Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

Were you, by any chance, in the habit of posting here a few years ago under the name “Clem” or “The Cleminator”? I ask only because I’ve always thought that his posts were strikingly similar to yours in terms of both presentation and content. It’s not a witch-hunt at all, and you’re under no obligation to answer. I’m mildly curious, that’s all, as there are many members here who undoubtedly remember “Clem”.

No, incidentally, there is no realistic possibility of Hutchinson communicating with a policeman on the 11th November. Had such a policeman existed as described, he would certainly have informed his superiors of Hutchinson’s name and details of his account well in advance of Hutchinson himself coming forward on the evening of the 12th, or else we’re dealing with a thumpably negligent monster of a policeman on beat, who ignored a witness of Hutchinson’s potential importance despite being in the midst of the greatest manhunt in London’s history. The latter is impossible to accept and is obviously nonsense, and naturally, there is no reference to this "policeman" episode in the original police statement.

As I’ve already pointed out, the alleged policeman in question would have known full well that he could not afford to be negligent because if he was, he could have been tracked down easily by his superiors. It wasn’t worth the hassle, even if the on-beat PC was inclined, by some mutation of disposition, to engage in the sort of sick-making dereliction of duty that you seem to be envisaging.

“The policeman then tells the informant to go and give his information at the nearest police station, where there will be more senior officers there better able to deal with the matter. Where's the negligence here?”

The negligence resides in the assumption that the witness will adhere to that advice, which is a ridiculous assumption, akin to a doctor at the scene of a very nasty traffic accident standing around and saying "Ooh, that looks nasty. I'd get that seen to if I were you!". At the very least, the PC in question was compelled to make a note of the witness' name and key particulars of his account. Hutchinson also claimed that he was ultimately compelled to visit the police station on the advice of a fellow lodger – so presumably the advice of the policeman would not have done the trick, and the lodger’s advice carries more weight?

“It's feasible that there was no doorman present at the time in question.”

It’s not feasible.

It’s impossible.

There was, beyond question, a doorman stationed at the entrance to the Victoria Home, as we learn from all sources attaching to this particular establishment. You appear to acknowledge that Hutchinson had a weekly pass, and yet bizarrely, you suggest that nobody was around at the appropriate time to police this system.

I’m really astonished at the far-fetched scenarios that are suggested in order to depict Hutchinson as a squeaky clean honest witness.

But as I've said an alarming amount of times, this has been discussed before, and it's pointless to go there again.

[Hatchett]

Hello Ben,

I am not too sure that your analogy of the doctor at the scene of the accident actually works here, does it?

A doctor at the scene of the accident would treat the patient not only because of his profession but because the injured person would require immediate assistance.

The scenario with the policeman is completely different.

The charge of negligence surelly would only come into being if Hutchinson had not gone to the Police station and reported what he saw.

Apart from that of course, you are always going to get the odd bad constable. People were dismissed from the force occasionally, then and now.

Best wishes.

[Ben]

“I am not too sure that your analogy of the doctor at the scene of the accident actually works here, does it?”

Yes, Hatchett. It most assuredly “works here” because it serves as a good hypothetical example of a professional person passing the buck rather than attending to the situation himself. What makes matters worse in the non-existent PC’s case is that he would have been engaging in behaviour that he knew would probably result in his dismissal. The time and location of the encounter would enable him to be tracked down by his superiors.

“The charge of negligence surelly (sic) would only come into being if Hutchinson had not gone to the Police station and reported what he saw”

But he didn’t go the police station directly afterwards.

He waited until the evening of the following day to come forward, and only on the alleged advice of a fellow lodger.

We can either accept that there was an astonishingly negligent bobby on the force who was quietly booted off the force for dereliction of duty (for which there is no evidence), or we can accept that Hutchinson lied and was accordingly discredited (for which we have plenty of evidence).

[Hatchett]

Hi Ben,

I am still not convinced on your analogy. A doctor with an injured individual at the scene of an accident does not equate at all with a constable on his beat. To compare the two is sadly comical.

I am glad you have brought up the discrediting of Hutchinson's statement again.

Do you accept that there is no official proof that he was discredited, and that it is just supposition on your part?

Thanks.

[Ben]

Speaking of "sadly comical", is there any reason why you're following me around everywhere I post, asking the same question I've addressed countless times? Seems rather obsessive to me.

Yes, the two most assuredly compare, and very well, because they are examples of negligent buck-passing behaviour by professionals who should be attending to the matter themselves.

Do you accept that there is no official proof that he was discredited, and that it is just supposition on your part?

No, I don't. But you pop yourself along now to the relevant thread where I've just addressed this issue (again).

[Garry Wroe]

With respect, Ben, I would demur with regard to your final observation. But whilst I see no concrete, definitive, official confirmation that Hutchinson's Astrakhan story was dismissed by senior investigators, the probability that this was indeed the case is overwhelming to my way of thinking.

[Hatchett]

Hello Garry,

Thank you very much for your honest response to that. And to my mind that clears up a lot of the confrontational issues.

Best wishes.

David.

[Ben]

My mistake, Garry. I hadn’t noticed that Hatchett had snuck in “official” there. But suffice to say I agree entirely with your post.

All the best,
Ben

[babybird67]

were the other 'discedited' witnesses

ever officially discredited in the way some are expecting Hutchinson to have been?

[Garry Wroe]

Thank you very much for your honest response to that. And to my mind that clears up a lot of the confrontational issues.

No problem, David. Believe it or not, most of us are not agenda-driven. We are simply doing our best to make sense of what is often fragmentary information. Unfortunately, this often leads to differences of opinion which in turn generate animosity where there should be none. Hopefully, things will now settle down a little bit. Until the next time ...

[Garry Wroe]

My mistake, Garry. I hadn’t noticed that Hatchett had snuck in “official” there. But suffice to say I agree entirely with your post.

Thanks, Ben. I suggest that you recharge your batteries. Fish will be back in three weeks.

[Garry Wroe]

were the other 'discedited' witnesses ever officially discredited in the way some are expecting Hutchinson to have been?

Not to my knowledge, Jen. But Swanson did author an internal report in which he stated that Packer's many and varied press claims would render him worthless as a witness should the case ever come to trial.

[Ben]

Fish will be back in three weeks.

Thanks for the reminder, Garry!

Given some of the recent discourse, I was just thinking to myself "Kom tillbaka, Fiskare! Allt är förlåtet!"

All the best,
Ben

[Hunter]

ever officially discredited in the way some are expecting Hutchinson to have been?

Hi Jen,

No, they were not as far as a public declaration would be concerned. The closest the police ever came to such was with Packer and that was because he had gotten off to a bad start with the police over his initial interview with Sgt. White and he stayed in the limelight into November. The information about Violenia comes entirely from the press.

It would have been helpful if a surviving summary report from Swanson was available a few weeks after the Kelly murder as was the case with the previous ones. It was he, who placed doubt on Mrs. Long's testimony during the Chapman investigation, stated that Schwartz's police statement was believed and totally discounted Packer... all in internal reports, of course.

'Officially' the police couldn't afford to 'discredit' anyone unless a lie was obvious. They had almost nothing to go on. They allowed Mrs. Long's description to be circulated and posted both PC Smith's and then Schwartz's description in the Berner St. case just to see what might turn up.

Both Hutchinson's and Cox's descriptions were circulated for the same reason. After considerable time, with no suspect remanded based upon any witness description, the witness statements, themselves, lose importance by natural means. The police made no effort to discourage the public from looking for Astrakhan clad men, dark foreigners, blotchy faced characters or even men with black bags (despite the fact that Goldstein had been cleared). They would have been satisfied if any had turned out to be the culprit.

As time passed and the trail remained cold, I believe Swanson looked at all of the witness statements to see if there was one that might be worthy to use if a viable suspect later appeared. The information is scant, of course; only a couple of newspaper articles about Salder and Grainger... and Swanson's reference to the City CID in his 'marginalia'... but it appears that he (and maybe Anderson as well) settled upon Lawende as the best choice. Swanson seems to have been looking for the witness whose sighting was closest to the time an actual murder had taken place. Also, Lawende was the one witness who was verified by others; something that would not have been lost to an experienced investigator. Despite the fact that Lawende stated he may not know the man again, his description was, nevertheless, fairly detailed.

It must be remembered in assessing any of the witness accounts, just what little the police had to work with. Mrs. Cox's 'blotchy' faced man didn't pan out for them either. Hutchinson's detailed description may seem incredible to many now. We've had all of the time in the world to postulate and evaluate his testimony and the possible reasons for it. But, at the time the police had a running investigation that was getting pounded by much of the press and the public and they could ill afford to discount anything that might be a clue at the time. They had no choice but to see if any of the witness accounts offered a lead. Outside of someone actually seeing a murder being committed, these witness statements (even Hutchison's) were all they had to work with in the immediate aftermath of the murders.

In the end, it appears no witness statement was of much help, with the possible exception of one... and few accept that as conclusive either.

[Ben]

I certainly accept Hunter's observation that the police were compelled to make do with what little they had at their disposal in terms of eyewitness evidence, and this mentality neatly accounts for Abberline's failure to dismiss Hutchinson's statement from the get-go. It had to be circulated to the press, irrespective of police suspicions as to its legitimacy, on account of the paucity of leads in the investigation. After all, they "had almost nothing to go on".

The observation that:

'Officially' the police couldn't afford to 'discredit' anyone unless a lie was obvious

...is the same point I stressed to Sleekviper in a recent discussion:

"Unless they had absolute proof that Hutchinson was wrong or lying, they could not risk announcing to all and sundry that the Astrakhan man was "officially" not true, just in case they were wrong".

I object very strongly, however, to the claim that the police lost interest in the Astrakhan account because it wasn't producing any tangible results. This is absolute nonsense. If that were truly the case, they would not have informed the Echo and other papers that the statement had been "considerably discounted", i.e. put under suspicion and doubted. I also explained in detail that the fact that the police "made no effort to discourage the public from looking for Astrakhan clad men" had nothing at all do with Hutchinson still being considered a valuable witness, which he most assuredly was not. This was simply the inevitable by-product of the police not being in a position to PROVE that Hutchinson lied.

All the best,
Ben