Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Wickerman]

And, on reflection, a line in support of another suggestion...

... 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...

Which could easily be argued in support of Sarah Lewis, Mrs Paumier, and Bowyer, in the court, and their lack of detail?

Hutchinson was perceptive, which is clearly not a crime.
Did he have reason to be so perceptive? - possibly.
Should we incriminate him for that? - No!
Does it make him a suspicious character? - No!
Did the police believe him? - Yes!

Say no more...

Jon

[Wickerman]

....[I]“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,.....

Which only serves to emphasize the point I was making, it is the detail of the description which grabs the attention, not the actual attire suggested.

Therefore arguments based on, "such a well-dressed man is unusual in that part of town", are not supported by Hutchinson's statement, nor the above quote.

Jon

[Hatchett]

Hello Ben,

At the end of the day whether you like it or not your impressions of Astrokan Man were not shared by the people on the ground at the time!

You may feel it it is preposterous, but Abberline and Dew clearly did not.

They were there!

You were not!

They were members of the Police.

You are not!

They did not specialise in speculation.

You do!

They looked for substaniated evidence.

You put forawrd supposition and try and pass it off as fact!

Come on!

Best wishes.

[Ben]

We have discussed and demolished those fake plumbing restrictions in another tread.

A fascinating interpretation of the debate in question, Lechmere.

But regrettably wrong.

I see you do take the view that they are liars.

No, probably just the one liar, with the others passing it on under the assumption that the information was correct.

It is not an "inference" that the Echo received genuine information from the police, but a fact.

[Ben]

Well I thought Babybird’s post was spot on, personally.

It seems that some people around here have a thinly veiled preference for an upper class, well-dressed suspect, and perceive Hutchinson’s discrediting as an obstacle to this. Unfortunately for those angling for a toff-type, the idea is about as discredited as Hutchinson’s account was in 1888.

As far as “slummers” are concerned, yes, the evidence is to the effect that they dressed down for such activity, and the idea of venturing into what was alluded to extensively as one of the worst streets in London dressed in expensive clothing and accessories that included a “massive gold watch chain” would have been considered preposterous back then, and should be considered so now. For those who think these are the blinkered views of someone applying 20th century perceptions, I would encourage a read of the various accounts of what did happen to men who were silly enough to dress in an opulent fashion in that district.

Worse still, Astrakhan man would have done precisely this not only in the worst possible area, but at the worst possible time, i.e. at the height of the ripper murders. In fact, his appearance was comprised of many of the popular perceptions regarding the killer’s appearance, and was a very unsubtle “amalgamation” in that respect. We can forget the tattle that appeared in the press from Paumier, Roney and others regarding men with shiny black bags and top hats. These were clearly bogus witnesses who were not called to appear at the inquest, assuming they had any police contact at all.

Anyone who thinks that “well-dressed gents were everywhere in Whitechapel” is seriously ill-informed, and has certainly misinterpreted Booth’s poverty map. Do people actually know who is being referred to in the red-shaded “well to do” category? Publicans, shop-owners, that sort of thing. Not well-dressed “gentry”. Maybe Mr. Astrakhan was Mr. Ringer going home, then?!

The “exceptional attire” is only one implausible aspect to the Astrakhan creation. Hutchinson could not even have noticed many of the details he reported, let alone memorized them.

I don’t know where some people have formed the impression that Jewish-appearance is synonymous with opulent attire, but it’s a very wrong impression.

Contrary to the claim that nobody raised any eyebrow to the Astrakhan man, The Graphic reported the following on 17th November:

“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.”

All the best,
Ben