Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Wickerman]

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.

Absolutely Lechmere, and that goes for Hutchinson's perceptive abilities too. Insp. Abberline & Sergt Badham both interviewed him so if there had been any reservations about "what he could see" under those lighting conditions we should expect the people who spent their careers, on the streets, at night, to have a better grasp to accept what was feasible and what was not.
Of course, we all have to tolerate those living today who think they know better, but thats just our cross to bear.

Here's another consideration, just to add fuel to the fire.
"Some of the symptoms of schizophrenia are delusions of grandiosity or omniscience or the patient may be convinced he has special powers. Such a man will act and feel he is invincible and that he dominates all those around him" (Rob House).
It has been debated that Kosminski may have been such an individual and if this Astrachan did indeed suffer from schizophrenia (was he Kosminski?) then most of these arguments concerning the way he dressed and the way he acted are mute.

We cannot make final decisions on subjects where we lack sufficient information. Astrachan is part of the Ripper legacy, and since he was accepted as a factual character by the authorities we should dispense with these childish games and deal with his presence accordingly.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Astrachan is part of the Ripper legacy, and since he was accepted as a factual character by the authorities we should dispense with these childish games and deal with his presence accordingly.

There is really no need for some people to keep pooing their pants and lashing out with silly accusations.

"Childish games"? I hardly think so. Hutchinson was discredited as a witness, and we might reasonably assume that the Astrakhan man was ditched in the process as a probable fabrication, rather than being invested in thereafter as a "factual character". I have yet to read Rob's book, but I'll wager hefty sums that he never made the case that Kosminstrakhan the Ripper aged ten years, suddenly acquired the sort of funds that could pay for opulent-looking attire and a thick gold watch chain (or even an imitation one), and waltzed into the murder district in this garb. I'm not doing to "deal" with his non-existent presence. I'm going to dismiss it, as it was dismissed in 1888.

I'm sure Abberline was familiar with the lighting conditions, just as the Graphic were (who both noted the poor lighting conditions and felt that the Astrakhan description "engendered a feeling of scepticism"). This scepticism was evidently shared by Abberline and his colleagues who discredited Hutchinson and his account. The problems arise when modern commentators are attracted, moth-like, to his "interesting" description and seek to uphold the Astrakhan man accordingly.

[Wickerman]

....Then, sometime on Tuesday morning there was a sudden change of plan, essentially to shut down any press speculations as to the existance of this suspect.
The scenario then caused the Echo to print:

"The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement."

Effectively taking steps to take the heat off for fear their suspect will go to ground, which he apparently did.

It's something I am still looking into, a work in progress, and nothing is certain, and it might not pan out, there's a few more points to track down.

So, the question was, "why were the Metropolitan police induced to change their priorities and follow the description given by Cox"?

Nothing directly to do with Hutchinson I'm afraid, but actually of all people, Dr. Bond.

Anderson placed a great deal of faith in the opinions of Dr. Bond, and we know Bond was specifically requested by Anderson to provide him with a medical opinion on the murder of Mary Kelly.

As Macdonald's Inquiry had failed to provide a medically derived time of death, perhaps due to Dr. Phillips not being able to complete his testimony, the Inquest concluded with an approximation of 4:00 am, based entirely on the time the cry of "murder" was heard by two witnesses.

It would appear that once Hutchinson came forward with his story of seeing Kelly with a client shortly after 2:00 am the Metropolitan police assumed they had a solid witness-sighting of a suspect.
The police & press ran with this story for a little less than 24 hours before we read the first rumours of discontent, in words published by the Echo on the evening of Nov. 13th:

"The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement."

I asked, who would “induce” the police to change direction, and why?

Robert Anderson.

Dr. Bond summarized his opinion of the Kelly murder in a letter to the Home Office dated Nov. 10th.
Whether there existed any private in-person discussions between Dr. Bond and Anderson on that day, or the following day we cannot determine, however in Bond's professional opinion Mary Kelly was already dead before Hutchinson appeared on the scene.

Quote:
“The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock........It is therefore pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours and the partly digested food would indicate: that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of her murder”

This is sufficient reason in the mind of Anderson, to direct Swanson to make the testimony of Cox priority. Thereby “inducing” the Metropolitan police to realign their enquiries. Blotchy was the last suspect seen with the victim before Bond's estimated time of death for Mary Kelly.

Bond need not have been correct in his estimation, that is beside the point. It is known, for example, that Dr. Bond was often at odd's and had a contrary opinion with that of his peers in other cases.
However, given Anderson's reliance on the opinions of Dr. Bond it is thee most likely and reasonable explanation for the sudden shift in priorities.

This suggested change of direction stated in the Echo does not appear to have been enthusiastically adopted, nor broadly agreed upon. The City Police did not agree, and the Echo thought it dubious. Dr. Phillips did hold a different opinion on the time of death but due to the condition of the body no accurate time could be determined. It is possible that Anderson later realized that Bond's estimate was not so reliable.

It would appear that this change of priorities reported in the Echo is what influenced the Star to write about Hutchinson being discredited, because they did not know the correct story. Subsequently, all modern spurious claims against Hutchinson have snowballed on from there.

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

I suspect that politically Abberline HAD to say something positive initially about ANY witness statement (Say Mr Abberline what do you have to say about...etc)...once he'd had it checked out, the course of the investigation surely shows what he thought...with no previous experience in dealing with a mass media the police were in a "no-win" situation by then...

[DVV]

Subsequently, all modern spurious claims against Hutchinson have snowballed on from there.

Regards, Jon S.

False, Jon. It all comes from GH statement itself. Are you suggesting it's this sentence from the Star that gave birth to all Hutch theories ? I'm sure you're not, honestly.

[Wickerman]

False, Jon. It all comes from GH statement itself. Are you suggesting it's this sentence from the Star that gave birth to all Hutch theories ? I'm sure you're not, honestly.

What is it specifically Dave, that you want to talk about?

Regards, Jon S.