Did Astracan kill Mary Kelly

[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.

[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 ?

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[perrymason]

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]

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.

[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.

[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

[perrymason]

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

[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'...