Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Phil H]

Returning to the subject of this thread!!

Do we have any experts on late-Victorian male costume/fashion in our midst?

I seem to recall - I don't have the "Ultimate" or any references with me here in the office - that Astrakhan Man is described as wearing spats.

Certainly post-1900 spats were an item of men's clothing worn only in the morning. I think this may also have applied in Oscar Wilde's time (c1891) also - but I have no corroboration for thet.

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.

I believe he also mentions that the man was wearing "button boots" - how would he have known in those lighting conditions? But if he indeed wore spets the buttons would surely have been covered and thus invisible?

Hope someone can shed expert light on this.

Phil

[Ben]

“And I am not making any "suggestion" as such, but instead pointing to the futility of making ANY suggestion at all based on a total lack of knowledge.”

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”

This was in reference to the confusion created by two versions of the same statement emerging on two successive days, and giving rise to the erroneous perception that it originated from different witnesses. Since the Echo were absolutely correct in what they reported, it should be immediately clear that the Echo reporters did communicate directly with the police in an effort to ascertain what we know to be the truth.

Hence, it would be very unreasonable to attempt to cast doubt on the Echo's other statements concerning the police view of Hutchinson.

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

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

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.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Absolutely, Frank. It seems to me that Hutchinson was attempting to ramp up the suspiciousness of Astrakhan in order to provide justification for his own subsequent behaviour. But this, of course, flies in the face of Hutchinson's initial assertion that Astrakhan's behaviour was not suspicious.

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.

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"I suppose you're not serious, Fish"

There was a tongue-in-cheek element involved, I must admit ...!

"That’s a bit too easy, Fish. First of all, we’re dealing with a man who had found out that his acquaintance had been brutally butchered and that he quite possibly had seen her with her killer shortly before she was murdered. In fact, he had not just seen her likely killer, he had gone out of his way to remember as much about Kelly’s companion as he could (not to mention the following and the waiting), so he knew he was able to give the police important information. "

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.
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. 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.

"He chooses to approach a PC in the street. Very odd that this PC, of whom – in turn - we can expect to recognise the importance of a statement such as Hutchinson made at that stage of this huge case with a lot of pressure on the police to solve it - in short, whose job it is - apparently didn’t give the advice to go to the nearest police station to have his statement taken, or didn’t take any other necessary action at all."

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.

"I don’t think there’s much evidence to think Hutchinson mistook the day, so then I’m left with Lewis stating that she saw a man opposite the entrance to Miller’s Court, looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out and Hutchinson stating that it was exactly this what he was doing at the same time when Lewis saw her man."

...and a need to explain why Lewis did not tell the police about either behaviour or appearance of that man in her police interview, but instead firmly stated that she could NOT describe him. More on that later!

"If Hutchinson hadn’t conveniently turned around to keep watching Kelly and watch her meet Mr. A., then we would probably not have heard of Hutchinson. When he turned around, Kelly hadn't even met Mr. A. yet and he wouldn’t have had reason or even been able to have a good look at the man.
If he hadn’t conveniently stopped under a lamp to see them approaching, to let them pass and to look the man in the face, we would probably not have heard of Hutchinson.
If Mr. A., who clearly didn't like to be seen, had arranged for him and Kelly to cross the street before they reached Hutchinson, we might not have heard about Hutchinson. Yet, they conveniently passed him at close range.
In his statements he gives no reason why he turned around and later on waited, and there’s not much reason to believe he had a good look at Mr. A. (and if so, why), before he stopped at the Queen’s Head Pub.
In that respect it seems too convenient and, therefore, constructed."

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 don’t see any convenience in the fit between Lewis’ loiterer and Hutchinson."

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!" But it is based on very loose ground, as anybody realizes to takes part of the differences inbetween Sarah Lewis´police report statement and her statement at the inquest. 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. 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!

"Regardless of whether Hutchinson wanted to deceive the police, he told them what he told and wasn’t arrested for anything, didn’t get punished or whatever. So where’s the major mistake?"

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

"Apparently the police didn’t make the connection between his account and Lewis’ loiterer. And that may well have been his purpose for not mentioning her."

I´m left with two things I fail to understand here:
1. How anyone can think that the connection was not made. Of course, it could be (and apparently was) overlooked at Abberline´s interrogation, but I cannot for the life of me see the police missing out on it on the whole. And this discrepancy may very well be the key factor in the dismissal of Hutchinson´s story. And if it WAS, and if Hutchinson was STILL looked upon as an honest man afterwards, as implicated by the inquiries mentioned in the Echo of the 19:th and, not least, by Walter Dew, the conclusion that he had made an honest mistake of some kind becomes inescapable.
2. What would he have to gain from not mentioning her? Why would he have the actual purpose not to mention her? What possible good could it do, that would outweigh the certainty he would have reach by mentioning her?

"I don’t understand you here, Fish. Please rephrase."

Okay!
1. Sarah Lewis tells the police that she cannot describe the man she saw outside Crossingham´s.
2. Mary Cox tells the police that she saw Kelly with a short, stout man in a wideawake (often confused with billycocks).
3. Mary Cox may well have told her neighbours and friends the same story during the days leading up to the inquest. It may have been street knowledge that the Ripper seemingly was a short, stout man with a wideawake/billycock.
4. At the inquest, Mary Cox takes the stand and tells about Blotchy.
5. Afterwards, at the same inquest, the turn has come to Sarah Lewis to tell the coroner what she had told the police - that she had seen a man outside Crossingham´s on the evening of the murder, a man she could not describe. But what happens? She is suddenly able to provide the man with a physical description! And lo and behold, what does he look like? Exactly, he is a short and stout man with a billycock/wideawake, just like the man who is about to shoulder the role as Kellys probable slayer.
6. So what metamorphosis does Lewis´man go through? He goes through TWO metamorphoses: He goes from having been an undescribable fellow to getting a physical shape, and, more importantly, he moves up from being a man, any man, probably an uninteresting lodger, to becoming the probable slayer of Kelly: Jack the Ripper.
Need I say that Lewis ALSO went through a metamorphosis: from having been a woman loosely attached to the murder evening, to a witness that may have seen the killer waiting for his opportunity to strike!

This is why I mention the Daily News take on Lewis. They wrote, from the inquest: "Through the phantasmagoria of the Coroner's Court there did indeed flit figures, probably more or less apocryphal, of men who might have done the deed. One doleful-looking little body, with a negress-type of features, told how she and another had been frightened by a mysterious stranger who had tried to lure them by the offer of money into a retired spot; but they both took to their heels and ran away. 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.”

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!

"Even without sharing your fondness of the 'Dew perspective', I can respect that."


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!

All the best, Frank!
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

That is indeed a noteworthy difference between his police statement and press statement, Garry. One might get the impression that he wanted to make his story more credible with this amendment and the others that he made in his press statement.

Absolutely, Frank. It seems to me that Hutchinson was attempting to ramp up the suspiciousness of Astrakhan in order to provide justification for his own subsequent behaviour. But this, of course, flies in the face of Hutchinson's initial assertion that Astrakhan's behaviour was not suspicious.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I’m surprised and slightly disappointed that you’re still suggesting that an illegal police informant (see Garry’s earlier post) would supply bogus information to protect the reputation of the police. That is not what a police informant does, Fisherman. An informant provides tip-offs to journalists that the police don’t necessarily want to be divulged to the public. "

I know what an informant does, Ben - I have spent 27 years working in the press business. And I am not making any "suggestion" as such, but instead pointing to the futility of making ANY suggestion at all based on a total lack of knowledge.
The truth is that we do not know how the Echo came by the information it seems to have. The suggestion that paid informants in the police may have been the explanation is not a bad one, but that said, other explanations may account for it all. I did not mention the possibility of "decoy informants", if you will, as a favoured option on my behalf, but I think that we have to be a lot more careful than to draw deductions and make assertions based on assumptions!

The best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

That is indeed a noteworthy difference between his police statement and press statement, Garry. One might get the impression that he wanted to make his story more credible with this amendment and the others that he made in his press statement.

All the best,
Frank

[Garry Wroe]

If Hutchinson hadn’t conveniently turned around to keep watching Kelly and watch her meet Mr. A., then we would probably not have heard of Hutchinson. When he turned around, Kelly hadn't even met Mr. A. yet and he wouldn’t have had reason or even been able to have a good look at the man.

Which is perhaps why, Frank, Hutchinson amended his story when speaking to the press and had Astrakhan loitering furtively on a street corner as he (Hutchinson) walked along Commercial Street just prior to meeting Kelly.

[FrankO]

Agreed - but with the addition that he would have "realized" that she was killed shortly after the moment at which HE THOUGHT he left Dorset Street - when in fact he left the street on Thursday morning ...

I suppose you're not serious, Fish, but if you are, then I must have missed something, so I have to ask: when and how has this last bit become a fact?

He told a policeman about it, Frank! That means that he turned to the authorities on Sunday morning!

That’s a bit too easy, Fish. First of all, we’re dealing with a man who had found out that his acquaintance had been brutally butchered and that he quite possibly had seen her with her killer shortly before she was murdered. In fact, he had not just seen her likely killer, he had gone out of his way to remember as much about Kelly’s companion as he could (not to mention the following and the waiting), so he knew he was able to give the police important information.

This being as it is, in all fairness, I think he could have expected that he would be interviewed at some lenght and that his statement would be taken.

So what should he do? Approach a PC in the street, whose first responsibility it is to keep the public peace and not to take statements? Or to go to one of the 3 nearby police stations where he could be quite sure they would take his statement, exactly as it happened on Monday night?

He chooses to approach a PC in the street. Very odd that this PC, of whom – in turn - we can expect to recognise the importance of a statement such as Hutchinson made at that stage of this huge case with a lot of pressure on the police to solve it - in short, whose job it is - apparently didn’t give the advice to go to the nearest police station to have his statement taken, or didn’t take any other necessary action at all.

Another one of those oddities is that there’s no mention of the encounter with this policeman in Hutchinson’s official statement. It seems like an important piece of information to me.

It is a tantalizing possibility. In that respect, it equals the tantalizing thought that Lewis´ loiterer and Hutchinson must have been one and the same. I strongly suspect that both conceptions are faulty, and that this is what has stopped us from seeing the Hutchinson affair for what it was.

Then we suspect strongly differently. I don’t think there’s much evidence to think Hutchinson mistook the day, so then I’m left with Lewis stating that she saw a man opposite the entrance to Miller’s Court, looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out and Hutchinson stating that it was exactly this what he was doing at the same time when Lewis saw her man.

Too constructed, no. Too convenient, yes - and that lies in the VERY convenient fit inbetween the loiterer and Hutchinson.

What I mean when I say 'constructed' and 'convenient' is the following:
If Hutchinson hadn’t conveniently turned around to keep watching Kelly and watch her meet Mr. A., then we would probably not have heard of Hutchinson. When he turned around, Kelly hadn't even met Mr. A. yet and he wouldn’t have had reason or even been able to have a good look at the man.

If he hadn’t conveniently stopped under a lamp to see them approaching, to let them pass and to look the man in the face, we would probably not have heard of Hutchinson.

If Mr. A., who clearly didn't like to be seen, had arranged for him and Kelly to cross the street before they reached Hutchinson, we might not have heard about Hutchinson. Yet, they conveniently passed him at close range.

In his statements he gives no reason why he turned around and later on waited, and there’s not much reason to believe he had a good look at Mr. A. (and if so, why), before he stopped at the Queen’s Head Pub.

In that respect it seems too convenient and, therefore, constructed. I don’t see any convenience in the fit between Lewis’ loiterer and Hutchinson.

But he does not say this, does he? He instead indirectly professes to NOT having seen Lewis, and THAT would have been a major mistake if he wanted to deceive the police!

How so? Regardless of whether Hutchinson wanted to deceive the police, he told them what he told and wasn’t arrested for anything, didn’t get punished or whatever. So where’s the major mistake? Apparently the police didn’t make the connection between his account and Lewis’ loiterer. And that may well have been his purpose for not mentioning her.

And keep in mind, Frank, that the loiterer only took physical shape after Cox had given her testimony. Up to that point, Lewis had been of the impression that she could not describe the man she saw, but after it, the loiterer had magically taken the shape of Cox´s man.

I don’t understand you here, Fish. Please rephrase.

I can see all your points, Frank. It´s just that I have seen them before, and compared to the "Dew perspective", they hold much less water in my eyes.

Even without sharing your fondness of the 'Dew perspective', I can respect that.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I think that you're looking at this the wrong way round Fisherman."

You DO?!

"You think that because it is no secret that Hutch is my favourite suspect, then it becomes "favourable to regard Hutchinson as a liar and (I) end up with that exact picture""

I do entertain such a thought, yes - but not just about you.

"However it was because the evidence points to Hutch being a liar that
he became my favourite suspect."

That´s a sound way to go about things, Ruby. However, others will not agree as you notice. Some of us think that the evidence points very much away from Hutchinson being in any fashion guilty. I could get statistical and tell you that you are in the minority, but then again, that applies to me too in more than one case ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“This is a good example of a fact produced out of the blue with nothing to support it - you do not know if the police shared that sentiment (none of us do), and there is a very clear possibility that this was in fact so.”

Well no, it’s a good example of information gleaned directly from the Commercial Street police station and thus having plenty to “support it”. It’s the very opposite of “out of the blue”. And yes, the police clearly did “mistrust” him, or else they would not have cited his failure to come forward earlier and appear at the inquest “under oath” as a reason for discounting his statement. The police could not have discredited him for this reason whilst also suspecting that he was honest witness who confused the date. That would make no sense at all.

"We KNOW that Abberline accepted Hutchinsons statement from the outset. In doing so, he of course also found the reason Hutchinson gave for arriving late perfectly surmountable."

Important correction to the above: we know that Abberline accepted Hutchinson’s statement at the outset, but the indications are that over the ensuing days, this opinion was probably revised. The idea that he accepted Hutchinson’s reason for coming late is demonstrably false. The Echo communicated directly with the police and established that Hutchinson’s statement had been discredited due to an absent or implausible reason for making such a late appearance. The police would not have cited Hutchinson’s late arrival and non-attendance at the inquest as a reason for discrediting his account if his excuse for this late appearance was considered acceptable.

I’m surprised and slightly disappointed that you’re still suggesting that an illegal police informant (see Garry’s earlier post) would supply bogus information to protect the reputation of the police. That is not what a police informant does, Fisherman. An informant provides tip-offs to journalists that the police don’t necessarily want to be divulged to the public. In so doing, they are acting against the wishes of the police. The idea of double-bluffing double agents, and police plants posing as police informants posing as genuine police officials is outlandish in the extreme. Had the police resorted to this strategy, the press would have exposed the identity of the informant and the police would have been on the receiving end of considerable opprobrium.

We also know that the Echo obtained information directly from the police (unacknowledged and unknown by other newspapers) that we know for certain to be true. Hence, it really is “beyond reasonable doubt” that the police provided the Echo with the true reason (or one of them, at least) for the discrediting of Hutchinson’s account, and that was the very late arrival of his evidence.

“I can see that you have filled some more space with that post of yours - but this will have to do for now. With respect, Ben, I´ve had it for now”

Yes, I suppose we have been going round in circles for some considerable time now.

All the best,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

You make a number of presumptions under which it becomes favourable to regard Hutchinson as a liar, and you end up with that exact picture.

Small wonder, Ruby ...

The best,
Fisherman[/QUOTE]

I think that you're looking at this the wrong way round Fisherman.

You think that because it is no secret that Hutch is my favourite suspect, then it becomes "favourable to regard Hutchinson as a liar and (I) end up with that exact picture"

However it was because the evidence points to Hutch being a liar that
he became my favourite suspect.

I arrived at this conclusion, as evinced by my very first post, by considering the facts surrounding Hutch and before I had even heard of Bob Hinton, Garry Wroe or Ben -let alone read anything that they'd written. I've also reconsidered my position on lots of details after reading other people's arguments and being conviced, or otherwise by their points of view.

However, nobody...you included...has yet to convince me that Hutch wasn't a liar, and A Man really existed and Mary really did ask him for sixpence, or that Hutchinson 'got the day wrong' -because the facts of the case seem to indicate the contrary.

I can assure you that Hurch is nothing to me, and I don't have a book to defend or anything, and if I had any doubts I would eat 'humble pie' as I have
had to before; That day has not arrived yet though concerning this '**** and bull' statemnt.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"With respect, Fisherman, you're still making assertions that either contradict or fail to acknowledge the evidence."

I think not. On the other hand, YOU are the author of things like these:

"the newspapers that were inclined to give Hutchinson’s account a clean bill of health throughout their reporting of it were clearly expressing sentiments not shared by the police"

This is a good example of a fact produced out of the blue with nothing to support it - you do not know if the police shared that sentiment (none of us do), and there is a very clear possibility that this was in fact so. It is fine to voice the opinion that the police may have mistrusted him, but to brazenly state as a fact that they clearly did, is jumping the gun big time.

"There was never any proof of “different days” or “honest mistakes” or even a suspicion amongst the contemporary police that this happened"

And there we are again. You assert that there was never even a suspicion of an honest mistake or a mistaken day amongst the contemporary police. This may be true and it may be false. Whichever way, it is an evidencewise baseless assumption, and as such it does not belong to a fair discussion.

I am perfectly used to this methodology of yours, and not all that much shaken by it. But it´s not a background against which you are becomingly portrayed when you accuse others of misrepresenting the material. And what have you got to show for it? Let´s see:

"You’re still claiming, for example, that the police were satisfied with Hutchinson’s “reason” for coming late. This is absolutely untrue, for reasons we’ve already discussed at length."

1. We KNOW that Abberline accepted Hutchinsons statement from the outset. In doing so, he of course also found the reason Hutchinson gave for arriving late perfectly surmountable. And that is really all we need to be able to point to a satisfaction on behalf of the police. As for the other parameters involved - the statement in the Echo that the lateness lay behind the dismissal, we seemingly agree that it would at least not have been the only factor at play - and as I have shown, there is good reason to regard it as a way of concealing the true reason. So I am on perfectly dry land here - as opposed to anyone who states that ""the newspapers that were inclined to give Hutchinson’s account a clean bill of health throughout their reporting of it were clearly expressing sentiments not shared by the police", for example. That is a flagrant example of what preconceptions coupled with a selective reading will do to you.

"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!"

Oh, Ben! Don´t be naïve! How do you know that this fed information - that we have no proof for whatsoever to begin with, even if it is a useful SUGGESTION as such - were not "new" informants, guided by the police and sent out to make contact under the pretense that they were true informants? To begin with, that is? I can think of scores of other scenarios, but they all belong to fairytale land as it stands, as does the suggestion that there WERE payed police informants. And where do you move from these very lose speculations? I will tell you, you move to this: "As such, we can conclude beyond reasonable doubt ..."

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT??? From a suggestion of payed police informants, who we do not know who they were if they existed, and who, as I pointed out, may have been decoys - if they existed - you think you are free to establish things "beyond reasonable doubt"?????????

Did I not hear you just saying that I was the one who was "making assertions that either contradict or fail to acknowledge the evidence"??? Whew!

I can see that you have filled some more space with that post of yours - but this will have to do for now. With respect, Ben, I´ve had it for now, and I will not take the risk of running into something even worse than the bits I´ve tended to. If, that is, such a thing is even possible...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

"not sure if Hutch even saw her that night"

There you go!

"my hunch is that they were client/customer who knew each other for a long time (a couple of years?) who were on friendly terms"

Quite possibly, yes, although it remains unproven. And it was three years, it would seem.

The best,
Fisherman