Did Astracan kill Mary Kelly

[Garry Wroe]

A belief is one thing, Mike. A statement of fact is something else entirely.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[Sam Flynn]

A belief is one thing, Mike. A statement of fact is something else entirely.

In the absence of any statements of fact, we must go by the evidence at our disposal and build up a picture from that, Garry.

There is ample evidence that supports the conclusion that George Topping Hutchinson was the Miller's Court witness, and there is precisely NONE that supports the argument to the contrary.

It's emphatically not the "Toppy = Hutch" camp who are having to resort to "belief" here.

[Garry Wroe]

This is the wrong thread for any such debate, Sam. But, with the greatest of respect, I couldn't disagree more with your Toppy-Hutch conclusions. Another time and place, perhaps.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[Sam Flynn]

This is the wrong thread for any such debate, Sam.

True, Garry, but it wasn't me who brought up the subject into this discussion in the first instance, and I was only supporting The Good Michael by pointing out that, as "beliefs" go, far more of them are needed on one side of that particular debate than the other. Whether one accepts the conclusions or not, that - I'm afraid - is a statement of fact.

But, as you say, another time and place, perhaps.

[Ben]

There is ample evidence that supports the conclusion that George Topping Hutchinson was the Miller's Court witness, and there is precisely NONE that supports the argument to the contrary.

Well, that's your opinion, Gareth, and suffice it to say it has been met with no small amount of opposition. I'm with Garry - I couldn't disagree more with the assertion that "ample" evidence supports the Toppy-as-Hutch hypothesis, and would argue that there are numerous and compelling arguments against such an identification. I would also oppose, with some vehemence, the suggestion that the Toppy-isn't-Hutch "side" require any more "beliefs" than their opponents.

But you're usually the first to caution against off-topic derailments.

Best regards,
Ben

[babybird67]

well...

i hope this argument isn't going to kick off again...we have been round the houses so many times we have worn out a moat ditch around it !

My only point is this:

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

Play nicely everyone.

[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

[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?

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.....

[The Grave Maurice]

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

Who is.....?

[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