Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Ben]

You're still missing the crucial point regarding the Hutchinson-Violenia comparison. Whether it was true or not, Violenia claimed to have been near a crime scene at a time relevant to the time of death. The police dismissed him as a false witness but did not consider him a suspect. Since the exact same details were true of Hutchinson, it logically follows that he never became a suspect either. The precedent for the treatment of false witness had been established way in advance of Violenia coming forward, and Hutchinson was almost certainly dismissed as a publicity/money-seeker, without the possibility of his culpability in the crimes ever being considered.

It is not obviously wrong that there were no other unexonerated suspects– show me how it is wrong.

I can't believe that anyone can be of this opinion.

You seem to have some inexplicable trouble distinguishing between suspicion and resolved suspicion. The latter is an elusive commodity even in modern serial killer investigations, but for some reason you believe that the 1888 police had some trusty barometer for determining the guilt or innocence of anyone they suspected. This is many, many long sea miles away from reality, I can assure you. The police would have been utterly deluged with suggested suspects who all needed to be investigated as far their limited resources would allow. There would have been hundreds of suspects whose innocence was never confirmed, and the only reason the Macnaghten three were mentioned were because they were among the few that were considered any good.

Unfortunately, the perceived legitimacy of certain suspects very clearly boiled down to the personal views of some of the senior officials concerned. It is clear, for example, that certain out-dated views as to why a series of brutal murders might end influenced some people's views as to which suspects merited attention, and local gentile men with no recorded history of mental illness or criminal behaviour were seldom considered.

If Hutchinson was ever considered a suspect, which is unlikely, the chances of him being mentioned as such in later memoirs were clearly very slim.

All the best,
Ben

[Hatchett]

Hello Ben,

What ever way you dress it up or avoid questions by your repeated, somwhat agressive and diversary, semantics, your whole premise is built up on personal supposition. And it is mostly supposition that you pile into selective omission.

That the police at that time did not have the benefit of a history of serial killers is really irrelevent in what we are talking about. Not all serial killers involve themselves in the investigation. Besides that we are talking about basic police investigation methods. Detection was in its infancy so it would have relied heavilly on on basic investigation. The notebook and boot heel slog.

That is obvious!

Unlike today the police also had the manpower to accomplish that ... on the street!

To say that the police were not meticulous in their investigations can only come from someone who has not studied the actual files!

I would also point out that it would be more difficult to pin point the movements of a waif and stray out on the street than someone who may or may not have been resident in some sort of hostel or whatever, or was taking up irregular employment in Romford or where ever else.

Your arguement here is ridiculous!

But again, like the whole of your theory, this is all supposition on your part. Because you have unearthed nothing from your research.

What I am saying is that the police would have had to have investigated Hutchinson. That is obvious!

Finally, I would like to say that there have been occasions Ben when I have defended you, purelly because I did not think it fair the way that you were being treated. Now I see that you are treating people in exactley the same way, myself included. I object to the crude jibes, the crude attemps to belittle other posters who are asking questions or who have an alternative view toyour own, and your incessant avoiding questions that you cannot answer.

We are serious researchers here. If you feel frustrated by being asked questions that you cannot answer then you should never have posted in the first place!

Best wishes.

[Ben]

Hi Hatchett,

The only reason I come across as intolerant at times is because the same gainsaying dissent is repeated over and over again, which compels me to respond with the same reminder that the various factors being misrepresented as obstacles to the possibility of Hutchinson’s culpability are clearly nothing of the sort. I’m also troubled by the continued accusations that I am “constructing a case”, which is something I’ve never done on the message boards.

It is most assuredly not “irrelevant” that the police had no experience of serial killers. This lack of knowledge played a crucial part in the direction of the investigation, and undoubtedly impacted on their preferences for certain suspects later on. I realise that “not all serial killers involve themselves in the investigation”, but there was no evidence of it happening at all prior to 1888, and the idea of the killer coming forward as a witness must understandably have seemed like an alien concept.

“To say that the police were not meticulous in their investigations can only come from someone who has not studied the actual files!”

I don’t recall ever suggesting that the police were “not meticulous in their investigations”. I have observed throughout that the police did the best they could with their relatively limited resources and experience.

“Your argument (sic) here is ridiculous!”

Which argument?

That the movements of one particular lodger in 400 six weeks previously were difficult to pinpoint? I think that’s rather obvious, and not just "supposition" on my part, and you’ll probably discover this if you visited the threads where this subject was discussed in more detail.

Yes, the police probably did investigate Hutchinson, but not in the capacity of a suspect.

Just a friendly request, but please don’t accuse me of avoiding questions. You can call me aggressive and ridiculous if you want, but a lack of thoroughness in my responses is not an accusation that can be remotely sustained. I do indeed recall your supportive posts on the other thread, which is why I'm surprised at your combative approach here.

All the best,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

Lechmere - first of all, there is no need to go back to to 'madame Retro'.
I was very rude to you a few months ago -I got carried away, and I apologise totally. I've since enjoyed alot of your posts -on other threads.

Right -now that's out of the way :

Hutch was never a suspect. I only evoked the "missing records" and suggested that he may have been followed, he may have had a false alibi etc etc, because the minute that you get into the "missing records" territory, you can speculate that they said whatever you want.

When you are talking about what the police must have 'checked', you are entering into this territory.

As far as we know, Hutch was checked as a witness and not a suspect.
He didn't fit the idea that the Police had formed of the killer (although he ticks alot of the boxes of what we know of serial killers, today)

If he didn't do anything to alert suspicion again, why wouldn't the Police just forget about Hutch ?

At that time, the opinion was that the killer was growing 'crazier' and would be unable to stop his murder spree unless he was committed or died. However, we know now that serial killers can and do stop for long periods -especially if they think that they're in danger of getting caught.

[Lechmere]

I thought Madam Retro sounded rather nice (better than Frau anyway).
We don’t actually know that Hutchinson was checked at all.
However, my point is that for Hutchinson to hold water as the culprit, you would have to take on board the likelihood that he had been ‘checked out’, and rationalise from there what this means for his culprit status.
For Hutchinson to be the culprit you have to make all sorts of assumptions and read things into what evidence is available. The direct evidence is not there that he was a suspect let alone the culprit. He is of course not alone in this regard. However if it is ‘fair’ to incorporate various ‘must haves’ and ‘could haves’ into his case to make him the Ripper then it is reasonable to ask for a common place ‘must have’ to be included such as that he ‘must have been checked out fairly rigorously and ‘must have’ passed this checking out.

Ben
I absolutely do think that the police had no named unresolved suspects other than those we already know about. And most of them were not exactly contemporary suspects – although maybe Kosminski and Tumblety were.
Show me some evidence from the press reports, memoirs or the extant official records that suggest otherwise. The most common remark from policemen involved in the case was that they didn’t have a clue who did it. Not that they had a book full if suspects that they couldn’t pin down.

[Ben]

“I absolutely do think that the police had no named unresolved suspects other than those we already know about.”

Then I must confess to being in bewildered and horrified astonishment that anyone could have formed so badly mistaken an impression as this, Lechmere. The police would certainly have been deluged with hundreds of “persons of interest”, all requiring investigation. The same is true of modern police investigations that also involve hundreds of potential suspects, most of whom cannot be proven innocent. You must learn the difference between suspecting a person, and having the goods to prove that person innocent or guilty of the offence. In 1888 the latter would not have been possible, let alone practical, in the vast majority of cases, and yet you seem to persist in this inexplicably muddled idea that it would have been a doddle to confirm or deny suspicions in those days.

“However, my point is that for Hutchinson to hold water as the culprit, you would have to take on board the likelihood that he had been ‘checked out’”

As a witness, yes.

It is NOT "likely" that Hutchinson was ever considered a suspect. Nobody is required to make any lofty assumptions to conclude that Hutchinson might have been the murderer. This is one logical deduction from the evidence that Hutchinson lied about his reasons for loitering opposite Miller’s Court where he was clearly seen by Sarah Lewis. The problem with the suggestion that he "must have" been checked out and "must have" passed muster, apart from the wholly absent evidential basis for this conclusion, is that it is a two-fold assumption wherein one questionable opinion is being used to support another.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

He discredited himself by telling lies.

It was reported that the authorities asked why he delayed in avoiding the inquest.

Ok, well let me share with you the source that puts a little different complexion on the matter, the Morning Advertiser 14th Nov.

Here the paper begins by naming their source;

"The Press association says..."

They introduce the press release which describes the man Hutchinson saw, this is the initial press release by the police.
Releases to the Press Association were typically by wire.

The article continues:
"For obvious reasons certain particulars are withheld."

Not withheld by the press, witholding any details is not within their interest. The police choose to withold certain details likely which might compromise their investigation.

"The person who has had an opportunity of being within speaking distance of the supposed assassin is an individual whose veracity is not doubted for a moment."

Whether this is the press providing a little artistic license, or the actual opinion of the police is not clear, but this claim of "veracity not doubted" becomes an often repeated declaration in several papers.

"The name of the man who has given the information referred to to the police is purposely withheld for reasons which are necessary for his own safety."

Apparently the police also witheld George Hutchinson's identity from the press association for the reason's stated.

".....He (Hutchinson) afterwards heard of the murder, but for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediately put himself in communication with the police."

Here is the all important piece of information, the article is explaining that the police choose to be prudent and also withold from the press the reason that Hutchinson gave to them for not coming forward directly that he heard of the murder.

This article makes it pretty clear that the police already knew what the reason for his 'delay' was before they released the description to the press.

The article also demonstrates that all these false arguments about Hutchinson lying to the police and them subsequently investigating him and eventually rejecting him, because of the 'delay' are all wrong.

The following morning (15th), they ran this line:

" The police were busily occupied yesterday in endeavoring to obtain a clue to the identity and movements of the man with whom the woman Kelly was last seen, and a detailed description of whom has been published. Various statements have been volunteered to them on the subject, but up to last evening their inquiries had not resulted in any definite information."

It was this same evening that the Star released it's scornfull accusation:

"Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson,..."

And yet the description the Star indicate as "discredited" is the one they published themselves, not the official police version.

Yet, the very next morning, the Morning Advertiser (16th) released this line:

"Nothing of importance transpired yesterday respecting the Whitechapel murders."

No mention of any important "discredit" of the previous 'Official Police Description' story concerning the unnamed police witness, (Hutchinson).

Thats how the story plays out, nothing to support the accusations of 'lying' or 'rejection'.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

There is no evidence that the "Morning Advertiser" was ever in direct communication with the police.

There is irrefutable proof that the Echo were in direct communication with the police.

So the argument for prioritizing the Morning Advertiser over the Echo is….?

The press association clearly had nothing to do with the dubious smoke and mirror claims made by the "Morning Advertiser" with regard to “certain particulars” of Hutchinson’s account being withheld, or else they would have appeared in numerous other newspapers too, such as the Daily Telegraph. Unfortunately for those inclined to invest any stock in the Morning Advertiser claim that “for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediately put himself in communication with the police”, the considerably more reputable and mainstream Daily Telegraph observed that it had NOT been ascertain why Hutchinson did not come forward with his evidence earlier.

It’s not looking too rosy for the Morning Advertiser so far, who also provided certain inquest “details” that appeared in no other press account, such as Mrs. Venturney hearing a “strange noise with some door” on the night of Kelly's murder. How astonishing that only the Morning Advertiser picked up on this snippet of testimony?

Fortunately, we know that certain newspapers placed undue emphasis on Hutchinson’s account. A very telling extract from the 14th November Echo article ran as follows:

“The police do not attach so much importance to this document as some of our contemporaries do”

The Echo’s contemporaries were, of course, other newspapers. In other words, despite these other newspapers (Morning Advertiser, anyone?) giving Hutchinson’s account a ringing endorsement and optimistically predicting that it will lead to the offender’s capture (etc etc), the police were not nearly so ecstatic about it. This also accounts for the Echo’s other observation that “There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson’s veracity”, because they knew that those doing the “declaring” in this regard were the aforementioned press “contemporaries” who had an opinion of Hutchinson that the police did not share.

So without the slightest degree of doubt we can see that Jon’s assertion that:

The article also demonstrates that all these false arguments about Hutchinson lying to the police and them subsequently investigating him and eventually rejecting him, because of the 'delay' are all wrong.

…Is completely false.

Because the absolute reverse was true.

Unless people want to believe that the Morning Advertiser trumps all other sources.

I'm gagging to keep arguing this for another thousand or so pages, though.

[Wickerman]

There is no evidence that the "Morning Advertiser" was ever in direct communication with the police.

See, right off the bat you dropped the ball, if you knew who the Press Association was you would never have given such a thoughtless response.

Jon S.

[Lechmere]

Ben
The reason for your ‘bewildered and horrified astonishment’ might be that you seem to be confusing what you describe as “persons of interest” with named suspects. For example the A-man (and blotchy and many others who have been given similar monikers in the absence of names) would have been a ‘person of interest’ but cannot have been a named suspect, for obvious reasons.
The newspapers were full of people, with names, being arrested on suspicion and released with no suspicion remaining after they had been ‘checked out’. Of course one of these may have been the culprit due to an insufficient ‘check out’. Nevertheless such individuals did not remain as unresolved suspects.
Rather than accuse me of being muddled, show me the evidence for your claims.

[Sally]

The Morning Advertiser

What, the Publican's Friend?

Not typically known for its accuracy - it tended to adopt a somewhat sensationalist approach, I think, with accounts that were quite often all its own. Went down well in the pubs I expect, though.

The Morning Advertiser was discussed on another thread - sorry, can't remember which at the moment.

[Ben]

For example the A-man (and blotchy and many others who have been given similar monikers in the absence of names) would have been a ‘person of interest’ but cannot have been a named suspect, for obvious reasons.

No, Lechmere, I'm talking about actual flesh-and-blood individuals whose identities had been established, and who came under suspicion during the course of the investigation without being "exonerated". There would have been hundreds of men fitting this description. It wouldn't have been insufficient checking alone that resulted in the failure of these individuals to be exonerated either, although this played an undoubtedly large part. In many cases, the individuals were simply considered incompatible with the image and behaviour of the ripper, as Thomas Cutbush was a few years after the murders. No evidence of an alibi and certainly no "exoneration" in his case. Same with William Bury, was also investigated by the police.

Barnett also springs to mind as an individual who, despite being investigated, cannot have been "exonerated" of the murders.

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Ben
Bury only came under suspicion when he murdered his wife in Dundee. He wasn’t strictly a contemporary suspect. He is in the category of suspect where their subsequent behaviour brought them to the police’s attention – like Druitt or Chapman (for very different reasons).

Cutbush was one of those few mentioned as a suspect and ended up incarcerated, but also exonerated.
It is pretty clear that so far as the police were concerned in 1888, Barnett was exonerated. They did not maintain any interest in him as a suspect.

You are second guessing the police for incorrectly exonerating. However that is irrelevant as my point is there were precious few unexonerated suspects.
This tends to imply (to me anyway) that a good suspect (eg a witness who was proven to be a liar and who placed himself at a crime scene) would not be readily discarded.

[Wickerman]

What, the Publican's Friend?

Not typically known for its accuracy - it tended to adopt a somewhat sensationalist approach, I think, with accounts that were quite often all its own. Went down well in the pubs I expect, though.

The Morning Advertiser was discussed on another thread - sorry, can't remember which at the moment.

Might I suggest you read, Jack the Ripper and the London Press, Curtis, 2001.
Assuming you are interested in turning your "I think" & "I expect" into something more substantial.

Very few of the papers were known for their accuracy but The Daily Telegraph became among the most popular. Most of the papers were very politically aligned so tended to promote the party line even in issues of the Whitechapel murders.
For controversial reading the worst being Pall Mall Gazette followed by the Star.
The Star managed to dodge a libel suit for what they 'invented/lied' about John Piser. Luckily for them they enticed him to settle out of court for a paltry sum by our standards.

Generally speaking the police were 'not' allowed to talk to the press, to which we have several instances which support this fact. Most communications between the police and the press were one-way, the police would send a wire to the Central News Agency, or Liberal News Agency, or any of the six agencies in business at the time. Newspapers would source their story from an agency for a fee. This is why you read so many duplicate stories, even to the last word.

Claims that a newspaper had sourced a story out of any particular police station can be reasonably taken as an attempt at 'one-upmanship' over its competition to impress it's readers.
Not that it could never have happened but knowing the strict rules which were in place against such communications, and any lack of confirming stories from the police side, we should err on the side of caution and assume it rare to unlikely.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

My intention in bringing up Barnett, Bury et al was to demonstrate examples of the phenomenon I described, wherein an individual is suspected of the crimes without the proof emerging to "exonerate" them of any involvement. I have no doubt that many suspects were dismissed after they were "checked out", but as with modern day investigations, a suspect may be dismissed in spite of the question of their potential guilt remaining unresolved. A suspect can only be held for so long, and in the absence of any compelling reason to detain him for any appreciable length of time, the police are obliged to set him at liberty. Many hundreds of individuals would have been suspected at some stage during the course of the investigation into the Whitechapel murders, and it is inconceivable that the vast majority of these were exonerated.

The police just didn't have the "exonerating" capabilities you appear to imagine.