Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

"Or are they talking about Hutch's 2 descriptions: the first one he gave police and the second he gve the paper?"

Seen that suggested on JTRForums, Abby, but I donīt think itīs a very good suggestion; if so, the "embarrasment" would have lain in the built-in differences (why else speak of any embarrasment), but any hunch on behalf of the police that Hutchinson was not the real McCoy honestywise would not have them asserting us that "There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinsonīs veracity", would it?

No, the impression remains - and is cemented by the Echo article on the 14:th - that Hutchinsons was never questioned in the honesty department. Therefore, I think that the two descriptions spoken about derived from two different sources - which, incidentally, it would seem we have.

Not that I am ruling your suggestion out totally, of course!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Debra Arif:

"..The importance of this description lies (so says the morning papers) in the fact that it agrees with that furnished to the police yesterday, but was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest in a more offical manner.."

This, to my mind, tells us that there were two different accounts referring to an astrakhan-clad man, and that Hutchinsons ditto ("this description") tallied with the earlier one (Bowyerīs) that had been considerably discounted since Bowyer did not bring it up at the inquest.

"Daily News 14th november 1888-which I believe was a morning paper?
THE MAN LAST SEEN WITH KELLY
FULL AND DETAILED DESCRIPTION
'The following important statement was made last evening by George Hutchinson, a groom by trade, but now working as a labourer. Hutchinson said...'
[Astrachan's description then given]
'...It will be observed that the description of the supposed murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police, and published yesterday morning. There is not the slightest reason to doubt Hutchinson's veracity, and it is therefore highly probable that at length the police are in possession of a reliable description of the murderer.'

On the 13th November the Daily News published the same details of a sighting in Miller's Court and a description of Astrachan, but without naming Hutchinson."

On the one hand, yes: if the paper is referring to their own publishing of the description as provided by the police, then it would seem there is no other description to mix it up with. On the other hand no: the newspaper article description does NOT agree in every particular with the police version, as we know. So whichever way we turn ... If Bowyers description had been published somewhere on the 13:th, then it would have solved the enigma.

"The Echo 14th November 1888
Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contempiraries, we learned on inquiry at 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..."

Once again, it seems your point is a good one - but it leaves us with a few questions nevertheless:

The Echo published the description as given by Hutchinson on the 13:th, gaiters, horseshoe pin and all. Why in the world would they need to go to the police station THE DAY AFTER to get confirmation that Hutchinsons press version was virtually the same as the police version - they already knew that, did they not; they had published it the day before!

Next: The Echo article states on the 14:th that "what is said to be a full and accurate description of the man last seen with Kelly is asserted to be in possession of the authorities" and goes on to say that this description "agrees with that furnished to the police yesterday". Where does that place us? Why would the Echo assert that the police version tallied with the ...police version?? Assuming, that is, that the "authorities" spoken of equals the police. Surely it does not refer to the press, leastwise!

To top things off, why would the Echo say that the true importance of Hutchinsons testimony was that it tallied with ... Hutchinsons testimony? That, one would think, was to be expected...

A good deal of loose ends here! But I would like to thank you for finding the article that allows us to grab at them and start knitting!

The best,
Fisherman

[Debra A]

Hi Fisherman,
Apologies for a very quick reply:

I must admit that on first reading this 14th Nov Echo article, I did entertain similar thoughts to your own. But on re-reading it, the Echo seems to be specifically passing comment about what the morning papers had to say about the description given by Hutchinson and their theory that two different witnesses saw Astrachan man.
The Echo may have printed Hutchinson's [where he is named] description on the 13th, but isn't that because they were an evening paper? The morning papers of the 13th only had the description given by an un-named witness to print. So, the following morning, the 14th,while the morning papers were printing Hutchinson's description of Astrachan and claiming that a description published the day before showed that two different witnesses had seen the same man, the Echo inquired with the police and were able to confirm that the two descriptions were furnished by the same source?
There are two distinct parts to the Echo article, commentary on the theories of the morning papers concerning Astrachan man and then further facts and surmise, which contain details about Bowyer's visit to the tap.
We know that Bowyer had already supposedly furnished police with a description of a man he saw MJK with on Wednesday night, one that supposedly tallied with the description of the murderer given by Packer. When he gave that Wed night story, why did Bowyer not mention the Friday sighting?

[Fisherman]

Yours is a good call, Debra, I can see that! The best, obviously.

Still, there remains a number of questions. It seems the Echo did not get all things straight.
For instance, in the opening passage of the Echo article of the 14:th, it is stated that the "full and accurate description" was given to the police "the other night" by George Hutchinson. After that, they go on to say that the importance of this description is that it tallies with the one given to the police "yesterday". Surely, it should have been the other way around - it is the second version that tallies with the first, and not the other way around.
Furthermore, is is said that it is the SECOND version that was "considerably discounted" because it had not been made at the inquest. Once again, we are moving backwards - it would have been the FIRST version that was considerably discounted by the police, whereas the second one was a press version. Of course, on the whole, BOTH versions had the same built-in flaw. As I said, I believe you make the correct call overall, but the Echo certainly was guilty of some sloppy journalism!

One detail that is very interesting is obviously the pointer to the late arrival of the information being the reason for the policeīs reluctance to accept it. This, I think, would be an extremely strange thing to do on behalf of the police - who cares WHEN the information arrives, once it is crucial? Iīm struggling with the suggestion involved in this presentation, I must say!

Also, like I said before, in the Echoīs version, BOTH descriptions are purportedly versions given to the police and not to the press. My own guess is that George Hutchinson was hauled in more than once to be questioned by the police, and I think that was due to the police becoming suspicious about the story not holding the water it needed to. His story was initially believed and subsequently disbelieved, and that would have called for the police to ask a number of questions inbetween. So in that respect, Hutchinson could of course have given a description of the killer on two occasions to the police.

At any rate, it is interesting to see that Hutchinsons veracity is not questioned. That is a very good pointer to the police not sending him on his way for any such reason.

"There are two distinct parts to the Echo article"

...which in itself is a good pointer to your being correct! Thanks for elaborating on it all!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Of course "in that respect, Hutchinson could of course have given a description of the killer on two occasions to the police" should read "in that respect, Hutchinson could of course have given a description of Astrakhan man on two occasions to the police."

Got a bit carried away there, Iīm afraid!

The best,
Fisherman

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

It is equally strange that Bowyer's 'description' has only now been found

Bowyer's description of the man he saw with Kelly has been known for many years now. I'm a bit surprised that no one has posted it yet (unless I missed it, which, because I'm only skimming, is possible). Bowyer described:

"a man of 27 or 28, with a dark moustache and 'very peculiar eyes.' His appearance was 'very smart and attention was drawn to him by his showing very white cuffs and a rather long white collar, the ends of which came down in front of his coat.'"
(From The Jack the Ripper A-Z)

Back in 1976 Stephen Knight suggested that this was a description of Prince Eddy because his nickname was "collar and cuffs," while Donald Bell, writing in the Criminologist in 1974, stated that it was Thomas Neil Cream because of the fact that Cream was cross eyed.

Wolf.

[Debra A]

Hi Wolf,

The description of the man Bowyer saw on Wednesday night is well known, yes, and discussed on the thread How links to a few posts back.

Just so there's no confusion about what is being discussed here, (the story itself is confusing enough!) it is an article from the Echo of 14th Nov. 1888, where Bowyer places himself in the court on the Thurs night/Fri morning of the murder of MJK, and claims to have given a description to police of a man he saw that night, although the description he supposedly gave is not published in the artcle.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Wolf,

The description of the man Bowyer saw on Wednesday night is well known, yes, and discussed on the thread How links to a few posts back.

Just so there's no confusion about what is being discussed here, (the story itself is confusing enough!) it is an article from the Echo of 14th Nov. 1888, where Bowyer places himself in the court on the Thurs night/Fri morning of the murder of MJK, and claims to have given a description to police of a man he saw that night, although the description he supposedly gave is not published in the artcle.

Hi Debra
I don't know what the bigger implication is with this great find-That there is a possible corroboration to Hutch's A-man or that Bowyer places himself in the court at the night of the murder-probably the latter, but wow. Good stuff! Lots to sift through.

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

"I don't know what the bigger implication is with this great find-That there is a possible corroboration to Hutch's A-man or that Bowyer places himself in the court at the night of the murder-probably the latter, but wow."

The corroboration of Astrakhan man is not there, Iīm afraid, so you shall have to settle for the Bowyer-in-the-court-bit. Myself, I would suggest that the implication that Hutchinson was discarded because of his not appearing at the inquest is the most interesting find, together with the elapsed day inbetween the first hint at Hutchinsonīs story not being believed and the confirmation that the police did not invest very much in his story the day after. In spite of this time window, it is asserted that there is no call for doubting Hutchinsons veracity in any fashion. That tells us that the police did not regard Hutchinson as a liar or a timewaster or attention-seeker throughout this stage, something that has been suggested many times over the years.

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Abby Normal:

"I don't know what the bigger implication is with this great find-That there is a possible corroboration to Hutch's A-man or that Bowyer places himself in the court at the night of the murder-probably the latter, but wow."

The corroboration of Astrakhan man is not there, Iīm afraid, so you shall have to settle for the Bowyer-in-the-court-bit. Myself, I would suggest that the implication that Hutchinson was discarded because of his not appearing at the inquest is the most interesting find, together with the elapsed day inbetween the first hint at Hutchinsonīs story not being believed and the confirmation that the police did not invest very much in his story the day after. In spite of this time window, it is asserted that there is no call for doubting Hutchinsons veracity in any fashion. That tells us that the police did not regard Hutchinson as a liar or a timewaster or attention-seeker throughout this stage, something that has been suggested many times over the years.

The best,
Fisherman

Hey Fish
But if Bowyer claimed to make this description of a man he saw Wed night:

"a man of 27 or 28, with a dark moustache and 'very peculiar eyes.' His appearance was 'very smart and attention was drawn to him by his showing very white cuffs and a rather long white collar, the ends of which came down in front of his coat.'"

Does this not somewhat match with A-man's description of a well dressed man? And if you take into your account about Hutch with the wrong night theory doesnt it suggest that both Bowyer and Hutch saw MK with a well dressed man on Wed night-thus bolstering your theory?

[Hunter]

The 'implication that Hutchinson was discarded because of his not appearing at the inquest' was from the press and it was likely their implication, not that of the police. Abberline knew full well that Hutchinson had not appeared at the inquest and despite that, still stated that he believed him and there is no existing police document that says otherwise.

I know we're talking about the Echo here, but the Star had pulled the same thing with -not only Hutchinson - but Schwartz as well, stating that he had been discredited by the police, which we know is not true because of Swanson's Oct. 19 report that stated otherwise. They almost certainly discredited the Star's rendition of Schwartz being chased by a man with a knife, but that was not in the police report.

Be careful with these press reports.

[Wickerman]

... Myself, I would suggest that the implication that Hutchinson was discarded because of his not appearing at the inquest is the most interesting find,...

Hi Fisherman.
The quote above, are you referring to this?

"What is said to be a full and accurate description of the man last seen with Kelly is asserted to be in possession of the authorities. That description was given them the other night by George Hutchinson, a Groom by trade, but now working as a labourer.
The importance of this description lies (so says the morning papers) in the fact that it agrees with that furnished to the police yesterday, but which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner. There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity."The Echo, Nov 14, 1888.

I think the 'discounted statement' (above) does not refer to Hutch, because he was not at the Inquest.
Rather, the complaint is aimed at someone else (ie; the informant) who did appear at the Inquest but failed, or omitted, to offer the sighting in the official manner.
That someone could well have been Bowyer.

The 'discounted statement' is the one that was 'furnished to the police yesterday', so that was not Hutchinson's.

Which is why the emphasis then shifts to Hutch in the last line, that:
(However),..."There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity."

Provisionally, thats my take..

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

"But if Bowyer claimed to make this description of a man he saw Wed night:

"a man of 27 or 28, with a dark moustache and 'very peculiar eyes.' His appearance was 'very smart and attention was drawn to him by his showing very white cuffs and a rather long white collar, the ends of which came down in front of his coat.'"

Does this not somewhat match with A-man's description of a well dressed man? And if you take into your account about Hutch with the wrong night theory doesnt it suggest that both Bowyer and Hutch saw MK with a well dressed man on Wed night-thus bolstering your theory?"

There is the possibility of a match, yes - but none of the details Bowyer mentions makes it possible for us to make any certain call. More than one East end man would have dressed in a smart manner and more than one white collar would have been on display, I think. Clearly the possibility of a match is there, though - but so is the possibility of a mismatch ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hunter:

"The 'implication that Hutchinson was discarded because of his not appearing at the inquest' was from the press and it was likely their implication, not that of the police. "

Exactly so, Hunter! Iīm much tempted to think, though, that the police mentioned this shortcoming on behalf of Hutch when the press asked about the value of his testimony - whereas they would have been none too happy to admit that they had originally missed that Hutch had mixed up the days ... Thatīs my best guess, anyhow!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

"The quote above, are you referring to this?

'What is said to be a full and accurate description of the man last seen with Kelly is asserted to be in possession of the authorities. That description was given them the other night by George Hutchinson, a Groom by trade, but now working as a labourer.
The importance of this description lies (so says the morning papers) in the fact that it agrees with that furnished to the police yesterday, but which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner. There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity."The Echo, Nov 14, 1888."

Yes, I am.

"I think the 'discounted statement' (above) does not refer to Hutch, because he was not at the Inquest."

I was of the same sentiment originally, but as I think you will admit, the phrasing "...which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner" could potentially point to BOTH Bowyer and Hutchinson.

"Rather, the complaint is aimed at someone else (ie; the informant) who did appear at the Inquest but failed, or omitted, to offer the sighting in the official manner.
That someone could well have been Bowyer."

That too was my original thought, Jon! But I have since come to think that Debra Arif has the correct solution - the Echo article of the 14:th was aimed at a mistake made by the morning newspapers, namely the belief that there was a parallel testimony, seemingly establishing a corroboration for Hutchinsons Astrakhan man.

Have a look again at the whole first passage in the text, and try and read it as a mildly taunting phrasing, aimed at the morning papers: "What is said to be a full and accurate description of the man last seen with Kelly is asserted to be in possession of the authorities", it says. But the Echo knew - and published! - one day before that this description had been furnished to the police by Hutch. And already the day before, they had pointed out that there was reason to doubt itīs value!
They now renew this sentiment on the 14:th by writing that "the police do not attach so much importance" to it.
So! Apparently the Echo was well aware that there was cause for doubt, whereas the morning papers knew nothing about this, which is - I think - why the Echo says that it "is said" that there is a "full and accurate description" of the man last seen with Kelly at hand, and why they go on to say that it "is asserted" (by the ones NOT in the know, that would be - the morning papers!) to be in possession of the authorities.
Moving on, they add more salt into the wounds of the morning press by writing that the importance of the testimony lies - "so says the morning papers" - in itīs corroboration of the freshly arrived description, which was discounted because of the failure to present it at the inquest. "So says the morning papers" - but we know better, that is the Echoīs stance.

It goes on to say that "there is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinsonīs veracity". Taken in this context, I fear that there is a measure of irony in this passage too; the Echo would here be mocking the morning papers who draw the conclusion that there are two corroborating testimonies about, both speaking of astrakhan man and thus putting Hutchinson beyond any possible accusations of being wrong - whereas the Echo knows that BOTH testimonies belong to Hutchinson.

Further down in the article, this is borne out very clearly: "Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contemporaries, we learned on inquiry at the Commercial-Street Police-Station today that the elaborate description ... is virtually the same as that previously published..." ... "it proceeds from the same source".
And that source, Jon, would be George Hutchinson.

This is, I believe, the best interpretation of things. There are few sloppily worded passages that makes one wonder, but that does not change the overall picture for me.

What is important to realize, though, is that much as the Echo prided themselves of being in the know, they would not have been so in extenso. Like Hunter points out, and like I wrote in an earlier post, it would be ridiculous if the police discarded a crucial witness just because he did not turn up at the inquest. That reason can NOT have been what got Hutchinsons story dropped!
We may also see that the Echo admits that the police had made Hutchinsons testimony the "subject of careful inquiry". We of course all understand that it was a case of either or: either they believed that his story was on the money, and then they would have turned London upside down to find Hutchinsons man, or they believed that Hutchinson was wrong, and then they would not have made any effort at all to pursue it - least of all any "careful inquiry".

So why was not one of these options voted for by the police? Why did they not go for it wholeheartedly or just drop it? Exactly: because they believed that Hutchinson was honest, they believed that he HAD seen Kelly with Astrakhan man and thus knew that the latter belonged to the investigation - but NOT in the role of a prime suspect.

But why would they not regard him as a prime suspect, given that he was seen entering Millers Court with Kelly at 2.15 AM, and staying in her room until 3 AM? Surely, he would have been an extremely good bid for the killers role?
You know my answer: Just like Walter Dew states, George Hutchinson was a day off in his estimations. That is why Astrakhan man left his coat unbuttoned - he was in Dorset street on WEDNESDAY night, when the weather was nice and calm, and not on the dreadful Thursday night. And that is why Hutchinson asserts in his newspaper interviews that he only saw two people as he stood outside the court waiting, although he MUST have seen Lewis if he was there. And he WAS, but that was on WEDNESDAY night, and Lewis trek down the rainy and blustery Dorset Street was still one day away.

Of course the police wanted to haul in astrakhan man, since he had been with Kelly on Wednesday night - he did belong to the investigation. That is why he was pursued, albeit not very enthusiastically. And of course he was not made any top priority - not having been there on the murder night meant that he did not rate alongside Blotchy police-interestwise.

Thatīs my take on it.

The best,
Fisherman