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

[ChainzCooper]

Do you recall that story reported by P. C. Robert Spicer, the description of his suspect?
I think Melvin Harris investigated something about that but I don't recall what he concluded.

Regards, Jon S.

I haven't heard of this. Maybe you could fill me in
Jordan

[Phil H]

Whoever killed MJK must have been VERY messy by the time he had completed his work.

Astrakhan Man - whom I no longer believe was real - was simply too over-dressed not to have borne some bloodstains had he butchered Mary.

Victorian middle and upper class clothing was complex - almost as much so for men as for woman. Simply to take off his button boots and replace them would have required a "button-hook" where di he find that? Gentlemen did not carry such things with them!

He would have worn LAYERS of garments - topcoat, suit jacket.cutaway, waistcost, shirt and underwear - probably either one piece of two garments with legs and sleeves.

I cannot believe that he was able to remove all that and put it on again without getting it stained given the amount of blood in that room and on the floor. Men of that class would normally have valet to assist them in dressing and undressing - there were cuff-links, collar studs and maybe shirt studs to be thought of. What is the chance that - had he ever been in the room - something would have been forgotten - left behind. But we have no record anything was!

So no - on grounds of impracticality, but he is an invention anyway, so doubly NO!

Phil

[Chris]

I haven't heard of this. Maybe you could fill me in

The story is here:

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_express/310316.html

[Sally]

He would not stand out in the West end, but in the East end people look up to him, stand aside while he walks past. He commands attention and may even re-appear at the crime scene's to gloat over their amazement. See the terror in their faces, all the while the killer is breathing down their necks.
I'm not making this up Sally, it's what they do...

Yeah, but what you've got to ask yourself is, with McCarthy and Crossingham in business, would there be room for another one?

I see what you're saying, Wickerman, and I don't disagree that 'Jack' probably thought he was special - superior? Probably. I'm just not sure if dressing up like the dog's dinner would have been what he did. Clearly, he wasn't stupid - somebody dressed like that would stand out. Actually, that's what Honest Geo said, isn't it - that his suspicions were aroused by seeing somebody like Astro-Man out and about? And a murderer who stood out from the crowd would have been stupid.

Your idea that the Bethnal Green Botherer and Astro-Man were one and the same is quite interesting. I think I've seen some pretty convincing arguments against this in the past, but I can't think where - my memory isn't always great, I'm afraid - maybe somebody else will know?

Well, if they were one and the same, and were in fact 'Jack'; why the decision to become conspicuous all of a sudden, having been virtually invisible hitherto?

I think Jtr blended into the scene. I think he appeared unremarkable. I don't think he was Astro-Man, therefore.

[Sally]

Phil..

So no - on grounds of impracticality, but he is an invention anyway, so doubly NO!

I'm afraid to say that I must agree with you Phil. Drat.

[ChainzCooper]

The story is here:
http://www.casebook.org/press_report...ss/310316.html

Yes, I remember now reading about this in Shirley Harrison's book. Very interesting
Jordan

[Phil H]

[Wickerman]

... Actually, that's what Honest Geo said, isn't it - that his suspicions were aroused by seeing somebody like Astro-Man out and about?

Absolutely, yet some members have wondered, "why was he suspicious?", yet you just answered it yourself.
Remember P.C. Spicer's story, and that this suspicious gent was so darn sure of himself he didn't even try to get away.
He could talk his way out of it, naturally the social divisions in society mean the police were not looking for a West-end gentleman but an East-end, foreign, guttersnipe or insane medical student.

Your idea that the Bethnal Green Botherer and Astro-Man were one and the same is quite interesting. I think I've seen some pretty convincing arguments against this in the past, but I can't think where - my memory isn't always great, I'm afraid - maybe somebody else will know?

Yes, I came across a thread where this was brought up before.
The only arguments against it rely on accuracy of eye-witness descriptions and whether they can be suitably compared.
And, as everybody knows, eye-witness testimony can be notoriously unreliable.

Well, if they were one and the same, and were in fact 'Jack'; why the decision to become conspicuous all of a sudden, having been virtually invisible hitherto?

Have you not heard, one of the best places to hide is in plain sight!

I think Jtr blended into the scene. I think he appeared unremarkable. I don't think he was Astro-Man, therefore.

Right, but I don't think it is 'obvious' that JtR killed MJK.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Yes, I remember now reading about this in Shirley Harrison's book. Very interesting
Jordan

Actually, that article doesn't mention Melvin Harris. What I was referring to was Harris investigated Donald McCormick's book where he published his "Eight little whores" rhyme. It was being passed off as a 19th century contemporary poem.
In this rhyme McCormick spelled Heneage as Henage, which is how Robert Spicer mistakenly spelled the same Court.
Harris charged that the poem was inspired by the Spicer report and as such the claim that the poem originated in the 19th century is a fraudulent claim.

So, what I was thinking had no direct bearing on what I wrote.

Regards, Jon S.

[Rubyretro]

..just by the way..how do those who believe that A Man existed, and was the likely murderer, explain Lawende's statement ?

Do they think that Lawende was
-lying ?
-mistaken ?
-Lawende's man was not Jack ?
-A Man was a master of disguises ?

?...??

[Wickerman]

Victorian middle and upper class clothing was complex - almost as much so for men as for woman. Simply to take off his button boots and replace them would have required a "button-hook" where di he find that? Gentlemen did not carry such things with them!

Phil.
You are thinking from your point of view, instead you must look at this from his point.
Why would you assume he will undress?
What does a surgeon do in the operating room?

Even in Victorian hospitals they wore a smock, coveralls, sleeves, etc.

I know we are having a lighthearted debate but still you must look at this from the point of view that He has to do this, so how is he going to achieve this murder with the least mess on himself?
He carried a bag, so they say, what do you think was in this bag, as well as his knife lets say?
It may have been his, "Just in case" bag
;-)

Where there's a will, there's a way.
If this man was out hunting a victim then perhaps he also came prepared.

Regards, Jon S.

[Chris]

Actually, that article doesn't mention Melvin Harris. What I was referring to was Harris investigated Donald McCormick's book where he published his "Eight little whores" rhyme. It was being passed off as a 19th century contemporary poem.
In this rhyme McCormick spelled Heneage as Henage, which is how Robert Spicer mistakenly spelled the same Court.
Harris charged that the poem was inspired by the Spicer report and as such the claim that the poem originated in the 19th century is a fraudulent claim.

That was a link to the original article on the Spicer story.

Some of Melvin Harris's observations on McCormick's book can be found in his dissertation "The Maybrick Hoax: Donald McCormick's Legacy" here:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mb-mc.html

Unfortunately now I'll have to go outside, turn round three times and spit over my left shoulder ...

[Fleetwood Mac]

Just asking ...

Depends on whether or not you go with the 'picked up a client on the street' idea.

If you were to go with this idea, then he's the last client seen with her, so would be the prime suspect.

It's an interesting one: Cox alone sees Blotchy; Lewis alone sees the loiterer -and so it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that Hutchinson alone sees the mysterious A.

I have a question: were Lewis or Cox a man, would people question their motive in the same way Hutchison has been questioned?

[Fleetwood Mac]

..just by the way..how do those who believe that A Man existed, and was the likely murderer, explain Lawende's statement ?

Do they think that Lawende was
-lying ?
-mistaken ?
-Lawende's man was not Jack ?
-A Man was a master of disguises ?

?...??

It's a good point.

Lawende's man fits my impression of Jack.

It would be a major surprise were it to turn out that the man seen with Eddowes 10 minutes before she was found, was someone other than Jack.

[Wickerman]

..just by the way..how do those who believe that A Man existed, and was the likely murderer, explain Lawende's statement ?

Do they think that Lawende was
-lying ?
-mistaken ?
-Lawende's man was not Jack ?
-A Man was a master of disguises ?

?...??

What colour handkerchief did Astrachan give to Mary?, and what colour neckerchief did Lawande's man wear around his neck?
:-)

Joking aside, apart from a different hat they could easily be the same man, like the man PC William Smith saw, like the man Schwartz saw.

No-one needs to be lying, just honest varied opinions from different distances, in different lighting, from different angles.

Regards, Jon S.