hair (wavy) brown, turning grey, moustache white, no whiskers.
Very slight build
Dressed—dark clothes, dark overcoat with astrakhan collar and cuffs,--hard felt hat.
Wears sword scarf pin—has Irish harp and shamrock on locket and watch chain [.]

[Ben]

a change is making something different...for example, if Lewis had said originally the man was tall and then stated the man was short.

Spot on, Beebs.

This is the crucial distinction that appears to have been overlooked.

"The alternatives would seem to be that either Hutch was the murderer ,or a publicity seeker.I dont believe the actual Murderer would be gormless enough to place himself at the scene and sign a statement to that effect"

If you consider it "gormless", I would strongly encourage you to study some other serial cases where you will discover that the offenders concerned have often resorted to very similar tactics in their efforts to evade justice.

The Police believed him,why shouldnt we?Not so sure that hutch was discredited as some would say,but again its an opinion.

Well no, it's not just "an opinion".

Hutchinson was discredited, and the police informed the journalists at the Echo that this was due to their doubts about his motivation for coming forward with his evidence three days after the murder. This can't have been the only reason, and there is no doubt that the police were reticent in providing the full details when communicating with the press, but the reason for Hutchinson's discrediting was undoubtedly and inextricably linked to the question of his honesty.

Joseph Isaacs was arrested because of his behaviour, and not because of his appearance. The alleged Astrakhan similarity was observed by the press only, and the extent of that similarity must be doubted, considering Isaacs' impoverished circumstances at the time of his arrest.

[glyn]

I would suggest somebody resembling "astrakhan man" was seen by Hutch,possibly embroidered somewhat.The alternatives would seem to be that either Hutch was the murderer ,or a publicity seeker.I dont believe the actual Murderer would be gormless enough to place himself at the scene and sign a statement to that effect,it makes very little sense. Publicity seeker? always a possibility I guess,but in my view doubtful.
The Police believed him,why shouldnt we?Not so sure that hutch was discredited as some would say,but again its an opinion.The arrest of Isaacs(I think) a short time later,dressed almosrt exactly as "Astrakhan man" was, is more than just coincidence surely?The mode of dress described by Hutchinson could ,possibly, be linked to another well known suspect of course.But thats another issue.

[babybird67]

i agree Benz

a change is making something different...for example, if Lewis had said originally the man was tall and then stated the man was short. That is a change. All she did was expand on some of the details, and I would imagine that was under questioning of the sort of, can you remember anything, not sure, well was the person tall or short, and thus further details came to light.

There is absolutely no difference between Lewis making additions such as this to her statement, and Hutch making additions to his, other than of course the plausibility of the additions. Being able to notice someone was stout and wore a hat in the middle of the night is not implausible. Being able to notice the myriad of details about someone else in the middle of the night that Hutch alleges he did IS implausible in my opinion.

Beebs x

[Ben]

So when Lewis' man acquired three very bland and generic features, it's a "CHANGE".

But when Hutchinson's man acquired a considerably greater number of detailed appendages, they're just "additions".

I can't say this makes a fabulous amount of sense to me.

It's extremely obvious, incidentally, that if Hutchinson mentioned to the police that he had entered the court itself and hovered outside Kelly's room, it would have been included in the statement. Clearly this was something he only told the press.

All the best,
Ben

[sleekviper]

Hello Versa,
If I was alive in 1888, I would think that since I am about to place a victim with an unknown suspect, they may want to have me verify that the victim is the right person. Now, they can show a photo, but for someone to just walk in back then, they may want a visual confirmation in addition to testimony.

[Versa]

The worse part being that someone is going to pull back the cover on a mutilated mess and ask if that is the body of Kelly that he is giving testimony concerning. That is a lot to take in at one time, I would probably try and tell the story away from the police station to hopefully avoid having to see the body.

Surely you can decline to view the body? Viewing the body would only be in order to ID the victim and she had already been identified prior to the inquest, there was no need for him to view the body if he didn't wish to...

[sleekviper]

Hello Sally,
No, I am afraid that you have the wrong day. We have only spoken of the last time that Hutch would see Kelly alive. It is at that point that the situation between Barnett and Kelly may not be known to Hutch. Far as a quick run to the police station, he does have to come to terms with a friends death, and a horrible death at that. If he thinks that it was the last time that he saw her, and the last man that he saw her with, there may have been feelings of guilt. I doubt that learning Barnett was not around is going to matter much to him at this point, only make depression worse that he left. So depression, guilt, and the worse part of all could stall anyone from a direct trip to the police station . The worse part being that someone is going to pull back the cover on a mutilated mess and ask if that is the body of Kelly that he is giving testimony concerning. That is a lot to take in at one time, I would probably try and tell the story away from the police station to hopefully avoid having to see the body.
My friends do not all know each other, I would thus not expect Kelly and Hutch to have the shared knowledge of people that they know. Hutch claims to give her money, which could decrease if she introduces people that would also come to ask him for loans. Every penny counts, especially in those conditions.

[Fisherman]

Ben (on flying pigs):

"If you don’t believe any of this, just you wait until tomorrow. If I provide the same account again without deviating from it, and without referring back to what I’ve just written, that means I’m telling the truth."

It lies in a combination, Ben. We cannot only look at the stories presented. We must also look at the persons that present it. If they give the impression of being careless with the truth or have a documented history of doing so, then that in itself will detract from the credibility offered.

So no, I would not believe you if you spoke twice of having seen a flying pig. But then again, I would believe you even less, if you changed the pig for an elephant.

Sorry to disrupt your moment of education, though. And now you can start yelling that I am butting in on a conversation you are having with another poster - but you can´t say that I have asked you to withdraw from debating or change your view. And that was the issue.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"I would say that the description of A-man tallies well (perhaps) between police and press, but its the press added description that he went into the court and stood by her house which should also set the alarm bells ringing with regard to his credibility."

If he had not told the police that, then perhaps so. I am not sure that he did not, however - I don´t see why such a thing must have made the report. But at any rate - why is it that you speak of alarm bells in connection with this, whereas you tell me that I should reconsider speaking about the same bells in connection with a two witnesses who we know CHANGED their testimony? Adding subsequently is one thing (and we don´t know that he did - it may have ben there from the outset), but changing is another.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"I lauded you-remember?"

I have a selective memory at times, Abby. What leaps to mind from that post of yours is this:

"However, Fish, when you go to such lengths, i.e. trying to discredit witnesses like lewis and Prater, it kind of hurts your credibility and makes one wonder how far you will go to back your theory (to the disservice of your theory IMHO).
If your at a party and 10 people tell you your drunk, its time for bed, Fish."

I have been lauded in clearer fashions, I must say

If ten people think I am wrong, I listen to their counterarguments and ponder them. If I find the arguments good, I change my mind. If I find them bad, I don´t.
The latter applies very much in this case.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I would suggest that the '''very good friend'' aspect was overplayed, one gets the impression that Mary Kelly always was on the lookout for a handout, she seems the sort of person that used her charm and ''desperation plight'', to supplement a drink problem, and Hutchinson was just one of many that fell for her personality, on occasions .
One has to feel so sorry for her predicament .
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

He does not know the situation with Kelly. Tell a policeman that a boyfriend to a friend might be upset that she is walking with a man, but he is not sure if the boyfriend knows this man? Unless spats and a fur coat are against the law, he has nothing to report, just act on instinct

Hi Sleekviper

I'm not sure how this works? Are you saying that Hutchinson didn't know the situation with Kelly by the Sunday following her murder? How could he have avoided knowing? I think Rubyretro has done an excellent job of demonstrating how difficult it would be not to have heard (on another thread)If he was her friend, as he claimed, why wouldn't he have gone straight to the police on the Friday?

Come to that, if he and she were such good friends, why wouldn't he have known about Barnett?

Come to that, how come nobody else who knew Kelly ever seems to have known him?

I wonder about this, I have to say.