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

[Wickerman]

Whereas I understand your logic, Jon, the problem for me is that Isaacs entered the equation only after Hutchinson had been discredited,

If you recall, the police were given the story of a missing tenant while they were conducting the house-to-house over the weekend. This tenant turned out to be Isaac's, so this was even before Hutchinson came forward on the Monday.

Without wishing to labour the point, we have to make the distinction between those who the police suspected and those who were investigated after being named by members of the public. Once we remember that many of those comprising this latter group were given into custody merely because they carried a black bag, the importance of such a distinction becomes self-evident.

I certainly agree to the distinction and Isaac's was being looked for as a result of his landlady's story, not because he was a suspect in the latest murder.
Though once the landlady gave a description, which she must surely have been requested to do, then to have it repeated in a similar vein by Hutchinson on the Monday may have caused them to crank up their search for this man.
These are just hypothetical considerations as to why the police believed Hutchinson.

[Garry Wroe]

My mistake. Point being that people tend to think that people with more education make better witnesses. So I have found, anyway.

The psychological research would tend to bear this out, C4. There are also examples of working-class conmen whose success rate soared once they acquired an Oxbridge accent.

P.S. Wasn't a costermonger a market stall holder?

And that was my mistake, C4. I thought that you'd referred to a market trader, which loosely speaking was a coster. Specifically, though, the costermonger was a market trader who sold fruit and vegetables.

[Garry Wroe]

Whereas I understand your logic, Jon, the problem for me is that Isaacs entered the equation only after Hutchinson had been discredited, by which time the manhunt was once again focused on local slum dwellers, low lodging house patrons and those who frequented casual wards. Without wishing to labour the point, we have to make the distinction between those who the police suspected and those who were investigated after being named by members of the public. Once we remember that many of those comprising this latter group were given into custody merely because they carried a black bag, the importance of such a distinction becomes self-evident.

[Wickerman]

I'm very well aware of that, but Abberline did provide details of his interview with Hutchinson when he submitted his report on the matter to his superiors. He mentioned that Hutchinson was in no regular employment and that he had known Kelly for three years. Had Hutchinson related the alleged Sunday encounter to Abberline, the detail would certainly have been included in that same covering missive...

Not in the slightest, the summary is merely a brief collection of highlites. The full record of the interrogation is available if and when Central Office choose to read up on the finer details.

Hutchinson quite possibly told Abberline all the same details he provided to the Central News reporter.
A voluntary statement given by a witness to the police will always contain fewer details than a subsequent interview with a detective. Once reminded of the smaller details after being questioned Hutchinson would come away from the interview fully-loaded, if you like, so of course the next time he gives his story it will contain more than his initial offering to Badham.
Thats just human nature.

In addition, Abberline would have been eager to trace the mysterious, negligent policeman

Why negligent? - you have an awful habit of criticizing others when you don't have the full story.

He said, "I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen,.", what had he seen?
What part of the story is he talking about, hardly likely he occupied the policeman with the whole story from beginning to end. The policemen were bringing people in all the time with strange stories, possibly the constable thought this was just another one.

Even if he did, the constable may have told him to go to Commercial St. and report his story to them, hence the subsequent disclaimer, "but did not go to the police-station.". Why say that?
Possibly because this is precisely what the constable told him to do? There is absolutely no justification for suggesting negligence.
If the policeman in question was the one on point-duty at the market then he is not supposed to leave his post.

There are quite reasonable solutions if you only take the time to consider them.

[Wickerman]

... This does not infer that Isaacs was ever a realistic suspect, and nor does it serve as confirmation that investigators continued to accept Hutchinson's Astrakhan story. Not even remotely so.

All that is necessary Garry is that the police accept the description provided by Hutchinson.
After the house-to-house search over the weekend turned up this missing tenant, his name provided, and subsequently the description they obtained of him simply confirmed that a man fitting the description provided by Hutchinson did indeed live in the area.
This was all that was needed to confirm this part of Hutchinson's story, ie, that it was not all made up.

I'm not suggesting Astrachan(if Isaac's) became a suspect, only that whoever Hutchinson claimed he saw did indeed exist, and was a local man.
Dr. Bond's estimated time of death rules out any culpability on the part of Astrachan(if Isaac's).

[curious4]

Digging a hole

Hello Ben,

That wasn't exactly what I meant, but I have the feeling I would be digging myself into an even deeper hole if I argued the point!

Best wishes,
C4

[Ben]

Thats right Ben, they arrested every male, by the thousands, sporting a heavy dark moustache because they all looked like Astrachan, even without the coat...

Please see Garry's post #77, Jon.

There is absolutely no evidence that the police arrested anyone on the basis of Hutchinson's description.

Try to remember, Hutchinson's statement is his offering to Badham, it is not the result of his later interview with Abberline.

I'm very well aware of that, but Abberline did provide details of his interview with Hutchinson when he submitted his report on the matter to his superiors. He mentioned that Hutchinson was in no regular employment and that he had known Kelly for three years. Had Hutchinson related the alleged Sunday encounter to Abberline, the detail would certainly have been included in that same covering missive. In addition, Abberline would have been eager to trace the mysterious, negligent policeman to whom Hutchinson allegedly related his original account, had he raised his spectre during the initial police interview. Indeed, given that Hutchinson's discrediting occurred so soon after the release of his press account, it is likely that the police investigated the matter, discovered that the "mystery policeman" episode was false, resulting in further scepticism being heaped on the account.

Hi C4,

There are many reasons for treating Hutchinson's account with suspicion, but his apparent lack of formal education certainly isn't one of them.

All the best,
Ben

[curious4]

Unemployed

Hello Gary,

My mistake. Point being that people tend to think that people with more education make better witnesses. So I have found, anyway.

Best wishes,
C4

P.S. Wasn't a costermonger a market stall holder?

[Garry Wroe]

Hutchinson was variously described as an unemployed labourer and former groom, C4. As far as I'm aware there was never any suggestion that he was a coster.

[curious4]

Backup

Hi everyone,
Just a thought - if the man Hutch 'saw' was a local hard man or villain then why wouldn't he dress in 'flash' clothes without fear of being attacked - I'm sure the Krays in their silk suits never had to worry about being mugged when they were out and about.
Cheers
Albert

Hello Albert,

Or unless he had some kind of backup lurking in the shadows.

Personally I tend towards believing Hutch. Some people just make excellent witnesses. Because he worked as a market porter doesn't mean he wasn't one of them.

Best wishes,
C4

[Garry Wroe]

Isaacs is an absolute non-starter when it comes to any sort of support for Hutchinson's Astrakhan story.

Absolutely, Ben. His name cropped up courtesy of information provided by a member of the public. Subsequent enquiries were prosecuted as a matter of basic procedure, as was the case with Dr Holt, Issenschmidt and countless others. This does not infer that Isaacs was ever a realistic suspect, and nor does it serve as confirmation that investigators continued to accept Hutchinson's Astrakhan story. Not even remotely so.

[Garry Wroe]

My understanding is that an officer on fixed-point duty was permitted to leave his post if the urgency of the situation demanded it, but that the first patrolling officer to find the fixed point vacant would be required to man it until his colleague's return.

A complaint was lodged with regard to this very issue, Colin. The official response stated that the officer concerned had not been permitted under the rules to vacate his post on the morning of the Chapman murder.

From Dickens's Dictionary of London 1888:-

Fixed Points (Police)
"The under-mentioned places are appointed as fixed points where a police constable is to be permanently stationed from 9pm to 1am. In the event of any person springing a rattle, or persistently ringing a bell in the street or in an area the police will at once proceed to the spot and render assistance".

Chapman's body was discovered at approximately 6:00am, Colin. So even if this rule was in operation at the time it was irrelevant with respect to the Hanbury Street crime.

[Wickerman]

... Nobody ever said Isaacs wore an Astrakhan coat; it was merely observed that he resembled someone who did - which, again, could amount to little more than a Jewish appearance and a slight (or heavy!) moustache.

Thats right Ben, they arrested every male, by the thousands, sporting a heavy dark moustache because they all looked like Astrachan, even without the coat...
(We are not dealing with the Keystone Cops here)

Hutchinson's Sunday sighting is, as you suggest, deeply implausible, not least because he made no reference to it during his "interrogation" with Abberline.

No!, you do not know what Hutchinson said to Abberline.

Ben, there are two issues here.

First, Hutchinson made a voluntary statement only offering what he thought relevant at the time. The witness is not questioned or prompted when making a voluntary statement.

Second, after the statement was made it was taken to Abberline who no doubt used it in the subsequent interview.
No record of that interview/interrogation has survived so we do not know what Hutchinson told Abberline.

Once again you try to make an argument from silence.

Try to remember, Hutchinson's statement is his offering to Badham, it is not the result of his later interview with Abberline.

[Ben]

I agree entirely with your points, David.

Isaacs is an absolute non-starter when it comes to any sort of support for Hutchinson's Astrakhan story. He was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder, and cannot realistically have dressed anything like Hutchinson's description of Astrakhan. Nobody ever said Isaacs wore an Astrakhan coat; it was merely observed that he resembled someone who did - which, again, could amount to little more than a Jewish appearance and a slight (or heavy!) moustache.

Hutchinson's Sunday sighting is, as you suggest, deeply implausible, not least because he made no reference to it during his "interrogation" with Abberline. Unless Hutchinson was extremely selective in his newspaper reading, it is impossible to accept that he could have been swayed by the very few press reports suggesting Kelly had been killed much later in the morning, and even if he had been, his Astrakhan sighting was still of pivotal value had it been true. And yet we're expected to believe he failed to raise any sort of alarm when this "second sighting" supposedly occurred.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi David.

Hi Jon,

it's all unbelievable. Here is a man nobody has ever seen, except Hutch.

I think what you mean to say is, no other witness saw this man that night?

There is no way we can claim "no-one ever saw him". Especially as Isaac's wore this same coat, was the right age, and lived just around the corner from Dorset St.
So clearly you have in Isaac's the existence of a local resident who adds credibility to Hutchinson's claim.

Note also that on Friday night, Hutch had the guts to follow him and to wait in the cold for 45 minutes.
But on Sunday, he didn't make any move.

If Hutch was working at a market stall shifting crates, he would lose his job if he just took off. But then what is the crisis?, the weekend papers suggested Kelly could have died as late as 9 o'clock Friday morning, so what could Astrachan possibly have had to do with it?

Note also that he did not mention that Sunday sighting on Monday.

He told the press the man lived in the neighborhood and included a Sunday morning sighting, should he have listed every time he has seen this man?
There's nothing important about seeing him Sunday. Abberline is really only concerned with what Hutchinson saw and heard on the night of the murder.