Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Lechmere]

This has all been discussed before and it is easy to see how a young man can go without sleep without being crushed, how he could have mistimed his walk back, why he could easily have not wanted to sleep the night off his turf, how accordingly he may not have asked for a special pass night in advance (presuming he had a weekly ticket), how there was a curfew in the Victoria Home... and his story for being out without a bed becomes a bit hum drum. It was almost certainly true as in most particulars it could have been ‘checked out’. Therefore I would take this aspect of his story at face value.

Hum drum as I often mistime journeys and this has frequently caused me hardship. I have frequently gone without sleep for a night, and I have an inbuilt homing device that steers me back to my turf in preference to stopping out in strange locations.

[Sally]

Besides which..

He could have got a late pass if he was going to be in later than 12 midnight. Why didn't he do that, then?

Even if he hadn't paid for a bed that night there were 2 night porters on the door who would have admitted him as a resident.

And if there had been any spare beds at the VH that night, he could have borrowed the money for a bed - the VH operating a credit service for residents.

But no, none of the above suited. Apparently.

Who can tell why?

[babybird67]

exactly Benz

we are expected to believe he just HAD to come back that night, depriving himself of sleep, with nowhere to stay, when he could as easily have stayed in Romford where no doubt there were also casual labourers needed.

His entire story makes no sense.

[Ben]

With all the collective years of research experience I thought I might give some of you a chance to redeem yourselves

You really should control that condescending tone of yours, Jon. It doesn't suit you. Your prose is too clumsy and belaboured to pull it off with any panache.

How might an out of work labourer expect to earn some quick money over the weekend?

By not embarking on an unnecessary all-night 13-mile footslog in the small hours of the morning with the certainty that he would not be able to access his lodgings upon his arrival at the other end, especially not when it amounted to enforced sleep-deprivation and sapped crucial energy reserves for the next day's work or work-seeking.

[Sally]

Yes but..

No guarantee he'd have got work even if that was why he was there, Wickerman - which is pure conjecture. Not entirely baseless, I'm pleased to see, but conjecture all the same.

There was a reason I didn't refer to Hutchinson making money on the Sunday - I think I might give you the chance to work out why, seeing as you seem so to be so astute.

[Wickerman]

If he had no money on the Friday morning, he was clearly able to acquire some, either that day or the Saturday

Ah, you are almost there.
With all the collective years of research experience I thought I might give some of you a chance to redeem yourselves.
When we lack specific information on a given situation, we are required, even expected, to make allowances for a number of options, therefore you might ask:

Where do you think a man of the labouring class, and pennyless like Hutchinson, might head for on the weekend?

Where did Joe Barnett work, what was his job?

Where was Mrs Long going so early in the morning?

What might a labourer do in an environment where stalls are being set up, crates being moved, carts being emptied?

What might Hutchinson, a labourer, have been doing at Petticoat Lane Market on Sunday morning?

How might an out of work labourer expect to earn some quick money over the weekend?


Regards, Jon S.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
It would appear that Mary Kelly often had her hand out for money, and people genuinely felt compassion for her, even though it ended up in drink..
I would suggest, that young George was not in the position to give her the sixpence that morning , or if he was, kept it firmly in his pocket.
Clearly Hutchinson was regularly employed, otherwise he would not have been a resident of the Victoria home, albeit working as casual labour .
I do not agree with the view that Hutchinson was discredited , but I do agree that he faded in order of importance in a few days, when he failed to point out the man he saw.
In the Radio programme[ which did exist] the man claiming to be the son of the witness stated '' It was his biggest regret that despite all his effort , nothing came of it''.
There was not a hint of a person fabricating a tale, it was mentioned that he was paid the sum of a hundred shillings, but never said from who.
We know that Topping was the man who claimed to have ''Known one of the victims , and gave the police a statement'', and we have no proof that he was fabricating .
Remember I heard this some 18 years before the publication of the 'Ripper and the Royals', that is why , I am so adamant in my belief that this was not some made up tale for that authors benefit.
I am sorry to be repetitive , but i believe all the theories involving around GH, are unrealistic, and do his memory a injustice.
Regards Richard.

[harry]

Well Chris,w hat ever Hutchinson's financial situation was at the time,a no answer was the perfect way of introducing AM into the scene,and to me that is the significance.A yes answer might have needed some explanation of why he refused.

[Sally]

From everything we know much of the people in Whitechapel had either no or very little money, so the statement sounds plausible. Look at the statements about the victims trying to earn the money for a bed for the night. Many thousands were in the same situation of having to scrounge around to afford a bed for the night, or else possibly sleeping rough or squatting in derelict buildings.

Chris

I entirely agree.

Hutchinson though, was a resident at the Victoria Home, which meant that he had, if not a guaranteed income, a regular one. He seems to have had no trouble telling the police that he gave Kelly a few shillings from time to time - and no trouble having that statement accepted at the time.

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.

But anyway, slightly off topic, I think.

[Ben]

A "no money" claim may sound plausible in isolation, for the reasons Chris mentioned, but not in the context of a 13 mile trek from Romford in the small hours of the morning in miserable weather conditions, when he was presumably hoping to secure accommodation at the other end. This couldn't have been achieved without money or a pass, and it appears Hutchinson had neither. Odd, then, that he made the trip.

“Given that there is a notable lack of any police statement to the effect that "it is startingly obvious" what type of man the killer was, we must yet again take such insistent claims as merely your own opinion.”

I think we’d be sticking our heads in the sand like hobbyists if we didn’t acknowledge that we have a better idea of the “type” of killer the ripper was today than the police did in 1888.

“I think you mentioned elsewhere that the police did not pursue the Astrachan-type suspect for any length of time. What I am pointing out is that this is true for all the suspect descriptions.”

Garry mentioned on another thread that the police descended on lodging houses in the aftermath of the Kelly murder. This would make sense if they were still pursuing suspects based on the descriptions supplied by Lawende, Schwartz, Long and others, but would be an odd thing to do if they were still perusing Astrakhan man at that time.

“If we are being asked to assume a connection between random descriptions given earlier, and Hutchinson's subsequent description then a rationale reason is required.”

The rational reason being that he wanted to create a scapegoat that deflected suspicion away from his own loitering presence there that night, as observed by Sarah Lewis. Astrakhan man was ideally suited to this purpose because he incorporated various elements that were popularly associated with the image of the ripper (surly, Jewish looking, black bag etc) and was effectively the antithesis of Hutchinson’s own appearance.

“Hutch had no money if you recall, so forget buying newspapers for clippings to rehearse some dramatic pantomime down at the station for the local bobbies.”

(Sigh) no.

The Victoria Home stocked newspapers for their reading room that could be accessed for free by those lodging there. As Sally has pointed out, he would not have needed to buy a paper. Please go to to the Victoria Home Wiki page or have a look at the Victoria Home threads if you doubt this.

I think you need to do a lot more research into this subject before you accuse people of trying to “kid” others.

All the best,
Ben

[ChrisGeorge]

Hutchinson claimed to have had no money.How can it be proven that this was true.

From everything we know much of the people in Whitechapel had either no or very little money, so the statement sounds plausible. Look at the statements about the victims trying to earn the money for a bed for the night. Many thousands were in the same situation of having to scrounge around to afford a bed for the night, or else possibly sleeping rough or squatting in derelict buildings.

Chris

[Sally]

Well that's creative :-)
So if you think Hutchinson spent the weekend browsing the newspapers and clipping out statements from pre-selected witnesses so he can then go to the police with his own 'compiled' version

Did I say that? No, I don't think I did. As entertaining as it is, I didn't suggest that, nor do I think it implied.

In fact, he need only have read the papers (actually I think just one would do), which he could probably have done without buying said paper. That I think is most likely. But the same information could have reached him verballly - people talk, you know? Especially in the kitchen of the Victoria Home, which could accommodate over 200 people at a time. What do you think the lodgers were talking about that weekend? Oh wait, we know what Hutchinson was talking about, don't we, because he tells us himself.

The means of attainment are less important than the obvious fact that his account is derivative - or so it appears. Now either all that correspondence with other, very slightly earlier accounts was happy coincidence, or he made it up. If his account was fabricated, the reason for its initial success was that his description of Astrakhan Man was similar to others circulating at the time. There are other examples in addition to the ones I posted yesterday.

you must have some complicated reason why he would do this.

I don't have a complicated reason at all. His reason - if I am correct - is another matter.

Interesting, amusing even, but darn!, a single gent might have something better to do with his time - what would have been his payoff?

That all depends on what his motivation was, doesn't it?

[harry]

Hutchinson claimed to have had no money.How can it be proven that this was true.

[Wickerman]

...Given the startlingly obvious reality that the killer was a local low-class man,..

Given that there is a notable lack of any police statement to the effect that "it is startingly obvious" what type of man the killer was, we must yet again take such insistent claims as merely your own opinion.

It is clear from later interviews that Elizabeth Long was still considered a viable witness, since Abberline in particular made specific reference to witnesses who described rear view sightings of foreign-looking suspects. She was also included in a list of witnesses complied by Swanson that also included Schwartz, Lawende and others. As for "Blotchy", it is clear from the Star's commentary that Cox's description was the only piece of suspect-related eyewitness testimony of any value to emerge from the Kelly investigation.

The descriptions were all retained, but I was talking about activity associated with those descriptions. I think you mentioned elsewhere that the police did not pursue the Astrachan-type suspect for any length of time. What I am pointing out is that this is true for all the suspect descriptions.

I'm not sure quite what you're finding so "amusing" about Sally's post, but it seems that she was alluding to very strong and compelling indications that the inspiration for the clearly bogus Astrakhan man had its origin in earlier press reports, such as the Observer from the 11th November.

Thats conjecture. If we are being asked to assume a connection between random descriptions given earlier, and Hutchinson's subsequent description then a rationale reason is required.
Hutch had no money if you recall, so forget buying newspapers for clippings to rehearse some dramatic pantomime down at the station for the local bobbies.
Suggesting a coincidence is one thing, but offering a believeable scenario to validate the suggestion is more difficult, perhaps this is why we did not get one.
As if he needed to copy what several other witnesses said on different days - who are you kidding?


Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Certainly, but his description was more generic to the local populace and the police preference was generally to look for a low-class local man

No, I don't think so, Jon.

If anything, the evidence of Dr. Phillips may have swayed some elements within the police force in the direction of the medical professional. Given the startlingly obvious reality that the killer was a local low-class man, however, it is clear that in this case they ultimately prioritized the evidence of the right witness.

But how much activity do we see after Chapmans murder following Mrs Long's description, or after Stride looking for Schwartz 'man', or P C Smith's 'man'?

It is clear from later interviews that Elizabeth Long was still considered a viable witness, since Abberline in particular made specific reference to witnesses who described rear view sightings of foreign-looking suspects. She was also included in a list of witnesses complied by Swanson that also included Schwartz, Lawende and others. As for "Blotchy", it is clear from the Star's commentary that Cox's description was the only piece of suspect-related eyewitness testimony of any value to emerge from the Kelly investigation.

So no, in answer to your question, it is very clear that none of the other witness evidence you refer to was discredited.

I'm not sure quite what you're finding so "amusing" about Sally's post, but it seems that she was alluding to very strong and compelling indications that the inspiration for the clearly bogus Astrakhan man had its origin in earlier press reports, such as the Observer from the 11th November.

Cheers,
Ben