Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

[Sam Flynn]

Too bad they were reading the wrong papers otherwise they could have picked up a tip or two from those smart press guys.

...indeed, Caz, as newspapers abounded with tipsters from the racing fraternity. For example, this from the Times of 15th September:



Off-topic, but fun. (Prompted by your ref. to Diary of a Nobody)

[Stephen Thomas]

Caz,

The Pooter house is just down the road from where I live, though the boot scraper ain't there anymore. When we meet again I'll show you.

[caz]

Hi Sam,

Thanks for that. I always suspected 'double event' was a racing term.

Hi Stephen,

Ooh goody. I'll look forward to that. I expect the boot scraper was removed by the health and safety people after Liz Stride fell and cut her throat on the one in Dutfield's Yard.

Hi Ben,

Ooh goody goody gumdrops! So this means we never have to hear again from you that there was no precedent for murderers waltzing into police stations in 1888 pretending to be witnesses, so Hutch took advantage of that fact to get his oar in first before they could treat Lewis's man as someone they needed to find urgently and eliminate as a potential suspect and so on and so forth ad bloody infinitum ???

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

So this means we never have to hear again from you that there was no precedent for murderers waltzing into police stations in 1888 pretending to be witnesses

There was no precedent for that sort of behaviour, and if anyone seriously wants to challenge that, I'm afraid you will be hearing from me again. Of course, the fact that there was little to no precedent doesn't necessarily mean that nobody would ever entertain the possibility of it happening; just that they were less likely to do so.

Sorry to sour those gumdrops, but...

Best wishes,
Ben

[dougie]

Did others see "mr astrakan" too"

The last sentence implies they did?If so whom?

[Ben]

Hi Dougie,

They were probably talking about Sarah Lewis' description of a man who accosted her on Bethnal Green Road on the Wednesday prior to the murder (and from which Hutchinson may have "borrowed" physical particulars to make his account seem more plausible). She claimed to have spotted him again on Commercial Road shortly before turning right into Dorset Street, but there is some conflict between her inquest and police evidence on this detail.

He clearly wasn't "Mr. Astrakhan" since the man Lewis saw was coatless. Besides which, if you accept his version of events, Hutchinson was already installed opposide the court at the time of Lewis' sighting.

Best regards,
Ben

P.S. There's no evidence that the Bethnal Green man was ever in the company of "the deceased".

[dougie]

Ben,
Thanks, your answer certainly sounds a reasonable explanation for that news cutting.
regards

[caz]

Hi Caz,

There was no precedent for that sort of behaviour, and if anyone seriously wants to challenge that, I'm afraid you will be hearing from me again. Of course, the fact that there was little to no precedent doesn't necessarily mean that nobody would ever entertain the possibility of it happening; just that they were less likely to do so.

Sorry to sour those gumdrops, but...

Best wishes,
Ben

Hi Ben,

My point wasn't that the police would have had bags of experience of wanted murderers waltzing into police stations posing as witnesses. They wouldn't. It was and is a rare phenomenon.

My point was that in your scenario Hutch the Ripper seems to have set the precedent himself, by not only entertaining the possibility, but trying it out, presumably on the basis that nobody else, copper, journo, member of the public or fellow criminal, was likely to have entertained anything like it themselves before. I'm surprised he didn't leave a diary behind, claiming to be Hutch the Master Criminal.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

"It was and is a rare phenomenon"

"Was" perhaps (we have no data). Not so much "is", or else criminal investigators would not be anticipating that behaviour with a view to laying traps, with successful results. That wouldn't happen if we're dealing with a "rare phenomenon", unless the authorities in those cases were psychic. Bear in mind that serial murder is, in itself, a rare phenomenon, which means we should concern ourselves with that which can be considered "rare" within that "rarity", and criminal contact with the police just doesn't belong in that category.

I'd bet hefty amounts that none of these offenders ever pondered in depth to themselves, "Now, how many people have done this sort of thing before?". More likely, they weighed up the odds and elected to take a gamble, spurred no doubt by a dose of cat and mouse bravado.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

Bear in mind that serial murder is, in itself, a rare phenomenon...

Maybe it's you who needs to bear that in mind, Ben. As such, serial murder that involves the offender turning up at the cop shop three days after his most gruesome crime to date, to admit he was there and to pose as a witness, cannot be anything other than 'rare', no matter how you slice it.

If you want to make it sound as common as sliced bread among the serial killer fraternity, you've got your work cut out. Get slicing.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

As such, serial murder that involves the offender turning up at the cop shop three days after his most gruesome crime to date, to admit he was there and to pose as a witness, cannot be anything other than 'rare', no matter how you slice it.

Yes, but if you want to be that specific, any form of human behaviour will appear "rare". When serial killers come forward under false guises, of course they're not all going to be identical in the way they go about it. The salient point is that they do it, irrespective of motive, timing etc. It's rare for serial killers to gnaw on a female uterus, but the individual who did that still comes under the category of a sexually-motivated serial killer and mutilator. We don't rule him out as belonging to either catergory based on the fact that he went about his grisly business in a slightly different manner; they're just as "slightly different" as eachother, they just share a trait in common.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

A (so important) witness that comes to the police after the inquest is closed, although he said he knew Mary quite well and has also spotted his suspect on Sunday morning (without going, at that time, to the police!), that is the rarest phenomenon I see...

Amitiés,
David

[Wickerman]

I haven't managed to read every post in this thread, so appologies if this has been noticed before.
The Times, Tuesday 13th November, 1888.
A description repeated here of that given the night before (12th) by George Hutchinson, a little different, and followed by a puzzling observation.

Differences I highlite in red.
"He was about 5 ft. 6 in. in height, and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache turned up at the ends. He was wearing a long, dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, a white collar with a black necktie, in which was affixed a horse-shoe pin. He wore a pair of dark gaiters with light buttons, over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain."

Hutchinson's statement offered "complexion pale" and "slight moustache" the word "dark" was deleted. Nothing drastic, but the last line of the paragraph informs us:
"This description, which confirms that given by others of the person seen in company with the deceased on the morning she was killed, is much fuller in detail than that hitherto in the possession of the police."

Similar to that given by others? Someone else saw Mr Astrakhan?
An interesting error, if thats what it is.

[Ben]

Hi WM,

If there was any suspect sighting similar to Hutchinson's, it was the one provided by Sarah Lewis of a man who allegedly accosted her and a companion on Bethnal Green Road on the Wednesday prior to the Kelly murder. Since Lewis' evidence was undoubtedly the motivating factor for Hutchinson coming forwad and delivering his own version of events, he could have "used" any components from her existing account to lend weight to his.

Best regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi WM,
..........Since Lewis' evidence was undoubtedly the motivating factor for Hutchinson coming forwad and delivering his own version of events, he could have "used" any components from her existing account to lend weight to his.

Ok Ben, yes I did notice her description, it sticks in my mind due to the mention of "pepper & salt" trousers. The last time we were introduced to that material was with the Eddowes murder, Lawende's description referred to a "pepper & salt" loose jacket worn by the man stood with Eddowes at the passage to Mitre Sq.
If I recall correctly, in the Chapman murder, the man Mrs Fiddymont saw also wore "pepper and salt" trousers.

As for Hutchinson, do you think he was at the Kelly Inquest?
The reason I ask is that Hutch' provided his description to police at or about 6 pm on the 12th. I wonder how Hutch' was aware of Lewis's description given at the Inquest earlier on the same day?