Did Astracan kill Mary Kelly

Hi again,

Chava gave what would be my answer too Celesta, there was no indication that the murders were over, in fact after that lull, Mary Janes death reminded them that he was still a danger to the women of that area.

And no-one seems to have known he was finished even into the next summer when Alice is killed in very much the same manner as the Canonicals.

My beste, Celeste

[Chava]

Could this be because the murders appeared to stop, Mike? I 've always wondered why there was no mention of any kind of line-up, showing him to any of the 'witnesses' from that night. Then of course the interrogation of Hutch was far from complete. If he was so important why isn't there more documentation, even if they did go back to Cox's suspect?

They didn't know that the murders stopped. There had been 6 weeks between Eddowes and Kelly. They could not assume the murders had stopped for a long while beyond Hutchinson. They went back to Cox's guy--who is now my main suspect--very quickly. So something clued them in that Hutchinson wasn't a genuine witness and damn' quickly too. Even though there's no mention of a line-up, I will bet they brought Lewis in to see if she recognized Hutch. That would be obvious and prudent. If they had found Mr A, and brought him to trial, Hutchinson would be chief witness for the prosecution. And the prosecution would want to identify him beyond question as the man seen loitering in the archway to Millers Court so that the defence couldn't suggest that Hutchinson made his statement up. Lewis would have been called to say that Hutch was the man she saw in the entry. If she wasn't called, and if I were defending Mr A, she would be a witness for the defence: Tell me, Mrs Lewis, can you identify the witness standing in the court back there as the man you claimed you saw when you testified at the inquest?' 'Ah, you say you cannot recognize the witness?' 'Can the prosecution bring forward any evidence to show that this man Hutchinson was in fact the man seen by this witness on the night of the murder? Or is he simply a fantasist or someone eager for any reward offered in the case...'

[Celesta]

Yet he fades out of the picture immediately after they revised the last man seen with Mary Jane back to the man that Mary Ann Cox saw. I find that strange. Why is no deeper look into this man documented?

Best regards

Could this be because the murders appeared to stop, Mike? I 've always wondered why there was no mention of any kind of line-up, showing him to any of the 'witnesses' from that night. Then of course the interrogation of Hutch was far from complete. If he was so important why isn't there more documentation, even if they did go back to Cox's suspect?

We don’t know that they didn’t entertain such suspicions at some point, Mike. The trouble is, if the police didn’t have the evidence to confirm or deny those suspicions, they couldn’t detain or arrest him. We don’t know that they let him “disappear” either. If they ever entertained suspicions about him, they could have used discreet surveillance to monitor him, as they apparently did with Kosminski. A discredited witness isn’t automatically a discredited suspect, and I’d suggest that the chances of Hutchinson not being the man seen by Lewis are very slim given the “coincidence” of his coming forward and admitting to loitering exactly where she described the wideawake man as soon as her evidence became public knowledge.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi there Ben ,

Im not so sure we should place him in those shoes that Sarah left for him Ben. We do know that its possible he learned of Sarahs story before he came into the station, and we dont know if the Police had any ideas about who that man might have been before George showed up.

Im not so certain they "matched" the 2 stories to George, as we have done for the most part.

All the best mate

[Ben]

“But why did they not then suspect him for an accomplice or even a loitering killer...since we have Sarahs sighting to match him to...loosely.”

We don’t know that they didn’t entertain such suspicions at some point, Mike. The trouble is, if the police didn’t have the evidence to confirm or deny those suspicions, they couldn’t detain or arrest him. We don’t know that they let him “disappear” either. If they ever entertained suspicions about him, they could have used discreet surveillance to monitor him, as they apparently did with Kosminski. A discredited witness isn’t automatically a discredited suspect, and I’d suggest that the chances of Hutchinson not being the man seen by Lewis are very slim given the “coincidence” of his coming forward and admitting to loitering exactly where she described the wideawake man as soon as her evidence became public knowledge.

Best regards,
Ben

I was always bothered by that. They practically have a party for the guy. and Abberline is all 'this one can be believed...' Then a day or two later he disappears completely. I can only assume something clued them in to Hutchinson not being on the up-and-up. And they let him fade back into obscurity rather than note his statement as rubbish in the files so as not to cause embarrassment to a senior officer. What that something is I've no idea. I wonder if they got Sarah Lewis in to id him and she said something like 'no, no. The man I saw was considerably taller'...

Hi there Chava, long time no see .....

I think youre right in suggesting that something was discovered about the man himself that made the story invalid for them, and rather than explain how they fell for the story initially, they just let him go. Like he had no value from that point on.

To me, the only time they should have done that is after vetting his story and checking him out.....something that might take a few days, ...which is precisely how long he is considered viable for.

But why did they not then suspect him for an accomplice or even a loitering killer...since we have Sarahs sighting to match him to...loosely. They obvious felt that in this murder an accomplice was a real possibility. So why would they let him disappear with the link to the crimes themselves as being possible based on his placement of himself roughly in the shoes of the Wideawake Hat man?

My guess is........they believed they knew the identity of Wideawake, and it wasnt George. And they needed to keep that fact quiet.

All the best MsC

[Chava]

Yet he fades out of the picture immediately after they revised the last man seen with Mary Jane back to the man that Mary Ann Cox saw. I find that strange. Why is no deeper look into this man documented?

I was always bothered by that. They practically have a party for the guy. and Abberline is all 'this one can be believed...' Then a day or two later he disappears completely. I can only assume something clued them in to Hutchinson not being on the up-and-up. And they let him fade back into obscurity rather than note his statement as rubbish in the files so as not to cause embarrassment to a senior officer. What that something is I've no idea. I wonder if they got Sarah Lewis in to id him and she said something like 'no, no. The man I saw was considerably taller'...

Whilst not wholly disagreeing with your comments, i do not see that you have the authority to state that Astrakhan is a fictional character. That may be your opinion but it is certainly not fact. What is fact, is that in all the 'hearsay' surrounding this case we have a witness describing an individual seen with one of the victims. You obviously believe Astrakhan to be fictional -i'm not sure.

My opinion on the matter shouldnt be what sways you anyway "jolly swagman", its just some food for thought.

Based on the "flowery" elements within his statement... at a time and from a place he could not likely have seen them clearly as described,... I believe the character is fictional. I also think that the police came round to that line of thinking very shortly after taking the statement from him Monday night.

But what interests me most about the Hutchinson involvement is that by coming forward like he did he gave police a valid reason to suspect him as being a "lookout" at the very least. Days after the first Accomplice Pardon for any Whitechapel Murder was issued.

Yet he fades out of the picture immediately after they revised the last man seen with Mary Jane back to the man that Mary Ann Cox saw. I find that strange. Why is no deeper look into this man documented?

Best regards

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

We have more material on Toppy, perhaps, than any other suggested candidate for the statement-signer, but my view is that this very material has been instrumental in distancing him from what we know of the real George Hutchinson. Without wishing to derail the thread, I don't subscribe to the theory that he's "out there somewhere" as yet undiscovered. I have one or two specific candidates in mind, and while we have have less material on them, to date, than we do on Toppy, they seem to be more compelling candidates.

The same applies to ripper suspects. We have infinitely more material on Francis Tumblety than we have on Joseph Fleming, but I doubt we'd have much debate over which of the two is the likelier suspect. The reason I use the expression "material" in preference to "evidence" is that the latter implies support for candidacy, whereas the former merely applies to information gathered.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

P.S. Sorry, Gareth, my sentence made no sense. Take two:

"what I've done is to examine that very same evidence and arrive at the conclusion that, when taken in conjuction with Reg's account from the Ripper and the Royals, Toppy's candidacy as the "real" George Hutchinson is seriously weakened.

Be that as it may, Ben, my point was that we simply DO have more evidence for Topping than anybody else in this context. Whether one accepts that evidence is another matter - at least the evidence exists. That is a fact, and I will not be accused (however mildly) that I am somehow basing my conclusions merely on "belief", when I am in fact basing it on quite a significant amount of evidence.

There may be those who conclude otherwise from the same evidence, and who think Hutchinson was some as-yet-unidentified person. That's fine, but it's a belief nonetheless, tantamount to little more than "we don't believe in Topping, so the real Hutch must be out there somewhere". Where, or who, he might be we don't know - because, at the moment, I've seen no evidence for this mysterious "AN Other" at all.

[swagman]

Since Hutchinson is never seen in the company of Mary Kelly during any day or on that night or on any night previous, and since no-one but him saw Astrakan Man, who is a contentious "suspect" for some 2-3 days only, ...(the main suspect of the last man seen with Mary, Blotchy Face, once again assumes the primary suspect facade,)..anything he said about the night or his relationship with Mary should be taken as "hearsay".

Why debate whether a fictional character supposedly seen by a character that purports to have known the victim without any substantive corroboration, killed Mary Jane?

If he didnt lie about the sighting....which the police obviously felt he did....then all he is is a nosy man watching a courtyard...which makes him at best a candidate for the accomplice that is mentioned in Saturdays pardon offer.

Best regards all.

Whilst not wholly disagreeing with your comments, i do not see that you have the authority to state that Astrakhan is a fictional character. That may be your opinion but it is certainly not fact. What is fact, is that in all the 'hearsay' surrounding this case we have a witness describing an individual seen with one of the victims. You obviously believe Astrakhan to be fictional -i'm not sure.

Since Hutchinson is never seen in the company of Mary Kelly during any day or on that night or on any night previous, and since no-one but him saw Astrakan Man, who is a contentious "suspect" for some 2-3 days only, ...(the main suspect of the last man seen with Mary, Blotchy Face, once again assumes the primary suspect facade,)..anything he said about the night or his relationship with Mary should be taken as "hearsay".

Why debate whether a fictional character supposedly seen by a character that purports to have known the victim without any substantive corroboration, killed Mary Jane?

If he didnt lie about the sighting....which the police obviously felt he did....then all he is is a nosy man watching a courtyard...which makes him at best a candidate for the accomplice that is mentioned in Saturdays pardon offer.

Best regards all.

[swagman]

Also, i dont see any listing for Sarah Lewis on the casebook 'witness' list for Kellys Murder. Do you know where i can see a copy of her statement ?

Cheers
Paul

[swagman]

Hi Paul,



If Hutchinson murdered Kelly, I'd say he was also responsible for the other "canonicals", with the possible exclusion of Stride.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben. I think this is developing into a Hutch thread rather than Astrakhan but i think thats valid here as the question is surely directed at his status on the night of the 9th. I dont dismiss your preference that Hutch, if considered as being the likely killer of Kelly (have i taken that correctly?), is then likely to be the killer of three/four other victims.

Are you advocating that, having killed Kelly, the murderer of these women 'lost' his violent streak and lived a relatively quiet and normal life? I guess i'll go and visit the Hutch threads and see what info there is on his life post 1888 and see for myself (i even seem to remember seeing a post that suggested he was a fabrication of the police and never even existed !).

Paul

[Ben]

Hi Paul,

If we take for fact, for a second, that Hutch was the killer do you/others believe that he is the ripper (ie responsible for the other 'four' canonicals) or that Kelly's murder is not part of that set ?

If Hutchinson murdered Kelly, I'd say he was also responsible for the other "canonicals", with the possible exclusion of Stride.

All the best,
Ben