Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"We are now in possession of proof that the police both communicated with the Echo and supplied them with accurate information."

You may think that this is so, but you somehow seem to disregard the very obvious possibility that the police supplied only parts of the information they had, thus not giving the full picture. But it´s up to you if you wish to do so.

"Any newspaper that finds it necessary to pass critical, patronising commentary on a witness’ appearance with references to a “doleful looking body” with “negress-type features” doesn’t strike me as being very objective."

Agreed - but if you can set your moral indignation aside for a second, you may need to ask yourself WHY they reported what they reported, and what implications it may have.

"There is no evidence of any doubt being attached to either Lewis or Prater, and to claim that three-day late Hutchinson is more reliable is to be at odds with both the police view at the time, and frankly, overwhelming common sense."

Many an obvious thing lacks the evidence to prove it, as you well know, Ben. And being three days late should have nothing to do with the reliability of the evidence itself, as I have painstakingly pointed out to you numerous times by now. You are welcome to your view, but please do not disregard that what you dub common sense is sometimes not regarded like that by other, perfectly logical and discerning posters.

"We’ve already established from a reference to a Birmingham suspect that Lewis’ evidence was still taken seriously. The suspect was described as having a gentlemanly appearance and resembled a description supplied "at the late inquest".

I´m afraid that "we" have established no such thing, since it was said that the man in question was seen in company with Kelly.

"I don’t think there’s anything “too good to be true” about Lewis’ Wednesday encounter. It wasn’t presented as soon as the inquest terminated"

But it is not as if all evidence given after an inquest is automatically wrong, Ben. If you keep pursuing that line, it will look very much as if you are desperate to tarnish Hutchinson at any cost.

And you would never do such a thing, would you?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Hutchinson’s appearance at the police station so soon after the termination of the inquest cannot have been random coincidence."

Unless you noticed, Ben, you just ruled out a perfectly possible thing. It will have happened lots of time, and the absolute majority of the ones who have come forward close after the closure of an inquest will have been honest people.
I fail to see how you can on the one hand claim that Hutchinson would not have mentioned Lewis because he did not want the police to think he had come forward as a result of her testimony, only to accept that such a sly customer would arrive at Abberlines doorstep minutes after the ended inquest.
Why would the police be suspicious about a man who said he saw someone he reasonably must have seen, but not by an arrival very shortly after the inquest. Why would a mastermind liar and killer like Hutchinson be that daft?

Could it be that you are wrong, and your arguments weak? Just asking.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"I didn’t say it didn’t count, Fish, I only wondered if approaching a policeman would be the best thing to do instead of going to one of the 3 nearby police stations, considering the whole case and the seemingly likely important information GH had.

What I really wouldn’t get is that the policeman in question did nothing with what GH told him. As I’ve said, I don’t believe that at that stage of the case, with the pressure on the police to solve the case and with the latest and most gruesome murder in the series just behind them, any PC would fail to do anything with GH and his account. In light of the fact that on Saturday the date and time for the inquest were fixed for Monday, this would make it even harder to believe. Yet, this is what GH’s account suggests."

I agree that it would not be the best choice of action, Frank. But it would still be action! And there are so many things that potentially needs to be weighed in that I for one will not make any definite call here. For example, the police was not very popular back in 1888, as witnessed about by many sources. The citizens generally did not have the same picture of the police that we have today, and so they may have made other calls and thought them rational enough. And that´s just ONE detail!

As for the steps the PC took, we do not have it on record, no do we have any certainty that we would have had, if steps WERE taken. It´s another void.

"However, the intruding on the couple’s privacy by stooping down and looking the man in the face was not just rude, it seems a very good indication of the active effort he put into it."

Mmm, but at this stage, he may well have entertained a suspicion that the well-clad man was the Ripper, and he may have taken a close look out of a sense of responsibility for Kelly, his friend.
Just a suggestion that goes to show that he could have been quite rational here too, and without any decision to actively try and record the man´s features for the benefit of the police.

"BTW, the fact that he gave an elaborate description of Mr. A. isn’t necessarily the reason why I believe he didn’t tell the truth and nothing but the truth. One of the little things that make me to believe this is that, even though Mr. A. had his had hat somewhat over his eyes and GH looking him in the face and towards the light of the lamp, he was still able to see that Mr. A. had bushy eye brows."

But who says the man did not turn his head at that stage? Who can describe the light conditions that were about? How do we know that the bushy eyebrows were recorded at that exact stage? We do know that Hutchinson claimed that he believed that man lived in the neighborhood. Why did he think this? Because, perhaps, he had seen him before? I often think that this may partly lie behind the elaborate description he furnished - he may have seen him before in them parts, and therefore KNEW about his features to some extent.
I can see your reasoning, of course, but I don´t think it very damning.

"Well, if the encounter with the PC on Sunday was in fact a fabrication, then GH did lie."

IF this was so - IF! - then yes. Of course. But there are lies and there are lies. Some are a lot more understandable than others, wouldn´t you say?

"behaviour, posture, movement and such is easier to remember."

It is. Agreed.

"And apparently the man’s posture and gaze caused her to depose that her man was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out, without being able to tell more about his appearance than that he was not tall, but stout and wearing a wideawake hat. Why she didn't give these 3 features in her police statement, I don't know"

Nor do I. And I think it very odd, to say the least. Given the hour and the position, perhaps twenty yards from where Kelly was killed, the police would NOT have been uninterested in a description. I fail to see how they could just have let a remark on Lewis´behalf that she could not say a single thing about him pass, Frank. I feel pretty certain that they must have asked, over and over again, if she really could not say something about the appearance of the man and what he was doing. But still, this is totally absent from the police report, and I think it is very telling.
The only reasons I can see for the sudden appearance of Mr Stout at the inquest is that either Lewis honestly believed that she could suddenly pin the man and his hat, or she was lying. Of course, we may subconsciously register things that surface some time afterwards, and as such, it cannot be ruled out that this happened. But whenever witnesses "remember" things like these after some elapsed time, it must be pointed out that the images that come to life are very, very often coloured by the witness in question, and thus construed to a very significant extent.
What we should go by, assessing all of this, is therefore the ORIGINAL statement, where Lewis was - in all probability - urged to try and remember everything she could about her man - and came up absolutely emptyhanded.

"Lewis would likely have noticed ‘her man’ moving into place opposite the entrance to the court had he not already been there, which was only about 30 meters away from at the most, the distance declining with every step that she took. So, there’s no reason to doubt that he hadn’t been standing there already when she turned into Dorset Street or went away before Lewis disappeared into the court.

But that doesn’t matter. The fact is that what she stated she saw of ‘her man’ fits with Hutchinson’s account."

Not in the police report, Frank - and that is a huge obstacle to anybody who wants to read credibility into Mrs Lewis second and radically changed description.

"I don’t know whether they would immediately know that something was wrong. I’m sure they would want to know whether he had seen her and if so, why he hadn’t told them about seeing her. But again, it appears that they didn’t make the connection, and if they did, then that may well have been the reason why they dismissed his account. If so, we can only speculate what conclusion the police drew from this (honest mistake or 15 minutes of fame), but it’s quite certain that they didn’t come to suspect him."

Agreed all over, but for the bit of not making the connection, which I think they must have. It´s very obvious.
But I would like to add that no police force worth it´s salt would lightheartedly settle for just the two options of either an honest mistake or attention-seeking...

"He may well have seen them during the best part of an hour that he was there. The difference between them and Lewis is that Lewis was at the inquest and deposed that she saw a man standing opposite the court. I'm not saying that it was smart, but perhaps he even added them so the public would get the idea that he wasn't concerned that people might have seen him there, which would of course add to his innocence."

I read that passage three times. It did not help. I fail to see how you reason here, Frank! But I agree that it would not have been a smart move on Hutchinson´s behalf to totally rule out Lewis.

"I don’t see how adding 3 features to the description of the man she saw opposite the court would make her a publicity seeker of sorts"

No? I´ll explain.
Suppose a killer is stalking a community, and some fanciful people claim that they have seen him, just to seem more interesting themselves. They claim that he has a red bowler, a colossal nose and a pin-strip shirt.
Now, make a further assumption that a new victim is found, inside, say, a church. After that a witness appears and says that he has seen a man in the corner of his eye, standing at the belfry of the church at the approximate time when the killing would have been committed. But he does not remember what the man looked like, for he did not look at him very much. This he tells the police. Then he associates with others who belong to the investigation, reads the papers, hears the rumours, and goes to the inquest where he says that he really did not get all that good a look, but he thinks the man at the belfry had a red bowler a very big nose and a funny, pin-striped shirt.

There you are, three elements added - and you may now see what I am talking about, and perhaps even see the relevance in it!

"Even though I don’t share all your views on Ripper matters, I admire that you try to think out-of-the-box and come up with different ideas."

Thanks! And I am quite impressed by your afterthought and thoroughness. We should make a great team, Frank!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Personally, I see nothing indicative that Hutchinson was suffering from a mental disorder

Hi Garry. I agree that the most likely explanation for Mr. A is that Hutchinson was covering his own posterior for whatever reason. I wondered if I could just ask you though - out of simple curiousity really - what you would expect to see if Hutchinson was suffering from a mental disorder?

I realise that's a vast question that can probably only be addressed in generalised terms - but for example; couldn't his account of Astrakhan - or indeed his entire behaviour following the inquest indicate that he was a fantasist? What is it that militates against that conclusion?

And although I don't think attention seeking was his primary motive for coming forward; it does appear that he enjoyed the attention that resulted from his actions; by which I mean that he was apparently quite happy to speak to the press and further embellish his story.

Thanks in advance.

[Ben]

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.

Absolutely, Frank.

It would mean that he acted to pre-empt suspicion, as opposed to resorting to damage limitation after it arrived.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“You may think that this is so, but you somehow seem to disregard the very obvious possibility that the police supplied only parts of the information they had, thus not giving the full picture.”

I don’t remember disregarding any such possibility. On the contrary, I very much agree with Garry’s suggestion that given the nature of police informants, they could not afford to be “effusive with respect to the specificity of the said information, nor indeed its source”. Despite the lack of specificity and elaboration, however, the actual reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting was made very clear, and it was irrefutably concerned with the question of his honesty and motivation for coming forward.

“Agreed - but if you can set your moral indignation aside for a second, you may need to ask yourself WHY they reported what they reported”

That’s precisely the point I addressed in my previous post – it appears that the Daily News dismissed Lewis’ account primarily on the basis of her appearance and demeanour at the inquest. They were not echoing the views of the police, and there’s no evidence that anyone else shared their opinion of Lewis.

“And being three days late should have nothing to do with the reliability of the evidence itself, as I have painstakingly pointed out to you numerous times by now”

But if after “painstakingly” pointing something out “numerous times”, you notice that I’m disagreeing each time, you really ought to resign yourself to my differing stance rather than wasting your own time with futile repetition. You know full well that this only stimulates counter-repetition from me, like this: The time at which a witness’ evidence is presented obviously has a direct bearing on how that witness is perceived. A failure to attend an inquest and a three-day “delay” in imparting crucial evidence inescapably invites the question “why?”, which in turn raises inevitable questions as to the credibility of the source.

This is precisely what happened in Hutchinson’s case.

“I´m afraid that "we" have established no such thing, since it was said that the man in question was seen in company with Kelly.”

Not in the Echo it wasn’t, and it was this newspaper that we know communicated with the police directly.

“It will have happened lots of time, and the absolute majority of the ones who have come forward close after the closure of an inquest will have been honest people.”

I’d be willing to bet hefty sums that you have no evidence whatsoever for this “absolute majority”. I’m rather amused by the phraseology: “it will have happened”…!

“Why would the police be suspicious about a man who said he saw someone he reasonably must have seen, but not by an arrival very shortly after the inquest.”

It seems you’ve missed the point again, although I’m not in the least bit surprised that it wasn’t lost on Frank, who observed the following: “Apparently the police didn’t make the connection between his account and Lewis’ loiterer. And that may well have been his purpose for not mentioning her.” I agree with his view entirely. Hutchinson simply didn’t want to draw attention to the reality that he came forward in response to Lewis’ evidence, and this non-reference appears to have been effective as there is no evidence that the police ever inferred a Lewis-wideawake connection.

“Could it be that you are wrong, and your arguments weak?”

Not on this occasion, and the more you post, the more faith I have in the validity of my conclusions. Maybe it’s you who would benefit from a re-think, especially in light of the Echo articles discussed in this thread.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I don’t remember disregarding any such possibility. On the contrary, I very much agree with Garry’s suggestion that given the nature of police informants, they could not afford to be “effusive with respect to the specificity of the said information, nor indeed its source”. Despite the lack of specificity and elaboration, however, the actual reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting was made very clear, and it was irrefutably concerned with the question of his honesty and motivation for coming forward."

This is getting tiresome, Ben. All them "irrefutablies" and "overwhelminglies" tell me that you are lost in overexaggeration country again. We would not be having a discussion if you were irrefutably right, see - and you irrefutably are no such thing.

"That’s precisely the point I addressed in my previous post – it appears that the Daily News dismissed Lewis’ account primarily on the basis of her appearance and demeanour at the inquest. They were not echoing the views of the police, and there’s no evidence that anyone else shared their opinion of Lewis."

Progress moves in small steps. This time you have at least added demeanor to looks, and I guess that´s something. Myself, I would like to take it all a bit further and say that if the Daily News felt free to write what they did, then reasonably they did not make such a derogatory description as that of Lewis up out of thin air. The better guess would not be that she gave a very proper and accurate impression but was savagely scorned by the paper anyway, but instead that she gave exactly the kind of impression the paper conveyed: that of a limelight-loving, not very trustworthy woman.
The fact that it is not in evidence that anybody else echoed the impression they had is not a very strange one. What would we expect? That the police stated that they thought her ridiculous and a potential attentionseeker? They don´t disclose these things until they are sure, Ben. If they strongly suspect it, however, they will act accordingly and afford scant interest only. Keep in mind that the Lewis they summoned to the inquest was a woman who had, so far, stuck with her story. It was not until she started describing her loiterer that the police got a real reason to doubt her very seriously. Arguing that the police would have professed great faith in her since they called her to the inquest thus seems something of a moot point, when we do not know how her changed testimony affected their faith in her afterwards. Incidentally, there is every reason to believe that the police would have been none too happy about the clientele offered to them as witnesses, since this clientele may well have been people who deeply distrusted the police, and had good reason to do so. But you take what you get, and they got Lewis.

"But if after “painstakingly” pointing something out “numerous times”, you notice that I’m disagreeing each time, you really ought to resign yourself to my differing stance rather than wasting your own time with futile repetition. "

I do nothing that I regard as futile, Ben. Not ever. My hope lies not in swaying you, but in pointing out to others that you have a closed mind on the issue. After that, you may go on repeating yourself endlessly, should you like to.

"I’d be willing to bet hefty sums that you have no evidence whatsoever for this “absolute majority”. I’m rather amused by the phraseology: “it will have happened”…!"

As long as you cannot offer any evidence to the contrary, I´m just as happy as you are, Ben! And if you think that the majority of people who testify after inquests really ARE liars, then you are most welcome to that view! All of it, to be honest.

"It seems you’ve missed the point again, although I’m not in the least bit surprised that it wasn’t lost on Frank, who observed the following: “Apparently the police didn’t make the connection between his account and Lewis’ loiterer. And that may well have been his purpose for not mentioning her.” I agree with his view entirely. Hutchinson simply didn’t want to draw attention to the reality that he came forward in response to Lewis’ evidence, and this non-reference appears to have been effective as there is no evidence that the police ever inferred a Lewis-wideawake connection."

Oh, I know what you think, Ben. But what I do NOT know and wish to know, is why a man who was that, hmmm, careful, shall we say, and eager not to awaken suspicions, would do things the way Hutchinson did. Your stance is that he felt there was an imminent danger that hte police would say "Aha! You mentioned a woman walking into the court at 2.30! That clinches it - you must be the killer!". Correct me if I´m wrong, but this was why he avoided mentioning Lewis, was it not - because he felt that confirming that she had been there would somehow give away that he had only come forward because he had gotten word of her testimony, and he was now afraid that if he was too obvious about it, he would be suspected of the murder himself (geez, I´m having an awful hard time to absorb this...). That is why I say that IF you are correct, and the police were extremely reluctant to accept testimony given after the inquest, and IF you are correct, and Hutchinson was a man who took precautions NOT to end up under suspicion - then what was he doing at the doorstep of the police minutes after the inquest was ended. That, if something, should have the police suspicious, should it not? Of course, you have the advantage of painting Hutchinson out as a mastermind of crime in some instances, whereas you can say that he was forgetful, sloppy or simply lying at other occasions. I don´t have that luxury. All the little bits and pieces must be reconcilable with my scenario. Luckily, they are.
So actually, I don´t think I´ve missed your point at all - I just think it´s a bad one.

"Not on this occasion, and the more you post, the more faith I have in the validity of my conclusions."

Try and rely on the evidence instead of being displeased by being challenged, Ben. It makes for a better verdict in the end.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“This is getting tiresome, Ben.”

I know it is, and that’s because you never, ever, stick with your “I’ve had it for now” declarations that you make so often. Either make good this oft-expressed intention or don’t bother making any reference to it if your true purpose is to engage in more long-winded repetitive debate.

“This time you have at least added demeanor to looks”

It’s not just "this time". I made reference to this on 4th May:

“Compare this with the observations of the Daily News, who after making some patronizing remarks about Sarah Lewis' appearance and demeanor (sic) decided that the police would "probably" not consider her evidence important, despite the fact that her "importance" had already been established in the minds of the police, hence her appearance at the inquest!”

I’m not disputing that the Daily News may have been put off by her demeanour, but to use this as an excuse for predicting wrongly that “not much importance” would consequently be attached to her testimony suggests a glaring lack of objectivity on their part. It also perpetuates the frankly very snobbish fallacy that the honest witnesses are always the reserved, articulate ones who dress nicely and aren’t “doleful-looking bodies”. The police clearly had more professionalism and common sense than that, which is why they requested her appearance at the inquest after having interviewed her privately.

Had she given a negative impression to the police, and had the police shared the views of the Daily News, she would never have appeared at the inquest. This is what makes such a mockery of the Daily News’ demonstrably wrong prediction that little importance would be paid to her.

“What would we expect? That the police stated that they thought her ridiculous and a potential attentionseeker? They don´t disclose these things until they are sure, Ben.”

I don’t dispute this, but how very interesting that you adopt the absolute reverse approach to Hutchinson. You continually refer to the lack of explicit references to Hutchinson being “ridiculous” and a “potential attention seeker” in an effort to depict him as honest, and yet when it comes to Sarah Lewis, you’re quite content to believe that the police dismissed her as a time-waster despite the lack of explicit statements to this effect. This is the sort of glaring inconsistency that you end up arguing yourself into when you try, very unsuccessfully, to depict Lewis as less reliable than Hutchinson. At least in Hutchinson’s case, there is compelling evidence that he was discredited based on his failure to attend the inquest. There is not a scrap of evidence that Lewis’ statement was ever doubted, let alone discredited. She was vetted by the police first, which is why she appeared at the inquest.

Another very obvious inconsistency is your suggestion that if the police trusted Lewis, we would expect a report to that effect, whereas if they didn’t trust her, we would not expect any report saying so. This peculiar reasoning, coupled with the fact that you apply the absolute reverse “logic” for Hutchinson, is just one reason among many for abandoning the ill-starred attempt to play down Lewis’ credibility and uphold discredited Hutchinson.

“Not ever. My hope lies not in swaying you, but in pointing out to others that you have a closed mind on the issue.”

So your attempt to “sway” people in this regard consists of endless repetition of previous points? Isn’t this slightly patronising to the very people you hope to “point out” my supposed “closed-mindedness” to? Your belief being that they’ll only “get it” after the 7th or 8th time of raising it? I think that's rather silly. Either you're having a discussion with me, or you're performing to a crowd.

“As long as you cannot offer any evidence to the contrary, I´m just as happy as you are, Ben!”

I’m not the one who provided a zero-evidence pronouncement regarding what “will have happened” with the “absolute majority of the ones who have come forward close after the closure of an inquest”. The onus is on you, rather than me, to shore up that pronouncement.

“Oh, I know what you think, Ben.”

So why bring the issue up again, then?

We’ve done the “Why no mention of Lewis” so many times, and not only am I not revising my opinion, it is clear that others agree with me.

My suggestion is very simple. If the police never made the connection between Lewis and the wideawake man, this was obviously the ideal scenario for Hutchinson. He could not rely on this outcome, however, which is why he provided his superficially “innocent” reason for being there. This would only come into play IF the police made the connection, at which point Hutchinson would simply confirm that yes, that was him, and yes, he was there for the innocent reason he had already voluntarily provided. As events transpired, however, the connection did not appear to have inferred by the police, which from Hutchinson’s perspective was a better outcome than a confirmation that he was there, even if it meant he was ultimately dismissed as a time-waster.

“All the little bits and pieces must be reconcilable with my scenario. Luckily, they are.”

No, Fisherman.

They’re not remotely reconcilable with your scenario.

I’m truly astonished you can accuse me of not relying on the “evidence”, despite my having acknowledged and endorsed the content of these recently provided Echo articles, which militates very strongly and very conspicuously against your “honest mistakes” and “wrong days”.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I know it is, and that’s because you never, ever, stick with your “I’ve had it for now” declarations that you make so often."

This may come as a surprise to you, Ben, but I count TWO posters here. And one of them is you - sooo reluctant to debate ...

"I’m not disputing that the Daily News may have been put off by her demeanour, but to use this as an excuse for predicting wrongly that “not much importance” would consequently be attached to her testimony suggests a glaring lack of objectivity on their part."

Jumping the gun again, I see: how do you know this. Why do you conclusively state "wrongly" about something you do not know? If you really want to see me stop posting, then don´t do things like this.

"It also perpetuates the frankly very snobbish fallacy that the honest witnesses are always the reserved, articulate ones who dress nicely and aren’t “doleful-looking bodies”. The police clearly had more professionalism and common sense than that, which is why they requested her appearance at the inquest after having interviewed her privately."

Ah, how you like to paint me out like a "snob", Ben. I KNOW that the police make their OWN calls, I KNOW that they rely on other things than appearances and I KNOW that they requested Lewis appearance at the inquest. But I fail to see what choice they had - for all they knew, she could be honest, her demeanor and looks was not going to change that, and they had no other witness that claimed to have been out on the streets at the crucial time. So they had little choice but to summon her; as long as they could not prove her wrong her testimony could be absolutely crucial. When she CHANGED that testimony, though, I think a lot was changed as relates to the trust the police put in her.

Of course, to YOU the fact that the police called her to the inquest puts it almost beyond doubt that she was honest and that she saw a man answering to the description she gave (the second time over, that is...) It fit´s your reasoning, so it´s quite understandable. The Daily News picture of her and her original statement does not fit it, so it´s equally understandable that you disregard it in favour for the juicier bits.

"You continually refer to the lack of explicit references to Hutchinson being “ridiculous” and a “potential attention seeker” in an effort to depict him as honest, and yet when it comes to Sarah Lewis, you’re quite content to believe that the police dismissed her as a time-waster despite the lack of explicit statements to this effect."

I am a little bit more careful than that, Ben. I point to the possibility of Lewis not evoking all that much respect on behalf of the police, and the bolstering article in the Daily News, since it tallies with the overall picture and since it has been very much overlooked before. I would also say that we do not need all that much material to corroborate my suggestion, since we know full well that Lewis said one thing in the police report and another one at the inquest. After that, who needs reports to point to any further sign of Lewis not being a very reliable witness? Well, you perhaps, but not me.
And please don´t speak of "glaring inconsistencies", Ben. You are the one that during the Leander conflict took the stance that Leander had to stick with the exact phrasing he used the first time, and that no elaboration was to be allowed. Now, however, it seems you are yearning for Lewis´ SECOND opinion? One simply HAS to wonder why... (as if I didn´t know!)

"No, Fisherman.
They’re not remotely reconcilable with your scenario."

On the contrary, they are very much so. It´s another thing altogether that YOU don´t admit this. As it stands, there is no evidence at any level disproving my suggestion - and just as little proving yours. Nothing, in other words - absolutely nothing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

And although I don't think attention seeking was his primary motive for coming forward; it does appear that he enjoyed the attention that resulted from his actions; by which I mean that he was apparently quite happy to speak to the press and further embellish his story.

Thanks in advance.[/QUOTE]

Sally -I'm as interested as you in hearing Gary's professional opinion and answer to your question.

I can't resist replying as well, though, because this aspect of Hutchinson interests me a lot.

there's no point in skirting around the the fact that I believe that the Ripper and Hutch were one and the same (everyone here knows that), so let's start with 'Jack'. He seems to have been a killer with a 'show off', attention seeking bent; Afterall, he never made any attempt to drag his victims to a corner, leave their faces covered or pull their skirts down. There is (I think) a
strong case for thinking that part off him was getting off on imagining the reactions of the police and public, and the press attention, to the extensive
mutilations of Mary's body. You could say that she was almost theatrically posed for maximum horric effect. Yet (and I discount the letters and the GSG as being Jack's) frustratingly (for him), JTR was unable to enjoy any of the direct attention himself since he was forced to remain anonymous.

So what if Hutchinson -filled with euphoria at the attention his alter-ego was
garnering after Mary's murder- decided to grab a bit of the limelight for himself ? I think that this would explain his apparent enjoyment of the contacts with the press -he was feeding off the publicity as much as subverting the Case.

[Garry Wroe]

I'm hardly a professional, Lesley, since I'm no longer involved in psychology, but here goes ...

[Garry Wroe]

I agree that the most likely explanation for Mr. A is that Hutchinson was covering his own posterior for whatever reason. I wondered if I could just ask you though - out of simple curiousity really - what you would expect to see if Hutchinson was suffering from a mental disorder?

Had Hutchinson come forward purely as a consequence of a mental disorder, Sally, I would expect to discern either psychotic or neurotic clues in his speech and behaviour – artefacts that would most certainly have been noted by Abberline and those pressmen who interviewed him subsequent to his police interrogation. I have come across many such references in newspaper reportage but not once in context of Hutchinson.

Essentially, the psychotic personality loses touch with reality and amalgamates real-life experiences with delusions. If we look to the modern example of Richard Trenton Chase (a case I covered in my book if you’d care to read up on it in more depth), we have a man who perceived stars in the night sky (real objects) as hovering spacecraft (part of his constellation of delusions) which followed him around and monitored his every move. He also perceived the sticky goo that collected in his soap-dish as a toxin deposited by the aliens and thus, at the behest of these life forms, went out and killed, drinking the blood of his victims in order to cure himself of “soap-dish poisoning”.

This, of course, is an extreme example of psychoticism in action, but it does provide an indication as to how mind and behaviour can be affected by psychotic illness. With Hutchinson, we get none of the rambling incoherence that is associated with psychosis, nor any of the grandiose religious references that were common amongst psychotics during the late-Victorian era.

The neurotic personality, on the other hand, is prone to anxiety coupled with obsessive and compulsive thought and behaviour. If we take the example of Munchausen sufferers, I have come across cases in which patients have gained such extensive specialized knowledge after years of obsessively poring over medical text books that it exceeded even that of the medical professionals supposedly treating them. Some of these patients owned half a dozen or more television sets (each linked to video recorders) so that they never missed a single second of any medical drama or documentary broadcast on TV. This knowledge was then used to feign all manner of strange and exotic maladies, resulting in unnecessary surgical procedures and extensive stays in hospital – the perfect outcome for the Munchausen sufferer given his or her intense craving for attention.

Once again, I have cited an extreme example in order to provide an insight into neurotic discognition, but the principle remains the same. Nothing about Hutchinson is suggestive of a man afflicted by such a disorder. Indeed, if his ‘military appearance’ may be taken as a reliable descriptor, he conveyed the impression of being a calm, stoic, reliable individual – a million miles away, in fact, from the psychobehavioural template of the neurotic personality.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“Why do you conclusively state "wrongly" about something you do not know? If you really want to see me stop posting, then don´t do things like this.”

I never said I wanted you to stop posting.

We do know that the Daily Echo were wrong to predict that Lewis’ testimony would not be accorded “much importance”. Her very attendance at the inquest is effective proof that the police did consider her evidence important. Lewis’ account had clearly been pinched by other women who sought attention through their attempts to pass of the account as their own, a phenomenon that neatly accounts for “Mrs. Kennedy’s” non-appearance at the inquest. The inference being that by the time the inquest opened, the police had managed to flush out the “Chinese whisperers” and were left with the genuine originator of the account – Sarah Lewis.

The Daily News were expressing their own opinions, which carry considerably less weight than the Echo's report of direct communication with the police. I was criticising the former rag, not you personally, for snobbery in association with their ludicrous remarks about Lewis’ presentation of her evidence. There is also a distinct lack of cohesion to their reporting. After dismissing the “doleful looking body”, they then referred to the cry of “murder” heard by Mrs. Prater and observed that this is supported by Lewis!:

“Some confirmation is added to this supposition by the evidence of another witness, Sarah Lewis, who lived a short distance off, but had had some falling out at home, and went to stay the night with a friend in Miller's-court, where she sat and dozed in a chair. She woke up about 3.30 by Spitalfields church clock, and a little before four o'clock-agreeing in this with the other witness-she also heard one cry of "Murder!"

Far from dismissing Lewis’ evidence as unimportant, the Daily News was observing that her evidence is mutually supportive with that of Prater. This makes me wonder if we’ve misread their earlier comments:

“One doleful-looking little body, with a negress-type of features, told how she and another had been frightened by a mysterious stranger who had tried to lure them by the offer of money into a retired spot; but they both took to their heels and ran away. Not much importance was to be attached to this testimony, probably”

This testimony, i.e. this particular bit of it, and not the totality of her evidence. It makes rather more sense to predict that this encounter would probably not be treated as important considering that it didn’t even occur on the night of the murder but rather the previous Wednesday afternoon. Clearly the Daily News weren't dismissing the entirety of her statement as unreliable, but unfortunately, even when viewed in this more favourable light, they were still offering personal commentary as opposed to police opinions. I don’t know why you call it the “bolstering article in the Daily News” since it doesn’t bolster anything else of evidential value.

“When she CHANGED that testimony, though, I think a lot was changed as relates to the trust the police put in her. “

No, there’s not the slightest scrap of evidence that the police revised their view of Lewis at any stage. It is understandable for those who wish to uphold Hutchinson as honest or honestly mistaken (!) to attempt to discredit or cast doubt on Lewis. Unfortunately, the attempt is doomed to failure, because as it’s overwhelmingly obvious that the police continued to invest significant in her evidence well after the inquest.

“On the contrary, they are very much so. It´s another thing altogether that YOU don´t admit this”

Admit?

Wow.

So you’re suggesting I secretly think that all the evidence supports honestly mistaken date-flummoxing Hutchinson, but I’m just not prepared to say so?

I’m afraid that’s a rather worrying, if not entirely unamusing, delusion on your part.

[Sally]

so let's start with 'Jack'. He seems to have been a killer with a 'show off', attention seeking bent; Afterall, he never made any attempt to drag his victims to a corner, leave their faces covered or pull their skirts down. There is (I think) a strong case for thinking that part off him was getting off on imagining the reactions of the police and public, and the press attention, to the extensive mutilations of Mary's body. You could say that she was almost theatrically posed for maximum horric effect. Yet (and I discount the letters and the GSG as being Jack's) frustratingly (for him), JTR was unable to enjoy any of the direct attention himself since he was forced to remain anonymous.

Hi Ruby. I agree with what you say entirely. I believe 'Jack' was compelled to compete - to 'outperform' if you like - at times of mass public engagement: so yes, you could say I think he was a show off!

Thanks for your reply

[Sally]

Garry..

Thank you for your informative reply to my question. Do you think that Hutchinson may have exhibited psychopathic traits? (I'm sorry if I sound ignorant - I'm sure I am!).

I only ask because the encounter between Astrakhan and Kelly alleged by him sound preposterous to me - the conversations between Kelly and Hutchinson; and Hutchinson and Astrakhan particularly. To me, at least, they sound artificial. I just wondered whether he might have had a poor grasp of human relationships?

Then again, his account was good enough for the police I suppose - at first at least; so maybe its just me.

All the best

Sally