Did Astracan kill Mary Kelly

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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]

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

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

the most likely scenario that Topping is Hutch. You can oppose it all you like

Can we?

Fabulous.

Then I'll do so whenever anyone decides to bring it up on an unrelated thread.

[Fisherman]

Nor am I. And I dare say that dubbing our stance "controversial" may become a tad lacklustre henceforth.

There. I said it. Over to Stride!

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Garry,

I'm only giving, evidentially speaking, the most likely scenario that Topping is Hutch. You can oppose it all you like. Many Christians oppose evolution as well. I'm not one of them.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Celticsun,

Why do you believe that he clearly had money? I'd be interested to know.

I don't know whether he had money or not. My "clearly" reference was only to explore the premise that he was lying about having been to Romford. If he didn't have any money, it was an extradordinary decision to hoof it back 13-miles, in miserable condions, in the the smalls hours of the night when he knew for certain that his lodgings would be closed by the time he returned, and that he had no doss money for the establishements that were still open. He claimed to have arrived back in the district at 2.00am, which means he can't reasonably have expected to make it back in time for the Victoria Home.

One must look at type of relationship between the suspect and the victim to determine if the suspect was responsible for only that murder or was a serial killer.

I disagree. I'd argue that one must look at the crime scene evidence to determine whether or not the victims should be linked to the same perpetrator, and that, having established this, any good suspect for any one murder must be considered a viable candidate for the others. Indeed, there have been cases in which serial killers have been snared as a result of killing someone too close to them. Arthur Gary Bishop and Nathanial Code spring to mind here. If their murders were attributed to different killers purely on account of the killer's link with one of the victims, the offenders would probably have evaded capture.

In Fleming's case, in particular, we have a man who moved in the heart of the murder district in late 1888 who was subsequently committed to a lunatic asylum. He'd be worth a look even without the connection to Kelly, but he certainly doesn't become a less compelling suspect because of his relationship with a victim. Fundamentally, it's essential to examine the crime scene evidence to determine whether or not a link exists with the others before contemplating suspects.

I agree with many of your thoughts on Hutchinson, and would endorse, in particular, your argument that Kelly most probably went to sleep around 1.00am, rather than emerging in "spreeish" fashion an hour or so later.

To move Hutchinson from a "possible" suspect (you've moved my thinking that far) to a "compelling" suspect requires something more.

Well, I'd say he's compelling already, but that it isn't to negate the observation that something more would be desirable. Any investigating authority today would prioritise suspects whose actions and movements near a crime scene render them legitimately suspicious characters over known bad eggs who might have had some connection to the district at the time. You're quite right to observe that too many books seem to resort to the formula, and often the "smoke" seems quite unwarranted. We can only judge him on out interpretation of his behaviour and what that says about him.

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". 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.

But back on topic!

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

No, Mike. Hutchinson was the informant who claimed to have met Mary Jane on Commercial Street shortly before her death, looked on as she encountered the Jewish-looking suspect, followed Kelly and companion back to Dorset Street, then spent the better part of an hour watching the Miller's Court entrance passage "to see if they came out." In addition, he was almost certainly the man seen loitering opposite the interconnecting passage by Sarah Lewis as she made her way to "the Keylers" at approximately 2-30am. Anything relating to his 'later history' is pure speculation predicated upon an evidentially unsupported belief that he and 'Toppy' were one and the same - a belief, I might add, to which there is no little opposition.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[The Good Michael]

Celt,

Hutchinson seems to have been a young opportunist looking for a way to make a buck. His later history as a plumber and a father may indicate that he followed a fairly narrow path later on in life. He just doesn't seem to have been a murderer of the ilk that could slaughter Kelly, let alone a half dozen ladies, or so. We very probably have to look elsewhere. Bringing it back on thread, the Astrakhan story, if even containing an iota of truth, may be where we need to look.
Mike

[celticsun]

Hi Ben,

However, as early as 13th November (i.e. a day later), it was reported that "the authorities" were beginning to cast doubt on Hutchinson and the veracity of his account, and two days later, it was reported in the Star that the account had been "discredited".

Thanks for the info on this. New knowledge to me.

However, if the "no money" excuse was just a ruse to put Kelly off the scent, the question is begged: why did he not seek out alternative lodgings with the money he clearly had?

Why do you believe that he clearly had money? I'd be interested to know. Seems to me that we really don't know. He may have, he may not have, he may have spent his money drinking and missed th 12:30 cut-off at the Victoria Home. He (a supposedly unemployed labourer) may have been lurking in the area looking for somebody to rob (my personal favorite).

....but I'd argue that any compelling suspect for the Kelly murder must be considered an equally good suspect, by extension, for the others, unless one subscribes to the "Kelly was killed by someone else" theory, which I know some people do. If one of the three mentioned (Barnett, Fleming, Hutchinson) was indeed the killer, then it could be observed that an absence of any known "bad" history associated with them could have contributed to their evasion of capture.

Can't say that I really agree here except in believing that MJK was a JKR victim. One must look at type of relationship between the suspect and the victim to determine if the suspect was responsible for only that murder or was a serial killer. Let's take the 3 in order:

Barnett: Ex-lover of MJK. Seems to have been the passive partner in the relationship. Couldn't even settle the matter when Flemming "ill-used" MJK (statement of Julia Venturney). A good candidate for the murder of MJK (jilted ex-lovers always are) but no known reason to consider him a suspect in any of the rest.

Flemming: Past lover of MJK who kept in contact with her and also "ill-used" her. A suspect who a) was a past lover of the victim, b) who kept in contact with her and c) "ill-used" her has to be considered a good suspect for MJK's murder but, again, there's no known reason to suspect him in any of the rest.

Hutchinson: Hutchinson fares a little bit better as a suspect in that we don't know his relationship to MJK, if any. All we really know is that he was spotted looking up Miller's Court at the approximate time of the murder. I've previously posited that Hutchinson gave his statement to cover his back and the statement sprang from his imagination. Did he even know Kelly or even see her that night? My logic is as follows: Discounting Hutchinson's statement, MJK was last seen alive about 11:45 PM to 12:00PM with Mr. Blotchy Face (MBF) in an extremely intoxicated condition. MBF was carrying a pale of beer. She sang until about 1:00 AM. All this is per the statement-testimony of Mary Ann Cox. Whether MBF was there as a trick or simply trading beer for temporary shelter from that cold night we simply don't know. What we do know, and from multiple sources at that, is that MJK was an angry and sometimes voilent drunk. A person that drunk would be overcome with the desire and need for sleep. To my mind, she was sound asleep shortly after 1:00 AM, but according to Hutchinson's statement "Kelly did did not seem to me to be drunk, but was a little bit spreeish". This at 2:00 AM. Let's see, falling down drunk at 1:00 AM, a little bit spreeish (and outdoors, to boot) at 2:00 AM. Not very likely. About the fire: It has always been assumed that JKR lit the fire for the purpose of obtaining light and to destroy MJK's heart. Possible, but I think it's likely that MJK lit that fire herself. Picture it: She's cold, tired, angry, falling down drunk and possibly broke. She wants to feel warm and wants to feel warm NOW. Perhaps she simply threw anything that was readily available and burnable into the fireplace, lit the fire and passed out. The fire certainly wasn't tended to (the tin pot handle was melted) and, concerning her heart, JTR seems to have taken all the body parts with him in his previous crimes.

A small point in favor of Huchinson's candidacy as JTR: While discounting the content of his statement, perhaps we can still learn something of his mentality from it. Ater all, he did choose the words. When he states that "They both then came past me and the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern." he comes off as cocky and arrogant. Perhaps he was just feeding his ego by choosing such a fanciful statement. Making himself feel smart by thinking he put one over on the cops.

With Hutchinson in particular, we're assessing him on his reported actions and movements at the scene of one of the crimes, which is arguably more to go on than a known bad character with no known association with the victims, crime, or even the district.

The statement is true but the arguement is false. I've read several books whose basic format seems to be: Take any suitably nasty character who was at right place at the right time and start blowing smoke. That doesn't affect Hutchinson as a suspect. To move Hutchinson from a "possible" suspect (you've moved my thinking that far) to a "compelling" suspect requires something more. That's why I mentioned prior convictions for lesser crimes and inquired as to whether handwriting samples exist which could be matched to the letters.

Sincerely,

Celticsun

[Ben]

Hi Celtic,

"Pee on the bonfire". I like that

It's a good one to wheel out whenever things go wrong at either chess or poker, i.e. "that river card really peed on my bonfire".

You're quite right, of course, to highlight the fact that Abberline believed Hutchinson initially. However, as early as 13th November (i.e. a day later), it was reported that "the authorities" were beginning to cast doubt on Hutchinson and the veracity of his account, and two days later, it was reported in the Star that the account had been "discredited".

Please remember, though, that we have only Hutchinson's statement concerning his visit to Romford that night. "I,m broke" is a standard response to prostitues and any other person trying to bum money off of you

Oh, absolutely. In fact, if pressed, I'd hazard a tentative guess that Hutchinson was nowhere near Romford that night. However, if the "no money" excuse was just a ruse to put Kelly off the scent, the question is begged: why did he not seek out alternative lodgings with the money he clearly had? Even if we assume that he did leave his loitering vantage point at 3.00am, just as he claimed, there was no reason on earth to "walk about all night" (as per his press claim) if he had money for doss.

You have injuries to the face and the missing heart, both indicative of a killer with a relationship to the victim, but these 3 seem to flit into our view for a short period of time and vanish into the mists of history just as quickly

I understand what you're saying, but I'd argue that any compelling suspect for the Kelly murder must be considered an equally good suspect, by extension, for the others, unless one subscribes to the "Kelly was killed by someone else" theory, which I know some people do. If one of the three mentioned (Barnett, Fleming, Hutchinson) was indeed the killer, then it could be observed that an absence of any known "bad" history associated with them could have contributed to their evasion of capture. With Hutchinson in particular, we're assessing him on his reported actions and movements at the scene of one of the crimes, which is arguably more to go on than a known bad character with no known association with the victims, crime, or even the district.

Best regards,
Ben

The only thing that Astrakan Man eventually killed is the credibility of the man who gave the story with him in it.

Horse head pin, spats...at least George came in and went out with a bang.

Best regards