Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Ben]

If the police had established a satisfactory explanation for Hutchinson's alleged trip to Romford, it follows logically that this would have appeared either in his police statement, accompanying police reports (such as Abberline's 12th November missive), or at least one of his press accounts. But such an "explanation" never appeared anywhere, and this ought to be considered a compelling indication that it never existed. Positing the existence or imaginary "lost reports" that must have said what we want them to have said once upon a time is a very irresponsible approach to the discussion of these crimes. The police already lacked an explanation for his failure to present his evidence in time for the inquest, so why assume that the "Romford" aspect to his account must have been established?

Somewhat distressingly, there has been yet more vacuous nonsense from this increasingly desperate "Wickerman" clown who now asserts that anyone who doubts the claims made in the Morning Advertiser is engaging in behaviour comparable to a racist who delights in "judging a man by the colour of his skin"!

[Observer]

As for “special passes”, these were exactly the same as “weekly tickets” as I’m prepared to remind people a thousand more times if necessary. These were generic metal “cheques” that a lodger had only to flash at the Victoria Home doorman in order to gain entry for that week. Once the week was up, the lodger would then surrender their metal block for re-distribution to another lodger in search of a weekly pass.

It’s obviously time for more relentless repetition and cross-referencing with other threads.

All the best,
Ben

And you can catagorically state without any shadow of any doubt that on the morning of the 9th November 1888 there was indeed a doorman present at the Victoria Home, who could have admitted George Hutchinson had he so wished to enter? Disregarding in fact the possibility that he was fast asleep, off doing some other chore. It's even a possibility that here was no one there due to lack of personnel through ilness. You get the idea

Observer

[Ben]

Only if it were true, Observer.

Happily for the truth, however, Hutchinson and his statement were discredited, and his claim to have encountered a Sunday policeman was demonstrably false, unless we're prepared to accept that some negligent copper ignored Hutchinson and the potential significance of his account.

[Ben]

And you can catagorically state without any shadow of any doubt that on the morning of the 9th November 1888 there was indeed a doorman present at the Victoria Home, who could have admitted George Hutchinson had he so wished to enter?

It wouldn't have made the slightest scrap of difference, Observer.

The doors of the Victoria Home closed at 12:30am whether there was a doorman stationed on duty or not. If there was a doorman present, Hutchinson would have been required to produce a weekly/nightly pass in order to gain entry, but if there was no doorman present, he was out of luck anyway. It is clear from the Victoria Home guidelines that there would have been a night deputy stationed at the door, and any hopeful late entrant would most assuredly have expected one to be there.

Ben

[Observer]

Only if it were true, Observer.

Happily for the truth, however, Hutchinson and his statement were discredited, and his claim to have encountered a Sunday policeman was demonstrably false, unless we're prepared to accept that some negligent copper ignored Hutchinson and the potential significance of his account.

Considering the negative comments voiced by many posters regarding the competance of the Met police circa 1888, then I'd say it's a distinct possibility that the PC in question laughed off Hutchinsons information as just another of the nutters pestering them with the ability to finger the killer

Observer

[Ben]

In which case, he would have been hauled over the coals and booted off the force for shocking negligence. But he would never have risked this outcome, even if he didn't like what he heard from Hutchinson. Police patrolled a meticulously delineated beat in those days, and if the Sunday policeman ignored Hutchinson, he knew full well that his superiors could have tracked him down.

But really, with respect, this "Sunday policeman" business has been done to death, and while I have no personal objection to repetitive Hutchinson threads utterly dominating the message boards, it's probably best for all concerned if this outcome were avoided.

[Observer]

It wouldn't have made the slightest scrap of difference, Observer.

The doors of the Victoria Home closed at 12:30am whether there was a doorman stationed on duty or not. If there was a doorman present, Hutchinson would have been required to produce a weekly/nightly pass in order to gain entry, but if there was no doorman present, he was out of luck anyway. It is clear from the Victoria Home guidelines that there would have been a night deputy stationed at the door, and any hopeful late entrant would most assuredly have expected one to be there.

Ben

When does the directive in question date from, that is, the doors closed at 12:30, and that here was a doorman present at all times? If Hutchinson had a weekly pass, and it seems likely that he did have, he was there on the Sunday following his supposed sighting, and he presented himself at the Victoria Home as he said he did at approx 2:00 a.m. 9th November 1888 and for one reason or another there was no one on the door he would not have been able to enter. If this were the case then he told the truth. Again, I ask, can you catorgorically state that

(a) Hutchinson did not have a weekly pass

(b) That there was a doorman present at 2:00 a.m. on the morning of the 9th November 1888?

Observer

[Observer]

In which case, he would have been hauled over the coals and booted off the force for shocking negligence. But he would never have risked this outcome, even if he didn't like what he heard from Hutchinson. Police patrolled a meticulously delineated beat in those days, and if the Sunday policeman ignored Hutchinson, he knew full well that his superiors could have tracked him down.

But really, with respect, this "Sunday policeman" business has been done to death, and while I have no personal objection to repetitive Hutchinson threads utterly dominating the message boards, it's probably best for all concerned if this outcome were avoided.

Not done to death, it's been mentioned before, and you came up with the same answer, that was it ,matter resolved, another nail in Hutchinson's coffin.

How do you know that the policeman in question was not "hauled over the coals" for shocking negligence? The police would not exactly broadcast this gross negligence. And how sure are you of the diligence of the PC in question ? Didn't he inform Hutchinson to tell his story at the nearest police station? There is a distinct possibility that Hutchinson was totally honest in stating that he informed a policeman of his sighting on the 9th November.

Observer

[Ben]

When does the directive in question date from, that is, the doors closed at 12:30, and that here was a doorman present at all times?

Please read the relevant threads where this issue was discussed in extensive detail, Observer. It's not your fault, and please don't think I'm criticising you personally here, but if there's anything less necessary than repetition in these Hutchinson threads, it is a request for more repetition. There is the Victoria Home thread for starters, but the issue was also raised on several occasions on the "Did Hutchinson get the wrong night thread?".

If Hutchinson had a weekly pass, and it seems likely that he did have

But if he had a weekly pass, he would have been able to gain entry.

Again, I ask, can you catorgorically state that

(a) Hutchinson did not have a weekly pass

No.

(b) That there was a doorman present at 2:00 a.m. on the morning of the 9th November 1888?

Yes, there would most assuredly have been a doorman.

This is clear from the Victoria Home guidelines. If lodgers were in possession of a weekly pass, they were able to gain access after 12:30, and this system would only have been possible if there was a doorman stationed at the entrance to enforce it.

[Ben]

Not done to death, it's been mentioned before, and you came up with the same answer, that was it ,matter resolved, another nail in Hutchinson's coffin.

Well then, with respect, you ought to have raised your objection at that opportune moment "before", rather than engaging me in yet another round of done-to-death discussion here on an unrelated thread.

How do you know that the policeman in question was not "hauled over the coals" for shocking negligence?

Because the policeman had only to expect this very outcome if he so much as attempted the sort of negligent behaviour you envisage. It amazes me how anyone can posit the imaginary existence of some monstrously negligent policeman, and present this conjured-up scenario as a better explanation than Hutchinson simply having lied about it. But anyway, as I've already observed, policemen in those days patrolled a designated beat, and could be tracked down according to time and location. All Hutchinson had to do was name the time and location of the police encounter, and the latter would have been grilled extensively. It would not have been sufficient for the the "Sunday policeman" merely to direct Hutchinson to the station on the assumption that he'd take the advice (why didn't he, anyway, if that were the case?), at least not without taking his name and details of the account beforehand.

The fact that Abberline knew nothing of his account prior to it reaching him late on the 12th is an irrefutable indication that it had not been near any policeman prior to that date.

There is a distinct possibility that Hutchinson was totally honest in stating that he informed a policeman of his sighting on the 9th November.

The 9th?!

No, I'm afraid you're very confused.

[Observer]

Confused? Not a bit. I'll admit the above could have been clearer, but I'd already made the suggestion that Hutchinson was telling the truth when he informed the police officer of his sighting on Sunday the 11 th November. What I should have said was . There is a distinct possibility that Hutchinson did indeed inform a police officer on Sunday the 11th November of his sighting on the 9th.

Observer

[Observer]

Yes, there would most assuredly have been a doorman.

This is clear from the Victoria Home guidelines. If lodgers were in possession of a weekly pass, they were able to gain access after 12:30, and this system would only have been possible if there was a doorman stationed at the entrance to enforce it.

Were you there at 2:00 a.m. on the morning of the 9th November 1888? I believe Hutchinson was. It's feasible that there was no doorman present at the time in question. The copy of the rules in existance date from 1891, did they apply in 1888? We don't know do we? I'll say again, there is a distinct possibility that Hutchinson had a weekly pass, and that he was telling the truth when he stated that he could not gain entry to the Victoria Home at 2:00 a.m. on the morning in question.

Observer

[Observer]

Because the policeman had only to expect this very outcome if he so much as attempted the sort of negligent behaviour you envisage. It amazes me how anyone can posit the imaginary existence of some monstrously negligent policeman, and present this conjured-up scenario as a better explanation than Hutchinson simply having lied about it. But anyway, as I've already observed, policemen in those days patrolled a designated beat, and could be tracked down according to time and location. All Hutchinson had to do was name the time and location of the police encounter, and the latter would have been grilled extensively. It would not have been sufficient for the the "Sunday policeman" merely to direct Hutchinson to the station on the assumption that he'd take the advice (why didn't he, anyway, if that were the case?), at least not without taking his name and details of the account beforehand.

The degree of negligent behavior I envisage? A likely scenario. A member of the public approaches a patrolling policeman with information which might throw light on the Kelly murder . The policeman then tells the informant to go and give his information at the nearest police station, where there will be more senior officers there better able to deal with the matter. Where's the negligence here? Why did Hutchinson not take the officers advice? His bottle went again?

The fact that Abberline knew nothing of his account prior to it reaching him late on the 12th is an irrefutable indication that it had not been near any policeman prior to that date.

No it doesn't, it merely points to the fact that the policeman whom Hutchinson informed of his sighting did not mention it.

Observer

[Wickerman]

If the police had established a satisfactory explanation for Hutchinson's alleged trip to Romford, it follows logically that this would have appeared either in his police statement,

False!
Romford is only mentioned with reference to the fact he had no money, the trip to Romford is the reason why.
The police are only interested in recording information pertinent to his sighting.

Jon

[Ben]

“The police are only interested in recording information pertinent to his sighting.”

False!

Hutchinson's police statement recorded plenty of information that had nothing to do with his sighting, and the same can be said of Abberline’s report that accompanied it. Yet in neither document is any reason provided for Hutchinson’s alleged trip to Romford, contrary to your assertion that there must have been one.