Romford

[Rubyretro]

Meanwhile, does anyone have a reasonable (real world, believable) explanation why "Astrachan's description" could have been inspired by a tailor's dummy?
"It's a good idea, because......(what)....?"

I think that one fascinating aspect of Astrakhan man is that, if Hutchinson made him up, then where did the description come from ?

It is an incredibly detailed description, and Hutchinson didn't budge on it
(except to add the red stone on the watchchain), and he could list the clothing from the tie pin down to the spats. It certainly seems as if he had
memorised the items and was visualising them as he gave them in his statement and then reiterated them to the Press (otherwise we would surely have errors, omissisions and discrepencies).

The jewellery can (I believe) be explained by Hutchinson wanting to reinforce the idea of a jewish suspect. The horseshoe 'hamsa' was a symbol that jews
even had painted over their shops at the time (try googling jewish horseshoe
and hamsa) and I think that the association would be more readily made at the time. I believe that it was Errata that did a very interesting post showing that fobs made of garnet were from the Middle East (you can probably find it, if it was her -it was a very detailed history).

I used to think that Hutchinson could have got the clothing from someone he used to work for and hated -but then he would surely have made mistakes..

Bob's idea of the tailor's dummy is better, because Hutchinson could have stood in front of the shop window and conciously learn't the details very recently before going to the Police station.
-a shop window dummy would have the coat pinned back to show the clothes underneath
-if it was wearing spats, Hutchinson wouldn't have known that they were only worn in the morning, not being 'au fait' with clothing etiquette for the rich
-he would have plenty of time and a good view to see such items as the shirt and the feet at the same time

Of course, a tailor's dummy is headless and it's when we get to the description of the face that Hutchinson starts coming unstuck (since he didn't have a visual image in his mind), so we get a pale complexion and a dark complexion, a slight moustache and a heavy moustache etc..

I think that the tailor's dummy is a pretty good suggestion, and Bob has others.

[Wickerman]

Funnily enough, I agree with you Jon. And I think that "both schools of thought" were not easily compatible in Bob's book.

I was very interested in the research and the ideas, and I personally agreed before reading the book with his opinion that Hutchinson was the killer -but that of course was only his opinion (which he was entitled to hold).

Still, I think that the book should hold a warning on the cover !

My mother and sister both read the book and were utterly convinced by the conclusion, bolstered by Bob's research and his experience as a magistrate.
It may be a surprise to you to know that I found myself playing 'Devil's Advocate' and trying to point out the opposite points of view held by people like yourself on Casebook !

The book is very interesting for people with a wide knowledge of the case, and/or as entertainment (it's a good read, full of personality and personal experience, and the basic facts of the case) -but it is dangerous to mix the research in with the subjective opinions for people finding out about the case for the first time. It made me feel uneasy at times -even thought I would
recommend it to anyone reading the arguments and counter arguments on Casebook.

Thankyou for that Lesley, and funnily enough from reading many of your posts I have wondered more than once how we came to be on opposite sides of the fence on some issues - such is life. Perhaps we should 'wipe the slate clean' so to speak, and start again?




Meanwhile, does anyone have a reasonable (real world, believable) explanation why "Astrachan's description" could have been inspired by a tailor's dummy?
"It's a good idea, because......(what)....?"

No argument, this is the Romford thread, not the Tailor's Dummy thread, I am just interested to hear the idea explained as to why it makes sense.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

So why not label him as unreliable, as they did with Packer?

The principal difference there is that Hutchinson was quite sure of the time, Packer changed his times, he was not sure.
Packer's story was of little value if he couldn't be sure when his "well-dressed" man bought the grapes, 11:00pm or 12:00?
There was no question about whether the man existed, nor whether he bought the grapes. Swanson acknowledged the discovery of a grape stalk in his 19th Oct. summary, which doesn't 'prove' Stride had grapes, but it demonstrates the police held no contrary opinion on the matter.

Packer's failing was his inability to provide consistent times.

Regards, Jon S.

[Abby Normal]

The same factors did not apply to GH?

Packer was interviewed because he stated he saw the victim with a man just before she was found dead.

To state he was interviewed because he was making the Police look incompetent shows a lack of understanding of Police procedure.

Both were witnesses, the factors are irrelevant.

Monty

Hi Monty
When assessing witness credibility, how possibly can the factors be irrelevant?

[Monty]

The same factors did not apply to GH?

Packer was interviewed because he stated he saw the victim with a man just before she was found dead.

To state he was interviewed because he was making the Police look incompetent shows a lack of understanding of Police procedure.

Both were witnesses, the factors are irrelevant.

Monty

[harry]

Jon,
It's a question of whether he is believed or not.As I believe,as others do,thatHutchinson lied,it is just a question of how many lies.Proof,where given,dispels doubt.As to Eddowes,and how she got to the hop fields,give me details of her journey,and I will answer.

[Phil H]

So why not label him [Hutchinson] as unreliable, as they did with Packer?

Surely the difference between the two men is that Packer became a "political" issue. The questions about grape stalks and his supposed eye-witness description of a man, plus the interference of Le Grand et al, began to make the police look incompetent.

Packer had to be interviewed by senior officials (for a long time it was believed Warren himself, as I recall) and thus he HAD to be shown up as unreliable in a public way.

The same factors did not apply to GH.

Phil

[Rubyretro]

Historical synthesis is quite a different kettle of fish from Research. Good researchers are loath to draw firm conclusions. The very nature of their objectivity as an unbiased researcher requires they keep an open mind.

Researchers do not always make good synthesists. With the one discipline you require to keep an open mind, while the other requires the assembly of a string of conclusions. Both schools of thought are not easily compatible.

Funnily enough, I agree with you Jon. And I think that "both schools of thought" were not easily compatible in Bob's book.

I was very interested in the research and the ideas, and I personally agreed before reading the book with his opinion that Hutchinson was the killer -but that of course was only his opinion (which he was entitled to hold).

Still, I think that the book should hold a warning on the cover !

My mother and sister both read the book and were utterly convinced by the conclusion, bolstered by Bob's research and his experience as a magistrate.
It may be a surprise to you to know that I found myself playing 'Devil's Advocate' and trying to point out the opposite points of view held by people like yourself on Casebook !

The book is very interesting for people with a wide knowledge of the case, and/or as entertainment (it's a good read, full of personality and personal experience, and the basic facts of the case) -but it is dangerous to mix the research in with the subjective opinions for people finding out about the case for the first time. It made me feel uneasy at times -even thought I would
recommend it to anyone reading the arguments and counter arguments on Casebook.

[Rubyretro]

You have convinced yourself that this man's appearance was so "extraordinary" that no-one could possibly not know him. Yet you have no idea how common the Astrachan coat was among Russian Jews, that numerous Russian Jews populated Whitechap

el.

I specifically mentioned the jewellery alliance -I certainly know how common astrakhan coats were, thankyou !

How common was it to see "slummers" parading around Whitechapel in their finery, horseshoe tie-pins, spats & watchchains?, which were as common as the modern wristwatch among those who wore them.
Watchchains with fob seem to be very common, or at least there are numerous heirloom examples still existing today, in a wide range of styles.
By what rationale do you claim rareties?

Horseshoe tie pins may have been common and watchchains with fobs may have been common......but fobs with a red stone fob were not common
(did you see Errata's (?) piece on them ?). They existed all right, but I have yet to find one photo of the time where a man is wearing one -if you can find one then please post it.

Even if you find a photo of a man in a watchchain with a red stone fob, then what are the chances that he will be wearing a horseshoe tie pin at the same time ? And geographically located in London, let alone the East End.

Spats were morning wear -to be worn "between breakfast and luncheon "
according to Bob Hinton -so I can't think that there were many men kicking about the area at night making that particular sartorial error, and wearing that particular combination combination of jewellery.

Even if you found a man that had all those things, he might be blond, short and fat, bald, have a little tipped up nose....anything.

I say that A Man's description was so precise that it narrowed things down to virtually one man -and even if by the biggest miracle the Police had found two men then they could have surely have eliminated one.

That is not guesswork; that is logic.

By what inside info do you claim to know that "no-one shopped an Astro-man" lookalike?

They probably did shop some 'lookalikes' -who did not tally with the precise description, and were not A Man. Given the fact that A Man was supposedly in Kelly's room for at least 3/4 of an hour just before the murder, had the
Police found him, he would have been mentioned in memoirs and we would
know something about him -even if he had been eliminated as a suspect.
But nothing.

[Raoul's Obsession]

I can see a situation in which the police ascertained that Hutchison was out by a day and as a result 'discredited' him. However, if they believed that he had been trying to be honest, it makes no sense to openly and publicly call him a liar - he was (under this theory) afterall trying to do his best and believed he was telling the truth. That makes him a very different candidate than Packer, where it appears that police decided he was a sensation seeking liar.

Now, I'm not saying that Hutchison actually witnessed what he said he witnessed - but if the police at least believed he was trying to be honest, it may well be a reason to just let the whole thing blow over, rather than publicly discredit a la Packer.

Raoul

[Wickerman]

It's well worth reading. It's got some good nuggets of research in it (such as
the bit that I quoted on the amount of work available in Romford for a casual
labourer in 1888), and some very good ideas

I have always regarded Bob as thorough when it comes to research.

(it was Bob who first came up with the idea that Hutchinson could have got the description of A Man's clothes from a shop window dummy, hence his confusion over the wearing of spats).

Would you, or anyone, mind explaining why that is a good idea?
I'm not being flippant, or trying to be funny, I seriously desire to know why this is a good idea?
Have I missed something, has it ever happened?

The conclusion is rather romanced, and you can use a pinch of salt

Historical synthesis is quite a different kettle of fish from Research. Good researchers are loath to draw firm conclusions. The very nature of their objectivity as an unbiased researcher requires they keep an open mind.

Researchers do not always make good synthesists. With the one discipline you require to keep an open mind, while the other requires the assembly of a string of conclusions. Both schools of thought are not easily compatible.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Changing his appearence after the murder would be like 'shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted'.

A Man's description was widely circulated in the Press.

Lot's of men may have owned a horseshoe tie pin, far fewer men would have owned a watch with a red fob, and the number of men wearing the two together with an astrakhan coat would be extremely rare to say the least -and taken with the rest of the physical description narrows it down to one man. What's more Hutchinson thought that he lived in the area.

It beggars belief that A Man would only have worn have worn his jewellery once in his life, the night he supposedly met Mary Kelly. It is also impossible to think that no one that saw A Man going about his daily business (family,
maids, tradesmen, shopkeepers, work contacts, publicans, carriage drivers etc) had ever noticed his jewellery. If he had existed why did no one
recognise the description ?

I think that part of the answer to your question is that your assumed micro-analysis is embedded with flaws.
You have convinced yourself that this man's appearance was so "extraordinary" that no-one could possibly not know him. Yet you have no idea how common the Astrachan coat was among Russian Jews, that numerous Russian Jews populated Whitechapel.

How common was it to see "slummers" parading around Whitechapel in their finery, horseshoe tie-pins, spats & watchchains?, which were as common as the modern wristwatch among those who wore them.
Watchchains with fob seem to be very common, or at least there are numerous heirloom examples still existing today, in a wide range of styles.
By what rationale do you claim rareties?

Your argument is based on guesswork, an accumulation of "rare items", yet how do you establish that these items were rare?
Should you actually find these items were very common among the classes, your argument falls apart.
What do you suggest we do Ruby, try to prove they were rare, or try to prove they were common?
Go ahead, Ladies first?

Not only did the population want to catch the Ripper to stop the killings, but the City Police and Lord Mayor had offered a reward after the murder of Eddowes, so there was a strong motivation for people recognising the description to 'shop' A Man. No one did.
Why do you think that was ?

What we do know is dozens, if not hundreds of people were 'shopped' every day.
Where are the descriptions of all these "shopped" people, what did they look like?

By what inside info do you claim to know that "no-one shopped an Astro-man" lookalike?

Are you making a claim which cannot be substantiated?

This is one of the problems with creating an endless list of "exceptions" to convince yourself you are right, if anyone asks you to substantiate your list you will immediately back away, because guesswork cannot be proven. Your arguement is based on how you feel, and you refuse to be wrong.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
"Theres so much we don't know".How true,and one thing we don't know,is whether Hutchinson was in Romford at the time he claimed.

Yes Harry, but why should we be so concerned about whether he was or wasn't?
What has that question to do with Mary Kelly's murder?

As Romford is mentioned on his statement to police, certainly they were aware of his claim, and as there were apparently no subsequent questions about it, why should we create a mystery where none exists?

Please keep in mind, it is "us" who do not know, not the police. Therefore, just because we do not know, that does not make the question important.

Do you think we should question Eddowes claim to have been hop-picking in Kent, thats way too far to walk, surely she must be lying?

Regards, Jon S.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

No, I'm not after your opinion, which I have to point out is built on assumption.

I'm after a reason why Swanson stated Packer was unreiable whereas Abberline, or Swanso, or any Police official did not do the same with Hutchinsonm

The differences are unimportant. Both were witnesses, one was labelled as unreliable, other was not as far as we are aware.

Monty

Hi Monty
Gotcha. Sorry i thought you asked me a question
So why not label him as unreliable, as they did with Packer?

But since you apparently did not ask me a question, I guess i have no response.

[Monty]

Hi Abby,

No, I'm not after your opinion, which I have to point out is built on assumption.

I'm after a reason why Swanson stated Packer was unreiable whereas Abberline, or Swanso, or any Police official did not do the same with Hutchinsonm

The differences are unimportant. Both were witnesses, one was labelled as unreliable, other was not as far as we are aware.

Monty