(Adrianus) Morgenstern = Astrakhan Man

[Michael W Richards]

Worth noting her that I brought up the notion of Joseph Issacs on this thread and Jon seemed to expand of what he feels is some logic in that regard, so, this isnt Jons idea. Nor is it mine...Im quite sure someone else came up with the idea at some point long before I did.

Its not a specific topic in keeping with the thread premise, but it does address it in part...who was Astrakan. If anyone in the real world of course.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Worth noting her that I brought up the notion of Joseph Issacs on this thread and Jon seemed to expand of what he feels is some logic in that regard, so, this isnt Jons idea. Nor is it mine...Im quite sure someone else came up with the idea at some point long before I did.

Its not a specific topic in keeping with the thread premise, but it does address it in part...who was Astrakan. If anyone in the real world of course.

Cheers

No worries Michael, Ben often jumps at every opportunity to criticize 'yours truly', ...water off a ducks back, as they say in England.


I'm still waiting for him conjuring up this official evidence that Isaacs was in prison on Nov. 9th. - I'll have a long wait....

[Phil H]

One wonders what they wore over their shoes when it rained

As I have said in another thread, or earlier in this one -

Galoshes or overshoes.

Spats would never have been worn by a man in evening dress, anyway.

Spats were worn, usually with a morning coat, in the morning, never otherwise. They would have provided almost no protection for shoes anyway as they were simply a decorative way of covering boot-laces. They were a fashion accessory, not a practical piece of costume, unless you lived in the country where the spat was a much more robust item, worn fully visibly with (say) plus fours and a Norfolk jacket for shooting (more like a half-gaiter). Some Scottish regiments in full dress still wear that sort of spat.

Phil

[DVV]

It as not only a rainy night, it was quite a cold one also.
But Mr Astrakhan didn't bother buttoning-up his "long dark coat", for Hutch could see his "dark jacket" under, and even his "light waiscoat".

[Sally]

But David - surely lots of people walk about in the cold rainy November night with unbuttoned coats and finery on display?

Or perhaps only crazy foreign killers?

Or perhaps - he needed his hands to carry his (knife-shaped ) parcel and completely forgot to button up his coat?

[Sally]

I'm still waiting for him conjuring up this official evidence that Isaacs was in prison on Nov. 9th. - I'll have a long wait....

That depends on whether that 'official evidence' is still extant, doesn't it? Presumably, it is not. Of course you will realise that it's current absence by no means indicates that it didn't exist.

We don't know for sure, either way. What we do know is that Lloyds reported that Isaacs was in prison on 9th Novmber.

I realise that a lot of picking and choosing goes on when it comes to using press reports as evidence - but evidence it is.

We can weigh it, but we cannot safely dismiss it outright.

So the fact remains - Isaacs may have been in prison on 9th November. If so, he cannot have been Astrakhan Man.

[Sally]

Oh, but it does. The fact you think otherwise explains a great deal.

No it doesn't. You are wrong.

If you begin with speculation and use that speculation to look for answers, the result is conclusion-led research; in which answers are sought to corroborate that speculation; and only the evidence which suits the speculation is presented.

I've seen it time and time again on this forum - and elsewhere come to that.

The evidence should always inform the theory - not the other way around.

Sadly many fixate upon a pet theory and resolutely refuse to accept any evidence that upsets their little apple cart.

[Wickerman]

Spats (spatterdash) were invented and designed for the practical purpose of keeping water out of the dress shoe. Originally called "spatterdash", not because they looked 'spiffing', but oddly enough because they were invented and designed to keep the 'spatter' of water & mud off the shoes.

Later, as with many small items of apparel and especially in the early 1900's, the styles were updated and became purely a fashion accessory for Morning wear.

"Spats are linen or canvas shoe coverings that fasten under the bottom of the shoe and button up the side. They were first designed to protect shoes and ankles from mud and water while walking."

And, here is where some get confused....

"However, between 1910 and the mid-1930s, spats eventually became an elegant men's fashion accessory, often associated with gangsters and dandies, a term to describe well-dressed men of the time."

Read more: http://www.fashionencyclopedia.com/f...#ixzz2b0NjHi7H

Lets not confuse the use in order to defend an argument. The history and origin of the 'spatterdash' is available for all to read.

[Phil H]

Spats (spatterdash) were invented and designed for the practical purpose of keeping water out of the dress shoe. Originally called "spatterdash", not because they looked 'spiffing', but oddly enough because they were invented and designed to keep the 'spatter' of water & mud off the shoes

You do not convince me Jon. I have said what I have said and I have studied Victorian and Edwardian men's fashion in some detail.

Produce me a single photograph of a man wearing spats later than midday in London the 1888 period and I'll withdraw my objection.

Find me a single quote from the period that someone wore spats later than midday and I'll do the same.

Theory is one thing practice another.

Phil

[Wickerman]

That depends on whether that 'official evidence' is still extant, doesn't it? Presumably, it is not. Of course you will realise that it's current absence by no means indicates that it didn't exist.

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

We don't know for sure, either way. What we do know is that Lloyds reported that Isaacs was in prison on 9th Novmber.

What we do know is, Mary Cusins reported to the police that Isaac's was in his room on the night of the murder. Both Cornelius Oakes and 'Catharine' were also interviewed and the residents were asked by police to keep a look out for Isaacs, which they did.

Isaacs is arrested on that weekend and appeared in court on 12th Nov. - sent down for 21 days until 5th Dec.
At which point he reappeared at his room in Paternoster Row, and was followed by Cusins & Oakes, as agreed with the police.
Cusins and Oakes 'shopped' him in Drury Lane.

The police began searching enquiries into his whereabouts on 8th Nov. in order to clear or incriminate him in the murder.
Naturally (and obviously), if Isaacs was innocent of the murder he would only be too happy to claim a contrary story that he was in prison on the night of the 8th, but apparently he made no such claim because..

"The prisoner, it may be remembered, had been sought for by the police in consequence of a report of his movements on the night of the murder of Mary Janet Kelly in Dorset street, Spitalfields; and it was said by the police that they wished the fullest inquiry as to the prisoner's movements on the night of Nov. 8. For that purpose he was remanded,..."

"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.
Which would then make liars out of the very people who 'shopped' him at the first opportunity.

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.


The witness on the house to house inspection gave information to the police, and said she remembered that on the night of the murder she heard the prisoner walking about his room. After her statement a look out was kept for the prisoner, whose appearance certainly answered the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat.

[Wickerman]

[B]

Produce me a single photograph of a man wearing spats later than midday in London the 1888 period and I'll withdraw my objection.

Show me a 19th century time-stamped glass plate photo taken at night..

[Phil H]

Your problem, not mine.
Phil

[Wickerman]

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

[Phil H]

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

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.