Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Some of the postings here infringe on lunacy"

Canīt argue with that one! But Iīm surprised that you should admit it.

"The suggestion that Hutchinson, Roney, Lewis, Kennedy and Paumier all saw the Jack the toff-like ripper with his silk top hat takes us back to the very worst period in the study of these crimes, and seems more at home within the pages of a Knight or Fairclough conspiracy theory book than a discussion forum in 2011."

I would have thought, Ben, that if the suggestion truly infringed on lunacy, it would do so because there was evidence or proof about that put it beyond question that astrakhan man and bogey man could not be one and the same. But I fail to see that any such evidence or proof is anywhere near the issue? But I feel very confident that a poster who feels at ease to call a suggestion outdated lunacy will be able to bolster this rather outrageous claim with some sort of clincher. I would hate to think that anybody comes up with accusations like this with nothing to show for it.
Now, before you go telling everybody that I endorse the suggestion as such, it may be in itīs place to point out that I do not champion it as the only credible one. I donīt. Not at all. But I DO concur with Jon that there is a clear possibility that the two men are one and the same!
Actually, I was rather convinced that you would be the first to join our little band of brothers. You seem always so very eager to point out how ludicruosly unexpecteded a man dressed as a gentleman would be in surroundings like Dorset Street - and now, all of a sudden, you are saying that there would have been two of them ...?

"The Star observed on the 10th November that the one of the witnesses’ who heard a “Murder!” cry had had her account copied by “half a dozen” women who tried to retail it as their own experience. As Philip Sugden pointed our, the original witness was most assuredly Sarah Lewis."

Yes, it HAS been assured on lots of occasions, all of them your work. I still say itīs something I can understand you dearly like to believe, but I donīt buy it anymore this time than the last. I still say that there would have been no way that the police could establish with any certainty who was first, who came later and who lied. Similarly, if the man was never even found, they would hardly be able to establish that he existed at all.
But if they came to the conclusion that there were many independent sources speaking of this man, then they would do what one does when faced with such a thing - accept it. And it would seem that when the evening papers hit the street on the 10:th, the police had already a description - not given by Mrs Paumier, Lewis or Roney - that tallied with their respective descriptions. And do note that the papers we speak of here are the Echo and the Star -the very papers you claim were "in the know" due to their contacts in the police force. So when they spoke of the police having received information of a gentlemanly dressed guy who had entered Kellys home, you have put yourself in a position where you need to listen.

"It explains the striking similarity between the Lewis and Kennedy accounts"

I donīt think it does. I think that similarity is far TOO striking to be anything but the result of one woman giving two names.

"The last three mentioned were not genuine witness, but women who had learned of Lewis’ account first or second-hand and sought to pass it off as their own."

You forgot to fit the "I believe" in. Others donīt believe it.

"To resist this obvious reality and to claim instead that the discredited bits of nonsense that appeared in the papers on the 10th (and which, thankfully, disappeared shortly thereafter, never to rear their ugly heads again) amount to compelling evidence of a well-dressed, top hat-wearing, shiny black bag-carrying ripper, is to adopt a fallaciously and absurdly uncritical approach to the evidence."

"You forgot to fit the "I believe" in again. Others donīt believe this either. And they have a very good case, in spite of your misgivings. You must keep in mind that astrakhan man was such an exotic bird - so Iīm told, at least, by you - that he would make a very striking figure on the streets of the East end. Thus Mrs Paumier may very well have been able to make the call that it was him after having heard Sarah Roney and her friends speak of the man. There is nothing at all strange about such a thing, just as there is nothing strange about herself noticing him. Which makes me think that the heat with which you refute that he was spotted by more than one woman has another driving force altogether.

"As for the question of why Lewis’ testimony was copied when it was arguably not the most sensational evidence, this was obviously because those who did the copying only spoke to Lewis directly and not the others."

So she spoke to herself? I can buy that. Many people do.

"There is no way that the police would interview Sarah Lewis on the morning of the murder, only to tolerate her then giving a divergent account to the press under a different name, this time with an alleged sighting of Kelly."

I donīt think you are really up to reality here, Ben. Unless you have noticed, the whole Ripper saga is absolutely crammed with women who use aliases en masse. This you would have seen, I take it? As for the police, we have no way to know to what extent they were aware of the charade, just as we donīt know what reason Lewis would/could have given if asked: "They quoted me wrong", perhaps?

It is strange how you sometimes are incredibly rigid in what you will allow for, whereas you are very flexible and open for all sorts of things at other occasions. One has to wonder what opens and closes the gates of that flow?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I would strongly advise saving your very interesting, very controversial “date confusion” Dewy theory for the relevant threads."

Thanks! Iīll take that advice when I think itīs a good idea. Promise!

" You now appear to be suggesting, unbelievably, that Astrakhan man was the killer after all"

Oh-oh! Time to put the brakes on Ben again! No, Ben, I donīt suggest that he WAS the killer. I state that he COULD have been, along the lines I am suggesting.

"What a terrifically efficient killer he must been – boldly advertising his presence to all hostile elements within the district at his intended kill site the night before, and allowing his intended victim to blab to all and sundry about the interesting encounter she had with an opulently dressed Jewish-looking man with a black parcel from last night."

Mmmm! And if he DID do it, think about how smart he was to do so - he even had people arguing that he had not even existed 123 years later! Thatīs what I call an ironcast alibi!

"I’m afraid that if your “date confusion” idea is to retain any credibility at all..."

Oh, it will. But I donīt count on you to do the job.

"The journalist was commenting on her appearance. "

...which is why he wrote that her testimony was something not to lend credence to. Okay!

"you have no evidence at all for your previous assertion that Paumier directed the police to Roney"

You know what? I never even asserted it. What I DID say was that Paumier COULD lead the police to her.

"They were certainly not called to the inquest in the expectation that they would lie under oath, and I sincerely hope that wasn’t what you were suggesting."

Of course not. I suggested that the police sometimes called people in whom they put very little trust to inquests, I suggested that people called to inquests sometimes lie, and I suggested that Sarah Lewis told porkies at her appearance at the particular inquest we take an interest in. And I am having a really, really hard time to see how the police could have sent her down for perjury for making up a story about the loiterer. How were they to prove that she had not seen what she said she did?

"Let’s not piss me off for no reason here, Fisherman."

I try not to do things for no reason, Ben. Lifeīs too short and all that! This time over my reason was that I thought you were being very naïve in your argumentation.

"But if the journalists at the Star were fully “in the know” they would know that there was no inquest witness who described a gentlemanly-looking suspect in Kelly’s company."

Exactly. So either the Star was NOT "in the know" and the former reasoning on your behalf, leading you to make assumptions grounded on a decision on your behalf that the Star had payed police informants at their disposal, seem a very weak one; or the Star WAS in the know, and simply made the mistake to speak of Hutchinsonīs testimony as if it belonged to the inquest, After all, that testimony was given in close connection with that inquest.
At any rate, both you and me know that the sentence applied here is wrong in SOME sense. Either they meant bogey man, or they meant astrakhan man, and establishing which of them it was is not in any manner a given one. On the other hand, it may matter little - if the two were one and the same

"It can only be a reference to Blotchy"

No. It can be a reference to another man altogether. We know that the man Paumier and Roney saw was described as a gentleman, with a black moustache and a top coat over another coat etcetera. That does not tally at all with the shabby appearance of Blotchy.

"But it would be much better to accept that Kennedy didn’t know Kelly and was not a genuine witness"

Better? For who?

"The true originator of the account, Sarah Lewis, “did not know the deceased”, as you point out."

I also point out that it could have been a case of not knowing Kelly as a person, which does not hinder that she may have known her well by sight. But it would seem you forgot that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"If, as I suspect may be the case, the fifteen year old Little Pearl Street resident I uncovered many years ago in the 1881 census returns was the Sarah Lewis, she had a sister two years her junior. If so, Sarah would have been about twenty-two at the time of the Ripper murders and unmarried. Thus the reference to her 'husband' probably related to a man with whom she was living. Her sister, on the other hand, may have been married. If her husband was a man named Kennedy, we may have the identity of the woman who accompanied Sarah when they were accosted in Bethnal Green. Assuming all of this to be true, Mrs Kennedy did not fabricate the Bethnal Green incident as is frequently supposed. But she may have exploited her relationship with Sarah in order to make money from journalists by passing herself off as the woman who stayed with the Keylers/Keelers on the night of Kelly's death."

Iīm sorry, Garry, but I donīt get the bit about Sarah Lewis necessarily being twentytwo and UNMARRIED in -88? Otherwise I see your point - but it still seems a lot more of a strained explanation than Lewis and Kennedy being the same woman. That one, I find, is a whole lot easier to chew and swallow. There is also the strange thing that Lewis spoke of the Keylers as friends, whereas "Kennedy" spoke of herself visiting her parents.
Myself, I am not quite content with any suggestion here - but I prefer Lewis the not trustworthy version for simplicityīs sake.

An interesting suggestion on your behalf at any rate!

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

She was entered in the 1881 census returns as Sarah Lewis, Fish, so must have been unmarried at the time of the Ripper murders - unless, of course, she had married someone also named Lewis. Likewise, if Kennedy was indeed her sister, she must have either married or was living under an assumed name.

The relevance here is that Kennedy claimed to have been in the company of her sister when accosted on Bethnal Green Road. I'm simply suggesting that Sarah and Mrs Kennedy may have been the Lewis sisters that resided in Little Pearl Street in 1881 - a thoroughfare that lay within spitting distance of Great Pearl Street, which of course is where Sarah was living in 1888.

[Wickerman]

Some of the postings here infringe on lunacy, I’m sorry to have to observe. The suggestion that Hutchinson, Roney, Lewis, Kennedy and Paumier all saw the Jack the toff-like ripper with his silk top hat takes us back to the very worst period in the study of these crimes, and seems more at home within the pages of a Knight or Fairclough conspiracy theory book than a discussion forum in 2011...

Hello Ben.
Perhaps these exchanges are too stressful for some? :-)

I have to admit, for most of the time spent researching & studying these cases I have intentionally ignored anything to do with Hutchinson's West-end toff.
It's not that no-one dressed like Astrachan visited the East-end, we all know of those up-towners who went 'slumming' among the 'down-towners', but his description almost brings to mind a comic caricature of top-hat, cape & black bag, almost too amusing to contemplate.

Astrachan has become the Boogy-man of Ripperologists.
No-one dare talk about him, except in jest. We can almost put him on a par with Santa Claus or the Tooth-fairy.
Why do you think that is? - perhaps because no-one has taken the time to put him in context.

This thread is intended to bring up the debate of whether Astrachan, by a preponderance of the evidence, could have existed.
By inference, I suppose if the question is answered in the afirmative then a defacto consequence of that conclusion is that he was her killer.

Maybe it is this 'defacto conclusion' that makes your blood boil?

Alternately, you appear to continue to choose to help suppress any debate of a factual basis towards accepting or identifying this individual.

I don't recall anyone taking the time to collate those Bethnal Green sightings with Hutchinson's Astrachan. Someone must have, but I know I had not taken the time before, and no-one put forward any meaningful hypothesis from such comparisons.
The similarities are unmistakable, even you must admit as much.

The next question I have to ask is where does Bowyer's Wednesday night sighting fit in.
The man Bowyer saw has already been posted by Wolf, but here just for emphasis:

"a man of 27 or 28, with a dark moustache and 'very peculiar eyes.' His appearance was 'very smart and attention was drawn to him by his showing very white cuffs and a rather long white collar, the ends of which came down in front of his coat.'"

This man was in the Court on Wednesday, then again before 3:00am on the Friday morning Bowyer saw a man "who's description tallies with that of the supposed murderer", we have one of two choices for that honor.

However, Mrs McCarthy also commented that one of her customers, "saw such a funny man up the Court this morning" (Friday).
We might ask, what could possibly be considered 'funny' about Blotchy?, or Hutch for that matter. Then again we could add this Bethnal Green botherer (aka Astrachan?), and then ask, what might be considered 'funny' about him, his atire & 'peculiar eyes'?

With all things considered we are well within our rights to pose the question, "was this man seen in Millers Court on Wednesday, then independently again on Friday morning by Bowyer and 'McCarthy's customer' -
Lewis?
(maybe this is the missing bit I was referring to, Lewis may have entered McCarthy's shop so then she did arrive at the Court first, but ended up behind the 'couple' because she went into the shop?).

If so, what was this 'funny' man doing in the Court & who/what was he looking for?

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

“Canīt argue with that one! But Iīm surprised that you should admit it.”

There’s that fabulously original comeback I fully expected, Fisherman – “I know you are, but what am I”? Never been done before, that.

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. You try, unsuccessfully, to get round the problem by wheeling in “date confusion” again, but this only results in the frighteningly ludicrous suggestion that Astrakhan the Ripper waltzed his way into his intended murder district in his expensive-looking finery, found a suitable victim and decided: “Now that I have advertised my presence here in a very blatant manner, I will come back this time tomorrow wearing the same clothes, carrying the same black package, and kill this same woman! Let’s hope she doesn’t talk about me to other people until then. Let’s also hope that the man who stared into my stupid surly face and followed me back to this woman’s room isn’t going to take his curiosity any further.”

These internal monologues are rather useful, if used sparingly!

“Actually, I was rather convinced that you would be the first to join our little band of brothers. You seem always so very eager to point out how ludicruosly unexpecteded a man dressed as a gentleman would be in surroundings like Dorset Street - and now, all of a sudden, you are saying that there would have been two of them ...?”

No. I’m obviously not saying anything of the sort. I believe Astrakhan man was a complete invention, and as for the attire of the Bethnal Green man, it is worth referring back to Lewis’ description:

“His hat was a high round hat. He had a brownish overcoat, with a black short coat underneath. His trousers were a dark pepper-and-salt”

Hardly Lord Randolph Churchill, was he?

“but I donīt buy it anymore this time than the last. I still say that there would have been no way that the police could establish with any certainty who was first, who came later and who lied.”

It’s not a case of buying or not buying it. It is an irrefutable fact that Sarah Lewis was the author of Sarah Lewis’ account. Of course the police were able to establish “who was first” and “who came later”. Sarah Lewis was proven to have spent the night in Miller’s Court on the night of Kelly’s murder, and the police prevented her from leaving the court until 5:30pm. Her statement was taken that very day. If Lewis was the copycat, whose account was she supposed to have copied, and how could she possibly have gained access to it? Lewis could only have come “first”, as she was amongst those detained in the court from the morning onwards. If any parroting occurred thereafter, which it certainly did, it was done by those who had heard Lewis’ account.

There were most assuredly not “many independent sources speaking of this man” or else the sources in question would have been called to the inquest. Instead, as we learn from the Star, the “sources” in question were not “independent” corroborators of the existence of a tit in a top hat with a shiny bag, but rather a group of plagiarizing magpies who sought attention and perhaps money by passing off a genuine account (Lewis’) as their own. This is clearly what the police “accepted”.

“So when they (Echo and Star) spoke of the police having received information of a gentlemanly dressed guy who had entered Kellys home, you have put yourself in a position where you need to listen.”

What are you talking about?

Where did these newspapers say anything about receiving information on a “gentlemanly dressed guy who had entered Kelly’s home”? They stated simply that the description supplied by Mrs. Kennedy - about 40 years of age, long top coat, billycock hat – tallied with a description of a man who reportedly entered Kelly’s room. This is obviously in reference to Mary Cox’s description of the Blotchy man – described as about 36 years old with a billycock hat and a long shabby overcoat, which was then the only witness account that described a man going home with Kelly. I have no idea where you got the idea of a “gentlemanly dressed guy”, but I can assure you that no such person entered into the equation as far as those Echo and Star reports are concerned.

“Thus Mrs Paumier may very well have been able to make the call that it was him after having heard Sarah Roney and her friends speak of the man.”

This is getting increasingly bizarre – “made the call” that it was who? Paumier didn’t specify and particular individual. She just provided a bogus-sounding account of a meeting with a “suspicious” man that she appeared to have blabbed to the press about without going to the police, and which - shockingly – did not appear later as inquest evidence. Same with Sarah Roney with her tales of silk top hats and shiny black bags – obviously Jack the Ripper! Do try not to forsake your reason. Chris Scott pointed out on one of the Kelly podcasts that the early press reports were amongst the least reliable and the most notorious for containing bogus and misleading information, and I would echo his sentiments here.

“I suggested that the police sometimes called people in whom they put very little trust to inquests”

So you are suggesting that the police called certain witnesses to inquests whilst fully expecting them to lie under oath. There is neither evidence nor the slightest reason to think that Sarah Lewis “told porkies” at the inquest. In addition to everything else that’s so terribly wrong with the suggestion that she did, the motivation for inventing a short, stout man in a black hat simply isn’t there. This may be a nuisance for those who want to downplay the inescapable inference that the loitering man was George Hutchinson, but really, there is no logical motivation for fabrication on Lewis’ part.

“Exactly. So either the Star was NOT "in the know" and the former reasoning on your behalf, leading you to make assumptions grounded on a decision on your behalf that the Star had payed police informants at their disposal, seem a very weak one”

Not if you actually read what I wrote, which was that this particular piece of information was supplied to them by a press agency, and that the Star did not check the information they received for discrepancies and errors, as the Echo appear to have done. This doesn’t impact in the slightest on any other comments I have made regarding the validity of the Star’s own reports and observations.

“We know that the man Paumier and Roney saw was described as a gentleman, with a black moustache and a top coat over another coat etcetera. That does not tally at all with the shabby appearance of Blotchy.”

I’m not talking about Paumier and Roney, who were purveyors of worthless information, borrowed in part from genuine witness evidence, and clearly not taken seriously by the police. I was talking about the men described by Kennedy and Cox, Clearly a comparison was made between the two, and it had nothing to do with gentlemanly types.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“No-one dare talk about him, except in jest. We can almost put him on a par with Santa Claus or the Tooth-fairy.”

We must remember that for a considerable period of time, the reverse was true, with the Astrakhan man being quickly latched onto as fuel for both nonsensical conspiracy theories and the popular image of the killer as a sinister “toff” in a top hat. As subsequent students of the case have taken a far more rational and criminological approach to the case, it is only natural that a more critical eye should have been cast in the direction of Hutchinson’s description, which was discredited shortly after it first appeared.

No, I wouldn’t say that the Bethnal/Astrakhan sightings are strikingly similar at all. If there is any similarity, it is more than likely that Hutchinson borrowed elements from Lewis’ account in an effort to enhance his own highly dubious account. I’m incredibly surprised that so many of these press snippets are being invested with such significance, especially the early ones. There was an expectation amongst the populace that the real killer would appear out of the ordinary. Indeed, it is a mentality that prevails to this day – a refusal to accept that a serial killer can have an outwardly normal appearance. It is this factor, I suggest, that accounts for much of the nonsense that appeared, very briefly, in the press shortly after the Kelly murder.

There isn’t enough caution being exercised here, in my opinion. Take Bowyer’s account for example. Did he say anything about a man with “very peculiar eyes” (of course the real killer can’t have had normal-looking eyes!) at the inquest?

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Garry,

An intriguing suggestion, and to my mind a very plausible one. I was previously inclined to reject any suggestion that the two women were sisters on the grounds that they cannot have had such identical experiences on the Friday morning. I must admit, though, that I had never considered the possibility that they may have shared part of the experience, i.e. the Wednesday encounter, with Mrs. Kennedy only pretending that she had also been involved in the events of Friday morning. This makes sense to me.

All the best,
Ben

[Errata]

I have sort of always been intrigued by the simple contradiction inherent in the Astrakhan man. Clearly he is a bit posh for his surroundings, he's a foreigner, "Jewish looking", but despite the fact he could afford more rarified company,(barring an extreme financial bias towards wardrobe) he's in Whitechapel.

And surely there cannot be so many Jews in London with such a distinctive chain and seal?

But I just remembered a seal I saw not terribly long ago. It was from the 1830s, it was gold with an intricate almost masonic looking device carved in carnelian. Like many others. Seals (fob seals, and desk seals) originally were made from carnelian, onyx, agate, even ivory because it was easier to carve than metal. With the revolution of the stamping and molding processes of the industrial revolution, it became much less common, and because the metal seals were new and a fad, the carved stone seals lost popularity. You still found the fobs with blank stones on them, but the art of intaglio moved exclusively to women's jewelry and decorative objects (like a cameo on a diary cover).

But the seal I saw was a typical example of a a minor government official from the Persian empire. Carnelian was used because wax doesn't stick to it. Carnelian is much less common than other forms like onyx and agate. The Romans used it. But the Romans weren't getting it from Europe. They were getting it from the middle east and north Africa. The cultures associated with a wide range of use of the stone were the Assyrians, the Egyptians, The Persians, The Phoenicians. And a great many seals that survive today, even Victorian ones, are from those cultures.

And none of it means anything really. But if Astrakhan is from central Asia (and expensive), the man has a massive gold chain (when silver is considered more appropriate) and is carrying a carnelian seal... well then it seems possible that the man may have resembled a stereotypical Jew, but that would be because he would have been Persian. Light complexion, dark hair, bushy eyebrows, luxurious mustache, it all fits in a Persian or North African phenotype. So clearly if the cops were looking for this guys amongst Jews, they weren't going to find him.

And yes, every single one of these things can be explained in many different ways. But Persians and North Africans likely would not have been able to attract higher class company, since they were lumped in with "wogs" which I had thought was Indian, but evidently applied to anyone east of Germany or some such. They were a race of men that such vile tales were circulated about that only the lowest class women would have them. And when I say vile, I mean the old chestnut that any congress with a "wog" and you will never be able to have white babies, no matter who the father is. Like the old saw about purebred dogs. Another 10 years and parents of unmarried women will be shipping them to the Raj in a crate, but we aren't there yet.

Anyway, just a thought. Probably not even an original one.

[Rubyretro]

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 ?

[Garry Wroe]

An intriguing suggestion, and to my mind a very plausible one. I was previously inclined to reject any suggestion that the two women were sisters on the grounds that they cannot have had such identical experiences on the Friday morning. I must admit, though, that I had never considered the possibility that they may have shared part of the experience, i.e. the Wednesday encounter, with Mrs. Kennedy only pretending that she had also been involved in the events of Friday morning. This makes sense to me.

Thanks, Ben. As with Hutchinson, I never managed to uncover an age for Sarah Lewis, so can provide no positive linkage between the two Sarahs. Given the rarity value of her name, however, coupled with the proximity of Little and Great Pearl Streets, I think it more likely than not that they were one and the same. If they were, Mrs Kennedy's reference to her sister may be yet another Ripper-related example of the baby having been thrown out with the bath water.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"There’s that fabulously original comeback I fully expected, Fisherman – “I know you are, but what am I”? Never been done before, that."

Iīm a sucker for scoring the easy points, Ben. Never could resist balls lying around waiting on penalty points, Iīm afraid!

On the rest of your post as a whole, I will say - before I deal with it in detail - that it works from a slightly geriatric perspective. You keep treating the case as if Hutchinsonsī being the loiterer had never been challenged. It has. And it will continue to be so. And if you do not meet that challenge with rational criticism and an open mind, you will - if I am correct - end up buried under a heap of views and theories that will make up the rubble of Ripperology.

I think Jon made a very good post where he pointed out that you produce very much more boiling blood that useful arguments. He also pointed to the fact that much as the possible connection inbetween bogey man and astrakhan has been treated with an overall silence for the longest time, there is every reason to accept that there may be a match here. In a sense, itīs the same as the missed day theory - it has a lot going for it and nothing in the way of proof going against it, so in this case too there is a dire need for a fresh new look on things.

It is year one again in these questions, Ben! Whether you like it or not, the tides are turning, and questions will be asked. It is up to the likes of you to decide whether you will respond rationally to it, or speak of lunacy and embarrasing views. If you opt for the latter, be prepared to produce the goods to justify such claims.

Right! Now that this has been laid down, letīs go for the details here. I will try and be as rational as possible and very pedagogical, of course!

"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."

... up til the moment we accept that Hutchinson could have been out on the days, that is - when that happens, the problem you speak of becomes nonexistant.

"You try, unsuccessfully, to get round the problem by wheeling in “date confusion” again, but this only results in the frighteningly ludicrous suggestion that Astrakhan the Ripper waltzed his way into his intended murder district in his expensive-looking finery, found a suitable victim and decided: “Now that I have advertised my presence here in a very blatant manner, I will come back this time tomorrow wearing the same clothes, carrying the same black package, and kill this same woman! Let’s hope she doesn’t talk about me to other people until then. Let’s also hope that the man who stared into my stupid surly face and followed me back to this woman’s room isn’t going to take his curiosity any further.”

Three points, Ben:

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.
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.
3. I canīt recall saying that astrakhan man was the killer? In MY view, he was there on THURSDAY morning, and we know Kelly survived that day. The POSSIBLE connection I speak of, is the one inbetween bogey man and astrakhan man, remember - not inbetween astrakhan man and the killer. I point to the POSSIBILITY of such a connection, since I feel that we may have a match with bogey man, and if so we could be dealing with a guy that was in place on Thursday and Friday, and who spent time with Kelly in her room. To disregard the possibility that such a man could have ben her killer would be outright stupid.

Incidentally, if he WAS the killer, you may need to reflect over how completely he got away with it. It even involved a particularly hotblooded debator claiming that he had never even existed 123 years down the line!

"I believe Astrakhan man was a complete invention, and as for the attire of the Bethnal Green man, it is worth referring back to Lewis’ description:
“His hat was a high round hat. He had a brownish overcoat, with a black short coat underneath. His trousers were a dark pepper-and-salt”
Hardly Lord Randolph Churchill, was he?"

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. So if we take in THE WHOLE context, another picture emerges than the one you offer.
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 Churchillīs description?

"There were most assuredly not “many independent sources speaking of this man” or else the sources in question would have been called to the inquest."

Letīs look at this in two points, Ben:

1. Sarah Lewis saw her man on Wednesday. She does not mention any other sighting in the police report. Thus she saw him at a stage that preceded the detention she suffered in Millerīs court on Friday.
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. We canīt tell. The main thing to keep in mind, though, is that time elapsed between the claimed sighting and the police detention.
2. Mrs Paumier spoke of a sighting on Friday on her behalf, and one on Thursday on behalf of Sarah Roney and two other women. 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. Paumier seemingly relies on Roneys man not possibly being anybody else than the man she had seen herself - he was that special.
Now, if Paumier had been telling porkies to attract attention, it would be one thing, but when she has the corroboration of three other women (Roney would have been able to identify them most likely), it becomes another matter.
Your assertion that they would have been summoned to the inquest if they had been truthful is something we need not worry too much about. Since the man was apparently not found, there was no telling if he had even existed. No corroboration could be had of this thing, unless the police had made observations of the man themselves - he WAS easy to spot, apparently - or if they were of the meaning that Paumier and Roney had no connection to Lewis and had not been lying, something they may well have believed. 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; they had Lewis putting him on the map at the inquest, they had useful corroboration for the manīs existence, and therefore they would have needed no more sources to establish it.

"What are you talking about? Where did these newspapers say anything about receiving information on a “gentlemanly dressed guy who had entered Kelly’s home”?"

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. Further moving on:

"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 night in question, 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, and there is very little to doubt that the murderer entered the murdered woman's house late on Thursday night or early on Friday morning. (10 nov)

...and this seemingly relates to:

"There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that about half-past ten o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out any more, but would do away with herself. Soon afterwards they parted, and 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 ..." (10 Nov)

So here is the chain of events - true or not - lying behind the story/ies about a respectably dressed man of a gentlemanly appearance dealing with Kelly. And it is the Star we are speaking of, a paper that was "in the know" according to you.

"Paumier didn’t specify and particular individual. She just provided a bogus-sounding account of a meeting with a “suspicious” man that she appeared to have blabbed to the press about "

Paumier seemed sure enough that the man was the same man that Roney had met. Which is why we need to ask ourselves what it is that can lead a woman that has not seen a man, spoken of by another woman, to conclude that she is in the know about the man in question. 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. Like you-know-who.

My line: “I suggested that the police sometimes called people in whom they put very little trust to inquests”

Your line: "So you ARE suggesting that the police called certain witnesses to inquests whilst fully expecting them to lie under oath."

Read this again, Ben. Are the two sentences copies of each other? Or am I saying one thing and you concluding something else, the way you habitually do?
Yes, that is the exact case here.

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. Now, believe it or not, but there will be occasions when the police suspect that their witnesses may be lying IN SPITE of being at an inquest.

Take, for example, the sentence: "I saw a lizard in my garden today".

Such a claim may be A/ True or B/ False. Thing is, Ben, the police will not be able to prove which option applies! Surely you can understand this?

Now, letīs move on to something a little more complex. Say, for example, that Sarah Lewis (interchangable with "I" in my former example, claims that she saw a well-dressed man without an overcoat (interchangable with the lizard in my former example) on Friday morning!
The interesting thing here is that, just like the lizard, the manīs existence may have been A/ True or B/ False, and - just like the case was with the lizard - the police will not be able to conclude which option applies!

The relevance being? Of course that Sarah Lewis could lie without risking that the roof over the inquest room would fall down on her - she would have been able to conclude that the police would not be able to disprove her.

Has something like this ever taken place at inquests? Have people lied at such occasions? You bet! Have they done so at times for the simple want of fifteen minutes of fame? Absolutely! I sincerely hope that you will not make a futile try to deny this, since everybody knows this is so. Particularly foul creatures have even smiled maliciously at the officials while doing so, in a catch-me-if-you-can attitude. A sad state of affairs, I know, but thatīs how it goes, Ben.

Now, once that has been established, let me guide you one step further down the road: Over the years, and bearing in mind all the occasions when this deplorable phenomenon has occurred at inquests, have the police noticed that it is a reality?
In fact, yes, I do believe that they have done so. Ergo, the police will be aware that people called to inquests DO lie on occasion. Now, the police will not encourage such things - in a perfect world it would never happen, and the policework would become much easier. But in the REAL world, it DOES happen. Moreover, it does not happen to an extent where you can say that everything a liar says is a lie. Instead, some witnesses will add the odd lie and be truthful about all the rest. Others will lie a lot and add the odd truth. Itīs a mess, of course, since it further diminishes the possibilities to get a clear picture of things.

God, this became longish, did it not? Letīs just try and see what it is I am trying to say! Ah - here it is:
The police would have called Sarah Lewis to the inquest since they thought that her testimony COULD be of value for the investigation of the Kelly murder.
They would have hoped that she was not going to change her testimony from the police report, and that she would not lie.
Alas, she DID change her testimony, and - equally alas - she was at liberty to lie about things that the police were not in a position to disprove.

You are apparently a man of very high moral standards, Ben, since you think that not a living soul would prefer the limelight to the potential damnation in the afterlife. If everybody was like you, the world would be a better place to live in! But I really think that you may need to widen your horizon a little bit if you are to be able to understand the implications offered by Lewisītestimony.

"this particular piece of information was supplied to them by a press agency, and that the Star did not check the information they received for discrepancies and errors"

Aha -they had access to police informants but refrained from using it. Makes sense.

All the best,
Fisherman

[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

[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 Churchillīs 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.

[Ben]

“Iīm a sucker for scoring the easy points, Ben. Never could resist balls lying around waiting on penalty points, Iīm 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 Churchillīs 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