(Adrianus) Morgenstern = Astrakhan Man

[lynn cates]

2 questions

Hello Phil. I recognise that this is not yet to the stage to be taken very seriously--little more than musing. But two questions present themselves.

1. Would Adrianus be "rough" enough to have necessitated "MJK's" having to concoct a story to obliterate her old identity?

2. Where does Joe Barnett fit in here? Is he privy to the true story?

Cheers.
LC

[Ben]

That doesn't mean that Hutchinson didn't have people he knew in mind when he concocted him though - assuming that to be the case

Agreed, Sally. What about the theatrically dressed Israel Schwartz for instance? Can't think of a better way of getting back at the flashy Jew who interrupted him at Dutfields Yard!

If he had protection he might not have been worried about where he was.

I think that would depend on the "protection" being on hand and hiding in the shadows, Phil, which seems rather unlikely to me.

This is a George Hutchinson 'suspect free' zone for discussion of who he observed.

I wasn't discussing Hutchinson as a suspect in the post you quoted, Paddy. I was simply offering my principle objection to the Astrakhan = Morganstern premise.

All the best,
Ben

[Phil H]

1. Would Adrianus be "rough" enough to have necessitated "MJK's" having to concoct a story to obliterate her old identity?

Playing the game - I don't think I ever suggested that MJK had "to concoct a story to obliterate her old identity". She might have left the Breezer's Hill brothel for many reasons - indeed, by one report she went back to her old haunts with an unknown man.

Equally, "Morgenstern" might have wanted to see her for many reasons. He might always have known where she was; found out after her visit; or tracked her down.

2. Where does Joe Barnett fit in here? Is he privy to the true story?

Evidently he knew about "Morganstone" and other parts of the story pretty accurately, so I think he knew the London element.

I think that would depend on the "protection" being on hand and hiding in the shadows, Phil, which seems rather unlikely to me.

They might have been in The Ringers, or another pub, where the man found MJK. He might have been capable of looking after himself, or have been well-enough known that no sensible person would touch him.

But this is all speculation piled on speculation. On the other hand, I don't think it is untenable.

Phil

[moonbegger]

Was it a wedding photo ? and how old would he have been in the photo ? looks mid 60's ?

[Abby Normal]

Agreed, Sally. What about the theatrically dressed Israel Schwartz for instance? Can't think of a better way of getting back at the flashy Jew who interrupted him at Dutfields Yard!



I think that would depend on the "protection" being on hand and hiding in the shadows, Phil, which seems rather unlikely to me.



I wasn't discussing Hutchinson as a suspect in the post you quoted, Paddy. I was simply offering my principle objection to the Astrakhan = Morganstern premise.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben
Hutch (if he indeed was the ripper)using Schwartz as a model for Aman is actually a great idea. I have always thought that if hutch as the killer made up the story of Aman I always imagined that he patterned Aman physical description from perhaps a former Jewish boss who he disliked/ was jealous of. But your idea of Schwartz being the model works well IMHO.

I have often argued that the GSG was a way for the ripper to deflect blame n the Jews, partially because he was pissed off by being interrupted by some that night. In my mind it also could be no small coincidence that the only 2 pieces of evidence that directly mention the word Jew is the GSG and hutch. Using Scwartz as the model then for Aman fits in quite nicely for this.

As for morgen stern actually being Aman, I think it is quite a stretch. Interesting idea though.

[lynn cates]

playing the game

Hello Phil. Thanks.

"Playing the game - I don't think I ever suggested that MJK had "to concoct a story to obliterate her old identity". She might have left the Breezer's Hill brothel for many reasons - indeed, by one report she went back to her old haunts with an unknown man."

Very well. But I am trying to account for her "not being in the records" before this time.

"Equally, "Morgenstern" might have wanted to see her for many reasons. He might always have known where she was; found out after her visit; or tracked her down."

Quite. But, playing the game?

"Evidently he knew about "Morganstone" and other parts of the story pretty accurately, so I think he knew the London element."

Could he have omitted details on purpose?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Yet what the Sheldens have found correlates very closely with what Jor Barnett (and others) knew - the area; the names (albeit mispronounced or wrongly transliterated).

I think he knew (and transmitted to the authorities) most of the information Mary had told him about the previous four years or so. he may even have met some of the individuals concerned and heard parts of the story from them.

What is MUCH less certain is the period before Breezer's Hill (except in parts by extrapolation).

Playing the game:

What about if Astrakhan Man was Maywood who also knew MJK in her BH days? What if, as someone else suggested recently, Hutchinson knew him from Romford? What if Hutchinson was watching out FOR Maywood (one of his hired thugs) - ensuring the coast was clear.... maybe coming back after the boss was gone to clear his name.

BUT he was seen, so he provides testimony, even including he saw this flashy "geezer" going in. That makes him a witness not a suspect...

Hey one could play this game forever...

Phil

[lynn cates]

research

Hello Phil. Thanks.

Game playing is fine PROVIDED it leads to further research.

So, whom do you consider worthy of further research?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Both Morgensterns in the East End - can we track down any other brothels they might have run - especially in Fulham/West End

Maywood (with his supposed Essex connections)

Other houses in the Breezer's Hill/Pennington St area - there might have been other houses of ill-repute. MJK might have moved between them.

Court cases in Fulham to see if Mary turns up under her "own" or another name - also in the courts relating to the BH area.

All the girls we can find mentioned in connection with the BH houses of ill-repute - could MJK be hiding as one of them.

Most of these "unfortunates" seem to have appeared in court at sometime or another. MJK might just be there.

But social history and sources are NOT my period or milieu. My mind doesn't necessarily spot the opportunities or linkages nor the possibilities of records. I leave those things to our experts.

But I have tried to answer your question.

Turning it back to you and others - what avenues would you now wish to see explored?

Phil

[Sally]

Hi Phil

Nothing 'supposed' about Maywood's Essex connections. I spotted him some time ago - he was a Romford man and for most of his life, he was based there. He was a horse and (at times) cattle dealer; a conman and adulterer. His associates were petty criminals.

He's interesting in this case I suppose because he provides a plausible context for Hutchinson (as I think Jon has noted elsewhere). But this isn't the place for that discussion.

[Sally]

What about if Astrakhan Man was Maywood who also knew MJK in her BH days? What if, as someone else suggested recently, Hutchinson knew him from Romford? What if Hutchinson was watching out FOR Maywood (one of his hired thugs) - ensuring the coast was clear.... maybe coming back after the boss was gone to clear his name.

BUT he was seen, so he provides testimony, even including he saw this flashy "geezer" going in. That makes him a witness not a suspect...

Sorry Phil - missed this bit before my last post. That's a great story!

But it is a game - there is no context for an intimate relationship between Kelly and Maywood that we know of; though doubtless they knew each other at some level. Anyway, Maywood the philanderer liked women - a bit too much by all accounts

- I can't see him doing them in, really.

[Phil H]

Sensible posts Sally. I got carried away - don't know what came over me.

But musing for a moment.

A man might like women, but if his business interests were at stake, and he was violent/vengeful by nature, would that stop him killing one or having her killed?

What about possessiveness?

Surely those are ugly facets of character that have reared their heads in other men? I know nothing of Matwood, so can make no judgements.

Phil

[Sally]

Again, Phil, you can see Mr Maywood on Ancestry. I've always thought he looks a bit blotchy....




Maywood was a conman - a fraudster. There is no indication that he was involved in prostitution, so far as I know - of course anything is possible.

Perhaps Kelly was involved in an animal rights campaign, and that was why Maywood had her 'disappeared'...

[Sally]

Thinking about it - here's one reason I doubt old Astroman:

Would Kelly really have gone off with a parcel-carrying (suspiciously knife-shaped parcel, at that) bloke when reports of such a bloke putting the frighteners on local women had been in the press over the preceding days?

Nah.

[Phil H]

Would Kelly really have gone off with a parcel-carrying (suspiciously knife-shaped parcel, at that) bloke when reports of such a bloke putting the frighteners on local women had been in the press over the preceding days?

She might if she knew him well - surely? An ex-lover - with whom she felt "safe"? or someone she really had no option but to go along with because they already had power over her?

Again, what if someone she knew said the package contained a "present" for her?

Phil