Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Wickerman]

...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....

Garry.
The police were being bombarded with false accusations and sensationalistic theories. In a perfect world Garry we would like to think they would jump on every potential lead. The reality was, for every 3, 4 or 5 men arrested on suspicion there were an equal 3, 4 or 5 men released.

Put this in some perspective, on Sunday morning, apart from the neighbourhood still being in a state of shock, the authorities had published no suspect description.
Rumours abound, including perhaps Bowyer's sighting, but nevertheless the ordinary constable had nothing tangible to work with. And, on past experience a natural reluctance to leave his post (as explained to Henry Holland on his running to find a PC on Point-Duty at Spitalfields Market).

...
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...

Garry, we don't know what Hutchinson told this policeman. We do know Hutch was of the opinion that, "...My suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer."

So, assuming Hutch was of this same opinion all weekend he may not have suggested to the policeman on Sunday that this 'Toff' was a murderer. Only, that "I have just seen a man who resembles someone I saw the deceased with early Friday morning".

Hutch was not certain of anything at that point, much as he claims later to the police.

...
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,...

No Garry, you are first making and assumption, and then concluding with a judgement based on that assumption.

We can quite reasonably conclude the 'Sunday' PC told Hutch what to do, but Hutch was not convinced he saw the murderer, just that he saw a similar looking person in the crowd(?).
So, he didn't bother going out of his way to report it, besides the man had likely gone off by then. Where would this 'man' have been by the time Hutch had walked to Commercial-Street Station?, I can understand him not being bothered. Why present the police with another wild-goose-chase?, and put himself out as a consequence.

We may also reasonably conclude that he was talked into going to the police by his fellow lodger because of what this lodger had heard via the rumor mill.

Nevertheless, I am simply pointing out that your opinion is based more on a "perfect world scenario" than the realities of the moment.

All the best, Jon S.

[Hunter]

... To my mind, it's abundantly obvious that both The Echo and The Star had received inside information from paid police informants. Since such a practice was illegal, neither paper could be effusive with respect to the specificity of the said information, nor indeed its source. But each was patently aware that Hutchinson had been discredited at a senior police level, and that rival newspapers were attaching undue importance to his Kelly-related claims. Should anyone be in any doubt as to the viability of this suggestion, I would recommend a reading of the 'Inspector Harris' piece submitted by TradeName.

If that was the case, then we should consider this quote, from the Nov. 19th edition of the Echo, page 3:

"...Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion and with a dark moustache. Others are dispersed to think that the shabby man with a blotchy face and a carrotty moustache, described by the witness Mary Ann Cox, is more likely to be the murderer..."

The full article can be read here as posted by Howard Brown in post #4:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=12433

If this article is to be relied upon in the same vein that others are relied upon by some, then it is obvious that certain individuals within the investigation still thought that Hutchinson was a reliable witness.

I'm interested in what 'spin' comes out of this.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I agree with your thoughts regarding Walter Dew and the “confused date”. It is most unlikely that Hutchinson should have misremembered the date of the alleged Romford excursion, especially when it coincided with both Kelly’s murder and the Lord Mayor’s Show.

With regard to the “Sunday policeman” episode, however, Garry is absolutely right. There is simply no realistic possibility of a policeman neglecting not only to escort Hutchinson to the station, but also to make a note of his details preparatory to submitting them to the officials at the station.

There was nothing remotely “natural” about the refusal of Henry Holland’s policeman to abandon his post given the very serious nature of what the former had reported, i.e. another mutilated corpse. It was an inexplicable decision given the circumstance, and the police were heavily criticised for the “senseless system” (The Star - 1st October) of fixed point duties. It may even have been the case that the system was revised some time in September, as PC Lamb’s colleague was quite happy to abandon his station upon learning of the Stride murder. Lamb also observed that:

“Constables at fixed-points leave duty at one in the morning. I believe that is the practice nearly all over London.”

PC Drage also left his fixed point.

Hutchinson’s suspicions, or lack thereof, as to whether or not the man he saw was the murderer are utterly irrelevant. It was still a potential last sighting of Kelly on the morning of her murder in the company of a man. The policeman in question would certainly have appreciated this, and we must remember that Hutchinson claimed to have reported the Sunday episode to the policeman, not just the possible Petticoat Lane sighting with no background explanation. Garry’s point was that it doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense to argue that the policeman in question would absorb the information regarding the Miller’s Court encounter, but fail to take any further action himself. Since the policemen patrolled a delineated beat, Hutchinson had only to state the location and time, and the policeman in question could easily have been traced. Why would a policeman behave with such implausibly baffling negligence if he knew he could so easily be exposed and penalized for it?

Hutchinson’s professed disbelief that Astrakhan was the murderer doesn’t remotely abrogate his obvious responsibility to alert the police about the possible last movements of Kelly with a man on the morning of her death.

Hi Hunter,

Thanks for that article, and to Howard of course.

It doesn’t surprise me that there was dissent amongst the “authorities” with regard to Hutchinson’s account. There were serious differences of opinion concerning most aspects of the case, and universal acceptance of any given view was rare. However, I have to wonder just who, amongst the authorities, continued to place “most reliance” on Hutchinson’s account as late as the 19th, and equally, how much influence at the highest level this had. Anderson and Swanson are obviously ruled out, given their evidently shared belief that the only person to have acquired a “good look” at the murderer was Jewish, and Abberline stated the following in his 1903 Pall Mall Gazette interview:

“One discrepancy only have I noted, and this is that the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty- five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view."

If Abberline continued to endorse Hutchinson by this stage, it is unthinkable that he should have neglected to mention him in the context of Klosowski.

Either way, it is evident that "most reliance" was not ultimately placed on Hutchinson

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Thankyou Ben.
Yes, Dew was in support of Cox's testimony and states that in his opinion Blotchy was Jack the Ripper.
Therefore, all Walter Dew say's with respect to the late sighting by Maxwell & that by Hutchinson is that in his opinion witnesses do confuse date & time. Thats it, no explanation, no theories.
Memoirs can be notoriously unreliable, especially when written half a century after the event.

With regard to the “Sunday policeman” episode, however, Garry is absolutely right. There is simply no realistic possibility of a policeman neglecting not only to escort Hutchinson to the station,......

Ben, Hutchinson was present in Whitechapel all over the weekend, as far as we can tell. He must have come across numerous policeman on their beats day & night, so had multiple opportunities to stop a policeman and tell him what he saw on Friday morning, if he was convinced he saw something worthy. This was not the point of his Sunday morning exchange, something triggered his memory at the market.

The incident what triggered the exchange had to have been the sudden sighting of this similarly dressed individual in the crowd in Middlesex St. (Petticoat Lane).
Therefore, Hutch was not anxious to tell any policeman (he had ample time to do this) what he saw on Friday morning, he was just anxious to tell this policeman that he had just seen someone who looked like the person he saw Friday morning.
There is a distinct difference there.

However, you disagree, I respect that.

All the best, Jon S.

[Ben]

“However, you disagree, I respect that”

Much appreciated, Jon.

Respect is often sorely lacking in Hutchinson debates wherever a point of disagreement surfaces, and a civil exchange of the type we’re having now is most welcome.

It is inconceivable that Hutchinson had not heard of the Kelly murder by Sunday morning. It is further inconceivable that he should have neglected to provide his evidence relating to a potential last sighting of Kelly, purely on the on-the-spot assumption that the man in her company didn’t look like a murderer. Even if Kelly was alone at the time of the alleged sighting, it would still have been crucial evidence - a point that could not have been lost on either the policeman or a putative “honest” Hutchinson.

As soon as Hutchinson discovered that his sighting had occurred very close to the generally accepted time of the murder, it must have occurred to him – if he was an honest witness – that he was probably the last person to see Kelly alive. Hence, if he did alert a policeman as he claimed, he must have provided the salient details of the Friday encounter (with my apologies, I meant “Friday episode” in my previous post, not Sunday), and the police must have taken note of the details accordingly. But the fact that the statement only became known to the police when Hutchinson himself came forward suggests very strongly that the PC encounter never happened.

And tellingly, there is no reference to the Sunday policeman in either the police statement or the accompanying report.

Just going back briefly to the 19th November article, it would seem to confirm my suspicion that Hutchinson was discredited because of doubts about his credibility and not because of any concrete proof that Hutchinson had been wrong. Had the latter been true, it would have made no sense for any of the authorities to place “most reliance” on his description.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

So...

Hutchinson was sufficientlly suspicious of Mr A to hang about and watch and wait; but didn't suspect him to be the murderer. What then, did he suspect him of, exactly?

[Fisherman]

Sorry not to have been around to answer upcoming points before, but here goes:

Wickerman:

"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."

Of course this is Cox we are speaking about, not Lewis - but that´s an aside point.
As for the hard rain falling, you have a point here. Maybe it was not "raining hard" at 3 AM, but instead through the night AFTER three o´clock. My own guess would be that the rain may have helped to drive Cox home, but that may be wrong - but whichever way, the point attached to this rain is that reasonably, George Hutchinson would not have regarded it as useful conditions in which to walk the streets all night!
And that point becomes all the much clearer if we are not speaking of a heavy rain at 3 AM specifically, but instead of a hard rain falling throughout the night after 3 AM! There is no way that an all-night stroll out on the streets would be logical under EITHER circumstances. This remains.

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

How could anyone confuse any day? It is very unpractical - and still we do it. It should be weighed in here that George Hutchinson missed out on a nights sleep - at least! - and sleep deprivation is a key factor in muddling days. And I must press the point that to my mind, George Hutchinson himself did never accept any proposition about a missed day - of course, I do believe that he DID miss out on the days, but as it stands, the implication of Walter Dew´s text is that the police may have been convinced that this was what happened, whereas Hutchinson denied it, making him the perfect parallel of Mrs Maxwell; people with the best of intentions and reputations, people one would not question as to their honesty - but still people who reasonably must have been mistaken.

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

You are ever so welcome, Jon!

Wickerman, again:

"Garry, we don't know what Hutchinson told this policeman. We do know Hutch was of the opinion that, "...My suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer."

So, assuming Hutch was of this same opinion all weekend he may not have suggested to the policeman on Sunday that this 'Toff' was a murderer. Only, that "I have just seen a man who resembles someone I saw the deceased with early Friday morning".

Hutch was not certain of anything at that point, much as he claims later to the police.

We can quite reasonably conclude the 'Sunday' PC told Hutch what to do, but Hutch was not convinced he saw the murderer, just that he saw a similar looking person in the crowd(?).
So, he didn't bother going out of his way to report it, besides the man had likely gone off by then. Where would this 'man' have been by the time Hutch had walked to Commercial-Street Station?, I can understand him not being bothered. Why present the police with another wild-goose-chase?, and put himself out as a consequence.

We may also reasonably conclude that he was talked into going to the police by his fellow lodger because of what this lodger had heard via the rumor mill."

Very good points - and very viable. The argument that it is somehow beyond doubt that Hutch must have lied about the PC encounter on Sunday is not a good one.

Hunter:

"If this article is to be relied upon in the same vein that others are relied upon by some, then it is obvious that certain individuals within the investigation still thought that Hutchinson was a reliable witness.

I'm interested in what 'spin' comes out of this."

My contribution would be to once again ask the question: If astrakhan man was not sought after as the prime suspect, but still not dropped, then what does that tell us? If George Hutchinson was not dropped, WHILE HIS STORY WAS, then what does that tell us? If a man involved in the investigation speaks in his memoirs about Hutchinson as a man on whose truthfulness he would not reflect, then what does that tell us?

Ben:

"If Abberline continued to endorse Hutchinson by this stage (November 19, my remark), it is unthinkable that he should have neglected to mention him in the context of Klosowski.
Either way, it is evident that "most reliance" was not ultimately placed on Hutchinson."

I would once again warn against the assumption that Hutchinson was not relied upon at any stage. There are scores of articles all pointing to the exact opposite: George Hutchinsons testimony was given in a very "straightforward" manner, the man could not "be shaken" in spite of having been examined over and over again, Abberline was of the meaning that Hutchinson was truthful, and Dew fills in the blanks by asserting us, fifty years down the line, that much as Hutchinson got things wrong, his integrity and honesty was never in question.
We now have the Echo - yes, the very same Echo that on the 13:th and the 14:th, respectively pointed to a distrust on behalf of the police visavi Hutchinsons STORY (and NOT visavi the man himself) - telling us that as late as the 19:th, trust was still put in his astrakhan man description. The paper even goes so far as to implicate a sort of tie inbetween the two suspects as presented by Hutch and Cox.

What does that learn us? Well, it learns us that no matter what the true views of the police on this looked like, George Hutchinson was still hanging on to his claim. No admittance to any phony accusations had come from his side, and, judging by what Dew tells us, no such admittance ever arrived: George Hutchinson stuck to his story throughout.

And six days after the Echo had published their first article hinting at his story being doubted, five days after their renewed assertions the following day and four days after the Star bluntly stated that "Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson", the Echo (a paper in the know, a paper that, as has been suggested, probably paid the police to get information, and that was in the know about the discrediting of Hutchinsons story AS A VITAL MURDER NIGHT CLUE), tells us that the hunt for astrakhan man is still going on, alongside the hunt for Blotchy.

Ergo, if this holds true, the police are not at all entertaining any view that Hutchinson had lied to them, or that he was a timewaster or an attention-seeker. No matter how deep we dig in the sources, NOT A SINGLE SCRAP breathes a word of disrespect about George Hutchinson. He is not once accused of any foul play. The evidence for such a suggestion is not only non-existant, but also effectively gainsaid by heaps of material. All we find are renewed assertions that he was truthful and believed. A full week has passed, and we can see that much as doubt has been cast upon the usefulness of Hutchinsons testimony, there is still reliance in the police force that astrakhan man was very real, and one can only conclude that the hunt for him was still on - to some extent at least.

But a full week after Hutch testified, the police must have been very much aware that Lewis lacks in his story. They must know that hard rain would have made an all-night stroll on the streets a very bad choice. They may have had information from Hutchinson telling them that he never once stood outside Crossingham´s - we don´t know, but the possibility is very much there. Thus they would have very good reason, bordering on absolute proof, to believe that George Hutchinson was never in Dorset Street on Friday morning.
And still - still! - they look for astrakhan man! Still he is of interest to a police force that full well would have known that he did NOT put his finery on display outside Millers Court on Friday morning.

Make of that what you will. I make it a very good pointer to astrakhan man remaining a witness the police were very eager to lay there hands on, since they believed in Hutchinson´s story that he had spent time with Kelly - but NOT on Friday morning, but instead on Thursday. That still makes astrakhan man a very interesting source of information, and it´s quite understandable that the police kept looking for him, and believing in him.

"It is inconceivable that Hutchinson had not heard of the Kelly murder by Sunday morning."

No again - it would be out of the ordinary. But out of the ordinary does not equal inconceivable at all. Not nearly, I´m afraid.

Turning it the other way around, I think most people would agree if I suggested that it would be a lot more inconceivable to suggest that nobody, not a living soul, with a link to the East end missed out on the news. Some would have, reasonably - and then that´s it: Why could not Hutchinson have been one of them?
The answer is simple: of course he could have.

Sally:

"Hutchinson was sufficientlly suspicious of Mr A to hang about and watch and wait; but didn't suspect him to be the murderer. What then, did he suspect him of, exactly?"

Not necessarily anything, Sally - he may just have wanted to sneak inside his professed friend Mary Kelly´s room on what was a very cold and rainy night.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Sally,

I strongly suspect that the evasion of awkward questions from the police lay behind his professed non-suspicion of the Astrakhan man. An example of an awkward question might have been: “Why, if you suspected the man of being the murderer, didn’t you alert the police at the time?”

“There are scores of articles all pointing to the exact opposite: George Hutchinsons testimony was given in a very "straightforward" manner”

I realise that, Fisherman, but as we now learn from the Echo, the newspapers that were inclined to give Hutchinson’s account a clean bill of health throughout their reporting of it were clearly expressing sentiments not shared by the police. They discovered this by visiting the Commercial Street police station themselves:

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

The Echo were therefore completely correct to distance themselves from those newspapers who expressed inordinate enthusiasm for Hutchinson’s account, and who optimistically predicted that it may lead to the apprehension of the murderer. That’s not to say it wasn’t “relied upon at any stage”. It is clear that by the late evening of the 12th, at least, Abberline was prepared to “rely” on Hutchinson’s description, which is hardly surprising given the lack of tangible leads. This was not to last, however, as we learn not only from later police memoirs and interviews, but from press sources that we know communicated directly with the police on the subject.

I reject Dew as anything even vaguely resembling an accurate barometer of Hutchinson’s truthfulness. His book was written in 1938, it is riddled with mistakes, and got lots of things terribly wrong. We shouldn’t condemn him for this, however, as it was a compilation of memoirs, and not intended as a fact file on the case. Moreover, he was offering mere speculation and person musings on Hutchinson and certainly not representing the position of the 1888 police as a collective.

But this was all discussed here, as you recall:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5262

I have never disputed that Hutchinson held fast to his version of events. Unfortunately, this shouldn’t be used to gauge honesty either. Depending on his motivation for coming forward, he may have considered that his very mortality necessitated holding fast to his story, whether it was true or not.

Nowhere it is stated in the 19th November edition of the Echo that “the hunt for astrakhan man is still going on”. There is no evidence that this occurred, and plenty of indications to the contrary. All they observed was that some of the authorities continued to place “most reliance” on the Astrakhan description supplied by Hutchinson, evidently in spite of the fact that the statement had been “considerably discounted”. What isn’t specified is just who amongst the authorities towed this line, and more importantly, how much influence their beliefs had on the direction of the investigation. My strong suspicion would be “not much” given the later communications with police officials such as Abberline, Anderson and Swanson – the inference from which is that these men ultimately placed no such “reliance” upon Hutchinson.

The article confirms two other suspicions of mine:

1) That whatever the truth about Hutchinson’s statement and motivation for coming forward, the police were clearly not in the know. They were left to opine and speculate only on the basis of the evidence. This is shown by the divergent views amongst the “authorities” with regard to Hutchinson. The nature of the doubts were clearly concerned with the question of his honesty, or else they would hardly have cited his late arrival and bypassing the opportunity to be quizzed “under oath” as a reason for discounting him.

2) There was never any proof of “different days” or “honest mistakes” or even a suspicion amongst the contemporary police that this happened. No sane human being, let alone police official, is going to attach “most reliance” to a witness sighting that they know or suspect relates to the wrong day, while placing less reliance on those that actually applied to the night of the murder.

There is no evidence that the police ever noted Sarah Lewis’ absence from Hutchinson statement, as we’ve argued at length on other threads. As for the weather, yes, as I’ve said before it doesn’t ring true that he strolled about in the rain “all night”, and I regard this a yet another implausible component to a largely fabricated statement.

The idea that Hutchinson found himself in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning still oblivious to news of Kelly murder is borderline impossible, for very obvious reasons. I don’t envy anyone who needs this to be true in order to bolster his/her arguments. If I were to allow once instance of intervention from the Thought Police in ripper discussions, this would have to be it.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I realise that, Fisherman, but as we now learn from the Echo, the newspapers that were inclined to give Hutchinson’s account a clean bill of health throughout their reporting of it were clearly expressing sentiments not shared by the police. They discovered this by visiting the Commercial Street police station themselves:

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

Ben, you are now stepping for the umpteenth time into the exact same trap as you have visited on numerous occasions already: The police do not attach so much importance TO THIS DOCUMENT as some of our contemporaries do. That means that what doubt there was - and clearly there WAS doubt - was focused on the testimony as such, and NOT on George Hutchinson. He remains in the clear throughout! Nobody has a derogatory thing to say about this alledged killer/liar/timewaster/attentionseeker, not 1888, not 1938 and not inbetween.

I think that the Echo fully accepted that there was something very much amiss with Hutchinsons story, but I also think that if it had been at some stage as much as gleaned that his character had flaws to it, that would have been passed on to us. But no, a man of truth, of consequence, an unshaken man in spite of repeated questioning, straightforward and displaying a military appearance, not cowering for a split second - there´s George Hutchinson for you, for me, for Abberline the papers and Dew.

"I reject Dew as anything even vaguely resembling an accurate barometer of Hutchinson’s truthfulness."

Then you are out on very deep and murky waters, Ben - for this was a policeman tied to the investigation, hailed as one of the best detectives Britain has shaped.

"His book was written in 1938, it is riddled with mistakes, and got lots of things terribly wrong."

I have politely asked you to refrain from this, and if there is anything to your earlier remark about lacking respect on the threads, I suggest you have the decency to do so.

"Nowhere it is stated in the 19th November edition of the Echo that “the hunt for astrakhan man is still going on”."

No. But if there were two camps in the police, one supporting the Blotchy path, and the other the astrakhan trail, the conclusion that it was followed up on becomes inescapable, more or less. And actually, since we are speaking of the Echo of November 19, let´s have a look at the colleague that also spoke of a discredited Hutchinson: The Star. In it, on the same day (November 19), we can read:

"Considerable excitement was caused in London yesterday by the circulation of a report that a medical man had been arrested at Euston, upon arrival from Birmingham, on a charge of suspected complicity in the Whitechapel murders. It was stated that the accused had been staying at a common lodging-house in Birmingham since Monday last, and the theory was that if, as was supposed by the police, he was connected with the East-end crimes, he left the metropolis by an early train on the morning of the tragedies. The suspected man was of gentlemanly appearance and manners, and somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been seen in company with Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered. Upon being minutely questioned as to his whereabouts at the time of the murders, the suspect was able to furnish a satisfactory account of himself, and was accordingly liberated."

Well, well! This does not sound very Blotchy to me. What about you, Ben? Don´t you think that the man they are alluding to, "the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been seen in company with Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered" sounds a whole lot more like astrakhan fellow? "Of gentlemanly appearance and manners", they say.

This, Ben, seems a very good example that there was an ongoing hunt for astrakhan man at the same stage as the Echo wrote about the split decision in the police force inbetween Blotchy and mr A. But if I am correct, they did not want this man for murder - they wanted him for information. And actually, what is said in the article from the Star is that they nailed him on suspicion of complicity! Make of that what you will - as long as you realize that the interest and the pursuit of it was there on behalf of astrakhan man.

"whatever the truth about Hutchinson’s statement and motivation for coming forward, the police were clearly not in the know. They were left to opine and speculate only on the basis of the evidence."

And that may have taken them very far. They may have felt sure themselves, but they would not have been able to persuade Hutchinson to agree, and left it at that. No hard feelings, and get on with it, thus.
But rest assured that IF there had been suspicions of foul play, they would not have let go of their grip!

"The nature of the doubts were clearly concerned with the question of his honesty"

Nope, njet, nej, nein - their interest would have lain in the value of the story, and nothing else. And THAT was discarded. Hutchinsons honesty - well, we have already dealt with that. The man was impeccable honestywise, as far as papers and police were concerned. And that´s why the let him go and spoke favourably of him fifty years later.

"There was never any proof of “different days” or “honest mistakes”"

Quite possibly, no! No absolute proof, at any rate. But what there was, was enough to clear Hutchinsons story out of the way. He MAY have suffered a temporary amnesia when Lewis passed him in the streets. He MAY have been given to nightly walks in pouring rain, etcetera. But the police would have been very reluctant to accept that this happened. And so they told him to go home.

"... or even a suspicion amongst the contemporary police that this happened."

Just how do you "know" this? Who told you what the police suspected or not at the stage? Can I talk to that source too?

"No sane human being, let alone police official, is going to attach “most reliance” to a witness sighting that they know or suspect relates to the wrong day, while placing less reliance on those that actually applied to the night of the murder."

Sanity, Ben? Would a "sane" police force not follow up on a tip, identifying a punter in company of a woman prostitute who was slain the day after? The Echo tells us that the police seriously followed up on the astrakhan tip, but nowhere is it said that they pursued it as the main ore, is it? No, it is instead said that the tip is followed up on IN SPITE of the misgivings that Hutchinson´s story is all it claims to be. The story was therefore interesting and true - but not the full Monty.

"There is no evidence that the police ever noted Sarah Lewis’ absence from Hutchinson statement"

Didn´t you speak of sane human beings just now...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“That means that what doubt there was - and clearly there WAS doubt - was focused on the testimony as such, and NOT on George Hutchinson.”

This strikes me a rather bizarre distinction to make, Fisherman. You can’t just dislocate a statement from its source like that, and it’s clear that the authorities did nothing of the kind. The statement was “considerably discounted” in part because of Hutchinson’s failure to attend the inquest where he could have been quizzed “under oath”. How could they have cited this reason for discounting his statement unless they entertained doubts about his credibility?

As I’ve already said, there would be no logic rationale in observing: “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. This is a startlingly obvious conclusion based on the reason cited by the police for discrediting Hutchinson’s account, which was later divulged to the Echo. Clearly there were elements within the police force that disagreed with this conclusion, but this should come as no surprise in the absence of total proof.

I’m not sure quite what “sticking to a story”, having a military appearance and not “cowering” have to do with anything, but if you think liars aren’t able to maintain a convincing composure and consistency, I’m afraid you’re being somewhat unimaginative.

“Then you are out on very deep and murky waters, Ben - for this was a policeman tied to the investigation, hailed as one of the best detectives Britain has shaped”

I’m not in deep and murky waters at all, because as you’ve previously advised me:

“if we are to sharpen the picture of what happened back in 1888, Walter Dew is not necessarily the best tool for going about it”

Great advice. I think I’ll take it.

“I have politely asked you to refrain from this, and if there is anything to your earlier remark about lacking respect on the threads, I suggest you have the decency to do so.”

Refrain from what?

Quoting you directly?

I politely refuse, because it’s not the slightest bit “disrespectful”, there’s no rule against it, and I can’t see why you should be bothered by it. It was after all, what you said. If you don’t want me to keep reminding you about your previous comments on Dew, then perhaps you should accede to the request I’ve made on numerous occasions not to keep bringing Dew into every exchange on Hutchinson. My responses on that subject are going to be the same every time, so it seems rather pointless to repeat yourself.

“No. But if there were two camps in the police, one supporting the Blotchy path, and the other the astrakhan trail, the conclusion that it was followed up on becomes inescapable, more or less.”

I disagree. The Echo merely reported the thought patterns of the authorities at the time, not the action taken as a consequence.

“Don’t you think that the man they are alluding to, "the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been seen in company with Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered" sounds a whole lot more like astrakhan fellow?”

No, of course I don’t think that.

Hutchinson wasn’t at the inquest, and the Echo, who reported the same story on the same day (19th) were well aware of that fact. Indeed, they had alluded to his absence from the inquest on two successive days of reporting. The Echo observed that the man “somewhat resembled the description given my witnesses at the late inquest”. Obviously this wasn’t a reference to the Astrakhan man, but a description that emerged from the inquest – possibly the one Sarah Lewis provided of her man from Bethnal Green Road. Lewis was the only witness to use the word “gentleman” in the context of her sighting.

“But rest assured that IF there had been suspicions of foul play, they would not have let go of their grip!”

Highly doubtful. More likely, he was dismissed in the same fashion as other witnesses suspected of supplying false information deliberately, i.e. without being “punished”.

“He MAY have suffered a temporary amnesia when Lewis passed him in the streets. He MAY have been given to nightly walks in pouring rain, etcetera. But the police would have been very reluctant to accept that this happened. And so they told him to go home.”

Go home and stop lying to the police, most likely. I never said anything about “temporary amnesia”. I suggested that he deliberately avoided any reference to Lewis and that he simply lied about strolling in the rain all night.

“The Echo tells us that the police seriously followed up on the astrakhan tip, but nowhere is it said that they pursued it as the main ore, is it?”

It said that some of the authorities still placed “most reliance” on Hutchinson’s description, and it would be absurdly illogical to place “most” reliance on a witness who had confused the date and therefore didn’t even see the victim on the night of her death.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

I strongly suspect that the evasion of awkward questions from the police lay behind his professed non-suspicion of the Astrakhan man. An example of an awkward question might have been: “Why, if you suspected the man of being the murderer, didn’t you alert the police at the time?”

Exactly.

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

... As for the weather, yes, as I’ve said before it doesn’t ring true that he strolled about in the rain “all night”, and I regard this a yet another implausible component to a largely fabricated statement....

I find it a little strange that no-one see's that this is just a generic phrase. "Wandering or walking around all night", when you've just walked up from Romford is hardly to be taken literally.

All Hutch is saying is that he had nowhere to sleep. So whether he crouched in doorways, or dossed in alleyways, he was essentially out on the streets all night. I expect we can all rest assured that Hutchinson rested wherever he could due to having no roof over his head, because his regular doss was closed.

Regards, Jon S.

[The Bounder]

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.

Why would GH feel the need to make a Astrakhan man up if he had seen MJK go off with a real punter? Why wouldn't he just tell the police a real description of the actual punter?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"This strikes me a rather bizarre distinction to make, Fisherman. You can’t just dislocate a statement from its source like that, and it’s clear that the authorities did nothing of the kind."

On the contrary - if this distinction is NOT made, a discrediting of a STORY will inevitably be followed by the discrediting of the witness that told it. Which - of course - is exactly what you do, Ben. Then again, you do take liberties en masse, one of them being to state that "it is clear that the authorities did nothing of the kind".

This is not in any manner clear, as anybody familiar with the material will realize: it may very well be that the police came to regard the evidence given by Hutchinson as unattached to the murder night, but otherwise given in good faith. We know that at least one policeman attached to the case was of this exact opinion, and we know of no policeman attached to the same case that expressed any doubts whatsoever about Hutchinsons veracity. And that, Ben, like it or not, means that you have nothing at all to show for your assertion. It´s a fabrication, quite simply.

"As I’ve already said, there would be no logic rationale in observing: “Hutchinson only came forward after the inquest, so therefore he must be a decent, honest, charmingly befuddled idiot”. "

What science are you dabbling with here? Who has said suggested such a thing? I know I haven´t. So why manufacture a claim that was never there? Please elaborate!

"the likelihood is that after contemplating his absence from the inquest, they came to the conclusion that he was a two-a-penny fabricator."

Once again, Ben: After contemplating his absence from the inquest, Frederick Abberline concluded that his story was truthful and diligently alerted the police force. It is not impossible that further afterthought about that particular detail may have caused Abberline to ask himself whether that was the right move or not, but it is a very brazen suggestion to think that he went from a self-confessed devotee to an utter and complete mistrust over a period of a day with no other ingredients added.
These things do not happen in the real world. Abberlines verdict was based on years of experience and a thorough interrogation of Hutchinson, and it can only be concluded that some other element/s were added to cause the discarding. So your "startlingly obvious conclusion" is startlingly illogical if anything. But this I have told you before!

"Clearly there were elements within the police force that disagreed with this conclusion"

Yes, you know that now, don´t you? And this in spite of how "startlingy obvious" it all was! Startlingy silly buggers!

"I’m not sure quite what “sticking to a story”, having a military appearance and not “cowering” have to do with anything, but if you think liars aren’t able to maintain a convincing composure and consistency, I’m afraid you’re being somewhat unimaginative."

Oh, that´s how you see it! I fail to realize that people may lie, is that it? Well, Ben, then I ought to make myself more clear: The significance of my quoting about the military appearance and the absense of any cowering lies in this belonging to the impression Hutch made back in 1888. THAT was the context in which I mentioned it, remember? I was NOT discussing people´s propensity to lie or not, I was listing the details attaching to the impression given by George Hutchinson, to point out that he was a man who had an air of integrity and truthfulness around him.
I am very well aware that impressions may deceive, and I´m sure that it would be both rewarding and interesting to discuss the topic with you at some stage, but it should not have been applied to the discussion at this stage.

"If you don’t want me to keep reminding you about your previous comments on Dew..."

Go ahead, Ben - you can mention it any time you want, as long as you mention IT ALL. It makes for a more just approach, and you HAVE spoken up for a more respectful debating climate. So please...?

"The Echo merely reported the thought patterns of the authorities at the time, not the action taken as a consequence."

Aha. So the authorities THOUGHT that astrakhan man was a very hot lead - but they did not act on it? Thanks for telling me. I could have gotten that terribly wrong otherwise.

"Obviously this wasn’t a reference to the Astrakhan man, but a description that emerged from the inquest – possibly the one Sarah Lewis provided of her man from Bethnal Green Road."

Yeah, right - since that man was reported to have been "in the company of Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered".
You do not for a second think that this was anything but a misphrasing, hmmm? No?

"Highly doubtful."

It is "highly doubtful" that they would have been very disinterested in letting Hutchinson go if he was under suspicion of foul play...?

"Go home and stop lying to the police, most likely."

Eh, no - they had him down as honest, see, from Abberline to Dew. Your thoughts are fabrication whereas Abberlines and Dews views are recorded facts.

"It said that some of the authorities still placed “most reliance” on Hutchinson’s description, and it would be absurdly illogical to place “most” reliance on a witness who had confused the date and therefore didn’t even see the victim on the night of her death."

It could have been more than that - they could have felt completely convinced that astrakhan man was real. In such a case, why would they not rely on Hutchinsons description? If we are to compare with Cox, maybe the police did not place as much reliance in her testimony for some reason. We know what the Daily News had to say about Lewis and Prater - they put no stock in their assertions whatsoever, it would seem. Cox may well have been regarded with a lot less confidence than Hutchinson, and then that would be it: Most reliance was placed on his shoulders.
It is another thing altogether that the police may have placed more urgency on Cox´s tip as time passed and it became obvious that Hutchinsons story may not have been connected to the murder night.

I´d like to round things of, if I may, by once again asking you a question you have left unanswered. In your former post, you wrote: "There was never any proof of “different days” or “honest mistakes” or even a suspicion amongst the contemporary police that this happened."

...and I really fail to see where this information derives from. I have gone through the sources as best as I could without finding it. It is apparent that you know for certain that no suspicion was ever there on behalf of the police that Hutchinson had mistaken the days or made an honest mistake, and it would of course therefore be of essence to secure the sources you use here! Don´t hesitate to provide them, Ben, for it will help your cause tremendeously. Once you have done it, I will have a very hard time pressing my take on things. Sad, of course, since I really think I had a very useful theory, but I would not want any personal convictions of mine stand in the way of the truth.

On the other hand, if you do not have any sources to provide, then I must regard this claim of yours as totally substanceless - untrue, in fact - and a complete waste of time.

So which is it? A true and useful addition to the discussion, supported by accessible sources, or a fabrication on your behalf?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

"I find it a little strange that no-one see's that this is just a generic phrase. "Wandering or walking around all night", when you've just walked up from Romford is hardly to be taken literally."

This is how Hutchinson phrased it: "After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed."

If he had said that he "took to the streets" I would have been more inclined to agree with you, Jon. But people who say that they have walked about all night are not people who have gone to ground in a doorway and stayed there, I think. That is not something you phrase "I walked about all night", is it? And still, going to ground and getting out of the rain and staying there would be the only logical thing to do!
Nor do I believe that he would have moved from doorway to doorway - if he HAD decided on sheltering and getting some rest, why would he?

As for not wanting to walk about after having made the trek to Romford; yes, that would be correct. He probably did not WANT to do it, but it was a November night, so the walking would have provided some useful warmth. And if he was there, as I believe, on Wednesday night, then the weather was perfectly dry, meaning that you could walk the streets without getting soaked. It adds up.

The best,
Fisherman