(Adrianus) Morgenstern = Astrakhan Man

[Wickerman]

They had, Jon.

Remember Violenia?

Certainly Garry, and that he collapsed under interrogation.
The lesson should be not to assume the police did not know what they were doing. Especially Abberline who was very familiar with these East End characters and their evasive ways.
Abberline will naturally expect to be fed lies, that is what he is looking for.

[Phil H]

The daylight part of your answer is what I wanted - it makes sense of your point about the killer's cleaning up being "a simple wiping of hands or using a rag to bind them upon exit".

If you had said she died c 3.30am, then i would see cleaning up as a much less simple operation.

Thanks for the clarification.

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hi Phil,
You ask the million dollar question there..
What time do I assume Mary Kelly died?
The truthful answer is I must agree with the initially police opinion, that she was killed in daylight. because of this.
There are two scenarios which are likely.
A] Mr A stayed the night, and remained in her room, until he killed her after Maxwell's sighting.
B] Mr A left at dawn, with Kelly asleep and alive, and it was Maxwell's market porter that killed her, around 9AM.
My gut feeling is she was not killed when the medical opinion stated, and in this case they relied.. on to an extent educated guesswork.
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

The door knob etc, not being bloodied,would have been a simple wiping of hands or using a rag to bind them upon exit.

What time do you assume for MJK's death?

Phil

[Garry Wroe]

Simply telling the police that he saw another man with the victim is not enough to allay suspicion, "no guv'nor, I seen a'nuver man wiv'er - honest".

Like, they haven't heard that one before.

They had, Jon.

Remember Violenia?

[richardnunweek]

Hello Phil,
Yes it is puzzling.
I have wondered how the jacket apparently got bloodstained, but the suggestion that he may have used it to either kneel on or stand on is as you say is plausible,I only had that idea today..and it is original.
The Times Nov 12, clearly states the police were of the opinion that both the jacket and bonnet were burnt because they were blood stained, I have wondered how the former got soiled for ages.
The Ripper is a fascinating killer, we not only know who he/she was, but how the murders were carried out , with the crime scenes apparently free of clues.
The door knob etc, not being bloodied,would have been a simple wiping of hands or using a rag to bind them upon exit.
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

Richard: What you say is plausible - I haven't seen the idea of using a garment to stand on before, I think.

Do you perceive the killer as having knelt on the bed? Sttod in one place? or moved around? I must admit to never having been able to visualise what would be required - perhaps the whole idea is so horrific that I don't like contemplating it!

His hands though must have been clean enough to leave no obvious stains on the inside of the door, the latch or the outside when he pulled it to.

Puzzling.

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Whilst it is true that we have no report of the blood in room 13, apart from the wall splashes, and the pool under the bed , also the sheet, but that does not mean that other blood was not on the scene, he may even have placed a garment on the floor to escape the possible footprints, was not her velvet jacket burnt according to the police because of blood stains?.[ that along with the bonnet].
Because of the constant drizzle that morning any possible marks outside the door may have not been obvious, and the amount of people passing through the passage during the daylight hours would have most likely destroyed any possible clues.
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

Had barnett removed all his gear from the previously shared room at No 13?

I recall no mention of anything that might have been his.

As a Billingsgate porter, I surmise he would have possessed an apron, probably one covering chest and legs. (Canvas Apron doesn't have the same ring as Leather Apron does it?)

But saturated clothing apart, the remarkable thing to me is that we have no mention of a single footprint in the blood on the floor in that room, no mention of stray drips as though the killer had moved around, no mention of a smear on the door handle or a sprinkling on the flagstone outside. The body parts must surely have wept blood, if not dripped, as he moved them. If he did not roll up his sleeves at the least, his cuffs must have been saturated. Yet the police and doctors noted nothing apparently.

Same at Hanbury St - no drips on the steps as he left, no smear on the door handle reported, nothing where his shoulder mighht have rested.

How DID he manage it?

Phil

[harry]

Perhaps Hutchinson bought some spare clothing at Romford market.Mind you,he would have been a little late,as it's said the market was on a Wednesday,and he said he went there on the Thursday.

[Wickerman]

Hi Richard.

You would think so wouldn't you.

In the other cases though, the killer only need stand over and around the body, neither his body nor clothes, except sleeves?, need come in contact with blood.
In this case though, operating on a body at higher elevation, on the bed, then surely his clothes around waist level would come in contact with the blood as he leaned over to mutilate the body.

Could he have planned for this eventuality?, how likely is it if the killer was 'Jack' who typically murdered on the streets?
On the other hand, if it wasn't Jack, and he planned in advance to kill her in her room, he may have come prepared?

Hard to say..

[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.

[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.

[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!)

[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?