Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Fisherman]

Chris:

" ...given the fact that this is contrary to the statement in Swanson's later report, I'm sceptical about it. I wonder if it may even be a regurgitated misreading of the previous day's article."

Quite possibly so, Chris. Just like you seemingly do, I think the emphasis lies on Schwartz being truthful.

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

“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.

Precisely, Ben. To my mind, it's abundantly obvious that both The Echo and The Star had received inside information from paid police informants. Since such a practice was illegal, neither paper could be effusive with respect to the specificity of the said information, nor indeed its source. But each was patently aware that Hutchinson had been discredited at a senior police level, and that rival newspapers were attaching undue importance to his Kelly-related claims. Should anyone be in any doubt as to the viability of this suggestion, I would recommend a reading of the 'Inspector Harris' piece submitted by TradeName.

[Ben]

I agree entirely, Garry. The “Inspector Harris” piece provides a useful example of a “police informant” in action. The Echo in particular were at pains to distinguish between police opinion and material garnered from other sources. They made it clear, for example, that it was “the authorities” that came to attach a “very reduced importance” to Hutchinson’s account. Compare this with the observations of the Daily News, who after making some patronizing remarks about Sarah Lewis' appearance and demeanor, decided that the police would "probably" not consider her evidence important, despite the fact that her "importance" had already been established in the minds of the police, hence her appearance at the inquest! They clearly numbered among the Echo's "contemporaries" who continued to be enthusiastic about Hutchinson even after his account was discredited.

Bowyer’s alleged movements on Friday morning are trickier to decipher. It is clear that he spoke to a “reporter from the Echo” when describing his 3.00am visit. Either he mysteriously withheld this potentially crucial information when he appeared at the inquest, or he made it up. If the former, it introduces the intriguing possibility that Hutchinson was the man seen by Bowyer. Whoever it was, it cannot have been anyone with the appearance of the Astrakhan man. This may be deduced from the Echo’s observation that “the description tallies with that of the supposed murderer” because the “supposed murderer” was the shabbily dressed man seen by Mary Cox, according to the Echo. Ergo, the man seen by Bowyer – if he existed at all – resembled the Blotchy faced man, albeit with a darker moustache apparently.

Hi Fish,

That’s a very good point, and on reflection, it seems much more likely that the “not wholly accepted” remark was in reference to the man taken into custody, and not Schwartz himself. I also think Chris’ suggestion that the 2nd October piece may have been a “regurgitated misreading of the previous day's article” makes considerable sense. If true, it would mean that the Star never alleged that Schwartz’s account had been discredited.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Abby -I'm very interested in this, and am following everyone's comments.
I have got a few worries about this info though, which I've already mentioned ;
- Is this line in the Echo the only mention anywhere of Bowyer's supposed sighting ? If so, Why ? Given the high interest in the case..

-where did the paper get it's information ? Not from Bowyer -because Fisherman points out that they got his age wrong, and so they obviously didn't see him.

-Bowyer, having found MJK's body, and working for her landlord who had a shop at the murder site, was obviously the very first person to be questioned by the Police. If he had seen a possible suspect in the court, how is it possible that he didn't speak out at the inquest ? One would think that after seeing the body and living through all the excitement of the Police, journalists,
and crowds flocking around the Court, he wouldn't have been able to think of anything else but the murder and would rack his brains for the merest clue.
It is impossible for me to imagine that he didn't think of this man 'matching the description of the murderer' very quickly indeed.

-Once Hutchinson had come forward with his description, I cannot think that the Police would not think that this was the most likely suspect, if there was a corroboration of sorts by Bowyer ? So why did they very quickly discount Hutchinson ?

-If Hutchinson and Bowyer had both seen a suspect that was a strong contender for being the Ripper, how could Anderson hint that only Lawende had got a good look at 'Jack' ? -and Lawendes description does not tally in any way with the mysterious man seen with Kelly. Anderson was much senior to Dew, and might better reflect Police opinion.

-Why wasn't Bowyer taken around the neighbourhood to try to identify the man he saw (who's collar and cuffs were so unusual -so no astrakhan coat then) ?

As I said before, I'm taking the Echo with a pinch of salt for the moment, and I wonder if the Bowyer story is nothing more than repeated gossip..

Hi Ruby
I take generally take newspaper reports with a grain of salt too, but since they provided a direct quote from Bowyer that he says he was there at approx 3:00 really kind of cements it in my mind that they spoke to him and he told them that. Now is he telling the truth.....?

If he is then than that makes him the only known man that is in the court at that hour.

[Debra A]

Hi Abby and Ruby,
What was said about Bowyer seeing a man in Miller's Court on Thursday night/Friday morning is certainly an odd one to call.
It's well known that on the 12th, a description of a man Bowyer saw with MJK on the Wednesay night previous to her death, appeared in the press (a young man with peculiar eyes, smartly dressed with white collar and cuffs). This is slightly different to what Bowyer said at the inquest, and in his statement, that he had last seen MJK on Wednesday afternoon, but not mentioning any man. Although this may simply have been because the question of when he last saw MJK was asked by a juror, but whether she was with anyone may not have been.

There's a possibilty I suppose that as he didn't mention the Wednesday night story officially, but it still appeared in the press, then it's also possible the same happened with the Friday story?

Concerning Bowyers age, as far as I know there is no definite mention of his age anywhere in the official file or published newspaper articles is there?

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"To my mind, it's abundantly obvious that both The Echo and The Star had received inside information from paid police informants."

That could very well be - the practice is old and common.

"Since such a practice was illegal, neither paper could be effusive with respect to the specificity of the said information, nor indeed its source."

A reasonable suggestion too - you do not bite the hand that feeds you.
But having said that, I think we all agree that any newspaper that had the solution to why Hutchinsons story was discarded would have been very eager to publish it. He must have been sizzling hot news-stuff. Still, this does not occur (the failure to turn up in time to participate at the inquest proceedings was not the reason, I think we can agree on that too).
That means, as far as I can understand, that the information available to the Echo as well as the Star was that Hutchinsons story was very much questioned - and nothing more than that.

So why did they not get the full deal? That´s the interesting question here. I would suggest very strongly that if George Hutchinson had been suspected or proven guilty of foul play - timewasting, lying, attention-seeking - then the police would have had no reason or wish whatsoever to keep the lid on such a thing. Violenia and Packer were thrown to the wolves with no remorse on behalf of either police or press.

So why not Hutchinson?

Of course, if the police contact milked by the Echo was of low rank, then that contact would not be in the know about all things Ripper. But suspicions of lying or somehow cheating on behalf of Hutchinson would not have been kept only at a top level. Why would it? What potential gain could come from it? None whatsoever.

Therefore I am much inclined to believe that the true reason for Hutchinsons story being dismissed was something that the police was none too eager to share with the press and the community on the whole. They thus chose to keep it to themselves, and furnished inquisitive journalists with the fake reason that Hutchinsons failure to turn up at the inquest was what had him dropped. Silly, of course, but that apparently was all that was served on the occasion.

Of course, if the police had overseen that important parts of the testimony given by Hutch pointed to a mistaken date, it would throw a whole different light on things. In such a case, it would be quite understandable if the police chose to hush it down. The citizens of London were already mocking them for their failure to catch the Ripper, the press taunted them, using them as models for blind man´s buff cartoons, and the politicians they answered to would have been extremely unforgiving about any major mistakes. A failure to pick up on the weather connotations in the testimony, as well as the importance of the very strange disappearance of mrs Lewis could well provide the responsible parties with a public flogging and jobs lost. That´s my five pence, at least.

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

Concerning Bowyers age, as far as I know there is no definite mention of his age anywhere in the official file or published newspaper articles is there?

I recall finding Bowyer in the census records very easily when I was conducting research for my book, Debra, and this at a time when the records had still to be indexed. If memory serves me correctly, he was in his mid-fifties at the time of the crimes.

[Garry Wroe]

Bowyer’s alleged movements on Friday morning are trickier to decipher. It is clear that he spoke to a “reporter from the Echo” when describing his 3.00am visit. Either he mysteriously withheld this potentially crucial information when he appeared at the inquest, or he made it up. If the former, it introduces the intriguing possibility that Hutchinson was the man seen by Bowyer. Whoever it was, it cannot have been anyone with the appearance of the Astrakhan man. This may be deduced from the Echo’s observation that “the description tallies with that of the supposed murderer” because the “supposed murderer” was the shabbily dressed man seen by Mary Cox, according to the Echo. Ergo, the man seen by Bowyer – if he existed at all – resembled the Blotchy faced man, albeit with a darker moustache apparently.

Interesting observations, Ben. For my sins, I've had little time of late to devote to this thread but intend catching up over the next few days. I will say, however, that McCarthy's shop closed at two o'clock and not three as has been stated. Equally, my previous understanding of the Bowyer sighting was that it occurred during the afternoon rather than the small hours. I'll be back once I'm up to speed.

[Ben]

“Equally, my previous understanding of the Bowyer sighting was that it occurred during the afternoon rather than the small hours. I'll be back once I'm up to speed.”

Indeed, Garry, there are references in the newspapers to another Bowyer sighting; of Kelly this time, and in the company of a man on, I believe, Wednesday afternoon, but as with the alleged 3.00am visit there was no reference to this at all at the inquest.

Hi all,

Going back to Garry's earlier important point:

“Since such a practice was illegal, neither paper could be effusive with respect to the specificity of the said information, nor indeed its source.”

This would account for the cautious terminology preferred by the Echo and the Star whenever they referred to information gleaned from police sources. For example, they could not have stated explicitly that Packer was considered by the police to be an outright liar for fear of incriminating, possibly exposing, and therefore losing their valuable police source who was putting them ahead of the game in the journalistic stakes. Instead, they observed simply that Packer had provided a “worthless story” as had Hutchinson. The implication, though, is obvious.

Since these informants would have been paid, it is unlikely in the extreme they would provide bogus information to the journalists in an effort to preserve the reputation of the police as a collective. For starters, there would be no logical motivation for them to do so, since the nature of a professional “leaker” of information is to dish the dirt from the inside. If their agenda was saving the face of the institution, they would hardly have become clandestine informers paid by newspapers! As such, I think we can conclude that Hutchinson’s absence from the inquest was indeed a factor in his statement being “considerably discounted”, just as the Echo had reported.

All the best,
Ben

[Debra A]

I recall finding Bowyer in the census records very easily when I was conducting research for my book, Debra, and this at a time when the records had still to be indexed. If memory serves me correctly, he was in his mid-fifties at the time of the crimes.

Hi Garry, thanks for this, I would be interested in the further details if you still have them and feeling like posting them? What I was saying was there was no official age given in the inquest statements or police statement. Chris Scott has previously found a possible on the census also, but he admits that is a little tentative with nothing concrete to corroborate the age.
I think I'm right in saying that all there is to base his age on is a sketch in the PIP?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Since these informants would have been paid, it is unlikely in the extreme they would provide bogus information to the journalists"

Of course, Ben, if they intended to stay on the pay list, one would expect them not to feed bogus to the press. Then again, if the police WANTED to feed bogus to the press, it would be the easiest thing in the world to do so. What would the press do about it? Call the police?

But that´s an aside, and I don´t see it applying specifically here. What DOES apply, though, is that if Hutchinson had some sort of explanation as to why he did not come forward earlier and attended the inquest, then the police would have had no reason at all to put any less faith in his testimony. The value of a testimony lies in it´s contents and not in the specific time in which it is delivered. I think we may agree on that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

The value of a testimony lies in it´s contents and not in the specific time in which it is delivered. I think we may agree on that.

Except inasmuch as the police clearly believed that the "time in which it is delivered" clearly affected its potential "value" in a negative way. Indeed, one of the reasons Hutchinson's account was "considerably discounted" was because it was only presented after the inquest, a point the Echo raised on two successive days. This also suggests very strongly indeed that the police found him sorely lacking in terms of "some sort of explanation as to why he did not come forward earlier and attended the inquest".

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Except inasmuch as the police clearly believed that the "time in which it is delivered" clearly affected its potential "value" in a negative way. Indeed, one of the reasons Hutchinson's account was "considerably discounted" was because it was only presented after the inquest, a point the Echo raised on two successive days. This also suggests very strongly indeed that the police found him sorely lacking in terms of "some sort of explanation as to why he did not come forward earlier and attended the inquest"."

I think you may be jumping the gun here, Ben. Yes, the Echo did raise the point that his failure to appear at the inquest contributed to the dismissal of his story. But no, there is no reason to believe that this was true, as has been stated on the thread before. The point of time at which crucial evidence arrives is nothing but that - a point of time. As such, it is not indicatory of the inherent value of the evidence. If somebody had handed Abberline the key to the riddle in 1889, I fail to see that he would have thrown it away.

If the police, on the other hand, found Hutchinsons reasons for coming forward late in the process suspicious or weak, then I agree that this could affect their overall picture of Hutchinson as a witness. But let´s not loose track of the fact that Abberline - who must have asked about Hutchinsons reasons for a late arrival - stated that he was of the meaning that the testimony was true. And let´s also remember that Dew stated that he would not want to reflect on Hutchinson as a witness!

So while you conduct a theoretical discussion that has a lot going for it, the practical reality seems to speak another language altogether: Hutch must have given his reason for the lateness AND HAD IT ACCEPTED by Abberline, and therefore we would in all probability be barking up the wrong tree if we were to believe that it had a major - or, for that matter, minor - importance in getting him dropped.
We also know that further inquiry was conducted after Abberlines interview. And if the good inspector had been in the habit of discharging any witness who was not in time for an inquest, we must ask ourselves why he resorted to such redundancy in this case. Or, for that matter, why he bothered to listen to the latecomer at all?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“But no, there is no reason to believe that this was true, as has been stated on the thread before.”

There is every reason to believe that it was true, and if you read and absorb the points Garry raised, you’ll understand why. The Echo were very obviously in communication with some sort of police informant, which is why they were in a position to report the development that despite their journalistic contemporaries expressing enthusiastic support for Hutchinson’s account, the police were clearly attaching a very reduced importance to him at that stage.

Whatever Abberline’s initial reaction was a few hours after Hutchinson first put in an appearance, it is abundantly clear that over the next few days, the account had been discredited, owing in part to the fact that he only came forward after the termination of the inquest. They concluded, very very reasonably, that this late appearance impacted on the credibility of the account:

“Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?”

This was reported on the 13th, and the following day, the very same sentiments were literally “echoed”. In reference to Hutchinson’s statement, they observed that it had been:

“considerably discounted because the statement had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner”.

There is nothing remotely surprising about this, and the time at which a witness’ evidence is presented obviously has a direct bearing on how that witness is perceived. It is clear that a satisfactory answer to the question of his late arrival was not received and he was accordingly discredited. I would also add that in attempting to explain his late appearance, he probably resorted to the infamous “Sunday policeman” excuse that was later revealed to be bogus (I can’t think how it could not have been).

It’s rather essential to get the timing right in terms of the general perception of Hutchinson’s account. Abberline endorsed his account on the 12th, before any investigation could realistically have been carried out. It was only after this initial endorsement that doubts began to surface, and the authorities came to take a more critical approach to Hutchinson’s account.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"There is nothing remotely surprising about this"

In a sense there is not - you and me habitually disagree.

In another sense, there is every reason to be surprised when somebody suggests that the inherent value of witness testimonies correlate with the time at which it is given. In my world, that´s just ridiculous.

But let´s not waste any further space on it.

Interesting semantical phrasing:

"the infamous “Sunday policeman” excuse that was later revealed to be bogus (I can’t think how it could not have been)"

In this, you say that you do not know that it was revealed to be bogus, that you cannot think that it was not, and that it WAS revealed to be bogus...?

I´m not sure that I could pull off such a stunt if I wanted to, I must say! Not that I do, though ... Anyhow, the truth of the matter is that long as we may WANT it to be proven bogus ... it is not. And if it HAD been, then why is it that Dew tells us that he would not reflect on Hutchinson in any manner? Don´t the police reflect on people who lie to them? Or was not Dew in the know? Did the police find out and conclusively prove Hutchinson a liar - without telling anybody about it? Without informing the copper on the street, leaving him to believe that he ought to be on the lookout fro astrakhan-clad men? Would that not be terribly counterproductive?

I can answer that one myself: yes, it would.

"It’s rather essential to get the timing right in terms of the general perception of Hutchinson’s account. Abberline endorsed his account on the 12th, before any investigation could realistically have been carried out."

I could not agree more - a certified timeline can be very useful! But that does not mean that such a timeline would have prevented Abberline from asking why Hutch had not come forward sooner, from receiving an answer - and from concluding that it was good enough to go ahead and dub the testimony a truthful one. That´s where the accentuation should lie in this case, and nowhere else.

The best,
Fisherman