Mister Astrakhan's Moustache

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Since identical versions of his account appeared from 14th November onwards, it is likely that the original source was a member of a press agency which circulated articles for publication, hence the absence of any one newspaper claiming the scoop."

Absolutely, Ben. But who fed that "reporter"? And what asserts us that he ever met Hutchinson? Nothing. Nothing at all.

"...it is clear that a Hutchinson must have communicated with more than one reporter"

I know a thing or two about reporters and newspapers, Ben - and that is a contention I don´t share with you.

"Which leaves us with Hutchinson creating the embellihsments themselves as false witnesses tend to do quite often, or the police being responsible. As I've mentioned, I can't rule out the possibility of the police churning out "dark" as an accidental substitute for "pale", but it isn't remotely plausible to have them sanction the printing of wholesale invention of several details, such a "red stone seal" and "American cloth".

...unless these embellishemnts were provided by our "reporter", that is. The "military appearance" may well have had it´s source in that manner, as far as I can see. And a thing that must be pondered very seriously here is why it seems that all these journalists, hungry for scoops, seem to have let Hutch feed them at will, instead of asking away. I will point you to the fact that nothing at all is said when i comes to describing Kelly - just as is the case in Hutch´s written statement, and that is beyond belief; not a single journalist wants to know anything about the victim of the whole affair?
I think that is a very important thing to keep in mind, since that is not the way journalists function - that is what is more often than not the result of a central source feeding the papers the same story, more or less, perhaps slightly altered versions to different papers, thereafter embellished on by the journalists themselves.

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hey Fish,

Absolutely, Ben. But who fed that "reporter"?

The representative from the press agency would be my guess; the same journalistic source that fed some, if not all, of the newspapers that ran the Hutchinson story.

And what asserts us that he ever met Hutchinson? Nothing. Nothing at all

The fact that it was explicitly stated that Hutchinson made his statement to a reporter. If he was "apparently" of the labouring class, it was because his "appearance" suggested as much. This and the "military appearance" detail would be an understandable impression formed by the press having direct contact with him, but very unusual if the police passed on this random physical detail directly to the press.

...unless these embellishemnts were provided by our "reporter", that is.

I doubt very much that a member of a press agency would conjur up his own embellishments, especially if there was no question of the "scoop" being attributed to any one source (which, as you note, it apparently wasn't). The absence of any "scoop" factor simply dispensed with any logical motive for adding American cloth and red stone seals when there weren't any in the initial account. Other press versions of his account clearly weren't from the same press agency, which may explain why there differed markedly in detail from most other press versions, and why some of them have more of a "question and answer" type format.

Best regards,
Ben

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

One thing to bear in mind is that Mister Astrakhan's description was with the various Fleet Street newspaper sub-editors at a time when the ink on Abberline's 12th November report was barely dry.

It has been suggested that Mister Astrakhan's description was unofficially leaked to the press but this idea doesn't hold water as the expanded description published on 14th November says, "The description of the murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police and published yesterday morning."

Perhaps the first question we should address is why Mister Astrakhan's description as furnished by the police differed in a dozen respects from that originally given to the police by George Hutchinson.

Regards,

Simon

[caz]

Hi Ben,

I thought it was your argument that any discrepancies between what appeared in Hutch's police statement and the papers were somehow more likely to indicate a murderer telling blatant, unnecessary and inconsistent lies in his attempts to cover his tracks than anything else, which could include the unreliable witness warming to his fifteen minutes of self-imposed fame and hoping to make a bit of easy money; journalists doing what comes all too naturally to them; badly written details accidentally getting muddled in the recording and reporting process; or - at the other extreme - police 'tactics'.

I reserve the right to disagree and challenge you to provide evidence for such an argument. If, however, it is simply your opinion that such discrepancies could be the ripper's work we are all square, because anything's possible, even if in my opinion it's still rather unlikely that he would draw attention to himself in such a way and the police would think nothing of it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Hi Simon!

It IS intriguing, whichever way you want to look at it. Thanks for providing that alternative wiew; it has a lot more going for it than I would have thought at first glance!

Ben writes:

"The fact that it was explicitly stated that Hutchinson made his statement to a reporter."

Yes, Ben. But stating it explicitly does not make it a truth, I´m afraid. The only thing it turns into factuality is that the Pall Mall Gazette offered the notion that such a thing had occurred, giving no source and naming no name. Care should be taken in such instances.
The name George Hutchinson was on everybodys lips from three days after the strike and onwards. He was staying at the very heart of the district where the crimes were committed. There would have been hundreds of reporters trying to hunt him down, and he obviously did not do much to avoid them since he is reported to have taken to the streets in search of Astrakhan man for "a few hours" in the company of two policemen. For some reason, though, he managed to go undetected by the press in spite of all this, and the reporters were obliged to receive whatever information that could be had, and that information seems to have emanated from one source and one source only - our so called reporter.

If you think that is a perfectly reasonable way for such a thing to go down at that stage of the hunt for the Ripper, then your travelling on a train that I won´t purchase any ticket for.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

There is also this piece to add, from the Echo of the 13:th:
"The police are embarrassed with two definite descriptions of the man suspected of the murder. The second description induced some particularly-sanguine journalist to declare that it "not only establishes a clue to the perpetrator of the Dorset-street murder, but places the authorities in possession of an accurate and full description of a person who was seen in company with the murdered woman during the night on which she met her death." A man, apparently of the labouring class, but of a military appearance, who knew the deceased, last night lodged with the police a long and detailed statement of an incident which attracted his attention on the day in question. The following is a summary of the statement, and it may be said that, notwithstanding examination and re-examination by the police, the man's story could not be shaken, and so circumstantial and straightforward were his assertions that the police at first believed they had - to again quote the journalist - "at length been placed in possession of facts which would open up a new line of investigation, and probably enable them to track the criminal."

Some "particularly sanguine" journalist? But it seems apparent that just as little that other "reporter" belonged to the Pall Mall Gazette, does this "journalist" belong to the Echo.
The word is being spread, but nobody we can put a name to, paper or journalist, manages to get a glimpse of George Hutchinson - not even the census listers, apparently.

The best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

The Mister Astrakhan description which appeared in the press on 13th November was not credited to George Hutchinson.

The Star, 13th November 1888—

"Finally, we have the statement by an anonymous witness which has found its way into the morning papers, and which makes the suspected individual an elegantly-dressed gentleman about 5ft. 6in. in height, "with a dark complexion, and a dark moustache curled up at the ends." Why this statement has been made public at this particular juncture is one of those mysteries in the police management of the case which no one out[side?] of Scotland-yard can understand."

The Times, 13th November 1888—

"This description, which confirms that given by others of the person seen in company with the deceased on the morning she was killed, is much fuller in detail than that hitherto in the possession of the police."

That's interesting considering that nobody other than GH saw Mister Astrakhan.

The Mister Astrakhan description which appeared in the press on 14th November was credited to George Hutchinson.

The Times, 14th November 1888—

"The following statement was made yesterday evening by George Hutchinson, a labourer . . . etc etc.

". . . The description of the murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police and published yesterday morning."

With hindsight we know that GH was the sole source of the Mister Astrakhan story [and we have his written statement signed by four police officers to prove it]. But taking this last sentence from The Times literally means that the press believed George Hutchinson was providing independent corroboration of a description published the day before which was given to the police by an "anonymous witness".

All of which would explain the differences and elaborations between the two descriptions.

I personally doubt that George Hutchinson ever existed, but that's a subject for another thread.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Simon writes:
"I personally doubt that George Hutchinson ever existed"

Given what has surfaced on this thread, it is a thought that offers itself sooner or later.
When it does, though, one has to take things one step further, and ask WHY the police would invent him - for if he did not exist, he was a police invention. And we know that the Astrahan man description had already been furnished, purporting to belong to an "anonymous witness".
If we accept your bid, Simon, and work from the assumption that the police for some reason were not pleased by just having the Astrakhan man description ascribed to an anonymous witness, but instead invented George Hutchinson - then the remotely reasonable suggestions as to why must be extremely limited, would you not say?

The best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

Extremely limited, I agree. But nevertheless important to the police [for whatever reason] in the short term. After all, the whole story was "discredited" by 15th November. But GH did set something of a Guinness World Record for an Abberline witness. He lasted a whole day longer than Israel Schwartz or Albert Piggott.

I feel that Mister A was a smokescreen and that the true purpose of GH's story was to provide an "alibi" for Dorset Street—

"Between 2.05 and 3.00 am nothing untoward happened in Dorset Street."

And I further believe there was a solid reason why "GH" didn't appear at the inquest with Sarah Lewis [or was it Mrs Kennedy?] who was staying with the Keylers [or was it the Gallaghers?] at No. 2 Millers Court.

From the fact that ALL the inquest witnesses were selected three days earlier on 9th November to GH's witness statement bearing three different signatures, there is too much that stinks about the Millers Court murder to be able to simply write it off as press misreporting.

We'll get to the bottom of it, but only once we disavow ourselves of the notion that the police wore white hats.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Interesting elaborations there, Simon; thanks. I´ll be a tease and tell you that I am thinking along different lines here - but I won´t spill the beans, since I am on very - VERY! -thin ice with it. It will take some digesting and afterthought before/if I have more to say on this musing of mine. I can just hope that you are right in your assertion that we will get to the bottom of it all.

The best, Simon!
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Hi Simon,

I have to admit that the quote seems to suggest that the details of Astrakan were known on Sunday, which we can see, they were not. I thought that a simple "provided by the police" may have been intended as "provided to the police",..... but not with Hutchinsons details that were only provided Monday after 6pm.

Im not as sure there was no such witnesses that made a statement Monday night, but I am fairly sure that the details provided at that time spurred some actions by the police, actions like those need men and men cost money, why would Police create a man then spend good money and time actually investigating the story that goes with him?

All the best Simon.

[Mort Belfry]

And would have the police said "GH, a labourer of military appearance"? I doubt.

I have no interest in arguing either way on GH talking to the press or not, but this is best point on this thread in its favour.

[Ben]

I thought it was your argument that any discrepancies between what appeared in Hutch's police statement and the papers were somehow more likely to indicate a murderer telling blatant, unnecessary and inconsistent lies in his attempts to cover his tracks than anything else

No, Caz, I never argued that his lies were unnecessary. Hutchinson may well have believed them to be necessary for the purposes of self-preservation. As for inconsistency, who's to say that either Hutchinson or the ripper must have been wholly consistent in the lies they told? You cannot possibly use the fact that he was inconsistent in his press and police versions to argue that he didn't care about slipping up and getting the lie wrong. The fact that he embellished and told contradictory stories only reinforces the strong likelihood that he was lying, as if that ever really needed reinforcing.

People don't automatically become more convicing or successful liars purely by virtue of their motive for lying. Your motive can be self-preservation or publicity-seeking, it doesn't matter. Neither motive will bestow upon the liar any more innate ability to pull off a long, convincing and detailed lie without slipping up. That's just obvious. No, I don't think Hutchinson was in pursuit of fame or money. What money could he ever expected to receive from the capture of an "intented" suspect"?

As for "badly written details", where's this all coming from. There's no evidence that anything was badly written, and the idea that journalistic confusion could suddenly mutate into wholesale invention of American Cloth, white buttons over button boots, and red stone seals dangling from a watch is clearly nonsense. It just seems like you're coming up with any excuse to make it look as though everyone else must be the bad guy before Hutchinson can be accused of dodginess. False witnesses embroider their false accounts all the time, but because you're so paranoid that it might lead to speculation that the false witness in question might also be the killer, you're more prepared to chalk it up to lying journalists or a police conspiracy.

even if in my opinion it's still rather unlikely that he would draw attention to himself in such a way and the police would think nothing of it

Well, y'know, it isn't because we know that serial killers are in the habit of drawing attention to themselves in this and similar fashions.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Yes, Ben. But stating it explicitly does not make it a truth, I´m afraid.

Quite so, Fish, but if the alternative means accepting that the Pall Mall Gazzette decided to churn out a bare-faced lie for no reason, the chances of the statement reflecting the truth is markedly increased. You then quote extensively from the Echo with its reference to a "particularly-sanguine journalist" picking up on Hutchinson's story. By all means assume that the Echo and the the Pall Mall Gazette were simply telling whoppers, but I have a far easier time accepting that they knew that Hutchinson's story had been divulged to a reporter.

There would have been hundreds of reporters trying to hunt him down, and he obviously did not do much to avoid them since he is reported to have taken to the streets in search of Astrakhan man for "a few hours" in the company of two policemen. For some reason, though, he managed to go undetected by the press in spite of all this

On the contrary, Fisherman. The fact that his account appeared in the press so soon after his initial appearance at the police station speaks even more favourably for the notion that he was tracked down by a reporter.

Best regards,
Ben

[Mort Belfry]

If, however, it is simply your opinion that such discrepancies could be the ripper's work we are all square, because anything's possible, even if in my opinion it's still rather unlikely that he would draw attention to himself in such a way and the police would think nothing of it.

So your feeling is that Jack the Ripper would never act suspiciously? That the more suspicion a suspect is under the less likely he is to be Jack the Ripper?

Or am I missing something?