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

[Ben]

Klosowski was a polish Jew, as was Kosminski, they were the same age, they both lived in the East End

Yes, but you were speculating that Abberline might have "suspected" Klosowski specifically in 1888, and I suggest that this is vastly improbable. Unless you now suggest he was the actual ripper, he had yet to do anything naughty in 1888, when he was a very recent (and probably non-English-speaking) arrival in the country. I don't think his Polishness alone was sufficient to put him under any sort of surveillance, less still come under personal suspicion from Abberline himself.

I'm sure he would not refer to him by the name Astrachan, simply knowing of his existence would suffice.

And yet when the opportunity to draw a parallel between foreign, surly-looking Klosowski and foreign, surly-looking Astrakhan presented itself, Abberline opted instead to make comparisons with the Lawende and Liz Long sightings.

More likely because he found out who our Astrachan really was and he was eliminated from inquiries.

No, not "more likely" at all. Try fantastically unlikely. If the police ever found the "real" Astrakhan man, he couldn't possibly be "eliminated from inquiries". If Hutchinson's account was truthful and accurate, Astrakhan was still in the room at 3.00am, and since Kelly was thought to have been murdered less than an hour later, the chances of Astrakhan popping out and procuring for himself a nice watertight 3:30-4.00am alibi are slim to non-existent. So no, Hutchinson/Astrakhan's non-appearance in Abberline's 1903 interview can't have been due to Astrakhan being traced and eliminated.

This same opinion is only repeated on the 19th that the police "have not relaxed their endeavours", and among their lines of inquiry is this "gentlemanly man", our Mr Astrachan.

They said they had not relaxed their endeavours in looking for the murderer. Where does that quote "gentlemanly man" come from? The "proprietary information" came from the Echo, as reported on the 13th and the 14th November, and it was to the effect that Hutchinson's account had suffered a "very reduced importance" and was "considerably discounted" because of his tardy appearance and failure to present himself to be quizzed "on oath" at the inquest. I've already explained in painful detail why this cannot have been an invention on the part of the Echo.

Since you appear to have dropped your earlier argument likely due to realizing that it was the Central News who released both articles attributed to Hutchinson, may I take it you have spent your last coin on the subject?

Eh?

I haven't "dropped" any argument, and I've been aware for many years that both the 13th and 14th press versions were circulated by a press agency, thanks.

If there is anything else that comes to mind which convinces you the press must have had exclusive inside information on details of the police investigation, please feel free to bring it up here.

Well the fact that I've demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that it definitely occurred in the Hutchinson case is sufficient to nullify the extraordinary argument that the 1888 police never divulged any "proprietary information" to the press.

All the best,
Ben

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

It bears repeating here that the Police did in fact keep tabs on someone who was reported to have worn a coat with astrakan trimming after the murder in Millers Court, someone who lived minutes away at the time of the murder and who did not return to his lodgings that night...or for some nights afterward. Even though he had a pawnable instrument in his room when he left without notice.

His name was Joseph Isaacs.

Best regards

[Garry Wroe]

True, Mike. But this is a point I covered in my previous post. Isaacs was brought to police attention by the suspicions of a member of the public rather than direct investigation. As a consequence standard procedure dictated that he be assessed and either cleared or earmarked for more detailed investigation. As it turned out Isaacs was soon dismissed as a realistic suspect, in which respect he was similar to the many Ripper letters which, although viewed as clearly bogus by the authorities, were still fully investigated as per procedure.

I also doubt that there was any great similarity in the physical attributes of Isaacs and Astrakhan. Isaacs was a patron of low lodging houses, a factor which in itself determines that he couldn't have maintained the clean, opulent and affluent appearance of the man by which Hutchinson claimed to been impressed on the morning of Kelly's death. As such the oft cited Isaacs-Astrakhan comparison is a non-starter.

[Wickerman]

... As it turned out Isaacs was soon dismissed as a realistic suspect, in which respect he was similar to the many Ripper letters which, although viewed as clearly bogus by the authorities, were still fully investigated as per procedure.

Because Isaac's lived pretty much around the corner from Dorset St. it is reasonable to suppose he frequented the area and was known by others, so easily traced and eliminated from their inquiries. Thus vindicating Hutchinson's claim.

I also doubt that there was any great similarity in the physical attributes of Isaacs and Astrakhan.

That is only your personal belief. Not based on anything tangible.

Isaacs was a patron of low lodging houses, a factor which in itself determines that he couldn't have maintained the clean, opulent and affluent appearance of the man by which Hutchinson claimed to been impressed on the morning of Kelly's death.

But again, there's no indication in Hutchinson's statement to suggest that Astrachan 'shone like a new pin'.

[Bridewell]

You might not find it convincing, Jon, but then you're one of the very few people who still argues inexplicably in favour of a well-dressed, possibly upper/middle class ripper of the type Hutchinson conjured up in his statement.

Hutchinson didn't claim to have seen the "ripper", He claimed only to have seen MJK with a man whose description he gave to the police.

[Bridewell]

Hi all,

It bears repeating here that the Police did in fact keep tabs on someone who was reported to have worn a coat with astrakan trimming after the murder in Millers Court, someone who lived minutes away at the time of the murder and who did not return to his lodgings that night...or for some nights afterward. Even though he had a pawnable instrument in his room when he left without notice.

His name was Joseph Isaacs.

Best regards

Thanks Michael. I don't see how anyone's description can be dismissed as wrong until we know for certain whose description was right.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Colin

Amidst all the recent speculation on the site, it's hugely reassuring to see you doggedly pursuing the evidence...

Every good wish

Dave

[Ben]

Isaacs was reportedly in prison at the time of the murders, thus ruling him out for the Kelly murder. Besides which, and as Garry pointed out, Isaacs cannot feasibly have dressed anything like the opulent-looking Astrakhan man, let alone kitted himself out with his glittering accessories. It was only observed by the press that the two looked similar, but this could have amounted to little more than both men having the same dark hair/moustache or surly countenance. There is certainly no evidence that the police were interested in Isaacs because of any eyewitness description.

All in all, if we're treating Isaacs as evidence for either a continued police interest in Astrakhan-alikes or the prevalence of Astrakhan-alikes on the streets of Whitechapel, I'm afraid we're onto a bit of a loser on both counts.

[Ben]

Edit: Sorry, I meant he reportedly had an alibi for the Kelly murder only, not murders.

[Garry Wroe]

But again, there's no indication in Hutchinson's statement to suggest that Astrachan 'shone like a new pin'.

A popular misconception, Jon, is that Hutchinson's interest in Astrakhan was stimulated by suspicion. It wasn't. Hutchinson claimed to have been surprised at seeing such a well dressed man in company with Kelly. In other words Astrakhan's appearance was out of the ordinary. He stuck out like a sore thumb and thus wasn't the kind of impoverished individual Hutchinson was accustomed to seeing in the immediate locality. Again, therefore, I would suggest that there would have been little if any resemblance between Isaacs and Astrakhan beyond the fact that each was said to have worn an overcoat trimmed with fur.

[DVV]

Hi all

Wake me up when Ben or Garry will be proven wrong.

Thanks in advance

[Garry Wroe]

That is how they function today. The detective force was in its infancy in 1888 and not inhibited by the restraints put on their modern counterparts.

On the contrary, Jon. Given Warren’s military background aligned with the hangover from what were then several recent corruption scandals, the hierarchical structure of the Met was perhaps more rigid in 1888 than is the case today.

The point I am making Garry is that when we talk about 'The Police' we paint a picture of them thinking and acting as one large cohesive unit. This was not the case, individual detectives had their own methods, their own suspects and their own lines of inquiry to pursue.

It was most certainly the case amid the large-scale investigation into the Whitechapel Murders, Jon. 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.

If just one detective enters the Victoria Home on a hunch, the press see it as "The Police are now investigating the Victoria Home".

Perhaps, Jon. But your argument was unrelated to the press. Your contention was that rank and file officers were free to pursue investigations as they saw fit. 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.

You might remember that house-to-house searches, which included lodging-houses, were conducted following the Chapman murder, the Stride murder and the Kelly murder. It was just procedure.

Not just procedure, Jon. There appears to have been a strongly held suspicion amongst senior policemen that the murderer was a low-class local. Under such circumstances a comprehensive search of West End bordellos would have been a waste of precious resources. Investigators simply directed manpower to where the anticipation of success was the greatest.

Suffice to say, the search of lodging houses was the best use of manpower to investigate the most male suspects in the least time all in one place.

Again, though, Jon, such a strategy would have been utterly futile had there been evidence to indicate that the killer was middle- or upper-class. The police were looking for a low-class local and structured their investigation accordingly.

[caz]

Hutchinson claimed to have been surprised at seeing such a well dressed man in company with Kelly. In other words Astrakhan's appearance was out of the ordinary. He stuck out like a sore thumb and thus wasn't the kind of impoverished individual Hutchinson was accustomed to seeing in the immediate locality.

Ooh there's a lot of assumption there, Garry, in those 'other words'.

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? Only one man went on to kill her, and we have no idea whether that man was one of her regular shabby types or someone who could promise her a bit more in the way of back rent.

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.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

There appears to have been a strongly held suspicion amongst senior policemen that the murderer was a low-class local. Under such circumstances a comprehensive search of West End bordellos would have been a waste of precious resources. Investigators simply directed manpower to where the anticipation of success was the greatest.


Again, though, Jon, such a strategy would have been utterly futile had there been evidence to indicate that the killer was middle- or upper-class. The police were looking for a low-class local and structured their investigation accordingly.

And what they did with those precious resources wasn’t utterly futile, if Hutchinson was the low-class local they were looking for?

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.

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, but also one of the vast majority who put as much distance as humanly possible between themselves and the police?

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

A popular misconception, Jon, is that Hutchinson's interest in Astrakhan was stimulated by suspicion. It wasn't. Hutchinson claimed to have been surprised at seeing such a well dressed man in company with Kelly. In other words Astrakhan's appearance was out of the ordinary. He stuck out like a sore thumb and thus wasn't the kind of impoverished individual Hutchinson was accustomed to seeing in the immediate locality. Again, therefore, I would suggest that there would have been little if any resemblance between Isaacs and Astrakhan beyond the fact that each was said to have worn an overcoat trimmed with fur.

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.