Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[FrankO]

In such a case, they would have had a description that bore an uncanny resemblance to the man Cox had spoken of, and they would have been faced with a scenario where Blotchy enjoys a song or two in Kelly´s company and then leaves, only to take up a vigil outside the court, quite probably waiting for her to go to sleep ...
This sort of scenario is never even hinted at in any shape or form, though, in all probability meaning that there never was any reliance on behalf of the police visavi Lewis, part two.

Firstly, Fish, I don’t think the resemblance is uncanny. Even if she had only mentioned a blotchy face and carroty moustache, then I still wouldn't classify the resemblance as uncanny, but, nonetheless, far more convincing. Like I said before, no one back then (or afterwards) seems to have picked up on this and that should tell us something about how bad Lewis’ idea was of trying to make her man into Mr. Blotchy. If that was what she tried.

Yes, Frank, but we both know that the "murder scream" was quite an amusement park - the other woman (Prater) in fact claimed with some vigour in her police interview that she had heard two or thee screams like that - but at the inquest, she was very adamant that no second scream was there.
Oh, the ladies of the court - how they have us twisting and turning!

I think you’re exaggerating a bit here, Fish. Yes, Prater also changed her testimony from 2 or 3 screams to just one. But the big picture is that Lewis and Prater both heard a scream of ‘Murder’ at about the same time. Which I think was a very important point to the police.

The one thing that may have had Sarah Lewis upset would have been the argument she had had with her husband, and as such, if it still affected her piece of mind, it may have helped to miss out on registering any details of the "loiterer".

I was more referring to the fact that less than some 10 meters from where she had been dozing, an innocent woman was brutally butchered, Fish. Jack the Ripper had been less than 10 meters away from her and had struck again, and this was his most gruesome murder! She and the other tennants were forced by the police to stay in the court until 5.30 pm, all the while the result of the Ripper's ghastly work was no more than perhaps 10 or 15 meters away from her!

It is indeed close! And it may well BE spot on - for we don´t know in what context Lewis may have picked up on the details, do we? She had had two days open to listen to the rumours that did the rounds, and we know what happened to the "murder cry" rumour and the "Bethnal Green road bogey man" rumour, don´t we? Those stories got wings, and were related in seemingly quite similar fashions, but with small deviations. Could well be the same here, Frank, what Lewis related may have ben what she heard from Cox - or from somebody inbetween who in her (or his) turn had heard Cox.

Cox spoke not long before Lewis at the inquest. If she was set on having ‘her’ man look like Mr. Blotchy, Fish, she might as well pay attention to what Cox actually told at the inquest. Because that would yield the best result, one would think.

...and an intent staring up a court, as if in wait for somebody, do not arise from nothingness. The latter observation contains a registering of a rather complex set of actions, involving the fixing of the gaze of the man, his posture and a few more things, God knows what, though, since I cannot say how one mimics waiting for somebody to come out of a court. Can you?

I can’t describe those mimics, but I think I would recognize it if I saw someone (who had never had a watch) who was waiting for someone, Fish. In this case, the man she saw was very likely looking intently up the court, perhaps with his arms crossed, not reacting to the approaching Lewis.

Having said all this, let’s just assume for a moment that you’re right (because there is something in what you say), i.e. that Lewis actually never saw those added looks of ‘her’ man, never saw him looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out.

What would we have? We would still have Lewis’ police statement saying that she saw a man standing over against the lodging house. We would still have her state at the inquest that she saw a man standing opposite the court, looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out. We would still have Hutchinson’s account, stating that he did exactly this last bit of Lewis’ inquest testimony. This account would still contain oddities, unlikelyhoods and conveniences, would still lack a natural flow. And we would still have Hutchinson coming forward directly after the inquest was closed.

All the best, Fish!
Frank

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"Firstly, Fish, I don’t think the resemblance is uncanny."

You are of course right here, Frank. "Uncanny" is saying far too much, and I think my English let me down. What I tried to say was that the likeness was kind of spooky, since it echoed Cox´s take on her guy in what I find a very obvious manner.
But of course we cannot take it too far, you are quite right on that score!

"I think you’re exaggerating a bit here, Fish. Yes, Prater also changed her testimony from 2 or 3 screams to just one. But the big picture is that Lewis and Prater both heard a scream of ‘Murder’ at about the same time. Which I think was a very important point to the police."

This is where Jon´s quotation from the Star applies, Frank:

"One woman (as reported below) who lives in the court stated that at about two o'clock she heard a cry of "Murder." This story soon became popular, until at last half a dozen women were retailing it as their own personal experience. Each story contradicted the others with respect to the time at which the cry was heard. A Star reporter who inquired into the matter extracted from one of the women the confession that the story was, as far as she was concerned, a fabrication; and he came to the conclusion that it was to be disregarded."
The Star, 10 Nov. 1888.

So here we have the story dissected by a paper that concludes that the first allegation of a cry of "murder" placed it at 2 AM! And from there, the story got wings and took off in all sorts of directions. This tells us that we are on very shaky grounds here, Frank, surely you must realize that? And if half a dozen women spoke of a cry of "murder" in the deep night, then it´s a fair bet that a number of them would come up with tallying times for it. Which is why I don´t think that the "murder" cry ingredient in Prater´s and Lewis´accounts must have lain behind the interest the police showed these women by calling them to the inquest. I think instead that other details attaching to their respective testimonies may have been more interesting, namely that both women could have their versions of events bolstered by other participants in the drama; Prater could have her story somewhat corroborated by the person that minded McCarthy´s shop and Lewis could have her story corroborated by the Keylers to some extent. Thus the police knew that these women HAD been in place in AND around the court at hours that arguably were of a paramount interest to them.
After that, the sheer amounts of versions of both the murder cry story and the bogey man with the bag story would have made the police extremely cautious about those particular bits, I think.

I have said before and will reiterate that we must not forget that what the police were dealing with here was a murder committed in Miller´s Court, arguably the very center of rough living and criminal activity in the worst part of London. It could not have gotten any worse! In accordance with this, for witnesses the people police were dealt were people that lived in this hellhole, and it was a neighborhood of prostitutes and pimps, robbers, thieves and thugs, most of them at war with the police on a daily basis. From that kind of soil, they had to harvest their witnesses. And therefore, when a person had a solid reputation of being reliable and trustworthy, that reputation made it´s way into the papers - and, arguably, into the minds of the men who worked the case, like Dew - as something of an anomaly. Mrs Maxwell and George Hutchinson being the prime examples!

As for the rest, I don´t think that the police necessarily put very much trust in them, to be completely honest. I would even go so far as to suggest that this may have been one of the main reasons that the inquest became such a short one! If there was no real trust on behalf of the police, if they full well knew that they dealt with a mixture of tall tales about murder cries and bogey men, and potentially wilful misleadings of the police, then why drag it out any longer than absolutely necessary? A controversial suggestion perhaps, but there you are Frank!

"I was more referring to the fact that less than some 10 meters from where she had been dozing, an innocent woman was brutally butchered, Fish."

But this she did not know anything about until the morning after! As she observed (well...) the so called loiterer she had no reason at all to feel shaken by the Kelly killing. She would have rather calmly registered him.

"Cox spoke not long before Lewis at the inquest. If she was set on having ‘her’ man look like Mr. Blotchy, Fish, she might as well pay attention to what Cox actually told at the inquest. Because that would yield the best result, one would think."

I have two comments here: Firstly, if she heard Cox witness, then she may have realized that going from a "I cannot describe him at all" to a "He had a carroty moustache and blotchy skin" would have been a bit over the top. Secondly: Do we know that all witnesses were in the interrogation room simultaneously? Or were they called one by one to give their testimony?

"I can’t describe those mimics, but I think I would recognize it if I saw someone (who had never had a watch) who was waiting for someone, Fish. In this case, the man she saw was very likely looking intently up the court, perhaps with his arms crossed, not reacting to the approaching Lewis."

I can´t describe them either, Frank, and that´s a problem. How does crossing your arms tell us that you are waiting for somebody to come out? Why would it implicate waiting at all? Would it not instead be a very logical thing to do since it was very cold, wet and windy?
Let´s face it, Frank, there is no way that you can convey such a thing as "waiting for somebody to come out". It all lies in the interpretation or the phantasy of the beholder, does it not? It is a construction, nothing else.

"let’s just assume for a moment that you’re right (because there is something in what you say), i.e. that Lewis actually never saw those added looks of ‘her’ man, never saw him looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out.
What would we have? We would still have Lewis’ police statement saying that she saw a man standing over against the lodging house."

Absolutely, Frank! But THAT is something we should not worry too much about, since we know that George Hutchinson too spoke of a lodger going into his lodging house during his vigil. We know that Dorset Street was also "Dosset Street", home to legions of dossers. The man Lewis spoke of could have been one of them, either stopping for a short time outside Crossinghams before venturing out into the rain, or perhaps waiting to have a knock of his on the door to be answered. In fact, if we make the not half bad assumption that only the fewest of dossers had business that meant that they arrived home to their doss house at around 2.30, then there is the peripheral but rather amusing possibility that Lewis and Hutchinson saw the same dosser returning home at the approximate same time - but on consecutive nights!
The ONLY truly useful parameter if one wants to see a corroboration inbetween Hutchinson and Lewis lies in a statement on behalf of a witness that changed her story totally that she had observed an activity that none of us can mimic or describe. And that spells catastrophy for the corroboration theory to my own mind, Frank. It really is not a good ground to build upon.

"This account would still contain oddities, unlikelyhoods and conveniences, would still lack a natural flow."

I am offering the removal of one such convenience, Frank: The very convenient detail that Lewis spoke of a man outside Crossinghams in the early morning of the 9:th, whereas Hutchinson spoke of himself being close to the same spot at the same time on a morning he THOUGHT was the 9:th. If this convenient coincidence had not come about, Hutchinson would never have have made it into the Ripper suspect books and you and me would not be having this discussion. And much as I enjoy the latter, I think the healthier thing to do would be to make do without the former!

The best, Frank!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Frank!

As for the report in the Star from the 10:th, it deserves to be added that the paper entertained much doubt about the stories that were to be had in Dorset Street and Miller´s court. This is how they worded it:

"Various Statements from Neighbors, but None of Them Worthy of Implicit Credence ... The desire to be interesting has had its effect on the people who live in the Dorset-street-court and lodging-houses, and for whoever cares to listen there are a hundred highly circumstantial stories, which, when carefully sifted, prove to be totally devoid of truth."

So this was what the police were dealing with! We may also see here that the Kennedy woman is on record:

"A woman named Kennedy was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house situate in the court immediately opposite the room in which the body of Mary Kelly was found. This woman's statement, if true, establishes the time at which the murderer commenced his operations upon his victim. She states that about three o'clock on Friday morning she entered Dorset-street on her way to her parent's house, which is situate immediately opposite that in which the murder was committed. She noticed three persons at the corner of the street near the Britannia public house. There was a man - a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache - talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a female poorly clad, and without any headgear. The man and woman appeared to be the worse for liquor, and she heard the man ask, "Are you coming." Whereupon the woman, who appeared to be obstinate, turned in an opposite direction to which the man apparently wished her to go. Mrs. Kennedy went on her way and nothing unusual occurred until about half an hour later. She states that she did not retire to rest immediately she reached her parents' abode, but sat up, and between half-past three and a quarter to four she heard a cry of "murder"
in a woman's voice proceed from the direction in which Mary Kelly's room was situated. As the cry was not repeated she took no further notice of the circumstance until this morning, when she found the police in possession of the place, preventing all egress to the occupants of the small houses in this court. When questioned by the police as to what she had heard throughout the night, she made a statement to the above effect."

We may of course realize here that if this Mrs Kennedy was not identical with Sarah Lewis, then her story was at any rate so, more or less. Please note that you here have further "corroboration" of the hour mentioned by Lewis and Prater as the moment the "murder" cry rang out.
So why was not Kennedy summoned to the inquest? If this was what the police were interested in, why not add Kennedy?

My answer is: because she told the exact same story as Lewis, and thus we can see that it is a parrotted story on at least the one woman´s behalf. Either Kennedy and Lewis was one and the same, or one of them (or both) parrotted a story she (they) had heard. And all of the elements were very, very similar in both stories!
At any rate, the Star saw that something was very much amiss, and headed the snippet "A NEIGHBOR'S DOUBTFUL STORY" ...

This is the greenhouse in which Sarah Lewis´ testimony took shape, Frank. From these surroundings, we pick up the star witness Ripperology has used to speak of a corroboration that puts George Hutchinson´s story beyond questioning in one detail and one detail only - that he was there. The rest is all questioned though, from the man´s name down to his description of astrakhan man, but the part about the loitering is unchallengable, since it is corroborated by one of the women participating in what the Star regarded as a total spectacle orchestrated by a number of people, "none of them worthy of implicit credence" and "devoid of truth", and what the Daily News, reporting from the inquest, recognized as a performance involving that self same Mrs Lewis and writing about what she had to offer thus: "Not much importance was to be attached to this testimony, probably, nor to that of one or two others who had seen men under suspicious circumstances.”

And here I am, pointing this out, and having my efforts described as "embarrasing" (not by you, though, but still ...)

It´s a weird world, I´ll say that for you!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Kennedy, Roney et al are clearly not “legitimate sources”. They were the women referred to by the Star reporter as having regurgitated a genuine account (most certainly that of Sarah Lewis) as their own experience. Clearly Kennedy was the more thorough in this respect, but Sarah Roney may well have “borrowed” the detail concerning a man with a black bag accosting women. If the police considered for one moment that these women were genuine witnesses, as opposed to the Chinese Whisperers they clearly were, the police would certainly have requested their appearance at the inquest, but this never happened. I would suggest that a particular degree of caution is urged with any “witness” evidence that appeared around the 10th November. These were very early days, before the filtering process took place.

Mrs. Kennedy was not Sarah Lewis’ sister. The former described her Wednesday companion as a widowed sister. Sarah Lewis was not widowed but married at the time. It is impossible to accept (or should be considered so) that their actions and movements on the night in question mirrored each other so closely without either of them making any reference to the other. Both heard "Oh Murder", both decided to crash at #2 Miller's Court after walking there on miserable night in the small hours, and both "did not retire" immediately but decided to doze in a chair.

Kennedy was clearly plagiarizing Lewis’ account, which is presumably why she wasn’t called to the inquest. Sarah Roney is another conspicuous absentee.

The Bethnal Green man couldn’t possibly be Astrakhan man, even we accept for one rather crazy moment that the latter was anything other than an invented component to a fictional, discredited account.

When Hutchinson claimed to have been installed opposite Miller's Court (around 2:15am) the Astrakhan man would have been ensconced within the court, whereas the Bethnal Green botherer was standing talking to a woman outside the Britannia on Commercial Street near the market at the same time. In addition, Lewis spotted the loitering man already in his “looking up the court” pose after she had passed Bethnal man on Commercial Street at around 2:30am.

Astrakhan man could not have been in room #13 and on Commercial Street at the same time.

Also, the man near the Ringers was described as being coatless at the time of the sighting, which is not the slightest bit compatible with the man in the Astrakhan coat.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“What is there is an alternative take on Sarah Lewis and her testimony that should have been there a VERY long time ago.”

It’s "been there" for quite a long time. It’s just very seldom championed as a reasonable “alternative”, and judging from the feedback it seems to be receiving in this discussion, it isn’t hard to see why. As I mentioned earlier, I only know of one other person who champions Hutchinson’s reliability over Lewis’, and he was another one who seemed intent on engaging me in extremely prolific debate on the subject of Hutchinson. That’s not meant in criticism at all; I’m grateful that my views are the subject of interest – I’m just saying that he was of a similar mould, and that the anti-Lewis idea went down like a lead balloon on that occasion too.

“What we have is two (2) sets of testimonies on behalf of Sarah Lewis, and anybody knows that in such cases, the first testimony is the one that one must lean against unless something comes to light to show that it is the wrong choice.”

I don’t know where you got this rule from, let alone the evidence that “anybody knows” it to be true, but I’ve never heard it suggested that the police statements carry more weight that inquest testimony. If anything, the reverse is nearer the mark because not all witnesses who gave statements of the morning of Kelly’s murder were requested to appear at the inquest (Mrs. Kennedy and Sarah Roney, for example, were not). The ones who were thus requested were obviously those whose statements had survived the vetting process, and they included Sarah Lewis.

I’m often very puzzled by your semantic constructions, and your claim that the police were “arguably baffled” by Lewis’ inquest description is very puzzling. If you have evidence for bafflement on the part of the police, provide it, otherwise there are no grounds for “argument”. Your insistence that the addition of three very generic components to a description constitutes a “total” change tells us nothing about the thoughts of the contemporary police on this matter. Fortunately, we have independent evidence that Lewis’s evidence was taken seriously a week after she provided her inquest evidence, which in turn suggests that the police did not take the dim view that you insist we all must adopt with regard to Lewis, despite their being aware of what you erroneously describe as “wildly differing versions”. This was probably because, unlike you, the police were not immune to the sensitivities involved; chiefly that Lewis was essentially forced to remain within the confines of a court where a woman had been brutally butchered just feet away from where she slept a few hours earlier.

“There probably never was any such thing - the man has every trait of being an invention, a bogey man tale, and the police would have known that.”

This is ridiculous nonsense, and hopelessly in error. We’ve already established from the Echo report on a Birmingham suspect that the police were still interested in Lewis’ description of the Bethnal Green suspect as late as 19th November. If you are able to detach yourself just briefly from your very unsuccessful attempt to discredit Lewis, you’ll realise that the above statement (“the man has every trait of being an invention, a bogey man tale”) is irrefutably more applicable to Hutchinson’s Astrakhan man description. I would frankly distrust the honestly of any claim to the contrary made by an otherwise sane individual.

“they could only ask her and ask her again to try and remember something”

Sorry, but there’s no evidence that the sort of intense grilling of Lewis that you’re envisaging ever occurred.

“This was not there at her initial interview, and that effectively discredits any effort on her behalf at the second interview that does not tally with it. I´m sorry, but that´s how these things work.”

According to who? You? How come practically everyone rejects your reasoning here then? I’m equally sorry, but I don’t consider you particularly qualified to make these sorts of pronouncements and act as the final arbiter as to how “things work”. As such, I reject your lecture, and would note that in light of your repetition, I’m simply going to provide the answer I gave last time you raised this very bad anti-Lewis objection. It is likely that her attention was at that time focussed on the “scarier” man in her own mind, whom she had passed on Commercial Street, and this preoccupation may well have distracted attention away from the seemingly innocuous loiterer in Dorset Street. Hence, when she said she couldn’t describe him, she probably couldn’t, but then as the anxiety subsided and she was able to distance herself from the event, she was subsequently able to recall to memory that the man was stout, not tall, and wore a black wideawake.

“If the police had known that Sarah Lewis would offer wildly differing versions of what she claimed to have seen and magically give shape to a man she had professed not to being able to describe, I suspect it would have been "thanks, but no thanks" immediately.”

Only if they adopted the rather heartless, unimaginative attitude that you’re currently espousing, which blissfully nobody else agrees with. We know full well the police didn’t say “thanks, but no thanks”, but rather continued to endorse Lewis’ evidence well after the inquest. Your characterization of Lewis as “inventive” is an unpopular, non-police-endorsed idea that you’ve cooked up all by yourself. It is, of course, entirely understandable for Lewis to have paid considerable attention to the object of her fears – the Bethnal Green botherer – at the expense of her willingness or ability to recollect the physical particulars of a comparatively innocuous loitering man so soon after the discovery of the murder.

“You now suggest that Lewis may have "conviced herself" of an identification - something that does not cast your star witness in a very favourable light.”

Unless we’re a bit more imaginative and considerably more sensitive than that, in which case, one might put in down to understandable anxiety occasioned by both the brutal murder of Mary Kelly and the evidently frightening Bethnal Green man encounter.

“No. Simple as that: no. Hutch did not tally with the man Lewis described, FOR SHE DID NOT - COULD NOT!! - DESCRIBE HIM!”

Oh, for goodness sake, just read what I actually said:

“The “coincidence” (ha!) between Lewis’ account of the wideawake’s man’s location and activity and Hutchinson’s account of his own movements is so striking as to nullify completely any consideration that the man Lewis saw was someone other than Hutchinson”

I wasn’t talking about the descriptions, but rather the identical activities of Hutchinson and the Wideawake, and their reasons for hovering outside the court at 2:30am on the night of Kelly’s death. As others have pointed out, there is obviously no “coincidence” here. Hutchinson and the loitering man were clearly one and the same, as I’m prepared to reiterate whenever it is suggested that they’re not. Either join me on that pointless little back and forth repetition war, or agree to disagree.

“Yes, so totally, glaringly and utterly preposterous was it - that Frederick Abberline had no problems believing in it.”

He also had “no problems believing” that Klosowski the ripper went on an organ-harvesting mission on behalf of an American doctor in pursuit of specimens, and that he then went to America for more innards once he realised he hadn’t collected enough in London for his boss. Fortunately, it appears that his faith in Hutchinson’s credibility, at least, was later revised.

“So yes, I WILL go on not believing in it, until a reason to do otherwise surfaces.”

You do what you like.

Nobody agrees with you, though, for good reason.

No evidence that the police ever thought “God, that Lewis woman is a cheeky character, ain´t she?” (Where do you get these bizarre ideas that you then convert into imaginary dialogue?), but compelling evidence that they considered her evidence serious enough to pursue well after the inquest.

“Would it not be wiser to accept that the reason for Lewis attendance to the inquest lay not in her parroting the story, but in her confirmed presence in Dorset Street at 2.30?”

It is likely that both played a role. The former must have been a contributory factor to her inquest appearance, as a “confirmed presence in Dorset Street” hardly amounts to an accurate barometer of witness honesty.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Fisherman,

We’ve just been discussing the Star article from 10th November. I was the first to bring it up in this discussion.

“My answer is: because she told the exact same story as Lewis, and thus we can see that it is a parrotted story on at least the one woman´s behalf.”

This was my answer from June 2009, and I’ve brought it up on many more occasions, but I’m glad you now agree:

“Personally, I think Mrs. Kennedy was a separate entity - someone who learned of Lewis' evidence and attempted to pass it off as her own. A reporter from The Star observed that one of the "oh murder" accounts was being parroted, and since there are no press accounts that even vaguely resemble Prater's, it could only have been Lewis' account that was being Chinese Whispered in the manner described by The Star. There's only Mrs. Kennedy who could fit the bill in that regard.”

You even used the very expression I did.

I’m surprised you didn’t pick up on this observation that I’ve made several times if it appeals to you so much.

The only “twist” you’ve added is the suggestion that someone other than Lewis might have been the original source for the story. Clearly this wasn't the case. Lewis was the originator of the account, which is why she appeared at the inquest, i.e. once the women who copied her account (notably Mrs. Kennedy) had been identified and discredited. Obviously Lewis would not have been called to the inquest if her statement had been “proven” to be “totally devoid of truth”.

Lewis provided a genuine account, which was copied by other women who were later discredited. That’s all that needs to be understood here.

Cheers,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Kennedy, Roney et al are clearly not “legitimate sources”. They were the women referred to by the Star reporter as having regurgitated a genuine account (most certainly that of Sarah Lewis) as their own experience."

Ben, please respect that the Star makes no call at all on behalf of ANYBODY´S veracity in all of this. The article stating that Sarah Lewis was truthful and the others a bunch of parrotts does not exist. It never did. Sorry.
What the paper clearly points to is a situation and an environment where they fail to see why anybody should put any trust in ANY witness. "Various statements from neighbors, but NONE of them worthy of implicit credence" is what they write. No mentioning of SOME witnesses being truthful and honest, thus. Not Sarah Lewis, not nobody else.

"It’s "been there" for quite a long time. It’s just very seldom championed as a reasonable “alternative”, and judging from the feedback it seems to be receiving in this discussion, it isn’t hard to see why."

There you go again, thinking this is some sort of kindergarten competition. It´s not.

"... the anti-Lewis idea went down like a lead balloon on that occasion too."

Too? Have I missed something?

"I don’t know where you got this rule from"

No? Then take a look at the protocols from our courtrooms, Ben, and you will find that witnesses who suddenly "remember" things are often looked upon with much suspicion.

I can´t believe that I have to point this out!
No wait, of course I can believe it ...

"I’m often very puzzled by your semantic constructions, and your claim that the police were “arguably baffled” by Lewis’ inquest description is very puzzling. If you have evidence for bafflement on the part of the police, provide it"

Alright! Lewis FIRST said that she could not describe a single thing about the man, and two days later she could provide the colour of the hat and exactly what he did. That is evidence that there was a situation at hand that must have baffled the police.
Or do you think that they soaked it up effortlessly, no questions asked? Is that your picture of how the police conducted their business? Hmm? No matter how dramatically a key witness changes her story, there is no need to ask about it?

On the other hand, you may well for once be correct to some little extent: when people make these kinds of turnarounds, the police will NORMALLY be baffled but in the case of Sarah Lewis, they may have been much less so. THAT possibility is something I endorse wholeheartedly.

"This was probably because, unlike you, the police were not immune to the sensitivities involved"

I am a coldhearted brute, admittedly, Ben. And you may well be able to spot the good nature and honest intentions in Sarah Lewis from - shall we say - another horizon than mine ...

"This is ridiculous nonsense, and hopelessly in error. We’ve already established from the Echo report on a Birmingham suspect that the police were still interested in Lewis’ description of the Bethnal Green suspect as late as 19th November."

No. But you often try and pass it off as truth.

"Sorry, but there’s no evidence that the sort of intense grilling of Lewis that you’re envisaging ever occurred."

And even less evidence that George Hutchinson was Joseph Fleming in disguise, set on killing. But that´s discussed anyway for some unfathomable reason...?
Actually, a suggestion that a key witness present at a key point at a key time relating to the arguably most prolific murder case in British history would have been quizzed is a much, much better suggestion than any unsubstantiated ramblings about masquerading serialists, Ben. Infinitely better, to be more exact. For this, believe it or not, is what the police is payed to do.

"According to who? You? How come practically everyone rejects your reasoning here then?"

Who are these "everyone" you are referring to, Ben? Is it you and Sally and Ruby...? Or do you regard, for example, Frank as a sworn enemy to any suggestion that Hutchinson was not the loiterer? You see, I don´t think he is, as such. For all I know, Frank is a guy who listens carefully to anybody who has something to offer, and who never calls reasonably arguing people embarrasing or lead balloons.
So you see, the little lobby you seem to speak of is not really a very representative jury of anything much at all - well, perhaps some things, but not the ones you are inferring.

"We know full well the police didn’t say “thanks, but no thanks”, but rather continued to endorse Lewis’ evidence well after the inquest."

Nope.

"Unless we’re a bit more imaginative and considerably more sensitive than that, in which case, one might put in down to understandable anxiety occasioned by both the brutal murder of Mary Kelly and the evidently frightening Bethnal Green man encounter."

No matter what, Ben, people who "convince themselves" of their testimony are not good witnesses. They are not relating the truth, but instead what they have convinced themselves of, see. So I´m glad you chose that exact wording: "convinced herself of..."

"I wasn’t talking about the descriptions, but rather the identical activities of Hutchinson and the Wideawake"

Hutchinson watched the court. What Lewis man did, she could not tell.

"He also had “no problems believing” that Klosowski the ripper went on an organ-harvesting mission on behalf of an American doctor in pursuit of specimens, and that he then went to America for more innards once he realised he hadn’t collected enough in London for his boss."

I would call that a not very good comparison. One thing describes a very exotic crime, the other a perfectly normal thing - assessing a description of a man in the street.

"You do what you like."

You bet.

"Nobody agrees with you, though, for good reason."

And you are sure you asked EVERYBODY? Each and every one?

"a “confirmed presence in Dorset Street” hardly amounts to an accurate barometer of witness honesty."

Nor does any blabbering about murder cries, Ben. But the former corroborates that she was truly there when she said she was. And if you take a look at the people reported on by the Star of the 10:th, such details were not 13 a dozen, were they?

"You even used the very expression I did."

Ah, good. Then that means that we agree that EITHER KENNEDY OR LEWIS OR BOTH OF THEM parrotted the story. For that is what I am writing and saying.

"I’m surprised you didn’t pick up on this observation that I’ve made several times if it appeals to you so much."

Ah - but there is a difference, Ben. You think that the police established that Lewis was a beacon light of honesty, whereas Kennedy was the parrott, whereas I will say that there is AT LEAST an obvious parrott involved - but it may be two. And unless Sarah Lewis could lead the police to her bogey man and have him corroborate her story, I fail to see how the police could make the call either way. But maybe you have the "obvious" solution to this too - you seem resourceful enough, provided the information flow goes only in one direction.

"Lewis provided a genuine account, which was copied by other women who were later discredited. That’s all that needs to be understood here."

Tell me Ben, what´s it like, living in a perfect world full of simple and pleasing answers?
Tell me, when you claim that there is no evidence telling us that the police quizzed Lewis about her man - how is it that you feel free to throw in a totally unsubstantiated claim like this?

You see, I fail to recognize why I cannot suggest totally viable things, correlating to what we know the police always does, whereas you can see your way through to trying to establish as a truth that the police sifted the material from the court and came up with a certainty that Sarah Lewis was totally honest. Anybody - even the hoards of Ripperologists that all scorn me for being ridiculous and embarrassing as we speak - will confirm that there is absolutely no material at hand telling us that this process of yours ever took place. Nothing tells us that the police believed in the bogey man. Nothing tells us that they believed in the "murder" cries. Nothing tells us that they believed in Lewis. All we can tell is that they would have been able to verify her claim of having gone to the Keylers at about 2.30, and that made her the only witness that could testify about what Dorset Street and the court was like at that stage. "Could", that is. Potentially.

You know, for a man who is the laughing stock of Ripperology and about to take up place next to that former lead baloon you spoke of, I really don´t feel half bad. The implications are that my argument at least has some weight attached to it. Joining you in the helium squad would seem a much worse fate - who wants to be thinner than air in their argumentation...?

The best,
Fisherman
purveyor of heavy stuff - really, really heavy

[Wickerman]

Sarah Lewis appears to have been held within Miller's Court until about 5:30 pm on the 9th.
I would have thought that the police should have taken all the statements of the residents of Miller's Court while they were detained.
This may have been the case but with Sarah Lewis her pre-inquest statement includes a note, "I left the Keylers at 5:30pm", suggesting this note was written after 5:30pm.
If this note was added sometime later in the evening then why is it in the 1st person and not, "She/Lewis, left the Keylers at 5:30pm"?

All the pre-inquest statements are dated 9th November so were taken that same day, but when?
Why does this matter? - because the first publication of the story by Mrs Kennedy appears in the evening papers on the 10th.

You might like to check all the evening papers of the 9th, as well as the morning papers on the 10th. Nothing which could easily pass for facts was known so early in the investigation. In fact the morning papers on the 10th are saying the police are not giving any details to the press.

Mr's Kennedy's controversial statement was already published on the evening of the 10th, two days before Sarah Lewis gave her evidence at the inquest.
I don't know when in the afternoon of the 10th the papers need all their stories in so they can set them all in press, perhaps 3:00-4:00?, but this gives precious little time for your parroting to occur.

The Evening News (10th) already states Mr's Kennedy had spoken to the police and gave her interview to the press in such detail when no adequate detail was available!

Even the story given to the press by Mr's Paumier was already in print on Saturday morning, before anyone knew what was going on.

I'm sorry Ben, this 'parroting' idea (because thats all it is) lacks a believable timeline of how it could have transpired.
Given several days to a week and I would have to conceed you may be correct. However, we are dealing with hours and no accurate published source.

As a sideline, I notice even Mr's Prater who lived above Mary Kelly was interviewed by the Daily Telegraph (on the evening of the 9th?), and published in their morning paper (10th) that she claimed:
".....She had heard nothing during the night...."

One wonders where her cat story suddenly appeared from?
Was there ever any cry of "murder" at all?
Perhaps once one witness invents the cry, others come forward claiming to have heard one also - hence the post I made concerning the 'parroting' ONLY of the cry of murder.

Best Wishes, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

"Mr's Kennedy's controversial statement was already published on the evening of the 10th, two days before Sarah Lewis gave her evidence at the inquest.
I don't know when in the afternoon of the 10th the papers need all their stories in so they can set them all in press, perhaps 3:00-4:00?, but this gives precious little time for your parroting to occur."

Meaning exactly what to your mind, Jon? Are you suggesting that Sarah Lewis, Sarah Roney, Mrs Kennedy and Mrs Paumier all had encounters of the kind they described with this bogey man?
I have taken a swift look at things, and it would seem that the observations were made like this:
-Sarah Roney has her encounter with the man on Thursday, in Brushfield Street.
-Mrs Paumier also meets him on Thursday, but in Widegate Street, and then she meets him again on the murder day, at 12 o clock approximately.
-Mrs Lewis? She sees him on Wednesday in Bethnal Green Road, and subsequently in Dorset Street on the murder morning.
-Interestingly, this is the exact order of things as relates to Mrs Kennedy too: Bethnal Green Road Wednesday, and Dorset Street on the murder morning.

So what do we make of it? I would be happy to hear your best guess, Jon!

As for your finishing sentences:
"As a sideline, I notice even Mr's Prater who lived above Mary Kelly was interviewed by the Daily Telegraph (on the evening of the 9th?), and published in their morning paper (10th) that she claimed:
".....She had heard nothing during the night...."

One wonders where her cat story suddenly appeared from?
Was there ever any cry of "murder" at all?
Perhaps once one witness invents the cry, others come forward claiming to have heard one also"

... I very much agree! The testimony offered by the likes of Prater, and I think Lewis belongs to this category, is not trustworthy. All of it can´t be, simple as that - she either slept and heard nothing, as per testimony 1, was awakened by her kitten and heard two, three screams as per testimony 2 or was awakened and heard only the one cry, as per testimony 3.
All of these contributions to British criminal history cannot be true. Only one can. And that´s only "can", not must.
My money is on the first bet, by the way. Prater was probably heavily intoxicated as she bedded down that night. But sleeping away a Ripper night and not hearing a single thing does not make for a very good story, does it ...

The best,
Fisherman

PS. That´s a very good point you make about Lewis´leaving the Keylers at 5.30! So obvious and yet so overlooked...

[Fisherman]

Ben (in a post to Wickerman):

"The Bethnal Green man couldn’t possibly be Astrakhan man, even we accept for one rather crazy moment that the latter was anything other than an invented component to a fictional, discredited account.
When Hutchinson claimed to have been installed opposite Miller's Court (around 2:15am) the Astrakhan man would have been ensconced within the court, whereas the Bethnal Green botherer was standing talking to a woman outside the Britannia on Commercial Street near the market at the same time. In addition, Lewis spotted the loitering man already in his “looking up the court” pose after she had passed Bethnal man on Commercial Street at around 2:30am.
Astrakhan man could not have been in room #13 and on Commercial Street at the same time.
Also, the man near the Ringers was described as being coatless at the time of the sighting, which is not the slightest bit compatible with the man in the Astrakhan coat."

This is all very logical - as long as we work from the presumption that Hutchinson visited Dorset Street in the morning of the 9:th.

But put him there on the morning before and see what happens! If this applies, then the Bethnal Green bogey man could well have been astrakhan man. No problems along the lines you propose remain, and we suddenly have two men of a gentleman´s appearance frequenting the vicinity of Dorset Street on Thursday and Friday, both of them of the same approximate age and height, both sporting a black top coat, both arousing suspicions on behalf of the ones who observe them, and both seemingly curiously unwilling to show their faces.

Still, not enough to make a certain call by any means - but definitely a very obvious possibility as long as we accept Walter Dew´s version of George Hutchinsons comings and goings.

This is an interesting avenue of research in my view. It deserves looking into, at the very least.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“What the paper clearly points to is a situation and an environment where they fail to see why anybody should put any trust in ANY witness”

There can be little doubt that the parroting of Lewis’ account (which I regard as utterly proven to have occurred) created considerable confusion, and may well have left the journalists with the erroneous impression that the entire account was a work of fiction. Fortunately, we know this wasn’t the case. Lewis’ presence at the inquest is a testament to the fact that the originator of the story – the woman who actually was staying opposite room #13 on the night of Kelly’s death – was identified, and that the others, whose names appeared in the 10th November papers, were discredited. The Star article is only interesting insofar as it sheds light on why Mrs. Kennedy (for example) wasn’t at the inquest. It clears up the mystery of the startling similarity between the Kennedy and Lewis accounts.

“There you go again, thinking this is some sort of kindergarten competition”

I was only commenting on your mistaken impression that the “Hutchinson is more reliable than Lewis” theory (I could barely bring myself to write that) has never “been there” until you raised it. It’s little wonder that you missed it, however, as the idea proved so unpopular that it received very scant attention. I was divesting you of any blame for the oversight, that's all.

“Too? Have I missed something?”

Apparently.

“Alright! Lewis FIRST said that she could not describe a single thing about the man, and two days later she could provide the colour of the hat and exactly what he did. That is evidence that there was a situation at hand that must have baffled the police.”

You’re repeating yourself for no reason. As Frank and others have pointed out, the nature of the “change” is not only very trivial, but an understandable by-product of the fact that she was initially interviewed on the morning of the murder at a time when the appearance of an entirely different man was the focus of both her attention and her fear. You really ought to be able to reassess your convictions. Nobody who has debated the matter with you on this thread has ever said “Gosh yes, Fisherman, how terribly baffling it all is!” or “Wow, what a dramatic change in testimony”, and yet despite this, you appear to insist that your own bafflement over the matter “must have” been shared by the police. The evidence, however, suggests very strongly that the police were not in the slightest bit baffled, and assuming they even noticed the discrepancy, it seems they were prepared to make allowances for a lack of mental clarity occasioned by the severity of the crime that had happened on her doorstep.

“and who never calls reasonably arguing people embarrasing or lead balloons."

Nor do I. I was critiquing the arguments and not the person making them, which is presumably what you were doing when you referred to my “unsubstantiated ramblings about masquerading serialists”.

“No matter what, Ben, people who "convince themselves" of their testimony are not good witnesses”

It doesn’t make them lying ones either.

“What Lewis man did, she could not tell.”

Yes, she could:

“The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one.”

From Sarah Lewis’ testimony as recorded by the Daily Telegraph, 13th November 1888. This is identical to Hutchinson's stated reason for being there at that time.

“One thing describes a very exotic crime, the other a perfectly normal thing - assessing a description of a man in the street.”

It’s a perfect comparison. If Abberline was prepared to accept one outlandish proposal to be true, it doesn’t seem too much of a stretch to accept that he might have endorsed other equally outlandish proposals at some stage, such as the existence of the transparently fictional Astrakhan description, even though that particular endorsement wasn’t to last.

“Nor does any blabbering about murder cries, Ben”

What do you mean “blabbering”? Do try to keep your unwarranted condemnations of inquest evidence to a strict minimum. Imagine if I accused you of “blabbering” just because I found your opinions inconvenient. She imparted her evidence regarding a cry of murder to the “inquest”, as did another witness under oath, thus suggesting independent corroboration.

“Ah, good. Then that means that we agree that EITHER KENNEDY OR LEWIS OR BOTH OF THEM parrotted the story.”

Well no, because Lewis was definitely the originator, whereas Kennedy was obviously the one doing the parroting. This is clear from Lewis’ attendance - and Kennedy’s non-attendance - at the inquest. This constitutes evidence that the police most assuredly “made the call”. There is simply no logical justification for claiming otherwise.

“Tell me Ben, what´s it like, living in a perfect world full of simple and pleasing answers?”

I wish I knew. The world I am particularly anxious to avoid is the one consisting of continued obstinate resistance to the blinkin’ obvious. I can’t understand why this Kennedy confusion has persisted, especially after Philip Sugden’s clear explanation on page 4 of his book:

“Even true anecdotes might be passed from mouth to mouth until they became unrecognisable. Sarah Lewis, who stayed in Miller’s Court on the fatal night, had heard a cry of “Murder!”. By the time the Star’s man got to the scene of the crime her story had got round and “half a dozen women were retailing it as their own experience", a circumstance which may explain why Sarah’s story is sometimes credited, in aberrant forms, to a Mrs. Kennedy in the press.”

I would also argue that Roney and Paumier were two of the other women mentioned, albeit they clearly botched the copying job, unlike Kennedy. It can be said in Lewis’ favour that she didn’t communicate with the press at any stage, unlike her parroters, although it is clear that she discussed her experiences with female friends and acquaintances. Far from a “totally unsubstantiated claim”, the above explanation clears up this little non-mystery in every respect.

“Nothing tells us that the police believed in the bogey man. Nothing tells us that they believed in the "murder" cries. Nothing tells us that they believed in Lewis.”

Well, yes there is. The 19th November Echo article is strong evidence that Lewis evidence was taken seriously, including her account of what you describe as the “bogey man” (gosh, any excuse to mention this again will be leapt upon with relish by me). That aside, though, the onus is on you to provide the evidence that she was discredited, not on me to demonstrate otherwise – a reality that should not be lost on anyone familiar with the concept of the null hypothesis.

I’m at a loss as to understand your point regarding Astrakhan man and Bethnal Green man being the same individual. How does the “wrong night” hypothesis lend any weight to this? Unless you’re suggesting that Sarah Lewis also confused the date, there is no reason at all to infer that Thursday’s Astrakhan man (in your scenario) and Friday’s Ringers’ man were the same person. The latter wasn’t even wearing a “black top coat” at the time of the Friday sighting. I would suggest that if there is any similarity to be inferred between the two descriptions, it is because Hutchinson "borrowed" elements from Lewis’ description to lend credence to his own.

“purveyor of heavy stuff”

Heavy weather, certainly! Although I don’t recall ever saying or thinking that you were “laughing stock of Ripperology”.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“I'm sorry Ben, this 'parroting' idea (because thats all it is) lacks a believable timeline of how it could have transpired.”

The journalist from the Star stated that the account had “got round”, which almost certainly meant “mouth to mouth”, as Sugden inferred. There would, therefore, have been plenty of time between the release of Sarah Lewis at 5:30pm on the 9th and the publication of the evening papers on 10th for Mrs. Kennedy (et al) to have communicated with Lewis directly and blabbed to the press afterwards, passing the account off as her own.

To Lewis’ credit, she did not herself go to the press with her story, presumably because she was instructed not to by the police.

Best regards,
Ben

[babybird67]

To Lewis’ credit, she did not herself go to the press with her story, presumably because she was instructed not to by the police.

Best regards,
Ben

Which argues pretty powerfully against her alleged motive for her alleged lying, which would be for her ten minutes of fame.

Lewis was a credible and honest witness as viewed by contemporary sources and by current scholars now. There is no valid reason for her to have lied, no motive, no evidence that she did lie or that she was ever believed to have been a liar.

Unlike some other witnesses who went to the Press and told a myriad of different stories...either for fame or more nefarious reasons...

Hope you are well Ben. Enjoying your posts as ever.

Beebs xx

[Ben]

Exactly, Beebs.

You've touched upon another important point: the total absence of any logical motive for Lewis to have lied. The sensational "details" of the man's appearance - short, stout, and black hat perhaps?

Great to see you here!

Ben x

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"There can be little doubt that the parroting of Lewis’ account (which I regard as utterly proven to have occurred)..."

Proven is proven, Ben. "Utterly proven" has - believe it or not - a ring of uncertainty to it. Overeagerness, more or less. It´s like being very blind. You either are blind or you are not.

"Lewis’ presence at the inquest is a testament to the fact that the originator of the story – the woman who actually was staying opposite room #13 on the night of Kelly’s death – was identified, and that the others, whose names appeared in the 10th November papers, were discredited."

This is getting slightly ridiculous. Lewis´presence at the inquest - ridiculed by the Daily News - is not in any way any "testament" to "the fact" that the originator of the bogey man story had been found. Lewis ´presence at the inquest points to one thing and one thing only - the police was not able to rule out that she was right, and she could be proven to have been in the Millers Court area at the crucial time of night. Your suggestion - don´t mix it up with facts - is nothing else that that - a suggestion with one may rationally disagree.

Keep in mind that Mrs Paumier, one of the women that were NOT called to the inquest, and- going by you reasoning - thus revealed as a "parrott", actually was able to direct the police to Sarah Roney, who confirmed that she had met the bogey man too, just as Mrs Paumier had said.
Are we to believe that Mrs Paumier not only parrotted Lewis´story - but in fact also was sly enough to secure corroboration for her story?

"You’re repeating yourself for no reason."

I wouldn´t call you "no reason", Ben. I would call you "some reason" at times and "no reason" at others. And don´t ask which would be the more frequent occurence ...

"As Frank and others have pointed out, the nature of the “change” is not only very trivial"

"Frank and others" (you, Ruby and Sally, here we go again) have OPINED that this would have been so. And I have incredibly had the audacity to claim that no description at all differs VERY MUCH from a physical description involving hat fashions and exactly described intentions displayed by posture.
You may think it convenient to have something you regard as a carte blanche, but I can assure you that this is a total misconception on your behalf.
If I was to call you a clown (God forbid!) first and then say nothing, would you regard that as a "trivial" difference? If so, why be annoyed by having been called a clown when it compares quite trivially with total silence? This is exactly the same - a total blank is not a useful opportunity, it is a total blank. A lacking description is a full and detailed description - of the witnesse´s mind!

"You really ought to be able to reassess your convictions."

Says Ben. Nuff´said.

"Nor do I. I was critiquing the arguments and not the person making them"

Oh! How discerning! Now, just apply this to the Hutchinson testimony and realize that discrediting HIS STORY does not equal discrediting HIM! If you can do it for me, you can do it for Hutchinson, Ben!

"It doesn’t make them lying ones either."

No. But it moves them a bit closer to that verdict, as a general rule.

"Yes, she could:

“The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one.”

From Sarah Lewis’ testimony as recorded by the Daily Telegraph, 13th November 1888. This is identical to Hutchinson's stated reason for being there at that time."

But that does not tally with take one, the ORIGINAL take. And only one can be correct.

"What do you mean “blabbering”? "

I mean that the Star of the 10:th shows us quite clearly that most, if not all, that was said about the murder cry/cries was blabbering.

"especially after Philip Sugden’s clear explanation"

Beware, Ben - for Sugden goes very much against you in some of his opinions, whereas he supports you in others. The main thing to keep in mind is that he is offering an OPINION here, and nothing else. So let´s not return to kindergarten again, shall we? Let´s not send for our bigger brothers when we are challenged. It´s childish.

"The 19th November Echo article is strong evidence that Lewis evidence was taken seriously"

No it is not. There was a very clear passage in many a paper saying that this was the man seen in Kelly´s company on the murder evening that was spoken of. But you somehow think that if it was not in the papers "in the know", the Star and the Echo, you can use a decapitated variety of the information. That´s how it goes, is it not?

"I’m at a loss as to understand your point regarding Astrakhan man and Bethnal Green man being the same individual."

And I am at a loss that you should think that I am of this meaning. What I DID say - and that could not be totally beyond interest, could it? - was that they MAY have been, since the physical hinderances supplied by a belief that Hutchinson was in place on Friday, suddenly disappear if we place him there the day before.

"How does the “wrong night” hypothesis lend any weight to this?"

For example, when you have the bogey man in place on Friday à la Lewis, you have him there without overcoat. And if Hutch was there on Friday too, this seems odd. But if he was there on Thursday, it does not.

Then again the bogey man was NOT in place on Friday, was he? Lewis saw him only in Bethnal Green Road on WEDNESDAY, as shown by her ORIGINAL statement.

"Heavy weather, certainly!"

Come on, Ben - you´ve lost that battle already ...

The best,
Fisherman