Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Ben]

But Prater didn't "parrot" anyone.

So...

[Wickerman]

Gasp!! ...Ben defending parroting!!
..tsk, tsk, ....the depths of the conspiracy

[Ben]

The first time Prater spoke to the press she told them she heard nothing through the night.

Indeed, Jon, and this is precisely what one should expect from a witness who was evidently urged by the police to observe a strict silence on the more critical aspects to her testimony. This reassures us that she wasn't "changing" her story at all. She was a genuine witness who offered independent support for Lewis' account, and was called to appear at the inquest as such.

[Wickerman]

....Then as now, the evidence of Lewis and Prater is considered mutually corroborative with regard to the "murder" cry, and for good reason.

The first time Prater spoke to the press she told them she heard nothing through the night.

"Elizabeth Prater, the occupant of the first floor front room, was one of those who saw the body through the window. She affirms that she spoke to the deceased on Thursday. She knew that Kelly had been living with a man, and that they had quarrelled about ten days since. It was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased. She had heard nothing during the night, and was out betimes in the morning, and her attention was not attracted to any circumstances of an unusual character."
Daily Telegraph, 10 Nov. 1888.

But of course, this was before the first statements by Mrs Kennedy hit the evening papers on the 10th, and then it seems, Prater changed her story and adds this scenario that she woke up to also hear a cry of "murder".
Sarah Lewis did not speak to the press at any time.

Nuthing funnier than folk!
Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

“It was the ony feature of that hat she left out; she nailed style and colour. Couldn´t say exactly how close that is to nailing the hat size too, though ...”

She mentioned a very popular style of hat and the most common hat colour, Fisherman. Big whoop. Superwitness alert.

“In Lewis´case, I think you share that opinion with nobody.”

Well I'm afraid you "think" wrong, unless it has seriously escaped your notice that Frank and several others subscribe to the very same opinion – that what you unimaginatively consider to be significant changes are actually rather trivial. I think you ought to resign yourself to the fact that very few people are of the meaning that your wiew of Lewis has any validity. Your protestations to the contrary have proved both futile and unpopular, as a recent poll has demonstrated. It is to be deeply regretted that instead of acknowledging this, you lash out with the rather hysterical reaction that I am “Ridiculous and desperate” for expressing the near-universally accepted view that Lewis was a credible witness.

“Haha! Good one! And they did not do the same with Lewis? Or ... OH! Wait a minute: THEY TOLD LEWIS NOT TO SAY A FRIGGIN THING UNTIL THE INQUEST! She knew about the hat si... sorry, the hat COLOUR all along, but the police did not want to have riots, killing off wearers of black hats, breaking out”

I’m afraid none of that was remotely comprehensible, Fisherman. Sorry.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I seem to recall we’ve had this discussion already, and no, she didn’t go anywhere near “delivering the hat size”…?!"

It was the ony feature of that hat she left out; she nailed style and colour. Couldn´t say exactly how close that is to nailing the hat size too, though ...

"I share the opinion of several others..."

Good luck with that, Ben. But is says absolutely nothing about whether you are right or not. As long as you remember that, all is fine. I share THAT opinion with several others, you know!

"...that these so-called differences are not only very minor"

In Lewis´case, I think you share that opinion with nobody. Everybody KNOWS that being unable to deliver any sort of description differs A LOT from delivering one that nails the hat si ... oh, wait, the hat COLOUR and STYLE, I mean!

Wherever did you get it from that the difference is "very minor"? "A red handkerchief" and "a maroon handkerchief", a "very big guy" and "a rather big guy" - THAT is minor differences. "Sorry, I can´t say a thing about him" and "Well, he was short, he was stout, he wore a wideawake hat that was black, and he was staring intently up the court" - those two testimonies are worlds apart. They have NOTHING in common at all. Not a single thing. Nothing, nada, rien, inget - but YOU call having nothing at all in common, not a single common feature, no likeness at all "minor differences". Ridiculous and desperate. Prove me one single thing that points to any sort of likeness in the "descriptions" at all, Ben! Just the one!

"The same very much applies to Prater. Her press claim to the effect that she heard nothing during the night was undoubtedly the result of police pressure exerted on her to observe a strict reticence on the more significant aspects of her testimony."

Haha! Good one! And they did not do the same with Lewis? Or ... OH! Wait a minute: THEY TOLD LEWIS NOT TO SAY A FRIGGIN THING UNTIL THE INQUEST! She knew about the hat si... sorry, the hat COLOUR all along, but the police did not want to have riots, killing off wearers of black hats, breaking out.

Honestly, Ben ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“Lewis went from not being able to say a single word about the so called loiterer, to coming close to delivering the hat size at the inquest.”

I seem to recall we’ve had this discussion already, and no, she didn’t go anywhere near “delivering the hat size”…?! I share the opinion of several others that these so-called differences are not only very minor, but far too bland and generic for it to be credibly argued that she invented them to seek attention. The police did not show any signs of being “unhappy” about it, and were more likely to have made allowances for her harrowing experiences and sleep deprivation.

The same very much applies to Prater. Her press claim to the effect that she heard nothing during the night was undoubtedly the result of police pressure exerted on her to observe a strict reticence on the more significant aspects of her testimony.

So don’t be a Prater-Hater.

Hi Sally,

Interesting thoughts. Lawende described her man as having worn a “reddish” neckerchief, and it is possible that Hutchinson borrowed this detail when constructing the Astrakhan man.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Prater was probably inebriated on the night in question, and would thus have been in a chemically inconvenienced state when she was first interviewed by the police later that morning. This might not make her the ideal early-morning murder witness, but it certainly doesn't make her a liar or a parroter."

You´d make a decent defence lawyer, Ben, I´ll give you that! Prater went from drunken sleeping to hearing two or three cries, and thence to a steadfast proclamation that it was only the one cry. She pressed this point herself.
Lewis went from not being able to say a single word about the so called loiterer, to coming close to delivering the hat size at the inquest.

I don´t think that the police would have been happy at all about it, to be honest. And it would seem that they did nothing at all to follow up on the tips from these two ladies. Or, putting it in your own words, there is nothing to evidence such a pursuit.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Red

I generally consider Astrocan Man to be no more nor less than a fanciful construction. But, it does occur to me that if Hutchinson had seen him in badly lit conditions with poor visibility, the colour he could most easily have picked out would be red - because his vision would be operated by rods, and rods are insensitive to red, which means that it's the last colour to disappear to the human eye in the dark.

In his account of Mr A, there are two instances of red - the red handkerchief and the red seal stone. No other colours are mentioned (I think).

I don't know if there are any other witness accounts which mention colour - perhaps somebody knows better than I do? It seems to me that it's mainly general terms such as 'light' and 'dark' which are used; or descriptions which rely rather on visual constrasts rather than colour, such as 'salt and pepper' trousers.

Of course, it could be that Hutchinson was just obsessed with red..

I'm not sure what I think this means - if anything at all. I thought it was interesting, so I'm just putting it out for any thoughts?

[Ben]

"Clean" bill of health, I meant, not "clear". Sorry.

Hi Fisherman,

Prater was probably inebriated on the night in question, and would thus have been in a chemically inconvenienced state when she was first interviewed by the police later that morning. This might not make her the ideal early-morning murder witness, but it certainly doesn't make her a liar or a parroter. The police clearly made allowances for this, which is why she was called to the inquest. Then as now, the evidence of Lewis and Prater is considered mutually corroborative with regard to the "murder" cry, and for good reason.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"So it’s Prater too now?
Lewis’ Lies and Prater’s Porkies.
Meanwhile, it’s a clear bill of health apparently for Hutchinson, Kennedy, Paumier, Roney and the silk top-hatted toff with the shiny black bag."

Grey. Try grey, Ben - it does not all have to be black or white. Prater´s testimony WAS substantially changed from when it first hit the papers to the inquest version. It is there for anybody to see. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that Prater MAY have been a bad witness.

Then again, it is ALSO reasonable to suggest that Hutchinson may have been soo too.

Grey. Not white or black. I may be challenging views of course, but since it is the view that Hutchinson MUST have been lying, and Prater/Lewis MUST have been honest, it needs to be done.

"Prater was ... considered to have provided independent support for the “Oh murder” cry heard by Lewis.

Not really - she was considered to have heard two or three cries, not just the one. That was what the police had on record. The papers had what seemed to be a full night´s sleep on her behalf. So in fact, we don´t know what it was that made the police go for Prater - but since she was out and about in the evening, standing at the court entrance, and since she lived very close to Kelly, claiming that she could hear her every move, I think that may have sufficed.
The murder cries - the police had them aplenty!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

So it’s Prater too now?

Lewis’ Lies and Prater’s Porkies.

Meanwhile, it’s a clear bill of health apparently for Hutchinson, Kennedy, Paumier, Roney and the silk top-hatted toff with the shiny black bag.

I dunno…

Prater was not considered by the police to have parroted Lewis’ account. On the contrary, she was considered to have provided independent support for the “Oh murder” cry heard by Lewis. The fact that both were called to the inquest informs us immediately that Prater cannot have been one of the “half a dozen” women who plagiarized another’s account. If they thought she was, she would not have been called. Simple as that. In order to ascertain the identity of the plagiarizing women referred to, we must instead consider any other woman who provided an “Oh murder” account but did not appear at the inquest, and Mrs. Kennedy fits the bill perfectly. It was she who parroted Lewis’ account, and most assuredly not Prater.

Martin Fido also touches upon the Kennedy issue in “The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper”:

“…she also added a story identical to Sarah Lewis of having seen an alarming man in Bethnal Green Road the previous Wednesday while in company with a friend, and neither the press nor the police seem to have thought her trustworthy”.

The Star carried Kennedy’s account under the headlines:

“A Neighbour’s Doutful Story”

And:

“A Story of Little Value”

I’m still utterly perplexed by the willingness of some to be so condemnatory of the inquest witnesses, and yet so uncritically accepting of the press “tattle” from 10th November. That “funny-looking man” account, for example, is second-hand hearsay than only appeared in the press, and people seriously think that this should be prioritized over the evidence of witnesses who provide police and inquest statements?

A determination to have a well-dressed posh gentleman drawing attention to himself on the streets of the East End seems, at first glance, to be at the root of this. We have silly bits of discredited nonsense about top-hatted toffs with black bags in association with the Whitechapel murders, then as now, for the same reason that we have equally silly hoxes about three-humped plesiosaurs in Loch Ness: because it’s sensational, and would amount to an “interesting” solution to an old mystery. Also, because it avoids the more boring reality that the killer was in all probability a non-descript local man and that there’s no Loch Ness Monster.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

"Your point #2 is, in my opinion, distinctly possible and need not be distinct from point #1.
Point #3 I would reject as unnecessary."

Okay, Jon, if that´s how you see it, then that´s how you see it! I see it differently myself, and I would not reject point 3 at any rate. That, I feel, would be to look away from a very distinct possibility.

I noticed that you - I think it WAS you, at least - told Ben that Prater was the only witness that could be shown to have "parrotted" something, namely the "murder" cry.
I concur - it seems she may well have done this. Going from no mentioning, to a variety with two, three cries, before settling for just the one outcry, lacks credibility to my ears. And this puts Prater very much on level with the women mentioned in the Star, one by one supplying their personal murder cry stories.

Thing is, Prater was called to the inquest just the same. No considerations were made in that respect that pointed to Prater as a potentially bad witness - at least, none that were so definite as to rule her out.
And there goes the "the ones who were called to the inquest were reliable witnesses"-thing!

I apply the same thinking to Lewis. She did the exact same thing as Prater: First she had nothing to offer about her man, but then she suddenly had. If this is a will to please that shows itself, okay, then none of these women were lying. But I cannot for the life of me believe in the half dozen women witnessing about the "murder" cry as simply willing to please. Can you? And I fail to see in what respect Prater and Lewis differ.

I could be wrong, of course. In fact, I´d like to be. But my money is and remains on Lewis being an unreliable witness and quite possibly telling porkies.

"as this thread is more concerned with the existance of Mr Astrachan, and I have proposed the possibility that the Bethnal Green man may have been the same individual, then Sarah Lewis's honest recollection of who she saw that night is of some importance towards supporting the possibility that Mr Astrachan did indeed exist."

I realize this! Let me just say that we have no mentioning of the "gentleman" from Bethnal Green Road in Lewis´police report (alhough the passage "talking to a woman remains interesting), whereas we do have him in place in Dorset Street at 2.30 of the murder night. That in itself is a bit questionable. And if we add to this that Lewis says that he had no overcoat on, on a night when ANYBODY would use their overcoat if they could, we may have a further hitn at something strange going on.

On the other hand, if she was making up this man´s appearance in Dorset Street, I think stripping him of his overcoat would not be an expected thing to do. That particular detail rings strangely true in a sense - but I am not sure either way.

I am much inclined, though, to believe that there was a poshly dressed man around at this stage of the Whitechapel murders, and it would seem he came over as a "funnylooking" man, a strange character, a man who harassed the women in the streets to some extent. And a man in spats, for example, may well have come across as a funnylooking man.

...but if he had no long overcoat on on Friday morning, and if he truly WAS Hutchinson´s astrakhan man, then Hutchinson did not make his observation on the murder morning!

the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Lewis´description can have three explanations, and three explanations only:

1. She actually saw what she said she saw, forgot it at the police report, and remembered it at the inquest.
2. She did not take in anything of her man but his presence, but at the inquest, she described a person she BELIEVED she had seen - although he was only a figment of her imagination. In this case we would be speaking of an honest wish on her behalf to help, and a subconscious wish to please.
3. She made her man up as a result of a free choice.

One may accept mixtures of these three alternatives, to some extent.

Hi Fisherman.
What I was referring to with respect to biase was a general observation that across the board some will emphasize one particular witness's testimony while ignoring another. Equally some will uphold one particular witness while discredit another. In most cases, I think all, but I'll settle for most, there is a particular hypothesis hovering in the background. Something that relies on the rejection or discrediting of something stated by a witness.

I was making a general statement myself, and yes I have difficulties with why you choose to take this position with Sarah Lewis.
You must have read all the pre-inquest statements by all the witnesses summonzed to appear at the Kelly inquest. In all cases their pre-inquest statements are shorter in content than what they describe at the inquest.
In saying this I am specifically taking issue with your point #1 above. The way that is worded is almost like you do not acknowledge that all statements are intentionally brief when compared with the inquest testimony.

Your point #2 is, in my opinion, distinctly possible and need not be distinct from point #1.
Point #3 I would reject as unnecessary.

I have no reason to think Sarah Lewis would be concerned about every detail she saw of the man stood outside Millers Court, while she passed him in the dark. Under questioning she may have realized the Coroner attached some importance to his description, so in an attempt to comply she struggled to recall details which were perhaps hazy after three days.

Therefore, points #1 & #2 are close but without the 'forgot' (in #1) and without the 'figment of imagination' (in #2).

Sarah Lewis, in my opinion, made an honest appempt to recall details concerning the loiterer which were only retained partially in her memory.

And, as this thread is more concerned with the existance of Mr Astrachan, and I have proposed the possibility that the Bethnal Green man may have been the same individual, then Sarah Lewis's honest recollection of who she saw that night is of some importance towards supporting the possibility that Mr Astrachan did indeed exist.

All the best, Jon S.

[Ben]

Sorry for the late reply here, but there have been so many Lewis threads on the go recently that I completely lost track of this one.

The point about Blotchy's alleged carroty moustache is that according to the Echo, the police were under the impression that Mary Cox was mistaken as to this detail.

Since the last few posts have repeatedly advocated the "Lying Lewis" stance, it is worth reiterating the following:

There is no evidence that Sarah Lewis lied.

There is no evidence that anyone at the time thought she lied.

There is no reason at all for assuming that she lied.

It appears that the vast majority of contributors to the recent poll “Did Sarah Lewis Lie?” are well aware of this.