(Adrianus) Morgenstern = Astrakhan Man

[Phil H]

How big do you think the grate was - I feel no more than 18" square by the same deep (assuming it was a kitchen range). No very big for burning whole garments.

The police might know they could not detect blood. Would a working class criminal have that knowledge?

Phil

[Stephen Thomas]

Was Abberline related to you, Wickerman? You seem to share a trait of never being wrong? At least as far as you assert it.

Careful careful, Phil,

There are ways and means of expressing ideas not using personal insults.

[DVV]

Abberline will naturally expect to be fed lies, that is what he is looking for.

Hi Jon,

I wonder if he was not already looking for a doctor, and had already made up his mind that the killer couldn't be one of those petty criminals of the East End he was supposed to know so well.

1 : I know the East End like nobody does
2 : I can't find the Ripper
3 : The Ripper is therefore not a poor local, and Dr Phillips must be right

[Ben]

In Phil's defense, Stephen, it is "Wickerman" who has been responsible for most of the antagonism and ill-feeling here.

It is the persistent repetition of unfounded assertions which becomes obnoxious. No such conclusions are warranted against this witness.

But they're not "conclusions" in the sense that they have been established as fact. They're simply viable suggestions that happen to make sense historically, logically, and criminologically, of the evidence. Your efforts to undermine them have been woefully unsuccessful. Hutchinson submitted a widely-considered-implausible eyewitness account three days after the murder, and (conveniently and suspiciously) immediately after the closure of the public inquest. This account was discredited a few days later because the authorities harboured doubts about his credibility. The suspicion that he lied is therefore a very logical and widely-shared one, and included among the few who staunchly resist it are those who are titillated by the idea of Jack the Ripper as someone "well-dressed", and a class above the impoverished masses; who see in Hutchinson's transparently fictional Astrakhan description an opportunity to advance that ridiculous theory.

We have you, for instance, with your crazy, off-the-wall theory that Astrakhan Man was Joseph Isaacs, and that Jack the Ripper was the "well-dressed" Bethnal Green botherer mentioned by Lewis, who you claim was seen with Kelly by "Mrs. Kennedy" outside the Britannia at 3.00am. You also champion the risible "Mrs. Paumier" and "Sarah Roney" as actual ripper spotters while dismissing genuine police witnesses, such as Lawende, as of no consequence. Who agrees with you? Nobody, because it's obviously nonsense, and yet you shamlessly claim to represent the voice of the rank-and-file, and you are rudely dismissive of anyone whose far more mainstream theories challenge your own.

Hutchinson could not realistically have noticed all that he alleged in those conditions, let all memorized it all. Bob Hinton interviewed a number of policemen, both retired and serving, and without exception they all dismissed his description as "pure fantasy". Now, unless you persist with this annoying and tedious thread derailment, I do not intend discussing the particulars of Hutchinson's description here. I've done so many times on many threads. Instead, I'd thank you to show some consideration for the original poster's thread premise, and stop trying to turn this into yet another "Did Hutchinson lie" thread.

You've given your opinion on that subject, and that's you done.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I wonder if he was not already looking for a doctor, and had already made up his mind that the killer couldn't be one of those petty criminals of the East End he was supposed to know so well.

1 : I know the East End like nobody does
2 : I can't find the Ripper
3 : The Ripper is therefore not a poor local, and Dr Phillips must be right

Hi Dave.

We can't be sure can we?, though it is only human nature that some officials will form a bias one way or another. The more professional ones do not let it cloud their judgement, yet I am always reminded of how Oldfield led the Yorkshire Ripper investigation astray.

That said, can we really expect any theory which requires the police to be regarded as incompetent at interrogation (something they do every day), to find a consensus?

It is one thing to admit they were ill equipped to deal with a serial killer (if that is what he was), but a different matter to suggest they did not know how to conduct an interrogation and find out a liar, something Abberline had to be very experienced at.

[Wickerman]

Careful careful, Phil,

There are ways and means of expressing ideas not using personal insults.

Its ok Mr H, is just hurting, he'll get over it.

[Phil H]

That particular post was meant to be witty - apologies if it backfired.

Phil

[DVV]

Hi Dave.

We can't be sure can we?, though it is only human nature that some officials will form a bias one way or another. The more professional ones do not let it cloud their judgement, yet I am always reminded of how Oldfield led the Yorkshire Ripper investigation astray.

That said, can we really expect any theory which requires the police to be regarded as incompetent at interrogation (something they do every day), to find a consensus?

It is one thing to admit they were ill equipped to deal with a serial killer (if that is what he was), but a different matter to suggest they did not know how to conduct an interrogation and find out a liar, something Abberline had to be very experienced at.

Jon, how could he find out that Hutch lied ?
Hutch said he was there, waited there for 45 min and then walked away.
At least, part of his statement was true.

[Wickerman]

But they're not "conclusions" in the sense that they have been established as fact.

It has perhaps taken almost 2 yrs for you to finally admit that your solutions to many of our disagreements are not "irrefutably correct", nor "obviously a fact". This at the very least is a step forward.

They're simply viable suggestions that happen to make sense historically, logically, and criminologically, of the evidence.

Making sense, but to whom, and at what expense?
This would need to be debated specifically and not on general terms, but what comes to mind is the tendency for you to refuse to accept the outline of the story in order to sustain your theory.
And specifically I refer to you (or anyone else), rejecting the words of a witness because their words speak against your belief.

Example: you have suggested Mary Cusins lied, and a single uncorroborated news article is the truth.
Yet, you know as well as I do that press articles are often subject to inaccuracies, and that to date, not one witness has being proven to have lied by a modern theorist.
Such accusations are easy to see as a desperate attempt to uphold a theory, nothing more. Press articles are not proof of anything, they need verification.

An example which comes to mind which I find particularly suspect is when
Your efforts to undermine them have been woefully unsuccessful.

When a proposition meets all the known facts, the proposition is a success. There is no court of approval, and no poster requires your stamp of approval either.
A correct solution does not require a consensus, it only needs to meet all the criteria without manipulating the sources.

Hutchinson submitted a widely-considered-implausible eyewitness account three days after the murder,

It was not considered implausible by Abberline, and that, is all that matters.

The opinion of the man who sat face to face with Hutchinson and interrogated him fully, watching his body language, his expressions, his hands, did he have a dry mouth, all the obvious responses of a nervous witness, carry's full weight. Modern opinion counts for nothing.

This account was discredited a few days later because the authorities harboured doubts about his credibility.

Totally proven false by the press accounts of police interest in the Hutchinson suspect for two full weeks after the murder.

We have you, for instance, with your crazy, off-the-wall theory that Astrakhan Man was Joseph Isaacs,

It is this condescending attitude of yours that causes discussions to go off the rails.

Joseph Issacs was seen wearing the Astrachan coat, this we know from the statement provided:
"whose appearance certainly answered to the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat."

The word is "certainly", which means "in every respect", due to the coat, because quite simply, without the coat he is just another 30 yr old Jewish male sporting a moustache.
There can be nothing "certain" about the appearance of a Jewish male with a moustache, as the East End was teeming with them. Therefore, it is the presence of the coat which makes this sighting "Certain".

We already know Isaacs sported a fake gold watch chain, he was arrested wearing one.

Living round the corner from Kelly gives him cause to be there.

Clearly then, there is nothing 'crazy' about putting Joseph Isaacs up as the primary candidate for this Astrachan character.

And, if Isaacs had been in prison as conflictingly reported in Lloyds six weeks later, we know he would have been anxious to convince the police he was incarcerated at the time, rather than hang.
A swift telegraph message to the gaol in question would have confirmed the claim within the hour.
As Issac's was remanded for what appears to be about 10 days, it is clear that much more than a quick telegraph message was required to fully investigate his movements on the night of the 8th/9th Nov.

and that Jack the Ripper was the "well-dressed" Bethnal Green botherer mentioned by Lewis,

Wrong again. A person of interest, nothing more.

who you claim was seen with Kelly by "Mrs. Kennedy" outside the Britannia at 3.00am.

You know very well this is more than just my claim.

You also champion the risible "Mrs. Paumier" and "Sarah Roney" as actual ripper spotters

More examples of your condescending attitude. You have no cause to label any witness as risible, but for someone who throws accusations of "liar" around so readily, why should I be surprised.

while dismissing genuine police witnesses, such as Lawende, as of no consequence.

You might want to familiarize yourself with Swanson's words, he expressed doubts for the exacts same reason as I do.

Who agrees with you? Nobody, because it's obviously nonsense, and yet you shamlessly claim to represent the voice of the rank-and-file, and you are rudely dismissive of anyone whose far more mainstream theories challenge your own.

What you need to do is review the past Hutchinson threads. It is there where you can refresh your memory about what the more reserved members of Casebook wrote. These members have no cause to appear in these threads just to enable you to do a head count, quite rightly Hutchinson threads, due in part to antics like yours, are viewed as a waste of time.

These are the members who we tend to turn to for sober thinking, those who tend to not seek attention, the more serious members.
None of them support your claims about Hutchinson, so no need to try this smoke & mirrors tactic, of "my gang is bigger than your gang", - rather infantile.

In fact, if you recall the last time you huffed and puffed about Hutchinson, quite surprisingly Hunter felt the need to step in and put you straight.
That took the wind out of your sails for a few weeks.
You scurried away with your tail between your legs and we had a pleasurable brief respite from antagonistic posts for several weeks.

No, you do not speak for any majority here on Casebook.

[Wickerman]

Jon, how could he find out that Hutch lied ?
Hutch said he was there, waited there for 45 min and then walked away.
At least, part of his statement was true.

Dave.

To help answer that question, we first need to establish what it is that Hutchinson is supposed to have lied about.

Part of his statement is true, yes, so why not all of it?

[Ben]

Make that your last post on the "Did Hutchinson lie" issue please, Jon, and I'll make this one mine. You've been asked enough times now to show some consideration towards the original premise of the thread, and to stop derailing it. There are an obscene amount of threads dedicated to the "lying" issue, and absolutely no reason to make this thread one of them.

It has perhaps taken almost 2 yrs for you to finally admit that your solutions to many of our disagreements are not "irrefutably correct", nor "obviously a fact". This at the very least is a step forward.

I'm talking about specific conclusions. I have never stated, for example, that it is "obviously a fact" or "irrefutably correct" that Hutchinson was the murderer. If I've used robust terminology in the past, and with you in particular, it is because your suggestions are often so outlandish (and literally impossible in some cases) that it becomes necessary to do so in order to prevent new students of the case being led horribly astray just because you want Jack the Ripper to wear posh clothes. It's a responsibility I'm happy to bear.

They're simply viable suggestions that happen to make sense historically, logically, and criminologically, of the evidence.

Making sense, but to whom, and at what expense?

To people who understand history, logic and criminology, obviously. To people who haven't embroiled themselves in personal vendettas against those who do, and to people who haven't invested emotionally in controversial and unacceptable interpretations of the evidence relating to the Kelly murder. I don't dismiss any witness because they go against a "belief" - that false accusation implies that I start with an idea and assess all eyewitness testimony agaonst that. That's not what happens. I simply have a "belief" that the witness is untrustworthy, and that belief is based on contemporary evidence and contemporary police opinion. Packer, Violenia and Hutchinson belong in that category because they were all discredited.

The opinion of the man who sat face to face with Hutchinson and interrogated him fully, watching his body language, his expressions, his hands, did he have a dry mouth, all the obvious responses of a nervous witness, carry's full weight

Is that what you really think? That body language will always give the game away? "Dry mouth"? Really?

Ouch.

If you think all liars tell their lies nervously, I'm afraid you need to conduct further research on the subject. I wonder how "dry" Peter Sutcliffe's mouth was as he was interviewed about nine times in connection with the Yorkshire Ripper murders without creating suspicion...

As for Mary Cusins, she was either lying or mistaken, but the fact of the matter is that she is wrong because Isaacs was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder. If you're asking me to choose between a reputable newspaper with absolutely no good reason to lie about this piece of information, and a nosy neighbour who evidently didn't like Isaacs and wanted rid of him (thousands of Germans were sent to Dachau via a Gestapo investigation that way during the 1930s), it's an absolute no-brainer. I go with Lloyds Weekly all day long.

It is the height of hypocrisy to accuse me of endorsing uncorroborated press reports. You cling to an erroneous claim made in a single newspaper that Sarah Lewis' wideawake man was standing in Kelly's doorway, and you're not in the slightest bit deterred that every other press source disputes this claim, as does Lewis' actual police statement.

A correct solution does not require a consensus, it only needs to meet all the criteria without manipulating the sources.

...Which is bad luck for the Isaacs/Astrakhan theory.

Totally proven false by the press accounts of police interest in the Hutchinson suspect for two full weeks after the murder.

Oh look!

Suddenly you do like uncorroborated press accounts.

You are of course, completely wrong. Hutchinson was discredited, as "totally proven correct" by the result of a direct and proven communication to this effect that occurred between the police and the Echo newspapers. If you want to dredge this issue up again, I'll simply repost all that I did on the "What the press knew" thread. It is best not to start what you'll be deprived of the chance to finish.

Joseph Issacs was seen wearing the Astrachan coat, this we know from the statement provided:
"whose appearance certainly answered to the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat."

The word is "certainly", which means "in every respect", due to the coat

Wherever did you get the bizarre idea that "certainly" means "in every respect"? It has never meant any such thing, ever. If the press meant "in every respect", they'd have said so. If Astrakhan man was "certainly" described as Jewish-looking, mid-thirties and sporting a dark moustache, and Isaacs "certainly" met those physical criteria, that was more than enough to warrant the "certainly" observation. It didn't mean Isaacs wore an Astrakhan coat. It simply meant he looked like someone who did. Some people have Hitler-like moustaches and might be of a similar height to him, but that doesn't mean they walk around in an SA brownshirt uniform.

Isaacs almost certainly did not own an Astrakhan coat. Such an item of clothing was very expensive, and Isaacs was a homeless thief. Think about it.

We already know Isaacs sported a fake gold watch chain, he was arrested wearing one.

No, he was arrested simply for stealing a gold watch, en event which occurred nearly two months after the Kelly murder.

As Issac's was remanded for what appears to be about 10 days, it is clear that much more than a quick telegraph message was required to fully investigate his movements on the night of the 8th/9th Nov.

But he was still wanted in connection with the watch theft, remember? He wasn't taken into custody solely on the basis of ripper suspicions. I'm quite sure it took a very short time indeed for Isaacs to be absolved of suspicion in the latter crimes, courtesy of his prison alibi, but his arrest for stealing a gold watch still warranted further investigation and detention, which is clearly what happened. It also took longer for the press to be appraised of the latest details.

I've already explained the other crucial detail that enables us to rule out any possibility that Isaacs was Astrakhan. The latter, if he existed and if he was ever identified, could not have been ruled out as Kelly's murderer because he could not have provided an alibi. Isaacs, on the other hand, DID convince police of his innocence, and thus could not have been Astrakhan.

You might want to familiarize yourself with Swanson's words, he expressed doubts for the exacts same reason as I do.

There will always be doubt in the absence of proof, but Lawende's account was taken more seriously perhaps than any other connected with the case, and yet ironically, it is the one you express most doubt about, while at the same time defending the press puke spewed up by the likes of "Sarah Roney". Uncorroborated, second-hand hearsay that the police didn't touch with a barge-pole. You'd also have the discredited "Mrs. Kennedy" as a veritable ripper spotter, whilst pooh-poohing Lawende. Why? It is because Lawende's suspect looked a bit rough and shabby? Working class locals do make frustratingly boring and unglamorous rippers, I realise that, but we just have to grit our teeth, curse our misfortune under our breath, and go with the best evidence.

These are the members who we tend to turn to for sober thinking, those who tend to not seek attention, the more serious members.
None of them support your claims about Hutchinson, so no need to try this smoke & mirrors tactic, of "my gang is bigger than your gang", - rather infantile.

But it's not infantile at all to say "None of the really cool and important people agree with you, so there!", as you have just done? Rather babyish I would have thought, and very circular reasoning. You define "sober thinkers" as anyone who doesn't agree with me and then argue that none of the "sober thinkers" agree with me. Terrific! For my own part, I believe that all members have valid observations to make, and don't waste my time toadying up a real or imagined ripperological elite. You can treat the silence of these learned sages on Hutchinson threads as an indication of non-agreement with me if you wish, but I don't see any great chorus of elder statesman endorsing Isaacs as Astrakhan. Can't imagine why.

My simple point is that the number of people who accept that Hutchinson lied is infinitely larger than the group who believe Isaacs was Astrakhan (which is more or less a one-man-show starring you). It is therefore not appropriate for you to speak disparagingly of "fringe" ideas, or otherwise pretend to represent the voice of the mainstream.

If you respect the supposedly haughty distance the "reserved members" keep from those terrible Hutchinson threads where "antics like mine" are the norm, why not do as they do and view it as a "waste of time"? Because that's precisely what you're doing at the moment - wasting your own time. You're not achieving anything, at least nothing positive. You're just fuelling animosity and encouraging repetition of previously thrashed-out debates. Have a look at the Stride threads perhaps, or discuss the authenticity of the Swanson Marginalia. You might have better luck with those, and I know all the important, reserved, learned sages hang out there.

In fact, if you recall the last time you huffed and puffed about Hutchinson, quite surprisingly Hunter felt the need to step in and put you straight.
That took the wind out of your sails for a few weeks.
You scurried away with your tail between your legs and we had a pleasurable brief respite from antagonistic posts for several weeks.

Show me precisely where this happened, or else retract it for the lie that it is.

You can accuse me of all manner of terrible things, but one accusation you will never sustain is that I "scurried away" from a thread or did not reply when someone challenged a Hutchinson-related observation I made. So show me where this happened, and where I'm due a response. In fact, I'll search Hunter's posts now...