Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Ben]

Hi Glyn,

Huntley took a pro-active approach to the prevention of what he regarded as inevitable police suspicion, which was entirely his choice. He could easily have done a Vincent Tabak and simply awaited a knock on the door from the police. Many of the serial offenders who inserted themselves into their own investigations chose to approach the police under the guise of a cooperative informant because they fully expected to come under the police radar at some stage, and wanted to get their "innocent" explanation in first. In some cases, that expectation was fully justified, while others were simply paranoid.

Besides the "relatively minor crime" of Joseph Isaacs, he was also reported to have threatened violence to all women over the age of 17.

if Hutchinson acted in such a way after Kellys murder ,to deflect suspicion,why not the previous murders also?

Because that would be decidedly odd.

"Yep, that was me with Annie Chapman, but I left before she was murdered, and yep that was me with Stride and Eddowes too..."

The serial offenders I've mentioned only came forward in "response" to one of their murders, often the last one.

All the best,
Ben

[glyn]

[QUOTE=Ben;179710]Hi Glyn,

Because that would be decidedly odd.

"Yep, that was me with Annie Chapman, but I left before she was murdered, and yep that was me with Stride and Eddowes too..."

The serial offenders I've mentioned only came forward in "response" to one of their murders, often the last one.


Yes indeed! maybe even Scotland Yard might have become a little suspicious if that had happened
Well thanks Ben for your replies,You have certainly been both informative and helpful. Take care

[Ben]

You're most welcome, Glyn.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=glyn;179703]

No worries, Glyn, your reply was perfectly readable, There is certainly a “comparison” with Ian Huntley who not only presented the police with the false persona of a “witness”, but tried to deflect suspicion in a false direction through the creation of a fictional “suspect” who he described as hovered around some bins.



Hi Ben,
Huntley,of course,must have known he would have been suspected.He worked at the school,lived on the girls last known route,but more importantly had several accusations of rapeand violence against him.So its understandable,from his point of view,that he tried to deflect suspicion away from himself.In short,he was allready in the frame.He must have known that.
It would appear that Hutchinson had no such worries,and one might ask why ,if Hutchinson acted in such a way after Kellys murder ,to deflect suspicion,why not the previous murders also?


As regards Isaacs,his arrest was for a relatively minor crime ,why the hullabaloo from Abberline etc? Unless of course that part was an invention of the Press,which of course is possible,but I havent seen that suggested.
Take care

Hi Glyn

It would appear that Hutchinson had no such worries,and one might ask why ,if Hutchinson acted in such a way after Kellys murder ,to deflect suspicion,why not the previous murders also?

Hutch may have had similar worries, as he was seen by Sarah Lewis waiting there and admitted as much. Maybe (if he was JtR) he thought it was better to come forward as a witness as opposed to waiting for the police to look for him as a suspect.

[GregBaron]

Gormless or Gaumless...either works

Glyn,

Just wanted to thank you for introducing a new word to my vocabulary....I'm a bit of a wordsmith and enjoy such things.......even though it is chiefly British.........!

gaum·less   /ˈgɔmlɪs/ Show Spelled
[gawm-lis] Show IPA

–adjective Chiefly British Informal .
lacking in vitality or intelligence; stupid, dull, or clumsy.
Use gaumless in a Sentence
See images of gaumless
Search gaumless on the Web
Also, gormless.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1740–50; dial. ( Scots, N England) gaum heed, attention ( Middle English gome < Old Norse gaumr; akin to Gothic gaumjan to observe) + -less

P.S. Apologies for interrupting the Hutchinson discussion....

[glyn]

Hi GREG,
Im glad to have been of help to someone, though Ive never seen the word spelt gaumless before. You might even try addressing someone as Gormo if you want to be particularly unkind. Another day-another word ho hum

[Rubyretro]

I have started a thread entitled " Hutch and the Hairdresser" devoted to serial killer Danilo Restivo , who is on trial for the murder of a woman in Dorset with strong parallels to the murder of MJK.

He injected himself into his own case concerning this killing -although he was hounded out of Italy on suspicion of murder.

[Ben]

I've been enjoying the thread in question very much, Lesley. Some very interesting parallels there, as you note.

All the best,
Ben

[Hatchett]

Hi

Much as I appreciate everyone's research and the sincerity of their convictions, I believe that the case against Hutchinson being the Ripper is very weak for a number of reasons. Some of which revolve around the issue of whether Astrokan man really existed.

The alleged dishonesty on Hutchinson's part in saying that he saw Astrokan man is purelly supposition. No one can say that he lied without evidence. That it may be implausible is another matter, and even then other things have to be taken into account.

It has to be remembered that Abberline and the Police took him very seriously. To do that they must have believed him.

Abberline was a senior and experianced Police Officer who by that time had developed an obsessive concern for the case and for the prositutes in Whitechapel. He was certainly on the ball and would have investigated every angle.

Abberline interviewed Hutchinson and believed him. There is nothing in the Police files that state that he changed that view. Even Dew doesnt say that he disbelieved Hutchinson.

Although it might seem implausible for us now to believe in Hutchinson's description of Astrokan man, it certainly could not have appeared implausible to Abberline. That I would suggest is an important point.

On the issue that Abberline later believed that Chapman was the killer it has to be remembered that Abberline had retired from the Force at that time. In a sense he was in the same poisition as all of us in that he was looking back. It also has to be considered that Chapman was never a suspect at the time of the Ripper killings and so presumably was never investigated or interviewed by Abberline. If he had been Abberline may or may not have had a different view.

It also has to be considered that as a convicted serial killer of women, Chapman is still a serious contender for the author of the crimes.

The real weakness in the case against Hutchinson being the killer is ironically the strongest argument put forward for his nominature.

Namely, that he was there at the time of the murder, he was possibly witnessed being in the viciinity at the right time, he admitted to police that he was, he knew Mary Kelly and had met her that night, she had rebuffed him (for the lack of sixpence) by his own admittance he was loitering outside of her room for no real apparant reason.

If you look at the files, you will see that right from the start of the murders the police were very meticulous and very quick in their investigations, pin pointing the last movements, among other things, of what were waifs and strays wandering around a warren of small streets. In very little time they ascertained the names and movements of the victims in the hours before they were killed. No mean feat. They conducted hundreds of enquiries.

Although the Kelly file is certainly incomplete it is impossible not to assume that that same meticulousness did not continue. In fact, it had to have increased because of Public, National, and Government pressure. Also because another Police Force were now chewing at their heels after the Eddowes killing.

Hutchinson was a vital witness, but because of what he said he would also have been a possible vital suspect.

Abberline would have known that. Hutchinson's whereabouts at the times of the other murders would have certainly been investigated.That is only logical.

So it is, I believe, very unlikely that Hutchinson was ever Jack the Ripper or ever considered at the time to be a suspect.

It is marginally possible, I suppose, that he could have been the murderer of Kelly, but even that has its problems.

But he certainly was not Jack the Ripper.

Best wishes.

[Ben]

Hi Hatchett,

“The alleged dishonesty on Hutchinson's part in saying that he saw Astrokan man is purelly supposition.”

It is not "purely supposition". The inference that he lied is an inescapable one, and is based on the fact that the police discredited his account owing to obvious doubts about his integrity, the fact that he came forward suspiciously soon after the termination of the inquest, and the impossible components to his Astrakhan description. Abberline’s “opinion that he statement was true” was committed to paper just hours after Hutchinson made himself known to the police, and before any investigation into his claims could realistically have occurred. It is clear, however, that over the next few days, Hutchinson’s account came to be "considerably discounted", as we learn from reliable sources that established direct communication with the police. The catalyst for this is uncertain, but his divergent press accounts and demonstrably fictional encounter with a Sunday policeman cannot have aided his credibility.

It makes little sense, therefore, to keep going back to Abberline’s 12th November as though it represented the final word on the issue Hutchinson’s credibility, which it most assuredly wasn't. We ought also to be careful not to perpetuate the fallacy that Abberline was the only police official of any seniority capable of having an opinion. In addition, it is clear from the conspicuous absence of Hutchinson from all senior police memoirs and interviews (etc) that the accounts of his “discrediting” were obviously correct. There is no way that the police would use one of the Jewish witnesses for subsequent identity attempts with later suspects if they believed that Hutchinson was still a viable ripper-spotter.

Abberline did not investigate Klosowski as a suspect at the time of the murders, you’re right. His ultimate opinion was that he might have been sent on an organ-harvesting mission by some unseen boss who wished to procure bodily organs, and that he was compelled to travel to America to commit more atrocities when he realised he hadn’t harvested quite enough innards. I agree that certain theories that might not have seemed particularly outlandish back then are considered conspicuously so today, and there’s a good reason for that – we’re simply better informed on the subject of serial crime. Pursuant to this, it’s worth pointing out that John Douglas, whose experience of serial offenders vastly outweighs anyone’s here, dismisses Klosowski outright. I’m not interested in having a suspect versus suspect discussion on an off-topic thread, but suffice to say I don’t consider Kloswoski a credible proposal at all.

Hutchinson was a vital witness, but because of what he said he would also have been a possible vital suspect. “Abberline would have known that. Hutchinson's whereabouts at the times of the other murders would have certainly been investigated.That is only logical.”

I’m afraid that's not in the slightest bit “logical”.

A “vital witness” is not generally considered a “vital suspect”. If every witness who admitted to being at or near a crime scene was automatically interviewed as a suspect, the word would have gone around that this was how the police treated witnesses, with the inevitable consequence being that no witness would ever come forward again. The incentive for adopting this approach would not have been there, in any case. There was no precedent whatsoever for killers pretending to be witnesses back then, and it would have been an extraordinary concept for an 1888 police force with no experience of serial crime to consider.

Even if we entertain the extremely slim possibility that Hutchinson was suspected of the murders, the police were powerless to convert mere suspicions into tangible results. You talk about the police confirming his “whereabouts” for other murders, but this is unrealistic in the extreme. Hutchinson resided at the Victoria Home which catered for upwards of 400 lodgers per night. There is no realistic possibility that a lodging house deputy could recall whether one lodger in 400 happened to be staying there on a particular night that had passed six weeks previously.

Regardless of how "meticulous" the police may have striven to be, they were severely limited in their “checking” powers, and pinpointing the movements of a casual dosser over a three-month period would have been way beyond their capabilities at that time.

“But he certainly was not Jack the Ripper.”

While you’re entitled to your opinion, I’m afraid you can’t be “certain” or any such thing, and if you’re dismissing Hutchinson for the reasons you’ve outlined above, then I would strongly urge a reconsideration. To argue that his presence near a crime scene at a time relevant to the murder (to the point of "loitering outside of her room for no real apparant reason") militates against any consideration that he might have been the killer runs contrary to all that a century's worth of insight into serial crime history should have taught us. In a modern investigation, such individuals are the first investigative port of call, and for good reason. There are plenty of genuinely "weak" suspects bandied about (many of whom can't even be placed in the East End at the time, let alone monitoring a victim's home shortly before she was killed), but we’d be throwing the baby out with the bathwater rather senselessly if we pretended that Hutchinson was one of them.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"over the next few days, Hutchinson’s account came to be "considerably discounted", as we learn from reliable sources"

"Considerably discounted" - where does this quotation come from?

"The inference that he lied is an inescapable one"

Not at all - I, for one, escaped it easily

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

"Considerably discounted" - where does this quotation come from?

The Echo, 14th November 1888, Fisherman.

Not at all - I, for one, escaped it easily

No.

Cheers,
Ben

[Hatchett]

Hi Ben,

It is not a "fact" that Hutchinson's statement was discredited. There is no extant police statement that supports this. You rely on a couple of press reports at a time when it is known that there was a definate block on communication between the police and the press. Consequently, the reliability has to be questionable. Therefore the view that Hutchinson lied has to be supposition.

It is not illogical at all that a witness's statement could automatically put them into the frame of being a suspect. There are numerous examples in history where this has happened. It is inconceivable that Hutchinson would not have been investigated. Considering that the police believed that at the time that the murders continued after Kelly you would naturally have expected him to have been reinterviewed. There is no record of this. He cannot have been suspected at all.

That Hutchinson is not mentioned in memoirs is not true. Dew mentions him. That he was not mentioned in the others points to the inescapable fact that they found nothing suspicious about him.

The point I was making about Abberline is that although a number of people now find Hutchinson's description of Astrokan man implausible, the man at the scene, namely Abberline, did not.

John Douglas may have vast experiance, but that does not mean that he is right. That is a matter of common sense.

Again, you have missed the point I was making there. I was pointing out that Abberline may have made a mistake about Chapman, but the circumstances of him making that mistake were different to when he made his decision on Chapman.

I will not go into the semantics of "Certaintly" as it used in my post. I believe it's meaning is obvious.

Who is pretending, Ben? I think the difficulty here is not throwing the baby out with the bath water but trying to find the baby under the suds.

Best wishes.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"The Echo, 14th November 1888, Fisherman."

Ah yes - Debras find! Didnīt recognize it as such, so thanks. Itīs much the same as the "a very reduced importance" wording, of course. And as usual, the papers take care to point out that it is the STORY that is "considerably discounted" and arriving at "a very reduced importance". And in BOTH cases we have the exact same phenomenon: a decrease in importance, but STILL some importance is left! "Considerably discounted" is not fully discounted - in fact, it is har do say just HOW discounted such a thing is, but in my case, the other wording, "A very reduced importance" speaks to me of only a minor portion of the original importance being left. So Iīm fine with settling for the same interpretation here!

"No."

Oh yes. If you allude to your own efforts to hinder me, I realize that you have put heart and soul into it, but as a matter of fact, the escape from "Hutchinson-must-have-lied"-country was an effortless one. You see, I KNEW from the outset that he need not have been a liar, and the work I have been doing since I mad emy deal with Dew, if you wish, has left me without a doubt in this respect.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Really, Fisherman, would it kill you to stay out of a discussion I’m having with another poster, especially after you cautioned me “NEVER!” to interfere with what you post to others? You asked me a question regarding the origin of a particular quote, and I responded with the answer. That should have been the end of that little distraction, so what’s with the attempt to start an identical argument to the one we’re having on the other thread?:

And as usual, the papers take care to point out that it is the STORY that is "considerably discounted" and arriving at "a very reduced importance".

Now I’m compelled to respond with the exact same response I provided you with on the other thread:

“Very reduced importance” simply implies, as Garry suggests, that “their suspicions at that stage had not hardened into absolute certainty and they feared losing a potentially vital eyewitness.” This is why the statement remained the “subject of careful inquiry” – to ensure that the police suspicions of Hutchinson’s dishonesty weren’t too hastily decided upon. I think you just need to be circumspect and realise that “wrong dates” simply didn’t feature in the equation until 1938, when Walter Dew offered his own seldom-taken-seriously speculations on the subject of Hutchinson.

Good. That’s done now. No need whatsoever for further duplication.

“but as a matter of fact, the escape from "Hutchinson-must-have-lied"-country was an effortless one.”

Which is more than can be said for your obvious inability to escape “Contradict Ben all the time anywhere he posts”-country.

Distraction over and back on topic.

Unless...?