Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Debra A]

Wickerman:

"The quote above, are you referring to this?

'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."

Yes, I am.

"I think the 'discounted statement' (above) does not refer to Hutch, because he was not at the Inquest."

I was of the same sentiment originally, but as I think you will admit, the phrasing "...which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner" could potentially point to BOTH Bowyer and Hutchinson.

"Rather, the complaint is aimed at someone else (ie; the informant) who did appear at the Inquest but failed, or omitted, to offer the sighting in the official manner.
That someone could well have been Bowyer."

That too was my original thought, Jon! But I have since come to think that Debra Arif has the correct solution - the Echo article of the 14:th was aimed at a mistake made by the morning newspapers, namely the belief that there was a parallel testimony, seemingly establishing a corroboration for Hutchinsons Astrakhan man.

Have a look again at the whole first passage in the text, and try and read it as a mildly taunting phrasing, aimed at the morning papers: "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", it says. But the Echo knew - and published! - one day before that this description had been furnished to the police by Hutch. And already the day before, they had pointed out that there was reason to doubt itīs value!
They now renew this sentiment on the 14:th by writing that "the police do not attach so much importance" to it.
So! Apparently the Echo was well aware that there was cause for doubt, whereas the morning papers knew nothing about this, which is - I think - why the Echo says that it "is said" that there is a "full and accurate description" of the man last seen with Kelly at hand, and why they go on to say that it "is asserted" (by the ones NOT in the know, that would be - the morning papers!) to be in possession of the authorities.
Moving on, they add more salt into the wounds of the morning press by writing that the importance of the testimony lies - "so says the morning papers" - in itīs corroboration of the freshly arrived description, which was discounted because of the failure to present it at the inquest. "So says the morning papers" - but we know better, that is the Echoīs stance.

It goes on to say that "there is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinsonīs veracity". Taken in this context, I fear that there is a measure of irony in this passage too; the Echo would here be mocking the morning papers who draw the conclusion that there are two corroborating testimonies about, both speaking of astrakhan man and thus putting Hutchinson beyond any possible accusations of being wrong - whereas the Echo knows that BOTH testimonies belong to Hutchinson.

Further down in the article, this is borne out very clearly: "Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contemporaries, we learned on inquiry at the Commercial-Street Police-Station today that the elaborate description ... is virtually the same as that previously published..." ... "it proceeds from the same source".
And that source, Jon, would be George Hutchinson.

This is, I believe, the best interpretation of things. There are few sloppily worded passages that makes one wonder, but that does not change the overall picture for me.

That could have come straight from me, Fisherman! That's exactly the way I read it too...exactly. Thanks!

Hi Abby, thanks for the comments on the article find. Obviously I think the interesting bit is Bowyer placing himself at Miller's Court on the morning of MJK's death, and definitely worth looking further at!

[belinda]

I think he did exist but I also think Hutchinson exaggerated the description.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

I think the idea about the tailor's dummy is very plausible.

Another idea could be that he was someone that Hutchinson had seen in Romford, at the races. Perhaps a horse owner or racing gambler.

Infact, reading Hutchinson's description of seeing Astrakhan walking down the street, meeting Mary Kelly, and speaking to her, sits uncomfortably as though it was a daylight scene. Particularly the dialogue, which seems to display the sort of comments that people will make if they know that they with either be drowned out by busy street chatter or absorbed by it.

Best wishes.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman:

"The quote above, are you referring to this?

Yes, I am...

Hello Fisherman.
Thats a damn good post Fisherman (#45), I had to read it over a few times to absorb your point (and Deb's of course).

Like Hunter points out, and like I wrote in an earlier post, it would be ridiculous if the police discarded a crucial witness just because he did not turn up at the inquest. That reason can NOT have been what got Hutchinsons story dropped!

Agreed, if so, we might have a double standard, with the Stride murder the police accepted Schwartz's statement even though he was not at the Inquest either.

But why would they not regard him as a prime suspect, given that he was seen entering Millers Court with Kelly at 2.15 AM, and staying in her room until 3 AM? Surely, he would have been an extremely good bid for the killers role?
You know my answer: Just like Walter Dew states, George Hutchinson was a day off in his estimations....

So are you saying that the man seen 'on watch' in Dorset St. by Sarah Lewis at about 2:30 am Friday morning was not Hutchinson, even though he admitted to being their?


Thanks, Jon S.

[Debra A]

Hello Fisherman.
Thats a damn good post Fisherman (#45), I had to read it over a few times to absorb your point (and Deb's of course).

Of course...don't mind me.

[Wickerman]

Dear Fisherman.
I just struggle with the idea that a man who was pennyless, who had just come up from Romford, could confuse the day he came back from Romford.

We must consider that Hutchinson was not sufficiently wealthy to have travelled up from Romford every night that week.

If he spent his work-week down in Romford and only returned to Dorset St on weekends, then I find it a struggle to accept he confused Wednesday night (when he was in Romford?) with Friday night, when he came back home.

On the other hand, assuming his trip to Romford was a one-day event, where he spent all his money on the round trip, how can he confuse the day of this one expensive excursion.

I guess I'm just a born struggler....
All the best, Jon S.

P.S. Debs, you are the principal player in disseminating this debatable issue, thankyou!

[Ben]

Many thanks to Debs, Howard, and all concerned for providing this article.

The Echo is merely elaborating here (14th November) on their observations of the previous day – crucially, that a reduced importance had been attached to Hutchinson’s account, apparently because of a certain amount of distrust on the part of the police. It was correctly observed that “the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner”, and it was further stated that his statement was “considerably discounted” for this reason. Why else would the police have cited this fact (Hutchinson’s absence from the inquest) as a reason for discounting his statement unless that that very fact prompted them to entertain doubts about his honesty and motivation for coming forward? No sane human being, let alone police official, will ever conclude: “Hutchinson only came forward after the inquest, so therefore he must be a decent, honest, charmingly befuddled idiot”. No, the likelihood is that after contemplating his absence from the inquest, they came to the conclusion that he was a two-a-penny fabricator.

It is clear, therefore, that Abberline’s initial endorsement of Hutchinson’s account quickly diluted to very serious doubts about it, presumably as a result of discussing it with his superiors, contemplating the implications of his three-day inertia prior to coming forward, and having time to investigate his statement further. This is intimated by both the Echo and the Star, and is strongly suggested in subsequent police memoirs and interviews. You won’t find a report from Abberline explicitly stating “I’ve officially changed my mind on Hutchinson”, and it may be a little naïve to expect one. As for Schwartz, I can’t recall the Star ever stating explicitly that his account was “discredited”, only that the truth of his statement was not wholly accepted, which may well have been true at the time, regardless of what Swanson later wrote in his report on the witnesses.

Another very telling extract from the 14th November Echo article ran as follows:

“The police do not attach so much importance to this document as some of our contemporaries do”

The Echo’s contemporaries were, of course, other newspapers. In other words, despite these other newspapers (Morning Advertiser, anyone?) giving Hutchinson’s account a ringing endorsement and optimistically predicting that it will lead to the offender’s capture (etc etc), the police were not nearly so ecstatic about it. This also accounts for the Echo’s other observation that “There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson’s veracity”, because they knew that those doing the “declaring” in this regard were the aforementioned press “contemporaries” who had an opinion of Hutchinson that the police did not share.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

That could have come straight from me, Fisherman! That's exactly the way I read it too...exactly. Thanks!

Hi Abby, thanks for the comments on the article find. Obviously I think the interesting bit is Bowyer placing himself at Miller's Court on the morning of MJK's death, and definitely worth looking further at!

Hi Debra
First of all i have to say that I am a little befuddled by the response your important find has elicited. This is IMHO the most important find I have seen since i have been on these boards about a year now and I m quite surprised at the lack of excitement and participation in this thread(I thought and would hope it would be burning up by now). maybe its because it was added to an existing thread? I don't know but it definitely deserves its own thread! As the original idea has died down about possible corroboration with Hutch's A-man, still as you (and I) noted the significance is that Bowyer places himself at the scene of and at the approx time of MK's murder!!!!!!
(Shouts with bullhorn).

C'mon people lets chat about that shall we?!?

[Wickerman]

Dear Abby.
I see the article in question has not been posted in this thread.
In summary Bowyer claims to have been "out at different times", over Thursday night, from the shop (#27) where he worked for McCarthy, to the tap in the Court opposite Kelly's windows, to obtain water.

Bowyer claims that, "early on Friday morning" (no time given) he saw the man, "whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer.", no description given. But, he says he has, "described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid".

Oh, and McCarthy's shop closed at 3:00am, so this sighting was before 3:00am.

Regards, Jon S.

The article was unearthed by Debra Arif.

[Fisherman]

Debra:

"That could have come straight from me, Fisherman! That's exactly the way I read it too...exactly. Thanks!"

Stop thanking me, please - YOU are the one who showed me how to read it!

Wickerman:

"So are you saying that the man seen 'on watch' in Dorset St. by Sarah Lewis at about 2:30 am Friday morning was not Hutchinson, even though he admitted to being their?"

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 donīt mind doing so again. Hereīs the thing:

1. In his testimony, Hutchinson speaks of leaning against lampposts and people with unbuttoned coats - on a night when the weather was very blustery and wet. He has Mary Kelly and Astrakhan man stopping outside Millerīs Court for a three minute leisurley conversation. Now why would they do that - stop out in the street to chat about lost handkerchiefs on a night when we know that the weather was really rugged and bad? Why not get their behinds inside the relative warmth and comfort of Maryīs room as fast as possible instead?
Moreover, we know for certain that it rained heavily at 3 AM on the murder morning - but in spite of this, George Hutchinson tells us that he left the court exactly at the strike of 3 AM - AND SET ABOUT WALKING THE STREETS ALL NIGHT! Now, I donīt know about your preferences, Jon, but I can assure you that I would not have opted for a soaking if I was to spend the night without a bed! I would have gone to ground in the first doorway I could find.

Next up: What people can we pinpoint in Dorset Street on the murder night? And how can we do it? My suggestion is that the best informant in this respect is Sarah Lewis. She tells us that she went to Millers Court at 2.30 on Friday morning, and she sees a young couple, but not only this - she also sees a man standing outside Crossinghams, a man she cannot describe at all to the police - but at the inquest she suddenly suggests that he seemed not tall but stout and wore a wideawake hat. Apparently, she did not get a good look at him, suggesting that she only saw him for a fleeting second. Keep in mind that it may also have been raining, further diminishing her possibilities to make him out.

Now, back to Hutchinson! Did he say who HE saw between 2.15 and 3 AM, as he stood and watched the court? Yes, he did. He told the papers that he saw a policeman and a lodger, and he firmly added that he saw NO OTHER PERSON in the street during his vigil. Which begs the question: What about Sarah Lewis? She entered the narrow street where he was standing from the east, approached him, and made a right turn into Millers Court at 2.30 - the very spot on which Hutchinsonīs gaze was fixed. And still he does not see her! Remarkable, is it not?

Moving on, we learn from the papers that Hutchinson says that he followed Kelly and Astrakhan man into Dorset Street, and that he subsequently went to the court to see if he could see them. This is how he words it in the police report: "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."
I am suggesting that this may well tell us that Hutchinson went NOT to Crossinghams, but instead to the entrance of the court on the northern side of the street, and stood there for 45 minutes. He says nothing at all about Crossinghams at any stage.

Like I have said, I think Hutchinson was hauled in by the police for further investigation at some stage. I think this was due to Abberline recognizing that Hutchinsons description of the murder evening street scenario was a description of a DRY evening. It did not tally with a wet and blustery night. You donīt unbutton coats in miserable weather and you donīt stroll around in pouring rain if you have no bed to sleep in.
I also think that the police must have recognized the absense of Lewis in Hutchinsonīs story. And he could NOT have missed her! So they realized that it did not add up, and simply asked him again. And my guess is that Hutchinson told them that it did not rain on the night, that he did not see any woman entering the court and that he stood on the NORTH side of the street as he watched the court. After that, the police would have realized that he was not there on the murder night. And Walter Dew tells us that this was the only reason he could provide for Hutchinsons testimony - a mistaken day! But he adds that he would never reflect on Hutchinson as a witness, and speaks about him as a man with the best of intentions. Ergo: the police dropped him since he was out on the days in their view, but apparently Hutchinson did not agree. He would have stuck with his conviction that he was there on the murder night - otherwise, Dew would not have treated the affair as unfinished business fifty years later. But nobody, at any stage or in any form, questions George Hutchinsonīs veracity. Fifty years on he still keeps a flawless record in that respect, as asserted by Dew.

So what are we left with? We are left with the seemingly corroborating testimonies of Lewis and Hutchinson that BOTH tell us that there was a man standing in Dorset Street at around 2.30, seemingly looking up the court. Which is why we must ask ourselves whether this proves that the man in question was one and the same! Obviously, if Hutchinson was adamant, speaking to Abberline, that he stood on the north side of the street ONLY throughout his vigil, then we have absolute proof that he could not have been Lewisīman - for that man stood on the SOUTH side, at the door of Crossinghamīs.
We canīt tell if this was the case - but itīs a very fair bet that the question came up!

We know that Hutchinson stood in place for the better part of an hour, and we know that he watched the court as he stood there. We also know that Sarah Lewis said she got the impression that her man looked up the court, as if waiting for someone to come out. But we must couple this knowledge with the fact that she could not describe one single feature of the manīs appearance, speaking initially to the police! So she did NOT get a good look at him. It seems more like a quick glance from the corner of an eye, as far as I can tell, and in my book, that donīt count for much. Itīs not until she steps into the inquest room that she suddenly is able to describe him slightly: not tall but stout, and wearing a wideawake.

Now, do we know about any person that was around on the murder night and who would answer to such a description? Somebody shortish and stout, and wearing such a hat as Lewis describes? Well, we do, actually: Blotchy. HE was shortish, HE was stout, and HE was wearing - according to Cox - a billycock hat. And billycock hats were interchangable with wideawakes, so the dictionaries from the stage tells us. The website http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi...en--1----0-all shows this in an excerpt from 1887 and Webster's dictionary from 1913 defines a "billycock":
A round, low-crowned felt hat; a wideawake.

Aha! So Sarah Lewis - who incidentally may well have been very much aware of Mary Ann Coxīs claim to have seen Kelly in the company of a short, stout man with a wideawake hat only hours before the murder, Mary Ann Cox, who testified before Lewis at the inquest - suddenly describes her loiterer as a man that answers to Coxīs description, right down to the hat, and she adds that he seemingly watched the court. Intriguing, and a very good story - but what was it she had told the police in her original statement? ""when I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset Street ['talking to a female' deleted] but I cannot describe him'."
Not a word about being stout. Not a word about being short. Not a word about any hat, but instead an admittance that she could not describe him. And, most importantly, not a word about any surveillance of the court!

If I was to suggest that we ought perhaps not put too much stock in Lewisī revelations at the inquest, would you protest? If I was to suggest that Sarah Lewis might have taken the chance to shine a little extra in the limelight by leading on that she had seen the killer watching the court, would you be very much upset? I know the Daily News reporters would not! This is their picture of Lewis, given in the paper on the 14:th of November 1888, as they reported from the inquest: "One doleful-looking little body, with a negress-type of features, told how she and another had been frightened by a mysterious stranger who had tried to lure them by the offer of money into a retired spot; but they both took to their heels and ran away. Not much importance was to be attached to this testimony, probably..."

So their picture of Sarah Lewis - for what it was worth - was apparently that a tall tale or two could be expected from her. True or not? Who can say? But we can see that they - in the same paper and on the same day - describe Hutchinson like this: "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 cannot be shaken, and so circumstantial and straightforward were his assertions that the police believe they have at length been placed in possession of facts which will open up a new line of investigation, and probably enable them to track the criminal."

No mocking there! Straightforward and impossible to shake, notwithstanding examination and reexamination (meaning that he was examined more than once, just like I suggest?), he emerges like a beacon of honesty and truthfulness.

So when the fog finally lifts, it would seem that the almighty corroboration built into the so called loiterer has very little going for it. There was a man outside Crossinghams as Sarah Lewis entered Millerīs Court, thatīs all. And how strange is that? He was outside a lodging-house where men resided and he could well and simply have been a lodger. He was also opposite a place where sex for money was to be had, and such places attract punters like sugar attracts flies. If we are to go by the original statement, we donīt know what he looked like or what he did. We just know that he was there. A man. In Dorset Street. At approximately 2.30. 2.29, we donīt know if he was there. 2.31, same thing.

This is how I ended up where Iīm at, Jon. And Iīm not likely to abandon my stance any time soon - for I am convinced that is the most logical one, giving fair and useful answers to all the questions involved: Why the dry scenario, why the missed observation of Lewis, why did Huchinson go for an all-night stroll in what would have been miserable, rainy weather, why does Dew suggest a mistaken day, why was astrakhan man not either dropped or pursued with all the might and power affordable but instead followed up on in a seriously meant but very small manner, why was the press never told the true, embarrassing reason about the policeīs mistake in believing Hutchinson and why is it that long-accepted reasons for seeing corroborations that may not be there must be challenged?

All the best, Jon, Debra!
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Abby -I'm very interested in this, and am following everyone's comments.
I have got a few worries about this info though, which I've already mentioned ;
- Is this line in the Echo the only mention anywhere of Bowyer's supposed sighting ? If so, Why ? Given the high interest in the case..

-where did the paper get it's information ? Not from Bowyer -because Fisherman points out that they got his age wrong, and so they obviously didn't see him.

-Bowyer, having found MJK's body, and working for her landlord who had a shop at the murder site, was obviously the very first person to be questioned by the Police. If he had seen a possible suspect in the court, how is it possible that he didn't speak out at the inquest ? One would think that after seeing the body and living through all the excitement of the Police, journalists,
and crowds flocking around the Court, he wouldn't have been able to think of anything else but the murder and would rack his brains for the merest clue.
It is impossible for me to imagine that he didn't think of this man 'matching the description of the murderer' very quickly indeed.

-Once Hutchinson had come forward with his description, I cannot think that the Police would not think that this was the most likely suspect, if there was a corroboration of sorts by Bowyer ? So why did they very quickly discount Hutchinson ?

-If Hutchinson and Bowyer had both seen a suspect that was a strong contender for being the Ripper, how could Anderson hint that only Lawende had got a good look at 'Jack' ? -and Lawendes description does not tally in any way with the mysterious man seen with Kelly. Anderson was much senior to Dew, and might better reflect Police opinion.

-Why wasn't Bowyer taken around the neighbourhood to try to identify the man he saw (who's collar and cuffs were so unusual -so no astrakhan coat then) ?

As I said before, I'm taking the Echo with a pinch of salt for the moment, and I wonder if the Bowyer story is nothing more than repeated gossip..

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"where did the paper get it's information ? Not from Bowyer -because Fisherman points out that they got his age wrong, and so they obviously didn't see him."

Well, Ruby - actually the Echo states that the information derived from a conversation between an Echo reporter and Bowyer. But since the article speaks of "an Echo reporter", that Echo reporter obviously was not the one that wrote the article.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Well, Ruby - actually the Echo states that the information derived from a conversation between an Echo reporter and Bowyer. But since the article speaks of "an Echo reporter", that Echo reporter obviously was not the one that wrote the article.

The best,
Fisherman

[/QUOTE]

So we're already one step removed. Let's hope that the Echo reporter who spoke to Bowyer really did speak directly to Bowyer and then to the reporter who wrote the article. So many stories start with 'it happened to a friend of mine..' when in reality it is 'a friend of a friend told me..'

I would feel happier if there were different confirmations of Bowyer's story, and quote's 'from the horses mouth..' as there are with Hutchinson.


This doesn't mean that I don't believe the story, but I have some scepticism
in the light of the other points which I raised....but you can address those if you want..

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"As for Schwartz, I can’t recall the Star ever stating explicitly that his account was “discredited”, only that the truth of his statement was not wholly accepted"

Seen this before, Ben, and Iīve always wondered if them words really described Schwartz. Letīs look a fuller quote from that Star article:

"He (Schwartz; my remark) described the man with the woman as about 30 years of age, rather stoutly built, and wearing a brown moustache. He was dressed respectably in dark clothes and felt hat. The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail. He says he was taller than the other, but not so stout, and that his moustaches were red. Both men seem to belong to the same grade of society. The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted."

My feeling here is that the man whose statement is not wholly accepted is the man who had been arrested as a look-alike of one of the two men Schwartz described. Not Schwartz himself, that is. He is invariably described as "the Hungarian" or "the foreigner" throughout the article. Not once is he simply called "the man". Therefore I think we should ascribe the
lacking acceptance on behalf of the police to the man in custody and not to Schwartz.

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

My feeling here is that the man whose statement is not wholly accepted is the man who had been arrested as a look-alike of one of the two men Schwartz described. Not Schwartz himself, that is. He is invariably described as "the Hungarian" or "the foreigner" throughout the article. Not once is he simply called "the man". Therefore I think we should ascribe the
lacking acceptance on behalf of the police to the man in custody and not to Schwartz.

I'm sure that's right as far as the 1 October report goes.

There was a similar statement in the Star on 2 October, which obviously does refer to Schwartz, though:
"In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881002.html

But given the fact that this is contrary to the statement in Swanson's later report, I'm sceptical about it. I wonder if it may even be a regurgitated misreading of the previous day's article.