Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"Ah, I must not have expressed myself all too clear there, Fish, because that was not what I meant. What I meant was that, at some point, he found out that:
1. she was brutally butchered
2. she was quite probably killed not long after he’d left Dorset Street."

Oh! I see - sorry about that! Agreed - but with the addition that he would have "realized" that she was killed shortly after the moment at which HE THOUGHT he left Dorset Street - when in fact he left the street on Thursday morning ...

"Another thing we know is that he stated that, on Sunday morning, he both fancied seeing Mr. A. in Petticoat Lane and telling one policeman what he had seen. So, by then he certainly knew that Mary Jane had been butchered and that there was a very good chance that Mr. A. was her killer. Yet, he didn’t go through with it then and so he did waver at least a day and a half."

He told a policeman about it, Frank! That means that he turned to the authorities on Sunday morning! The day after, he spoke to a fellow lodger, who adviced him to go to the police station, and he did. I would say that many people would think they had fulfilled their societal duties by contacting a PC, and if Hutchinson had said to the lodger "No, I´ve already spoken to a policeman about it", he would rather be in the clear consciencewise. But he picked up on the advice, although he could reasonably not know if any action had been taken as a result of his PC contact. Perhaps he would have been expected to be contacted by the police, and that failing, decided he needed to go to the police station, I don´t know.
And I don´t know how soon BEFORE his contact with the police he got word about Kelly´s death, meaning that two full days could have elapsed with him knowing it all, just as it could have been the first thing he did after finding out. There is no knowing, simple as that. And this span in time - between finding out about Kelly and contacting the Sunday morning PC, is the true measurement of his eagerness to help. That said, one can - with some god will - envisage situations in which he knew but was not in a position to act upon it.

"Regardless of whether Hutchinson was completely innocent or guilty of whatever (intended) vice or crime, I have little doubt that it was Lewis’ testimony that propelled him into coming forward with his statement ..."

It is a tantalizing possibility. In that respect, it equals the tantalizing thought that Lewis´ loiterer and Hutchinson must have been one and the same. I strongly suspect that both conceptions are faulty, and that this is what has stopped us from seeing the Hutchinson affair for what it was.

" ...and that it doesn’t contain the whole truth and nothing but the truth. To me, his whole statement leaves too many questions unanswered and seems constructed, too convenient."

Too constructed, no. Too convenient, yes - and that lies in the VERY convenient fit inbetween the loiterer and Hutchinson. I can only point out what I have pressed many a time already: if George Hutchinson had said "I went to the boardinghouse opposite the court and leant up against the wall there, watching the court" and "there was this woman coming down Dorset Street at about 2.30, passing into the court", we would not be having this discussion today, Frank. If this had been the case, Hutchinson would have put it beyond doubt that he was either Lewis´ loiterer or a liar. And he would have had NOTHING to loose by doing so. Those who say that it may have evoked the suspicions of the police are simply totally and utterly mistaken. It would only have cemented his truthfullness in the eyes of the authorities.

But he does not say this, does he? He instead indirectly professes to NOT having seen Lewis, and THAT would have been a major mistake if he wanted to deceive the police! And keep in mind, Frank, that the loiterer only took physical shape after Cox had given her testimony. Up to that point, Lewis had been of the impression that she could not describe the man she saw, but after it, the loiterer had magically taken the shape of Cox´s man.

I can see all your points, Frank. It´s just that I have seen them before, and compared to the "Dew perspective", they hold much less water in my eyes.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"how can we accept the 'sixpence' story on his word alone when everything points to him making it up ?"

Because everything does NOT point to him making it up. That´s just the way you see it, and the manner in which you choose to interpret it, based on your conception about what relationship Hutch and Mary had to money. You make a number of presumptions under which it becomes favourable to regard Hutchinson as a liar, and you end up with that exact picture.

Small wonder, Ruby ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

With respect, Fisherman, you're still making assertions that either contradict or fail to acknowledge the evidence.

You’re still claiming, for example, that the police were satisfied with Hutchinson’s “reason” for coming late. This is absolutely untrue, for reasons we’ve already discussed at length. The Echo established through direct communication with the police that Hutchinson’s statement had been discredited because his reason for coming forward late was either implausible or non-existent. There is absolutely no way that the police should have cited Hutchinson’s late arrival and non-attendance at the inquest as a reason for discrediting his account if they were in possession of a satisfactory reason for that late arrival and non-attendance at the inquest. It wasn’t just the Echo either. Even the Daily Telegraph observed on 13th November that:

“It has not been ascertained why the witness did not make this statement - so much fuller and so different from the others that have been given - immediately after the murder was discovered.”

“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.”

While this may be true for the police as a collective body, the same most assuredly cannot be said of police informers, to recall a crucial observation raised by Garry a few pages ago. Since these informants would have been paid, it is unlikely in the extreme they would provide bogus information to the journalists in an effort to preserve the reputation of the police as a collective. For starters, there would be no logical motivation for them to do so, since the nature of a professional “leaker” of information is to dish the dirt from the inside. If their agenda was saving the face of the institution, they would hardly have become clandestine informers paid by newspapers! As such, we can conclude beyond reasonable doubt that Hutchinson’s absence from the inquest was indeed a factor in his statement being “considerably discounted”, just as the Echo had reported.

There is no evidence whatsoever of the police taking an “active interest in his story a full week after they got it.” Whatever interest was shown by some elements within the police force, there is no evidence that this interest was put into “action” a week after the statement’s discrediting. As should be clear from the later observations of Abberline, Anderson, Swanson, and later Macnaghten, these officials certainly did not place “most reliance” on Hutchinson, and the seniority of these men at the time of the murders may go some way to explaining the failure of those unnamed individuals who placed such a “reliance” on Hutchinson to influence the investigation with the emphasis on his statement. In addition, it makes no sense whatsoever to use Lawende (who saw a rough, shabby man with a fair moustache) in ripper identity attempts if the police placed “most” reliance on another witness who described a completely different individual.

But it makes the least sense of all, by far, for the police to accord “most reliance” to a statement that they knew or suspected to be wrong by a full 24 hours.

“So for four full days the police had - according to you - been convinced that Hutchinson was a timewaster”

According to me, the police were of the opinion that Hutchinson had been a timewaster, and the nature of opinion being what it is, not everyone agreed, with “some” of the authorities (of unknown identities, but not Swanson, Anderson or Abberline) still holding to the belief that he was truthful and accurate. The evidence is to the effect that the “discreditors” had their way, presumably because of their greater number or higher rank, and those who placed “most reliance” on the Astrakhan description did not receive the popular vote. That isn’t to negate the Echo’s other observation that the statement was the “subject of careful inquiry”. Matthew Packer’s nonsense was carefully inquired about too. Yet despite these careful inquiries, we know that Hutchinson's statement was considerably discounted because of his late appearance.

“a witness´ reliability and credibility can remain untarnished even if they make mistakes - as long as the mistakes are made in honesty.”

Naturally, but what you don’t do, under any conceivable circumstances, is place most reliance on a witnesses who had confused the day of his sightings when you know that other witnesses saw Kelly on the night of her death at a time relevant to her murder.

“Not all people who arrive late are to be mistrusted, I gather?”

No, but if a person’s statement is discredited because it arrived late, it can only be because that person was “mistrusted”.

“And we do know that careful inquiry was conducted as a result of the faith in Hutchinson!”

No, there’s no evidence for this at all. It’s far nearer the mark to observe that “careful inquiry” resulted in a reduced “faith in Hutchinson”. But the police were always bound to conduct careful inquiries into every witness statement, whether they suspected the witness in question was telling the truth or slinging poo. They could hardly have dismissed a witness statement without any sort of inquiry for fear of being accused, with considerable justification, of being negligent.

“The inescapable conclusion is that inquiries were conducted DESPITE the element of a disapproval of some part or parts of the Hutchinson testimony.”

No, I’m afraid you have it completely backwards. The inescapable conclusion is that DESPITE some of the authorities placing most reliance on Hutchinson’s testimony, his account came to be “considerably discounted”. You’ve just raised the point that orders emanate from the top, and yet as I’ve already explained several times, we know full well that “the top” did NOT place “most reliance” on Hutchinson’s Astrakhan description. To assert that the police “on the whole” regarded Hutchinson as “honest” is a truly bizarre extrapolation, seemingly plucked from nowhere. His account was discredited in the main because he came forward very late and didn’t allow himself to be quizzed under oath, and this suggests the exact opposite of general police acceptance of Hutchinson’s honesty. The actual phrases “time-wasting” and “attention-seeking” would be entirely superfluous to the Echo’s commentary, since the inference is so unbelievably obvious – that Hutchinson’s honesty and motivation were not trusted. This most emphatically amounts to a “hint” that Hutchinson was lying, and a very blatant one at that.

“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.”

I do wish you’d confine your “different day” Dewy stuff to the relevant threads. We know full well the reason the police had for discrediting Hutchinson’s account, and it is very obvious that “honest mistakes” never entered into the equation. You keep referring to the lack of explicit references to Hutchinson being a timewaster or liar (and it’s frankly unrealistic to expect anything so blatant), but this conclusion is at least hinted at very strongly, which is more than can be said for “honest mistakes” and “wrong days”. There was, of course, nothing preventing a police informant from mentioning date-befuddlement if there was any suspicion that it happened.

“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. “

And they would not place “most reliance” on the Astrakhan description if they knew Hutchinson had confused the night, and yet we know that some of the authorities did place “most reliance” on this description.

“Thus we do not have any disagreement with two fractions of the police working in direct conflict with each other”

Yes we do, remember? The 19th November article we’ve just been talking about. Some of the authorities focussed on Blotchy, and an evidently lower ranking minority still championed Hutchinson as both truthful and accurate. Evidently, the former group had their way, with “most reliance” (or indeed any reliance, ultimately) clearly not being placed on Hutchinson’s account. The article was not referring to action taken or intended, but simply the opinions of the authorities at the time.

“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!”

Oh, I see.

A sort of: “Hey, this man looks like he could be the ripper! Let’s have a closer look. Oh no, wait a minute: surly face, stern look, tightly grasped black parcel of potentially knife-shaped dimensions, attempt to conceal his face. Obviously can’t be a killer. False alarm!”.

Interesting, but probably not, Fisherman.

I’d go with the explanation I suggested to Sally; that he wanted to avoid being interrogated as to why, if he was suspicious, did he not alert anyone at the time?

Best regards,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Just one point that I have been chewing on for some time now: George Hutchinson tells us that as he met Kelly on the morning of the Thursday (if I´m correct), she asked him "Will you lend me sixpence?"

The first thing this we can deduct from this is that she was not aware of Hutchinsons current financial situation. She could not know if he was good for a penny or a guinea, could she?
After that, we must ask ourselves what a prostitute was doing out on the streets at 2 AM in the morning. The answer is very obvious, it would seem - she was prostituting herself, and looking for money.

Now why did she not ask George Hutchinson if he felt like an early morning trick? The more or less mutual understanding of his telling the police that he gave her the odd shilling now and then, is that he was a customer of hers.

So why? Why just ask for sixpence from a potential client at a stage when she was turning tricks?

A potential answer that leaps to mind is that perhaps their relationship was not one of prostitute/punter after all. Maybe Kelly was simply a friend of Hutchinson´s and nothing more. Prostitutes would ask friends for loans and punters for payment.

Any thoughts? Anyone?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish
If Mary did ask this (not sure if Hutch even saw her that night) regardless of if they were friends and/or client/customer it would be a quick way for MK to get money without having sex and at least if Hutch wanted sex in return for giving her the money, then she would know that at least he had it. Either way my hunch is that they were client/customer who knew each other for a long time (a couple of years?) who were on friendly terms.

[FrankO]

Nice to see you around!

Nice to see again too, Christer!

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.

Ah, I must not have expressed myself all too clear there, Fish, because that was not what I meant. What I meant was that, at some point, he found out that:
1. she was brutally butchered
2. she was quite probably killed not long after he’d left Dorset Street.

Do we know which option applied? No, we don´t.

Indeed we don’t. But we do know that the news wasn’t restricted to the district. In fact, it probably spread through the city (and further) faster than he could travel, be it by word on the street or by newspaper.

Another thing we know is that he stated that, on Sunday morning, he both fancied seeing Mr. A. in Petticoat Lane and telling one policeman what he had seen. So, by then he certainly knew that Mary Jane had been butchered and that there was a very good chance that Mr. A. was her killer. Yet, he didn’t go through with it then and so he did waver at least a day and a half.

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.

That is the sort of scenario that crossed my mind too, a couple of years back. What I can imagine is that, if Hutchinson was of good faith, he actually did follow Kelly and her punter because he was concerned for her, then left his vigil because his concerns had faded after about 45 minutes, only to find out soon afterwards that she had actually been butchered shortly after he’d left. And that he put off coming forward because he felt guilty & ashamed and also because he realised the police could regard him as a suspect if he did come forward.

Regardless of whether Hutchinson was completely innocent or guilty of whatever (intended) vice or crime, I have little doubt that it was Lewis’ testimony that propelled him into coming forward with his statement and that it doesn’t contain the whole truth and nothing but the truth. To me, his whole statement leaves too many questions unanswered and seems constructed, too convenient.

All the best,
Frank

[Sally]

So I don't see him him giving her the odd charitable gifts of money, except in return for sex. Which would make him a punter...even if he had a friendly aquaintace with Mary from 'down the pub'.

Unless of course Geo. was Joe. Then it might make more sense.

[Rubyretro]

"If Hutchinson lied about Mary asking him for sixpence ..."

And if he didn´t lie? Then what?

The best,

Then it would be terribly strange, wouldn't it...

On the one hand we have Mary, who had been living with a man with a regular wage as a porter, and who also earned money from prostitution. Being a relatively young prostitute, reportedly good looking, and having the luxury of her own room, she could surely find a client whenever she wanted and at whatever time to earn some money by merely spreading her legs for
20 minutes ? half an hour? (including walking to her room !).

On the other hand, we have Hutchinson -living precariously in a lodging house, having to get up at 4am whatever to queue with lots of other desperate men for labouring jobs which were surely, long, arduous, boring
and short lived, locking him into a hopeless cycle.

Mary's attitude to money (witnessed by her getting behind with the rent) was probably 'easy come easy go'..spend it all on drink tonight, and there
will be a miraculous solution tomorrow.

Hutch, however, would appear on the face of it to have been a regular lodger at the Victoria Home -who would have been out on his ear if he'd got behind with his doss money. His money was earned in a gruelling and stress filled fashion, that took many tiring hours -I would see him as someone far closer to his money than Mary.

So I don't see him him giving her the odd charitable gifts of money, except
in return for sex. Which would make him a punter...even if he had a friendly
aquaintace with Mary from 'down the pub'.

Would a man who needed each penny take the risk of lending even sixpence to a drunk who would drink it away within the hour, and by her need for that sixpence showed how profligate she was with cash ? The chances of him getting his money back were zero.

I don't see it. I don't see why everyone of Mary's low life friends wouldn't 'know' Hutch if he was handing out free money -and we have no indication that anyone of Mary's friends verified his relationship with her after he had given interviews to the Press. And I don't see Mary asking to borrow sixpence from a punter with no precedant, nor offering sex in return.

So we are left with Hutch's 'word ' and that is all.

His whole Statement and subsequant behaviour in the case leaves him open to accusations of being a liar -so how can we accept the 'sixpence' story on his word alone when everything points to him making it up ?

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"One day, Fish, you'll finally 'get it'. "

Had it. Lost it. Don´t miss it.

Ruby:

"First of all we only have Hutchinson's word that Mary asked him for sixpence"

Yes indeed!

"we have every indication that Mary was very drunk at the time Hutchinson claims to have spoken to her -a fact that he didn't appeared to have known, since he described her as merely 'spreeish'.
'spreeish' appears to be sitting on the fence, and not committing himself too far. So that raises some doubts as to whether he met her at all."

Think you know my answer to that one: while she was reportedly intoxicated at 1 AM that morning, Hutch would have met her the morning BEFORE.

"If Hutchinson lied about Mary asking him for sixpence ..."

And if he didn´t lie? Then what?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[Hi Fisherman !

First of all we only have Hutchinson's word that Mary asked him for sixpence, and indeed we only have his word that he met her at all on Friday morning.

On the other hand, independantly, we have every indication that Mary was very drunk at the time Hutchinson claims to have spoken to her -a fact that he didn't appeared to have known, since he described her as merely 'spreeish'.
'spreeish' appears to be sitting on the fence, and not committing himself too far. So that raises some doubts as to whether he met her at all.

If Hutchinson lied about Mary asking him for sixpence, then the reasons could be twofold; An attempt to portray himself as having a friendly paternalist relationship with her -which would explain why he followed her home and loitered outside her room being concerned about her -and also painting himself as a kindly benevolent person in counterpoint to that surly dastardly
A Man.

[Garry Wroe]

With friends like that, Fish, Mary Jane hardly needed enemies. After all, Hutchinson didn't exactly overexert himself in dashing over to Commercial Street Police Station in order to relate the story involving Astrakhan and his 'friend' Kelly.

One day, Fish, you'll finally 'get it'. The whole scenario involving Kelly and Astrakhan was an invention on Hutchinson's part.

[Fisherman]

Just one point that I have been chewing on for some time now: George Hutchinson tells us that as he met Kelly on the morning of the Thursday (if I´m correct), she asked him "Will you lend me sixpence?"

The first thing this we can deduct from this is that she was not aware of Hutchinsons current financial situation. She could not know if he was good for a penny or a guinea, could she?
After that, we must ask ourselves what a prostitute was doing out on the streets at 2 AM in the morning. The answer is very obvious, it would seem - she was prostituting herself, and looking for money.

Now why did she not ask George Hutchinson if he felt like an early morning trick? The more or less mutual understanding of his telling the police that he gave her the odd shilling now and then, is that he was a customer of hers.

So why? Why just ask for sixpence from a potential client at a stage when she was turning tricks?

A potential answer that leaps to mind is that perhaps their relationship was not one of prostitute/punter after all. Maybe Kelly was simply a friend of Hutchinson´s and nothing more. Prostitutes would ask friends for loans and punters for payment.

Any thoughts? Anyone?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"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"

Nope. It rained on her, Richard, so that was the night, alright. And it is not as if all and sundry meant that Maxwell´s sighting was all it was said to be!

All 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.

[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

[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