(Adrianus) Morgenstern = Astrakhan Man

[Wickerman]

It is refreshing to see you admit this farce is based on "imagination", and by the "usual suspects" too. But then this is about the level to which you aspire - the witch-hunt derived from fantasy.

[Phil H]

Imagination can also relate to an ability to think themselves into the other person's mind; the ability to see many facets of an issue; to understand more than one explanation at a time - multi-dimensioanlity, Jon, not fantasy.

I fear you genuinely have a "one track mind".

Sad - if true.

Phil

[Sally]

It is refreshing to see you admit this farce is based on "imagination", and by the "usual suspects" too. But then this is about the level to which you aspire - the witch-hunt derived from fantasy.

A little less aggression on your part would be helpful Jon. This sort of personal attack does nothing to further debate.

[Wickerman]

A little less aggression on your part would be helpful Jon. This sort of personal attack does nothing to further debate.

As can be seen above, you need to have a word with your confederates about restraint on the 'personal attack' issue.

Noticeably quiet on that note though, weren't we.

[Wickerman]

Imagination can also relate to an ability to think themselves into the other person's mind; the ability to see many facets of an issue; to understand more than one explanation at a time - multi-dimensioanlity, Jon, not fantasy.

I fear you genuinely have a "one track mind".

Sad - if true.

Phil

When Hutchinson is accused of lying, with no basis to do so, the resulting conclusions about his veracity are based in fantasy.

When Hutchinson is suggested to have known he was identified while loitering, thereby coming forward to allay suspicion because of some presumed wrong-doing, the accusation is based on fantasy.

When it is suggested Hutchinson needed inspiration in order to describe a man he saw in Commercial St., the required scenario's for the source of this inspiration are derived from fantasy.

In this case to take the more controversial solution to any of these problems as preferable instead of the more likely, and more sustainable view, that he did not lie, that he came forward in honesty, that he needed no inspiration, - consistent with the conclusion arrived at by Abberline, is to intentionally misrepresent Hutchinson's role.

It is all very well to ask the question, "did he lie?", but this is quite a different matter to accusing him of lying and then draw conclusions about why he lied.

It is first necessary to establish he did indeed lie, and that has not been done. Therefore, all resultant conclusions derived from that erroneous assumption are fantasizing.

[Phil H]

You either cannot or will not understand the views of others, in this or other threads, so there is no point continuing the discussion. I do not need lecturing thank you.

Phil

[Ben]

When Hutchinson is accused of lying, with no basis to do so, the resulting conclusions about his veracity are based in fantasy.

You're the one whose opinions are based on "fantasy", and it angers me very intensely that you insist on your minority-endorsed speculations while denying others the right to speculate themselves. There are a great many people who believe that Hutchinson lied to one extent or another, and they absolutely dwarf the number of people (pretty much just you) who believes Astrakhan was Joseph Isaacs. You need to recognise this fact and cultivate a bit humility before attempting to shout down the opinions of others.

Since Hutchinson's evidence was three days late, discredited by the police, and borderline impossible in places, the most reasonable conclusion is that he lied. We may also recognise that he was, in all probability, the man seen by Lewis. The resulting conclusion that he may have lied in order to legitimise his presence at a crime scene after realising he'd been seen is a logical one, and criminologically sound to boot. In decrying this as "fantasy" people expose only their ignorance.

If Astrakhan was invented - a mainstream-endorsed view these days and for good reason, given the near impossibility that he could have noticed and memorized all that he alleged - it is only reasonable to consider his possible "inspiration" for his description. The parallel between his account and the one that appeared in the Daily News is particularly striking.

In this case to take the more controversial solution to any of these problems as preferable instead of the more likely, and more sustainable view, that he did not lie, that he came forward in honesty, that he needed no inspiration

"More likely" according to who - you?

You think whatever you like, but your aggressive, lecturing approach is only serving to ruin a perfectly good thread.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ben,

What if it wasn't "George Hutchinson" who lied?

An enigmatic question, I appreciate, but I have no doubt that you'll work it out.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

...... it angers me very intensely that you insist on your minority-endorsed speculations while denying others the right to speculate themselves.

No-one is denied the right to speculate, we all speculate, we don't all insist our speculations are fact. It is the persistent repetition of unfounded assertions which becomes obnoxious. No such conclusions are warranted against this witness.

The East End was likely profuse with people lying about something, a matter of day-to-day existence, so believing Hutchinson may have lied about something is not the issue.
In order to incriminate him it is necessary to discover what, if anything, he may have lied about. As yet, nothing has been identified.

.....discredited by the police...

Not true, as has been demonstrated numerous times.

, and borderline impossible in places,

So 'you' say..

the most reasonable conclusion is that he lied.

Nothing 'reasonable' about that.

We may also recognise that he was, in all probability, the man seen by Lewis.

That, is 'reasonable', but it always was 'reasonable', so nothing new.

The resulting conclusion that he may have lied in order to legitimise his presence at a crime scene after realising he'd been seen is a logical one, and criminologically sound to boot.

Such an assumption requires us to think he was so inept as to assume he was the only man who owned a widewake hat, so no, not a reasonable conclusion at all.

If Astrakhan was invented - a mainstream-endorsed view these days

No, this is not mainstream at all.

it is only reasonable to consider his possible "inspiration" for his description.

There is nothing reasonable about assuming he needed inspiration from anywhere. Unless you believe he lived in a shoebox?

Your perceived limitations on Hutchinson's ability to see and describe accurately what he saw only serve to reflect your own limitations, and are a perfect example of what someone else described earlier, "blind and unimaginative about human nature", to impose your limits on another man. It is perfectly understandable for Hutchinson to take-in all he saw when someone essentially interrupted his prospects of a bed that night.

[Bridewell]

Hi Colin.

The spat only covered the top of the shoe, the wearer still walked on his original soles, or am I misunderstanding your question?

No. Error on my part, Jon. Apologies.

[Bridewell]

https://www.facebook.com/1erRegimentDArtillerie.reenactment/posts/124650567701266

I thought the first paragraph was quite interesting.

[Bridewell]

Yes Jon, I'm sure Hutchinson saw Astrakhan-coat-wearing, parcel-carrying, inappropriately dressed foreign-looking men hangning about in the small hours on Dorset Street all the time...

On Dorset Street perhaps not, but Hutchinson first saw Astrakhan Man on Commercial Street, one of the main London thoroughfares. Is it particularly remarkable that a prosperous-looking man should have been seen there?

[Bridewell]

The Clothing

And where did he pile all those garments in the room while at work? he must have had:

* hat
* overcoat
* jacket
* waistcoat
* trousers
* stockings (perhaps with suspenders/garters)
* tie or cravat
* shirt
* collar - maybe with detachable cuffs (plus four studs - back and front collar and 2 cufflinks)
* underwear (one or two pieces)
* corset?

Something around 12 peices by my calculation, without the smaller items which might have been placed in a pocket.

I don't think a man like that stripped and then dressed again, frankly.

If he existed, and if he killed MJK, I think one possible scenario would have him killing whilst fully dressed, removing his outer clothing, burning it in the grate, and leaving No.13 wearing his relatively unmarked inner clothing. (Two big ifs there, I acknowledge!)

[Wickerman]

Funny you should mention that Colin, because this Astrachan character was carrying a small parcel - though 'small' is with reference to what?

Whatever the parcel contained we can only guess, a weapon or spare clothing?

Just to illustrate what I mean, an earlier story in the press, suspect unknown.

"....but the dairyman caught a glimpse of something white, and, having suspicions, he rejoined the man in the shed, and was surprised to observe that he had covered up his trousers with a pair of white over-alls, such as engineers wear. The man had a staring look, and appeared greatly agitated. "

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_telegraph/dt881006.html?printer=true

This suspicious character apparently removed overalls from his "little black bag", for whatever purpose we can only speculate.

All I'm drawing attention to is, whoever killed Mary Kelly had no need to undress, quite the reverse in fact.
Lets face it, no 19th century man is going to remove his clothes to murder anyone.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Who ever murdered Kelly would have been saturated with blood, although many still dispute this.
It surely would be a good bet this person would have made provisions to disguise that , either by undressing, or putting on a outer layer, one cannot imagine that he would have left that room having taken no precautions.
I would suggest that the killer of all these women operated in the same manner.
Regards Richard.