Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Er.. what does that mean exactly? "

It means exactly that I THINK that Sarah Lewis lied at the inquest, but I am quite, quite aware that this may not be a correct assessment. What else could it mean? How could I be anything but undecided? How could anybody be anything but undecided when there is not enough evidence to make a definite call?
Let me tell you, Sally, on your behalf, that you are undecided too - you cannot tell if she lied or not. You are not absolutely sure that she was truthful, for the simple reason that you cannot be. You may feel convinced about things, but you cannot prove it either way.

I am not convinced that she lied. But I do think that it is the by far best suggestion.

You may have noticed that I listed three options in my post to Wickerman. If I was to add my own personal guesswork as to how I rate the credibility of each suggestion, I would say that I would offer 15-20 per cent respectively for both the option that she was truthful and subsequentially remembered, and the option that she subconsciously tried to please, whereas I would spend the remaining 60-70 per cent on the guess that she told porkies.

I hope you understand me now, Sally. If not, do tell me, and I will elaborate.

"You don't? I am surprised. "

So am I - I am surprised that you have not once picked up on my posts where I say that the chance is there that Hutchinson did lie, or at least embellish to some extent. Normally, though, I do not have to fight very har for getting that view out on the threads - others take care of that in extenso and sometimes in absurdum too.

"Did you notice that, in spite of your contentions to the contrary, 'everyone' who considers Lewis an honest witness cannot have just been myself, Ruby and Ben? "

Donīt be too pleased with yourself, Sally. You botched the poll by asking the wrong question, Iīm afraid. But in THAT particular case, I was not surprised in the slightest, since you - by means of the poll construction - offered a very viable answer to a question you did not even ask: the one about your own bias.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Fish..

I would also like to point out that much as I DO regard her as not truthful, I have also stated that I donīt rule out that she MAY have been truthful

Er.. what does that mean exactly? Does it mean that you're undecided? Does it mean that you might change your view to suit your argument?

I only ask because you have seemed pretty decided in your condemnation of Lewis of late.

just as I donīt rule out that Hutchinson may have been a liar.

You don't? I am surprised.

I trust you voted in the Lying Lewis Poll, Fisherman. Did you notice that, in spite of your contentions to the contrary, 'everyone' who considers Lewis an honest witness cannot have just been myself, Ruby and Ben?

Just saying.

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

"It seems to me that all those who don't like what these respective witnesses are saying choose to accuse them of dishonesty as a means of defending their own biase.
Am I the only one who is treating these witnesses with the respect they deserve?"

I would like to take the opportunity to point out that much as my best guess is that Sarah Lewis made her story about the loiterers apparition and actions up, I donīt think this that I am using a skewed perspective. That is my considered opinion, and I donīt like to think of it as the result of any bias.

Lewisīdescription can have three explanations, and three explanations only:

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

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

What is primary to understand here is that these three options do exist. We are not speaking of any certainty that either of them MUST have applied, but we ARE speaking of an absolute need to realize that - just like Paul Begg tells us - to disregard Lewisī testimony because of the built-in risks.

I take it that you may be of the meaning that I am treating Lewis with disrespect, but although I think she was deliberately telling porkies, I donīt think that admitting that much on my behalf is disrespectful.
When we read the Daily News and the Star, we get a picture of the background against which we must view Sarah Lewis. The environment in which she lived was obviously one in which it was totally comme il faut to tell porkies to the police and the press. The story about the abundance of witnesses that claimed to have heard the "murder" cry leaves us in little doubt of this. The description the Daily News makes of the female inquest witnesses connected to the court adds further to the picture.
If Lewis did tell porkies, she seemingly adjusted to the ways of her fellow sisters of the surroundings. It was morally wrong, but apparently condoned by all and sundry, and thus it becomes very easy to understand Sarah Lewis.

I would also like to point out that much as I DO regard her as not truthful, I have also stated that I donīt rule out that she MAY have been truthful, just as I donīt rule out that Hutchinson may have been a liar. Of course, Paul Beggīs choice of wording covers things nicely without reflecting on the question of truthfulness or not: whichever way we regard Lewis, her testimony must be regarded as totally unreliable and thus not useful in an assessment of what happened on the murder night. Though Begg must be fully well aware about the three options about Lewis I listed above, there is no real need to say any more than that.

In my case, though, I think that since I hold the opinion I do, I may just as well state it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally!

I would like to bring to your attention that my original text looked like this:

"The TYPE Cox describes is a type that one can easily imagine - the kind of guy who has trouble with strong sun, the skin flaking at times, the reddish hair, the pale complexion - this is a man you cannot imagine having dark brown eyes, is it not? No, watery pale blue eyes would fit the bill much better."

And so, I did NOT write about the type you have provided picturewise; rather an exotic person, colourwise. Waht I DID say was that the type one could iamagine from Coxīs description was a man with pale, flaking, sun-sensitive, easily flaking, blotchy skin.

As for the underlying mathermatical and scientific realities of the combination of red hair and brown eyes (let alone DARK brown eyes), hereīs a useful text that should be able to explain to you how it all works:

Ask a Geneticist


by Dr. Barry Starr, Stanford University

ShareThis
Why is the combination of red hair and brown eyes so rare?

May 18, 2007

No one knows for sure why this is. There isn't any evidence that the DNA changes that cause red hair also affect eye color. Or vice versa.

And the two aren't genetically linked like some other hair and eye colors. For example, blonde hair and blue eyes are known to be linked. Which is why blonde hair and brown eyes are so rare.

But we know this isn't the case for red hair and light colored eyes. How do we know this?

Because the DNA changes in the MC1R gene that cause red hair are on chromosome 16. And the DNA changes in the OCA2 gene that cause blue eyes are found on chromosome 15.

Genes on the same chromosome
tend to travel together.
Genetically linked traits need to be on the same chromosome. Like blonde hair and blue eyes which are both found on chromosome 15. This is important because of how genes are passed on to our children.

We each have 23 pairs of chromosomes that contain almost all of our genes. We pass our genes down to our children in these chromosome chunks.

So if the DNA changes for blue eyes and blonde hair happen to both be on the same copy of chromosome 15, then they will tend to travel together*. Think about it like suitcases at the airport.

Imagine you have blonde hair coloring and blue contact lenses that you are taking with you on a trip. If you have two separate suitcases, then there is a chance that one might get sent to Detroit and the other to Honolulu. Your blonde hair coloring will be in one place and your contact lenses in another.

But if you only have one suitcase, everything in it will almost always travel together. Wherever your suitcase ends up, the blonde hair dye and the blue contact lenses will arrive at the same place.

Same thing with genes on the same chromosome. The DNA changes that cause blonde hair and blue eyes are usually on the same chromosome (in the same suitcase). So they usually arrive together.

But this explanation doesn't work for red hair and light eye color because the DNA changes that cause them are on different chromosomes. They are in different suitcases.

Most likely red hair and light colored eyes tend to be together because of luck. And the possible survival advantages of each and the light skin that comes with them.

Let's think back to a time before there was red hair. Imagine for some reason, the folks in Northern Europe have lighter colored eyes. This may be because their ancestors found lighter eyes more attractive (sexual selection). Or perhaps there is some other advantage (click here for some possibilities).

So we have a population in Northern Europe with light colored eyes. And everywhere else there are brown eyes.

Now imagine that a DNA change happens in Africa and in Europe that causes red hair. This wouldn't be surprising -- our DNA changes all the time.

Most of the time these DNA changes don't matter. But sometimes they can cause a disease. And sometimes a DNA change can change how someone looks.

Light skin is an advantage in
sun-starved Northern Europe.
Now we have a redhead in Africa and one in Northern Europe. The redhead in Europe is very successful and does better than the folks around him. So the red hair spreads.

But the redhead in Africa has all sorts of problems. Eventually the red hair gene dies out because s/he can't compete as well as everyone else.

The end result of this is redheads with light colored eyes. Not because the genes are necessarily linked. But because the red hair happened to occur in a population with light colored eyes.

Of course we don't have any evidence for this story. But it is a plausible one because of a side effect of red hair -- light skin.

We need a certain amount of sunlight to make vitamin D. If you don't get enough vitamin D you end up with rickets, an awful disease.

The darker your skin is, the more sunlight you need. Northern Europe gets so little sunlight that lighter skinned people have a real advantage. People like redheads.

In Africa, people with light skin are at a real disadvantage. The extra sunlight exposure can cause birth defects by destroying their folic acid. And they will end up riddled with skin cancer later in life since no one has invented sunscreen yet.

So in which population do you think red hair will prosper and spread? Yup, amongst those Northern Europeans with light colored eyes.

Because of this, you just happen to end up with lots of redheads with light colored eyes. This is one idea anyway.

As more mixing between populations happens, we would predict that red hair and light colored eyes will both become less common. But another prediction, if the little story I've spun is true, is that a larger percentage of the redheads that are left may have brown eyes. We'll have to wait and see.

*This is a simplified version. Because of something called recombination, it is important that the DNA changes be on the same chromosome and close to each other. Click here for the details.

++++++

And there you are. This is it. This is how it works. To claim that a redhaired person with dark brown eyes is an unusual thing is a very sensible thing to claim - since it is perfectly true.

If you need to question starnge perceptions in this field, I suggest you take a look at Benīs hint that just because the man had a carrotty moustache, one could not conclude that the hair on his head was red too.
My guess - and yes, it is only a guess, but I feel on pretty certain ground here - would be that around 99,8 -100 per cent of the people who have carrotty moustaches also have red hair.

But why question such a claim? It came from your own side of the trenches, did it not!

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

THE EAST-END MURDERS.
STARTLING AFFAIR IN BLACKFRIARS THIS MORNING

At about ten o'clock this morning, a man answering every description to the particulars furnished to the police by G. Hutchinson, as seen by him on the night of the murder of the woman Kelly, attracted attention in Queen Victoria-street, Blackfriars. Finding himself being watched, he immediately hurried his footsteps, and without giving time for any action to be taken, entered the Underground Railway station near by, and escaped.
Evening News
16 November 1888

Pretty agile for a man that doesn't exist...

[Wickerman]

No, Packer was descredited like Hutchinson.

Not so fast ... there happens to be more to this than simplistic dismissal.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-yostpacker.html

Dave's conclusion - From the known information, I definitely assert that Packer closed up before the club’s debate ended, that no couple was in the street when he did, and that his statement to Scotland Yard is the closest to the truth of what he did and/or saw that night.

Also, I think that there's a difference between people who were witnesses at the inquests, and those that played to the Press.

A number of witnesses who appeared at the inquests, also provided more info, and changed their statements, to the press.
Interviews with the press are not inhibited & confined by specific questions.

Jon

[Rubyretro]

No, Packer was descredited like Hutchinson.

Also, I think that there's a difference between people who were witnesses at the inquests, and those that played to the Press.

[Wickerman]

I think that when it comes to believing witnesses or not, in my opinion, you have to look for whether their statement logically 'fits' the known facts or not. if they do, then you have to believe that the witness was honest -even if you don't understand how it could be.

A point that some would do well to consider, - thankyou for bringing that point up.
Most of the mysteries in these cases are only mysteries to us, and largely due to our lack of knowledge.

-Mrs Maxwell, and Maurice Lewis present clear problems because everything
points to MJK having died much earlier.

I have to wonder if that early morning visit by Catherine Pickett/Pickell, who, it is said, knocked on Kelly's door 'about' 7:30 am Friday morning has something to do with understanding what Maurice Lewis & Caroline Maxwell saw, or think they saw.
How old was this flower girl, and could she have been mistaken for MJK?

I can't find anything to say that Lawende, Long or Schwartz weren't honest either -although I can't quite understand how they could all be right. I just have to accept them and wonder.

Hmm.... I notice you didn't mention Mathew Packer? (oops, sorry, we don't want Ben to have an aneurysm)
:-)

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil H]

...but there is no reason to doubt Cadoche's integrity, nor his statement. Therefore I must accept it.

But it is possible to take Cadoche literally, and for him to have been wrong about the murder, surely?

He did hear a word, "No!" and a bump, but it was someone - perhaps Richardson, finding the body earlier than did Davis - who reported it.

This would both explain and provide a motive for Richardson's strange and changing testimony (about boot and knife) that so perplexed the Coroner.

Cadoche did not HAVE to have heard "Jack" to be utterly accurate in what he said. There are other possibilities.

Phil

[Rubyretro]

I think that when it comes to believing witnesses or not, in my opinion, you have to look for whether their statement logically 'fits' the known facts or not. if they do, then you have to believe that the witness was honest -even if you don't understand how it could be.

-Mrs Maxwell, and Maurice Lewis present clear problems because everything
points to MJK having died much earlier. Even given Police limitations with
TOD, I can't see Mary having burn't the clothes herself, eating fish and potatoes for breakfast, other cries of 'Oh , Murder !' coming from a place where coincidentally a woman was actually being murdered, nor Mary having been dead for only 45 minutes when found and the Police doctor so far out in his assessment.

Hutchinson's description of A Man, and the problems with it, have already been discussed at length.

There is nothing to indicate that Mrs Lewis was wrong or lying in her statement -although Fisherman would clearly have had more faith if she had been tall & frivolous instead of small and doleful.

I can't find anything to say that Lawende, Long or Schwartz weren't honest either -although I can't quite understand how they could all be right. I just have to accept them and wonder.

The same goes for Cadoche hearing and seeing a thud against the fence
in Hanbury. I liked the idea that Annie was killed earlier, in the dark, and therefore Mrs Long couldn't have seen JTR...but there is no reason to doubt Cadoche's integrity, nor his statement. Therefore I must accept it.

And so on..

[Sally]

Sally -I just PM'd you..

Ruby - I just PM'd you! Coincidence???

[Rubyretro]

Sally -I just PM'd you..

[Sally]

Hi Wickerman

It seems to me that all those who don't like what these respective witnesses are saying choose to accuse them of dishonesty as a means of defending their own biase.

I think that can happen, yes. On the other hand, details from the accounts of these witnesses often changed over time; so I think a certain degree of interpretation by modern commentators is inevitable.

Point's moot to an extent, anyway, because in many cases we know little about these people; which means that our knowledge base is extremely limited.

If we knew more, our ideas may well change and develop. If, for example; I knew that Hutchinson was in fact a butcher who was living opposite Bucks Row at the time of the murders, I might be inclined to be a bit more suspicious.

Just an example. Or, for another example; does Sarah Lewis being a Polish Jew alter our perceptions of her? What would we think about Morris Lewis if he was related to her? How would we perceive Bowyer if it transpired that he had a history of violence?

Witnesses are problematic, aren't they? Morris Lewis and Caroline Maxwell - can they both have been mistaken? And what about his assertion that he had known Kelly for 5 years?

There's so much we don't know. There is, however, no evidence - or even any substantial suggestion - that Sarah Lewis lied in her testimony.

There has to be a certain amount of leeway for the development of detail in a witness account - otherwise, to be fair we'd have to say that Lewis, Bowyer, Hutchinson - and others, were all liars.

I'm not sure that would suit.

As an aside, Kennedy was a press witness so far as we know, wasn't she? Interesting, but without the weight of police witnesses in my view.

All the best

[Wickerman]

Why Lewis and not Kennedy?

I understand Lewis's honesty has been questioned, but so has Kennedy's (right Ben?), not to mention Hutchinson's too.

It seems to me that all those who don't like what these respective witnesses are saying choose to accuse them of dishonesty as a means of defending their own biase.

Am I the only one who is treating these witnesses with the respect they deserve?

Then there's Caroline Maxwell & Maurice Lewis........ (stirring the pot), whose going to jump to their defence?
:-)

[Ben]

I participated in two very interesting and enjoyable podcasts with Paul and others a year or so ago on the subject of Mary Kelly, and I'm sure Kennedy and Lewis were discussed. At no point in either discussion did any of the panelists impugn the latter's honesty.