(Adrianus) Morgenstern = Astrakhan Man

[richardnunweek]

Hi Phil.
Great post by the way, its very inviting to respond.
When I said the man was dressed for the Lord mayors show I am of that opinion,and by taking the stance that oral history suggests, that Kelly wanted to go to the show, it fits rather well, that this man may have promised to escort her, either off the cuff , or arranged to do so prior.
We have the added pointer that Mrs Harvey left her bonnet overnight, and she allegedly said to Mary''I shall be leaving my bonnet then''., we also have Praters on record as seeing Kelly the evening of the 8th wearing not only the bonnet, but her Velvet jacket also.
I take your point that it would be an ordeal to disrobe in a hurry that amount of clothing, and if he was the killer. he would hardly have committed the act fully attired,
But we have around 1/12 hours before reports of a scream were heard, more then enough time for him to casually remove his clothing, its entirely possible he did this whilst Kelly slept, there is no need to invent a intruder theory, she may have been attacked by somebody already in the room.
So why did this person if the killer, dress so fancy?, if not out to impress Kelly..., was it to gain access to her room, was it to gain her confidence?
You ask what short of class did he belong to?
A local business man perhaps,maybe a mason. I would say its a good bet he was not some lodging house dweller.
This is all speculation , and it is entirely possible that this man was innocent of any crime , and left at daybreak, but we should assume via the medical reports, and the witness statements, that she was killed around the time of the scream, making this the work of Hutchinson's man, despite your description to disrobe.
I still have an open mind, because of Maxwell's sighting, but recently I am of the opinion that she mistook her for another court resident, Lizzie Allbrook, that worked in a lodging house in the street..The comment''I have seen her about the lodging house'' does it for me.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

According to the official release, Astrachan was not wearing spats (that was the Star error), but was wearing dark gaiters.

You persist in this inexplicable, erroneous idea of yours that the Star was responsible for the widely circulated press description of 14th November. The very fact that it was widely circulated tells us that it originated from a communication between Hutchinson himself and a reporter from a press agency. The Star was simply one of many newspapers who received this story and published it, which is why we see the same (i.e. identical) account, spats included, appear on the 14th in many papers including the Star.

Th "spats" detail was not, therefore, a "Star error" but rather originated with the press agency. Evidently, they realised that Hutchinson can't have meant "gaitors" (which, in Victorian times, were worn by farm labourers to keep mud of their trousers), but rather their more fashionable city counterpart, spats. Can you picture Astrakhan in wellies? Nor can I, and that's precisely what gaiters were - the precursor to the Wellington Boot.

If spats looked out-of-place in the small hours of a Victorian London street attached to a man in an Astrakhan coat, then gaiters would have looked truly preposterous. As soon as Hutchinson revealed that these garments had "white buttons", it would have been clear to the press agency reporter that he was referring to "spats", and not gaiters.

I recall asking you to produce the record. I have not expected you to believe my uncorroborated opinion, but you still expect me to only believe yours.

What are you on about?

I have something. I have a press report telling us that Isaacs was in prison at the time of the murder for stealing a coat.

You have nothing expect abysmally weak excuses for dismissing it, and a burning desire for it not to be accurate. Well tough, because that is what the extant historical record tells us, and it neatly explains the sudden loss of interest in him as a suspect. If he was Astrakhan, as you bizarrely claim, the police could not possibly have dropped him as a suspect because he could not possibly have had an alibi.

He was arrested twice and imprisoned twice - once for stealing a coat (which alibied him for the Kelly murder) and later for stealing a watch.

Weekly papers are prone to inaccurate reporting.

But this would necessitate pure invention from Lloyds, and for what possible reason?

You routinely champion provably false claims that appear in weekly papers, so I'm surprised to hear such a criticism from this particular pot to call this kettle black.

Regards,
Ben

[Phil H]

Was there a short time of calm, followed by slaughter, after the man had disrobed himself, clearly if this man was dressed in this fashion it was to impress Kelly, and gain her confidence, its almost if he wished access to her room.

There are several inconsistencies here.

You open your post by writing: "It has always been obvious to me that the A man was dressed for a certain event, and we all know what friday 9th November was..The lord mayors show." But you then say: "clearly if this man was dressed in this fashion it was to impress Kelly, and gain her confidence"...

So which was it?

Further, I thought A-man not the last to be seen with MJK?

If he was well-enough dressed to be seen as he was - are you sure he killed MJK and not some employee of his?

You see male (and particularly female) costume in the Vicorian period was not easy for one person to remove or put on again. Yet you write: "after the man had disrobed himself,". I don't think that is a practical statement or indicates any understanding of the period. Part of the purpose of upper-class clothing was to demonstrate that you had servants (valets or maids).

To remove shoes, did he carry a button-hook with him? What do you think he wore under his outer garments? As a man apparently of a certain age, stays or a male corset might be expected. He had collar studs to deal with, as in that period ALL shirts had detached, starched collars.

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.

Edited to add - what makes you think the attire described by GH was suitable for attending the Lord Mayor's Show? In what class of society do you feel it places A-man?

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
It has always been obvious to me that the A man was dressed for a certain event, and we all know what friday 9th November was..The lord mayors show.
We also have the oral history, that Mary Kelly wished to attend the show, and we also have Hutchinson's account of her walking directly towards the mysterious A man in commercial street at 2am., and the instant pairing up by the two of them, followed by arm around the shoulder, and laughter, and even a kiss in Dorset street.
This has all the hallmarks of a pre-arranged meeting, and I would suggest that MJK, knew this person well.
We can speculate who this person was.
Was he a recent encounter, or someone from her distant past that had entered back in her life..both of these suggestions are very plausible.
So what happened after they both entered the room?
Was there a short time of calm, followed by slaughter, after the man had disrobed himself, clearly if this man was dressed in this fashion it was to impress Kelly, and gain her confidence, its almost if he wished access to her room.
If he was not the killer, it would point to this person was simply a pick up by a woman in desperate need, and he left at first light leaving her asleep, which would leave the door open for Maxwell's sighting.
What do you all believe?
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

Spats and gaiters are linked in their origin.

In the period of which we are talking, neither would have been worn in the evening (which is the time of day in question) unless the wearer were an archdeacon (or perhaps a very old-fashioned clergyman in certain other capacities). I am referring to town rather than country wear, where customs might differ.

Uses in America might also have been different (I know nothing of that).

Spats would certainly not have been worn to "balls". If a man (or woman) wanted to protect their footwear they would use galoshes or overshoes. The spats illustrated above would not have provided much protection for the shoe/boot. Rather they hid the laces or other fastenings of the footwear - as you may be aware, a major pre-occupation of the Victorians in terms of costume, was a desire to cover-up or disguise the unavoidable hooks, buttons or strings/laces, unless as with gilt buttons they were an intentionally decorative feature.

the question now arises: what are we debating here?

I have never said that A-man (assuming he existed) might have worn spats, but I have argued that in doing so, it would have told us something about who he was and where he fitted into society. End of question for me.

Phil

[DVV]

I knew nothing about gaiters and spats, so I googled it yesterday.
One thing I've read is : "Spats are not to be confused with gaiters".
I was therefore surprised that Phil H, who presents himself as a specialist in LVP fashion, had used "spats" as a synonym for "gaiters" - for indeed the police statement has "gaiters".
It is true, however, that spats were worn in the morning (some articles say also "at daytime").
I suspect that Hutch said "spats" to the press, just like he has changed the moustache and some other details.

Whatever, it is true that Astrakhan, as Bob Hinton said, looks like a dummy in a display-window with his unbuttoned coat, his visible jacket and light waiscoast, his goldchain, his gaiters with white buttons.

[Wickerman]

Spats were morning-wear fashion accessories, and not to be worn in the evening. This is widely known ......

Ah, I wondered how long it would be.

We've already dealt with the spats, Phil is not interested in recognising the practical use, so lets deal with the actual police version for a change.

According to the official release, Astrachan was not wearing spats (that was the Star error), but was wearing dark gaiters.

Why would he wear dark gaiters on a cold and wet night?

I'll give you time to do a little background research, and when you return we'll see if you have a reason why Astrachan should not be wearing dark gaiters on such a night.
The spat issue is to some degree ambiguous, I understand why it can be hard to follow, but it appears to be another red herring by the Star, but the use of gaiters is not so ambiguous.

We should be able to arrive at a swift resolution once we use the official version.

Are you game?

Jon,

I notice, to my deep distress, that you're back on the Isaacs business again. Don't you remember that this was all challenged in great detail when you argued it the first time?

I recall asking you to produce the record. I have not expected you to believe my uncorroborated opinion, but you still expect me to only believe yours.
All the while you are waving a solitary news article from the Lloyds Weekly News. You appear to have a penchant for soaking up solitary uncorroborated news articles.

I show you the record of his imprisonment from Nov 12th to Dec 5th, thanks to the research of others. But it was always available for you to acknowledge, but you did not.

You will progress no further in dismissing Isaacs until you substantiate the claim because, as it stands, all you have is a solitary erroneous news article from a weekly paper. Weekly papers are prone to inaccurate reporting.

Can we have less emotion and more substance?

[Ben]

I agree with Phil entirely on the "spats" issue.

Spats were morning-wear fashion accessories, and not to be worn in the evening. This is widely known and widely understood by those who have conducted the necessary research on the subject, such as Martin Fido, who also cites the "spats" issue as a problematic one as far as Hutchinson's credibility is concerned. They were morning wear - absolute full stop. End of. Yes, they fulfilled the practical purpose of protecting the wearer's shoes and ankles from mud (of which, shockingly, there would not have been a great deal on the streets of Victorian London), but they were chiefly fashion items in the late Victorian period. It is impossible to accept that any gentleman accustomed to wearing spats should have been oblivious to the accepted fashion convention associated with that item of clothing, i.e. that they were not to be worn in the evening or at night.

There are a number of highly aggressive, highly argumentative people on this message board who regularly embroil themselves in lengthy "debates" that inevitably become ugly after a while, courtesy of their inflammatory "debating" style. A very off-putting trait they share is their constant Googling frenzies, conducted in an effort to score points against enemies on even the most minor issues. But these "last-minute experts" are fairly easy to see through, and in this case, the legitimacy of questioning Hutchinson's odd description of a man wearing spats at 2.00am is wholly sustained. Spats were most assuredly a fashion accessory by 1888, as opposed to a mere form of protection. Since Wikipedia's been brought up, here is a photograph of two well-known gentleman in 1863 wearing spats:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sumner-Longfellow_crop.jpg

Not exactly wading through puddles and horse plop there, are they? Hardly an outdoorsy scene of the type that would necessitate protection for the shoes and ankles.

The best explanation by far for the unusual presence of spats in the Astrakhan description is that Hutchinson himself did not wear them, being a poor, working class labourer, and accordingly did not know when them posh folk wore 'em. Had it been otherwise, and Hutchinson was sufficiently clued-up on correct spatiquette, I'm sure he'd have omitted the spats detail from his invented suspect's physical particulars.

Jon,

I notice, to my deep distress, that you're back on the Isaacs business again. Don't you remember that this was all challenged in great detail when you argued it the first time? Don't you realise that people will re-use these same challenges (the ones that did the trick very well indeed the first time) whenever you needlessly repeat the argument again?

Isaacs, as Sally correctly points out, was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder. This was reported in Lloyds in late December, and neatly and perfectly accounts for the police ditching him as a credible suspect. Evidently therefore, the early press reports on interviews with Ms Cusins with regard to Isaacs supposedly "pacing his room" on the night of the murder were revealed to be false. So me may dispense with the idea that he was Kelly's murderer, and we may certainly dispense with the idea that he was Mr. Astrakhan, whose ostentatious and opulent-looking clothing and accessories were so obviously beyond the means of a homeless cigar-maker and petty thief. And that's even if we entertain the already snort-worthy concept that Astrakhan man was anything other than a fabrication of Hutchinson's creation.

Isaacs lasted five minutes as a suspect, more or less, and all because a few nosey neighbours slagged him off to the police. When he came out of prison AFTER the Kelly murder, he returned immediately to his thieving ways and was arrested again, briefly held as a ripper suspect and then swiftly released when they discovered his prison alibi.

You pooh-pooh the statement made in Lloyds Weekly, 23rd December:

"The result is that it is ascertained that at the time of the murder he was undergoing a term of imprisonment for stealing a coat, which proves he could not have been connected with the murder"

...with no justification at all.

You'd simply hate for it to be true, which is clearly is, but in the absence of any reason to doubt it.

"The fullest inquiry" would not have been necessary if they only had to make internal enquiries with the courts to establish him being in prison.

Not true.

Do you have any idea how quickly it takes for the press to latch onto the fact that a suspect has been taken into custody, in comparison to the amount of time it takes for the police to investigate an alibi? Isaacs could have protested his innocence on the basis of his prison alibi the moment he discovered he was wanted in connection with the Miller's Court murder, and yet it would still have taken time to establish the truth of his claim.

Here's another reason he could not possibly have been Astrakhan man. Isaacs was dropped as a suspect because, evidently, his movements were ascertained that night and found to be innocent. Astrakhan, if he existed, could not have been found to be innocent...ever, unless we conjure up some cataclysmically absurd scenario in which he scurries out of room #13 and finds a watertight alibi some time between Hutchinson leaving (3.00am) and the probable time of the murder (3:30-4.00am).

I'm afraid it's a choice between embracing that horribly ludicrous scenario, and accepting that Isaacs was not Astrakhan.

Tricky one...

[Wickerman]

A slight diversion, but might a canvas shoe covering be a means of silencing the wearer's tread?

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?

[Bridewell]

"Spats are linen or canvas shoe coverings that fasten under the bottom of the shoe and button up the side.

A slight diversion, but might a canvas shoe covering be a means of silencing the wearer's tread?

[Phil H]

Believe what you want, Wickerman. I couldn't give a toss really.

I know my research, my position and the conventions of the day. WEhat's more I have known them for years, not just looked them up. But have it your way of course, you are always right, aren't you? Stands to reason.

Phil

[Wickerman]

It isn't only Wiki though, is it.

As much as you may prefer to try belittle the argument by only mentioning Wiki, in this case it is every website where information is provided about the origin of this particular mode of footwear. "Theory", as you chose to refer to it, has no bearing on the matter.
The 'spat' did not originate as a fashion accessory.
'Spats' can be worn to dinner, a dance, or to the ball, a stylistic covering for light weather which can stay in place all evening.
Galoshes are used to wade through deep water or mud, no-one wears galoshes to the ball.

Certainly you are entitled to believe what you choose. Just so long as you are aware (and I know you are) that the truth about this mode of footwear and why it was created, to guard the ankle & shoe against the elements.

Whoever Astrachan was, Morgenstern, Isaacs, or A.N. Other, he was dressed appropriately for the weather that night. And that is the main issue here.

[Phil H]

I am not having an argument, Wickerman. You know my position. It has not changed because you consulted Wikipedia.

Phil

[Wickerman]

In other words, don't ask to see something that doesn't exist. It weakens your argument.

[Phil H]

Your problem, not mine.
Phil