Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[babybird67]

Ben:

"Superwitness alert."

Exactly! Going from no knowledge of anything at all to describing hat types and colours IS an extraordinary feat! And it rules Lewis OUT as a useful witness.

Ah good. So we can finally rule out Hutchinson as a useful witness because he later remembered a very detailed tie pin and watch chain that he had not remembered before.

Glad thats been cleared up.

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"Ah good. So we can finally rule out Hutchinson as a useful witness because he later remembered a very detailed tie pin and watch chain that he had not remembered before.
Glad thats been cleared up."

I normally avoid posting against you, Babybird. It is a healthy habit to which I will return immediately after this post.

From the police report:

"Wore a very thick gold chain white linen collar. Black tie with horse shoe pin."

Oh, and by the way - Hutchinson did not start out by telling the police that he could not remember a single thing about astrakhan man, only to then provide a description at the next occasion of speaking to the authorities. And this is a difference that everybody would be perfectly well aware about.

Donīt expect me to answer any following post on your behalf. I just couldnīt resist pointing to how factually wrong you were this time over. Not sure that you can manage anything of the same magnitude henceforth - itīs not all that easy.

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Why are you repeating your entire “Lying Lewis” spiel again when it proved such a car-crash of an idea to practically everyone else when you raised it the first, second and third time? You’ve gone on and on about this hat business, and what an “extraordinary feat” it must have been to observe a black hat, and how it “rules Lewis OUT as a useful witness”, but nobody agrees with you, then or now. Nobody bought it. So your motivation for dredging it up all over again is…?

I have no doubt that Lewis had enough time to observe a wideawake black hat, but considering that such common headgear would have taken a second or two to discern, we’re not talking about much “time” at all. As for these “extraordinary” differences, there were attenuating circumstances in Lewis’ case that would render these “differences” perfectly understandable. You can pooh-pooh them all you want, but those with a better grasp of psychology than you happen to consider them significant. I guess if this anti-Lewis nonsense persists, I’ll have to repeat them individually all over again. Depends if stamina wars are the order of the day.

“Iīll explain then: Tell me why a witness like Prater, not having seen the killer and not knowing at what stage Kelly was killed, would have been told by the police not to mention to the press that she had heard a cry of murder?”

The police are not generally in the habit of encouraging their witnesses to go blabbing to the press with potentially crucial evidence, Fisherman, whether it pertained to a potential suspect sighting or not. I’m sorry if this is too taxing a concept for you to take on board, but it is a reality nonetheless.

Hi Jen,

Yes, as you’ve wisely pointed out before, the additions that crept into Hutchinson’s press account are considerably more extensive and detailed than the very broad and unremarkable “not tall but stout” and "wore a wideawake" provided by Lewis, who did attend the inquest, and wasn’t discredited, unlike Hutchinson.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

To Fish

Hi Fish

The wrong day theory with Hutch is IMHO not probable but possible and I thank you for positing it. I enjoyed your article and your subsequent debates on the matter and it has brought to light many details and I have learned much from it.

However, Fish, when you go to such lengths, i.e. trying to discredit witnesses like lewis and Prater, it kind of hurts your credibility and makes one wonder how far you will go to back your theory (to the disservice of your theory IMHO).

If your at a party and 10 people tell you your drunk, its time for bed, Fish.

[Sally]

Hutchinson did not start out by telling the police that he could not remember a single thing about astrakhan man, only to then provide a description at the next occasion of speaking to the authorities. And this is a difference that everybody would be perfectly well aware about.

Quite right Fish

Hutchinson started out by telling the police that he could remember a great deal about Astrocan Man, only then to provide an equally detailed yet different description for the press.

[sleekviper]

I agree with Fisherman on this portion of the case, I honestly can not see how it could go any other way. Lewis is alone, and it is dark. With the knowledge at her disposal, the last time someone was alone, it was not just a prostitute, nor just a female, it was also Schwartz. Between the death of two females in the same night, and the words of Schwartz, one can play several doubts as to exactly who is in danger with whoever is killing. Schwartz maybe chased by a killer, a killer may lash out at anyone paying too close attention to his business, and killing more than once in an evening is not out of the question. Does she really wish to enter a foot race with a mad man for simply being intrigued beyond a passing glance? Are there multiple men, and one is waiting elsewhere in the dark for anyone that happens to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time as was the possible case in the story as given by Schwartz? We will never know if she knew the entire situation of the last deaths, but it is possible since the words had been spoken. If she did know, it seems hard to think of anyone having the faith that more than a passing glance, after the last series of murders, is very likely due to the story of Schwartz, and multiple targets. No one is safe, no one. This also means that a man dressed different from the norm could enter the streets and be just a shadow to those around. To those at the time, it could appear that two men attacked Stride, and more struck Eddowes; a gang of killers. If Mr. spats is not apart of some gang, with his bold attire, he will soon fall victim to them, either way, it is best to not be close, or pay close attention.That could be the thoughts of some stuck in a kill zone. Touch this guy, could end up like Eddowes, stare too hard, could be another Stride. Hutch, on the other hand, has a friend involved, and staring closely is exactly what I would expect a friend to do. If Hutch is a friend, and he does not know that Barnett is gone, then this man is not only odd for the area, but odd to be approaching Kelly. Barnett admits that Kelly is afraid of him when they argue, and yet here she is, with this odd ball, headed in the direction of where they could run into Barnett, and that is trouble, this guy must be trouble. Probably run at the first sight of an angry Barnett, might be wise to follow just to make sure she is alright. Fisherman may not agree with my thoughts on the matter, but I find his points hold true for me, and to that end, I agree with what he has written.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"The police are not generally in the habit of encouraging their witnesses to go blabbing to the press with potentially crucial evidence, Fisherman, whether it pertained to a potential suspect sighting or not."

Stupidity, Ben. Sorry, but there is no other word for it. The police had no reason in the world to ask Prater to stay silent about the "murder" cry. And if you take the trouble to look at ALL press reports, you will see that if they had done so, Prater did not comply - she did speak of the cry in subsequent interviews.

At any rate, an an outcry that nobody knew who it came from or if it was related to the point of death for Mary Kelly was not something the police would have tried to shut up. There can be no logicall reason at all for it. Try THAT hat on, Ben: "Now, Mrs Prater, we DO hope that you will not disclose to the public that you heard a cry of "murder!" at between 3 and 4 o clock. If you do so, there is always the risk that ... WHAT?"

No. I can see only one reason for your ludicruous claim, Ben. And you know what THAT is, donīt you?

As for your incoherent ramblings about my speaking of Lewis - get a grip, Ben. Learn to live with the fact that others may not agree with you. I will say what I think whenever I think it, be sure about that. The only thing that can have any sort of an impact on that is any nagging about it from your side. THAT will encourage me to press my point MUCH more often.


The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"only then to provide an equally detailed yet different description for the press."

Yes, so different was it that Sugden was astounded of the number of things (at least 40, he claims) that TALLY inbetween the descriptions!

Why canīt we be realistic about this, Sally? Nobody of any significance has EVER suggested any great variance inbetween the descriptions Hutch gave the police and the press. On the contrary!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sleekviper:

"Fisherman may not agree with my thoughts on the matter, but I find his points hold true for me, and to that end, I agree with what he has written."

Damn it, Ben - there goes your assertion that nobody agrees with me out the window!

And thanks, Sleek! Appreciated!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Nobody of any significance has EVER suggested any great variance inbetween the descriptions Hutch gave the police and the press. On the contrary!

Just the insignificant ones, eh?

[Ben]

Hi Sleek,

If Hutchinson thought the Astrakhan man "might be trouble" and that it would therefore be "wise to follow just to make sure she is alright", why did he loiter in Dorset Street after the couple had entered the court? How could he possibly have made sure of Kelly's safety from this vantage point, where he was completely useless as a preventative measure in the event of the Astrakhan man attacking?

I'm also unclear as to which of Fisherman's points you agree with, as your post doesn't appear to touch upon any of them.

Hi Fisherman,

“Stupidity, Ben. Sorry, but there is no other word for it.”

Well yes, it is incredibly “stupid” to deny the obvious reality that the police were eager, for various reasons, to keep their chief eyewitnesses away from the press. It’s also incredibly irritating, because it amounts to an obstinate refusal to accept that which everyone else is quite capable of grasping. Prater was apparently instructed by the police to keep her counsel when speaking to the press. The “murder” cry she heard was obviously considered significant ear-witness testimony that could have assisted in pinpointing the time of death, and equally obviously, the police preferred to confine the release of these details to the police station and the inquest - hence her police-endorsed fobbing off of the journalist concerned. Sarah Lewis observed an even stricter reticence (no doubt also insisted upon by the police) by avoiding the press altogether.

“Learn to live with the fact that others may not agree with you.”

That’s not the problem, Fisherman.

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. The counter-arguments aren’t going to change overnight, so why bother? I don’t know if you’re hoping to wear people out and exasperate them into giving up, but whatever the intention behind this mode of attack, it clearly isn’t working. This is what creates the bad blood and antagonism, not simple disagreement, which is par for the course when discussing historical events.

It is clear to me, and several others, that you’ve only decided on this “Lying Lewis” Prater-hating stance very recently because you hope it will render assistance to the “wrong night” Dew-do.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Just the insignificant ones, eh?"

Just very few very insignificant ones, to be exact.

The best,
Fisherman

[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

[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.