Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Ben]

Thanks for those extracts, Jon.

The trouble here is that you don't appear to have made any allowances for the possibility of misreporting and confusion on the part of some of the newspapers. The Morning Advertiser is clearly in error, since they make claims about the activities of the couple that do not appear anywhere else. The overwhelming impression from virtually all other sources is that the couple observed by Lewis had nothing to do with the court, but simply "passed along", i.e. along Dorset Street and possibly destined for one of the dodgy unisex lodging houses that were found further down the road. "Further on" meant further down Dorset Street, and certainly not further up Miller's Court. Lewis was quite specific that nobody was in the court itself.

We may be reasonably certain of one thing, which is that the couple in question were not Kelly and her killer. If the police seriously thought otherwise, Lewis would have been called to the mortuary to attempt an identification with the female half of that couple, but this appears not to have happened.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

My reference to the apparent lack of support for your anti-Lewis stance was merely an effort to temper the bulldozer-like insistence that often accompanies it. For instance, rather than asserting that the “tide is turning” and that those who disagree with you aren’t being "realistic" or "thinking things through" enough, it might have been better simply to agree to disagree.

“Dew poo” was a funny little rhyme and wasn’t intended as a discourtesy to you personally. I was merely commenting on the nature of Dew’s 1938 musings on Hutchinson. This does not make for an apt comparison with the Daily News’ take on Sarah Lewis, which had nothing at all to do with the issue of her “trustworthiness” and only concerned her appearance. “Doleful little body” literally meant that she seemed very mournful (for very obvious reasons!) and was diminutive in stature (which she couldn’t exercise any control over). I have no problems with new perspectives (on the contrary) as long as we are able to be circumspect when the evidence argues against that perspective.

“Which bits do you speak of? And who "discredited" them? And on what basis? “

In order:

1 – Paumier, Roney, Kennedy, Bowyer’s peculiar-eyed man, Kelly’s “little boy”, silk top hats and other bits and bobs that appeared in the papers around the 10th November

2 – The police, assuming they had any contact with some of the above mentioned.

3 – Because they were very obviously nonsense.

“A key witness dreams up a man she has earlier confessed not to be able to describe, and it´s "not sensational"?”

“Dreams up” is just a negative assumption on your part with no supportive evidence, and the addition of such details as “not tall” and “stout” is most assuredly “not sensational”.

“You know that she had not heard the story before Friday exactly how? You know that she was truthful how?”

I don’t "know" that there isn’t an alien from outer space hiding somewhere in my bedroom, but the startlingly obvious likelihood is that there isn’t one. The alternative is simply too outlandish to contemplate, and the same may be said of the proposed “lying Lewis”. She didn’t go to the press, but the witness(es) who were reported to have plagiarized her account did precisely that. For some unfathomable reason, however, you are anxious to assert that Lewis was the liar and that someone other than Lewis was the originator of Lewis’ account, with the other non-inquest-attending, press-pestering women being genuine spotters of top-hatted gentleman suspects. I’m sorry, but it just IS embarrassing lunacy to argue along these lines. Please reassure me that I’ve misread you, and that you don’t really believe this.

“If we look at what was said about the two witnesses Lewis and Hutchinson respectively, we find that ALL of the things that were said about Lewis as a person and that was somehow weighing her as a witness were NEGATIVE things”

This is utter nonsense.

Nobody said anything negative about Sarah Lewis at any stage, unless you think it’s bad to be petite, mournful and “negress” in appearance.

Hutchinson, on the other hand, was discredited because his failure to come forward earlier adversely affected his credibility.

“But why would a paper that enjoyed police information first-hand be "wrong"?”

I’ve told you several times. The Star were not themselves the authors of this “wrong” detail. More likely, they were supplied with incorrect information from a press agency which they didn’t properly scrutinise for errors (in contrast to the Echo) before going to print. It mentioned a “gentleman”, yes, and the only possible candidate from the inquest is the Bethnal Green man described by Lewis. Nobody at the inquest mentioned anything about a "gentleman in the vicinity of Kellys home”.

"The individual who caused such alarm on the previous night" - woulf that be Blotchy? Did HE cause alarm?”

If he was the man who attempted to inveigle her into the passage, then yes, the inference is that he did. The observation the Echo was making was that the man who caused Kennedy some alarm the previous night looked like Blotchy, and that she would be able to recognise him again. It could not possibly have been a reference to anyone other than Blotchy because we know full well that Cox was the only witness on record at that stage that described Kelly taking a man home. So please cast aside any consideration that there was ever any evidence, in the police’s possession on the 10th November, of a gentlemanly-looking individual accompanying Kelly home on the night of her murder. It just wasn’t there, and if you’re relying on any aspect of the story involving Kelly’s “little boy” to help bolster the existence of a gentleman caller, you should stop it immediately. I shouldn’t have to explain why.

“Lewis, however, had the luxury of being certain that her porkies would not be disproven.”

There is no evidence that Lewis told “porkies”.

There is no evidence that anyone at the time thought she told “porkies.”

There is no logical motive for Sarah Lewis to have told “porkies.”

The suggestion that did is therefore very illogical, completely baseless, and really rather irritating.

“Lewis CHANGED her testimony entirely between police report and inquest. She invented a man who had had not have physical shape before.”

“Invented” is just a horrible assumption on your part, but since you’re back to repeating previous arguments that have already been addressed, it’s time for me to revisit the archives. Ah yes: Sarah Lewis’ statement was taken on the morning of the murder after she was forced by the police to remain within the confines of the court. If you cannot accept that the harrowing realisation of a murder being committed just feet away from where she slept (it could easily have been one of them, remember) could easily have impaired her to recall to memory the relevant details so soon after the event, then you’re not being very imaginative. The police clearly made allowances for this understandable outcome, which is why they called her to the inquest in spite of what you consider, heartlessly and insensitively, to be evidence of “invention” on her part.

But thanks for repeating that sentence of mine fives times. All being well, it will have sunk in by now.

Regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

A Sarah Lewis is listed in the 1881 Census at 13 Great Pearl Street. She was the daughter of Isaac and Rachel Lewis, first generation Polish Jews. Sarah herself was born in Warsaw, Poland between 1866 and 1868 - in the 1881 Census she is listed as aged 15, and a Tailoress.

Many thanks, Sally. This was the family to which I referred in an earlier post, though I have clearly misremembered their street of residence. Heaven only knows how Little Pearl Street came into all of this. I certainly don't recall seeing another Lewis family in the street, nor for that matter the Kennedys at Number Six. I'm beginning to think that part of the records was missing or under repair when I accessed them, an occurrence that was anything but a rarity twenty-odd years ago.

Purely to satisfy my curiosity, Sally, might you be so kind as to post the name of Sarah's younger sister?

Many thanks once again.

[Wickerman]

...Astrakhan man could not have been Lewis’ man from Bethnal Green Road because to accept that they were one and the same would be to accept that one person could be in two places (room #13 and outside Ringers’) at the same time, which is obviously nonsense.

Hi Ben.
Just bare with me here, the above is not how the sequence plays out.

Astrachan, having met up with Kelly, is walking in Commercial St. towards Dorset St. After having passed Hutchinson (standing under the lamp), the 'couple' approach the Britannia at the corner of Dorset St.

Sarah Lewis is also approaching Dorset St., but from the north.
Lewis noticed the 'couple' and in her own words:
"They were standing talking together. I passed on, but looked back at him. I went on my way."
Morning Advertiser, Nov. 13.

So Lewis passed by the couple and walked down Dorset St. to Millers Court.
"... I met that man with a female in Commercial street. As I went into Miller's court they stood at the corner of Dorset street. .."

Lewis arrived at Millers Court ahead of the 'couple' who were also approaching Millers Court, followed by Hutchinson, who paused at the corner of Commercial St. & Dorset St. to watch.

For some reason the perspective of Lewis suddenly changed, from initially being ahead of the 'couple', to now being behind them.

[Mrs McCarthy has stated that one of her customers, "saw such a funny man up the court this morning", that customer might have been Lewis, who could have stepped into McCarthy's shop before going up the court.]

The 'couple' are said to stand for '3 minutes', then enter the court, and Lewis says:
"I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."
(Kelly was known for not wearing a hat)

As Lewis stepped out of the shop she noticed Hutch standing on the pavement outside the arch of the Court.
"I saw a man standing on the pavement. He was short, stout, and wore a wideawake hat. "

Lewis also noticed:
"Further on I saw another man and woman."
(two sillouettes are seen up the passage of a man & a woman)

The Daily Telegraph describes it a little better, from when Lewis entered the court behind the couple:

"When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake. There was no one talking to him. He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall. The hat was black. I did not take any notice of his clothes. The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink."

Lewis is saying that as she entered Millers Court (situated opposite Crossinghams Lodging House), there was a man standing in the mouth of the Court, but still out on Dorset St. He was alone and appeared to be looking up the Court (passage). Ahead of him was a man and a woman, who was the worse for drink.

Most of the press statements & inquest testimony is a little disjointed, and obviously I cannot be certain what it was that caused Lewis's point of view to change from being ahead of them all, to suddenly be behind them.
The possibility exists that she was the 'customer' (not tennent or resident) who spoke to Mrs McCarthy so early Friday morning.

Equally, I cannot insist that this is what occured, what I am trying to convey is that the sequence is explainable that Hutch can be the loiterer while Astrachan is in No. 13 with Kelly.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


I tried to locate that complete Bowyer article that I borrowed from Wolf's post, it took a while but here it is.

"Harry Bowyer states that on Wednesday night he saw a man speaking to Kelly who resembled the description given by the fruiterer of the supposed Berner Street murderer. He was, perhaps, 27 or 28 and had a dark moustache and very peculiar eyes. His appearance was rather smart and attention was drawn to him by showing very white cuffs and a rather long white collar, the ends of which came down in front over a black coat, He did not carry a bag"
Western Mail, Nov. 12.
Also, courtesy, Jack the Ripper, Begg, pp.149-50, 1990.

Regards, Jon S.

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
I agree with an attempt to rewrite history on Fishermans part.
We have a statement made of free will , by a witness who reported a incident, which occurred in the early hours of the 9th Nov 88, and because of that, the said person, one George Hutchinson has been in recent years discredited by many on Casebook.
Why?
We were not there...
We have decided that all the reporting made during the Ripper murders was total rubbish, and we know best.
Hutch was genuine , but a day out.. total rubbish
Walter Dew was brain dead... complete rubbish.
But we still continue [ I am losing the plot].
Fisherman.
Please give the investigating police some credit, they were not fools, they were present in the area in 1888, with people living in 1888, we were obviously not, so how can we judge?
I will continue to attempt to progress in this case[ if possible] by not being so judgemental .
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I am enjoying your attempts to rewrite History.."

Good for you, Ruby! I wish I could say the same about your posts!

Incidentally, what you call "history" in this case is a collection of suppositions based on no proof at all, but since I don´t want to rob you of your good humour: carry on, Ruby!

Just leave me out of it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"The trouble with these sorts of admissions, Fisherman, is that they testify to a very “point-scoring” approach to your dogma. "

And the trouble with this misconception of yours is that you cannot recognize irony if it hits you smack between the eyes, Ben. I am not the one always going on about how people agree or disagree with me - YOU are. I could not care less with whom I score points or not- but YOU seem extremely eager to point out - on no factual grounds at all - how all and sundry disagrees with my embarrasing posts, whereas you seem to live under the misapprehansion that the whole community of ripperologists back you up.

I have pointed out to you that I find it childish. That has not changed. It is a manner of debating that does not take the points made by an opponent into context. Instead you swop it for a "Ha-ha, I don´t see anybody agreeing with you"-attitude.

Therefore, before you talk about me as someone who tries to score points, you may need to look for a mirror, Ben.

"Hutchinsion and Lewis’ wideaweake man were clearly one and the same. "

I am not as certain of it as you are, but it is a fair possibility, yes. Or am I"scoring cheap points" now?

"Most people accept this..."

Like I just said. Try and stick with your own argumentation, Ben. The power of an argument lies not in the amount of cheerers-on. Public lynchings are not justice even if everybody agrees that it´s nice to see somebody swing from a tree.

"I don’t recall you ever having said a bad word about Lewis before you latched onto the Dew poo"

The "Dew poo". How courteous. Tell me, since you seem to be so morally upset by the Daily News referring to Lewis as "a doleful little body" and someone not very trustworthy, why is it that you think it is less morally damning to speak of "the Dew poo"?
Be that as it may, you are probably more or less correct - I have not had many bad things to say about Lewis before. Not have I had many good things to say about her. I have been more or less neutral, and that has been a result of not having delved deep enough into her testimony. And yes, that I do so now, is because "the Dew poo" and my own work on Hutchinson has brought me to a stance where I concur with Dew´s view - much speaks for Hutch being out on the dates.

When such a thing happens, you see things from another perspective.But for some reason, you seem to think that inappropriate? Let me just ask you, are you of the meaning that once you have expressed a view on a matter, you should never turn back on that view, no matter if you become convinced - by reading, researching and thinking - that your original view was not the best one?
You will probably say now that you were just amazed over the haste with which I suddenly disrespect Lewis or something to that end - but I´m afraid I find just as little use to reprimand fast decisions as slow ones.
I am in the process of applying a perspective that is new to me on the Hutchinson affair, and when you do so, you look at most things from new angles. You notice things that you have missed before. In my case, very much has changed and much is probably about to do so, and I can honestly say that it has been a revelation so far. I am thrilled by it all - and that is why I am utterly uninterested when being called embarrasing.

Therefore, I can also honestly answer "No" on your question: "Are you sure it’s not just you making a lot of noise about something that virtually nobody else agrees with?"

No, I am not sure of that. I don´t keep count of it. I instead try to focus on the bits and pieces involved in the case. And I am very happy when somebody comments on the various details, as long as they don´t do it by calling me embarrasing and bordering on lunacy. But fair criticism and useful input is much welcome!

"this reckless behaviour never consists of ..."

Never say never, Ben. At least not until you know the elements involved.

"This is precisely the argument that Patricia Cornwell advanced.."

Okay. Then she was correct. Killers do use disguises at times.

But you fail to recognize my third point, the one about me not having suggested that he actually WAS the killer?

"You are referring to discredited bits of nonsense"

Which bits do you speak of? And who "discredited" them? And on what basis?

"The reliable eyewitness evidence pertaining to the Kelly murder appeared at the inquest and nowhere else. Unsurprisingly, this evidence was not sensational in nature"

"Not sensational"? A key witness dreams up a man she has earlier confessed not to be able to describe, and it´s "not sensational"? And once again, you-don´t-know-how-reliable-the-testimony-at-the-inquest-was!

"She didn’t do that."

No? And you know this how? You know that she had not heard the story before Friday exactly how? You know that she was truthful how?

I´ll answer that one for you, since you are unable to do so yourself: Because you would love to think it was so. You guess. You make up. You state the unstatable.

If we look at what was said about the two witnesses Lewis and Hutchinson respectively, we find that ALL of the things that were said about Lewis as a person and that was somehow weighing her as a witness were NEGATIVE things, whereas all of the things that were said about Hutchinson as a person and that was somehow weighing him as a witness were POSITIVE. But that does not stop you from calling people recognizing this fact nauseating, does it?

"If any woman copied another woman’s account, therefore, it is only common sense to accept that it was one or more of the women who went to the press with it, and certainly not the genuine witness who really was ensconced within Miller’s Court when the crime was committed, and from whom the police first learnt of the Bethnal Green Road episode."

The only apparently copied story is the one relating to Lewis and Kennedy - and they may well have been one and the same. And as I pointed out before, there was talk of a strange gentleman harassing women BEFORE Lewis got to Millers Court - days before!

"THE ARTICLE IS WONG – FACT!"

But why would a paper that enjoyed police information first-hand be "wong"? And, on a more serious note - let´s face the only "fact" around: that we do not know what exactly lay behind the article. But we CAN see that it is speaking of a "gentleman" in the vicinity of Kellys home.

"The Echo, on the other hand, did attend to the correction of this error. They knew full well that no “gentlemanly” individual was described as having been in Kelly’s company at the inquest, which is why they didn’t report as much."

Okay, Ben, here it is, the Echo of the 10:th of November:

"Mrs Kennedy asserts that the man whom she saw on Friday morning with the woman at the corner of Dorset-street resembled very closely the individual who caused such alarm on the previous night, and that she would recognise him again if confronted with him.
This description of the man suspected of the murder tallies exactly with that in the possession of the police of a man who is believed to have entered the murdered woman's house."

"The individual who caused such alarm on the previous night" - woulf that be Blotchy? Did HE cause alarm? And would Kennedy state that she would recognize Blotchy again if she was confronted with him? If so, how - she never saw him in the first place, did she?

So it is NOT Blotchy that is spoken of here, but instead bogey man once again - THAT is the man she would recognize. THAT is the man she could describe. And THAT is the man whose description tallied with the man that had entered Kellys house, as spoken about in the article.

"But you didn’t quote the full sentence, did you?
Could that be because the next sentence read:
“…and the little boy was removed from the room and taken to a neighbor's house.”
…Thus exposing the article to be complete fiction?"

No, it could not. I actually wrote "true or not" about the passage since I am quite aware of it´s shaky value. The talk of the boy, though, was irrelevant and not what I pointed to, but instead the talk of the well-dressed man - THAT shows us exactly what I meant: that there WAS a perception of such a man on behalf of many witnesses AND the papers.

"Do they really? “Hey, this witness is obviously lying, but let’s hope they suddenly acquire some scruples and completely change their account once they find themselves under oath”. I don’t think so, somehow. Seems silly to me."

Me too. And it was not that sort of scenario I suggested. What I spoke of were situations where people who could potentially lie if NOT under oath would be afraid to do so under oath, often by knowing that they would reasonably be found out. Lewis, however, had the luxury of being certain that her porkies would not be disproven.
But I thought YOU were the one claiming that testifying under oath would scare Lewis shitless and guarantee us that she was sooo honest...?

"There is not the remotest reason to suspect Lewis of lying in her inquest testimony"
"There is not the remotest reason to suspect Lewis of lying in her inquest testimony"
"There is not the remotest reason to suspect Lewis of lying in her inquest testimony"
"There is not the remotest reason to suspect Lewis of lying in her inquest testimony"
"There is not the remotest reason to suspect Lewis of lying in her inquest testimony"

Five times. It deserves five quotations when somebody comes up with an assertion like this, knowing full well that Lewis CHANGED her testimony entirely between police report and inquest. She invented a man who had had not have physical shape before. And Lewis had given the reason for this herself: "I CANNOT describe him" she said. After this, she suddenly placed her bogey man in Dorset Street at the crucial hour of the murder night, whereas she had said in her police report that she had met him on Wednesday and nothing more.

That sort of stuff is about the best reason anybody will ever get to argue that a witness has been a lot less than truthful. It is a schoolbook example of it.Saying that there is not the remotest of reasons to doubt her after THAT is going through life with a nightjar and three thich sacks over your head - and being blind to top things of.

"I don’t see what observation you’re supposed to be challenging with this example, as I never claimed that nobody ever lies at inquests."

You DID lead on that Lewis would not have done so under oath. I just pointed out that she could freely have done so with no risk at all.

"The “15 minutes of fame” allegation cannot logically be applied to Sarah Lewis. She would have received that anyway on account of her proximity to the murder scene"

There is a difference, Ben, in being an uninteresting bystander having seen and heard nothing of value. Add a man that physically answers to the hottest lead about the killer himself and something happens. I can see that even if you can´t. Or won´t.

The best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

Very interesting Errata !

I've always been fascinated by the jewellery, because if G.H. made up A Man,
then his choice of choosing to dress his fictive villain in the gold watch chain with the carnelian seal and the horseshoe tiepin is surely significant.

I was very interested when Joel Hall, who is jewish, pointed out to me that the horseshoe is a jewish hamsa symbol, and jewish businesses even had them hanging over the door at this time. If you google 'jewish hamsa horseshoe' you get a list of jewish jewellery makers. The horseshoe arrived into jewish culture from Islam, as the U-shape is a stylised version of the
'hand of Fatima' and hamsa means 'five' in arabic, for five fingers.

It struck me that the watch and chain were in heavy gold, because jews are traditionally associated with the trade of 'goldsmith'.

It's very interesting about the stone. I think that he must have seen a stone fob like this -and maybe he wouldn't have known it's history ?

Well the other thing about the horseshoe is that the horse is sacred in Bedu, Arab, and Mongolian cultures.

The thing is, Jews typically did not wear jewelry. Not an absolute, but if you look at any jeweler (actual jeweler, not someone who just sells it) they typically don't wear any either. I don't even work as a jeweler anymore and my engagement ring makes me nervous. The idea of something spilling or getting too close and melting it into my hand. But anyway, a massive heavy gold chain would be atypical for a goldsmith. It would not advertize their skill (where a delicate chain and fob would), and it is not how Jewish men displayed their wealth. (Jewish women on the other hand had these wedding rings that need to be seen to be believed) Typically they did that with impeccable clothing. Which I imagine is less likely to get taken from you.

It's also impractical, because a heavy chain would also constantly pull the watch out of the pocket. Which makes me wonder if it was a watch. No watch can counter the weight of a thick gold chain. Which makes me think it might have been and equally thick gold seal. Which is not common. Now a friend of mine has one of these, but she is some kind of minor Bedu royalty with some hereditary function. Which seems an unlikely candidate for a serial killer. But it might imply someone who uses a seal a lot.

The horsehoe Hamsa may be a Jewish symbol now, but a: I have never seen the horseshoe without the Hamsa and b: I have never seen it referenced as a Jewish symbol before the 60s. Certainly doesn't mean it wasn't, I simply haven't seen it. I HAVE seen the crescent Hamsa, and that was in fact a quite old Arabic amulet. I think however, that it was in fact a horseshoe pin. Simply because both Jewish and Arabic uses of the horsehoe hamsa, the the horseshoe is pointed downward, which is considered terribly unlucky in European folklore. I think if it had been upside down it would have been immediately registered by Barnett as "wrong" and he would have mentioned it.

I am clearly working off of extremely scant information, but nothing of what Barnett describes really says "Jewish" to me. But I don't think he made it up. It is too well coordinated. People who make up jewelry (for insurance fraud, and I have worked with this and it's hilarious) sort of go overboard, and come up with weird combinations of things people don't actually wear. Heavy gold and red stones is common. Heavy gold and emeralds do as well, in South America. Heavy gold and aquamarine is unheard of. I think it's entirely possible he saw this guy going into a theater. Not opera, he wasn't dressed for that. But it would not surprise me in the slightest if he saw someone attached to a Persian or North African embassy and thought he was Jewish.

[Sally]

Sarah Lewis and 'Mrs' Kennedy

Sarah Lewis and ‘Mrs’ Kennedy

A Sarah Lewis is listed in the 1881 Census at 13 Great Pearl Street. She was the daughter of Isaac and Rachel Lewis, first generation Polish Jews. Sarah herself was born in Warsaw, Poland between 1866 and 1868 - in the 1881 Census she is listed as aged 15, and a Tailoress.

At 22 Great Pearl Street, listed as a general shop, another Lewis family were living, also from Poland. I think it quite likely that these Lewises were related to Isaac and Rachel Lewis - I haven’t managed yet to pin that down.

The 1891 Census lists two children living at this address, one named Sarah, with a sister 3 years younger - but this Sarah Lewis was only a child at the time - so not the one we’re looking for!

The 1881 Census also lists a Kennedy family as living at no.6 Great Pearl Street.

It seems quite likely to me that this is where the Lewis/Kennedy connection comes from. If that is the case, then there are two contenders for ‘Mrs’ Lewis: Mrs Caroline Lewis, who would have been in her 50’s at the time; and her daughter, Mary Ann Kennedy, who was about 19 in 1881, and may perhaps have called herself ‘Mrs’ Kennedy to avoid being identified. There are other possibilities, of course.

Sarah Lewis may or may not have been married in 1888. I believe she may have married another Lewis, in which case, she wouldn’t have changed her name in any case.

I hope all this shines a bit of light on the situation. Or maybe it just raises more questions!

[Rubyretro]

Don't be sorry, Phil -I loved reading your post, and I'm sure that it's correct.

So when Toppy mentioned LRC "or someone like him" , it was his interpretation of the description from a lowly point of view.

Hutchinson was also meaning to describe someone of whom he had little experience ( I like Bob's 'shop dummy' -but it could be an ex-boss.. ? ...,...).
At any rate, he did get the spats detail wrong.

The meaning is still that the description is intended to convey someone of the upper classes , and can't be amalgamated with Bethnal Green Man , about whom no such suggestion was made. If the description rings false, it's proof that both Hutch and Toppy (one inspired by the other) were too far removed from 'that' world to have more than a superficial knowledge of the upper classes.

[Phil H]

...having read the real Hutchinson's description of A Man, I get the picture of a man from the same social strata as Lord Randolph Churchill.

I doubt whether the younger son of a Duke would EVER have dressed as Astrakhan man did (if he existed outside a shop dummy or GH's imagination!

It is middle class attire - not that a a gentleman - the hat in particular just might have been worn in the country but hardly in London!

Even if details were not "wrong", they are not the clothes that an aristocrat would have maintained in his wardrobe.

The body language as described is also not that of an aristocrat. These people were a race apart. A rough contemporary of Lord Randolph Churchill, Lord Curzon, later Viceroy of India was described as "processing" when he walked - that is he never hurried anywhere or at any time - there was no need to, his every want was attended to by others. I doubt such men ever ran, and his manner to someone of MJK's "class" would have been "condescending" - it could not have been anything else.

I don't think arguments such as someone "slaumming it", being in disguise etc, will wash. Body language is almost impossible to hide, and these men were almost literally "Olympians" - descended from another world.

The face in the illustration of the description is vaguely approximate to Lord R, but that is only a trick of the artist. Without it, Lord Randolph's name would never have been mentioned. But it is just an artist's impression.

Finally, aman like Lord R was as far abovea professional like Anderson, or Warren, as those to were above MJK. Their attire, their manner, manners, and bearing would have been utterly identifiable and unmistakeable.

So sorry, I have to disagree with your statement which I have bolded above.

Phil

[Rubyretro]

ps Fish -I am enjoying your attempts to rewrite History..

If you find Hutch's description of A Man decidedly 'fishy' -why not just give in and admit it ? Instead of trying to give him fake Astrakhan, a brass watch (as you did on a different thread), shoehorn him into BGM's lower class clothes, or generally reinvent him.

If you find Hutchinson so very suspicious for loitering outside a Ripper victim's
room just before she was offed, then why not just admit that too ?

Instead of which we get "the wrong night" conjecture, attempts to discredit a very plausible witness (Sarah Lewis) which have no real foundation despite your creative arguments -and I think that it just comes down to you desperately wanting Hutch to be innocent.

Arguing is fun, but you are writing reams to move in ever decreasing pointless
circles. You're not convincing in the least -give in to the fact that A Man is an invention, Sarah Lewis was honest, Hutch is the man that she saw, he was there on the 'right' night and take it from there..
take it from there..

[Ben]

“I´m a sucker for scoring the easy points, Ben. Never could resist balls lying around waiting on penalty points, I´m afraid!”

The trouble with these sorts of admissions, Fisherman, is that they testify to a very “point-scoring” approach to your dogma. The pursuit of evidence and a satisfactory explanation to what you regard as a mystery is clearly taking a back seat to the far more interesting pastime of trying to get one over on Ben. It’s not a particularly laudable debating strategy, but more importantly, it isn’t succeeding.

Hutchinsion and Lewis’ wideaweake man were clearly one and the same. To accept otherwise would be to accept that a ludicrous “coincidence” occurred. Most people accept this, which is why the idea continues to receive mainstream report. I know you want to resist this startlingly obvious truth, but that’s only because it’s terribly inconvenient for your very recently cultivated theory involving Walter Dew and “date confusion”. I don’t recall you ever having said a bad word about Lewis before you latched onto the Dew poo, but now it’s as though she kicked your kitten when you were a child and she’s public enemy number one. You’re even making amusingly and inappropriately dramatic assertions like “the tides are turning”. Scarey darey! Are they really? Not much evidence of that. Are you sure it’s not just you making a lot of noise about something that virtually nobody else agrees with?

It’s a pretty sorry looking ripperological revolution if that is what you were hoping for.

“1. Serial killers often get very cocky as they go along. There are many examples of this. Eventually, some of them get caught because of this increasingly reckless behaviour.”

But this reckless behaviour never consists of dressing themselves up in the most conspicuous manner possible for their intended murder zone, deterring their intended targets and attracting attention from the very hostile elements they wished to avoid, such as potential muggers and implementers of “street justice”.

“2. People can kill in disguise. Astrakhan man/bogey man may have been disguised as he spent time around and in Dorset Street, changing his appearance/clothing after the deed.”

This is precisely the argument that Patricia Cornwell advanced when she tried to implicate Walter Sickert in the murders. It is, of course, complete nonsense. Dressing oneself up in highly conspicuous attire and accessories defeats the very purpose of a “disguise”. Surly Jews and black bags had already been associated with the popular perception of the ripper’s appearance. What sense would it have made for the real killer to adopt these very elements to his appearance when on the search for victims? And how on earth would this have made an effective "disguise"?

“Incidentally, if he WAS the killer, you may need to reflect over how completely he got away with it.”

He clearly would not have “got away with it” if he really existed and really was the killer, both of which are offensively ridiculous positions to adopt.

“The man was potentially described by Kennedy, Lewis, Paumier, Roney, Bowyer and Mrs McCarthy. In some of the descriptions, he is called gentlemanly appearancewise and Bowyer has him down as very sharp-looking”

This is nauseatingly galling balderdash, though: the stuff of fairy tales that should have flushed down the very lavatory that claimed the royal conspiracy theories. You are referring to discredited bits of nonsense that appeared in the very early press accounts of the murder. They were not police witnesses, and were consequently not called to the inquest. In fact, they disappeared without trace after those early press snippets. The reliable eyewitness evidence pertaining to the Kelly murder appeared at the inquest and nowhere else. Unsurprisingly, this evidence was not sensational in nature, and certainly did not involve any toffs with shiny bags and silk top hats. By all means treat the 10th November press reports as mutually supportive gospel if you like, but all you’re doing is sticking your head in the sand like a ostrich or a hobbyist when the rest of us have moved on from the truly insufferable myth that is “Gentleman Jack”. You even dismissed Lewis' Bethnal Green man as "the bogey man" a few posts ago in an effort to impugn her credibility, but now it seems you're fine and dandy with toffs with shiny bags and top hats.

“The more interesting thing here, though, is that you now obviously accept that Toppy was Hutchinson (and he was, incidentally). Why else would you demand that bogey man must answer to Randolph Churchill´s description?”

He was simply an example (and an on-topic example!) to demonstrate that the man Lewis’ described was hardly a gentlemanly toff.

“Therefore, she may have spoken to others about the sighting before her detention. Likewise, she may have borrowed the story from somebody she had heard speaking of it.”

She didn’t do that. As Babybird and I pointed out earlier, Lewis did not approach the press at any stage – a fact that speaks volumes for her honesty. If she wanted to pass off someone else’s Bethnal Green Road encounter, she could have gone directly to the press. Instead, that is precisely what Kennedy and Roney did. If any woman copied another woman’s account, therefore, it is only common sense to accept that it was one or more of the women who went to the press with it, and certainly not the genuine witness who really was ensconced within Miller’s Court when the crime was committed, and from whom the police first learnt of the Bethnal Green Road episode.

“What we can say without hesitation is that the man Paumier and Roney speak of is - just like astrakhan - a man that attracts much attention and who is easily spotted.”

That’s because it was a sensational, attention-seeking and clearly bogus description of a man with a silk top hat and a shiny black bag, supplied by a demonstrably bogus witness who avoided the police, blabbed to the press and consequently did not appear at the inquest. If you ditch the bogus sources that appeared on the 10th November before sinking without trace, the shiny bags and silk hats disappear straight back into the swirling fog of complete invention. Fortunately for the sane, this is precisely what happened.

“In such a case, the two women would have served as confirmation for the existence of bogey man, and that would have done nicely for the police”

But if the police considered for one moment that the “evidence” of Paumier and Roney “confirmed the existence of bogey man”, it was even more essential to call them to the inquest for the very purpose of providing this confirmation. This never happened, and for the very obvious reason that neither Paumier nor Roney were ever considered legitimate witnesses.

“The Star, Nov 19:

"The suspected man was of gentlemanly appearance and manners, and somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been SEEN IN COMPANY WITH KELLY early on the morning that she was murdered."

There you are - the man seen in company with Kelly on the murder morning resembled a man of gentlemanly appearance and manners.”

THERE WAS NO INQUEST WITNESS WHO DESCRIBED KELLY IN THE COMPANY OF A MAN OF GENTLEMANLY APPEARANCE AND MANNERS.

THE ARTICLE IS WONG – FACT!

Phew...

And relax.

How infuriating, though, to see the same provably false nonsense repeated over and over again. The Star neglected to filter out an error in the information supplied to them by a press agency – that’s all that needs to be understood here. The Echo, on the other hand, did attend to the correction of this error. They knew full well that no “gentlemanly” individual was described as having been in Kelly’s company at the inquest, which is why they didn’t report as much. Mrs. Kennedy did not refer to anyone of a “gentlemanly” appearance in her 10th November Echo account, but merely described a man of about 40 years old and wearing a billyock hat. This, according to the Echo journalists, tallied with a description of a man seen to enter the room with Kelly. This can only be a reference to Mary Ann Cox’s account of Kelly and Blotchy, the latter being described as about 36 years old and wearing a billycock hat.

You then quote the Star article from 10th November:

“A MAN, RESPECTABLY DRESSED, came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man then accompanied the woman home to her lodgings”...

But you didn’t quote the full sentence, did you?

Could that be because the next sentence read:

“…and the little boy was removed from the room and taken to a neighbor's house.”

…Thus exposing the article to be complete fiction?

Or maybe you accept this as gospel too? That Kelly’s little boy had to be removed from the room in order for her to conduct her business with this respectably dressed man?

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881110.html

If not, you must finally appreciate and digest the fact that the earliest press articles on 10th November contained a great deal of false information that was quickly filtered out.

“The inescapable conclusion is that this man must have been very easy to tell apart from the rest of the Eastenders. He must have answered to a very specific description that made all doubt superfluous”

If you think that’s an “inescapable conclusion”, you need to have a serious chat with yourself. I can’t think how you managed to “escape” the conclusion that a discredited “witness” blabbed to the press with an implausible, sensationalist suspect description - complete with top hat and black bag - that was based on fag ends she might have heard from genuine witnesses.

“The police may call people to an inquest because they hope that a witness may improve on their lying manners since they are under oath”

Do they really? “Hey, this witness is obviously lying, but let’s hope they suddenly acquire some scruples and completely change their account once they find themselves under oath”. I don’t think so, somehow. Seems silly to me.

“The relevance being? Of course that Sarah Lewis could lie without risking that the roof over the inquest room would fall down on her”

That’s not even slightly the point. There is not the remotest reason to suspect Lewis of lying in her inquest testimony, and not a shred of evidence that anyone at the time thought she did. Nor indeed is there any logical motivation for her to have invented a “not tall, but stout” stature for her wideawake loiterer. That’s the chief objection to the failed attempt to discredit Lewis, not the propensity of some people to lie at inquests, which I would not dispute occurs on occasions. And thank you, but I’m quite aware of the claims made about Lightoller. I am a good friend of several historians who are in communication with his family, also some maritime historians who object very strongly to Lady Patten’s claims. It is by no means unlikely that he lied in his testimony, though. He even stated himself that he used a “whitewash brush”.

But I don’t see what observation you’re supposed to be challenging with this example, as I never claimed that nobody ever lies at inquests. The “15 minutes of fame” allegation cannot logically be applied to Sarah Lewis. She would have received that anyway on account of her proximity to the murder scene, and what should clinch the issue beyond any reasonable doubt is that she never approached the press, in contrast to what we would expect from a publicity-seeker. Different story for Kennedy, Roney and the others, though.

All the best,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

.

The more interesting thing here, though, is that you now obviously accept that Toppy was Hutchinson (and he was, incidentally). Why else would you demand that bogey man must answer to Randolph Churchill´s description

?

Like Ben, and like Toppy, having read the real Hutchinson's description of A Man, I get the picture of a man from the same social strata as Lord Randolph Churchill.

Obviously, Bethnal Green Man, not being able to be in two places at once
couldn't be A Man anyway (and this withstanding your demonstratedly ridiculous hypothoses that Hutchinson got the wrong day, or Dew's desperate casting about for a reason to explain just why Hutch's statement doesn't make sense).

If BGM had perfected the art of teleportation, he comes over as a very different fish to A Man -less like Lord RC and more like a gabby harmless eccentric from vastly poorer origins.

[Fisherman]

Let me just get a bit unscientific for a while, Ben, and tell you that the starin "lied at the inquest" produces 6 870 results on Google. And as an aside, just for you, bearing in mind your interest in the Titanic, here is a little nugget:

"After 99 years of lies and a massive cover-up by White Star Line employees, a new book, Good As Gold, by Lady Louise Patten is about to be released outlining what really happened aboard the Titanic on April 14, 1912.

Good As Gold, by Louise Patten, shows that a series of bad sailing decisions, poor job skills resulted in the sinking of the "unsinkable" ship and then were followed by lies, deceit and a massive cover-up of the truth by both the company chairman and his officers.

Patten is the granddaughter of Titanic Second Officer Charles Lightoller, who was the top-ranking survivor of the Titanic sinking other than the company chairman. The public looked to Lightoller to tell the world what happened. Lady Patten says the only person Lightoller told the truth about why the Titanic sunk was to his wife Sylvia. He, other officers and owners of White Star Line lied at both the American and British inquests held after the sinking to protect themselves from criminal charges, ruining their careers and bankrupting the company. In the end, all they avoided was criminal charges."

So people apparently lied at the Titanic inquest! And that would be people the police had called to that inquest, would it not?

The best,
Fisherman