Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Hatchett]

Hi Sally,

I dont think I said that it was surprising, did I?


Best wishes.

[Sally]

Sunday

As Garry says. That the Victoria Home(s) subscribed to this practice is beyond doubt. There are numerous textual references to the Sunday rule around - it was common practice, so hardly surprising.

[Hatchett]

Hi Garry,

Well in a sense that would make sound business sense to attract the long term renters.

Best wishes.

[Garry Wroe]

The standard procedure amongst Victorian landlords was to charge rent for the six working days of the week, with the Sabbath thrown in for free. This generally applied to the tenants of rooms, apartments or tenements, but was also practised by a number of lodging houses for long-term residents who paid weekly and in advance.

[Sally]

Just slipped my mind, but I thought the stipulation was that a person should stay any six consecutive nights, then they get the seventh free. Nothing about Sunday specifically - their seventh night could have been any night of the week.

Can you confirm?

Thanks, Jon S.

Certainly, Wickerman, it will be my pleasure. I don't have time right now (work, I'm afraid) but later on, perhaps.

[Wickerman]

If he had no money on the Friday morning, he was clearly able to acquire some, either that day or the Saturday - because he was at the Victoria Home on the Sunday. He would have had a free bed on Sunday - but only if he had been resident throughout the week.

Just slipped my mind, but I thought the stipulation was that a person should stay any six consecutive nights, then they get the seventh free. Nothing about Sunday specifically - their seventh night could have been any night of the week.

Can you confirm?

Thanks, Jon S.

[Hatchett]

Hi Ben,

Are we back in the playground again?

Best wishes.

[Ben]

Oh, is it duplicate threads time again?

What terrific fun.

Here's a link to the post I just quoted to you in your pointlessly identical post from two minutes ago:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=186

Read it and digest it. Print it and take it to bed with you, but don't, for pity's sake, come back in two seconds with yet another one of your generalized, naysaying "I've caught Ben out" responses.

[Hatchett]

Hi Ben,

I take it from that somewhat glib response that you cannot find the official corroboration for the Echo's account. So it remains in the land of supposition.

Best wishes.

[Ben]

Thanks for those, Sally.

There do appear to be compelling indications that The Observer may have been the "inspiration" behind the creation of Astrakhan man, or one source of it at any rate.

There is no police report stating that Packer was "disbelieved". Swanson merely noted that he gave divergent accounts, and that he was "elderly". Of course, such phraseology could easily lead the uninitiated to conclude that Packer was just a bit doddery and senile. With Hutchinson, however, we know that the police informed the Echo that his account was discounted (i.e. disbelieved and "put under suspicion") in part because of his three-day "delay" in presenting his evidence.

In Hutchinson's case, unlike Packer's, the police feedback explicitly alludes to doubts as to the witness' credibility, and for those who keep wrongly insisting that this report is "unsubstantiated", I would urge a re-reading of their account of their visit to the "Commercial Street police station" (14th November) that establishes beyond question that such a communication took place.

[Sally]

The Victoria Home stocked newspapers for their reading room that could be accessed for free by those lodging there.

It did.

In the building, there is, open to all, a large, cosy reading room, which is supplied with the daily papers

(my emphasis)

Later Leaves, Montagu Williams

Easy enough to keep up with the latest developments if you lived at the Victoria Home. Apparently.

[Hatchett]

Hello Jen,

I dont really see your argument here. The reasons for Packer being discounted by the police cannot be compared with Hutchinson because there is not a statement for Hutchinson being discounted. That is the whole point.

If there was then you could compare them.

The real point is that Packer gave a statement and then there is a report that it is disbelieved. That is normal police procedure.

The only thing we have with Hutchinson is that he gave a statement and it was believed. Nothing has been produced from the police that they changed their stance on that.

Although it has been said that the information contained within the two press reports came from the police there has been nothing produced to substantiate that.

Therefore, the arguement that Hutchinson was discredited by the police is completely unverified.

Best wishes.

David

[babybird67]

hi Garry and Hatchett

Garry, thanks for your post.

Hatchett thanks also for yours. It's helpful having something official which shows Packer was also discounted as a valuable witness, but I agree with Ben that the circumstances were different in regards Packer, being elderly and confused. There certainly doesn't seem to have been any suspicion attached to him.

I see there is nothing for Violenia.

Personally, I think it would have been difficult for the Police to produce anything official regarding Hutchinson. There would be no contextual explanation for him getting confused and giving different versions of what happened, but he certainly did give different versions of what happened. If this led the Police to regard Packer as not very useful, I cannot see why they would not apply this to Hutchinson. I think they did this and did not find a suitable reason for explaining away his discrepancies...hence the inference that the reason to doubt him was related to his failure to appear at the inquest and face cross examination of his story.

Taken as a whole, we have to keep coming back to the combination of the evidence suggesting Hutch was discredited: the Press reports, one of which dervied information directly from the Police, the direction of the investigation, the suggestion from various sources that senior Police officials felt other witnesses were the ones who got the best view of the Ripper, the comments by Police investigating officers that they had no clue as to who the Ripper was.

It all points very clearly to Hutchinson's testimony being dismissed.

[babybird67]

HI Hunter

thanks for your reply.

'Officially' the police couldn't afford to 'discredit' anyone unless a lie was obvious. They had almost nothing to go on. They allowed Mrs. Long's description to be circulated and posted both PC Smith's and then Schwartz's description in the Berner St. case just to see what might turn up.

That's my feeling too. I feel expecting a report saying 'it's official, Hutch was a liar' is asking for a bit too much.

However, I still feel, that Hutch was a witness of a different order than the others. Everybody else got vague single sightings, lasting a fleeting few seconds, and their descriptions were very generic and could feasibly apply to a great many people - shabby-genteel, about 5' 6", black moustache etc.

Hutch was of a different order for so many reasons. He looked the man directly in the face. The sheer abundance of detail he allegedly observed, about the man's ethnicity, dress, colouring (down to eyelash colour), social status etc, does not compare with a single other witness.

It doesn't therefore make sense for the Police to prioritise any other witness above Hutch (for example, in their statements that the best person to see the Ripper was Jewish, or only saw the back of him - how could they possibly contend a back view would be better than a front view, and a back view, since Hutch followed Mary and Astrkhan).

The only explanation that makes any logical sense is that Hutch was discounted in some way.

thanks again for your post.

Jen

[babybird67]

Hi Hunter
Good post-but surely if Swanson was looking for the best witness it should have been Hutch? He gave a very detailed description of the man's physical appearance and attire, had heard his voice, said he thought he saw him again, could definitely ID him again, that he lived in the neighborhood, and that he saw him and MK the closest to her estimated TOD. He said he knew MK, was friends with her and positively IDed her body.

Surely GH should have been witness number one, don't you think?

Absolutely Abby.

It is inconceivable that the Police could claim that they 'had no clue' if they put any credence at all in Hutch's sighting of the suspect, from which they could have dervied an abundance of clues.