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

[Wickerman]

How about Hutchinson was merely surprised at seeing such a man in company with Kelly, because the men he usually saw with her looked a good deal shabbier?

Thankyou Caz, sorry, didn't see you had dealt with this already

[Wickerman]

... If individual officers had their suspicions concerning a potential suspect, a report was submitted and passed up the command chain. Only then would a specific operation be sanctioned and allocated resources.

I think we're talking about the same thing here. If Abberline passed a report up the pipeline concerning one suspect then orders would come back specifically for him. Should Reid also pass up a report on another suspect then he would get orders back, likelwise any detective on the force would get the ok to pursue his own line of enquiry.
I'm not talking about a free-for-all, what I'm talking about is not the whole force pursuing one suspect at a time. Different detectives were allowed to follow their own leads and pursue their own suspects.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Garry.
I highlited the pertinent point, if you read Hutchinson again (not that you need to), you may see the error of your ways.
Hutchinson was not surprised to see an opulent looking foreigner in Dorset St. He was surprised to see an opulent looking foreigner with Mary Kelly.

This appears to be the only reason he took note of him. I think therein lies the difference you overlook.

You mean opulent looking British Jew. That's how hutch described him.


And really what's the difference between hutch saying it was because he stuck out because he was well dressed with Kelly or well dressed in the area?

[Wickerman]

You mean opulent looking British Jew. That's how hutch described him.


And really what's the difference between hutch saying it was because he stuck out because he was well dressed with Kelly or well dressed in the area?

The answer lies within the question.

[Abby Normal]

The answer lies within the question.

Ok what's the difference then for the sake of the argument? I am asking an honest question because I really want to know.

[Wickerman]

Ok what's the difference then for the sake of the argument? I am asking an honest question because I really want to know.

First point Abby, Astrachan was only 'Respectable looking', whether his clothes had seen better days is not indicated one way or the other.
Second point, Abberline wrote:
"...Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them."

The press account reads:
"My suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well-dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer."

So what did Hutchinson mean by this, did he mean "too well dressed for this part of town?" - clearly not, because he goes on to say, "I believe that he lives in the neighborhood,.."

Right, so to see a respectable looking man in this area is not unusual, but seeing Mary Kelly on the arm of a respectably dressed man is!

An honest answer to an honest question?

[caz]

Hi Abby,

Commercial Street was and is a main thoroughfare, which people from all classes used, day and night. It would not have been remotely unusual to see the respectably dressed, the shabby genteel, the showily dressed wide boy type (as A man appears to have been) and the dirt poor, each minding their own business walking up or down Commercial to get from A to B. Why do you think prostitutes would seek customers along the main roads and not stick with the teeming lodging houses? More chance of more money, pure and simple.

Hutch was probably just over-egging the pudding with hindsight, as many witnesses do, regarding the flashy man he was surprised to see Kelly picking up. A spot of jealousy too, no doubt, if he could not afford her that night.

Love,

Caz
X

[DVV]

So what did Hutchinson mean by this, did he mean "too well dressed for this part of town?" - clearly not, because he goes on to say, "I believe that he lives in the neighborhood,.."

Hi Jon,

If I'm correct he added this after the unbelievable "Sunday sighting", it's not in his statement.
And it's still a contradiction.

Cheers

[Garry Wroe]

How about Hutchinson was merely surprised at seeing such a man in company with Kelly, because the men he usually saw with her looked a good deal shabbier?

It makes no difference either way, Caz. Hutchinson claimed that Astrakhan was well dressed and adorned with gold and gemstones. I am simply stating that such an appearance would have been incompatible with Isaacs, a man who certainly did reside in the immediate locality and did so in low lodgings. Now, if you or anyone else believe that Isaacs’ possessions would have lasted more than five minutes in what was generally considered to have been the lawless doss house environment, that’s your prerogative. But you might as well argue that Isaacs left a Stradavarius with his landlady when he went walkabout. For my part, I prefer to deal in historical reality – the reality, for example, that Liz Prater felt compelled to barricade her door on the night of Kelly’s death. Or the reality that Tom Sadler was mugged twice in a single night as he traversed the East End. The requirement, therefore, is that we apply common sense to this issue. Once we do it becomes patently obvious that Isaacs could not have been the well groomed, opulent looking individual that Hutchinson claimed to have seen in Kelly’s company shortly before her death.

If Astrakhan's appearance was so out of the ordinary for the immediate locality (Commercial St no less, where the trams were coming soon) and he really did stick out like a sore thumb, it's a wonder the police took Hutch so seriously to begin with that they even accompanied him round the streets expecting to see such an extraordinary specimen again.

Investigators were compelled to follow each and every lead to its ultimate conclusion, irrespective of the expectation that many of those leads would go precisely nowhere. It was basic operational procedure. Hence Packer was questioned repeatedly despite the fact that he was clearly believed to have been either a fantasist or profiteer – or both.

Similarly, if Hutch was not the killer (and therefore not one of a teeny-tiny minority of serial killers who come forward to try and shift any suspicion before it lands on them), the police still appear to have been looking in all the wrong places. They had no evidence of the killer's class or circumstances. None at all.

Until such time as the killer’s identity has been positively established, Caz, you cannot state with any certainty that investigators looked in ‘all the wrong places.’ As for the notion that there was no evidence indicative of the killer’s ‘class or circumstances’, the police had by the time of Kelly’s death three eyewitness sightings of the man believed to have been the murderer, neither one of which was even vaguely suggestive that the wanted man was anything but working-class.

So why could the ripper not have been one of a minority of serial offenders who prefer to put a bit of distance between their home and their playing field …

It is the serialist who kills on or close to his own doorstep who is in the minority, Caz. The majority kill beyond the psychological buffer zone constructed around their operational base in order to prevent any criminal investigation coming too close to home.

[Abby Normal]

First point Abby, Astrachan was only 'Respectable looking', whether his clothes had seen better days is not indicated one way or the other.
Second point, Abberline wrote:
"...Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them."

The press account reads:
"My suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well-dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer."

So what did Hutchinson mean by this, did he mean "too well dressed for this part of town?" - clearly not, because he goes on to say, "I believe that he lives in the neighborhood,.."

Right, so to see a respectable looking man in this area is not unusual, but seeing Mary Kelly on the arm of a respectably dressed man is!

An honest answer to an honest question?

Yes. Thank you.

[curious4]

Influence

Hello all,

I don't think we can ignore the fact that the Press weren't immune to pressure from above. Not if the story about Sir George Arthur is to be believed - kept out of the english papers, but published in the american ones.

Best wishes,
C4

[Bridewell]

Don't Think So

. I’m simply pointing out that 1888 policing was an incredibly structured affair, even to the extent that an officer on fixed point duty wasn’t permitted under the rules to depart his position even when Annie Chapman’s murder was reported to him.

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.


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".

[Bridewell]

Astrakhan or Fake?

Does Astrakhan Man's coat etc necessarily indicate wealth? Liz Stride was wearing a jacket trimmed with fur on the evening of her death and she was nobody's idea of wealthy. Astrakhan Man might be a Hutchinson invention, but he might just be a fraud who was rather less than he appeared to be.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

If I'm correct he added this after the unbelievable "Sunday sighting", it's not in his statement.
And it's still a contradiction.

Cheers

Hello Dave.
It was in the later paragraph yes, that is true. Though why you think an out of work laborer would not be drawn to the Sunday morning market is a little strange. It was the docks or the market if you had no job.
Or is there something else you find unbelievable about it?
A contradiction?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Commercial Street was and is a main thoroughfare, which people from all classes used, day and night. It would not have been remotely unusual to see the respectably dressed, the shabby genteel, the showily dressed wide boy type (as A man appears to have been) and the dirt poor, each minding their own business walking up or down Commercial to get from A to B. Why do you think prostitutes would seek customers along the main roads and not stick with the teeming lodging houses? More chance of more money, pure and simple.

Hutch was probably just over-egging the pudding with hindsight, as many witnesses do, regarding the flashy man he was surprised to see Kelly picking up. A spot of jealousy too, no doubt, if he could not afford her that night.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
I have no problem with the idea that there was affluent and/well dressed men about , I just have a problem with the amount of detail hutch provides on his well dressed man. And I think his excuse for following him and Kelly just does not ring true. My guess, if he really saw A-man and Kelly,which I doubt, has more to do with as you say jeoulosy and an obsession with Kelly,which leads to stalking behavior. which he was exhibiting that night even if the Kelly/Aman story is a fib ala Sarah Lewis's waiting and watching the court man.

Over egg the pudding? Why would he? By the time he came forward he knew of her murder so if he really saw her with a man there would be no need to embellish as any man of any appearance would do-her killer was Jack the freaken ripper.

If anything, he over puddinged the egg, IMHO.