Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Ben]

So it’s Prater too now?

Lewis’ Lies and Prater’s Porkies.

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

I dunno…

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

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

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

The Star carried Kennedy’s account under the headlines:

“A Neighbour’s Doutful Story”

And:

“A Story of Little Value”

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

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

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

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

Hi Fisherman,

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

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Red

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

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

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

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

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

[Fisherman]

Ben:

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

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

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

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

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

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

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

So don’t be a Prater-Hater.

Hi Sally,

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

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honestly, Ben ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wickerman]

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

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

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

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

Nuthing funnier than folk!
Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

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

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

[Wickerman]

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

[Ben]

But Prater didn't "parrot" anyone.

So...

[harry]

As to the many other unusual occurances that Hutchinson states,the standing at the court entrance for three minutes,to me seems unusual.There seems to be no need not to continue on into her room,but had that happened there would have been no sight of a red handkerchef,and that as Sally says, ties in very well with the observation of Lawende.Now three minutes does not appear unduly long,but one has to stand and count off that time,to understand that a few words,a kiss,and taking a red handkerchef out of a pocket,takes a matter of seconds only,leaving quite a period of nothing.Sure,the red hanky is but a tenuous link,but in a made up story,it might seem to the teller,better than nothing.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Superwitness alert."

Exactly! Going from no knowledge of anything at all to describing hat types and colours IS an extraordinary feat! And it rules Lewis OUT as a useful witness.

"She mentioned a very popular style of hat and the most common hat colour, Fisherman."

You can´t really see the significance of all this, can you? It does not matter if it was the commonest hat type and colour, Ben. That has nothing at all to do with the problems her testimony involves. It would not have mattered if 95 per cent of all hats had been wideawakes and as many of them had been black. Unless you are saying that Srarah Lewis took a guess, a shot in the dark, it remains that she was able to pinpoint hat type and colour. Reasonably, if the hat had been of a much less common type and of a very unusual colour, say a Robin Hood-hat in a shade of pink, she would have managed to get that right too. If you can nail the type and colour of a hat, it is because you have had enough time to observe it, and NOT because you make a fair guess and everybody wore black wideawakes anyway. The observation would have been there, and the time for it would equally have been there. And apparently, it had NOT been there as she spoke to the police the first time over. And that is where the usefulness of Lewis´ testimony makes a nose dive.

"I'm afraid you "think" wrong, unless it has seriously escaped your notice that Frank and several others subscribe to the very same opinion"

Not Frank, he does not - he says that he thinks that the differences can be overcome, the way I read him. He does NOT say that they are "only very minor". He is far too wise for that.

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

I´ll explain then: Tell me why a witness like Prater, not having seen the killer and not knowing at what stage Kelly was killed, would have been told by the police not to mention to the press that she had heard a cry of murder? Expand on what possible grounds the police could have had to conceal such a thing. Elaborate on how this detail could have muddled the investigation if it became common knowledge. Or are you saying that the police hushed down other vital information held by Prater, that could have had an influence?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"the standing at the court entrance for three minutes,to me seems unusual"

Given the weather, it seems outright dimwitted to me. They were ten steps away from the relative comfort of Mary´s room, and just the one step away from the sheltering archway. But still, they chose to stand around outside on that cold, wet and very blustery night.

Or did they?

The best,
Fisherman