(Adrianus) Morgenstern = Astrakhan Man

[Wickerman]

You're supposing that she knew Isaacs Jon. That's a leap.

How much of a leap is it though Sally, to allow that she may have known a flamboyant character who lived around the corner?
Didn't Barnett also claim that him & Kelly used to live in Paternoster Row?

I take that point that if she knew Mr Astroman, she may have trusted him - and thus not have been doubtful of his knife-shaped parcel.

I wasn't aware the shape of the parcel was stated.
Is it not a leap to suggest it was knife shaped?

It's all ifs and buts though, eh? If Astrakhan was real, If Kelly knew him, If he was Isaacs....

Absolutely, all we have is IF's, which is why it is not advisable to draw conclusions from what we read.

I'm not saying it certainly wasn't Isaacs - if Mr A even existed that is - but there seems to me to be quite little to tie them together.

The point is Sally, no-one can say it "certainly wasn't Isaac's", though there seems to be more enthusiasm behind the suggestion that it was someone else, or that he was made up, with no more evidence to support such conclusions.
At least Isaac's fit the physical description of Astrachan, was a known celebrity, was local, and thus had a perfect reason to be there.
The fact the press noted the similarity of Isaac's with Astrachan cannot be ignored.
We have been asked to accept similarities between the Schwartz suspect & Lawende's suspect, with far less to go on.
It is not an unreasonable proposal.

Just to show how easy it is to draw lines of connection.

Or invent radical interpretations, just to knock them down

Agreed - a poser and a petty thief. So how does he turn into the Ripper?

I don't think he was the Ripper.

One thing I'm frequently amazed at reading the posts on the forum - and this is not directed at you particularly Jon; it's a general observation - is that these days almost anybody can be the Ripper with a healthy dose of speculation.

Well, I'm encouraged that you do not include me in your observation, seeing as I have never pointed at anyone as being my Ripper suspect.

[Phil H]

it's a general observation - is that these days almost anybody can be the Ripper with a healthy dose of speculation.

Well, I think we can be fastidious and rule out the Carrolls, Barnardos Sickerts and Van Goghs.

More seriously, for me, the past 40 years have got us not very far in this case - the clinging to the canonical list of victims (which to be honest has little basis bar one man's judgement); to working with a tight envelope of hypothesis.

We know that Macnaghten's list of possible suspects was flawed (whether deliberately or accidentally. Kosminski - revealed as a person in part by the marginalia and the researches of Fido and others - was always there in the writings of Anderson (though unnamed). No one put the pieces together.

So for me, one avenue of thought (I am not in a position to undertake pure research) is to deconstruct the case and try to look at it from a different angle. My inspiration for that, and biggest debt, is to AP Wolf and Peter Turnbull who's writings gave me a HUGE jolt but made me re-examine the events and people.

That is why I question (in parallel with the conventional wisdom on the case, which I do not reject outright) the number of victims - seeing some reason to exclude Stride and MJK. When one does that other possibilities arise. The killer might be someone who only killed some of the usually named victims. Maybe we should include others (Tabram - on balance maybe not; Mckenzie - I see the argument).

There has always been dispute about the time of Kelly's murder. The testimony of Mrs Maxwell is odd. So, playing with ideas one can ask - could it be that Barnett's alibi was not as "watertight" as some claim?

Moving on from him, but still with Kelly in mind - what about some of the other men in her life, the Flemming, Morgensterns (now they have been identified? Surely we should be thinking through this new material, seeking connections.

I honestly do not understand the mentality that has to cling to the barren assumption that Kelly (or Stride) has to be a Ripper victim. They may have been, but to me there is value in a review of those assumptions.

So, no, I do not believe anyone can be picked from the rack of names and fingered as "Jack", but names that come into the frame such as Isscenschmdt (spelling?) or Morgenstern, Hutchinson (whemever he was) or Flemming are valid suspects. They had connections to the case that are known.

I don't know whether I have explained myself clearly or answered your half-question. But I think there is method in this madness.

Phil

[lynn cates]

well spoke

Hello Phil. This is all quite clear and well spoke.

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Phil -

Well, I think we can be fastidious and rule out the Carrolls, Barnardos Sickerts and Van Goghs.

Yes - although of course yet more of those 'celebrity' Jack's will be along to plague us in the future. The unversed and money-seeking have an undeniable attraction to that sort of thing.

Yet when I proposed that Hieronymous Bosch was the Ripper I found very little support for the theory; and have yet to publish my research.

Odd, that...

More seriously, for me, the past 40 years have got us not very far in this case - the clinging to the canonical list of victims (which to be honest has little basis bar one man's judgement); to working with a tight envelope of hypothesis.

I think your first sentence contains the reason that some feel the need to 'revise' radically: the lack of progress.

I wonder if that isn't somewhat short sighted. 'Lack of progress' - by which I take it you mean that we're no closer to knowing 'whodunnit' - does not necessarily imply that the parameters within which we are seeking progress are incorrect.

It may be far more simple - it may be that we ultimately lack the means to progress further.

I understand it's a depressing concept for some - realistic though. To me, more realistic than entertaining the concept of multiple killers who just happened to emerge at the same time in the same place.

What do you need to sustain that idea? Oh Yes - you need conspiracy!

It works best of all if there's a conspiratorial motive behind it; or we can have a combination of both - a crazy bloke (or two, or more) who took out a couple (etc.) of prostitutes; then a secret organisation (or two) who did away with the others.

Simple.

So for me, one avenue of thought (I am not in a position to undertake pure research) is to deconstruct the case and try to look at it from a different angle.

Fair enough Phil. I understand that when you've thought about something for a long time; looking for solutions and finding none that work, it's a natural progression to try a different approach in an effort to make the pieces fit.

I've done it myself before now. The trouble is, you so often end up with such complicated scenarios as explanation that eventually, you realise how far off course you've come. The truth is rarely complicated - even if it is hidden from us.

Human nature is generally predictable.

That is why I question (in parallel with the conventional wisdom on the case, which I do not reject outright) the number of victims - seeing some reason to exclude Stride and MJK. When one does that other possibilities arise. The killer might be someone who only killed some of the usually named victims. Maybe we should include others (Tabram - on balance maybe not; Mckenzie - I see the argument).

You know Phil, an awful lot of people question the canonical 5 as the correct number of Ripper victims - I don't get the impression from reading the posts on this forum that there is a substantial body of 'conventionalists' all clinging to old wisdom.

Lots and lots of posters on this forum have discussed Tabram, Smith, McKenzie etc as possible Ripper victims. You are right, the canonical five is just one man's opinion; albeit that he was there at the time and in a position to make that judgement in a way that we are not.

I think most people here recognise that.

There has always been dispute about the time of Kelly's murder. The testimony of Mrs Maxwell is odd. So, playing with ideas one can ask - could it be that Barnett's alibi was not as "watertight" as some claim?

Well now, Barnett - if he killed Kelly - must have been truly remarkable. Not only was he able to endure 4 hours of interrogation by the police - who, as you would imagine, were immediately suspicious of the recent ex lover of the murder victim - without giving a clue that he was Kelly's killer; he was then able to wander off and live the rest of his life with another woman, working in a regular job and successfully hiding his psychosis from the world until he died in 1926. He doesn't really come across that way from what we do know of him - but then again, neither does Cross - and we know that he's a suspect these days. I heard that he was found 'leaning over the body' of his first victim...

If I were to suspect Barnett of anything (hypothetically) it would be of telling the police that the woman in the room was his ex girlfriend when it wasn't at all.

There need be no deep dark conspiracy in that - I think a lot of people might be tempted to disappear if they discovered a mutilated woman in their room - who'd want to hang around? And where was Barnett until 1897? Nobody knows.

Moving on from him, but still with Kelly in mind - what about some of the other men in her life, the Flemming, Morgensterns (now they have been identified? Surely we should be thinking through this new material, seeking connections.

I'm sure we should. I'm sure people are. Isn't there a thread devoted to Fleming right now?

I honestly do not understand the mentality that has to cling to the barren assumption that Kelly (or Stride) has to be a Ripper victim. They may have been, but to me there is value in a review of those assumptions.

Does anybody do that? I thought that most people considered that to be the most likely explanation - overwhelmingly likely, perhaps - but I'm sure that if evidence emerged to lend support to the idea that they weren't Ripper victims, the majority of people would accept that new information.

I don't really believe in a body of people with closed minds Phil. I don't see that at all, generally. Those who are the most adamant in their beliefs are the people who favour a specific suspect; because they believe that they have a solution.

Most people don't fall into that category as far as I can see. Most people are simply interested in learning more about the case whenever that opportuinity arises.

It's often repeated these days that those who favour a single killer are closed minded; but I don't think so. I think that's a weak argument.

So, no, I do not believe anyone can be picked from the rack of names and fingered as "Jack", but names that come into the frame such as Isscenschmdt (spelling?) or Morgenstern, Hutchinson (whemever he was) or Flemming are valid suspects. They had connections to the case that are known.

Aargh! You said the 'H' word! Uh Oh.....

I don't know whether I have explained myself clearly or answered your half-question. But I think there is method in this madness.

I understand entirely, Phil, even if I don't entirely agree.

And as always, I enjoy your posts.

[lynn cates]

coherence

Hello Sally.

"I think your first sentence contains the reason that some feel the need to 'revise' radically: the lack of progress."

Might add to that, The utter lack of coherence in any view proposed heretofore.

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Hello Sally.

"I think your first sentence contains the reason that some feel the need to 'revise' radically: the lack of progress."

Might add to that, The utter lack of coherence in any view proposed heretofore.

Cheers.
LC

In your view Lynn. It's an opinion, not a fact.

[Sally]

Hello Jon...

How much of a leap is it though Sally, to allow that she may have known a flamboyant character who lived around the corner?
Didn't Barnett also claim that him & Kelly used to live in Paternoster Row?

It's possible, Jon, but yes it is still a leap. If you live in a densely populated area with an itinerant population there is no guarantee that you will know your neighbours; indeed, other than your immediate neighbours, it isn't that likely.

In order for Kelly to know Isaacs (as we have no idea whether she did or not) it would be necessary to propose a purely conjectural scenario in which they became acquainted.

But from such stuff is Ripperology built, so fair enough, I guess.

I wasn't aware the shape of the parcel was stated.
Is it not a leap to suggest it was knife shaped?

It was a long parcel, I think. Possibly dimensions of said parcel were given somewhere - although right now I can't recall the details.

Absolutely, all we have is IF's, which is why it is not advisable to draw conclusions from what we read.

That's a bit silly though, isn't it Jon? Everybody draws conclusions from what they read - with various degrees of critical awareness, I grant you; but everybody does it. It's perfectly natural to do so - it's one of the ways we humans make sense of the world around us.

The point is Sally, no-one can say it "certainly wasn't Isaac's", though there seems to be more enthusiasm behind the suggestion that it was someone else, or that he was made up, with no more evidence to support such conclusions.

I didn't say that 'it certainly wasn't Isaacs' though, did I Jon? It's impossible to say, as you observe.

At least Isaac's fit the physical description of Astrachan, was a known celebrity, was local, and thus had a perfect reason to be there.
The fact the press noted the similarity of Isaac's with Astrachan cannot be ignored.
We have been asked to accept similarities between the Schwartz suspect & Lawende's suspect, with far less to go on.
It is not an unreasonable proposal.

Neither is the proposition that Astrakhan man was somebody else, or was invented entirely by Hutchinson. Every serious proposal for Astrakhan Man has been reasoned with logic - whether one happens to agree with that reasoning or not.

Or invent radical interpretations, just to knock them down

You say this often Jon. That's not it at all. It's simply that so much is open to interpretation - and it really is very easy to draw lines of connection that create a new one. Ok, so I wasn't being serious - but that's only because I consider it largely a waste of time. Only research can put us on firmer ground in this case - and in many respects, I think the answers are probably beyond recovery.

I don't think he was the Ripper.

So who kiilled Mary Kelly then? Blotchy? Morgan-Stern? Or was it the market porter in the morning?

[lynn cates]

account

Hello Sally. Thanks.

"In your view Lynn. It's an opinion, not a fact."

Very well. And, who knows, perhaps a non-contradictory account will turn up later?

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

I find it interesting that in some of these cases many surnames overlap with other, although not always related. But in the case of Joseph Isaacs, the man I brought up earlier, there is a strange case of an Issac[s] being mentioned leaving the passageway to Dutfields Yard with Louis. That cannot be reconciled with the statement of Isaac Kozebrodski, who most assume was who Louis meant was his company. Issac K told reporters within 1 hour of the discovery that he was sent out alone by Louis, before Louis, or Eagle.

I cant say that this is Joe Issacs, but I can say why dont we know more about whom Louis claimed to have left the yard with and why this Issac[s] fellow wasnt interviewed with the others. And why werent we told, if Issac K's interview was accurate, that 3 parties went out searching for help...not just 2.

Might just be surname overlap. But why dont we know who this Isaac[s] was?

Cheers

[lynn cates]

first name

Hello Mike. I wonder what was the first name of Gilleman/Gilyarovsky?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

But why dont we know who this Isaac[s] was?

We do.

"A member of the club named Kozebrodski, but familiarly known as Isaacs, returned with Diemshitz into the court,.."
Morning Advertiser, 1 Oct. 1888.

[Wickerman]

Hello Sally.

It's possible, Jon, but yes it is still a leap. If you live in a densely populated area with an itinerant population there is no guarantee that you will know your neighbours; indeed, other than your immediate neighbours, it isn't that likely.

Mary Kelly was a prostitute.

How on earth is it possible to claim a local prostitute is unlikely to know a 'specific' man who just happens to live around the corner?

Isn't it her job to get to know men?

In order for Kelly to know Isaacs (as we have no idea whether she did or not) it would be necessary to propose a purely conjectural scenario in which they became acquainted.

You need a conjectural scenario for a prostitute to meet a man?
(You didn't really think that through, did you?)

It was a long parcel, I think. Possibly dimensions of said parcel were given somewhere - although right now I can't recall the details.

18 inches long, but you said it was knife-shaped, where did you get this idea?

That's a bit silly though, isn't it Jon? Everybody draws conclusions from what they read .....

No Sally, ...you have not read that Astrachan was invented. This is your suggestion, and it is from this that you draw conclusions.

Not isolating you in particular, but you raised the point just now.
A number of posters here do the same, they come up with some speculation - contrary to what we read, and then draw conclusions from that speculation without it ever being proven.
This, is what is silly.

Speculation is necessary, but it is used to create various branches for investigation, not to provide solutions.

Neither is the proposition that Astrakhan man was somebody else, or was invented entirely by Hutchinson. Every serious proposal for Astrakhan Man has been reasoned with logic - whether one happens to agree with that reasoning or not.

"Every serious proposal" is considerably less than "Every proposal", and quite distinct from "Every proposal is serious".
While every proposal may be creative, not all can be taken as serious.

You say this often Jon. That's not it at all. It's simply that so much is open to interpretation - and it really is very easy to draw lines of connection that create a new one.

Ok, then why claim that Isaac's would only invite being mugged if he walked around dressed like that?
You are choosing to invent a scenario to argue against Astrachan being Isaacs, yet you have no idea whether he would be mugged, especially if he was known to be a sham.
In other words, why bother mugging this flamboyant poser who has nothing of value anyway?
Risk serving 30 days hard labor for nothing?

So who kiilled Mary Kelly then? Blotchy? Morgan-Stern? Or was it the market porter in the morning?

Scotland Yard appear to have settled for Blotchy, which is why they slowly lost interest in Hutchinson.
What I see is that Mary was out on the street again after her liaison with Astrachan, she was seen "about 3:00 am" outside the Britannia.

Regardless, whoever killed her, her 'Astrachan moment' was behind her.

[Phil H]

No Sally, ...you have not read that Astrachan was invented. This is your suggestion, and it is from this that you draw conclusions.

What arrogant piffle. Sally certainly could have READ that on Casebook as i, for one, have suggested it a couple of times.

Your disagreeing means nothing.

Phil

[Wickerman]

No Sally, ...you have not read that Astrachan was invented. This is your suggestion, and it is from this that you draw conclusions.

What arrogant piffle. Sally certainly could have READ that on Casebook as i, for one, have suggested it a couple of times.

Your disagreeing means nothing.

Phil

Well, it meant something to you...

We read all kinds of conjectural tripe on Casebook, not in any way based on evidence from the period.

Apparently you need me to spell this out to you.
The only opinion that matters about Hutchinson is that given by Abberline. No-one at the time had cause to question the existence of Astrachan. In fact the police were still looking for him two weeks after the murder.

Modern-day theorists looking to create some sensational argument come up with all kinds of nonsense. Developing an opinion from nonsense only produces more nonsense. And you can throw the 'tailors dummy' in with that too.

[Phil H]

The only opinion that matters about Hutchinson is that given by Abberline.

And we are entitled to question that.

We are not, to be sure, entitled to dismiss his view - but we can ask how valid it was. Not least given some of the other views attributed to Abberline over time (Chapman as JtR?). See my thread, posted today, which raises the specific subject of police interviews in 1888.

As for the police, we know that they were following up numerous leads - Tumblety (even to New York); Kosminski (surveillance?); just examples. Even after the Ripper scare seemed to have abated they went back to "could it be him?" questions and brought out old witnesses (Lawende).

So I don't think we can infer too much from their continued interest.

Also we now have a new range of people Astrakhan Man might fit - local bosses and such. It is worth looking again in detail at everything.

In my working experience, had i been involved in a case review, and a subordinate had come to me and said "no need to look at that again, X did that five years ago and found nothing", my response would have been to have that issues most carefully reviewed again.

It is in the assumption that someone did their job, did not miss anything, that mistakes are made. Maybe your experience is different.

Phil