Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Ben]

“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”

Not really, Fisherman, because a failure to attend an inquest and a three-day “delay” in imparting crucial evidence inescapably invites the question “why?”, which in turn raises inevitable questions as to the credibility of the source. We can only guess at the reasons for these doubts surfacing after Abberline sent a message indicating his initial approval. Perhaps his police superiors and recipients of his missive were sceptical of his conclusion.

Whatever, the sequence of events is to the effect that the “authorities” considerably discounted Hutchinson’s story for reasons that included his delay in presenting his evidence.

We lack the proof that Hutchinson supplied bogus information about a Sunday policeman, but that’s not to say it never existed, and I can’t think of any alternative, short of accepting that a bizarrely negligent copper was on the force.

But as with “different days” we’ve done “Sunday policeman” before, and I’d rather prefer to explore the new avenue presented by the discovery of the Bowyer article.

Best regards,
Ben

Edit: I see that you've edited your post to incorporate more Dew material. No, I don't attach any significance to Dew's personal 1938 speculations on Hutchinson, presumably for the same reason most other commentators haven't - because they are clearly not based on anything other than personal musings (see argument we were just having on a Barnett thread). No, I don't believe he was sufficiently "in the know". I believe that the police came to suspect that Hutchinson was lying, and accordingly discontinued the search for any Astrakhan man types. It strikes me as unlikely that lower ranking policemen were informed of the reason for this.

[Rubyretro]

But as with “different days” we’ve done “Sunday policeman” before, and I’d rather prefer to explore the new avenue presented by the discovery of the Bowyer article.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben -I hope that you're well !

So what is your 'take' on Bowyer ?

[Ben]

Good to see you here, Ruby!

I outlined my initial thoughts on the Echo's reference to Bowyer here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=173474&postcount=63

It may be revised if additional evidence is forthcoming, of course.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Bowyer in Millers Court at 3:00 am!

To me the Echo providing a direct quote from Boyer stating that he was there in Millers Court at approx 3:00 am is incredible. I doubt they would make up a direct quote from someone so then the question remains:

Was Bowyer telling the truth?

[Garry Wroe]

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.

Absolutely, Ben. More to the point, since major investigations such as the Whitechapel Murders manhunt are conducted on a need to know basis, we may be reasonably certain that our police mole(s) was an officer of relatively high rank. He had to have been, otherwise he would never have been privy to the kind of Hutchinson-related information that was clearly being kept under wraps.

[Wickerman]

..... 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.

Hi Ben.
But has not the precident already been established with the Stride murder that a principal witness (Schwartz) can be accepted without being present at the Inquest?
Afterall, the focul point of an Inquest is to establish cause of death and whether a crime has been committed. An Inquest is not a trial.

It is not necessary for a witness to be present who may have seen the murderer but not the commission of the crime.
All that will be followed up once the Coroner has established, "Murder by person or persons unknown".

To me the Echo providing a direct quote from Boyer stating that he was there in Millers Court at approx 3:00 am is incredible. I doubt they would make up a direct quote from someone so then the question remains:

Was Bowyer telling the truth?

Abby, I'm not feeling the urgency in your question. Bowyer worked there, whether he said he was present or not the police know/knew he worked for McCarthy, so he was present anyway.
The article reads like fetching the water, as frequent as required, was part of his duties.

Regards, Jon S.

[Garry Wroe]

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.

Sorry, Debra, but I discarded my research material long ago. Again, though, I found Bowyer in the census returns without too much difficulty. He was living in one of McCarthy's Dorset Street properties, was defined as a 'servant', and was in his mid-fifties at the time of the murders. To be honest, I'm at a loss to understand the difficulty in locating him - particularly when a researcher of Chris Scott's calibre has been on the trail.

Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

[Debra A]

Sorry, Debra, but I discarded my research material long ago. Again, though, I found Bowyer in the census returns without too much difficulty. He was living in one of McCarthy's Dorset Street properties, was defined as a 'servant', and was in his mid-fifties at the time of the murders. To be honest, I'm at a loss to understand the difficulty in locating him - particularly when a researcher of Chris Scott's calibre has been on the trail.

Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

No worries,and thanks for the reply, Garry.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

But has not the precident already been established with the Stride murder that a principal witness (Schwartz) can be accepted without being present at the Inquest?

The crucial difference here is that Schwartz made himself known to the police well in advance of the Stride inquest and shortly after news of the murder had been circulated. Hutchinson only came forward after the Kelly inquest; after he had allowed three days to elapse since the murder. The strong implication from both Echo articles (13th and 14th November) is that Hutchinson came to be "considerably discounted" for this reason, amongst others.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

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"...

From what I understand attendance at an Inquest is by invitation only.
If he was not summoned, he could not come.
They only get summoned once they have been interviewed by police in the first place.
As the police did not know of his existance they couldn't interview him, could not summon him, hence could hardly chastize him for not giving evidence.

The police complaint may have been to his reply when asked, "why he did not come forward voluntarily over the weekend", but we don't know where he was or what reason he may have provided.
Maybe 'thats' what they didn't believe?

Regards, Jon S.

[ChainzCooper]

There is a distinct possibility that confirmation exists for Hutchinson's, Man in Astrakhan.

Howard has recently posted a newspaper extract, located by Debra Arif, concerning Thomas Bowyer's sighting of a well dressed man in Millers Court on the night in question.

The article begins by announcing:

"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.

Bowyer's statement is to the effect:

"..Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid..."

Curioser and curioser...

Maybe we can entice 'Aitch to repost the article in this thread?

'Maaaaan I'm tired of being right!' Ace Ventura
Jordan

[Rubyretro]

Good to see you here, Ruby!

I outlined my initial thoughts on the Echo's reference to Bowyer here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=173474&postcount=63

It may be revised if additional evidence is forthcoming, of course.

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, Ben -sorry I didn't have time to reply to you yesterday..

By the way -can someone not start a new 'Bowyer thread' ?

I find the Bowyer info potentially very important, like Abby. It's also a total conundrum (like so much else in this case), which simply does not logically add up.

You say that Bowyer either 'withheld' potentially crucial information at the inquest, or he made the story up. I can't see any motive for either. The for/against Hutchinson debate can find many reasons why he wouldn't go to the Police straight away/invent a suspect, but I can't see any possible reasons why Bowyer wouldn't/would. Bowyer had every reason to be in the Court and he was already heavily involved in the case, questioned by Police, and at the inquest. In the hours following the discovery of Mary's body, he can have had nothing else in his mind, and must have racked his brains for any clues -especially if he had been in the Court.What motive would he have for 'making up ' this story either ?

You say that the description of 'the supposed murderer' would accord with the shabbily dressed man seen by Mary Cox -but Mary Cox wasn't the witness accorded the most importance by the Police -Lawende's 'ruffian sailor' was. When talking about the description of the 'supposed murderer', this could mean one of three things in my mind -Cox's shabby man, Lawende's sailor (either of which could agree with BS or Pipeman), or the popular street image of a 'toff'.

I'm sorry for not going back to check the details of Bowyer's man -but I think that he had a distinctive pointy collar and cuffs. This doesn't sound remotely shabby or sailor-like as a detail, nor does it agree with Astrakhan Man's overcoat and jewellery. It might agree with the street folklore image of JTR.

Bowyer is given as having spoken to a reporter (but not the one writing the article), and he is quoted directly -so who am I to argue with that ? However , forgive me if I remain sceptical in the light of the (non)importance this description seems to have been accorded by the Police. I still don't understand why Bowyer's 'description' wasn't expanded upon elsewhere.

I don't believe that -if Bowyer was describing Hutchinson- the unusual collar and(?) strange eye would not be picked up on by the journalists who had ample access to Hutch.

Lawende remained Anderson's "only" prime witness.

[Chris]

By the way -can someone not start a new 'Bowyer thread' ?

I've just done so:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5636

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"a failure to attend an inquest and a three-day “delay” in imparting crucial evidence inescapably invites the question “why?”, which in turn raises inevitable questions as to the credibility of the source."

Yes. And no. It is beyond question that the police would have wanted to know why Hutchinson was three days late in coming forward. But I have already dealt with that and pointed out that much as they would have had an interest in this, they were quite obviously provided with a reason that they accepted. Abberline was happy to state that he believed in Hutchinson and his story. He said that he was of the meaning that the story was true. If he had - for some unfathomable reason - been in the habit of disbelieving all witnesses that were not in time for the inquest, he would not have said what he did. So that solves that particular problem.

Next up: A late arrival causes doubts about the credibility of a testimony, you say. This is not true. If it HAD been true, then the opposite would also have been true: a testimony that is delivered in time for the inquest is always reliable.
Abberline alerted all police stations as a result of Hutchinsons testimony. It is abundantly clear that he thought he had a potential clue to the identity of the killer after speaking with Hutchinson. There can be no doubt about that, whatsoever. When he made his call, he did so against the combined background of the factual information in the testimony and the point of time at which it had been delivered. Therefore, we may safely conclude that even if Abberline DID have some sort of hang-up about the times of delivery of testimony in general, it certainly did not come into play now. He did not say "Bugger! If only this guy had come forward yesterday, we could have had the Ripper nailed!", did he?

The inescapable conclusion is that neither the late arrival or the description as such of the astrakhan man was hindersome to Frederick Abberline.

We of course know that something DID have Hutchinson dropped. But since both delivery time and description had been given the green light, we must look somewhere else for the cause of this. And, in consequence with this, since we full well KNOW that the late arrival did not stop Abberline from accepting Hutchinsons testimony, we may need to realize that the papers hinting at this as the sole reason for Hutch´s dismissal are completely wrong.

"We lack the proof that Hutchinson supplied bogus information about a Sunday policeman..."

Yes! We emphatically do!

" ... and I can’t think of any alternative".

Can´t? Or won´t? I know that I, as well as others, can. And have.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Ruby,

I've responded on Chris' thread.

See you there!