Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

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?

I believe so, Jon. That's my take on it, at least.

“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.”

No, Fisherman.

The police were quite obviously lacking a credible reason for Hutchinson’s delay in coming forward and non-appearance at the inquest, which is why his statement came to be “considerably discounted”. Whatever the state of affairs was late in the evening of the 12th November when Abberline penned his report, it is clear that Hutchinson’s account was subsequently discredited for reasons that concerned his late appearance. If Hutchinson had given an “acceptable” reason for his failure to come forward earlier, the Echo would not have alluded to his non-appearance at the inquest on two successive days of reporting, and we know that they made a personal visit to the police station to ascertain this information.

This obvious reality is only a problem for people who, for some unfathomable reason, have it in their minds that Abberline was the only police official of any seniority capable of having an influential opinion on Hutchinson, or even worse, that Abberline was incapable of revising, or even reflecting upon, a previous judgement. Yes, Abberline sent a report of a approval on the 12th in spite of knowing that it arrived post-inquest and considerably post-murder, but it is very clear that over the following days, the “authorities” came to discount the testimony, and his late appearance in providing his evidence was one of the reasons for this "discounting". The Echo was able to ascertain this as a result of direct communication with the police.

There really isn’t any mutual exclusivity between Abberline’s report and the details reported in the Echo. You just have to follow a basic time-line that lasted two or three days. Hutchinson’s statement was initially given the thumbs up, but over the next few days - and in late of further investigation and consideration – it came to be discredited.

“we may need to realize that the papers hinting at this as the sole reason for Hutch´s dismissal are completely wrong.”

Try and distinguish, if you can, between “we” and “you”. You are more than welcome to “look somewhere else” for a reason for Hutchinson’s dismissal, but speaking strictly for myself, I’m perfectly content with the one we have on record. The Echo was not merely “hinting”. They had obtained their information directly from the police, and the chances of them being “completely wrong” are therefore to be considered extremely slim.

“Can´t? Or won´t? I know that I, as well as others, can.”

I think it was just you.

And I don’t recall it being very convincing.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sally]

Old Podcast

I dimly recall that on one of the old podcasts (the Hutchinson one) somebody (can't remember who) referred to an press report regarding Mrs McCarthy's sighting of a man leaving Kelly's room on the Thursday night/Friday morning.

Does anyone know where that was published? I just wonder slightly if Mrs McCarthy's Thursday/Friday sighting was mixed up with Bowyer's Wednesday night sighting?

Just a thought.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"No, Fisherman."

Yes, Fisherman!

"The police were quite obviously lacking a credible reason for Hutchinson’s delay in coming forward and non-appearance at the inquest, which is why his statement came to be “considerably discounted”."

Not at all. Just like I have pointed out, there was no such lack around when Abberline sent out the description to his colleagues. What you are suggesting is that the police decided that Hutchinson was truthful and had an acceptable enough reason for his late arrival to be trusted by Abberline - who, hours later, decided that the same reason was not nearly sufficient.

Does that sound credible to you? To me, it does not. Therefore, we have to ADD something, something that was not there or not picked up on by the police from the outset. Once that saw it/found out about it: WHAM! That was that - sorry mister Hutchinson!

"If Hutchinson had given an “acceptable” reason for his failure to come forward earlier, the Echo would not have alluded to his non-appearance at the inquest on two successive days of reporting"

Ask yourself, Ben: Do the papers report what the police tell them, or do the see right through it and report the whole truth, even if they are not provided with it? Do the police always oblige by telling all they know to the papers?
Once you answered these points, you should have a completely new and fresh look on things!

" Yes, Abberline sent a report of a approval on the 12th in spite of knowing that it arrived post-inquest and considerably post-murder"

Bravo - progress! Yes, Ben, he did!

"it is very clear that over the following days, the “authorities” came to discount the testimony"

...and it keeps coming!

"and his late appearance in providing his evidence was one of the reasons for this "discounting""

Oh, bugger! No, the only thing we know is that his late arrival was the ONLY reason the press was presented with, by the looks of things. And that, my friend, is another story altogether. It´s more transparent than an aquarium. Even you admit and promote the idea that OTHER things would have lain behind it all, but you prefer to think that the police would have kept it to themselves, which, frankly, makes very little sense. And, as you well know, we DO have Walter Dew - poor, misled, misunderstanding, kept-out-of-the-know Dew - who adamantly tells us that George Hutchinsons truthfullness was never questioned.
So what do you do? You INVENT a belief on behalf of the police that the description of Astrakhan man got Hutchinson sacked, you INVENT a belief that the Sunday police business clinched it, and you INVENT a police decision to tell the press about the late delay and NOT tell them about the true reason. And after that, you say that I am the one inventing "magical alibis" and such ...? That is ... no, you know what it is, I don´t have to tell you, do I?

"I’m perfectly content with the one we have on record. The Echo was not merely “hinting”."

They were hinting at it being the ONLY reason, Ben - and that is wrong. It was never that.

"I don’t recall it being very convincing."

When I tell you that the police do not mistrust testimony in a direct relation to the point of time it arrives, you don´t find that very convincing either. So it´s a question of what standards we are dealing with. Meaning that I am not despairing all that much about my beliefs after having seen your take on things. On the contrary.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Sally,

Welcome back!

I think you’re referring to this article:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=41546&postcount=1

“Just like I have pointed out, there was no such lack around when Abberline sent out the description to his colleagues.”

I don’t understand what you’re finding so difficult to grasp about the simple recognition of an obvious sequence of events, Fisherman. Yes, Abberline “sent out the description to his colleagues”, but over the next few days it clearly transpired that Hutchinson’s account had been discredited, owing in part to his three day delay in delivering his evidence. The latter information was obtained directly from the police, so it’s frankly irrelevant if you find it “incredible”. It’s only incredible to those who labour under the inexplicable delusion that Abberline was the sole mouthpiece and final arbiter of the Met. To everyone else (I'd dearly hope), it’s an unremarkable feature of a police investigation, with opinions being revised and later inquiries casting doubt upon previously held convictions.

The fact that you repeat the same points over and over again isn’t going to lessen my determination to provide exactly the same responses every time.

“Do the papers report what the police tell them”

Yes, on this occasion the Echo did just that. It was precisely because of the confusion created by some of their press colleagues that they approached the police and ascertained what we now know to be the truth:

Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contemporaries, we learned on inquiry at the Commercial Street police station today 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.

In a proactive effort to seek clarification, they went directly to the police and garnered information that we now know to be accurate. This amounts to clear evidence of both a communication with the police and faithful reporting of accurate information received. We can therefore state, without any reasonable doubt, that the police had indeed attached a reduced importance to Hutchinson’s account, and that his non-attendance at the inquest played a significant role in this. Straight from the horse’s mouth. There was never any suggestion that it was the sole reason, however, as the Echo also makes clear on 13th November.

How you can then make the rather offensive accusation that I am personally responsible for “inventing” material is beyond me. I have no idea if the Astrakhan description played a part in his discrediting of Hutchinson, although it is referred to explicitly in the Echo on 13th. Yes, I have offered the suggestion (does this amount to “invention”?) that the “Sunday policeman” statement may have provided the final nail in the coffin, but that’s only because a) it is so fantastically unlikely to be true and b) it was so easy to expose as provably false.

“and you INVENT a police decision to tell the press about the late delay and NOT tell them about the true reason.”

I never said anything of the sort.

"True reason" for what?

Regards,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

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".




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.

Hi Wickerman
Regardless of his reason to be there-this is the first time we have heard that he was there! He apparently admitted to being there, the paper has a direct quote from him being there. i think this raises a whole slew of questions as a witness (as in is he telling the truth, if not why lie etc.) and as a............

Can anyone fill in the blank? Nobody has even said it yet. amazing.

[lynn cates]

suspect

Hello Abby. Suspect?

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby. Suspect?

Cheers.
LC

Ding..Ding..Ding..
winner! winner! Chicken Dinner!!

[Abby Normal]

Hi Sally,

Welcome back!

I think you’re referring to this article:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=41546&postcount=1

I don’t understand what you’re finding so difficult to grasp about the simple recognition of an obvious sequence of events, Fisherman. Yes, Abberline “sent out the description to his colleagues”, but over the next few days it clearly transpired that Hutchinson’s account had been discredited, owing in part to his three day delay in delivering his evidence. The latter information was obtained directly from the police, so it’s frankly irrelevant if you find it “incredible”. It’s only incredible to those who labour under the inexplicable delusion that Abberline was the sole mouthpiece and final arbiter of the Met. To everyone else (I'd dearly hope), it’s an unremarkable feature of a police investigation, with opinions being revised and later inquiries casting doubt upon previously held convictions.

The fact that you repeat the same points over and over again isn’t going to lessen my determination to provide exactly the same responses every time.



Yes, on this occasion the Echo did just that. It was precisely because of the confusion created by some of their press colleagues that they approached the police and ascertained what we now know to be the truth:

Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contemporaries, we learned on inquiry at the Commercial Street police station today 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.

In a proactive effort to seek clarification, they went directly to the police and garnered information that we now know to be accurate. This amounts to clear evidence of both a communication with the police and faithful reporting of accurate information received. We can therefore state, without any reasonable doubt, that the police had indeed attached a reduced importance to Hutchinson’s account, and that his non-attendance at the inquest played a significant role in this. Straight from the horse’s mouth. There was never any suggestion that it was the sole reason, however, as the Echo also makes clear on 13th November.

How you can then make the rather offensive accusation that I am personally responsible for “inventing” material is beyond me. I have no idea if the Astrakhan description played a part in his discrediting of Hutchinson, although it is referred to explicitly in the Echo on 13th. Yes, I have offered the suggestion (does this amount to “invention”?) that the “Sunday policeman” statement may have provided the final nail in the coffin, but that’s only because a) it is so fantastically unlikely to be true and b) it was so easy to expose as provably false.



I never said anything of the sort.

"True reason" for what?

Regards,
Ben

Hi Ben

Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contemporaries, we learned on inquiry at the Commercial Street police station today 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.


Is it possible that when the press went to the police at this time, that not only did they learn of Hutch's previous description of A-man (and events that night )to the police, but that the police at this time also heard of his subsequent "fuller" description to the press? If they did, could this also have possibly discredited Hutch as a witness to the police?

[Abby Normal]

Ding..Ding..Ding..
winner! winner! Chicken Dinner!!

He discovered her body. Now we learn that he was in the court(according to him) around the (possible)time of her death. Hmmmm....

Indian Harry Bowyer indeed.

[Garry Wroe]

Apologies, Fish, for the delay in responding to what was one in a series of excellent posts. I’ve been up to my eyes in it of late and therefore lacked the time to properly address the issues you have raised. Anyway, here goes.

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.

As I’ve said before, Fish, I believe that police suspicions concerning Hutchinson’s story first began to surface on the Monday evening when he was on walkabout with detectives. I think it likely that one of the detectives asked him about the three-day delay in his coming forward and Hutchinson responded with a demonstrably provable lie – possibly the claim that he spoke to a policeman on the Sunday morning of his alleged meeting with Kelly shortly before her death. This scenario, I tend to think, not only accounts for the police’s sudden change in attitude towards Hutchinson as related in the Tuesday edition of The Echo, but also Hutchinson’s press referral to an incident of which he had seemingly made no mention whilst under police interview. Given the unequivocal tone of The Star’s dismissal of Hutchinson on the Friday, moreover, I think it safe to assume that he had been discounted as a viable witness by the Thursday.

Taken at face value, I think your point regarding the curiously understated manner in which Hutchinson was dismissed by both The Echo and The Star is eminently sensible – particularly since this was a period during which newspapers were falling over themselves to get the latest scoop. As I stated in an earlier reply to Ben, however, I think it overwhelmingly probable that at least one senior policeman engaged on the Whitechapel manhunt was on the take. In other words he (and possibly they) was augmenting his income by selling inside information to the press. If this was indeed the case, no editor worth his salt would have risked losing such a valuable resource by printing information which might have exposed his mole’s identity – especially if this information was known only to a small group of senior policemen. As such, I consider it most probable that the editors concerned decided that discretion was the best course of action and simply abandoned any interest in Hutchinson, contenting themselves with tossing a few thinly veiled jibes in the direction of those rival newspapers whose editors were unaware of the latest developments regarding Hutchinson.

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.

I see no evidence that Packer and Violenia were thrown to the wolves, Fish. To my mind they were simply discredited and dropped. I also think it pertinent that the police had adopted a more political approach to their investigations by the time of the Kelly murder. The removal of Kelly’s body such that it fell under the administrative jurisdiction of MacDonald was a clear and calculated strategy to circumvent Baxter, in my view, and was probably conceived by Anderson. It seems as though the police, under fire from all sides, had developed a siege mentality and sought to avoid further criticism at all cost.

Another thing worth bearing in mind is that Abberline was under immense strain when Hutchinson appeared on the scene. He had been working incredibly long hours and apparently pursued the investigation even when off duty.

Place these two elements together, Fish, and it becomes easy to understand why investigators sought to avoid any public scrutiny over their handling of the Hutchinson affair. Not only would they have become subject to more criticism in a general sense, but Abberline’s competence in particular would almost certainly have been called in to question had it become known that he had interrogated Hutchinson and been gulled by the Astrakhan story.

In other words, this appears to have been a classic case of damage limitation. And a successful one at that given the reality that it escaped notice for the better part of a century.

[Wickerman]

Absolutely, Jon - I am actually quite convinced that this was the case! I have elaborated on this for a very long time in extensive posts, but I don´t mind doing so again.

Hi Fisherman.
So sorry I have not responded to this, and actually I had no intention of putting you to so much trouble. Thankyou for your efforts, you outline your hypothesis very clearly.

That said, I think we have contesting opinions on this topic.

Sarah Lewis knew the Keylers, but did not know Mary Kelly, she stated as much in her pre-inquest statement.
Neither does Lewis mention rain, perhaps it was not raining as the presence of 'Widewake' at Crossingham's tends to suggest.

Then there's the statement of the woman Kennedy, whether an alternate for Lewis, or her sister is open to debate, but Kennedy mentions being out at 3:00am., no mention of rain.

I agree Lewis does mention rain but not at 3:00am.
".....I warmed my hands and went out again, she was still singing. I came in again at 3 o'clock, the light was out and there was no noise"
Thats the end of this statement, as I see it.

Then Lewis describes the rest of the night, after 3 o'clock:
"...I did not undress at all that night, I heard no noise, it was raining hard".

I would have to interpret that last line as suggesting that through the night it rained hard, but after she had retired for the night, not that it rained hard at 3 o'clock when she came in, ....only after 3 o'clock.

Then there's Hutchinson who went down to Romford on Thursday, walking back Thursday night into Friday morning.
How could he confuse the day?

Wednesday (alternate date for sighting) was the day before he journeyed to Romford, I'm sorry Fisherman I can't accept Hutchinson could confuse the day after he returned from Romford, with the day before he went to Romford.

Alternately, we would have to suggest he went to Romford on Tuesday, not Thursday?
This was only the week before, not 6 months ago, so I can't see you, or I, or Hutchinson confusing a long trip on last Tuesday for Thursday.

So I think we have a diverse opinion on this, the trip to Romford is a thorn in the side of the "confusion of days" explanation.

Sorry Fisherman, but many thanks for your detailed explanation of your argument.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

...I think it likely that one of the detectives asked him about the three-day delay in his coming forward and Hutchinson responded with a demonstrably provable lie – possibly the claim that he spoke to a policeman on the Sunday morning of his alleged meeting with Kelly shortly before her death....

Hi Garry.

Hutch states:
"....and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain."

The claim that he spoke to a policeman, also on Sunday may well be associated with this same incident.
If I recall, Stewart once provided a printout of a page detailing police duties in 1888 where we see that often a constable was stationed on point-duty at markets (recall the Chapman case?). If Hutch was at Petticoat Lane market on this Sunday (11th) and saw Astrachen, and told a policeman, that policeman just may have been on Point-duty at the market. And as such cannot leave his station.
He said he told a constable of his suspicions but did not go to the police station. I don't see the need to call him a liar when it is entirely plausable.

Hutch also said he was out Monday night until 3:00am looking for this same man, this is after his statement was given to the police. Hutch seemed to have a strong conviction of his suspicions.

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

Hi Sally,

Hi Ben

Welcome back!

Yay!

I think you’re referring to this article:

Oh Yeah. Oh well! Thanks for addressing my ramblings so succinctly!

Back to Astrkhan Man then?

[Garry Wroe]

If I recall, Stewart once provided a printout of a page detailing police duties in 1888 where we see that often a constable was stationed on point-duty at markets (recall the Chapman case?). If Hutch was at Petticoat Lane market on this Sunday (11th) and saw Astrachen, and told a policeman, that policeman just may have been on Point-duty at the market. And as such cannot leave his station.

This very point crossed my mind decades ago, Jon, but was as implausible then as it is now. To begin with, police were investigating the most barbaric murder in the most barbaric series of murders that had ever occurred in the UK. They had come in for a torrent of criticism for their handling of the case and had succeeded in alienating politicians, the press and the public alike. One American newsman even branded them the stupidest detective force in the entire world. And we know that such condemnation not only stung those involved in the manhunt, it led to an increased resolve to apprehend the perpetrator.

It was against this background that Hutchinson claimed to have approached a policeman in Petticoat Lane and revealed the details involving his alleged meeting with Kelly and her subsequent encounter with Astrakhan. And yet, even when faced with a witness of Hutchinson’s importance, we are expected to believe that this officer not only failed to take or even direct Hutchinson to the nearest police station, but neglected to note down his name and address in order that he might be interviewed by detectives.

Frankly, Jon, this is the stuff of pure fantasy.

The Petticoat Lane incident is rendered even more implausible when one recalls Hutchinson’s explanation for his failure to come forward as soon as he became aware of Kelly’s death. “I told one of the lodgers here about it on Monday, and he advised me to go to the police ... which I did at night.”

Evidently, therefore, Hutchinson had failed to grasp the significance of the Kelly sighting until accorded a blinding piece of insight by one of his fellow Victoria Home lodgers at some point on the Monday. Only then, with the penny having finally dropped, did Hutchinson toddle over to Commercial Street Police Station and relate the story involving Kelly and Astrakhan.

The problem here, Jon, is that if we accept Hutchinson’s claim that he went over to Commercial Street Police Station shortly after being advised to so do by a fellow lodger, we must also conclude that the Petticoat Lane policeman gave him no such advice. By implication, therefore, it must be inferred that, like Hutchinson, this officer failed to grasp the true significance of the Kelly and Astrakhan encounters.

Again, this is the stuff of pure fantasy.

Given the foregoing, it makes no difference whether the Petticoat Lane policeman was on beat patrol or fixed point duty. Neither determinant would have prevented him from directing Hutchinson to the nearest police station, and neither would have prevented him from recording Hutchinson’s details. As such, I remain convinced that the alleged conversation with the Petticoat Lane policemen was nothing more than a fabrication on Hutchinson’s part.

[Ben]

You’re most welcome, Sally, and you could well be right about a possible mix-up with the Bowyer and McCarthy sightings. It strikes me as slightly odd that despite the police apparently considering her evidence important enough to encourage a “strict reticence”, there was no reference to it at all at the inquest.

“Back to Astrkhan Man then?”

Nah, been there!

Hi Abby,

I think your suggestion makes considerable sense. Certainly, the "fuller" description (incorporating kid cloves, red stone seals, American cloth and wotnot) cannot have enhanced Hutchinson's credibility, especially if the police were already suspicious about his late appearance and non-attendance at the inquest.

Best regards,
Ben