Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[JustForJolly]

Or was he a convenient figment of George Hutchinson's imagination?

[DVV]

Hi JustforJolly

I believe he did exist.
Just like Dr Fu Manchu.

Amitiés,
David

[ghoulstonstreet]

Just two days ago I did a search on astrakhan itself, not knowing if this was some type of early fake fur or what. Turns out it's newborn Persian lamb pelt. The curly bumpy kind like old ladies used to wear in the fifties. I believe I've seen photos of Victorian style astakhan cuffs on mens coats - they are thick, about 7 inches long and sometimes come to a point at one part of the cuff. The Astrakhan Man was supposed to be otherwise well dressed as well and had the appearance of a "foreigner", aka, Jew, a fact I'm really sceptical about because prejudice was running quite high at the time and I think pinning it on the Jews was just too convenient.

[Bob Hinton]

Short answer - No.

In my opinion Astrakhan man did not exist but he wasn’t a complete figment of Hutchinson’s imagination. I believe GH did see Mary Kelly take someone back to her room, but he was an ordinary punter. However GH needed to invent a plausible suspect so enter Astrakhan man, who fitted all the prejudices of what the killer was supposed to look like.

Where did he get the details about the man’s clothes? I believe he was describing a tailor’s dummy. The night was cold, miserable and wet. If you had a nice warm overcoat it would be wrapped around you and buttoned up quite tightly. But GH’s description was of his entire ensemble, including items that would not have been on view, such as the man’s waistcoat and watch fob. However there is a place where such details are displayed and that is in a tailor’s window where the object is to show everything. Remember GH said the man was wearing spats which were worn strictly before lunch, certainly not in the evening. Now the best lies contain an element of truth so when GH described the clothes, because they actually existed, it was easier for him to describe them accurately.

However when it came to the man’s features, because dummy’s don’t have features he had to make these up, this is where his versions alter.

[DVV]

In my opinion Astrakhan man did not exist but he wasn’t a complete figment of Hutchinson’s imagination. I believe GH did see Mary Kelly take someone back to her room, but he was an ordinary punter.

Possible, but debatable. Since Hutch is a liar and the only person to have seen Mary in the streets after the Blotchy episode...

I believe he was describing a tailor’s dummy. The night was cold, miserable and wet. If you had a nice warm overcoat it would be wrapped around you and buttoned up quite tightly. But GH’s description was of his entire ensemble, including items that would not have been on view, such as the man’s waistcoat and watch fob.

This isn't debatable at all. The best argument ever provided "against" AM.
Indisputable. Definitive.

Amitiés,
David

[Suzi]

Mr Astrakan

Hi all-
I'm amazed that GH actually knew what astrakan was to be honest!!- it probably seemed to him to be the most exotic thing he could imagine and the spats of course he got wrong!
The description - I know is extreme- probably made up out of a form of panic- when the ''where were you" questions arrived!
Making up things at times of extremis are common- as in Fred West

Suz x

Failing that- There is the premise that Hutchinson's man did exist- and strangely made it in and out of Dorset St alive!
The row will continue no doubt!

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

I think, that the Astrakhan man did exist!

However, one can never know, if mr. Hutchinson exagerrated in his discription!

All the best
Jukka

[Suzi]

Exactly Jukka xx

[DVV]

Hello you all!

I think, that the Astrakhan man did exist!

However, one can never know, if mr. Hutchinson exagerrated in his discription!

All the best
Jukka

Hi Jukka

remember nobody saw Mary and this guy except Hutch.
Not to talk again about the supposed Sunday's sighting, etc.

Amitiés,
David

[Suzi]

True- Well nobody's come forward yet........

[Bob Hinton]

But...

Hi all-

The description - I know is extreme- probably made up out of a form of panic- when the ''where were you" questions arrived!

The problem with making it up on the spot is when you come to repeat the lie. Trying to remember what you said often trips people up.

Mark Twain once said “If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything.” The reverse is true; if you lie you have to remember everything. This why it is an effective interrogation technique to get the person to keep telling his story, sooner or later the chances on their story will alter.

If GH had just made it up on the spot I believe he would have had problems with remembering what he said when he spoke to the papers. However what was based on fact, the tailor’s dummy, he got right, what he invented, the facial features, he got wrong.

[Suzi]

Interesting...

Just found a reference in 'The Return of Sherlock Holmes' - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

'A footman opened the door and a small stout man in a shabby astrakhan overcoat descended'

This would be Charles Augustus Milverton in the novel...

Interesting though......

'Shabby genteel..........'

Suz x

Good points there Bob- but there again Fred was a total fantasy merchant!

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Mister Astrakhan is too stereotypical for my liking. Consider the following from The Methods and Organisation of the Metropolitan Police, George Dilnot, 1923—

"The kind of case in which a disguise is useful may be illustrated. Some thieves had broken into St. George's Cathedral, at Southwark, and then rifled the Bishop's Palace. The booty they secured was worth some three thousand pounds, and they left not the faintest trace behind. The officer charged with the investigation resolved on a long shot. He dressed himself— I quote a newspaper report—"in a long overcoat and slouched hat, sported a heavy chain, smoked a big cigar, and was well supplied with gold." In this attire he made himself conspicuous about Vauxhall. Among the " crooks " of that neighbourhood, it soon became known that a Jew receiver, one Cohen, of Brick Lane, Whitechapel was about, and in a very short while the "receiver" knew all that he needed to arrest the thieves and recover the stolen property."

Regards,

Simon

[Suzi]

Great Simon

VERRY Fagin!!
Great story there!

May be worth a look into the 'Cohen coterie of Brick Lane'- May take a while though! and in 1923 our chap may have been a tad elderly- - but not that elderly....

[Sox]

The problem with making it up on the spot is when you come to repeat the lie. Trying to remember what you said often trips people up.

Mark Twain once said “If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything.” The reverse is true; if you lie you have to remember everything. This why it is an effective interrogation technique to get the person to keep telling his story, sooner or later the chances on their story will alter.

If GH had just made it up on the spot I believe he would have had problems with remembering what he said when he spoke to the papers. However what was based on fact, the tailor’s dummy, he got right, what he invented, the facial features, he got wrong.

What Bob points out here cannot be stressed enough in my opinion. Witnesses are rarely, if ever, this detailed in an outright lie, & Hutchinson did get a long look at this man he claims to have seen with Kelly. Personally I have always thought that Hutchinson has been too easily dismissed by Ripperologists.

His statement does sound contrived, but then again it, like all the other statements in this case, was not written by the witness, or quoted verbatim by the interviewing officer. He waited three days to come forward, but what if Hutchinson knew her as Marie, or by another name? I do not think he knew exactly where she lived........

'They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away'.

....suggests to me that he was watching the court as opposed to watching No13. Two different men were seen in Mary Kelly's company shortly before she died, and as far as we know, neither man was ever traced. In a modern police investigation, both of these men would be regarded as prime suspects. Yet to regard 'Blotchy' or 'Astrakhan' as such, in 2010, means that the Ripper investigation comes to a complete and utter full stop.

Personally, I have always thought that Hutchinson only came forward because he thought, or knew, that Sarah Lewis had identified him to the police but the explanation could, easily, be much simpler than that. But we really have no reason to regard Hutchinson as an out and out liar, Abberline believed him, and I think that is important.