The press, what they knew and how they knew it.

[DVV]

Hi David,
I think some Laphroaig is sorely needed after the wading through this thread!
Ben

Hi Ben, sure.
One dram for Astrakhan Isaacs.
Another for Bond's TOD.
And one bucket straight from the cask for the Sunday sighting.

Slainte

[Ben]

Hi David,

I think some Laphroaig is sorely needed after the wading through this thread!

Jon - you're just repeating yourself practically verbatim now, which means I need only reproduce precisely what I've already said in reply.

The Lloyds Weekly Newspaper, is incorrect.

The last paragraph refers to the attack on Annie Farmer as a murder, giving the misleading impression that his imprisonment was at the time of the Dorset St. murder, which is false.

You have absolutely no grounds for declaring it false, Jon. You simply want it to be so that you can cast Isaacs in the role of the ludicrous, discredited Astrakhan man based on no evidence whatsoever. But you're completely out of luck, because there is absolutely nothing to contradict the Lloyds article, even less to connect him with Astrakhan, and every reason to conclude that this was the reason for Isaacs being dropped as a suspect. If you have proof that he was "on the streets" at the time of the murder, only then would you be justified in declaring the article "incorrect", but you don't.

The last sentence in that article contains two occurrences of the word 'murder', they should be replaced with 'outrage' or 'assault', because it only refers to Annie Farmer, who was not murdered

More nonsense. You're simply altering the article's wording to make it fit with your errant conclusions. The article mentioned a "murder", not an "attack", which is our first indication that it referred not to Farmer but to Kelly. The fact that the same article also mentions the "Dorset Street murder" ought to clinch it. I suppose you want to turn the stolen coat into a stolen watch too, despite it being an obvious reference to a completely separate arrest for a completely separate offence?

Nobody ever suggested that Isaacs wore an Astrakhan coat. He was a lowly cigar-maker and thief with no fixed above - one of the impoverished masses who obviously couldn't have looked anything like Astrakhan in terms of clothing and accessories. He is a shockingly terrible candidate for an almost certainly invented suspect.

Isaacs did not need any great "means" to change his attire. He had only to change from one Joe-average set of clothing into another if he fancied a bit of variety, or failing that, he could nick some clothes for himself, which according to the Lloyds article is precisely what he did.

It seems quite reasonable to conclude that Isaac's had no alibi to prevent him being charged with murder. So why is it we read this?

"The police, however, were led to believe that he was connected, not with the mutilations, but with the recent attempt to murder a woman in George-street, Spitalfields."

Because the police had already found a prison alibi for Isaacs for the ripper-attributed murder, but still wondered if he may have been responsible for the Farmer attack. Obviously he wasn't because his thieving ways provided him with an alibi in that case too. Nothing remotely to do with Astra-stupid-khan who had long since been laughed out of town and discredited. You really ought to at least try to consider the Isaacs case in isolation from Hutchinson's account, because they're really nothing to do with each other.

Or, they had been given direction from another source which essentially eliminates any suspect appearing on the scene after 2:00 am.

Or...OR...the police didn't take Isaacs seriously as a suspect in the long run (most likely due to the alibi alluded to in Lloyds), and they took Hutchinson even less seriously as a witness, and for reasons that had sod-all to do with Bond's time of death (which the police evidently didn't consider the most likely time anyway).

This, marks the end of the 'Hutchinson Discredited' hypothesis

No, this marks the end of you derailing your own thread with the same Isaacs nonsense we've thrashed out before.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Thanks, Roy.

I wasn't aware that Debs located the same article!

[Wickerman]

Thankyou Roy, yes he may have been arrested the day before, or the 10th?

Apparently no record exists I assume.

[Roy Corduroy]

Nov 12 Joseph Isaacs prosecuted in Barnet Police Court and sentenced to 21 days hard labor.

That was police court. We actually don't know the date of his arrest there.

Roy

[Wickerman]

Dave.

The Lloyds Weekly Newspaper, is incorrect.

The last paragraph refers to the attack on Annie Farmer as a murder, giving the misleading impression that his imprisonment was at the time of the Dorset St. murder, which is false.

The last sentence in that article contains two occurrences of the word 'murder', they should be replaced with 'outrage' or 'assault', because it only refers to Annie Farmer, who was not murdered.

Actually, the Northern Daily Telegraph offers the most accurate coverage, in so far as it goes.
http://www.casebook.org/press_report...ph/881207.html

The only accurate record of the whereabouts of Joseph Isaac's from 12th Nov. on into December is the Calendars of Conviction and Depositions for the County of London North, held at the London Met Archives.

Joseph Isaac's was on the streets when Mary Cusins said he was, her story is likely the most obvious source for the suggestion that Isaac's resembled the Hutchinson suspect even down to the coat trimmed with Astrachan.
Cornelius Oakes said he often changed his dress, suggesting Isaac's was not pennyless, and had the means to change his attire.
He lived around the corner from Mary Kelly.
He was the right age at 30, "of short stature with black moustache" and was well known in the area.

Of course it can never be proven that this was who Hutchinson saw, but realistically there is no better candidate.

And, we also read that the police made extensive enquiries into his whereabouts at the time of the Dorset St. murder.

"The prisoner had been sought for by the police in consequence of a report regarding his movements on the night of the murder of Mary Janet Kelly, in Dorset-street, Spitalfields, and it was said by the police that they wished the fullest inquiry as to his doings on the night in question. For that purpose he was remanded,..." (Dec 15th)

"The detectives at the East End made every inquiry in the neighbourhood concerning the suspect, who is well known in the locality, although he is stated to have been absent lately." (Dec 7th)

It seems quite reasonable to conclude that Isaac's had no alibi to prevent him being charged with murder. So why is it we read this?

"The police, however, were led to believe that he was connected, not with the mutilations, but with the recent attempt to murder a woman in George-street, Spitalfields."

Either the police decided Isaac's was not Astrachan, for which no logical argument exists.
Or, the police located another 'Astrachan', same age, same description, also known in the area, and exonerated him also?
Or, they had been given direction from another source which essentially eliminates any suspect appearing on the scene after 2:00 am.

This is where Dr. Bond's estimated time of death comes into play.
Subsequently, Scotland Yard are 'induced' to realign their enquiries with the Cox suspect.

This, marks the end of the 'Hutchinson Discredited' hypothesis.

[DVV]

Hi Roy,

thanks for the link.

And my advice for all researchers : when you think you've discovered something new, please, check all Debs' posts first.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Correct, Wick. Charles Van Onselen found the arrest record. And Debs had shared the Lloyd's article

Timeline here -

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=964

Roy

I thank you for this Roy, actually I had your post to refer to:
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...35&postcount=1

but chose not to drag you into these pointless exchanges unless I was challenged to prove it.

Have a great day Roy.

[Roy Corduroy]

Correct, Wick. Charles Van Onselen found the arrest record. And Debs had shared the Lloyd's article

Timeline here -

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=964

Roy

[Wickerman]

And finally we return, annoyingly and pointlessly, to the utterly resolved Isaacs issue.

Likely due to you not reading what was written.

Isaacs was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder.

Please refer once again to the article that appeared in Lloyds Weekly Newspaper on 23rd December 1888, as discovered by Howard Brown on JTRForums. I'm very surprised that Howard's excellent find received no commentary at all considering that Isaacs is occasionally touted as a suspect even today, and not just on message boards.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=17438

Note the relevant passage:

I don't need to Ben, its wrong!

The London Metropolitan Archives show a record of Isaac's being tried and sentenced, and imprisoned for 21 days, between 12th Nov. and 3rd December.

He was NOT in prison at the time of Kelly murder.

Thats it!

As for everything else you write, it is just as wrong as it has always been.

[Ben]

And finally we return, annoyingly and pointlessly, to the utterly resolved Isaacs issue.

Isaac's may not have been Astrachan, we have no proof either way. So equally, he just may have been Astrachan.

No.

ISAACS WAS NOT ASTRAKHAN.

Isaacs was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder.

Please refer once again to the article that appeared in Lloyds Weekly Newspaper on 23rd December 1888, as discovered by Howard Brown on JTRForums. I'm very surprised that Howard's excellent find received no commentary at all considering that Isaacs is occasionally touted as a suspect even today, and not just on message boards.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=17438

Note the relevant passage:

"The result is that it is ascertained that at the time of the murder he was undergoing a term of imprisonment for stealing a coat, which proves he could not have been connected with the murder"

There is the uncomplicated, astoundingly simple reason for Isaacs being dropped as a suspect. He was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder for stealing a coat, whereas later, he was arrested and sentenced to hard labour for stealing a watch. These were two separate punishments for two separate offences, not to be confused with each other. Contrary to your false assertion that Cusins' claim remains "unchallenged", this revelation utterly destroys it, appearing as it did considerably later (23rd December), when the truth of the matter had been ascertained. The article in question has nothing whatsoever to do Annie Farmer, as is made clear by the fact that Isaacs could not be connected with the "murder", not just an "attack" (and as you note, he had an alibi for Farmer too).

There is no evidence that Isaacs wore an Astrakhan coat; it was merely observed that he looked like someone who did. Some people have moustaches that make them look like Hitler, but that doesn't mean they also wear swastika arm-bands. It was only a press observation that the two shared similarities, and there is no evidence at all that the police were interested in him for that reason.

It is pitiable, risible nonsense to claim that any aspect of the Isaacs episode supports any of Hutchinson's claims. Isaacs was a lowly thief who was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder, whereas Astrakhan was probably a figment of Hutchinson's imagination, as set forth in his discredited account.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

By "he" you mean Abberline, and no, the report is most certainly not a "cover letter".

I'm perfectly justified in describing it as such, Jon. I'm well aware that it provided other details of the investigation that were unrelated to Hutchinson, but it still served the function of a "cover letter" or "covering report" to the statement, which, by the way, Abberline did send up the chain to Swanson. That much is abundantly clear from his comment in the same letter/report: ""An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith"

You're seriously suggesting that the covering letter was all Abberline sent to his superiors, minus the statement itself, and without even including the description? If that was standard practice for Abberline (which it definitely wasn't, but let's play), how was Swanson able to know anything about Schwartz's account and description, let alone recount so much of it?

First, a 'possible' second sighting, in a market on Sunday, is not a detail that the police can work with, not unless he was adamant about it, and clearly he was not. It may have potential value, but not immediate value.

Nonsense. Of course it was a crucial detail that the police "can work with" whether it was merely "possible" or something more concrete. The function of an investigation is to explore possibilities; possible avenues of enquiry, possible suspects, possibly bogus witness accounts etc. The moment the police throw their hands up in the air and say "nah, if it's not established with certainty we can't be arsed", is the moment they fail in their duty. Moreover, it only takes a few seconds to write down the detail that Hutchinson had allegedly seen the same man again at a different location, so why save it for a later date?

No, it would have been senseless, negligent and foolish for Abberline to have withheld the "Sunday policeman" episode had Hutchinson said anything about it on the Monday. The corollary, therefore, is that he didn't.

And so Abberline makes enquiries, locates which PC was on duty at the market and questions him. The PC informs Abberline that a man did come to him with a story and that he said he thought he saw the man briefly but lost him in the crowd. There was no trace of the man that I could see so I told him I cannot leave my post but if you are sure then go to Commercial St. station and report to the Inspector what you saw.

This is your definition of shocking negligence?

Yes.

It's also my definition of painful nonsense that certainly never happened.

Firstly, Hutchinson would have mentioned the original Friday episode to this non-existent policeman in order to provide a context for the Petticoat Lane sighting. "Lost in the crowd" and "fixed point duty" are not contained within any part of Hutchinson's press or police statement. They are simply details you've made up out of nowhere in an attempt to make a wildly implausible claim seem less so, and they don't succeed. The PC could have made up any crap excuse he wanted to, but the bottom line is that because of his failure to act, Hutchinson could have been known the police - and Astrakhan accordingly investigated - well in advance of him coming forward at 6pm on Monday 12th.

But anyway, we've been over the non-existent policeman many times, so that's going to have to be you done with that particular argument. Visit "Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting" if you're insistent on reviving that one.

On the subject of well-dressed men frequenting the East end, William Fishman provides a few examples

You ought to pay more attention to what you're actually quoting. Fishman simply observed that "gentleman slummers" used to visit the East End - he doesn't say which part. At no point does he suggest that they were "well-dressed" when they went there, which is just as well because it's inconceivable that the slummers dressed in their best when on the hunt for "cheap and easy sex", especially if they intended to doss down for the night(s).

The John Boyle example also tells us absolutely nothing about the existence of well-dressed men on the streets of Whitechapel. When he was found in Brick Lane, he clearly didn't look anything like Astrakhan, as his "fortune" had already left him. The article observed simply that he was accustomed to dressing stylishly when visiting friends, and you can guarantee this didn't happen in Brick Lane!

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Bridewell,

The area was Commercial Street. Why was Astrakhan Man out of place for Commercial Street, one of the main London thoroughfares?

That part of Commercial Street was slap bang in the middle of one of the most notorious areas of London. With Dorset Street on one side and Flower and Dean Street on the other, it wasn't a place for anyone to be in the small hours of the morning at the height of the ripper scare, however much of a thoroughfare it was, especially not an ostentatiously-dressed dandy whose appearance matched a lot of the bogus "ripper" attributes.

Setting aside my very serious doubts that your average East End local had the means or the opportunity to pull of even a remotely convincing Astrakhan get-up, I'm far more inclined to rule out such a scenario on the basis that nobody would be that imprudent, less still the actual killer, whose previous strategy of dressing like the working class local he probably was, had proved perfectly effective up until then.

You're quite right to highlight the poor lighting conditions, but this only reinforces how unlikely it is that Hutchinson could have even seen many of the items he described, let alone notice them and confuse them for something more valuable. Any sort of watch chain was almost certain to be hidden beneath two overcoats in a dark street in Victorian London.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

I'm afraid you may have seriously misinterpreted Garry's post if you thought he was arguing against the Victoria Home being a likely location for a ripper's bolt-hole. You won't find a single criminologist or expert in geographical profiling argue that the Victoria Home was too close to the murder locations to be a credible lair for the killer. In fact, it's difficult to envisage many places better suited.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

The basic premise of any Hutchinson argument has always been this erroneous belief that he was discredited. It is necessary to understand the impact that the medical opinion would have had on the direction of the investigation. This is not an attempt by me to establish that Bond was correct, it is more to explain why the Hutchinson investigation faded out over time with no tangible resolve.

You repeat this nonsense far too often, Jon, and as though it has never been thoroughly refuted, which it has, many times. Hutchinson's discrediting (which is a reality, not an "erroneous belief") had absolutely nothing to do with Bond's time of death, which, incidentally, was not accepted without question by the police. On the contrary, it is quite clear from other sources that the police considered the mutually corroborative evidence of Lewis and Prater to be a rough guide in that respect. The Echo makes perfectly clear the reasons for Hutchinson's evidence being "considerably discounted", and it involved his lateness in coming forward and the inevitable impact this had on his credibility.

Nothing to do with any "change of direction from above" - just the lessening of importance attached to Hutchinson because they doubted his credibility.

Had they "considered him a liar" as you put it, they would have dropped the investigation immediately which they did not do.

No, they wouldn't have done.

If they could "prove" him a liar, they would have dropped him immediately. The reality, however, is that they merely suspected him of lying, which wouldn't have been sufficient to drop him altogether. Having said that, there is absolutely no evidence that Hutchinson's evidence was still taken seriously after the 15th November (when the Star also mentioned that his account was "now discredited" under the heading "worthless stories lead police on false scent"), so the discrediting process can hardly have been a very drawn out one, and his chit chat with the press can only have expedited it.