If Astrakhan Man existed, how likely is he to have been Mary Kelly's murderer?

[Ben]

It’s one thing to have a “superior attitude”, Jon, but quite another to allow that attitude to present a serious, if not insurmountable, impediment to pulling off an efficient crime. The vast majority of serial killers are at least capable of preventing this outcome, whether they suffer from particularly acute delusions of grandeur or not. If he was blinged up to the short and curlys in the most conspicuous attire and accessories imaginable in the worst possible location and the worst possible time, he was certainly asking for attention from a two-bit mugger at the very least. Dressed in so ostentatious and conspicuous a manner, he would have attract undesirable attention from all sorts of hostile elements from the local populace, whilst at the same time scaring off his intended victims.

He makes no sense as a living reality, let alone as a ripper.

Sally also touched upon Astrakhan’s inexplicable non-issue with Hutchinson’s ill-concealed interest in him, and I agree with her thoughts here entirely. Hutchinson had allegedly stooped down to get a look at Astrakhan’s face, which the latter would certainly have been aware of. He could not, therefore, have been oblivious to Hutchinson tailing him from behind. Miller's Court only had one exit, and he would essentially have been cornering himself there in the certainty that a potential vigilante, informer, or plain-clothes police officer had clocked him at close quarters and followed him to the scene of the crime.

Astrakhan man is basically a paint-by-numbers amalgamation of two things: The various bogeyman traits that had crept into the public thinking with regard to the killer's image (surly, Jewish, conspicuous, black parcel, possible medical training etc), and various other witness accounts (walked very softly, red handkerchief/neckerchief, carrying a package of some description etc).

The idea that Astrakhan man existed is unlikely enough, but casting him in the role of the ripper infringes on the very worst period in the study of the ripper crimes, when “toffs” and celebrities dominated the suspect lists. “Gentleman Jack” is a dead horse well flogged.

Best regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

.... Dressed in so ostentatious and conspicuous a manner, he would have attract undesirable attention from all sorts of hostile elements from the local populace, whilst at the same time scaring off his intended victims.

I'm surprised you see bravado in his appearance as inconsistent with the crime under debate. Is this the same man that cut up Annie Chapman in a private backyard under the noses of sleeping residents?

In Mitre Sq. with regular police patrols and only three exits?
In the side-yard entrance to a Workingmans Club full of celebrating members?

If this is the same man, he displays a nonchalant regard for his own safety & detection.
Why would you think such, in-your-face bravado should be coupled with a silent shifty killer, sneaking around in shabby attire?
There's something inconsistent with that view.

There are stories in the press of a 'suited' man rushing through Mitre Sq. on the morning of the 9th, another 'suited' man seen washing blood off his hands in Kennington on the same morning.
Not forgetting Spicer's 'suited' gent (with gold watch chain no less) in Heneage Court on the morning of the Double Murder.
Then, the numerous sightings of the Bethnal Green nutter accosting women in attire more fitting to the West End than the slums of Whitechapel.
These people, whether all the same or different individuals, demonstrated no concern for their appearance attracting attention.

I think, what we are dealing with here, potentially (assuming it's the same individual), is an attitude that he places himself above those around him, even perhaps the police.

He makes no sense as a living reality, let alone as a ripper.

Today it would'nt you're right, but a hundred years ago?
Modern society is loosing touch with that old Victorian gentry's condescending outlook on the lower-class.

Hutchinson had allegedly stooped down to get a look at Astrakhan’s face, which the latter would certainly have been aware of. He could not, therefore, have been oblivious to Hutchinson tailing him from behind.

As we only have Hutchinson's two statements to go on we cannot tell if Hutch was successful in following Astrachan unnoticed. On the other hand we also see no reason to believe Astrachan knew he was being followed.
For all he knew, throwing that 'stern' glance might have scared Hutch off altogether. Afterall, it cannot have been difficult for Hutch to hide in the shadows given the time of night.

Miller's Court only had one exit, and he would essentially have been cornering himself there in the certainty that a potential vigilante, informer, or plain-clothes police officer had clocked him at close quarters and followed him to the scene of the crime.

More of that same bravado.
Do not forget, Astrachan, if the killer, was armed!

The idea that Astrakhan man existed is unlikely enough,...

Thats still under debate, and I might add, only professed as modern opinion (ie; guesswork), nothing else.

...but casting him in the role of the ripper infringes on the very worst period in the study of the ripper crimes, when “toffs” and celebrities dominated the suspect lists. “Gentleman Jack” is a dead horse well flogged.

Ah, yes, well now you have something I agree with. I don't like the idea either.
On the other hand these 'well-dressed' gents keep popping up making a real nuisance of themselves.

My point about this Astrachan & Hutch is that the recent tendency of dismissal is driven more by biase than anything tangible.
Nobody likes him (Astrachan), he is so different, so out of place, I think researchers are too embarrassed to take him seriously.
Thats what I think is truly behind his rejection.

I couldn't care less whether Astrachan was her killer. I care more about how evidence is being interpreted, and whether there are alternate interpretations. Especially given the dire lack of information we work with.

All the best, Jon S.

[Abby Normal]

These serial killers can be the most patient or the most impatient, depending on their mood at the time. Almost like split personalities.
The only timeline we have, as you know are the two accounts by Hutchinson. One for the police, the other for the press.

In the police account Hutch doesn't mention going up the court, just that he followed the couple after they went up the court but that he went the the court and stood there for 3/4 of an hour.
In this case Astrachan may have had no way of knowing anyone was waiting at the other end of the passage, from No. 13 there was no way of knowing, or seeing.

Whereas, in the press account Hutch mentions the incident twice. First he say's that after they went up the Court, "I went to look up the Court, to see if I could see them, but I could not".
So is this before his 3/4 hr vigil, or after?

Then, in the same article, after giving a description, once again he say's, "I went up the Court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house, or hear any noise".

That is difficult to accept if the couple had just entered No. 13., how could there be total silence?

Interestingly, there is an account in an American paper that add's a little colour to this lone vigil.
Quote:
"After the couple entered the house Hutchinson heard sounds of merriment in the girl's room and remained at the entrance to the court for fully three quarters of an hour. About 3 o'clock the sounds ceased and he walked into the court, but finding that the light in the room had been extinguished he went home."
Newark Daily Advocate, Nov. 14th, 1888.

Is this just creative license?
This seem's to fill in a couple of blank area's and makes perfect sense.
So, perhaps Astrachan did entertain Kelly while Hutchinson stood outside the end of Miller's Court.

Interestingly, Bowyer elsewhere has stated that McCarthy's shop closed at 3:00am, and this is when Hutch decided to leave.
So, was Hutch occupying himself chatting to people in and around the shop to pass the time?, he doesn't say so, but there is alot that is not mentioned in these inquests.

If you recall Hutch also mentions seeing a man go into a lodging house (Crossinghams?), perhaps this was the same man Lewis saw standing outside Crossinghams. Lewis was ahead of Hutch so she saw the man loitering, whereas Hutch might have seen the same man turn and enter the lodging house.

Regardless, it appears Astrachan entertained Kelly for a time while Hutch stood at the end of the Court.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Wickerman


If you recall Hutch also mentions seeing a man go into a lodging house (Crossinghams?), perhaps this was the same man Lewis saw standing outside Crossinghams. Lewis was ahead of Hutch so she saw the man loitering, whereas Hutch might have seen the same man turn and enter the lodging house.

Hutch was already there when Lewis walked by, so she was "behind" him (in time). Hutch had already followed MK and A-man to the court and started his vigil when Lewis arrived.

I always thought that her Bethnel man may have been A-man but the timing is off. However, if she had delayed somewhere for a few moments giving B-man time to encounter MK then perhaps they might have been the same person. However, It seems that there were to well dressed villains out that night accosting women?!?

[Abby Normal]

I'm surprised you see bravado in his appearance as inconsistent with the crime under debate. Is this the same man that cut up Annie Chapman in a private backyard under the noses of sleeping residents?

In Mitre Sq. with regular police patrols and only three exits?
In the side-yard entrance to a Workingmans Club full of celebrating members?

If this is the same man, he displays a nonchalant regard for his own safety & detection.
Why would you think such, in-your-face bravado should be coupled with a silent shifty killer, sneaking around in shabby attire?
There's something inconsistent with that view.

There are stories in the press of a 'suited' man rushing through Mitre Sq. on the morning of the 9th, another 'suited' man seen washing blood off his hands in Kennington on the same morning.
Not forgetting Spicer's 'suited' gent (with gold watch chain no less) in Heneage Court on the morning of the Double Murder.
Then, the numerous sightings of the Bethnal Green nutter accosting women in attire more fitting to the West End than the slums of Whitechapel.
These people, whether all the same or different individuals, demonstrated no concern for their appearance attracting attention.

I think, what we are dealing with here, potentially (assuming it's the same individual), is an attitude that he places himself above those around him, even perhaps the police.



Today it would'nt you're right, but a hundred years ago?
Modern society is loosing touch with that old Victorian gentry's condescending outlook on the lower-class.



As we only have Hutchinson's two statements to go on we cannot tell if Hutch was successful in following Astrachan unnoticed. On the other hand we also see no reason to believe Astrachan knew he was being followed.
For all he knew, throwing that 'stern' glance might have scared Hutch off altogether. Afterall, it cannot have been difficult for Hutch to hide in the shadows given the time of night.




More of that same bravado.
Do not forget, Astrachan, if the killer, was armed!



Thats still under debate, and I might add, only professed as modern opinion (ie; guesswork), nothing else.



Ah, yes, well now you have something I agree with. I don't like the idea either.
On the other hand these 'well-dressed' gents keep popping up making a real nuisance of themselves.

My point about this Astrachan & Hutch is that the recent tendency of dismissal is driven more by biase than anything tangible.
Nobody likes him (Astrachan), he is so different, so out of place, I think researchers are too embarrassed to take him seriously.
Thats what I think is truly behind his rejection.

I couldn't care less whether Astrachan was her killer. I care more about how evidence is being interpreted, and whether there are alternate interpretations. Especially given the dire lack of information we work with.

All the best, Jon S.

Hi
My point about this Astrachan & Hutch is that the recent tendency of dismissal is driven more by biase than anything tangible.
Nobody likes him (Astrachan), he is so different, so out of place, I think researchers are too embarrassed to take him seriously.
Thats what I think is truly behind his rejection.

I think it has more to do with that the police rejection of Hutch as a reliable witness than A-man's appearance.

[Rubyretro]

Sorry, Ben -I'm answering, too ! (I can't resist)

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Wickerman;17I'm surprised you see bravado in his appearance as inconsistent with the crime under debate. Is this the same man that cut up Annie Chapman in a private backyard under the noses of sleeping residents?[/QUOTE]
I think that Jack had a great deal of 'bravado', but he could sneak in and out of places precisely because he looked liked everyone else. A Mrs Long walking along the street, or a Cadosche going to work would have been suspicious of an A Man in an instant. Jack could afford to use his bravado because he could fit into the street scene.

In Mitre Sq. with regular police patrols and only three exits?
In the side-yard entrance to a Workingmans Club full of celebrating members?

Ditto. (only three exits ?)

If this is the same man, he displays a nonchalant regard for his own safety & detection.

He would if he went out to commit the murders dressed as a comic book 'photofit' of JTR -less so if he he was totally unremarkable.

Why would you think such, in-your-face bravado should be coupled with a silent shifty killer, sneaking around in shabby attire?
There's something inconsistent with that view.

It is totally consistent with the fact that JTR was not singled out and arrested on the streets, he was able to walk away from the murders without arousing suspicion.

[QUOTE]

There are stories in the press of a 'suited' man rushing through Mitre Sq. on the morning of the 9th, another 'suited' man seen washing blood off his hands in Kennington on the same morning.
Not forgetting Spicer's 'suited' gent (with gold watch chain no less) in Heneage Court on the morning of the Double Murder.
Then, the numerous sightings of the Bethnal Green nutter accosting women in attire more fitting to the West End than the slums of Whitechapel.
These people, whether all the same or different individuals, demonstrated no concern for their appearance attracting attention.[/QUOTE

[

IF they existed, them they all attracted enough attention for you to be talking about them today -and none of them were arrested for the murders.
There was an urban myth decribing Jack -and no doubt some harmless nutters liked to play on it to frighten women.

I think, what we are dealing with here, potentially (assuming it's the same individual), is an attitude that he places himself above those around him, even perhaps the police.

I would certainly agree -but Hutchison as a suspect volunteering himself to the Police also fits that description.

Today it would'nt you're right, but a hundred years ago?
Modern society is loosing touch with that old Victorian gentry's condescending outlook on the lower-class.

Nothing has changed ! The rich today are still condescending to the poor, and a rich man in a rolex etc etc would stand out in a poor area (even if he were a drug dealer).

As we only have Hutchinson's two statements to go on we cannot tell if Hutch was successful in following Astrachan unnoticed

.
I didn't notice that a white stick was part of A Man's accessories ???
Hutch didn't even say that he was trying to be "unnoticed".

On the other hand we also see no reason to believe Astrachan knew he was being followed.
For all he knew, throwing that 'stern' glance might have scared Hutch off altogether. Afterall, it cannot have been difficult for Hutch to hide in the shadows given the time of night.

I should think that any rich man (or plotting murderer) would have been more aware of the poor labouring type from the rough area, who had stared him in the face, than he was of the harmless woman beside him -particularly as he was about to walk down a lonely, dark, notorious street. What about footsteps ?

More of that same bravado.
Do not forget, Astrachan, if the killer, was armed!

If his knife was in the parcel (forget the bag) with it's straps -then how was he going to whip that knife out quickly ?? How would he know that he would finish his assailant off in an instant with no noise ? (he didn't have the advantage of strength (Hutch was a labourer , not a drunken woman). surprise).

]

[Sally]

Bravado

Well, I think there's bravado; and then there's bravado.

There's the bravado that persuaded 'Jack' to take huge risks when killing. In most cases, his window of opportunity was tiny (barring Kelly); and there must have been a high chance of exposure - yet he apparently walked away without notice on every occasion.

Then there's the kind of bravado that would have persuaded him to do all of that whilst dressed as the Super-Villian Astro-Man. I think that kind of bravado would have a special name - stupidity.

I bet if he had stepped out on his killing nights dressed like that we'd have a different story now - because he would have stood out like a sore thumb.

I think Astro-Man should have his own comic strip. I've grown quite fond of him.

[Rubyretro]

I think Astro-Man should have his own comic strip. I've grown quite fond of him.

[/QUOTE]

Me, too !

[Wickerman]

...Hutch was already there when Lewis walked by, so she was "behind" him (in time). Hutch had already followed MK and A-man to the court and started his vigil when Lewis arrived.

Hi Abby.
As Sarah Lewis said that she had noticed your A-man with a woman and then said, "I passed by them and looked back", tends to suggest Lewis was ahead of them. We know from Hutch that he was behind them, therefore Lewis arrived in Millers Court before A-man who arrived before Hutch, regardless of the suggested times.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I thought Astro-Man had a kind of parcel with straps covered in American cloth? When did he get a bag?

IF he existed (doubtful) he was a punter - although what he was doing in Dorset Street would be a mystery. It wouldn't have been such a smart plan to be wandering around the worst street in London with your very visible wealth on display, would it? Never mind go off with some random prostitute who may very well have had a couple of thugs waiting in the wings to rob you. Hell, that sort of thing went on in lodging houses on Dorset Street, let alone the street.

None of it is very plausible. Still less plausible is the notion that Astro-Man was Jack; who had hitherto not been particulary conspicuous, but apparently now felt it appropriate to dress in the latest toff-wear and parade himself about on a street where he would:

a. Almost certainly be robbed or worse
b. be seen by some no-hoper who could later I.D. him.

I don't buy it.

Flaw in the logic being that Hutchinson thought the description would be believed, and Abberline believed it - at least initially. So the idea that a supposed wealthy man could be in the area, wasn't so unbelivable to people of the time. Although a few cuffs here and there doesn't make a man wealthy.

The better argument is that no such man, at least in dress, was seen at the other crime scenes.

[Wickerman]

The better argument is that no such man, at least in dress, was seen at the other crime scenes.

But Mac, that is no argument at all. Even the police, as dumb as the press made them out to be will know the killer will change his clothes if his description is circulated.
At Hanbury St. he wore a deerstalker & a long dark coat.
At Mitre Sq. a cloth cap with a Pepper & Salt jacket.

So long as the age, height, build & facial appearances are close it doesn't matter what clothes he has on.
Anyone who can afford a coat trimmed with Astrachan can also afford a change of clothes.
:-)

Regards, Jon S.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Flaw in the logic being that Hutchinson thought the description would be believed, and Abberline believed it - at least initially. So the idea that a supposed wealthy man could be in the area, wasn't so unbelivable to people of the time. Although a few cuffs here and there doesn't make a man wealthy

.

Fleetwood -I certainly agree that there were wealthy men living in the area -David Gates proved that. Not in Dorset Street, though.

Astro Man didn't have just a "few cuffs" here and there, he had a whole panopoly of gold watch and heavy chain with a red stone, gold tie pin and spats as well as the astrakhan trimmed overcoat. Any man would know not to walk about a dangerous poor area alone in the early hours displaying
conspicuous wealth. Then -or today.

Astro Man could not live in a vacuum. He would have servants, neighbours,
business associates etc. How could he not be recognised from his particular alliance of jewellery once his description was in the papers ?

Abberline appears to have believed in the existance of A Man for all of '5 minutes' -probably due to the favourable impression that Hutchinson had on him when he gave his statement.

[Rubyretro]

But Mac, that is no argument at all. Even the police, as dumb as the press made them out to be will know the killer will change his clothes if his description is circulated.
At Hanbury St. he wore a deerstalker & a long dark coat.
At Mitre Sq. a cloth cap with a Pepper & Salt jacket.

So long as the age, height, build & facial appearances are close it doesn't matter what clothes he has on.
Anyone who can afford a coat trimmed with Astrachan can also afford a change of clothes.
:-)

Regards, Jon S.

It is totally unlikely that the Ripper was a master of disguise with a vast wardrobe. Besides -Astro Man could change his clothes (he would stand out like a sore thumb swanning into a pawn shop in those clothes to buy various old and stained garments) but he couldn't change his voice, cleanliness,
walk, or general air of well preserved breeding. There are a myriad of things that would mark out a rich man from a poor man.

It is not written in stone that any of the witnesses saw JTR. It is likely that Lawende saw him -but as we don't know who Jack was, we can't be certain.

We can be relatively certain that lots of people must have passed Jack on the street immediately before and after the murders and not noticed him at all
because he didn't stand out of the ordinary in any way.

[The Good Michael]

There wasn't a young man on the streets of London who could tell Astrakhan from any other wool in the dead of night, in less than brightly lit conditions. In fact, there are probably a handful of people who know the difference between Astrakhan and Welsh Mountain Sheep wool. This means that Astrakhan was a wish on Hutchinson's part, and has no meaning. Replace Hutchinson's statement with 'a coat trimmed in wool' and it becomes far more plausible. Astrakhan sounds wealthier and gives one poor man reason to observe a believed, wealthier man, but the degree of perceived wealth could have been much higher than the reality. I think 'astrakhan' (the wool), must be taken out of the equation.

Mike

Mike

[Rubyretro]

PS It makes no sense whatsoever for A Man to use different disguises for the first murders, but not bother for the murder of Kelly, which was messier and in a notorious street.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

There wasn't a young man on the streets of London who could tell Astrakhan from any other wool in the dead of night, in less than brightly lit conditions. In fact, there are probably a handful of people who know the difference between Astrakhan and Welsh Mountain Sheep wool. This means that Astrakhan was a wish on Hutchinson's part, and has no meaning. Replace Hutchinson's statement with 'a coat trimmed in wool' and it becomes far more plausible. Astrakhan sounds wealthier and gives one poor man reason to observe a believed, wealthier man, but the degree of perceived wealth could have been much higher than the reality. I think 'astrakhan' (the wool), must be taken out of the equation.

Mike

Atrakhan looks nothing like welsh sheep wool. If Hutchinson used the word, then he knew what it was.