Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[DVV]

Hi Sox,

yes, Abberline believed him... For a few days apparently.
What about the "Sunday sighting" ?
What about coming forward after the inquest ?
Hutch said he was Mary's friend.
I would prefer an enemy than a friend like that.

Amitiés,
David

[Sox]

Actually David, Abberline says in a report that Hutchinson had known Kelly for 'about three years' and not that they were friends. In the same report Abberline also says that Hutchinson gave her money, but does not say why.

For all we know, he could have been one of Kellys customers.

[DVV]

Right, Sox.
Forget "friends".
Let's say they seemed to know each other quite well.
My clumsy English expression, as you very well know.

Amitiés,
David

[Wickerman]

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?

[Howard Brown]

Wick:

All credit goes to Debra Arif on this one. I just put up the entire article in the Echo from November 14th at her behest :

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=134032#post134032

[Abby Normal]

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?

Hi
Where does anything mention that Bowyer saw a "well dressed man"? I dont see any connection between Hutch's A-mans description and the man Bowyer saw. I don't even see any kind of description of the man Bowyer saw. So whats the connection?

[Wickerman]

It's perhaps still early days yet, Debra only just located this fine article.

However, the sequence unfolding appears to be that Bowyer first saw a well-dressed man in the Court on Wednesday night (7th).

Bowyer then saw a man in the Court over Thursday night / Fri morn, time not stated, but before 3:00am.

Bowyer described this man to the police, but did not mention it at the Inquest on the 12th.

Hutch describes Astrakhan to police on the evening of the 12th. This description is posted as that of the murder suspect.

The Echo published on the 14th that Bowyer had already described to police a man he saw on Thursday/Friday, overnight, a description which fit that posted of the murderer (Hutch's description).

Though Bowyer reported seeing him first, just that the article was published later.

This is provisional, but has definite interest.

Regards, Jon S.

[Rubyretro]

Fascinating !

Of course if Bowyer's and Hutchinson's description confirmed each other , then given the timing of Hutchinson's 'sighting', of course this 'well dressed man' would have to be the prime suspect...no doubt about it..

It's curious then that Hutchinson was discredited, or at the least his description was assigned to the 'reduced importance' heap.

How could it not be 'important' if Bowyer had described a similar suspect in Miller's Court ?

It is equally strange that Bowyer's 'description' has only now been found
and only briefly alluded to in one paper -I'm really surprised that the packs of journalists weren't printing Bowyer's every word on this point, given the intense interest in the case.

So forgive me, if I take this with a pinch of salt...

I think that it was stated that only one person had got a good look at the Ripper -and that was a Jew. It would not have been possible to make that statement if it was accepted that Bowyer had given credibility to
Hutchinson.

[Fisherman]

A-ha. Well, well! A number of interesting points here:

It is said in the article that ”the elaborate description” (and that will be Hutchinsons decription of Astrakhan man) is ”virtually the same as that previously published”, the only difference being that the Hutch version is ”a little fuller”.

Note that it does not say that it is a lot more elaborate and a lot fuller – it is a little fuller, that´s all. That would mean that most of the things Hutchinson recorded was recorded by somebody else too – supposedly Bowyer. And that, in it´s turn, of course means that either:

A/ Bowyer and Hutchinson both saw Astrakhan man, and both recorded a good deal of his appearance, the latter being the slightly more observant witness, something that may well be explained by the fact that he actually spent a good deal of time following Astrakhan man and Kelly around.

...or...

B/ Bowyer and Hutchinson saw two different men, both answering to the same description.

...or...

C/ Only one of them saw an astrakhan-clad man, whereas the other one lied about it. In this scenario we have Bowyer making the observation of the man alone – NOT in Kelly´s company – and Hutchinson picking up on it. The problem here is of course that it would seem that Bowyer´s description surfaced on the 13:th – the day AFTER Hutchinson went to the police with HIS story. Was there some other article/s describing this man before Hutchinson´s visit to the police?

...or...

D/ Both Bowyer and Hutchinson lied about Astrakhan man.

Take your pick! I´m sure we can come up with more versions further down the alphabet.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. Once again, Bowyer is magically turned into a young man in the article. What´s this with Indian Harrys recurring rejuvenation …?

[Rubyretro]

Another explanation, Fish, is that the bit about Bowyer was a case of mis-reporting...

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Another explanation, Fish, is that the bit about Bowyer was a case of mis-reporting..."

In what respect, specifically?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Okay!

I think it is time to once more review the Echo´s article, not the one Debra Arif has furnished, but the one from the day BEFORE (13 of November):

"The police are embarrassed with two definite descriptions of the man suspected of the murder. The second description induced some particularly-sanguine journalist to declare that it "not only establishes a clue to the perpetrator of the Dorset-street murder, but places the authorities in possession of an accurate and full description of a person who was seen in company with the murdered woman during the night on which she met her death." A man, apparently of the labouring class, but of a military appearance, who knew the deceased, last night lodged with the police a long and detailed statement of an incident which attracted his attention on the day in question. The following is a summary of the statement, and it may be said that, notwithstanding examination and re-examination by the police, the man's story could not be shaken, and so circumstantial and straightforward were his assertions that the police at first believed they had - to again quote the journalist - "at length been placed in possession of facts which would open up a new line of investigation, and probably enable them to track the criminal." The importance which they then attached to it has since suffered diminution. That will be seen by the result of more recent inquiries."

First point of interest: The Echo tells us on the 13:th that the testimony provided by Hutchinson has suffered a diminution of importance as a result of "recent inquiries". The day AFTER that, the SAME paper says - about the SAME testimony - that "The police do not attach so much importance to this document as some of our contemporaries do; but they think it sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry."

Interesting, is it not? Some "contemporaries" - and that, if I´m correct, would refer to newspaper competition - think that Hutchinson was on the money, but the Echo knows better; they are in possession of information telling them that much as the police find Hutchinson´s testimony worthy of further investigation, they do not attach too much importance to it.

Aha. So they have a man telling them that he has seen the victim of a Ripper killing in the company of a man at the very time leading up to her estimated time of demise - but they don´t attach all that much importance to it...? Does that make sense? No, it does not. We need to ask ourselves WHY they do not regard this information as absolutely crucial. And there cannot be many answers to that question! Let´s see here, hmmm...:

1. The man who testified had been found out to (or was suspected to be) be a liar or a time-waster or an attention-seeker.

2. The man himself was in the clear and regarded as being reliable and honest, but the testimony had been shown to be in some respect irrelevant just the same.

3. The man had been revealed to be mentally ill and thus not accountable for his actions.

That would be it, methinks. I can see no other explanations.

Now, is there anything that tells us what option to choose here? Yes, luckily there is. Qoute: "There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson´s veracity". This is printed a full day AFTER the passage that spoke of "worthless stories" the day BEFORE. Meaning that the value of Hutchinson´s STORY was in doubt on the 13:th, but Hutchinsons status as a completely reliable witness of impeccable veracity was not shaken at all by it. This is proven by the fact that the Echo stands by him in this respect on the 14:th, IN SPITE OF the reduced importance they know that the police are now attributing to his story per se.
In fact, the paper also writes that "the importance of this description lies ... 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 an in a more official manner."

Of course, had Hutchinsons testimony been relating to the murder night itself, then "the importance of the description" would have lain not in the corroboration of Bowyers description, but instead in providing a sizzling hot clue to the murderer! And since this coupling was no longer made after the "recent inquiries" mentioned by the Echo on the 13:th, we can safely deduct that the police felt quite at ease to discard Hutchinsons story as the result of a mistaken day, whereas an interest remained for his testimony, given Bowyers corroborating story, together with a conviction on behalf of the police force that George Hutchinson´s veracity could not be doubted.
And why would they - two persons describing the same man irrespective of each other more or less effectively corroborate that man´s existance, and thereby they also corroborate each other´s veracity - in that respect, at the very least.

My deduction is that we can safely dump options 1 and 3, presented above. Hutchinson was not a liar/timewaster/attention-seeker, and he was not mentally ill.

Every little uncovered piece seems to confirm that Walter Dew in his memoirs related what was the common police view about George Hutchinson back in 1888: He was an honest witness and a truthful man - who got the days wrong.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Oh, and when the Echo speaks of two definitive descriptions, "embarrasing" the police - could it be that they refer to Bowyers and Hutchinsons respective testimonies?

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Oh, and when the Echo speaks of two definitive descriptions, "embarrasing" the police - could it be that they refer to Bowyers and Hutchinsons respective testimonies?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish
Or are they talking about Hutch's 2 descriptions: the first one he gave police and the second he gve the paper?

[Debra A]

This is my take on it for what it's worth:

The Echo 14th November 1888 says:

..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 was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest in a more offical manner..


Daily News 14th november 1888-which I believe was a morning paper?

THE MAN LAST SEEN WITH KELLY
FULL AND DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The following important statement was made last evening by George Hutchinson, a groom by trade, but now working as a labourer. Hutchinson said...
[Astrachan's description then given]

...It will be observed that the description of the supposed murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police, and published yesterday morning. There is not the slightest reason to doubt Hutchinson's veracity, and it is therefore highly probable that at length the police are in possession of a reliable description of the murderer.

On the 13th November the Daily News published the same details of a sighting in Miller's Court and a description of Astrachan, but without naming Hutchinson.


The Echo 14th November 1888

Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contempiraries, we learned on inquiry at at the Commercial-street Police-station to-day 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...