Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Sally]

Oh I believe he lived in the neighbourhood, Sally, and I fancy I saw him at a sausage stall on Petticoat Lane, but I could not be certain (as you'd expect!)

Yeah right. A pig at a sausage stall? Pull the other one!

[sleekviper]

Hello Ben,
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.

[Ben]

Oh I believe he lived in the neighbourhood, Sally, and I fancy I saw him at a sausage stall on Petticoat Lane, but I could not be certain (as you'd expect!)

[Sally]

earmuffs, a turtle neck sweater and an olivaceous hue to one of its rear trotters

Wow! That is one stylish pig! Do you think he actually came from Romford? He wasn't wearing a thick gold chain, was he?

Oh, errrr, me?

($hit!)

I was just, um, y’know, walking about all night, as you do.

Honest!

Ok. Sounds reasonable enough to me.

[Ben]

“No changing his ankle-bracelet from fluffy to leather, or anything dubious like that. And no embellishing his nose ring, either.”

Deal!

Well, actually, I might chuck in earmuffs, a turtle neck sweater and an olivaceous hue to one of its rear trotters, but as long as I can retain enough consistency with my original version, pigs fly and that’s all there is to it.

“By the way, what were you doing in Romford?”

Oh, errrr, me?

($hit!)

I was just, um, y’know, walking about all night, as you do.

Honest!

[Sally]

A funny thing happened to me on the way back from Romford the other day: I saw a pig flying. Yep, just soaring happily through the sky wearing a fluffy ankle-bracelet and a ring through its surly-looking nose. My suspicions were aroused by its defiance of the laws of gravity, but I had no suspicions that it was a murderous pig. I stood there for three quarters of an hour waiting for it to sing an eighties power ballad, but it didn’t, so I went away.

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.

Ben, I expect exactly the same tail... er... tale, I mean, tomorrow, or there'll be trouble. No changing his ankle-bracelet from fluffy to leather, or anything dubious like that. And no embellishing his nose ring, either.

Right?

By the way, what were you doing in Romford?

[Ben]

Hi Sleek,

He knows the individual seems out of place, he does not like the situation, but all that he can do is follow.

That's not strictly true.

He could have done several things if he entertained genuine fears for Kelly's safety, such as alert a policeman, or discourage Kelly from going with the man, or even stationing himself in the court where he was in a much better position to protect Kelly in the event of the Astrakhan man getting slashy.

Hi Sally,

A funny thing happened to me on the way back from Romford the other day: I saw a pig flying. Yep, just soaring happily through the sky wearing a fluffy ankle-bracelet and a ring through its surly-looking nose. My suspicions were aroused by its defiance of the laws of gravity, but I had no suspicions that it was a murderous pig. I stood there for three quarters of an hour waiting for it to sing an eighties power ballad, but it didn’t, so I went away.

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.

Well, according to some anyway!

All the best,

“Insignificant” Ben

[sleekviper]

Hello Ben,
He was at a point to observe should Barnett lose his anger and the man she was with dashes away. It can not be assumed that he knows Barnett is out of the picture, if it has been stated, then I have not seen it. He clearly does not know who this odd man is, so he can not say if it is a relative, stranger, or possible friend that also knows Barnett. He knows the individual seems out of place, he does not like the situation, but all that he can do is follow. If the situation were going to be one that would cause Kelly harm, it may have been his thoughts that it would happen shortly after they were inside, but it did not seem to go as he may have feared.

[Sally]

What?

This is not a matter for discussion. It is exact, mathematical science. Disagree if you wish, but that alters nothing.

It's the middle bit I'm not sure about...

[Abby Normal]

Sally:

"Oh, if only it were that simple Fish."

In this case it IS simple, Sally. Hutchinson gave a description to the press of his man that tallied extremely well with the police report description, bit by bit. Only very few parameters changed.

This is not a matter for discussion. It is exact, mathematical science. Disagree if you wish, but that alters nothing.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi again Fish

Hutchinson gave a description to the press of his man that tallied extremely well with the police report description, bit by bit. Only very few parameters changed.

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.

[Abby Normal]

Abby Normal:

"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)."

Have you noticed that George Chapman, George Hutchinson, Fogelma, James Kelly, Lewis Carroll, Francis Tumblety, Joe Barnett and a bunch of other contenders all stand accused for being a vicious ripper and eviscerator? That is the doings of men like Stewart Evans, Ben Holme, Bob Hinton and Bruce Paley.

I donīt hear you saying that these researchers should be discredited for suggesting such a terrible thing? Or are you?

What I am doing is to suggest that Lewis and Prater may not have been truthful, a suggestion that has been forwarded about Packer, Mortimer, Schwartz, Hutchinson and other people involved in the investigation.

But I donīt heary ou discrediting the people who have suggested this either? Now, why would that be, Abby? Should not ALL people who suggest unreliability on behalf of ANY of these people connected to the investigation be discredited? Or do special rules attach to the ones who question witnesses that seemingly strengthen the case against George Hutchinson. Is that it? Hmmm? An explanation, please - how do I know whoīse reliability I may question?

Why is it - really - that the suggestion that two women, living in a community that is universally accepted as not always being truthful, could ALSO have been less than truthful, is so, eh..."discrediting"?

And when did YOU get to judge who is to be discredited and who is not?

Itīs time to wake up to the realities of life, Abby. People are not always telling the truth. And people who offer THREE (3) different testimonies, the way Prater did, are not necessarily saints and honest. Surely, Abby, you can understand that if you think it over?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish
I never said nor meant that you as a researcher/theorist or writer should be discredited. (sorry if it came across as such).On the contrary-you should be lauded for your work. And i did. I lauded you-remember?

I just think that your persistant advocation of such a detail as reliable witnesses like prater and lewis being liars is a stretch and hurts your cause. They are no where near in the same boat as controversial witnesses like Packer, Violena, and yes Hutch. Someone has to be telling the truth, Fish-we have to draw the line somewhere, or the whole thing is a just a house of cards.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Oh, if only it were that simple Fish."

In this case it IS simple, Sally. Hutchinson gave a description to the press of his man that tallied extremely well with the police report description, bit by bit. Only very few parameters changed.

This is not a matter for discussion. It is exact, mathematical science. Disagree if you wish, but that alters nothing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Sally:

"Just the insignificant ones, eh?"

Just very few very insignificant ones, to be exact.

The best,
Fisherman

Oh, if only it were that simple Fish. Then we could do away with the plethora of Hutchinson threads that dominate the message boards, hang our arguing hats up and all go to the pub instead.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"The problem – and it seems to be an ongoing one with you – is that your preferred debating strategy is always one of relentless repetition of arguments that you know full well have already been challenged."

If they had been less clumsily challenged, I would not have had to repeat myself. If the clumsiness had not been accompanied by slurs and insults, I would not have had to repeat myself. In such a case, why would I need to repeat anything? Good arguments, competently presented, stand for themselves.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Just the insignificant ones, eh?"

Just very few very insignificant ones, to be exact.

The best,
Fisherman