Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

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

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

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

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

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

Exactly.

[Ben]

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

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

As I’ve already said, there would be no logic rationale in observing: “Hutchinson only came forward after the inquest, so therefore he must be a decent, honest, charmingly befuddled idiot”. No, the likelihood is that after contemplating his absence from the inquest, they came to the conclusion that he was a two-a-penny fabricator. This is a startlingly obvious conclusion based on the reason cited by the police for discrediting Hutchinson’s account, which was later divulged to the Echo. Clearly there were elements within the police force that disagreed with this conclusion, but this should come as no surprise in the absence of total proof.

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

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

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

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

Great advice. I think I’ll take it.

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

Refrain from what?

Quoting you directly?

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

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

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

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

No, of course I don’t think that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Sally,

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

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

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

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

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

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

But this was all discussed here, as you recall:

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

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

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

The article confirms two other suspicions of mine:

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

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

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

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

All the best,
Ben