Suspects for Astrakhan man?

[Ben]

Had any police officer believed such a person actually existed, they would not have given up on finding him so quickly. Hutchinson, on the other hand, was real

An astute and important observation there, John.

Hi CD,

I'm not suggesting that the prostitute herself would have headed directly for the police. She could have done, and that wouldn't be an outlandish proposal at all given the extent of the fears that pervaded the district, but that wasn't quite what I was getting at. I suggested that a prostitute blabbing about her date could have reached all sorts of ears, including possible male acquaintances. All sorts of negative consequences could have ensued. Witnesses could have come forward after the murder and relayed the information and details of the meeting, individual etc, and at worst, the killer could have been caught in the act by members of the public who thought something was amiss with Liz's meeting with a stranger who buys her gifts (for example).

Hi Richard,

I doubt that anyone who fitted the description "far from a man of means" could have afforded the garb sported by Astrakhan man, even if it was largely fake bling. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to discourage the exchange of new scenarios and ideas, but I had held up hope that I'd given you sufficient reason to have a reassessment of the "premeditation" hypothesis. If your scenario is correct, why didn't Maria mention in her inquest testimony that Kelly wanted privacy that night? Such a revelation could have had immediate and dramatic consequences for the course of the investigation, but we hear no such bombshell in her testimony, probably because such a conversation never happened. You still seem to be under the impression that Astrakhan man "gained her trust" by dressing in a manner that pandered to the surly/Jewish/outsider/bogeyman image that had been linked, inextricably, to the ripper from the Nichols murder. I can't prove that assumption wrong, but I do think it highly unlikely.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben,
But there are reports, albeit proberly mixed up, was not one a story that the victims little boy was taken to a neighbours overnight, whilst his mother was about to entertain, or was expecting to.
The point is, because we are not aware of Harveys, or other court residents every words, we assume that nothing was mentioned that could have had been relevant to the murder.
As I mentioned I would place our man in private lodgings , and would therefore have been better off then some, and may well have poccessed a sunday best so to speak.
And regarding Mjk being put off by the presence of Astracan, yes you would most certainly have been right if she was being accosted by a stranger, but as I have speculated, if she knew the man, and was aware that his outfit was for the day out at the show, she would not have been worried in the slightest.
Regards Richard.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi all

As reported in the Daily News of 8 December 1888 the poor Polish Jewish suspect "Joseph Isaacs, 30, who said he had no fixed abode, and described himself as a cigar maker," was a sometime denizen of a lodging house in Paternoster row, Spitalfields.

According to the newspaper article, Mary Cusins, deputy of the lodging house, "said that the prisoner had lodged in the house as a single lodger for three or four nights before the Dorset street murder - the murder of Mary Janet Kelly, in Miller's court. He disappeared after that murder. . . . The witness on the house to house inspection gave information to the police, and said she remembered that on the night of the murder she heard the prisoner walking about his room. After her statement a look out was kept for the prisoner, whose appearance certainly answered the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat. . . ." [emphasis mine]

Chris

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

The point is, because we are not aware of Harveys, or other court residents every words, we assume that nothing was mentioned that could have had been relevant to the murder.

I agree, in principle, but in your scenario, we're expected to believe that the most crucial observation that Maria Harvey could possibly have made in relation to the murder was somehow "missed" by the investigating authorities and the historical record. Or even worse, that Harvey forgot to mention (or deliberately withheld) the critical detail that Kelly was expecting company that night.

And regarding Mjk being put off by the presence of Astracan, yes you would most certainly have been right if she was being accosted by a stranger, but as I have speculated, if she knew the man, and was aware that his outfit was for the day out at the show

She knew that a man would be dressed up in a manner that resembled the ripper-bogeyman images in many respects, besides advertising his wealth most conspicuously. One would have to wonder why a) nobody else seemed to know anything about this amazingly unstreetwise flashy dresser, or b) why she didn't think to warn the man that a 2.00am saunter into that naighbourhood dressed like that wasn't perhaps the cleverest idea.

Hi Chris,

Thanks for that. Interesting stuff.

It's worth observing, of course, that it was a press observation that he resembled the description of a man with an astrakhan trimming to his coat. There was no indication that the police were interested in him for that reason.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
Intresting about Joseph Isaacs dont you think, Chris has certainly fuelled my thoughts.
I had already had our Astracan man as an single lodger, which could relate to this man, his name is also strangely Joseph, what did kelly say [ alleged] to a court resident' She was fond of another man named Joe'
Question must arise then, Could this Joe be the man she was fond of not, the ex Fleming.
I must make that observation , as it has never been suggested before.
Also as a single lodger , he could dress privately without being eyed .
And another point that I have mentioned several times in the past, the wording 'You will be allright , for what I have told you. does sound as if it could have been spoken with foreign interpretation.
A polish jew perhaps?
Intresting fodder to consider whilst tackling a very late lunch.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

The "Joe" referred to by Julia Venturney was almost certainly Joseph Fleming, since it would tally so closely with Barnett's evidence. Isaacs was released very quickly after his initial arrest, and the police did not appear to pursue the matter further. I should point out that Isaacs was a cigar-maker, of "no fixed abode" who was arrested for petty theft. Not such a great candidate for the Astrakhan man, I would suggest.

Best regards,
Ben

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Richard,

The "Joe" referred to by Julia Venturney was almost certainly Joseph Fleming, since it would tally so closely with Barnett's evidence. Isaacs was released very quickly after his initial arrest, and the police did not appear to pursue the matter further. I should point out that Isaacs was a cigar-maker, of "no fixed abode" who was arrested for petty theft. Not such a great candidate for the Astrakhan man, I would suggest.

Best regards,
Ben

Hello Ben and Richard

I am not saying that Joseph Isaacs makes a great suspect or even that he was likely to have been Astrakhan man. I just find it interesting that, contrary to my first inclination to believe that Hutchinson's description denoted a rich man, the Daily News report of 8 December 1888 showed that there was an evident feeling by the authorities, if this is true, that a man of fixed abode could quality to fit the description.

Chris

[Ben]

Hi Chris,

The Daily News certainly seemed to observe a similarity between Isaacs and the Astrakhan man, but whether the police agreed is another matter, and unfortunately, there doesn't appear to have been any indication that the police were interested in him on account of his physical congruity with Astrakhan.

Best regards,
Ben

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Chris,

The Daily News certainly seemed to observe a similarity between Isaacs and the Astrakhan man, but whether the police agreed is another matter, and unfortunately, there doesn't appear to have been any indication that the police were interested in him on account of his physical congruity with Astrakhan.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben

Yes of course it's often hard to distinguish what were the feelings of the police about a certain suspect and the way the news writer described their interest. In this instance, for example, the Daily News reporter seems to push the envelope in terms of highlighting the police interest in the suspect. But it might be just the writer's take about how sure the police were that the man was a likely suspect for the murders:

"The prisoner, who was brought up in the custody of Detective Sergeant Record, H Division, is the man who was arrested in Drury lane on Thursday afternoon on suspicion of being connected with the Whitechapel murders. It transpired during the hearing of this charge [the offense of stealing a gold watch] that it was committed at the very time the prisoner was being watched as a person 'wanted.' . . . Detective Record said that there were some matters alleged against the prisoner which it was desired to inquire into."

Chris

[Garry Wroe]

The problem, though, Chris, is that Hutchinson did describe someone of affluence. It was this very disparity between the penniless East End streetwalker and her well-heeled consort that, Hutchinson inferred, stimulated his interest in the first place.

Similarly, though the Daily News report is interesting, it might be borne in mind that the piece refers to Mary Janet Kelly, a nominal error that originated with the Central News Agency in the immediate aftermath of the murder. By the time of the inquest hearing, however, most newspapers referred to Kelly as either Mary Jane or Marie Jeanette. Since the Daily News was still making this elementary error a month after the murder, I would exercise caution with regard to the accuracy of its reportage until such time as it can be independently corroborated.

To my mind, however, the speculation over the Jewish-looking suspect is purely academic given that Hutchinson claimed that Kelly was no more than a little tipsy when the two of them met on Commercial Street. In view of the fact that Kelly's alcohol consumption had rendered her barely able to speak during her near-midnight encounter with Mary Ann Cox, and that she almost certainly went on to share the beer being carried by Blotchy, Hutchinson's claim that she "wasn't drunk, but was a little spreeish" a little over two hours later is sufficient to cast serious doubt over the veracity of his story. And if his Kelly-related claims were untrue, so too were those concerning the Jewish-looking punter.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Gary

I make no special case for the Joseph Isaacs suspect candidacy. I just bring him up because the astrakhan man description was mentioned in connection with the Daily News coverage of his case.

I agree with you that caution should be exercised about this news report -- and about most contemporary press reports other than, say, those in the Daily Telegraph or The Times, because many newspapers reported distortions of the facts or outright misinformation.

As I have stated earlier in this thread, I also doubt the veracity of Hutchinson's witness sighting. There are a number of reasons to question whether he saw the man he said he did.

All the best

Chris

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
After a nights sleep, on reflection one must discount Isaacs has a viable suspect, but I did like the single lodger aspect.
Also it is also obvious that Fleming was the ex of Mjk, his age , occupation, and address verifies that to a point.
On the much discussed Hutchinson, I would say this, until we can succesfully identify the man, we cannot begin to judge his morals and integreity.
I have said before if Gh is not Topping then it could well be he was a con man and a liar, but if he was GWTH, then i would accept his word, going by what we know of his character, but of course that could not be proven.
Regards Richard.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Chris.

Many thanks for your reply. And, for what it's worth, I agree entirely with your analysis.

Hi Richard.

Morals and integrity aside, the central issue regarding Hutchinson relates to whether or not his witness statement (and the off-the-record information he conveyed to Abberline) was true. If it was, we have in the Jewish-looking punter the prime suspect in the Whitechapel Murders. If it wasn't, we have (with the possible exception of the Stride-as-Ripper-victim scenario) the single greatest red herring in a case beset by red herrings. According to your rationale, this would simply make Hutchinson 'a con man and a liar'. But this was a man who was sighted close to a crime scene at a time critical to a Ripper murder. As such, his behaviour demands an explanation. And if this means calling into question his morals and integrity, so be it.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[Roy Corduroy]

If the prevailing wisdom is to treat the J Isaacs press reports carefully, the same would apply to those of G Hutchinson, such as the one saying his account was discredited.

Roy

[Garry Wroe]

Absolutely, Roy. But the inferrential evidence is fairly compelling in that the focus of the manhunt switched from the clearly affluent Jewish-looking suspect to sweeps of local low lodging houses within days of Hutchinson's police interview. Such a tactical shift would suggest that Abberline's initial faith in Hutchinson's veracity was extremely short-lived. Unfortunately, nothing has survived in the police files to explain how and when this came about.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.