Too Many Well-Dressed Men

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Perhaps so, Fish. But if Hutchinson, his suspect, or both, had not been at the least, generally disregarded to an extent by then, we must explain the phrase: 'it incomprehensibly created suspicion'.

Sounds more like the arresting policeman/men were behind with the times."

To me, Sally, it sounds like nothing of the sort. It clearly reads in sentence one about Arthur, that "An Astrakhan overcoat would, he thought, be useful..." and it therefore applies that the party that found it incomprehensible that it should be anything but a good choice was ALSO Arthur.

As such, this is a very good example about how men in Astrakhan coats were hauled in (there are other examples of this, you see), since it is explicit that THE COAT was what had Arthur arrested. On other occasions, where it has been pointed out that men in Astrakhan coats were looked upon with suspicion and hauled in by the police, it has always been said - by some - that they would have been hauled in for OTHER reasons, and that the Astrakhan coats were just coincindental.

Funny, is it not, how we can always find an alternative interpretation if we put our minds to it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Hello Sally. Here is Millen's photo and description. Post #430.

McDermott, alas is described in Campbell's book. But Chris Phillips has a thread on him. (Need the link?)

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3835&page=43&highlight=astrakhan+exist

Cheers.
LC

Lynn - thanks very much. Yes please to the link

[Sally]

Astrakhan, eh? And an arrest, late in November, huh? And the Echo, to boot. Of course.
So somebody must have forgotten to inform the arresting policeman (or policemen) about the discrediting of George Hutchinson.

Sloppy of them.

Perhaps so, Fish. But if Hutchinson, his suspect, or both, had not been at the least, generally disregarded to an extent by then, we must explain the phrase: 'it incomprehensibly created suspicion'.

Sounds more like the arresting policeman/men were behind with the times.

[lynn cates]

aqui

Hello Sally. Here is Millen's photo and description. Post #430.

McDermott, alas is described in Campbell's book. But Chris Phillips has a thread on him. (Need the link?)

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3835&page=43&highlight=astrakhan+exist

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Simon Wood:

"In the US versions of the story of the aristocrat arrested in Whitechapel, Sir George Arthur was wearing an old shooting coat.

Here's a UK version. Note his intriguing change of clothing.

Echo, 26th November 1888—

"Sir George Arthur will hesitate ere he reconnoitres in Whitechapel again. An Astrakhan overcoat would, he thought, be useful in protecting him from the cold. It was, but it incomprehensibly created suspicion. Soon this led to his arrest; to his conveyance to the nearest police station. There he had to give a faithful and particular account of his recent movements before he was released. Aristocratic detectives had better label themselves if they wish to escape this inconvenience."

Astrakhan, eh? And an arrest, late in November, huh? And the Echo, to boot. Of course.
So somebody must have forgotten to inform the arresting policeman (or policemen) about the discrediting of George Hutchinson.

Sloppy of them.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Hello Simon. Then if that is the case, someone wished to circulate the description of A -man--and as a likely killer of MJK.

And given the person whom we both know to have answered that description . . . ?

This is interesting since Campbell has found all the files--not to mention "The Black Pamphlet"--in which poor old Millen was cast as a dangerous dynamitard.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn

Where can I find a description of Millen and the man you fancy for Blotchy? Apologies for being slow, its my age, eyesight, or something..

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

In the US versions of the story of the aristocrat arrested in Whitechapel, Sir George Arthur was wearing an old shooting coat.

Here's a UK version. Note his intriguing change of clothing.

Echo, 26th November 1888—

"Sir George Arthur will hesitate ere he reconnoitres in Whitechapel again. An Astrakhan overcoat would, he thought, be useful in protecting him from the cold. It was, but it incomprehensibly created suspicion. Soon this led to his arrest; to his conveyance to the nearest police station. There he had to give a faithful and particular account of his recent movements before he was released. Aristocratic detectives had better label themselves if they wish to escape this inconvenience."

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

chance in a Millen

Hello Simon. Then if that is the case, someone wished to circulate the description of A -man--and as a likely killer of MJK.

And given the person whom we both know to have answered that description . . . ?

This is interesting since Campbell has found all the files--not to mention "The Black Pamphlet"--in which poor old Millen was cast as a dangerous dynamitard.

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

changed my mind -- too early. Brain isn't working properly.

[Sally]

A journalist invents the well-dressed man encounter and writes it up as a factual news report. Hutchinson reads the press report and claims that he saw the same individual. This would give you a fictitious account apparently corroborated by a man who claimed to be the second witness to an event which never took place at all.

This is what I think, more or less. There was a plethora of press reports describing a suspicious, well-dressed, black-bag-carrying individual in the days prior to Hutchinsons appearance at the cop shop - e.g. the well-dressed, black-bag-carrying man seen rushing away from Mitre Square (I forget on which day this was meant to be - the Sunday?) covered in blood.

As Hutchinson could read and had access to the papers at his lodging, it is obviously within the bounds of possibility that he took some inspiration for Astroman from these press reports; furthermore, the similarity of Astroman to the mysterious black bag man could have lent considerable weight to his account given that rumours (press included) of such an individual abounded at the time.

The Observer, issued on the Sunday before Georgie gave his statement, is worth a look in this respect, I should think.

In addition to foreign gents with large watches, as an aside, this paper also contained a feature on the discovery of the Ratcliffe Murderer at his lodgings - so if you fancy him as the killer, this might just have been the spur for Hutchinson to come forward. Sort of pre-emptive strike.

But all that is speculation, of course.

[Wickerman]

If we trust in the GH story, a respectably-dressed man should not have appeared on the scene until after 12th November.

One respectably dressed man had already been seen speaking to Kelly by Bowyer on the Wednesday (7th), location not specified, but I think we are supposed to believe it was in Millers Court.
Bowyer suggests the man he saw resembled the man seen by Packer.

Bowyer also saw this (well-dressed?) man early on the morning of the murder, and described him to Abberline, this is covered in The Echo, 14 Nov.
Mrs McCarthy agree's that one of her customers saw this "funny man" on the same morning within the Court.

The only two men we know of who entered the court were Blotchy & Astrakhan. Blotchy hardly fits the appellation "funny man" when compared with Astrakhan, unless there was a third "funny man"?
Anyone taking odds on that?

One thing is for certain, there's a lot more to this story than we know from the rags and tatters of information left to us.

Regards, Jon S.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Hi Dave,

There is another (speculative) possibility which doesn't involve chance at all:

A journalist invents the well-dressed man encounter and writes it up as a factual news report. Hutchinson reads the press report and claims that he saw the same individual. This would give you a fictitious account apparently corroborated by a man who claimed to be the second witness to an event which never took place at all.

Very good Bridewell...Hutchinson always has been my favourite suspect (still is), but I do have strong doubts about Lechmere/Cross.

I have no doubts that Hutch was a liar..this is another good explanation for his story.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lynn,

If you read the press reports closely you'll find that on Tuesday [13th] GH independently corroborated the story told to the police on Monday evening by an unnamed person.

Translation: GH corroborated his own story.

I'll leave you to pick the bones out of that one.

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Colin

It makes just as much sense as anything else mate...and actually I rather like the idea of a Hutch spurred into action by a bullshit article in the Star....trouble is, it'd only make sense if he could make money at it...oh...oops...perhaps he did...

Dave

[Bridewell]

Or Not

And what I was implying in my usual quiet and understated way (!) was (a) they got there same way the earlier parts of both reports got there (creative journalism) and (b) they chimed with subsequent accounts by chance (spin enough bullshit and some of it will match)...

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave,

There is another (speculative) possibility which doesn't involve chance at all:

A journalist invents the well-dressed man encounter and writes it up as a factual news report. Hutchinson reads the press report and claims that he saw the same individual. This would give you a fictitious account apparently corroborated by a man who claimed to be the second witness to an event which never took place at all.

Alternatively, the report is genuine. Hutchinson went to the press with his story, instead of to the police. The police read The Star article and brought pressure to bear, resulting in GH's visit to the police station.

Apologies if the above makes little sense. It's late and I've been watching the England game.

Regards, Bridewell.