(Adrianus) Morgenstern = Astrakhan Man

[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]

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.

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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.?

[Ben]

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".

He would only need to say "no gov'nor" if he was already on the defensive, which he would have been if he'd been recognised on the streets or in a lodging house as the loitering man by Sarah Lewis, but not in the scenario that actually transpired, which was that Hutchinson came forward voluntarily as a witness. If the police had any precedent whatsoever of killers coming forward as witnesses, they might have smelled a rat, but they didn't.

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.

Ummm.....no.

As Phil points out, Hutchinson may have known that certain items of clothing existed, but was ignorant as to correct etiquette for when to wear them, hence his "giving" the man spats at nighttime.

Thanks for the additional information, Sally. The horse-groom connection to Romford is indeed interesting.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

As Phil points out, Hutchinson may have known that certain items of clothing existed, but was ignorant as to correct etiquette for when to wear them, hence his "giving" the man spats at nighttime.

Thanks for the additional information, Sally. The horse-groom connection to Romford is indeed interesting.

Hutchinson needs no inspiration to help him determine how men dress. As a groom, and at Romford, and the horse racing fraternity, he is surrounded by respectably dressed men as part of his profession.

How can he "possibly" be ignorant of how men should dress - good grief!

[Phil H]

How can he "possibly" be ignorant of how men should dress - good grief!

How can people be so blind and unimaginative about human nature as you appear to be? - but you are. We keep telling you, but you stay wilfully blind.

As the Good Book says, take the beam out of your own eye before you try to take the speck out of the other guy's! (Well roughly speaking.)

Phil

[Ben]

Yep - what Phil said.