Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Rubyretro]

Wickerman -A rich man might change his shirts and hats. I doubt if he had a large wardrobe of overcoats though. Don't forget that his clothes would almost certainly be made to measure.

The poor could change their clothes more easily by going into pawn shops. A rich man such as A Man would stick out like a sore thumb walking into a pawn shop to buy a disguise.

A Man was wearing a very distinctive alliance of jewellery. It was distinctive enough for Hutchinson to clock it in the dark. Lots of men may have owned a gold watch and chain, and lots of men might have owned a gold horseshoe tie pin. Far fewer men would have owned a watch chain with a red stone
and even fewer both a watchchain with a red stone, and a gold horseshoe tie pin.

It is plainly ridiculous to imagine that A Man would have only put his jewellery on when 'slumming' in the Dorset Street. It cannot have been fetish jewellery that he only put on when murdering either, since Lawende's man clearly wasn't wearing it.

No man lives in a total vacuum, and A Man would have had a maid, even if he didn't have a wife. He would have come into contact with other people in
his daily life. It is inconceivable that no one would have recognised the description of his watch and pin.

A Man would have been readily identifiable from Hutchinson's description -had he existed, of course.

[Garry Wroe]

Precisely, Lesley. And neither would an intelligent police force have wasted resources in searching for him in low lodging houses and casual wards.

[Phil H]

A rich man might change his shirts and hats. I doubt if he had a large wardrobe of overcoats though. Don't forget that his clothes would almost certainly be made to measure.

For gentlemen almost all clothes would be "made to measure" (I believe "bespoke" is the technical term), but he might well have more than one overcoat - depending on his class - an evening cost, a coat for the country (perhaps caped) and maybe lighter dustcoats for summer - see Paget's Sherlock Holmes illustrations for examples.

The poor could change their clothes more easily by going into pawn shops. A rich man such as A Man would stick out like a sore thumb walking into a pawn shop to buy a disguise.

But - citing Holmes again - the great detective has wardrobes of disguises hidden away and must have procuered them somehow. Also the man with the twisted lip, who was a gentleman/businessman. So I think it is possible that second hand clothes could have been obtained by someone of a superior class as I doubt a novelist would include something that defied contenmporary reason.

One other thing - my reading of the late Victorian/Edwardian periods suggests that there were a myriad of ways in which those at the time would have told the social class of almost anyone - cut, material fashion, the jewellery worn, even the manner of wearing clothes (style). While clothing might be changed, it is MUCH more difficult to change a man's bearing or deportment, or - for sustained periods - their accent.

One of my difficulties with Hutchinson's description of astrakhan man (AM) is that the clothing is inappropriate for the time of day or place. The spats are one issue - they were MORNING wear. Usual attire for a man, at night, in town, would have been white tie.

Those are reasons why I subscribe to the view that Hutchinson may have been describing a dummy from a tailor's window rather than a real person. (The only type of person I could see being dressed as described would be a "country squire" who had come to town for the day, and got stranded. But I doubt such a man would have been so dandified in terms of facial hair or jewellery as Hutchinson's man allegedly was.

Another class issue is that a man dressed either as described, or generally of the middle/upper classes in 1888, would lmost certainly have had a valet, part of whose duties would have been to dress and undress him. Clothing of the period was particularly complex and the whole idea was that it could not be put on or taken off unaided. Thus AM would have had great difficulty I suggest even removing his boots - if Hutchinson is right (BUTTON boots) without a button hook. His collar would have had studs fore and aft, his shirt sleeves and removable starched cuffs, further studs. His shirt from probably had studs down the front rather than buttons... Hutchinson might have been unaware of much of this detail.

A Man was wearing a very distinctive alliance of jewellery. It was distinctive enough for Hutchinson to clock it in the dark.

Or is it unrealistic that he saw so much in the dar - would a red stone have shown up as red at night in those lighting conditions?

Lots of men may have owned a gold watch and chain, and lots of men might have owned a gold horseshoe tie pin. Far fewer men would have owned a watch chain with a red stone and even fewer both a watchchain with a red stone, and a gold horseshoe tie pin.

You may be underestimating the fashionable quality of all those items in 1888. A gold watch was really the only type of portable time-piece, especially for a gentleman; horseshoe pins can be found in almost any antique jewellers in qualtity even today. A red stone would not be uncommon.

The more I consider AM, the more he appears to me to be a creation of a man seeking to invent his idea of someone who was (to him at least) a toff.

Phil

[Abby Normal]

A rich man might change his shirts and hats. I doubt if he had a large wardrobe of overcoats though. Don't forget that his clothes would almost certainly be made to measure.

For gentlemen almost all clothes would be "made to measure" (I believe "bespoke" is the technical term), but he might well have more than one overcoat - depending on his class - an evening cost, a coat for the country (perhaps caped) and maybe lighter dustcoats for summer - see Paget's Sherlock Holmes illustrations for examples.

The poor could change their clothes more easily by going into pawn shops. A rich man such as A Man would stick out like a sore thumb walking into a pawn shop to buy a disguise.

But - citing Holmes again - the great detective has wardrobes of disguises hidden away and must have procuered them somehow. Also the man with the twisted lip, who was a gentleman/businessman. So I think it is possible that second hand clothes could have been obtained by someone of a superior class as I doubt a novelist would include something that defied contenmporary reason.

One other thing - my reading of the late Victorian/Edwardian periods suggests that there were a myriad of ways in which those at the time would have told the social class of almost anyone - cut, material fashion, the jewellery worn, even the manner of wearing clothes (style). While clothing might be changed, it is MUCH more difficult to change a man's bearing or deportment, or - for sustained periods - their accent.

One of my difficulties with Hutchinson's description of astrakhan man (AM) is that the clothing is inappropriate for the time of day or place. The spats are one issue - they were MORNING wear. Usual attire for a man, at night, in town, would have been white tie.

Those are reasons why I subscribe to the view that Hutchinson may have been describing a dummy from a tailor's window rather than a real person. (The only type of person I could see being dressed as described would be a "country squire" who had come to town for the day, and got stranded. But I doubt such a man would have been so dandified in terms of facial hair or jewellery as Hutchinson's man allegedly was.

Another class issue is that a man dressed either as described, or generally of the middle/upper classes in 1888, would lmost certainly have had a valet, part of whose duties would have been to dress and undress him. Clothing of the period was particularly complex and the whole idea was that it could not be put on or taken off unaided. Thus AM would have had great difficulty I suggest even removing his boots - if Hutchinson is right (BUTTON boots) without a button hook. His collar would have had studs fore and aft, his shirt sleeves and removable starched cuffs, further studs. His shirt from probably had studs down the front rather than buttons... Hutchinson might have been unaware of much of this detail.

A Man was wearing a very distinctive alliance of jewellery. It was distinctive enough for Hutchinson to clock it in the dark.

Or is it unrealistic that he saw so much in the dar - would a red stone have shown up as red at night in those lighting conditions?

Lots of men may have owned a gold watch and chain, and lots of men might have owned a gold horseshoe tie pin. Far fewer men would have owned a watch chain with a red stone and even fewer both a watchchain with a red stone, and a gold horseshoe tie pin.

You may be underestimating the fashionable quality of all those items in 1888. A gold watch was really the only type of portable time-piece, especially for a gentleman; horseshoe pins can be found in almost any antique jewellers in qualtity even today. A red stone would not be uncommon.

The more I consider AM, the more he appears to me to be a creation of a man seeking to invent his idea of someone who was (to him at least) a toff.

Phil

Hi Phi

The more I consider AM, the more he appears to me to be a creation of a man seeking to invent his idea of someone who was (to him at least) a toff.l


I agree Phil. Or perhaps, as Ruby had pointed out a while ago, perhaps a real man who GH knew who dressed like that who he transferred as A-man. A Jewish man maybe who was a former boss and who GH disliked and/or was jelaous of.

[Abby Normal]

Certainly Garry, Hutchinson was believed. Sadly, we have no police documentation with which to judge what happend over the subsequent days after his interview.

I don't think any description was sufficient to "break the case". Doss-house lodgers might wear the same clothes every day, I don't think it's reasonable to assume this is true of the wealthy classes - in fact we can be pretty certain this would not be the case.

With a different selection of coats, jackets, hats, trousers, all the police can reasonably take from Astrachan's description is the height, build, facial appearance & age. Everything else can change. This is less likely with the lower classes.
When Hutchinson (thought he?) saw this same man on Sunday morning he doesn't say if the man was dressed the same, or that he recognised him by his face only.
Possibly this is why he was not so certain, he was dressed different, but facially looked the same.

One point about descriptions. When the police publish any description I think we tend to wrongly assume that this is the person they are 'currently' looking for.
When they publish what the man looked like on the night of the incident, what they are saying is, "have you seen this man?". That is different to saying "this is who we are looking for".
So should we assume they were looking for a man in Astrachan-type attire?, no. They want to know if anyone recognised (past tense) his appearance, and any well-dressed man of the same social class will subsequently attract attention, but not necessarily every man wearing a "massive gold watch chain".

We know the police were not stupid, of course the killer is going to change his appearance (if he has the wherewithall), but they are asking if the public recognise this "snapshot in time" appearance, or at least thats how I understand it.

There is so much we cannot be sure of, and that is what I try to emphasize when absolutes & assertions are thrown about where "might-have's" & "possibly's" should suffice.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Wicker
But Hutch was so detailed and certain about his Physical appearance as well. Saying he could identify, that he was jewish looking, that he thought he saw him again, that he beleived he lived in the neighborhood. Surely this should have made him witness #1 in the police eyes-not just for a few days but forever-unless of course something made him become discredited in the police view. In my mind him going to the press and changing the story (along with the other stuff) would have been sufficient.
Does this sound reasonable?

[Phil H]

Or perhaps, as Ruby had pointed out a while ago, perhaps a real man who GH knew who dressed like that who he transferred as A-man. A Jewish man maybe who was a former boss and who GH disliked and/or was jelaous of.

It's possible, but the oddity of the man's attire seems incredible, it just doesn't fit with the conventions of a period when conformity in dress was all - especially for those with any social pretensions!

Also, if the description was of someone Hutchinson knew (even if not remotely JtR) would he not have had some idea of where to find him - an address or area?

Of course, the individual might have been eccentric in dress but that doesn't seem to fit to me. Flamboyance is one thing - but would such a person (one who could afford tailor-made clothes) make social mistakes? If he did not know the rules (a parvenu merchant perhaps) his tailor or valet surely would.

Incidentally, how much is our view of this man influenced by the VERY striking artists impression drawn at the time? Would we take the description so seriously without that? Do we pay less attention to (say) Blotchy Face because we don't possess such an image?

Finally, I suppose the face might come from one source and the dress from another?

Phil

[Abby Normal]

Or perhaps, as Ruby had pointed out a while ago, perhaps a real man who GH knew who dressed like that who he transferred as A-man. A Jewish man maybe who was a former boss and who GH disliked and/or was jelaous of.

It's possible, but the oddity of the man's attire seems incredible, it just doesn't fit with the conventions of a period when conformity in dress was all - especially for those with any social pretensions!

Also, if the description was of someone Hutchinson knew (even if not remotely JtR) would he not have had some idea of where to find him - an address or area?

Of course, the individual might have been eccentric in dress but that doesn't seem to fit to me. Flamboyance is one thing - but would such a person (one who could afford tailor-made clothes) make social mistakes? If he did not know the rules (a parvenu merchant perhaps) his tailor or valet surely would.

Incidentally, how much is our view of this man influenced by the VERY striking artists impression drawn at the time? Would we take the description so seriously without that? Do we pay less attention to (say) Blotchy Face because we don't possess such an image?

Finally, I suppose the face might come from one source and the dress from another?

Phil

Hi Phil
Good points.

Also, if the description was of someone Hutchinson knew (even if not remotely JtR) would he not have had some idea of where to find him - an address or area?

I did not mean he wanted to blame him directly. Just that he was someone who he used as a model for his A-man.

[Rubyretro]

Finally, I suppose the face might come from one source and the dress from another?

Phil[

I think that I suggested a composite picture of someone (people he'd seen).

I agree that the spats at night etc show that he didn't understand dresscodes.

I'm convinced that the horseshoe was introduced as a jewish symbol, which would have been understood at the time, as it hung above some jewish shops ( a hamsa).

Errata also wrote an interesting piece about the red stone being oriental/eastern european.

I'm afraid that Hutch was over-egging a toff/Jew/villain cliché description.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Ben,

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.

Hi Hatchett

Ben might not want to say it but I will.

I admit it-There is none.

Now can you admit that the big picture points in all probability that the police eventually came to (I wont say discredit or discount) devalue his credibility as a witness?

[babybird67]

Here you go, Jen. This is an excerpt from The Daily Telegraph of 14th November:-

The Central News says: The police have made a thorough search of casual wards and other places of a similar character. In the Holborn casual ward their attention was attracted to the very suspicious behaviour of one of the temporary inmates. Constables were at once sent to the place, and they arrested a rough-looking fellow, who gave the name of Thomas Murphy ...

If the search had occurred the day prior to publication, police were swooping on casual wards and similar such places the day after Hutchinson submitted his police statement. At any event, police actions of this nature were apparently being effected during the very week that Astrakhan was supposedly being hunted.

Make of this what you will.

Thank you so much Garry. It is hard to make anything other of it than that is provides more evidence that Hutchinson's account was not given credence.

[babybird67]

hi Hatchett

thanks for finding that for me. I wasn't familiar with it. I've replied on the other thread about the contextual differences between Packer's discrediting and Hutchinson's.

Thanks again.

[Wickerman]

That's fine Jon but each time I make a point you don't seem to address it. For example, how can you possibly conclude that Hutchinson's account was not in some way discounted/discredited (however you wish to phrase it) and still quote Police sources claiming that they had absolutely no clue as to the murderer's identity?

Ok Jen, but I thought I had, not a problem, perhaps I'll try explain a different way.
I'll look back but I thought you brought up the press articles as one argument, which I responded to. Then you raised the issue of memoirs, my response needs a little better explanation.

Let me just lead into it by referring to your latest question above:

how can you possibly conclude that Hutchinson's account was not in some way discounted/discredited (however you wish to phrase it)

The principle concern here is whether Hutchinson truely was discredited at all. I invited arguments in support of this contention, but what was offered in return as evidence are all arguable interpretations, not evidence.

The latest point offered in support of this charge is that "it is obvious that the police did not pursue an Astrachan-type suspect following Kelly's murder, therefore we can conclude Hutchinson's description was discredited" - I think I captured the point.

I take this as a straw-man argument.
The police are being set up as the one's who will pursue one specific description to the exclusion of any others, or as thee principal suspect superior to all others. Either way the police are to search the streets, Lodging-houses & tenements, day & night in pursuit of Astrachan.
Because they do not, or there is no strong evidence that they did, then this is taken as support for the contention that Hutchinson was discredited.

However, a police issued description is not to be taken as meaning, "we are looking for this man", for the immediate future, no expense spared.
As I explained to Garry, when the police issue a description they are asking the public for help, the meaning being, "have you seen this man?"
Certainly the police are 'looking' for the man himself but they are not so naive to think he still wanders the streets in the same attire. Especially now his appearance is public knowledge.

So, why publish the description? - because they are asking the public if they recognise the man, is he your neighbour, friend, have you seen him in the streets, at the pub, club, church?
The description given by Hutchinson, is just the same value as that given by Lawende, Schwartz, Smith or Long. They are all "moments in time", this is what he looked like that day, and perhaps on occasion, for several days before.

This is an important differance because the police do not, and never had, with any of the previous suspect descriptions, focused all their attention on one specific suspect with a defined appearance.

Therefore, holding the police up to this false ideal of pursuing the latest suspect description for days/weeks on end (which they wouldn't), then suggesting that because they didn't, Hutchinson was discredited, is a straw-man arguement.

How many men living in Whitechapel, once they read this description, would have pushed their expensive astrachan coats to the back of the wardrobe?, who would dare go out in such a coat, ...for weeks?

Of course the police do not expect to see the killer on the streets flaunting himself in the same murderous attire, as published, so I say "obviously" the police fully expect he will change his appearance, therefore they are not specifically "looking" for a man to fit the description, they are asking for help from anyone who recognises a man dressed like this on the day, or days previous to the murder.

Ok, you mentioned "memoirs", where retired officers try to convince us they knew who the murderer was.
In reply I posted quotes by the chief investigator, Reid, who makes it quite clear that the police "had no clue" who to suspect, which means "everybody" was a suspect.
If they suspect no-one then by defacto, they suspect everyone, yes?

Which means, they are looking for no-one inparticular and everyone is of interest to them, whether they wear a "suit" or a "sack", the police will investigate them.
Therefore, there are no grounds for suggesting the police ignored one particular description, everyone was of interest. Which also means there are equally no grounds for claiming the police discredited any one particular witness.

This is getting too long but I hope you see where I am coming from Jen.
Regards, Jon S.

[Garry Wroe]

Thank you so much Garry. It is hard to make anything other of it than that is provides more evidence that Hutchinson's account was not given credence.

You're welcome, Jen. I'm still looking for the documentation relating to the systematic police searches of low lodging houses and will post it as and when.

[Ben]

I really don’t know how or why anyone formed the impression that the apparent lack of interest in Astrakhan-type suspects subsequent to Kelly’s murder constitutes the only evidence that Hutchinson was discredited. I haven't seen anyone asserting as much. It's just one factor among several others that lend weight to this conclusion, and certainly not the most damning one. Far more compelling is the fact that the police informed the Echo that Hutchinson’s statement had been "considerably discounted". This is a demonstrable fact, not an “interpretation”, or “speculation”.

Nobody is suggesting that the police would have continued to circulate Hutchinson’s description if it wasn’t discredited, but it is clear from other evidence that most other witness descriptions continued to be taken seriously afterwards, unlike Hutchinson. Abberline made reference to Elizabeth Long’s and Joseph Lawende’s evidence, albeit not by name, in his 1903 Pall Mall Gazette interview. The Star observed on 15th November that Cox’s evidence was still considered of value. Joseph Lawende was used in subsequent attempts to identify suspects. In other words, there is plenty of evidence that other witnesses continued to be taken seriously for some time afterwards. Not so with Hutchinson, who remains conspicuous in his absence from any later commentary from any senior police official, and from any attempt to confront a witness with a suspect and establish a possible identification.

This does not imply that the police “ignored” Hutchinson’s description, but it does lend considerable weight to the fact that they ditched him as a credible witness.

All the best,
Ben

[Hatchett]

Hello Ben,

Can you provide evidence that the Police informed the Echo? Other than the Echo themselves.

Be interesting to read it.

Best wishes.