Did Astracan kill Mary Kelly

[swagman]

I suppose there is the third option of course - that the man he sees leaves kelly and another individual is the killer but i tend to think its either the man Hutch sees or Hutch himself.

[swagman]

Hi Ben. I know exactly where you are coming from and agree that its possible Hutch was the killer, even if i believe unlikely.

I dont particularly buy into the arguements that Hutch's motive for the statement to the police was 'thrill-seeking' so to me he is either the killer or
saw 'someone' with Kelly (leaving the description alone for a minute).

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 ?

paul

[Ben]

Hi Swagman,

If it is a choice between Hutch as the killer and him being a witness to Astrakhan/someone going off with Kelly then i favour the later.

I don't. I'd go for the former. It would account for his behaviour, and has the theoretical benefit of being bolstered by other serial cases from history where the perpetrators have resorted to very similar tactics in an effort to take the investigative heat off themselves and cast it in the most obvious and convenient direction available. The alternative is just too pantomime for comfort. Too good to be true. It would mean that Jack the Ripper really was the surly Jewish black-package wielding conspicious menace as depicted by the press. A bit like finding out that the moon really is made of cheese...

That's what "wrong" with his description aside from the sheer level of detail, which I don't think was possible to notice and memorise in the conditions recorded. It just panders, suspiciously and conveniently, to the bogeyman ripper image that had been in circulation since the "Leather Apron" scares. Even if he described the most mundane individual imaginable, I'd still note the fact that Hutchinson came forward so hot on the heels of Lewis's evidence coming to the fore and think; hmmm.

That's why I struggle so much with the idea of him wrestling with his conscience over whether to come forward or not. It's too convenient that the decision to impart his crucial observations just happened to coincide with the public revelation that he'd been seen by Lewis (if indeed it was him she saw) at a crime scene an hour or so prior to the generally accepted time of the murder.

Do i guess from your comments that you believe Hutch to be the killer?

I'd say he's as good a suspect as we're likely to encounter at this remove in time.

All the best,
Ben

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.

PPS. Put the bottle down, Ben.

[Ben]

We have the evidence of the signatures, the geographical evidence, the fact that Toppy married an East End girl, even Reg's family story.

Yes, Gareth, but 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 and conclude that it argues against his candidacy as the "real" George Hutchinson. That's not gainsaying. That's arriving at a wildly different conclusion using the same evidence. While I cannot speak for Garry, I don't personally believe that the man's true identity is "out there somewhere". I believe that at least two suggested identities for the Miller's Court witness have a good deal more going for them than Toppy, but as they would take us of course from the premise of this thread, I'd submit that we save that one for an even rainier day.

Best regards,
Ben

[swagman]

Hi Ben.
Yes, agreed, the motive for Hutch insisting that he staked-out Miller's Court for an extended 45 minutes does enforce that argument that 'his' suspect didn’t leave immediately and that another candidate didnt move in shortly after. The only argument I can see for this is if Hutch is indeed the killer which i dont believe.

If it is a choice between Hutch as the killer and him being a witness to Astrakhan/someone going off with Kelly then i favour the later.

I accept that his description of Astrakhan is almost too good to be true but we do tend to try to analyse and reject the obvious. What exactly is wrong with his description other than being very detailed? If his statement had been a vague description... "the man passed me by but i couldnt really say what he looked like - it was dark..i'm not sure what he was wearing... he was average height... and average build...." we would equally be claiming that having passed the man at close quarters that he should have been more accurate and is an unreliable witness !!

I understand that the delay from the 9th to 12th casts suspicions on the validity of Hutch's statement and its only correct that, if friendly with Kelly, it is strange that he would not immediately go to the police. However it does sound like a long period of time to any third party but i can imagine circumstances whereby if you learnt of the murder of someone you knew, i these circumstances, it would take a couple of days to come to terms with it before coming to your senses and going to the police. I would like to believe that I would have gone immediately to the police but ultimately placed in those circumstances cant say for sure. I certainly dont see it as reason to doubt his evidence alone.

Do i guess from your comments that you believe Hutch to be the killer? Is that belief restricted to the Kelly murder or the 'Canonicals ?

[Sam Flynn]

Well, that's your opinion, Gareth

Not quite, Ben. It's a plain fact. We have the evidence of the signatures, the geographical evidence, the fact that Toppy married an East End girl, even Reg's family story. Now, it's yours and Garry's prerogative not to accept any of that, but at least you have some evidence which you can choose to reject. The "anti-Toppy" argument, conversely, has precisely no evidence to support it, it only has the belief that the "real" Hutchinson is "out there somewhere". That's fine as well, for those who want to think that way.

Please don't gainsay the above, as it's a perfectly valid description of the situation, in all objectivity. Besides, to take it further would be perpetuating an off-topic "fork" in the thread.

[Ben]

Hi Swagman,

True, Hutch could be so clever as to realise that by claiming he waits for 45 minutes it fixes Astrakhan there for a prolonged period of time.

I'm not sure why he would need to be particularly "clever" to realise that by placing Astrakhan in the room for a full 45 minutes, he would be fuelling suspicions that this mysterious Jewish punter was indeed knuckling down for the night's duration as opposed to popping indoors with Kelly for a brief knee-trembler. In other words, if Hutchinson wanted the police to think that Astrakhan was the killer, it was very much in his interests to convey the impression that he (Astrakhan) remained there during the generally accepted time of the murder. Not much use inventing a Jewish dandy suspect only for the police to decide that someone else could have arrived on the scene after Astrakhan.

Why say you waited 45 minutes if you didnt and risk another witness countering his statement?

That's if he didn't wait that long. What if he did, and didn't want to risk claiming otherwise for fear of being countered by other witnesses?

would he feel it better to come forward with what he knows having at first thought it best to keep-his-head-down.

I agree that his hand was probably forced by Lewis' statement, but if he really did see all that he claimed, what was the motivation for "keeping his head down" and allowing the trail of his friend's murderer to grow cold rather than alterting the authorities? It seems more likely to me that he realised he had been seen by Lewis and felt compelled to lie about his reasons for being near the crime scene at an hour critical to the murder.

Now, the nubb - Does Hutch describe someone he actually sees or embellish the facts. What motive does he have for creating 'Astrakhan' ?

If Hutchinson was responsible himself for Kelly's death, then he had an obvious motive for creating Astrakhan. He realised he was seen by Sarah Lewis, didn't fancy being tracked down without getting his explanation in first, and injects himself into the investigation as a helpful witness (as other serial killers have done) with a view to both explaining and legitimizing his presence near a crime scene and deflecting suspicion in a false direction, and as false directions go, you can't beat the generic surly Jew with a black parcel - the obvious and popular scapegoat.

Best regards,
Ben

[The Grave Maurice]

And he even fits with my preferred Ripper suspect.....

Who is.....?

[swagman]

Hi. New to this thread so apologies (if any needed) for returning to the original question.

The crux of the matter is do we believe Hutch's statement. If yes, then it seems most likely that Astrakhan is the killer.

The 45 minutes that Hutch spends outside the court is interesting. If the statement about Astrakhan is pure fantasy then why add in that he waited so long outside the court - I dont see that as being necessary if the story is simply to place Kelly going into Millers Court with Astrakhan. True, Hutch could be so clever as to realise that by claiming he waits for 45 minutes it fixes Astrakhan there for a prolonged period of time. However i tend to believe that if his intention was to 'finger' a non-existent character (for whatever reason discussed at length on many a thread) then he just needs to say he sees them go inside the court and that he leaves immediately.

I think that Hutch says that he waits outside the 'ten bells' (amended to the 'Queens' by the police in Hutch's statement). One presumes that there would have been some traffic of people if close to the pub (although i'm unsure how much at 0200). Why say you waited 45 minutes if you didnt and risk another witness countering his statement?

I think its probable that Hutch only comes forward with his information having had his hand forced by Lewis' statement. Being shocked to learn that the police know he was there at the (Probable) time of the murder would he feel it better to come forward with what he knows having at first thought it best to keep-his-head-down.

However even then he does not have to volunteer that he waits 45 minutes. (I dont believe that Lewis gives any indication of how long she sees Hutch waiting). I keep coming back to that because it seems to me to confirm that if Lewis says shes sees Hutch there and he then volunteers that it was for 45 minutes rather than 'just passing' then they are both telling the truth (at least in respect of the time-frame).

Now the fact that Hutch waits outside for 45 minutes demonstrates to me that either he cared about Kelly or/and had an interest in what was going on.

Of course all this dosnt help us with whether Hutch's description of Astrakhan is real or not. I havnt researched this particular matter anywhere near as much as others but my initial instinct is that Hutch was smitten with Kelly (Having her ask him for money casually suggests he may have done so previously and volunteering the information that he waited for 45 minutes without any real need to other than to see if she reappeared.)

Therefore i believe that ;-

a) He was where he said he was (Confirmed by Lewis).
b) Saw someone go into the court with Kelly.
c) For whatever reason didnt like that and so waited for 45 minutes

Now, the nubb - Does Hutch describe someone he actually sees or embellish the facts. What motive does he have for creating 'Astrakhan' ? If he sees a seaman/dock porter/labourer then why not say so ? For those out there who think that he was trying to create some sort of self importance/agenda for himself then does 'Astrakhan' do that more than any other type of individual (Afterall this could be 'Jack' that he is describing - Does it matter if he is well dressed, a Porter, Naked etc etc).

Finally then (apologies), Yes, at this moment i believe Astrakhan did kill Mary Kelly. .... And he even fits with my preferred Ripper suspect.....

[babybird67]

hi Mike

No. Prove evolution, for example. Scientifically speaking, it seems fairly sound, though evolving (pun intended). Nothing can be proven that can satisfy all. Your argument doesn't work in this case either. I can't prove Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel. I'm prett darned sure, however. The weaker argument would be that he didn't. let's see some of those folks try to prove it.

Cheers,

Mike

Ahhh Mike, now you are taking us into metaphysics...

nothing can be proven that can satisfy all.

Certainly that's true, or we wouldn't have Derrida and Sartre, nihilism, and the idea that nothing is real or true or concrete.

Actually,playing Devil's advocate for a moment, i don't think Michelangelo did paint the Sistine Chapel, certainly not all of it; from the little of what i can remember from my undergraduate history of art course, it was common practise for subordinate apprentice painters to do the bulk of such work. You would be hard pressed finding concrete evidence, i suppose, of which bits were by his own hand and which were not. But, you make my point for me, the folks using the weaker argument, that not supported by anything proven, must try to prove their belief in a certainty to those who doubt it. There is no burden on those who doubt: it is impossible to prove a negative.

At the end of the day, as in so many things about this case, all we can look at is the evidence and make up our own minds about whether it convinces us or not. You've been convinced by certain aspects of the evidence, which leave others of us unconvinced. That, as i said at first, leads only to a situation where we are all holders of 'beliefs' only. Nothing has been proven either way.

There are intelligent people on both sides of this debate; people whose intentions are to honestly appraise the evidence as objectively as they can. Yet there is disagreement that only definite proof would be able to resolve. If you were to present the evidence for an identification between Toppy and Hutch, you most likely would give greater sway to the aspects of the evidence you find convincing, whereas were i to make a similar presentation i would no doubt choose to focus on the aspects of the evidence which leave me doubting; the only difference between us would be that of our respective beliefs, as i said earlier. You could probably end up saying, 'i believe this is our best bet yet in the attempt to identify the witness at Miller's Court in November 1888.' You could not tell the readers anything had been proven, as that would be historically misleading. You could tell them your belief that it has been proven, and they would evaluate your evidence, your opinion, along with everything else you present, and everything else they know, and make up their own minds, in a way in which they couldn't for example choose to 'believe' whether it had been proven that certain suspects have been historically placed elsewhere than at the scenes/times of the murders. Despite existentialism and all that post-modernist stuff (guff?), there are standards of historical proof, and in this case, we just haven't reached them yet, that's all.

That's it. That's as far as you could honestly take it. No proof. Nothing conclusive. Just belief on your part that identification has been established by the evidence extant, and belief on my part that it has not. And, one final point, a belief that is 'faith' based, in the sense that someone has already decided that something is true, established, proven, sometimes takes a greater leap than a belief that nothing yet has been set in stone; there is much more room to move in the latter than in the former, i think.

always a pleasure discussing with you, and i am sorry i have waffled on as usual and taken the thread further off original topic, but i really don't want the resumption of hostilities on something which it is clear to me we simply need to agree that we disagree on.

[The Good Michael]

the burden of proof always lies with the side claiming certainty, not those unconvinced. Any other way would be nonsensical, don't you think?

No. Prove evolution, for example. Scientifically speaking, it seems fairly sound, though evolving (pun intended). Nothing can be proven that can satisfy all. Your argument doesn't work in this case either. I can't prove Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel. I'm prett darned sure, however. The weaker argument would be that he didn't. let's see some of those folks try to prove it.

Cheers,

Mike

[celticsun]

Hi Babybird,

the burden of proof always lies with the side claiming certainty, not those unconvinced. Any other way would be nonsensical, don't you think?

Certainly. And also, the burden of proof always lies with the side challenging the orthodox opinion where there is one. Doesn't seem to be one here, though.

Sincerely,

Celticsun

[celticsun]

Hi Ben

I'd exerise extreme caution when contemplating Mike's reply. He is of the controversial opinion that Hutchinson has been identified, hence his claim that he had a "history as a plumber". While there are others who subscribe to the same view, the Hutchinson wikipedia entry is quite right to observe that "this particular identification has been met with a great deal of scepticism".

Don't know a whole lot about the "Toppy = Hutch" theory but it seems to hinge of the thruthfulness of a now-deceased son if I understand it correctly.
It doesn't seem to move us any closer to determining whether or not Hutchinson was JTR.

Even if he had identified the correct individual, his observation is essentially that he was too normal to be a serial killer, a fallacy that he ought really to be disabused of. Just consider the likes of Bundy, Rader, Ridgway et al.

Absolutley!

Sincerely,

Celticsun

[babybird67]

Mike

the burden of proof always lies with the side claiming certainty, not those unconvinced. Any other way would be nonsensical, don't you think?

[The Good Michael]

where there is no proof, there are only beliefs. On either side.

True statement. It doesn't apply here, however. The burden rests heavily on one side. That's playing extremely fairly.

Mike