Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Ben]

Hi Curious4,

I agree with your impression of Hutchinson as a person who “did not rush into things, but would think things through carefully before acting”, and I think this personality trait is suggested by his decision to invent the clearly bogus "Sunday policeman" encounter after his interview with the police. To my mind, he "carefully thought through" the potentially disastrous implications of a non-explanation behind the extremely late arrival of his evidence, and came up with the Sunday policeman in an attempt to claim that he had alerted the police before the inquest, which he clearly hadn't.

“However, the most interesting point for me is that he states that while he was standing there a policeman passed the end of Dorset street and not one came down Dorset street. This is something the police could check for veracity.”

Absolutely, although the verification of a policeman passing Dorset Street at that time would only support Hutchinson’s contention that he was there, not why he was there.

Best regards,
Ben

[curious4]

Hutchinson

Humbly imposing my opinion here - the Daily News report (long one, not short one) of 14th november does contain some interesting details.

One (sorry Fisherman) detail is that the man was wearing spats - used to protect the shoes and therefore inferring that the night was a rainy one.

However, the most interesting point for me is that he states that while he was standing there a policeman passed the end of Dorset street and not one came down Dorset street. This is something the police could check for veracity.

He says that he told a policeman what he had seen but did not go to the police station and that he then told someone at the lodging house who advised him to go to the police station. This would be in character for a man who did not rush into things, but would think things through carefully before acting.

Greetings,
C4

[FrankO]

However, if Hutchinson invented A Man to deflect suspicion from himself, then the inference is that he killed Mary Kelly.

That is one possibility, Ruby, but not the only one. He may have feared becoming a suspect even if he was completely innocent of any involvement in Kelly’s brutal murder. He may have just been interested in getting a good night’s sleep in Kelly’s room, he may have wanted to mug Mr. A., he may have been Kelly’s pimp, and perhaps there are more possibilities.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

I agree with your reasoning 100%, Frank.

To my mind, there can be little doubt that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis, and that it was her evidence that prompted him to come forward and “legitimize” his presence near a crime scene at a time relevant to the murder. I certainly share your suspicion that Hutchinson deliberately avoided any mention of Lewis in order to delay or prevent the police revelation that he only came forward in response to her evidence. It appears to have paid off, as you say, as there's no evidence that the Lewis-Hutchinson connection was ever established.

Good to see you too, Ben - and that we still see eye to eye on this matter!

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

A policeman is a policeman, Frank, and as such, I fail to see why approaching such a man and giving the story would not count? The opportunity may even have presented itself as some sort of "inbetween solution" if he felt intimidated by the thought of going to the authorities and placing himself in Dorset street on the morning of the murder.

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

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

As for your point that Hutchinson made it his business to remember all details in order to be able to supply the police with an elaborate description, I of course see the relevance in it - but I am not at all sure that this was his purpose.

Whether remembering all the details would have been his actual purpose, I don’t know either, I was just working by what his account suggests.

Nor am I sure that he did put very much of an effort into it. Some people master the art of remembering details better than others, quite simply, and establishing either of these propositions of yours as given truths is something I would not do.

I agree that some master that art better than others. However, the intruding on the couple’s privacy by stooping down and looking the man in the face was not just rude, it seems a very good indication of the active effort he put into it.

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

Presented that way, yes, there are odd elements involved. But there are also a lot of holes involved. At the end of the day, the possibility remains that he did contact that policeman, and whatever steps he in his turn took is something that we do not have on record. There is no way near enough information accessible to make any call of a lie on Hutchinson´s behalf, and we must add to this that even if the Sunday morning PC story was a fabrication, then that fabrication may have come about as the result of a wish on Hutchinsons behalf to retrospectively somewhat shape up on his late arrival to the police station.

Well, if the encounter with the PC on Sunday was in fact a fabrication, then GH did lie. The simple fact of the matter is that there are just too many such odd elements, a lot of wholes and conveniences in GH’s account to just believe it without thinking twice (or more).

But people DO turn back every now and then. They DO lean on lampposts and they ARE sometimes passed by other people at close range. I see nothing strange with that.

I wasn’t denying that these things don’t (or even can’t) happen, I was just saying they were all very convenient in getting GH in the right position to enable him to watch Kelly and Mr. and take a good look at the man.

The convenience lies in the ammunition it provides those who say that Hutchinson MUST have been the loiterer with! What could be more convenient to make this identification? It jumps at us, and yells "OBVIOUS!"

That is ‘obvious’, yes, but - from my viewpoint - not ‘convenient’. It’s because this connection between Lewis’ loiterer and GH is so obvious, I’m so inclined to believe they were one and the same. But I can understand why you regard it as convenient, when you’re working from the view that GH mistook the day and was actually there 24 hours earlier.

The most impressive feat on Lewis´behalf is that although we can be pretty damn sure that she saw the man just for a very brief moment (as implied by the fact that she asserted the police that she could not describe him), we still have people thinking that her testimony points to a man that stood around watching the court the way Hutch said he did.

I don’t find that particularly impressive. She turned into Dorset Street from Commercial Street. The entrance to the court was about 30 meters away. Walking at a speed of 4.5 km/hr (= 1.25 m/s) it would take her 24 seconds to cover the distance. It’s unclear if Lewis looked at the man she saw the whole distance, but it seems as though she didn’t, although he must always always have been in the periphery of her view when she didn’t look directly at him.

After all, he was on the south side of Dorset Street, while she was on the north side and she walked towards him. She apparently had no reason to take special interest in him and it was dark, so wouldn’t be able to describe a whole lot about what he looked like, but behaviour, posture, movement and such is easier to remember. And apparently the man’s posture and gaze caused her to depose that her man was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out, without being able to tell more about his appearance than that he was not tall, but stout and wearing a wideawake hat. Why she didn't give these 3 features in her police statement, I don't know - we can only speculate, but I don't find it a 'roaring' discrepancy that should raise suspicions.

It is somehow accepted that the loiterer spent a longish time doing this, whereas the truth of the matter is that Lewis testimony only places him there for the briefest of times, perhaps only for a second or two. If she had observed him for any more prolonged period of time, then she would reasonably not have told the police that she could not describe a single thing about him!

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

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

The major mistake lies in the fact that the police would immediately know that something was wrong if they spotted the omission.

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

And Hutchinson did more than ommitt seeing Lewis - he told the press that the only persons he saw was a lodger and a PC. And THAT was decidedly daft if he was hoping to be accepted as telling the truth.

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

I am very seriously suggesting that Sarah Lewis was not a very truthful witness. I am suggesting that she was a teller of tall tales and a woman who succumbed to her wish for fifteen minutes in the limelight. I hope you see what I mean now, Frank!

I do see where you’re coming from now, Fish, so thanks for elaborating and clearing that up, but I must say that I don’t share your take on this. Lewis may have tried to make her testimony more interesting by introducing the frightening man with the shiny black leather bag, but I don’t see how adding 3 features to the description of the man she saw opposite the court would make her a publicity seeker of sorts.

Which is why I like you so much. Let me assure you that much as I challenge YOUR views, I think they are perfectly viable and expressed in a very correct manner!

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

All the best, Christer!
Frank

[Rubyretro]

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

I agree with your conclusions, as you know.

However, if Hutchinson invented A Man to deflect suspicion from himself, then the inference is that he killed Mary Kelly. Since I think that the man who killed Kelly also killed at least the other women in the C5, that makes him the Ripper. The Ripper must have suffered from a mental disorder -we don't really know what form this took, only how it manifested itself.

[Garry Wroe]

Or that he was suspicious of Astrakhan, but not that he was the murderer! Hutchinson's account is contradictory - on the one hand, he attests that he was suspicious of Astrakhan; on the other hand, he wasn't suspicious that Astrakhan was the murderer; but on the other hand, he was apparently suspicious enough to hang around for the best part of an hour waiting to see if he came out of Kelly's room; but then again, he wasn't suspicious enough to report his suspicions to the police. Until Sunday of course. Which was well after the fact of his alleged long time mate Mary Kelly being murdered and eviscerated.

I don't believe Astrakhan existed. I think he was an invention by Hutchinson, for Hutchinson. As to why that was, I think it's very hard to reach a conclusion.

Agreed, Sally. But then if, as seems highly likely, the Astrakhan story was a fabrication, its purpose may be attributed to one of a small number of possibilities. Either Hutchinson was mentally ill; or the story was the means by which he sought to profit financially or emotionally via his elevation to the status of important witness; or it was a diversionary tactic intended to deflect attention away from himself.

Personally, I see nothing indicative that Hutchinson was suffering from a mental disorder. Equally, if he'd been an attention-seeker or profiteer, his position would have been very much enhanced had he come forward earlier and appeared before the Kelly inquest hearing. This leaves us with Hutchinson attempting to throw suspicion on to Astrakhan as a means of drawing attention away from his own movements on the night under scrutiny. And try as I might, I can see no persuasive alternative to such a conclusion.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Hutchinson’s appearance at the police station so soon after the termination of the inquest cannot have been random coincidence. He could have come forward at any time between the murder being discovered and the termination of the inquest, but he chose to come forward just after the inquest came to an end - just after it was publicly divulged that Sarah Lewis had seen a man “waiting for someone to come out” of Miller’s Court, “coincidentally” tying in perfectly with his account of his own behaviour and location at that time.

This non-coincidence tells us that he learned of Lewis’ evidence through some channel. He wouldn’t have needed to absorb Lewis’ testimony in any great detail. It could have resulted from word of mouth – the type that allowed details of Leather Apron and John Pizer to spread like wildfire. In addition, there were reportedly crowds in Shoreditch that threatened to overwhelm the coroner’s office, and it could simply have been a case of Hutchinson noting that Sarah Lewis was one of the witnesses about to give evidence. But the sheer implausibility of the “random coincidence” explanation should be sufficient to nullify the suggestion that he did not learn of her evidence before he contacted the police.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

....
To my mind, there can be little doubt that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis, and that it was her evidence that prompted him to come forward and “legitimize” his presence near a crime scene at a time relevant to the murder....

Hi Ben.
By what mechanism?
I know we've agonised over when the Kelly Inquest was concluded, early afternoon, tea/suppertime?
Hutchinson walked into Commercial St. police station by 5:00pm ish, because he was giving his statement by 6:00pm.

No papers had gone to press inbetween this time. Besides, I can't see this class of people buying newspapers, was all they could do to scrape up a few pennies for a doss, bread & booze.

No-one came running from the inquest to find Hutch, "hey mate, you bin seen"!
We have no evidence anyone else knew Hutchinson's story, so whoever Lewis saw the description was not detailed enough to finger anyone, let alone Hutchinson.

Or, are you suggesting Hutch was actually at the inquest?, he just ommitted to tell the police.
Hutchinson gave his statement to Abberline, who just happened to have been at the Inquest.

So by which mechanism?

Regards, Jon S.

[richardnunweek]

Hi
As I have always said, Astracan was dressed for morning wear hense my belief that he was prepeared to venture to the lord mayors show the following morning, or was he?
Did he pre arrange to escort kelly to the event , who according to witnesses wanted to go?.
Was this pretense intended to gain Marys trust..? and the outfit went with the deceit?
Was the laughter that Hutchinson heard, be the result of the fancy gear he was wearing?,
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Actually...

Following on from Phil's point regarding the morning spats; I wonder if Hutchinson really did see 'Astrakhan' on the Sunday morning - who subsequently formed the basis for Hutchinson's account (if false)?

No evidence whatsoever, of course - just a bit of wild speculation! But an interesting thought..

[Sally]

My point is that while it is not inconcievable that someone not in high-society should not know or aobserve such niceties of dress, it could also be that Hutchinson knew that "spats" existed and were worn by "toffs" but not the subtle rules that applied.

Phil, that's a very good point.

[Sally]

Fish..

what evidence do we have that the police actually put any faith in Lewis and her loiterer after the inquest? Where are the police reports and memoirs that conclusively tell us that this was the case?

Given that so much is lost to us Fish, I think you're asking for the impossible there. We simply cannot tell whether such 'conclusive' evidence ever existed or not in respect of Lewis. It's a non-starter in my view.

Working with what we do have, however, there is nothing to suggest that the police disbelieved Lewis, is there? Or did I miss something?

[Ben]

Hi Phil,

“it could also be that Hutchinson knew that "spats" existed and were worn by "toffs" but not the subtle rules that applied”.

Yes, this would be my suspicion.

You raise a good point about spats being morning wear. I believe Martin Fido also made reference to this in his book. I share your scepticism about his alleged ability to notice white buttons over button boots, especially when he claimed to have been peering at the man’s face during the only time possible to record such a detail, i.e. when he allegedly passed close to a gas lamp.

Hi Fisherman,

So when you said you’ve “had it for now”, you only meant you’ve “had it” for that particular day?

“Yes, Ben, we DO have evidence speaking of direct communication with the police! But please note that the Echo does not claim that they spoke to paid-off informants during their visit to the Commercial Street Police station.”

Of course the Echo would never state explicitly that they spoke to “paid-off informants”. Had they done so, the informant concerned would most assuredly have called off their “arrangement” with the Echo. The practise of paid informants was, after all, illegal, as Garry pointed out. It is clear, however, that the Echo spoke to the police on more than one occasion. The police had already informed the Echo, presumably via an informant, that Hutchinson's statement had been diminished in importance owing to his tardiness in coming forward and presenting his evidence. This was reported on 13th November, and then later, when the Echo approached the Commercial Street police station, this diminished importance was confirmed.

We are now in possession of proof that the police both communicated with the Echo and supplied them with accurate information. This is shown conclusively by that passage from the 14th November edition that I quoted. The Echo approached the police in order to seek clarification, and the police told them what we now know to be the truth of the matter. It makes not the slightest bit of sense, therefore, to go on claiming that the police supplied the Echo with faulty information or that the Echo lied about a police communication. In fact, both of these suggestions are utterly disproved, which is why it makes such little sense to dispute the Echo’s report that the police had “considerably discounted” Hutchinson’s statement because of his non-appearance at the inquest under “oath”.

The journalists of the "Daily News", by conspicuous contrast, offered only their own rather vacuous opinions about Lewis’ evidence that clearly had no police endorsement whatsoever. They even predicted that her evidence would not be accorded any “importance”, despite the fact that her very attendance at the inquest announced her importance in the minds of the police. Any newspaper that finds it necessary to pass critical, patronising commentary on a witness’ appearance with references to a “doleful looking body” with “negress-type features” doesn’t strike me as being very objective.

There is no evidence of any doubt being attached to either Lewis or Prater, and to claim that three-day late Hutchinson is more reliable is to be at odds with both the police view at the time, and frankly, overwhelming common sense. We’ve already established from a reference to a Birmingham suspect that Lewis’ evidence was still taken seriously. The suspect was described as having a gentlemanly appearance and resembled a description supplied "at the late inquest". Only Lewis described a “gentleman” at the inquest. In fact, this rather bolsters an observation I made in another thread that the attention paid to the Bethnal Green man may have obscured the potential importance of the “loiterer”.

No, I don’t think there’s anything “too good to be true” about Lewis’ Wednesday encounter. It wasn’t presented as soon as the inquest terminated, and the suspect description wasn’t adorned with an obscenely implausible level of detail. Obviously prostitution continued in the area in spite of the murders, and equally obviously, men were still on the lookout for an intimate encounter of the non-murderous variety. It seems clear to me that this man was not the murderer, or else he would hardly have requested the company of [just I]one[/I] of the women, leaving the other as a witness. Given the climate of terror that existed, however, Lewis’ fear was more than understandable.

I’m afraid similar attempts have been made in the past to cast doubt upon Lewis’ credibility, usually by those who want to cast Hutchinson in a favourable light, and they didn’t work very well on those occasions either.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"But it isn’t a “total lack of knowledge” Fisherman. It’s proof of direct communication with the police. On the 14th November, the Echo reported the following:

“Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contempiraries, we learned on inquiry at the Commercial-street Police-station to-day that the elaborate description given above is virtually the same as that previously published. It is a little fuller, that is all. But it proceeds from the same source”"

Yes, Ben, we DO have evidence speaking of direct communication with the police! But please note that the Echo does not claim that they spoke to paid-off informants during their visit to the Commercial Street Police station ...
And THAT is where I felt I needed very much to question your reasoning. Let´s look at it again, shall we?

"While this may be true for the police as a collective body, the same most assuredly cannot be said of police informers, to recall a crucial observation raised by Garry a few pages ago. Since these informants would have been paid, it is unlikely in the extreme they would provide bogus information to the journalists in an effort to preserve the reputation of the police as a collective. For starters, there would be no logical motivation for them to do so, since the nature of a professional “leaker” of information is to dish the dirt from the inside. If their agenda was saving the face of the institution, they would hardly have become clandestine informers paid by newspapers! As such, we can conclude beyond reasonable doubt that Hutchinson’s absence from the inquest was indeed a factor in his statement being “considerably discounted”, just as the Echo had reported."

What you do here is to pick up on Garrys suggestion that the Echo entertained illegal channels of police information, by paying informants to obtain information goods. You treat the suggestion as if it was a proven fact, and you use this to claim that "we can conclude beyond reasonable doubt that Hutchinson’s absence from the inquest was indeed a factor in his statement being “considerably discounted”.

I think that this is a remarkable way of reaching certainties that are supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt, Ben. Please note that my reasoning does not concern itself with the question if the Echo - or any other newspaper - spoke to the police to obtain information. Of course they did. But how that expands into any proven information about paid-off police informants, and from there further on to a deduction that it is beyond reasonable doubt that the police thought the late arrival on Hutchinson´s behalf very damning, is something I struggle to understand and accept. Actually, I fail to see anybody with their head screwed on clockwise accepting such a thing.

"Compare this with the “Daily News” who formed their own opinions of Sarah Lewis based on her physical appearance!"

Once more, Ben, there may have been a lot more than physical appearance weighed in! Plus they may well have mirrored the general view on it - no newspaper worth it´s salt ridicule citizens en masse just for the joy of it. They need to sell that newspaper to the same citizens afterwards, see.
Lewis and Prater gave a not very favourable and trustworthy impression, by the looks of things. Take, for instance, Lewis tale of the man with the bag; you, Ben, being so wary of Hutchinson´s "generic" description of astrakhan man, may need to reflect on that too:
"[Coroner] Have you seen any suspicious persons in the district ? - On Wednesday night I was going along the Bethnal-green-road, with a woman, about eight o'clock, when a gentleman passed us. He followed us and spoke to us, and wanted us to follow him into an entry. He had a shiny leather bag with him.
[Coroner] Did he want both of you ? - No; only one. I refused. He went away and came back again, saying he would treat us. He put down his bag and picked it up again, saying, "What are you frightened about ? Do you think I've got anything in the bag ?" We then ran away, as we were frightened."

Don´t you think this man sounds a little bit too good to be true too? The shiny black bag, the implication lying in his questions? Is this not what the East-ender who wanted to describe Jack would say, justaboutish? And was that not why the Daily News were sceptical about it?
You suggest that they were simply sloppily and somewhat rasistically denying conscientious citizens the respect and belief they were entitled to - but would a paper do that on such loose grounds? Or did Lewis make a very unfavourable impression?

Tightening the thumbscrews further, Ben, what evidence do we have that the police actually put any faith in Lewis and her loiterer after the inquest? Where are the police reports and memoirs that conclusively tell us that this was the case? Abberline et al would arguably have been quite baffled by the refreshed memory of mrs Lewis and her remarkable gift to find a physical shape where none had been before - and even put a hat on that shape.


The best,
Fisherman