Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Sally]

Chapman and the double event didn’t coincide with ‘happenings’ unless the double event itself was the happening.

Unless it was. Yes.

Neither did McKenzie if you want to include her. I think making the Shadwell fire a ‘happening’ is stretching it a bit as well.

Not sure what I think about McKenzie; I don't agree regarding the fire.

Anyway More to the point, if you look at most people we hear about as being arrested on suspicion most seem to be nondescript local people. For example in the McKenzie case there is Larkin the Victoria Home lurker and the Commercial Street kerb crawler. In the aftermath of Kelly’s murder there were several lodging house inmates were arrested. Then don’t forget Sadler was under suspicion as the Ripper after the Coles murder.

I'm not sure Larkin was the lurker, but otherwise, agreed.

I think the police learnt from the dangers of focussing too much on one suspect type after their experience with Iscenschmidt. It seems they really thought they had their man with him. So I think while they had one eye for a while on an A-man type of suspect (or perhaps just a useful witness to eliminate from their enquiries) they were not closed to other possible culprits

I'm sure that's right, Lechmere. I don't think the police had the luxury of ruling one 'type' of suspect out, certainly not in terms of social class. But I still think that they were looking for somebody 'extraordinary' in the sense that they thought the killer was a madman. I don't think insanity is class-specific.

[Lechmere]

Chapman and the double event didn’t coincide with ‘happenings’ unless the double event itself was the happening. Neither did McKenzie if you want to include her. I think making the Shadwell fire a ‘happening’ is stretching it a bit as well.
Anyway More to the point, if you look at most people we hear about as being arrested on suspicion most seem to be nondescript local people. For example in the McKenzie case there is Larkin the Victoria Home lurker and the Commercial Street kerb crawler. In the aftermath of Kelly’s murder there were several lodging house inmates were arrested. Then don’t forget Sadler was under suspicion as the Ripper after the Coles murder.
I think the police learnt from the dangers of focussing too much on one suspect type after their experience with Iscenschmidt. It seems they really thought they had their man with him. So I think while they had one eye for a while on an A-man type of suspect (or perhaps just a useful witness to eliminate from their enquiries) they were not closed to other possible culprits.

[Abby Normal]

The dangers of walking down Dorset Street, the unfeasibility of the A-man’s mode of dress, the unlikelihood of a prosperous looking person being in that area – these features were not really mentioned at the time as being unlikely. It certainly didn’t light a bulb in Abberline’s head and I don’t think he would have needed hindsight to know whether a story sounded ridiculous or not – he knew those streets and the in habitants. If they were outlandish happenings I am sure they would have been. It isn’t a sensible approach in my opinion to say that the A-man episode is unrealistic on these grounds.
As Sally says the papers from that day to this are full of stories of ‘johns’ being rolled. The satisfaction of their desires overcomes caution.

Hi Lechmere
But even Hutch, who possibly totally invented A-man, realized his appearance was out of the ordinary. he claimed that this was the exact reason that A-man caught his attention.

[Sally]

Lechmere - I take your point, well made as it is.

But (Ah, you knew there'd be a 'but', I bet) Whilst I fully agree that Abberline would have known what was, and what was not, safe attire for early hours jaunts down Dosser Street; I don't know that it makes a difference here.

I think in general it was felt at the time that the Whitechapel Murderer must be somebody extraordinary - and Astrakhan Man is certainly that in my view. Only the foolhardy or the daringly crazy would be out sporting smart dress and bling in that situation - as I say, that may have been the point of Astrakhan to begin with - whatever Hutchinson was doing in Dorset Street, the figure of Astrakhan Man is so extraordinary - and I think that much is obvious from only a brief scan of contemporary press reports - that he instantly pales into insignificance besides him:

Sort of - 'yes, I was there, it was me - but wait until you hear what I saw whilst I was there' sort of thing. I'm not saying this is right - I don't know - but it is possible to read the entire Astrakhan Man as purposefully self-serving in Hutchinson's favour.

Anyway, not to digress - contemporary opinion had it that the WM was some sort of show off - I don't recall exactly which papers adhered to this view at this very minute, but I can check - and it was observed that he had a distinct tendency to strike when something else was going on - Bank Holiday, Shadwell Dry Dock Fire, Lord Mayor's Show - in all, the WM was a bit of a show-stealer.

One might expect such an individual to be ostentatious, were it within his means. In all, I think Astrakhan Man is quite plausible, in contemporary terms - but with hindsight, I think a different picture has emerged.

[Lechmere]

You might notice is said it is sensible to denounce the A-man story on these grounds:
“The dangers of walking down Dorset Street, the unfeasibility of the A-man’s mode of dress, the unlikelihood of a prosperous looking person being in that area”
I specifically and deliberately did not mention (which is why I highlighted the word ‘these’) the exactitude of Hutchinson’s description, as I am well aware that elements of the press found that suspicious. In my opinion that is a legitimate issue to take up at this remove as it isn’t time specific. In other words Abberline would have known how different people dressed in that neighbourhood better than we, he would have know how safe it was to walk down Dorset Street better than we – but as for over elaborate descriptions we can make a similar judgement to him or even perhaps arguably with the benefit of hindsight a better judgement.

[Ben]

Speaking of the papers, here's an interesting article from the Graphic, 17th November 1888:

It is true that on this last occasion a man has given a very precise description of the supposed murderer. The very exactitude of his description, however, engenders a feeling of scepticism. The witness in question admits that at the time he saw him he did not suspect the person he watched of being the Whitechapel assassin; yet, at two o'clock in the morning, in badly-lighted thoroughfares, he observed more than most of us would observe in broad daylight, with ample time at our disposal. A man who in such a hasty survey notes such points as "a pair of dark 'spats,' with light buttons, over button boots," and "a red stone hanging from his watch-chain," must possess the eyes of a born detective.

Hence, the oddity of the alleged Astrakhan encounter did not go unnoticed.

As for Abberline's views, the presence of a serial killer on the streets of London would have been considered an "outlandish happening", and to a police force with no experience of such a phenomenon, anything that would normally be considered "outlandish" might be considered possible by extension. It's the mentality that reasons "With a killer as crazy as this, who knows what he'll do".

[Lechmere]

The dangers of walking down Dorset Street, the unfeasibility of the A-man’s mode of dress, the unlikelihood of a prosperous looking person being in that area – these features were not really mentioned at the time as being unlikely. It certainly didn’t light a bulb in Abberline’s head and I don’t think he would have needed hindsight to know whether a story sounded ridiculous or not – he knew those streets and the in habitants. If they were outlandish happenings I am sure they would have been. It isn’t a sensible approach in my opinion to say that the A-man episode is unrealistic on these grounds.
As Sally says the papers from that day to this are full of stories of ‘johns’ being rolled. The satisfaction of their desires overcomes caution.

[Ben]

Excellent points, Sally, and of course his statement was ultimately discredited, without any evidence of protest from Abberline.

Hi Hatchett,

Whether it was unnecessary or not doesnt mean that it didnt or could not have happened

But it would be such an eccentrically weird and pointless thing to do that we can safely say it probably didn't happen. And I can just envisage Kelly's reaction "Oh I see, you are a posh gent, aren't ya? That's a relief because only gold watches need apply if you want my services, love. I can afford to be choosy, y'see, because I live in a tiny hovel in the worst street in London."

Nah.

[Sally]

Sure..

Sally,

I hate to repeat myself, but at the end of the day no matter what you or I think Abberline did not think Hutchinson's statement was preposterous.

No offence, but I take his judgement over yours.

But Abberline didn't have the benefit of hindsight, did he? At least not in the sense that we do so many years later. And what hindsight he did have doesn't appear to have encompassed the splendid reliability of Hutchinson's statement so far as we can tell.

I think having to make a judgement at the time would have been a very different thing amidst lurid press reports of well-dressed parcel carrying gents for a police force who were desperate to catch the Ripper.

[Hatchett]

Hello Ben,

Whether it was unnecessary or not doesnt mean that it didnt or could not have happened. Vanity and ego are strange things. Just because you wouldnt do it, or you cannot understand why it was done, is irrelevent.

Sally,

I hate to repeat myself, but at the end of the day no matter what you or I think Abberline did not think Hutchinson's statement was preposterous.

No offence, but I take his judgement over yours.

Best wishes.

[Sally]

And besides which...

If Astroman was a random Dosser Street traveller who happened to chance upon Kelly (whether his name was Jack or not) - how did he know that Kelly didn't have a couple of roughs hiding in the shadows?

There are a number of stories of prostitutes leading johns back to lodging houses - let alone private residences - ostensibly for sex; but with the actual intention of providing a victim for accomplice muggers - I'm sure the practice was fairly widespread.

Astroman would have been rather foolish to display his evident wealth in the dead of night in Dorset Street, I should say. It doesn't matter, either, whether his gold watch was in fact brass - as others have pointed out, who could have told the difference in the dark?

It would have been a risky strategy. But then, perhaps that's the point - Astroman is an unfeasible figure in Dorset Street in the early hours. His highly unusual appearance (both in Dorset Street and in physical terms) and his rapid pick up of the hapless Kelly all signal determined intent, and disregard for convention and personal safety.

Astoman was bound to attract attention and suspicion. And so he did - Hutchinson, the only person to see him, apparently, was indeed suspicious. But not that he was the murderer, which exonerated him from comig forward sooner rather nicely.

[Ben]

Hi Hatchett,

Such a display would have been highly unnecessary in order to procure the services of somebody like Kelly. She was an impoverished prostitute living in a tiny hovel in what was widely alluded to as one of the worst streets in London. Her majority clientele would have been comprised of the working class poor. It wasn't as if a woman in Kelly's predicament could afford to reserve her services only for those clients who displayed the extent of their wealth in the fashion of a Bird of Paradise.

All the best,
Ben

[Hatchett]

Hello Ben,

I think a point you could have over looked is that a watch and chain is there to be displayed. Astro Man could have had his jacket and overcoat buttoned up until he spotted Mary Kelly, and then opened them to display his finery. That is what happens on the street today (except for the watch and chain.)

It is all part of the chase, so as to speak.

Best wishes.

[Ben]

Kelly and Cox were almost certainly too poor to own a coat, the point being that for those who did have funds enough to buy two of them - as Mr. Astrakhan supposedly would have been - it makes no sense at all to have them both unbuttoned on such a cold and wet night. The Astrakhan man allegedly produced his handkerchief at the entrance to Miller's Court, when Hutchinson was stationed at the corner of Dorset Street. It would have been impossible for Hutchinson to have noticed a gold chain below two overcoats from that vantage point.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

What I’m saying is that only one of the oddities in Hutchinson’s whole account is that he left his coat open whilst there was a very good reason to keep it buttoned up (besides that it was cold and possibly rainy), i.e. the very real possibility of inviting muggers by displaying such a “fat, gold chain” and otherwise being obviously well dressed.......

Other oddities directly linked to this are the presence of a well dressed man in one of the worst East End neighbourhoods, on his own & well after the pubs had closed,

Hi Frank.
But doesn't your suggestion of "odd" depend on your take on how bad the weather was, or was not, on that night?

There was another man, if you recall, outside the Britannia who is not described as wearing an overcoat. We cannot include the man Lewis saw (Hutch?), as she could not describe his clothes.
So here are three men out, all alone, in Commercial-street.
How many others there may have been, unrelated to the events described, is unknown.
So there is not much to compare the Astrachan-man with as far as whether his clothing indicated a cold/wet night. And he did carry a pair of brown kid-gloves in his hand, he wasn't wearing them.
We know it had been raining on and off, but to what degree?

As far as the women go, Cox was in and out several times, she didn't mention wearing a coat, only that her hands needed warming. Cox did describe Kelly at midnight wearing a pereline (mini cape) & shabby skirt, but no coat. Kelly did have a man's coat hanging in her room if she really needed one.

All points considered Frank, there isn't a great deal to go on to argue that it was sufficiently cold that Astrachan should have buttoned up his coat.

Now, as far as the visible watch chain goes. Some have assumed this was visible to anyone passing in the street, that his coat wide open exposing a potential source of wealth for the next Bill Sykes to help himself to.
We do not know this for sure.

What we do know is that at some point Astrachan (presumably?) pulled back his coat and reached into a jacket/waistcoat pocket and pulled out a red handkerchief.
Is this the point when his watch-chain, briefly exposed, glinted in the night?
If that is the case then this brief glimps hardly constitutes endangering his safety.

.... and the notion that Hutchinson - under bad conditions – was allegedly able to see so many details and remember them too.

If it wasn't for Hutchinson apparently spilling all he knew to the press I might have posed the question as to whether he was 'only' the labourer he claimed he was. Hutchinson appeared to have the perception and stamina for a lonely vigil normally associated with undercover detectives. The fact he was described as "of military appearance" only adds to the possibility. Whatever military appearance meant, perhaps close cut hair, trimmed moustache and upright stance more indicative of a policeman than a common labourer.
That is the only aspect of Hutchinson I find "odd", but all that seems to be only coincidence.

All the best, Jon S.