(Adrianus) Morgenstern = Astrakhan Man

[Ben]

Hi Phil,

It was an opinion expressed on another thread, and I agree with it, that the oddities of style (spats being worn in the evening, expensive clothes being worn at that location at 2.00am etc) are best explained by Hutchinson inventing a type of suspect without necessarily considering the implications of "placing" him in that environment at that time.

Ben

[Phil H]

Ben, I don't begrudge Jon his view.

Isaacs could be another contender as A-man.

There is no way a cigar make of "no fixed abode" was capable of dressing as he did, and no way he'd venture out into that abyss dressed like that

I guess the whole outfit might be second hand - hence the strange melange of styles?

Phil

[Wickerman]

Er, no Jon - it doesn't work like that (at least it shouldn't). But it's interesting that you think it does.

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

Is it simply that you think we shouldn't question Jon? Is that it?

I didn't say anything about not questioning.

[Ben]

Put a sock in it, Jon, and show some respect for the original poster's premise, which had nothing to do with Joseph fecking Isaacs being Astrakhan, which he definitely definitely wasn't. There is no way a cigar make of "no fixed abode" was capable of dressing as he did, and no way he'd venture out into that abyss dressed like that, even if he was. In addition to which, we have a press report telling us he was in prison at the time. Challenge this, and we can bury the thread while I explain, for the umpteenth time, why he definitely wasn't Astrakhan, and we can irritate everyone in the process.

Nor did the thread have anything to do with the question of whether or not Hutchinson lied. His statement was discredited because the authorities doubted his credibility, irrefutably so, as I've demonstrated again and again. If you want another repetition war, challenge this too and we'll see what that achieves. I'll be posting absolutely everything I posted when you raised the futile objection in the past.

Let's have some immediate silence from you on these two issues please, since you won't be winning an argument you didn't win before, and you certainly won't be outlasting anyone in a repetition battle. We're discussing the contention that Astrakhan might have been Morganstern, so let's have your thoughts on that instead, please. We're all ears.

[Sally]

Speculate first, then establish the speculation by research, then draw conclusions from the results.

Er, no Jon - it doesn't work like that (at least it shouldn't). But it's interesting that you think it does.

This is one example of precisely what I referred to elsewhere to Sally, drawing conclusions from speculation - essentially a worthless pursuit.

Is it simply that you think we shouldn't question Jon? Is that it?

[Wickerman]

No Jon (sigh). You don't need a conjectural scenario for a prostitute to meet a man; you need a conjectural scenario for Kelly to meet Isaacs. Do you see that there is a difference there? Hmm?

Sally.
So we need a conjectural scenario for a prostitute like Mary to meet a neighbour as a client, like what, bumping into each other at the corner shop?

Or perhaps on a professional basis in Commercial St.?

Is either one of them a 'leap'?

My suggestion? Well, that's very flattering, Jon - but no, not my suggestion.

You suggested it to me, it was your suggestion.
You did not read it from contemporary sources, it was your suggestion.
What you appear to be saying is you formed a conclusion from the speculation of others. Precisely what I had spoke about earlier.

Oh, right. So nobody engaged in conjecture hopes to find a solution or reach a conclusion then?

Speculate first, then establish the speculation by research, then draw conclusions from the results.
Its the middle bit (the research) that these fringe ideas always overlook, and with good reason, the results of research would expose the speculation for the nonsense it is.
But, 'we' know this, don't we

But since you ask - if Isaacs was Astrakhan, and had nothng of value, do you really suppose that he would've been the less at risk for it? What about the men on the streets who didn't know who Isaacs was? How would they know that he had nothing of value?

These criminal types rarely pick on their own kind, sort of honour among theives.
Isaacs was a known thief himself, and likely one of the local pickpockets.

When arrested at Dover, it was said of him:
It is supposed that he belongs to the light-fingered fraternity, a number of whom have been infesting the Continental traffic from Dover and Folkstone for some time past, and have given the officials a great deal of trouble.

So, perfectly safe among his own kind.

[Wickerman]

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

And we are entitled to question that.

Absolutely, but how can suggesting Astrachan was invented, be described as questioning Abberline's view?
It is purely contradicting his view without the slightest justification. It is sensationalistic rubbish.

We can readily question Abberline's view when we learn some fact which contests his view. We have learned nothing concerning Astrachan which does contradict Abberline's opinion.

This is one example of precisely what I referred to elsewhere to Sally, drawing conclusions from speculation - essentially a worthless pursuit.

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.

And we can only do this if we accept the man was real to start with.

We have all learned a good lesson from Neal's recent research, the deniers more so than anyone else, that these witnesses must be given the benefit of the doubt.

[Michael W Richards]

And for Sally, there is a large number of students of these cases that believes the Astrakan suspect as provided by George Hutchinson was either fictional, or a blend of reality and fiction, due to the unusual and remarkable attention to detail about specific aspects of his attire. Somethings that would have been blurry and undefined to anyone at that range, and at that time of night.

My personal view is that Hutchinson gave the description of someone known to him, and perhaps Mary...even possibly Abberline, but not from his seeing them together that night. And Mary, it would seem, never left her room after 11:45pm. Blotchy must have....at some point in time....but we dont know when.

All the best

[Michael W Richards]

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.

That must be a reporters logical extension of Louis' remarks, who said "Isaac's" went with him...which was marked as incorrect in the printing, as "Isaac[s]". However, as I stated, Isaac Kozebrodski was interviewed within 1 hour of the murder and stated that he left the yard alone... by Louis's instructions.

And there is no indication in anyones remarks, other than the reporters above, to suggest that Isaac Kozebrodski was "familiarly known as Isaac's" to any of the members. There is a reference from one about him and it was about "young Kozebrodski".

Since we have a statement in his own words that tells us what young Isaac Kozebrodski did after he returned to the club at 12:30am, why would there be any need to assume that Louis's story, that includes an Isaac[s], actually referred to the same young club apprentice, thereby negating Isaacs version of his own activities and times?

I believe this should be corrected for future readers, many whom just assume that Isaac K is in essence Louis's alibi for the time and the activities taken that night after the body was found. In fact, he is not, and his statement the same night as the murder clearly defines the differences in their accounts. I would think the fact that the lad says he left alone is the key to that story....since it would be unlikely that he would forget that fact if he was recalling his actions only an hour after he performed them.

I believe what we have is one unidentified associate of the club named Issacs, not Issac[s], and at least one extra party searching for help than previously stated by Louis Diemshitz.

Best regards

[Phil H]

Unless he had a very good reason to believe that he would not be mugged;

Which - unless he did not exist at all, of course - I am increasingly beginning to think might have been the case.

Phil

[Sally]

Jon -

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?

Ah, but that's not what I said, Jon. My point was that given the density and transience of the population in Whitechapel at that time it is pure speculation to theorise that Mary Kelly knew Isaacs. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm sure she knew lots of men. Apart from the few that we know about, we have no idea who they were.

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

Excuse me? Less of the personal stuff if you don't mind.

No Jon (sigh). You don't need a conjectural scenario for a prostitute to meet a man; you need a conjectural scenario for Kelly to meet Isaacs. Do you see that there is a difference there? Hmm?

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

My suggestion? Well, that's very flattering, Jon - but no, not my suggestion. As Phil points out, anybody can read that suggestion made by any number of posters on any number of threads on this forum. It certainly didn't originate with me.

I'm afraid that I must concede though - I consider it probable.

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

Oh, right. So nobody engaged in conjecture hopes to find a solution or reach a conclusion then?

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?

Oh dear. Look Jon, it was an off-the-cuff, throwaway scenario - that's all. But since you ask - if Isaacs was Astrakhan, and had nothng of value, do you really suppose that he would've been the less at risk for it? What about the men on the streets who didn't know who Isaacs was? How would they know that he had nothing of value?

Unless he had a very good reason to believe that he would not be mugged; was a total stranger or an imbecile, a man would be a fool to wander about Whitechapel in his finery - whether real or not - on a dark night with limited visibility.

That really requires no further explanation. There are areas in big cities like that today. They've existed for as long as there have been cities.

[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

[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]

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]

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.