Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Garry Wroe]

were the other 'discedited' witnesses ever officially discredited in the way some are expecting Hutchinson to have been?

Not to my knowledge, Jen. But Swanson did author an internal report in which he stated that Packer's many and varied press claims would render him worthless as a witness should the case ever come to trial.

[Garry Wroe]

My mistake, Garry. I hadn’t noticed that Hatchett had snuck in “official” there. But suffice to say I agree entirely with your post.

Thanks, Ben. I suggest that you recharge your batteries. Fish will be back in three weeks.

[Garry Wroe]

Thank you very much for your honest response to that. And to my mind that clears up a lot of the confrontational issues.

No problem, David. Believe it or not, most of us are not agenda-driven. We are simply doing our best to make sense of what is often fragmentary information. Unfortunately, this often leads to differences of opinion which in turn generate animosity where there should be none. Hopefully, things will now settle down a little bit. Until the next time ...

[babybird67]

were the other 'discedited' witnesses

ever officially discredited in the way some are expecting Hutchinson to have been?

[Ben]

My mistake, Garry. I hadn’t noticed that Hatchett had snuck in “official” there. But suffice to say I agree entirely with your post.

All the best,
Ben

[Hatchett]

Hello Garry,

Thank you very much for your honest response to that. And to my mind that clears up a lot of the confrontational issues.

Best wishes.

David.

[Garry Wroe]

With respect, Ben, I would demur with regard to your final observation. But whilst I see no concrete, definitive, official confirmation that Hutchinson's Astrakhan story was dismissed by senior investigators, the probability that this was indeed the case is overwhelming to my way of thinking.

[Ben]

Speaking of "sadly comical", is there any reason why you're following me around everywhere I post, asking the same question I've addressed countless times? Seems rather obsessive to me.

Yes, the two most assuredly compare, and very well, because they are examples of negligent buck-passing behaviour by professionals who should be attending to the matter themselves.

Do you accept that there is no official proof that he was discredited, and that it is just supposition on your part?

No, I don't. But you pop yourself along now to the relevant thread where I've just addressed this issue (again).

[Hatchett]

Hi Ben,

I am still not convinced on your analogy. A doctor with an injured individual at the scene of an accident does not equate at all with a constable on his beat. To compare the two is sadly comical.

I am glad you have brought up the discrediting of Hutchinson's statement again.

Do you accept that there is no official proof that he was discredited, and that it is just supposition on your part?

Thanks.

[Ben]

“I am not too sure that your analogy of the doctor at the scene of the accident actually works here, does it?”

Yes, Hatchett. It most assuredly “works here” because it serves as a good hypothetical example of a professional person passing the buck rather than attending to the situation himself. What makes matters worse in the non-existent PC’s case is that he would have been engaging in behaviour that he knew would probably result in his dismissal. The time and location of the encounter would enable him to be tracked down by his superiors.

“The charge of negligence surelly (sic) would only come into being if Hutchinson had not gone to the Police station and reported what he saw”

But he didn’t go the police station directly afterwards.

He waited until the evening of the following day to come forward, and only on the alleged advice of a fellow lodger.

We can either accept that there was an astonishingly negligent bobby on the force who was quietly booted off the force for dereliction of duty (for which there is no evidence), or we can accept that Hutchinson lied and was accordingly discredited (for which we have plenty of evidence).

[Hatchett]

Hello Ben,

I am not too sure that your analogy of the doctor at the scene of the accident actually works here, does it?

A doctor at the scene of the accident would treat the patient not only because of his profession but because the injured person would require immediate assistance.

The scenario with the policeman is completely different.

The charge of negligence surelly would only come into being if Hutchinson had not gone to the Police station and reported what he saw.

Apart from that of course, you are always going to get the odd bad constable. People were dismissed from the force occasionally, then and now.

Best wishes.

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

Were you, by any chance, in the habit of posting here a few years ago under the name “Clem” or “The Cleminator”? I ask only because I’ve always thought that his posts were strikingly similar to yours in terms of both presentation and content. It’s not a witch-hunt at all, and you’re under no obligation to answer. I’m mildly curious, that’s all, as there are many members here who undoubtedly remember “Clem”.

No, incidentally, there is no realistic possibility of Hutchinson communicating with a policeman on the 11th November. Had such a policeman existed as described, he would certainly have informed his superiors of Hutchinson’s name and details of his account well in advance of Hutchinson himself coming forward on the evening of the 12th, or else we’re dealing with a thumpably negligent monster of a policeman on beat, who ignored a witness of Hutchinson’s potential importance despite being in the midst of the greatest manhunt in London’s history. The latter is impossible to accept and is obviously nonsense, and naturally, there is no reference to this "policeman" episode in the original police statement.

As I’ve already pointed out, the alleged policeman in question would have known full well that he could not afford to be negligent because if he was, he could have been tracked down easily by his superiors. It wasn’t worth the hassle, even if the on-beat PC was inclined, by some mutation of disposition, to engage in the sort of sick-making dereliction of duty that you seem to be envisaging.

“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?”

The negligence resides in the assumption that the witness will adhere to that advice, which is a ridiculous assumption, akin to a doctor at the scene of a very nasty traffic accident standing around and saying "Ooh, that looks nasty. I'd get that seen to if I were you!". At the very least, the PC in question was compelled to make a note of the witness' name and key particulars of his account. Hutchinson also claimed that he was ultimately compelled to visit the police station on the advice of a fellow lodger – so presumably the advice of the policeman would not have done the trick, and the lodger’s advice carries more weight?

“It's feasible that there was no doorman present at the time in question.”

It’s not feasible.

It’s impossible.

There was, beyond question, a doorman stationed at the entrance to the Victoria Home, as we learn from all sources attaching to this particular establishment. You appear to acknowledge that Hutchinson had a weekly pass, and yet bizarrely, you suggest that nobody was around at the appropriate time to police this system.

I’m really astonished at the far-fetched scenarios that are suggested in order to depict Hutchinson as a squeaky clean honest witness.

But as I've said an alarming amount of times, this has been discussed before, and it's pointless to go there again.

[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.

[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

[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