Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Hatchett]

Sorry Jen,

It is late and I put this on the wrong thread, so I will repeat it here. Sorry to everyone for the confusion.

Hello Jen,

It looks as though I've been pipped at the post, but the following quote is from a report from Swanson dated 19th Day of October 1888,

"... Packer who is an elderly man, has unfortunately made different statements so that apart from the fact of the hour at which he saw the woman (and she was seen afterwards by the P.C. and Schwartz as stated) any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence."

I do take it that you mean an internal statement. There never would have been a public one. But that is not what I am looking for.

Ben.

Well that is my "miracle" achieved. Can you do the same?

Best wishes.

David

[Ben]

Ah, ok.

I wondered what was going on.

Here's my response again, then:

I think you'll find that Jen is quite familiar with the document, Hatchett. I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve by re-producing it here, though. Yes, Packer was a bogus witness - well spotted. What interests me though is that the police were not nearly so condemnatory in their approach to Packer, who Swanson appears to have depicted as a confused and elderly man, as they were with Hutchinson, whose late arrival in presenting his evidence (not true of Packer) was explicitly questioned and put under suspicion by the police.

[Hatchett]

Hi Ben,

Well to complete the picture I might as well copy my reply to you here as well.



I dont think Jen was actually, but no doubt she can speak for herself.

The points you make about the Police's attitude and suspicions of Hutchinson, can you please produce the report or memo that substantiates it, as I have done with Packer.

I would be interested to read it.

Best wishes.

[Ben]

Oh, and here as well.

Duplication time:

Ah, but you didn't reproduce any evidence of "suspicions" in Packer's case - only a reason for not attaching any "value" to his account (which we all know about already), whereas with Hutchinson, it has at least been proven beyond question that they suspected his motives for approaching the police so late with his statement, and imparted as much to the Echo.

You stop copying and pasting from other threads and then I'll follow suit, Hatch, not before.

I've got all night if necessary.

[Hatchett]

Hello Ben,

Do you have some sort of problem?

Can I ask you again to just produce something from the Police that mentions anything at that they discounted Hutchinson's statement.

Even a scribble with do. As long as it is signed by a police officer.

In answer to your previous question as it what I was trying to do, I was simply answering a fellow poster's request.

Best wishes.

[Ben]

Do you have some sort of problem?

Well yes, I currently have you as a potentially rather irritating problem, as you seem rather hell bent on following me around and making demands for evidence that you change all time. It really doesn't bother me if you want to pursue Hutchinson's Astrakhan man and assert that it was still believed. It's your time to waste. It is clear from the Echo's communication with the police, however, that this was not the case. But if you're resisting this purely because of a lack of a police declaration that "Hutchinson is officially discredited", you're just wrong.

[Hatchett]

Hello Ben,

I am not following you around at all. You just appear to be on the same threads that I am interested in.

It doesnt appear to matter what facts or evdience I ask of you because you dont present any at all. You just keep repeating two press reports.

If you find me irritating then perhaps it is because you feel vulnerable because you know you have a theory that you cannot substantiate.

I have sympathy with that, but really it is the name of the game to substantiate any theories you have. Otherwise dont publish them.

It is a tough world outside of the playground.

Best wishes.

[Ben]

If you find me irritating then perhaps it is because you feel vulnerable because you know you have a theory that you cannot substantiate.

Ah, that must be it, Hatchett.

If there's anyone who will end up delivering my death knell, it is almost guaranteed to be you - figuring out my naughty, nasty agenda and then frightening me away.

Look, I've tried to disabuse you of your ignorance further than my patience would usually allow.

The police most assuredly informed the Echo that Hutchinson's statement was discredited, whether you're prepared to acknowledge it or not.

Go to bed, Hatchett.

[harry]

Aberline did not state a conviction of Hutchinson's honesty.He declared it as an opinion,and much like I make many opinionated statements on these boards,such opinions are open to arguement.No other police official,then or since have expressed such an opinion of Hutchinson's honesty,and there is nothing to suggest that elements of his story were physicaly checked,then or later.Read many true crime stories,and therein will be found untold examples of investigators expressing opinions when first confronted with information.Do not read too much into what Aberline said of Hutchinson's honesty.It is a very thin point to argue for.

[Hatchett]

Hello Harry,

But a thicker point to argue than no police statement or view at all.

Best wishes.

[Sally]

And Again...

It is hardly likely that a man who was out for the purpose of mixing with the poorest of this wretched class of women would dress in this way, for he would immediately be looked upon with suspicion. Other women, however, say that the man they suspect was respectably dressed, and they all agree that he had a black moustache.

The Observer, 11th November 1888 (my emphasis)

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

(my emphasis)

(Hutchinson’s statement to the press, various)

But there are so many men in this monster metropolis going about respectably dressed, wearing dark moustaches, and carrying black bags that the chances of the police discovering the right man are very slight.

The Observer, 11th November 1888 (my emphasis)

The man was about 5ft 8in in height and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache turned up at the ends

(my emphasis)

(Hutchinson’s statement to the press, various)

He carried a small parcel in his hand, about eight inches long.

(My emphasis)

(Hutchinson’s statement to the press, various)

Goodness. I wonder if he read the paper?

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi Hunter
Good post-but surely if Swanson was looking for the best witness it should have been Hutch? He gave a very detailed description of the man's physical appearance and attire, had heard his voice, said he thought he saw him again, could definitely ID him again, that he lived in the neighborhood, and that he saw him and MK the closest to her estimated TOD. He said he knew MK, was friends with her and positively IDed her body.

Surely GH should have been witness number one, don't you think?

[babybird67]

Hi Hunter
Good post-but surely if Swanson was looking for the best witness it should have been Hutch? He gave a very detailed description of the man's physical appearance and attire, had heard his voice, said he thought he saw him again, could definitely ID him again, that he lived in the neighborhood, and that he saw him and MK the closest to her estimated TOD. He said he knew MK, was friends with her and positively IDed her body.

Surely GH should have been witness number one, don't you think?

Absolutely Abby.

It is inconceivable that the Police could claim that they 'had no clue' if they put any credence at all in Hutch's sighting of the suspect, from which they could have dervied an abundance of clues.

[babybird67]

HI Hunter

thanks for your reply.

'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.

That's my feeling too. I feel expecting a report saying 'it's official, Hutch was a liar' is asking for a bit too much.

However, I still feel, that Hutch was a witness of a different order than the others. Everybody else got vague single sightings, lasting a fleeting few seconds, and their descriptions were very generic and could feasibly apply to a great many people - shabby-genteel, about 5' 6", black moustache etc.

Hutch was of a different order for so many reasons. He looked the man directly in the face. The sheer abundance of detail he allegedly observed, about the man's ethnicity, dress, colouring (down to eyelash colour), social status etc, does not compare with a single other witness.

It doesn't therefore make sense for the Police to prioritise any other witness above Hutch (for example, in their statements that the best person to see the Ripper was Jewish, or only saw the back of him - how could they possibly contend a back view would be better than a front view, and a back view, since Hutch followed Mary and Astrkhan).

The only explanation that makes any logical sense is that Hutch was discounted in some way.

thanks again for your post.

Jen

[babybird67]

hi Garry and Hatchett

Garry, thanks for your post.

Hatchett thanks also for yours. It's helpful having something official which shows Packer was also discounted as a valuable witness, but I agree with Ben that the circumstances were different in regards Packer, being elderly and confused. There certainly doesn't seem to have been any suspicion attached to him.

I see there is nothing for Violenia.

Personally, I think it would have been difficult for the Police to produce anything official regarding Hutchinson. There would be no contextual explanation for him getting confused and giving different versions of what happened, but he certainly did give different versions of what happened. If this led the Police to regard Packer as not very useful, I cannot see why they would not apply this to Hutchinson. I think they did this and did not find a suitable reason for explaining away his discrepancies...hence the inference that the reason to doubt him was related to his failure to appear at the inquest and face cross examination of his story.

Taken as a whole, we have to keep coming back to the combination of the evidence suggesting Hutch was discredited: the Press reports, one of which dervied information directly from the Police, the direction of the investigation, the suggestion from various sources that senior Police officials felt other witnesses were the ones who got the best view of the Ripper, the comments by Police investigating officers that they had no clue as to who the Ripper was.

It all points very clearly to Hutchinson's testimony being dismissed.