Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Hunter]

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

Hi Fisherman,

While the above statement could be true, I fail to see where that supports your theory that Hutchinson had gotten the night wrong... for on the previous night, these were not the weather conditions.

[Fisherman]

Haha - completely correct, of course! It is getting harder and harder to keep things apart, and I have already stumbled over the dates a couple of times, so thanks for pointing it out!
Well, let´s look away from the "rainy" bit then, and just say that anybody without a bed and in need of a place to crash could be interested in sharing a room with a friend - no matter if it is a comparatively dry and nice night, a bed - or a place on the floor inside a room, who knows - will have the upper hand over a doorway ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

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

Fish:

Hutchinson in his statement to the press:

My suspicions were aroused by seeing a man so well dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer

Does that make sense? Tell me how it makes sense.

If he didn't suspect Mr Astrakhan of being the murderer, then what did he suspect him of?

[Ben]

“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.”

There are too many very strong indications against it, Fisherman.

One of the main reasons cited for the discrediting of Hutchinson’s account was his failure to attend the inquest where he could have been quizzed “under oath”, and for failing to provide his evidence until three days after the murder. This reason is inextricably linked to the question of Hutchinson’s integrity. How can it not be? Quite simply, you do not “discount” a witness statement because of the failure of its originator to come forward prior to the inquest unless you entertain doubts about his credibility and/or motivation for coming forward.

This information was obtained directly from the Commercial Street police station in order to clarify some of the confusion created by other newspapers, and amounts to clear evidence of doubt on the part of the police as to Hutchinson’s credibility. That is unless, of course, we want to resist the obvious and inescapable inference expounded above.

“Once again, Ben: After contemplating his absence from the inquest, Frederick Abberline concluded that his story was truthful and diligently alerted the police force.”

I see we’re in “once again” mode, where previous assertions are repeated as though they were never addressed. I’d better look through the last few pages of this thread and find out where I addressed this previously. Ah yes, here we are: Once again, Fisherman, I think everyone is well aware that Abberline initially “concluded that his story was truthful and diligently alerted the police force”, but over the next few days it clearly transpired that Hutchinson’s account had been discredited, owing in part to his three day delay in delivering his evidence. The latter information was obtained directly from the police, so it’s frankly irrelevant if you don’t accept it. It’s only incredible to those who labour under the inexplicable delusion that Abberline was the sole mouthpiece and final arbiter of the Met. To everyone else (I'd dearly hope), it’s an unremarkable feature of a police investigation, with opinions being revised and later inquiries casting doubt upon previously held convictions.

We can only guess at the reasons for these doubts surfacing after Abberline sent a message indicating his initial approval. Perhaps his police superiors and recipients of his missive were sceptical of his conclusion. Whatever, the sequence of events is to the effect that the “authorities” considerably discounted Hutchinson’s story for reasons that included his delay in presenting his evidence.

Whenever you repeat a previously challenged assertion, I think that’s what I’ll do in future – just reproduce my earlier response.

“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”

If you’re “well aware” of this, why bother listing those details? With regard to “the impression Hutch made back in 1888”, we know it was one of a witness whose statement was discredited in part because of his late arrival in providing his evidence and non-attendance at the inquest.

“It makes for a more just approach, and you HAVE spoken up for a more respectful debating climate.”

You can’t just demand respect without according any to others. You accused me of “fabricating” three times in your post, and to “fabricate” means to concoct with the intention of deceiving – lying in other words. I’d cut back on those sorts of accusations.

“So the authorities THOUGHT that astrakhan man was a very hot lead - but they did not act on it?”

No, some of the authorities thought so, but it was not acted upon, presumably because their opinions didn’t have enough sway to influence the direction of the investigation, or because the more senior officials disagreed.

“Yeah, right - since that man was reported to have been "in the company of Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered".

This was not mentioned in the 19th November Echo article, which reported simply that: “He was of a gentlemanly appearance and manners, and somewhat resembled the description given by witnesses at the late inquest” Since the Echo new full well that Hutchinson did not attend the inquest, this is most emphatically not a reference to the Astrakhan description.

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

I don’t think he was suspected of “foul play”. I suggest he was dismissed – wrongly but quite understandably – as a publicity-seeker a la Packer and Violenia.

“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”

They’re not “recorded facts”. They are recorded views. The logical inference is that Abberline revised his, and Dew’s isn’t supported by anything more compelling that his own highly speculative musings.

“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?”

Because, according to your version of events, Hutchinson was out by an entire day. Unless the policemen in question were unutterably dense, there is no way that they would place MOST reliance on an eyewitness sighting that didn’t even apply to the night of her murder. Compared to the Echo, which obtained information and opinions directly from the police, the Daily News were expressing their own worthless, non-police-endorsed opinions. They appeared to consider Lewis’ evidence “unimportant” purely because of her physical appearance!

“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!”

Why don’t you read and absorb the points discussed on the thread and in the Echo rather than demanding the sort of repetition that you seem intent on engaging in? We know the major reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting because it was obtained directly from the police, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with an “honest mistake” or a “confused night” or anything of that nature. A statement that is “considerably discounted” because of its author’s delay in coming forward without being pressed under “oath” is obviously the subject of doubts surrounding the credibility of the source, otherwise the reference to “oaths” is rendered meaningless and irrelevant, and yet it was there.

I think you need to be circumspect and acknowledge that these recently provided Echo articles aren’t particularly helpful to the conclusions you arrived at in your Casebook Examiner article.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Does that make sense? Tell me how it makes sense.

If he didn't suspect Mr Astrakhan of being the murderer, then what did he suspect him of?"

I see what you are getting at, Sally - but I still think that he may not have suspected him of anything at all. Arguably, being that well dressed did not equal any criminal agenda in the East end; it was just unusual. And in this case, my hunch is that "my suspicions were aroused" simply means that Hutchinson was surprised.
An alternative take on it would perhaps be that the initial "suspicion" he felt was grounded on the rumour that the killer may have been a well dressed "doctor type" - but on second thoughts, he did not think that this man seemed harmful. I guess that´s a possibility.

Whichever way, the point pressed is that Hutchinson ultimately - at the very least - decided that the astrakhan man would not have been of a murderous mind.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"One of the main reasons cited for the discrediting of Hutchinson’s account was his failure to attend the inquest where he could have been quizzed “under oath”, and for failing to provide his evidence until three days after the murder. This reason is inextricably linked to the question of Hutchinson’s integrity. How can it not be? Quite simply, you do not “discount” a witness statement because of the failure of its originator to come forward prior to the inquest unless you entertain doubts about his credibility and/or motivation for coming forward."

Well, this time you say something I very much agree with: you do not “discount” a witness statement because of the failure of its originator to come forward prior to the inquest. Once we have established that, our main quibble about the issue is behind us!

Then you add: "... unless you entertain doubts about his credibility and/or motivation for coming forward." And that is also something I agree with; if you entertain doubts about the character of a witness, THEN a failure to come forward in time for an inquest may be regarded differently than if you trust your witness to be of good character.

Yes. True.

... but why are we making any assumptions that the police would have distrusted Hutchinson? THAT is where I feel you muddle up the points of time too - for if we have no reason or sign to think that Hutchinson DID make a bad impression, then we ought not believe that the police did see his late arrival as any further sign of a flawed character. And we HAVE no such signs or reasons - all we have is the actors in the drama cheering Hutchinson on, hailing him as a straightforward, unshaken man with a truthful agenda.

If someone - anyone - had had one bad word to say about him, it may have given us reason to look at him differently, but no - all the papers, all the policemen who describe him, describe an honest man. And to boot, Dew tells us that this impression remained with him fifty years on. So much as you raise good points and present valuable guidelines, we have no reason at all to choose Hutchinson the liar and perceived timewaster over Hutchinson the honestly mistaken man. On the contrary. Both could be true - but only one tallies with the judgements we have about him!

"I think everyone is well aware that Abberline initially “concluded that his story was truthful and diligently alerted the police force”, but over the next few days it clearly transpired that Hutchinson’s account had been discredited"

Yes. Absolutely. As long as you don´t say that HUTCHINSON was discredited, but instead his account, I have nothing to add. This was what happened.

"It’s only incredible to those who labour under the inexplicable delusion that Abberline was the sole mouthpiece and final arbiter of the Met."

Whoever THAT may be - but the fact remains that Abberline was the perhaps best card the police had to play investigationwise! He was streetwise and cunning, and had loads of experience. His word would have carried immense weight. And when he said that he thought Hutchinson was honest and his story truthful, he would have done so on very good grounds, I think.

"You can’t just demand respect"

... which is why I said "please". That is not demanding - it is asking.

"No, some of the authorities thought so, but it was not acted upon"

This you simply don´t know, so you may as well admit it...!

"They’re not “recorded facts”.

Rephrased then: It is a fact that Abberline and Dew went on record endorsing Hutchinsons truthfulness.

"Unless the policemen in question were unutterably dense, there is no way that they would place MOST reliance on an eyewitness sighting that didn’t even apply to the night of her murder."

This is not a case of the policemen being dense, Ben. The police may STILL have placed more reliance on Hutch than on Cox. That is not to say that they accepted the Hutch story as a murder night story - only that they may have relied more on what he told them to be true as to the story but probably not the date, whereas Cox may have evoked very little trust as such.

"Compared to the Echo, which obtained information and opinions directly from the police, the Daily News were expressing their own worthless, non-police-endorsed opinions. They appeared to consider Lewis’ evidence “unimportant” purely because of her physical appearance!"

So it would seem, more or less - but I think we may need to weigh in the manner of speaking, the quality of the material told and a good deal of experience reporting from courts on behalf of the journalists too. And in that case, we may need to pay attention to what was said!

"We know the major reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting because it was obtained directly from the police"

No. We know that this was the only reason the police provided the press with, albeit we both admit that there would have been other reasons too. "You do not “discount” a witness statement because of the failure of its originator to come forward prior to the inquest", remember? So we are dealing with more elements here, and we cannot rate their importance since we do not know them.

"I think you need to be circumspect and acknowledge that these recently provided Echo articles aren’t particularly helpful to the conclusions you arrived at in your Casebook Examiner article."

I am all for being circumspect - but I fail to see your point here. The article in the Echo does in no way detract from the possibility of a mistaken day on Hutchinsons behalf. If the article does anything, it shows us that belief was invested in Hutchinson as late as a week after he testified. If he had been a timewaster in the eyes of the police, that would not have been the case, I´d say!

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi All,
I for the life of me , cannot grasp a scenerio which has a wrong day theory, we might as well suggest that Cadoush/Mrs Long/ Lawande/ or for that matter any witness to any of the murders, simply got it wrong.
The police were not fools, Hutchinson would have been checked out completely, his alibi/ or lack of it, would have at least satisfied them, especially the friday morning appearence at the Victoria home.
We cannot know the true reason why, he followed Mjk and Astracan, but without entering the realms of 'B Movie'' speculation, the truth is proberly what he stated, he was concerned, and curious.
I am sorry Fisherman, but I believe Hutch, saw what he saw on the morning of the 9th, however not her killer, he appeared hours later.... the nasty market porter.?
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

... And in this case, my hunch is that "my suspicions were aroused" simply means that Hutchinson was surprised...

Agreed, thats how I see it too.
Three simple possibilities:
1) My suspicions were aroused at seeing Mary Kelly with such a well dressed gent.
2) My suspicions were aroused at seeing such a well dressed gent in this part of town (Dorset St.)
3) My suspicions were aroused at seeing Mary with a gent who looks remarkably like that weirdo who has been accosting women (Sarah Lewis' story) as supplied by the rumor mill.

Any more, for any more?
Regards, Jon S.

[FrankO]

And in this case, my hunch is that "my suspicions were aroused" simply means that Hutchinson was surprised.

That was exactly what Hutchinson said according to Abberline’s report of 12 November, Fish: “Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them.”

However, it’s one thing to think Mr. A. stood out in Kelly’s company, but quite another to go out of your way to disturb the couple and look the man in the face, take in as much details as you can about him, follow the couple and wait for 45 minutes in bad weather. Surprise just seems too little to warrant that kind of action.

An alternative take on it would perhaps be that the initial "suspicion" he felt was grounded on the rumour that the killer may have been a well dressed "doctor type" - but on second thoughts, he did not think that this man seemed harmful. I guess that´s a possibility.

Whichever way, the point pressed is that Hutchinson ultimately - at the very least - decided that the astrakhan man would not have been of a murderous mind.

Maybe so, Fish, but at some point – sooner rather than later – he learned that Kelly had actually been brutally butchered and, quite probably, not long after he’d left his watch, and what did he do then? Nothing. He wavered for a couple of days. That don't fit.

All the best,
Frank

[Ben]

Very good points, Frank, and good to see you here!

“Surprise” at the Astrakhan man’s clothing and appearance does seem rather too thin an explanation for stooping down and peering into his face, thence to sustain a 45 minute vigil outside Kelly’s home in anticipation of the same man re-emerging from Miller’s Court. And as Sally points out, what is there to be “suspicious” of (Hutchinson's expression) if not the possibility that the man was the murderer?

Best regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

To say nothing of loitering outside Mary Jane's room in an attempt to 'see or hear anything' from within.

[Ben]

“Well, this time you say something I very much agree with: you do not “discount” a witness statement because of the failure of its originator to come forward prior to the inquest.”

But this is precisely what did happen, Fisherman, as my previous post went on to describe in detail.

Moreover, this outcome only has any validity if the police harboured doubts about Hutchinson’s honesty and motivation for coming forward. Otherwise it makes no sense for the police to have cited his failure to appear at the inquest “under oath” as a reason for discounting his statement. What I find confusing is that you appear to acknowledge this obvious commonsense reality, but then you go straight back to repeating the mantra about Hutchinson being championed as a “straightforward, unshaken man with a truthful agenda”. This makes me wonder if perhaps you are still missing the point, which is that if the police came to discredit Hutchinson’s statement on account of his failure to come forward earlier and attend the inquest under oath, they cannot have considered Hutchinson himself to have been an honest, squeaky clean witness.

This most assuredly qualifies as a “bad word to say about him” because a failure to come forward soon after the murder and before the inquest impacts very directly and very negatively on the question of Hutchinson’s integrity, whereas it has nothing whatsoever to do with any putative “honestly mistaken wrong night” theory. Inferentially, therefore, the police clearly concluded that he was a “liar and perceived timewaster” and not an “honestly mistaken man”.

“He was streetwise and cunning, and had loads of experience. His word would have carried immense weight.”

But “loads of experience” of what?

He was a respected detective in a nascent police force with no experience of serial killers and serial killer investigations, and as I mentioned earlier with my allusion to his 1903 Pall Mall Gazette interview, it seems very likely that at some point between the 12th November 1888 and 1903, he revised this positive opinion of Hutchinson and threw in his lot with the “discreditors”.

“The police may STILL have placed more reliance on Hutch than on Cox.”

But it would be disastrously irrational for any police official to have taken this line if they knew that Cox’s description applied to the night of Kelly’s murder and that George “Wrong Night” Hutchinson’s did not. There is not the slightest indication that Cox’s evidence was ever “distrusted” as you ought really to accept if you’re relying on the 1938 views of Walter Dew, who accepted her Blotchy man as the likely murderer.

"You do not “discount” a witness statement because of the failure of its originator to come forward prior to the inquest", remember?”

My full sentence reads as follows:

“you do not “discount” a witness statement because of the failure of its originator to come forward prior to the inquest unless you entertain doubts about his credibility and/or motivation for coming forward.”

“If the article does anything, it shows us that belief was invested in Hutchinson as late as a week after he testified. If he had been a timewaster in the eyes of the police, that would not have been the case, I´d say!”

It shows us that "some" elements within the police force (probably a less than influential minority, judging from subsequent police commentary) continued to endorse Hutchinson’s description as both truthful and accurate, and this would never have occurred had it been established that Hutchinson was a hapless unwitting date-confounder.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Hi Frank! Nice to see you around!

"at some point – sooner rather than later – he learned that Kelly had actually been brutally butchered and, quite probably, not long after he’d left his watch, and what did he do then? Nothing. He wavered for a couple of days. That don't fit."

... is what you write, but I must point out that "sooner or later" involves a lot of possibilities, timingwise. After that, you say that he "quite probably" found out about Mary not long after he had left his watch, and that seem to me to drop the "later" on behalf of the "sooner" - and why would we do that, without knowing what happened and when he found out.

Others have made the same point that you do, and it is a very rational point. Coming from you, I´d expect no less. The way I look upon it, there are two main paths to follow:

1. Hutchinson was always in the vicinity inbetween Friday and Sunday, and had access to the word on the street. If this was true, then yes - it would be odd in the extreme if he did not find out about Mary.

2. Hutchinson was for some reason not in a position where he had access to the word on the street inbetween Friday and Sunday, and if so, he could easily have missed out on the news.

Do we know which option applied? No, we don´t. And that´s just the beginning; even if Hutchinson DID have access to the news early on, one can of course argue that he may have felt intimidated by knowing that presenting himself to the police would have meant that he admitted to having seen a victim in the Ripper case at the approximate time she died, according to medical views. Stranger things have happened. At any rate, your suggestion that he wawered a couple of days is only that - a suggestion. It is not in any way a bad suggestion, but the interest Hutchinsons story was afforded throughout the first week after having been told to the police - at the very least! - speaks a different language. The same goes for the impression Hutchinson gave on the whole: no wawering there, but instead the reverse. The man was left unshaken in his testimony in spite of the interrogation he was subjected to, and phrasings speaking of straightforwardness and a military bearing are what we are left with. That don´t add up either, if we are to think that he had somehow wawered. "The best of intentions" was how Dew saw him, adding that this was a man on whom you would NOT reflect.

When all of this is discussed, I think we must recognize that whatever reason Hutchinson gave, it was good enough for Abberline. In his approval and confessed reliance in Hutchinson lies a weighing together of the elements involved. And if he had been reluctant to accept the reason Hutchinson gave for his late arrival, then the rest of the evidence would have been what swayed him to believe in the man. And how does that rest look? It depicts a man that was, according to some, a total fabrication and an anomaly on the streets of the East end.
So the alledged weakness in his reason for coming forward, combined with the alledgedly ridiculous description of the man in Kellys company was the perfect blend to convince Abberline of truthfulness?

Maybe Abberline was desperate, someone says, and ready to grasp at any straw? I would not think so; Hutchinson was interrogated thoroughly - examined and re-examined it was said - and there was plenty of time to make the decision. And as we all know, it came out in favour of Hutchinson being the real deal. I would suggest that this was because he gave a perfectly viable reason for his late arrival, and because Abberline did in no way share the view that the man Hutchinson spoke of was outright impossible in any manner - on the contrary.

Ben:

"“Surprise” at the Astrakhan man’s clothing and appearance does seem rather too thin an explanation for stooping down and peering into his face, thence to sustain a 45 minute vigil outside Kelly’s home in anticipation of the same man re-emerging from Miller’s Court".

Try this on for size, Ben:
Hutch lays his eyes on Astrakhan man, and notices his dressing and apparent wealth. He sees him chatting up Kelly, and thinks: Whoa, that man answers to the description given of that Ripper fellow! Let´s take a closer look at him!

He does so, stooping down to look him in the face. He decides that no, that guy does not look like any killer to me! He is probably just another punter, so I reckon he will be in and out of Miller´s Court in not too long a time, and then I may be able to sneak in and snuggle up in Mary´s room.

So he posts himself at the northern side of Dorset Street (yes!) and waits, only to realize that the man´s money probably has earned him an all-night trick. Time to leave, thus!

It´s just a suggestion, but it would explain the purportedly "suspicious" elements of it all.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"This makes me wonder if perhaps you are still missing the point, which is that if the police came to discredit Hutchinson’s statement on account of his failure to come forward earlier and attend the inquest under oath, they cannot have considered Hutchinson himself to have been an honest, squeaky clean witness. "

I´m sometimes thicker than a brick, Ben. But not the thickest of bricks would have missed your point!
Which is why I think that YOU may have missed MY point: That the police was reluctant to admit that they had missed obvious details in the testimony, showing that they had been wrong to accept his story as one of the murder night. If this is how it went down, then the police would be in a position where they had an explanation for discrediting the astrakhan man story that they were not ready to share with the press. And what do you do in such a case? You give them something else, that´s what you do. They did not want to say "We are dropping Hutchinsons story since we realize that we screwed up". They could not say "We are dropping his story but we are not going to tell you why" - such things don´t go down well with the press or anybody else. The solution, however, was readily at hand - the man had arrived after the inquest, and that provided the police with exactly what they needed.
I full well KNOW how you see things, Ben. I just don´t agree that it is a very good view on things. And the reason lies in a combination of the legacy attributed to Hutchinsons veracity and the information we have, pointing to the police taking an active interest in his story a full week after they got it. Four days, mind you, had passed since the Star had expressed that his story had been discredited. So for four full days the police had - according to you - been convinced that Hutchinson was a timewaster, grounding it on the joint knowledge that he had come forward late in the process and a sneaking feeling - at least, that is - that he was not coming clean.

And still the police "think it sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry"???!! After having doubted Hutchinsons veracity and after having come to the conclusion that he is a time-waster, the police STILL think the information is significant and still conduct careful inquiry to follow up on it? Come on, Ben - that is not a very useful suggestion, is it? A police force under very hard pressure do not follow up carefully on leads from people they do not believe. Careful inquiry is not the product of a disbelief on behalf of the authorities. So we may safely deduct that whatever part of his story it was that was discredited, it was a part that did not stop the police from following up on the non-discarded parts that were left. Ergo they believed the man in one respect, but they did NOT believe him in another. Couple that with Dew´s assertion and see what you get!

"it would be disastrously irrational for any police official to have taken this line if they knew that Cox’s description applied to the night of Kelly’s murder and that George “Wrong Night” Hutchinson’s did not."

Of course it would not - a witness´ reliability and credibility can remain untarnished even if they make mistakes - as long as the mistakes are made in honesty. If my brother was to tell me that he had seen something he reasonably could not have seen, whereas a man, jailed for fraud, was to tell me something I reckoned was true, I would STILL say that my brother was reasonably honestly mistaken, but still the more reliable witness on the whole just the same. Things can get tricky to understand when discussed on a theoretical basis, but surely this is easy enough to accept?

"My full sentence reads as follows:
´you do not “discount” a witness statement because of the failure of its originator to come forward prior to the inquest unless you entertain doubts about his credibility and/or motivation for coming forward.”"

Yes? Does that in any way prohibit that "you do not “discount” a witness statement because of the failure of its originator to come forward prior to the inquest" applies? Not all people who arrive late are to be mistrusted, I gather?

"It shows us that "some" elements within the police force (probably a less than influential minority, judging from subsequent police commentary) continued to endorse Hutchinson’s description as both truthful and accurate, and this would never have occurred had it been established that Hutchinson was a hapless unwitting date-confounder."

The "probably less-than-influential-minority will have to stand for you. I will not make calls in that rash a manner. And we do know that careful inquiry was conducted as a result of the faith in Hutchinson! Meaning that the police - a very hierarchical organization, ruled from the top, going by orders - on the whole had accepted that there was a need to conduct inquiries along the lines of Hutchinsons testimony. There would not have been a pirate fraction operating on their own and in disagreement with the majority of the police - that does not happen in the real life, I´m afraid. The inquiries made would have been ordered from the top, there can be no doubt about that. The inescapable conclusion is that inquiries were conducted DESPITE the element of a disapproval of some part or parts of the Hutchinson testimony. And that leads us very clearly to an acceptance of Hutchinson as an honest man ON THE WHOLE, whereas it would have been decided that there was a part of the testimony that did not hold true IN SPITE OF HUTCHINSON´S HONESTY.

It is all there in print and very easy to see. Not a word of any attention-seeking or timewasting, but instead the fact that Hutchinson´s story was accumulating inquiries made by the police a full week after his initial contact with them. Not a hint at any lying on his behalf, just an assertion that the police did not attach so much importance to it as some of the morning papers did. Of course they did not, since they knew full well that the story described a punter from Wednesday evening and not the potential killer - which was what the morning papers still believed. And a punter from Wednesday evening would be a man the police had a distinct interest in seeing, to get a fuller picture of the hours leading up to the murder. Thus they would conduct careful inquiries to get hold of his name and identity - but they would NOT make him any main target for the murder investigation.
Thus we do not have any disagreement with two fractions of the police working in direct conflict with each other - this never happens in an organization like the police - but instead a large group of policemen chasing after the Ripper, probably hunting a short, stout man with a blotchy face, and a smaller group of men who had received orders to locate astrakhan man and get what information that could be had from him. And BOTH these groups would have been working along lines given from the top. None of them would have been a vigilante force inside the police. Such a suggestion would be ludicrous, agreed?

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi
One point has always concerned me, that being on the night /morning of Marys death, she was reported to have taken home two people of opposite desciptions ie, Blotchy/Astracan, when it is certain that she was well aware of ''jack'' even on the thursday she had remarked to Mrs McCarthy ''He's a concern isnt he''
It was also reported that she never ventured out alone, since the murders heightened, yet on the eve of the 8th, she did, whats more dressed in her jacket and bonnet, which alone is contridictory to Coxs version.
Was she arranging to meet someone?
As for the wrong night, I put it to Fisherman..as Cox states that when she saw kelly with Blotchy she was not wearing a jacket and bonnet, she infact may have got the wrong day, as Mrs prater talked to Mjk at 9pm on the 8th, before they both ventured out wearing a jacket and bonnet.
This was the same night that prater visited McCarthys shop, and mentioned that her young man had ''not turned up'' before saying she was going up to her room, the same night/morning she heard the cry, the same morning the police were all over the court.
summing up.
What made MJKs defences down, was it simply ''oh well, what will be, will be''
Was it feeling secure in her room with houses all around?
Why would she take home a man dressed the way Hutchinson described, carrying a small parcel in his left hand? did she know him?
If Maxwells porter was her killer, why would she allow him back to her room, was the fact that it was daylight a factor.?
Regards Richard.