Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Ben]

“Well, this time you say something I very much agree with: you do not “discount” a witness statement because of the failure of its originator to come forward prior to the inquest.”

But this is precisely what did happen, Fisherman, as my previous post went on to describe in detail.

Moreover, this outcome only has any validity if the police harboured doubts about Hutchinson’s honesty and motivation for coming forward. Otherwise it makes no sense for the police to have cited his failure to appear at the inquest “under oath” as a reason for discounting his statement. What I find confusing is that you appear to acknowledge this obvious commonsense reality, but then you go straight back to repeating the mantra about Hutchinson being championed as a “straightforward, unshaken man with a truthful agenda”. This makes me wonder if perhaps you are still missing the point, which is that if the police came to discredit Hutchinson’s statement on account of his failure to come forward earlier and attend the inquest under oath, they cannot have considered Hutchinson himself to have been an honest, squeaky clean witness.

This most assuredly qualifies as a “bad word to say about him” because a failure to come forward soon after the murder and before the inquest impacts very directly and very negatively on the question of Hutchinson’s integrity, whereas it has nothing whatsoever to do with any putative “honestly mistaken wrong night” theory. Inferentially, therefore, the police clearly concluded that he was a “liar and perceived timewaster” and not an “honestly mistaken man”.

“He was streetwise and cunning, and had loads of experience. His word would have carried immense weight.”

But “loads of experience” of what?

He was a respected detective in a nascent police force with no experience of serial killers and serial killer investigations, and as I mentioned earlier with my allusion to his 1903 Pall Mall Gazette interview, it seems very likely that at some point between the 12th November 1888 and 1903, he revised this positive opinion of Hutchinson and threw in his lot with the “discreditors”.

“The police may STILL have placed more reliance on Hutch than on Cox.”

But it would be disastrously irrational for any police official to have taken this line if they knew that Cox’s description applied to the night of Kelly’s murder and that George “Wrong Night” Hutchinson’s did not. There is not the slightest indication that Cox’s evidence was ever “distrusted” as you ought really to accept if you’re relying on the 1938 views of Walter Dew, who accepted her Blotchy man as the likely murderer.

"You do not “discount” a witness statement because of the failure of its originator to come forward prior to the inquest", remember?”

My full sentence reads as follows:

“you do not “discount” a witness statement because of the failure of its originator to come forward prior to the inquest unless you entertain doubts about his credibility and/or motivation for coming forward.”

“If the article does anything, it shows us that belief was invested in Hutchinson as late as a week after he testified. If he had been a timewaster in the eyes of the police, that would not have been the case, I´d say!”

It shows us that "some" elements within the police force (probably a less than influential minority, judging from subsequent police commentary) continued to endorse Hutchinson’s description as both truthful and accurate, and this would never have occurred had it been established that Hutchinson was a hapless unwitting date-confounder.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

To say nothing of loitering outside Mary Jane's room in an attempt to 'see or hear anything' from within.

[Ben]

Very good points, Frank, and good to see you here!

“Surprise” at the Astrakhan man’s clothing and appearance does seem rather too thin an explanation for stooping down and peering into his face, thence to sustain a 45 minute vigil outside Kelly’s home in anticipation of the same man re-emerging from Miller’s Court. And as Sally points out, what is there to be “suspicious” of (Hutchinson's expression) if not the possibility that the man was the murderer?

Best regards,
Ben

[FrankO]

And in this case, my hunch is that "my suspicions were aroused" simply means that Hutchinson was surprised.

That was exactly what Hutchinson said according to Abberline’s report of 12 November, Fish: “Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them.”

However, it’s one thing to think Mr. A. stood out in Kelly’s company, but quite another to go out of your way to disturb the couple and look the man in the face, take in as much details as you can about him, follow the couple and wait for 45 minutes in bad weather. Surprise just seems too little to warrant that kind of action.

An alternative take on it would perhaps be that the initial "suspicion" he felt was grounded on the rumour that the killer may have been a well dressed "doctor type" - but on second thoughts, he did not think that this man seemed harmful. I guess that´s a possibility.

Whichever way, the point pressed is that Hutchinson ultimately - at the very least - decided that the astrakhan man would not have been of a murderous mind.

Maybe so, Fish, but at some point – sooner rather than later – he learned that Kelly had actually been brutally butchered and, quite probably, not long after he’d left his watch, and what did he do then? Nothing. He wavered for a couple of days. That don't fit.

All the best,
Frank

[Wickerman]

... And in this case, my hunch is that "my suspicions were aroused" simply means that Hutchinson was surprised...

Agreed, thats how I see it too.
Three simple possibilities:
1) My suspicions were aroused at seeing Mary Kelly with such a well dressed gent.
2) My suspicions were aroused at seeing such a well dressed gent in this part of town (Dorset St.)
3) My suspicions were aroused at seeing Mary with a gent who looks remarkably like that weirdo who has been accosting women (Sarah Lewis' story) as supplied by the rumor mill.

Any more, for any more?
Regards, Jon S.

[richardnunweek]

Hi All,
I for the life of me , cannot grasp a scenerio which has a wrong day theory, we might as well suggest that Cadoush/Mrs Long/ Lawande/ or for that matter any witness to any of the murders, simply got it wrong.
The police were not fools, Hutchinson would have been checked out completely, his alibi/ or lack of it, would have at least satisfied them, especially the friday morning appearence at the Victoria home.
We cannot know the true reason why, he followed Mjk and Astracan, but without entering the realms of 'B Movie'' speculation, the truth is proberly what he stated, he was concerned, and curious.
I am sorry Fisherman, but I believe Hutch, saw what he saw on the morning of the 9th, however not her killer, he appeared hours later.... the nasty market porter.?
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"One of the main reasons cited for the discrediting of Hutchinson’s account was his failure to attend the inquest where he could have been quizzed “under oath”, and for failing to provide his evidence until three days after the murder. This reason is inextricably linked to the question of Hutchinson’s integrity. How can it not be? Quite simply, you do not “discount” a witness statement because of the failure of its originator to come forward prior to the inquest unless you entertain doubts about his credibility and/or motivation for coming forward."

Well, this time you say something I very much agree with: you do not “discount” a witness statement because of the failure of its originator to come forward prior to the inquest. Once we have established that, our main quibble about the issue is behind us!

Then you add: "... unless you entertain doubts about his credibility and/or motivation for coming forward." And that is also something I agree with; if you entertain doubts about the character of a witness, THEN a failure to come forward in time for an inquest may be regarded differently than if you trust your witness to be of good character.

Yes. True.

... but why are we making any assumptions that the police would have distrusted Hutchinson? THAT is where I feel you muddle up the points of time too - for if we have no reason or sign to think that Hutchinson DID make a bad impression, then we ought not believe that the police did see his late arrival as any further sign of a flawed character. And we HAVE no such signs or reasons - all we have is the actors in the drama cheering Hutchinson on, hailing him as a straightforward, unshaken man with a truthful agenda.

If someone - anyone - had had one bad word to say about him, it may have given us reason to look at him differently, but no - all the papers, all the policemen who describe him, describe an honest man. And to boot, Dew tells us that this impression remained with him fifty years on. So much as you raise good points and present valuable guidelines, we have no reason at all to choose Hutchinson the liar and perceived timewaster over Hutchinson the honestly mistaken man. On the contrary. Both could be true - but only one tallies with the judgements we have about him!

"I think everyone is well aware that Abberline initially “concluded that his story was truthful and diligently alerted the police force”, but over the next few days it clearly transpired that Hutchinson’s account had been discredited"

Yes. Absolutely. As long as you don´t say that HUTCHINSON was discredited, but instead his account, I have nothing to add. This was what happened.

"It’s only incredible to those who labour under the inexplicable delusion that Abberline was the sole mouthpiece and final arbiter of the Met."

Whoever THAT may be - but the fact remains that Abberline was the perhaps best card the police had to play investigationwise! He was streetwise and cunning, and had loads of experience. His word would have carried immense weight. And when he said that he thought Hutchinson was honest and his story truthful, he would have done so on very good grounds, I think.

"You can’t just demand respect"

... which is why I said "please". That is not demanding - it is asking.

"No, some of the authorities thought so, but it was not acted upon"

This you simply don´t know, so you may as well admit it...!

"They’re not “recorded facts”.

Rephrased then: It is a fact that Abberline and Dew went on record endorsing Hutchinsons truthfulness.

"Unless the policemen in question were unutterably dense, there is no way that they would place MOST reliance on an eyewitness sighting that didn’t even apply to the night of her murder."

This is not a case of the policemen being dense, Ben. The police may STILL have placed more reliance on Hutch than on Cox. That is not to say that they accepted the Hutch story as a murder night story - only that they may have relied more on what he told them to be true as to the story but probably not the date, whereas Cox may have evoked very little trust as such.

"Compared to the Echo, which obtained information and opinions directly from the police, the Daily News were expressing their own worthless, non-police-endorsed opinions. They appeared to consider Lewis’ evidence “unimportant” purely because of her physical appearance!"

So it would seem, more or less - but I think we may need to weigh in the manner of speaking, the quality of the material told and a good deal of experience reporting from courts on behalf of the journalists too. And in that case, we may need to pay attention to what was said!

"We know the major reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting because it was obtained directly from the police"

No. We know that this was the only reason the police provided the press with, albeit we both admit that there would have been other reasons too. "You do not “discount” a witness statement because of the failure of its originator to come forward prior to the inquest", remember? So we are dealing with more elements here, and we cannot rate their importance since we do not know them.

"I think you need to be circumspect and acknowledge that these recently provided Echo articles aren’t particularly helpful to the conclusions you arrived at in your Casebook Examiner article."

I am all for being circumspect - but I fail to see your point here. The article in the Echo does in no way detract from the possibility of a mistaken day on Hutchinsons behalf. If the article does anything, it shows us that belief was invested in Hutchinson as late as a week after he testified. If he had been a timewaster in the eyes of the police, that would not have been the case, I´d say!

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Does that make sense? Tell me how it makes sense.

If he didn't suspect Mr Astrakhan of being the murderer, then what did he suspect him of?"

I see what you are getting at, Sally - but I still think that he may not have suspected him of anything at all. Arguably, being that well dressed did not equal any criminal agenda in the East end; it was just unusual. And in this case, my hunch is that "my suspicions were aroused" simply means that Hutchinson was surprised.
An alternative take on it would perhaps be that the initial "suspicion" he felt was grounded on the rumour that the killer may have been a well dressed "doctor type" - but on second thoughts, he did not think that this man seemed harmful. I guess that´s a possibility.

Whichever way, the point pressed is that Hutchinson ultimately - at the very least - decided that the astrakhan man would not have been of a murderous mind.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“it may very well be that the police came to regard the evidence given by Hutchinson as unattached to the murder night, but otherwise given in good faith.”

There are too many very strong indications against it, Fisherman.

One of the main reasons cited for the discrediting of Hutchinson’s account was his failure to attend the inquest where he could have been quizzed “under oath”, and for failing to provide his evidence until three days after the murder. This reason is inextricably linked to the question of Hutchinson’s integrity. How can it not be? Quite simply, you do not “discount” a witness statement because of the failure of its originator to come forward prior to the inquest unless you entertain doubts about his credibility and/or motivation for coming forward.

This information was obtained directly from the Commercial Street police station in order to clarify some of the confusion created by other newspapers, and amounts to clear evidence of doubt on the part of the police as to Hutchinson’s credibility. That is unless, of course, we want to resist the obvious and inescapable inference expounded above.

“Once again, Ben: After contemplating his absence from the inquest, Frederick Abberline concluded that his story was truthful and diligently alerted the police force.”

I see we’re in “once again” mode, where previous assertions are repeated as though they were never addressed. I’d better look through the last few pages of this thread and find out where I addressed this previously. Ah yes, here we are: Once again, Fisherman, I think everyone is well aware that Abberline initially “concluded that his story was truthful and diligently alerted the police force”, but over the next few days it clearly transpired that Hutchinson’s account had been discredited, owing in part to his three day delay in delivering his evidence. The latter information was obtained directly from the police, so it’s frankly irrelevant if you don’t accept it. It’s only incredible to those who labour under the inexplicable delusion that Abberline was the sole mouthpiece and final arbiter of the Met. To everyone else (I'd dearly hope), it’s an unremarkable feature of a police investigation, with opinions being revised and later inquiries casting doubt upon previously held convictions.

We can only guess at the reasons for these doubts surfacing after Abberline sent a message indicating his initial approval. Perhaps his police superiors and recipients of his missive were sceptical of his conclusion. Whatever, the sequence of events is to the effect that the “authorities” considerably discounted Hutchinson’s story for reasons that included his delay in presenting his evidence.

Whenever you repeat a previously challenged assertion, I think that’s what I’ll do in future – just reproduce my earlier response.

“I was listing the details attaching to the impression given by George Hutchinson, to point out that he was a man who had an air of integrity and truthfulness around him. I am very well aware that impressions may deceive”

If you’re “well aware” of this, why bother listing those details? With regard to “the impression Hutch made back in 1888”, we know it was one of a witness whose statement was discredited in part because of his late arrival in providing his evidence and non-attendance at the inquest.

“It makes for a more just approach, and you HAVE spoken up for a more respectful debating climate.”

You can’t just demand respect without according any to others. You accused me of “fabricating” three times in your post, and to “fabricate” means to concoct with the intention of deceiving – lying in other words. I’d cut back on those sorts of accusations.

“So the authorities THOUGHT that astrakhan man was a very hot lead - but they did not act on it?”

No, some of the authorities thought so, but it was not acted upon, presumably because their opinions didn’t have enough sway to influence the direction of the investigation, or because the more senior officials disagreed.

“Yeah, right - since that man was reported to have been "in the company of Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered".

This was not mentioned in the 19th November Echo article, which reported simply that: “He was of a gentlemanly appearance and manners, and somewhat resembled the description given by witnesses at the late inquest” Since the Echo new full well that Hutchinson did not attend the inquest, this is most emphatically not a reference to the Astrakhan description.

“It is "highly doubtful" that they would have been very disinterested in letting Hutchinson go if he was under suspicion of foul play...?”

I don’t think he was suspected of “foul play”. I suggest he was dismissed – wrongly but quite understandably – as a publicity-seeker a la Packer and Violenia.

“Eh, no - they had him down as honest, see, from Abberline to Dew. Your thoughts are fabrication whereas Abberlines and Dews views are recorded facts”

They’re not “recorded facts”. They are recorded views. The logical inference is that Abberline revised his, and Dew’s isn’t supported by anything more compelling that his own highly speculative musings.

“It could have been more than that - they could have felt completely convinced that astrakhan man was real. In such a case, why would they not rely on Hutchinsons description?”

Because, according to your version of events, Hutchinson was out by an entire day. Unless the policemen in question were unutterably dense, there is no way that they would place MOST reliance on an eyewitness sighting that didn’t even apply to the night of her murder. Compared to the Echo, which obtained information and opinions directly from the police, the Daily News were expressing their own worthless, non-police-endorsed opinions. They appeared to consider Lewis’ evidence “unimportant” purely because of her physical appearance!

“It is apparent that you know for certain that no suspicion was ever there on behalf of the police that Hutchinson had mistaken the days or made an honest mistake, and it would of course therefore be of essence to secure the sources you use here!”

Why don’t you read and absorb the points discussed on the thread and in the Echo rather than demanding the sort of repetition that you seem intent on engaging in? We know the major reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting because it was obtained directly from the police, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with an “honest mistake” or a “confused night” or anything of that nature. A statement that is “considerably discounted” because of its author’s delay in coming forward without being pressed under “oath” is obviously the subject of doubts surrounding the credibility of the source, otherwise the reference to “oaths” is rendered meaningless and irrelevant, and yet it was there.

I think you need to be circumspect and acknowledge that these recently provided Echo articles aren’t particularly helpful to the conclusions you arrived at in your Casebook Examiner article.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Sally:

"Hutchinson was sufficientlly suspicious of Mr A to hang about and watch and wait; but didn't suspect him to be the murderer. What then, did he suspect him of, exactly?"

Not necessarily anything, Sally - he may just have wanted to sneak inside his professed friend Mary Kelly´s room on what was a very cold and rainy night.

The best,
Fisherman

Fish:

Hutchinson in his statement to the press:

My suspicions were aroused by seeing a man so well dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer

Does that make sense? Tell me how it makes sense.

If he didn't suspect Mr Astrakhan of being the murderer, then what did he suspect him of?

[Fisherman]

Haha - completely correct, of course! It is getting harder and harder to keep things apart, and I have already stumbled over the dates a couple of times, so thanks for pointing it out!
Well, let´s look away from the "rainy" bit then, and just say that anybody without a bed and in need of a place to crash could be interested in sharing a room with a friend - no matter if it is a comparatively dry and nice night, a bed - or a place on the floor inside a room, who knows - will have the upper hand over a doorway ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Hunter]

Sally:

"Hutchinson was sufficientlly suspicious of Mr A to hang about and watch and wait; but didn't suspect him to be the murderer. What then, did he suspect him of, exactly?"

Not necessarily anything, Sally - he may just have wanted to sneak inside his professed friend Mary Kelly´s room on what was a very cold and rainy night.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

While the above statement could be true, I fail to see where that supports your theory that Hutchinson had gotten the night wrong... for on the previous night, these were not the weather conditions.

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

"I find it a little strange that no-one see's that this is just a generic phrase. "Wandering or walking around all night", when you've just walked up from Romford is hardly to be taken literally."

This is how Hutchinson phrased it: "After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed."

If he had said that he "took to the streets" I would have been more inclined to agree with you, Jon. But people who say that they have walked about all night are not people who have gone to ground in a doorway and stayed there, I think. That is not something you phrase "I walked about all night", is it? And still, going to ground and getting out of the rain and staying there would be the only logical thing to do!
Nor do I believe that he would have moved from doorway to doorway - if he HAD decided on sheltering and getting some rest, why would he?

As for not wanting to walk about after having made the trek to Romford; yes, that would be correct. He probably did not WANT to do it, but it was a November night, so the walking would have provided some useful warmth. And if he was there, as I believe, on Wednesday night, then the weather was perfectly dry, meaning that you could walk the streets without getting soaked. It adds up.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"This strikes me a rather bizarre distinction to make, Fisherman. You can’t just dislocate a statement from its source like that, and it’s clear that the authorities did nothing of the kind."

On the contrary - if this distinction is NOT made, a discrediting of a STORY will inevitably be followed by the discrediting of the witness that told it. Which - of course - is exactly what you do, Ben. Then again, you do take liberties en masse, one of them being to state that "it is clear that the authorities did nothing of the kind".

This is not in any manner clear, as anybody familiar with the material will realize: it may very well be that the police came to regard the evidence given by Hutchinson as unattached to the murder night, but otherwise given in good faith. We know that at least one policeman attached to the case was of this exact opinion, and we know of no policeman attached to the same case that expressed any doubts whatsoever about Hutchinsons veracity. And that, Ben, like it or not, means that you have nothing at all to show for your assertion. It´s a fabrication, quite simply.

"As I’ve already said, there would be no logic rationale in observing: “Hutchinson only came forward after the inquest, so therefore he must be a decent, honest, charmingly befuddled idiot”. "

What science are you dabbling with here? Who has said suggested such a thing? I know I haven´t. So why manufacture a claim that was never there? Please elaborate!

"the likelihood is that after contemplating his absence from the inquest, they came to the conclusion that he was a two-a-penny fabricator."

Once again, Ben: After contemplating his absence from the inquest, Frederick Abberline concluded that his story was truthful and diligently alerted the police force. It is not impossible that further afterthought about that particular detail may have caused Abberline to ask himself whether that was the right move or not, but it is a very brazen suggestion to think that he went from a self-confessed devotee to an utter and complete mistrust over a period of a day with no other ingredients added.
These things do not happen in the real world. Abberlines verdict was based on years of experience and a thorough interrogation of Hutchinson, and it can only be concluded that some other element/s were added to cause the discarding. So your "startlingly obvious conclusion" is startlingly illogical if anything. But this I have told you before!

"Clearly there were elements within the police force that disagreed with this conclusion"

Yes, you know that now, don´t you? And this in spite of how "startlingy obvious" it all was! Startlingy silly buggers!

"I’m not sure quite what “sticking to a story”, having a military appearance and not “cowering” have to do with anything, but if you think liars aren’t able to maintain a convincing composure and consistency, I’m afraid you’re being somewhat unimaginative."

Oh, that´s how you see it! I fail to realize that people may lie, is that it? Well, Ben, then I ought to make myself more clear: The significance of my quoting about the military appearance and the absense of any cowering lies in this belonging to the impression Hutch made back in 1888. THAT was the context in which I mentioned it, remember? I was NOT discussing people´s propensity to lie or not, I was listing the details attaching to the impression given by George Hutchinson, to point out that he was a man who had an air of integrity and truthfulness around him.
I am very well aware that impressions may deceive, and I´m sure that it would be both rewarding and interesting to discuss the topic with you at some stage, but it should not have been applied to the discussion at this stage.

"If you don’t want me to keep reminding you about your previous comments on Dew..."

Go ahead, Ben - you can mention it any time you want, as long as you mention IT ALL. It makes for a more just approach, and you HAVE spoken up for a more respectful debating climate. So please...?

"The Echo merely reported the thought patterns of the authorities at the time, not the action taken as a consequence."

Aha. So the authorities THOUGHT that astrakhan man was a very hot lead - but they did not act on it? Thanks for telling me. I could have gotten that terribly wrong otherwise.

"Obviously this wasn’t a reference to the Astrakhan man, but a description that emerged from the inquest – possibly the one Sarah Lewis provided of her man from Bethnal Green Road."

Yeah, right - since that man was reported to have been "in the company of Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered".
You do not for a second think that this was anything but a misphrasing, hmmm? No?

"Highly doubtful."

It is "highly doubtful" that they would have been very disinterested in letting Hutchinson go if he was under suspicion of foul play...?

"Go home and stop lying to the police, most likely."

Eh, no - they had him down as honest, see, from Abberline to Dew. Your thoughts are fabrication whereas Abberlines and Dews views are recorded facts.

"It said that some of the authorities still placed “most reliance” on Hutchinson’s description, and it would be absurdly illogical to place “most” reliance on a witness who had confused the date and therefore didn’t even see the victim on the night of her death."

It could have been more than that - they could have felt completely convinced that astrakhan man was real. In such a case, why would they not rely on Hutchinsons description? If we are to compare with Cox, maybe the police did not place as much reliance in her testimony for some reason. We know what the Daily News had to say about Lewis and Prater - they put no stock in their assertions whatsoever, it would seem. Cox may well have been regarded with a lot less confidence than Hutchinson, and then that would be it: Most reliance was placed on his shoulders.
It is another thing altogether that the police may have placed more urgency on Cox´s tip as time passed and it became obvious that Hutchinsons story may not have been connected to the murder night.

I´d like to round things of, if I may, by once again asking you a question you have left unanswered. In your former post, you wrote: "There was never any proof of “different days” or “honest mistakes” or even a suspicion amongst the contemporary police that this happened."

...and I really fail to see where this information derives from. I have gone through the sources as best as I could without finding it. It is apparent that you know for certain that no suspicion was ever there on behalf of the police that Hutchinson had mistaken the days or made an honest mistake, and it would of course therefore be of essence to secure the sources you use here! Don´t hesitate to provide them, Ben, for it will help your cause tremendeously. Once you have done it, I will have a very hard time pressing my take on things. Sad, of course, since I really think I had a very useful theory, but I would not want any personal convictions of mine stand in the way of the truth.

On the other hand, if you do not have any sources to provide, then I must regard this claim of yours as totally substanceless - untrue, in fact - and a complete waste of time.

So which is it? A true and useful addition to the discussion, supported by accessible sources, or a fabrication on your behalf?

The best,
Fisherman

[The Bounder]

In my opinion Astrakhan man did not exist but he wasn’t a complete figment of Hutchinson’s imagination. I believe GH did see Mary Kelly take someone back to her room, but he was an ordinary punter. However GH needed to invent a plausible suspect so enter Astrakhan man, who fitted all the prejudices of what the killer was supposed to look like.

Where did he get the details about the man’s clothes? I believe he was describing a tailor’s dummy. The night was cold, miserable and wet. If you had a nice warm overcoat it would be wrapped around you and buttoned up quite tightly. But GH’s description was of his entire ensemble, including items that would not have been on view, such as the man’s waistcoat and watch fob. However there is a place where such details are displayed and that is in a tailor’s window where the object is to show everything. Remember GH said the man was wearing spats which were worn strictly before lunch, certainly not in the evening. Now the best lies contain an element of truth so when GH described the clothes, because they actually existed, it was easier for him to describe them accurately.

However when it came to the man’s features, because dummy’s don’t have features he had to make these up, this is where his versions alter.

Why would GH feel the need to make a Astrakhan man up if he had seen MJK go off with a real punter? Why wouldn't he just tell the police a real description of the actual punter?