(Adrianus) Morgenstern = Astrakhan Man

[Wickerman]

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...

So saw a tailors dummy walking down Commercial St.?

[Sally]

Why on earth would a person actually living in the LVP need inspiration from anything?, he lives among these people, he see's them every day.

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...

[Wickerman]

To suggest Hutchinson simply invented a fictitious character in order to deflect suspicion from himself, is also to assume the police were stupid.

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.

No, one significant reason for the police believing Hutchinson is, that Abberline was already looking for a man of similar appearance, who lived in the area, described to him by other sources 'as missing', just two days previous.

But of course, the press would never have been aware that this was the case.

[Phil H]

Why on earth would a person actually living in the LVP need inspiration from anything?, he lives among these people, he see's them every day.

Not necessarily, if he is referring to people outside his social class and experience. he might not know the conventions - which indeed seems to be the case.

lets see if we can maintain a modicum of sanity here

THAT would only be achieveable if you ceased posting.

Phil

[Sally]

Hi Ben,

Interesting thoughts on the Romford issue. He may well have had some sort of experience of Romford, perhaps in a work-related capacity, even if he invented the detail about visiting Romford on the night in question (as a convenient "explanation" for being on the streets at that ungodly hour - "Oh I'd only just got there!"). He may have done some labouring work there. Romfort Market is a plausible destination too, I agree. I know it was a popualr destination for East End costermongers, although it isn't known if Hutchinson himself ever picked up a barrow.

Horses were traded at Romford Market every Wednesday (along with cattle and othe livestock). There would have been numerous horse dealers there - like Stephen Maywood, for instance, who got into trouble there on more than one occasion - horse dealers were the very men who might have given Hutchinson the ex-groom a day's work at the market.

Whether it was true, or not - a trip to Romford market makes a splendid rationale for an ex-groom's mid-week jaunt.

[Wickerman]

If the description given by Hutchinson of a person he saw can be compared to other contemporary descriptions in the press of mens attire, we can readily assume he speaks with a degree of accuracy for the period.

But instead, he is accused of needing inspiration from these articles.

Why on earth would a person actually living in the LVP need inspiration from anything?, he lives among these people, he see's them every day.

We (today), on the other hand - in order to provide detail in a story just may need to consult contemporary sources. This indicates that Hutchinson's experience is being viewed from the erroneous perspective of a modern view, where inspiration is required, not so for the man who lived among them 120+ years ago. Hutchinson needed no such inspiration, he can speak from personal experience.

And I see the laughable 'tailors dummy' argument has surfaced again (more proof of what I said above) - lets see if we can maintain a modicum of sanity here

[Phil H]

Quite so, Ben. I was just applying a minor brake to what seemed like a thread out of control!!

There are also now, I would point out a few links to Romford.

Crossingham for one - and where was GH standing?

Phil

[Ben]

Hi Sally,

Interesting thoughts on the Romford issue. He may well have had some sort of experience of Romford, perhaps in a work-related capacity, even if he invented the detail about visiting Romford on the night in question (as a convenient "explanation" for being on the streets at that ungodly hour - "Oh I'd only just got there!"). He may have done some labouring work there. Romfort Market is a plausible destination too, I agree. I know it was a popualr destination for East End costermongers, although it isn't known if Hutchinson himself ever picked up a barrow.

Abby, I'm late in saying so, but I agree with your points entirely!

Phil - the potentially incriminating detail regarding Hutchinson, i.e. the detail that sets him aside from the usual fabricators and publicity-seekers, is that he was almost certainly the man seen by Sarah Lewis loitering opposite Kelly's room shortly before her murder. If he lied about his reasons for loitering there, it doesn't automatically make him the killer, but he's a legitimate person of interest at the very least. It would also establish a motive for the Astrakhan invention - to deflect suspicion in a false direction; the well-dressed Jewish bogeyman. If that was his plan, it appeared to have worked, at least to a degree. Some modern authors even gloss over Lewis' wideawake-wearing loiterer on the grounds that it was "only" Hutchinson waiting for Astrakhan man.

But this is taking us into Hutchinson-as-ripper terriroty, which is a very well trodden path indeed!

All the best,
Ben

[Phil H]

Fascinating stuff but all supposition. (I know that's what this thread is about - but I just thought I'd remind you all.

In terms of historical practice, we cannot dismiss A-man, unless GH can be shown much more clearly than now, be be a liar or suspect in what he says.

If we say GH killed MJK, are we saying he was "Jack"? Just thought I'd ask, to be clear?

It is a long jump though, from suggesting GH may have made up A-man ( exaggerating something he REALLY saw might be a first step and more logical) - but to leap from there to he was the killer - PHEW!!!

phil

[Sally]

If Hutchinson’s Astrakhan Man was an invention; he was an invention that could only be based upon what Hutchinson already knew – be it what he had seen, heard, read etc.

Hutchinson’s account, for example – his story, rather than his detailed description of Astrakhan Man – is in parts almost a verbatim copy of stories that had already appeared in the press when he gave his statement to the police.

In some respects Astrakhan Man mimics the well-dressed midnight wanderer who had been prevalent in press reports of the previous days, stalking the streets of Whitechapel with his black, shiny bag, etc.

He most resembles the parcel-carrying man allegedly seen rushing through Mitre Square splattered with blood and carrying a long (knife-shaped!) parcel.
That story had already appeared in the press by the time Hutchinson gave his statement to the police on the 12th as well (by striking coincidence the very same day that Isaacs went down for coat-stealing – gasp! Could there be a connection??? – No, probably not…)

What marks Astrakhan man out from the press-fuelled bogeyman is the level of detail described by Hutchinson, isn’t it? Where did he get all that from? I think that’s the key. Although any conjecture must necessarily be just that; it can be sound conjecture, nevertheless.

I’m interested in the gaiters and the horseshoe pin – because I think he could easily have seen both those things at Romford Market. I am now persuaded that it was to Romford Market that he either went on the Wednesday preceding Kelly’s death; or said he had been – either would do. It would’ve been an entirely plausible venture for an out-of-work groom.

Had he actually found a day’s work there, it would also explain how he spent all his money in Romford – perhaps in the pub, as itinerant people were wont to do.

As to the foreign, well-dressed Astrakhan man with the gold watch chain – there were stories in the press at the time concerning the attempted theft of a gold watch from an attaché to the Russian Embassy at the Lord Mayor’s Show – as good an inspiration as any if Hutchinson had read the papers.
As he was living at the time at the Victoria Home, which we know supplied papers to the residents (or ‘inmates’ even) – that isn’t such a leap.

[Ben]

I can't believe I have even suggested that..but it is an alternative that has to be considered.

It's the best suggestion by far, Richard.

Hutchinson's account was swiftly discredited owing to doubts about his credibility, late presentation of his evidence etc. The likelihood that Astarkhan was an invention is therefore very high.

It is unlikely that Astrakhan sought to "impress" Kelly by dressing as he did. Remember, in order to get to Kelly at that time of night, he needed to visit her on foot from his own residence, which meant sauntering the streets dressed in that same "impressive" fashion. These were already notorious streets for crime, and in this particular period in history, matters were made even worse by the reality that the ripper was on the prowl in the neighbourhood. There were reports of men who looked vaguely out-of-place being pursued by mobs, and Astrakhan would have stood out like a sore thumb. Would anyone, let alone the real killer, dress in a manner that was not only opulent (hello muggers!), but also incorporated many "bogeyman" ripper attributes that had been circulating in the press, and wander those same streets?

Or did Hutchinson lie about it?

Regards,
Ben

[Sally]

The arrest records of Joseph Isaacs are at the London Metropolitan Archives.

Really? You don't say! Well, I'm frankly amazed to learn that, Jon.

No, sorry - just kidding there.

The records pertaining to the trial and conviction of Isaacs, you mean.

Isaacs is arrested on that weekend and appeared in court on 12th Nov. - sent down for 21 days until 5th Dec.

Gloss, gloss, gloss. I presume - I believe correctly - that you don't actually know when Isaacs was arrested. Is that correct?

I think you're having a little guess there, Jon. One that means Isaacs can be on the streets posing as Honest Geo's Astrakhan Man on the 9th November...

While 'hanging on by the fingernails' to a theory which originated in a singular press report (with no corroboration) is not unusual here on Casebook, it is often recognised as a sign of desperation.

Oh, the irony....

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
All of the recent posts are only credible if our dear George Hutchinson was telling the truth, and not a hoaxer, maybe he had an interior motive for inventing such a person, maybe he was the person who went back to Kellys' room, and believing he was possibly seen with her, described another man to fit his shoes, its possible that he was the man who left the room around 6am, either dead or alive, if the latter he could hardly admit it, he would place himself in the room when the murder took place. if the medical people were accurate.
I can't believe I have even suggested that..but it is an alternative that has to be considered.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Phil,

I think if Astrakhan was wearing anything like the Madison Square man, Hutchinson would simply have said "boots", especially if they covered the feet. He later told the press that the man wore "dark spats with light buttons over button boots", which is rather specific and obviously dissimilar to leather or wellington type of boot. Note that the Illustrated Police News depicts the man as wearing conventional spats.

Regards,
Ben

[Phil H]

To show that I have an open mind and am receptive to points made, I noticed this today in Ripperologist 133 (out today) p34.

A description of an Englishmen in New York (doesn't matter who) stepping across Madison Square...:

"He was evidently a swell, and quite as evidently not a New York swell...his boots were pointed patent leather gaiters... and he knows how fashionable men dress in London." [My emphasis.]

St Paul Globe (Minnesota) 12 November 1888.

So here we have a description of a man on almost the same day as A-man was supposedly seen. Highly relevant, I think you'll all agree. As he is described as wearing a cravat, I don't think he is in evening dress.

But his boots are, I think, of a type none of us have mentioned. It doesn't say note, that he is wearing boots AND gaiters, but implies that his boots ARE gaiters.

Now I think what is being described here is a kind of boot which had an inset of a different material around the top, not quite reaching the toes or sole. Thus the boot would look likea gaiter was being worn but it was actually one piece with the "gaiter" element built into the shoe/boot.

I think that might well have been acceptable, though not with full evening dress (where pumps would be worn). So I would concede that A-man might have been wearing a boot of this kind, though GH would have needed sharp eyes to see it in the lighting conditions of that night.

I still believe the gaiter to be an oddity in GH's description, but it is possible that we have here an explanation. Make of it what you will.

Phil