Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Fisherman]

Abby:

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

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

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben (on flying pigs):

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

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

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

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

The best,
Fisherman

[sleekviper]

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

[Versa]

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

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

[sleekviper]

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

[Ben]

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

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

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

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

All the best,
Ben

[babybird67]

i agree Benz

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

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

Beebs x

[glyn]

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

[Ben]

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

Spot on, Beebs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[lynn cates]

astrakhan

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

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

Cheers.
LC

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

[Ben]

Thanks for that, Lynn.

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

[glyn]

Spot on, Beebs.


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


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

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

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


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




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

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

[glyn]

Sorry for the hash I made of the quoting/replying attempt,hope my reply was "readable"

[Ben]

No worries, Glyn, your reply was perfectly readable, although it does look as though I’ve been arguing with myself!

It’s still not “gormless” for a serial killer to inject himself into the investigation.

If you look at the serial killers who have resorted to this behaviour, you’ll notice that they belong to the “organized” end of the criminal spectrum, and were certainly not lacking in intelligence. It’s a trait associated with a more sophisticated type of offender, as opposed to an Ed Gein or a Richard Trenton Chase, for example.

There is certainly a “comparison” with Ian Huntley who not only presented the police with the false persona of a “witness”, but tried to deflect suspicion in a false direction through the creation of a fictional “suspect” who he described as hovered around some bins.

“Surely if Hutchinson was suspected of inventing Astrakhan man,he would have been arrested and charged with wasting police time,or some other charge?”

Not if they couldn’t prove it.

Packer and Violenia weren’t arrested either, despite being suspected of lying.

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

I think we can be pretty confident for three reasons:

1) Hutchinson had already been reported as discredited at the time of Isaacs’ arrest.

2) Isaacs’ behaviour would have warranted police suspicion regardless of his appearance.

3) Given Isaacs’ impoverished circumstances, he was very unlikely to have borne much similarity with the opulent-looking Astrakhan man.

All the best,
Ben

[glyn]

[QUOTE=Ben;179700]No worries, Glyn, your reply was perfectly readable, There is certainly a “comparison” with Ian Huntley who not only presented the police with the false persona of a “witness”, but tried to deflect suspicion in a false direction through the creation of a fictional “suspect” who he described as hovered around some bins.



Hi Ben,
Huntley,of course,must have known he would have been suspected.He worked at the school,lived on the girls last known route,but more importantly had several accusations of rapeand violence against him.So its understandable,from his point of view,that he tried to deflect suspicion away from himself.In short,he was allready in the frame.He must have known that.
It would appear that Hutchinson had no such worries,and one might ask why ,if Hutchinson acted in such a way after Kellys murder ,to deflect suspicion,why not the previous murders also?


As regards Isaacs,his arrest was for a relatively minor crime ,why the hullabaloo from Abberline etc? Unless of course that part was an invention of the Press,which of course is possible,but I havent seen that suggested.
Take care