Jack The Ripper solved?

[Jon Guy]

He was allegedly 30 in 1888.

Cheers Sally

[Sally]

He was allegedly 30 in 1888.

[Jon Guy]

Do we have an age for Joseph Isaacs ?

[Sally]

Jon -

Just a brief interjection from me:

We actually know he was not in prison until the 12th.

We do? I thought what we knew was that he was convicted on the 12th. We do not currently know when he was arrested, as has been pointed out to you before (and not only by me). Prisoners awaiting trial could be held on remand for weeks, Jon. There are innumerable instances of this very occurrence. A couple of days would be utterly unremarkable. You have said, on several occasions that he ‘must’ have been arrested the weekend prior; but of this you have no evidence at all.

We know in his case that he was at liberty in early November, because his tattle-tale landlady told the police that he disappeared at about the time that Kelly was killed. One very obvious explanation for his disappearance was that he’d been arrested and was in custody.

There is also the matter of the newspaper report from Lloyds which states; categorically, that he was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder. Is there any reason not to take that at face value?

Wrong on all counts.

Really? So he wasn’t a man of no fixed abode convicted of theft? That looks like a homeless thief to me.

Could he have had that Astrachan coat? Probably.

But even if it were proven that he wasn’t in prison when Kelly was killed - not the case at present - Ben is right – he couldn’t be Hutchinson’s Astrakhan Man and be exonerated by the police at the same time. That should be obvious.

If he was Astrakhan Man, he was in Kelly’s room for a considerable length of time – longer than the time it took Hutchinson to stay and watch Miller’s Court for his departure. If he was Astrakhan Man, he was a prime candidate for the last person to see Mary Kelly alive, and ipso facto, a prime candidate for her murderer.

All that, and he was convicted of stealing a watch?

Whether the police ever briefly suspected him of being Hutchinson’s fancy Jew or not; he evidentally wasn’t - astrachan coat or no. For his exoneration of any involvement in Kelly’s murder to have been possible, he must have been elsewhere at the time, and had an ironclad alibi to prove it.

[Fisherman]

Well, that didn´t do you any favours, did it, Ben?

The same stuff. The same "the clear impression is" when others see no clear impression at all, the same "accepted by nearly everyone" with you guessing away, the same "unquestionably occurred" although you know that many posters not only question but in fact refute your private convictions, the same "no evidence", something that is woefully lacking to any Hutchinsonian ...

The only surprising thing here is that you didn´t manage to cram any of your "almost certainlies" in - but I´m sure you´ll make good on that score in posts to come!

All in all, I cannot not be too unhappy about the outcome, though, since you provided a real good laugh too:

"I’d suggest you conduct a little more research into the alleged cat’s meat connection before assuming he had a “hands on” role in the removal of cat guts."

Eh, Ben - the cat´s meat business was never about gutting cats. It was about FEEDING them. Horses, Ben - they slaughtered, gutted and cut up mainly horses in order to supply cat food. So having you asking me to read up on the business, while believing yourself that a cat´s meat woman was into catgutting ... Well, I trust you can see yourself what such things do to your arguing against and advising other posters!

Now, it´s over to you. You DID say that you always get the last word in any discussion between you and me over Hutchinson, so there´s a fine tradition to keep alive! Actually, I find the prioritizing of the last word over the better one kind of cute - my kids were into that a lot when they were small.

Then again, they´ve grown up now.

The best,
Fisherman

PS: You are welcome to your last word. Just leave this furry fellow be, please ...

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
All repetitive stuff guys... so my earlier post was attempting to make a observation that all sketches depicted, show Mary Kelly wearing hats/bonnets.
As the sketches depicted, relate to the sighting from Hutchinson, we can assume that the artists responsible had some insight. into the clothing Kelly was wearing during that encounter.
She also appears to be wearing a coat/long jacket of some kind.
I am of the opinion, that Hutchinson would have been asked the obvious at his interview, that being 'what clothing Kelly was wearing',?
That should have been no trouble, considering his elaborate description of Mr A.
That along with positive visual identification, the following morning ,would have been paramount to satisfy the police of there being no mistake in identity .
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

We've done all this Isaacs stuff before, remember?

Never mind what he was doing on the 12th. He was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder.

What he told the police about that night in November will never be known.

But whatever he told them, it can't have been enough to convince them that he was both Astrakhan AND provably innocent of the murders. It is literally impossible for him to have been both, which is why, if they genuinely believed he was Astrakhan, they'd never have let him go. But they did.

Isaacs could not have afforded an Astrakhan coat. He was a homeless thief and one-time cigar maker. If he owned anything nice and flashy, it was because he'd nicked it. He was the right age and ethnicity for Astrakhan, and that was sufficient to qualify the press-only observation that he resembled - in some respects - a man that wore an Astrakhan coat. Some people have moustaches like Hitler, but they doesn't mean they also wear Swastika badges.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

I'm afraid it's rightly considered very gauche and inappropriate for a known promoter of a specific suspect to go around criticising others for "pursuing a suspect", which is why you ought not to. Your sudden enthusiasm for placing affluent top-hatters on the streets of Whitechapel drastically undermines some of your more sensible contributions to the Tumblety threads. I'm not dismissing anything to do with Booth's map, and I've recorded the Victoria Home rules 100% percent correctly, thanks.

It was Stewart's observation that the sketch was most probably intended to depict Mrs. Paumier's man, since her account appeared in the same edition of the paper, and I agree with this. If the piece constituted evidence of a sustained police interest in finding the Astrakhan, the sketch would have been both police endorsed and an accurate rendition of Hutchinson's description. Alas, it is neither.

But more importantly you say that Hutchinson’s statement was discredited several days before publication of the Penny Illustrated article (17th November 1888) as if to imply that this ‘discrediting’ was universally known about or accepted by the gentlemen of the press...

I rather hope my observation carried no such implication, since I'm well aware that Hutchinson's discrediting was not universally known about or accepted by (all) the gentlemen of the press. (Bold and parenthesis mine). Indeed, the other sketches you've produced evince a similar degree of ignorance on the police's ultimate stance on the value of Hutchinson's evidence.

Hi Caz,

It's not very likely that a red hanky was found in Kelly's room. Think about it. Hutch shows up three days later and claims his 'last man in' gave Kelly a red hanky of all things - and Abberline and co end up letting him and his account go, concluding he was just another clown who wanted a piece of the action? I don't think so.

I don't think so either, and I'm glad of the opportunity to find a point of agreement with you on (what has suddenly become!) a Hutchinson debate. There is no realistic chance, as you say, of his account being discredited as the ramblings of an attention-seeker if there was a red-rag lurking in Miller's Court to provide his account with some much-needed credibility. It is far more likely that he sought to establish a connection with Lawende's red neckerchief and thus lend his account some gravitas. Either than or he mistakenly believed he'd left the hanky in the room and used his account to legitimise its (and his) presence.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Joseph Isaacs is not just a shockingly bad candidate for Astrakhan man, he's literally impossible.

He was in prison at the time of the murder, giving him an alibi.

We actually know he was not in prison until the 12th.

He was a homeless thief at the time, making it next to impossible that he could have procured even faux accessories and Astrakhan clothing.

Wrong on all counts.

The police released him as absolved of all suspicion, which they would not have done if they thought he was Astrakhan man.

Actually, they charged him with theft and locked him up for three months hard labour.
What he told the police about that night in November will never be known.

No evidence that he wore a moustache (big whoop if he did, so did most men).

No evidence that he wore an Astrakhan coat.

No evidence he wore a moustache? We have it in writing Ben, or is this another detail you choose to ignore?

And, like I pointed out before, the press described Isaacs as 'certainly' a match for Astrachan.

"...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."

No-one is about to claim that a medium height, middle aged Jew, with a moustache could 'certainly' be a fit unless there was something about him which makes it a certainty - like the Astrachan coat.
And you apparently agree, you said, 'big whoop' if he had a moustache - why would you say that? - because everybody had one.
So obviously it took more than the moustache to make the 'certainty'.

Joseph Isaacs was wearing the coat - that is why his appearance looked a certainty.

[Ben]

Any person who claims to have been the last man to speak to Kelly shortly before she was murdered, and who cannot provide an alibi for the 'assumed' time of death, is automatically a principal suspect.

Was Packer "automatically a principle suspect" in Stride's case?

Was Violenia "automatically a principle suspect" in Chapman's cases.

No, in both cases.

They were simply discredited witness who happened to make bogus claims to being the last witnesses to see the victim.

So bang goes any rationale for assuming Hutchinson was any different.

And as I've already explained, Abberline's short-lived clean bill of health was provided before it could be satisfactorily ascertained that Hutchinson was innocent of the crime. As such, it may be regarded as an absolute certainly then when Abberline wrote his report, there was not even a consideration that Hutchinson could have been responsible for the murder.

Also, should doubt linger, please see my comments with regard to determining guilt or innocence from body language, and how ridiculous and out-dated that is.

[Ben]

What SHOULD be apparent, though, is that a process that makes itself worthy of the term interrogation will have involved some serious questioning, and - just like the papers reported - Hutch withstood this remarkably well, and chiseled out a role as a truthful man in Abberline´s mind.

Because of his body language and perhaps because of his outward and visible indications of being an honest an honest-to-buggery, thoroughly good blahwke, yes. Just as long as nobody is clinging to this as any sort of barometer for determining whether or not a "witness" is lying, because, as I pointed out a post or two ago, it counts for precious little according to the experts. Which is why I chuckle to myself when I hear people saying things like "Abberline was there, he looked him in the eye, so what he says goes" - it counts for very little.

Moreover, Abberline gave Hutchinson the temporary, short-lived thumbs-up before any investigation into his claims could realistically have occurred. We can absolutely dispense, for instance, with any consideration that Abberline was able to convert Hutchinson into a suspect and then exonerate him as one just a an hour or two after Hutchinson first introduced himself. Unless Abberline had a magic wand with which to determine guilt or innocence immediately, he couldn't possibly have exonerated him in so short a space of time.

If he had - later in the process - been revealed as a liar, then a man like Walter Dew, Britain´s foremost detective and in the know of arguably more criminal matters than any other person of his age

Oh...

You mean the bloke you explicitly cautioned me not to listen to because he was a "bit of a freshman" in 1888, whose book was "riddled with mistakes" and who got lots of things "terribly wrong"? I'm afraid you'll suffer from credibility issues if you persist in these complete U-turns. It was only yesterday, it seems, that you were dead against Stride as a ripper victim, but since you've latched on to Cross and found out his mummy lived near Berner Street, you've done a U-turn on that too. Not because you've reassessed the actual evidence connected with that murder, but because you've decided that your silly suspect theory works better if you include Stride. And you seem to think there's nothing preposterous about that.

Dew never said that Hutchinson was a "very honest man" or "beyond reproach" in his memoirs. That's just clumsy, immature exaggeration at work.

If he had been a villainous liar and exposed as such by the police, and if that police had the knowledge that he was certainly in place in Miller´s court that night, what do we have?

But if the police didn't think he was "certainly in place in Miller´s court that night", we have all the ingredients necessary for what actually happened, i.e that Hutchinson was dismissed as an attention/publicity-seeker a la Packer and Violenia, who wasn't even there. That may even be the favoured explanation by ripper theorists these days. Copy and pastes at the ready if you should even dream of repeating the criminally bad argument that Abberline "must have" registered a parallell between Lewis' loiterer and Hutchinson himself.

[Wickerman]

Ben.
This is rather topsy-turvy, the last half of your paragraph is not consistent with the first line.
Any person who claims to have been the last man to speak to Kelly shortly before she was murdered, and who cannot provide an alibi for the 'assumed' time of death, is automatically a principal suspect.

Please confer with someone with police experience before you think to respond.

The end result being, only because Hutchinson was able to convince an eminent streetwise copper like Abberline would he be taken off the suspect list.
We have no idea what Abberline asked him, and likewise no idea what Hutchinson's responses to those questions were.

Hello Tecs, and welcome.

Regarding Hutchinson's alibi, it is unlikely that he was ever asked for one as he was apparently never grilled as a suspect. However, it may be significant that he had an essentially non-existent alibi for the generally accepted time of the murder - after 3.00 but before 4.00. He was, according to his press account, "walking about" the streets at that time, which could be neither verified nor contradicted. He had, in essence, a potentially convenient NON-alibi for Kelly's murder, despite apparently having loitered outside her home (and watched it) shortly before that murder happened.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Then who was the Ripper?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Why spoil your book?

[Ben]

There is only one debate, Ben - and it´s sadly still unfinished. It should have been finished years ago, though.

Not here though, please.

If you're hell-bent on goading me into another long-winded and acrimonious exchange on the subject of Hutchinson, you should at least show some consideration towards the original poster, and pick a fight with me on an actual Hutchinson thread. I'll gladly "battle" with you for another million pages, going through the whole tedious routine of seeing who can write the longer posts, and who can deprive who of the last word, if you're really up for it. I'm depressed on behalf of anyone who wants to spend the autumn of their lives engaging in online stamina wars, but I’ll always oblige them.

Well, that would depend - you still have not managed to find any example of the police telling us that Hutchinson was a time-waster or a liar.

Yes, I have.

I've provided it a million times, and I will gladly provide it a further million. You must understand how easy it is for me to swat away the same spurious objections. The police informed the Echo that Hutchinson's account suffered a reduced importance because he did not come forward before the inquest, where his evidence would have been taken "on oath". This is inextricably linked to the question of honesty and credibility, and the clear impression is that this was doubted. No other interpretation of the Echo’s clear wording is even vaguely acceptable. The most insufferable and infuriating thing about your feigned indignation over the suggestion that Hutchinson lied (despite it being proven that he was suspected at the time of it, as I'm prepared to reiterate forever) is that you instead accuse Cross, who is considerably less deserving of "lying" accusations, as accepted by nearly everyone except the Cross supporters.

“I cannot state that an honest man can produce an account that later on suffers a diminished importance, is that it?”

Not if the reason given for that “diminished importance” is irrevocably associated with doubts about the honesty of that man, as unquestionably occurred in Hutchinson’s case, no. If the word “discredited” is used, as we know it was just a couple of days after the Echo report, that is further assurance that the “diminished importance” (actually “very reduced importance”) related to suspicions of dishonesty. “Discredited” is not a nice word, and it would be highly unusual to apply in cases that involve “honest mistakes”. In this particular case – and with reference to your unpopular revisionist take on Dew’s 1938 speculations – Hutchinson would not have been discredited, since Astrakhan would still, in your scenario, have entered Kelly’s room the night before her death, and thus remained a legitimate suspect.

“And not a single policeman would disclose it in their memoirs, and not a single paper would bring it up, the way Violenia was thrown to the wolves.”

He wasn’t “thrown to the wolves”. What a weird thing to say. Are you remotely familiar with the Violenia case? He was simply a bogus witness who was discredited on the belief that he was lying, just like Hutchinson, which is why neither featured in any police memoir in later years. What was the point? Their absence from any commentary on the witnesses should say it all. Had any senior police official been inclined to devote a section of their memoirs to “discredited witnesses” I’m sure we’d all be reading about Packer, Violenia, Hutchinson, Kennedy and everyone else, but there wasn’t much sense in doing so. There was only Dew, who was “a bit of a freshman” according to you, and thus would not have known why Hutchinson was discredited, only that he had been shortly after his first appearance, leaving him to speculate baselessly as to the reason for this.

“please tell me how Astrakhan man would have stayed a suspect if the police found out that Hutch was out on the days?”

Please see above.

It’s really rather obvious.

“You have proven yourself asinine, that´s all.”

Wow, Fisherman, the personal abuse and character assassinations are really coming thick and fast these days! What’s all that about? Until recently, we only had to put up with an aggressive, off-puttingly strident, bulldozer debating style, but ever since your Cross theory went down like a lead balloon, it’s suddenly got more sinister, and you’re really lashing out these days. Given the opprobrium you’ve received over Cross-gate, this is a good time for you to have a bit of a pause and a reassessment. I know you usually think it laudable to fight fire with fire at any cost and come out with all guns blazing, but it’s not the way forward here, and you’re not that old a dog that you can’t be taught new tricks.

“That´s your way of doing things, not mine. I rely on my own convictions, and when they fit the evidence better, it becomes a matter of flies and ****.”

Again with the insults.

It just won’t do, Fisherman.

Here you are, comparing all those who don’t share your convictions on Cross to “$hit flies”.

Nice man.

“How do you know how many people find it unsuspicious that he changed his name ON THAT OCCASION AND THAT OCCASION ONLY, as far as we can tell?”

Well, judging from the commentary we’ve seen on the issue – and there has been an enormous amount of it in a relatively short space of time (not so much now that the theory is sinking without trace) – it seems that everyone except you and a tiny, tiny minority of fellow Cross-supporters believes there is nothing unusual in his use of his actual stepfather’s name. They understand, moreover, that he didn’t want his real name used in connection with a Whitechapel murder investigation, and no, they don’t find that suspicious either.

But then anyone who disagrees with you is a $hit fly, apparently.

“Yes. True. And the reason we have to think this lies in the fact that the victims were killed at the times he went to work. Wow- ROCKET science!!!”

Nah, not rocket science, just appallingly bad circular reasoning. No evidence of any serial killer walking through their kill-zone and claiming victims on their way to work, but because Cross as killer couldn’t work any other way, that magically turns into evidence of serial offenders killing en route to work. At least that seems to be how your reasoning works (or rather doesn't!).

“Yeah. So finding out that Kosminski was tied to the butcher business or that Druitt worked extra as a surgeon would not be looked upon with any interest at all?”

No, not by me.

But grasp at whatever tenuous straw you find appealing. I’d suggest you conduct a little more research into the alleged cat’s meat connection before assuming he had a “hands on” role in the removal of cat guts. I for one am not seeing any compelling evidence there. And just briefly – because you’re not about to launch an “anatomical knowledge” debate – but there was more contemporary medical support for the opinion that the killer had little or no anatomical knowledge than there was for the idea that he had some.

“Yes, only those who have predecided Lechmere as guilty”

Which is just daft and ludicrous, especially as it’s a conclusion you jumped to last year, more or less. I’ve merely argued for a number of years that Hutchinson makes for a reasonable suspect, criminologically speaking, and have never said – or thought- that I’d pre-decided his guilt.

Finally, are you wanting people to read your posts carefully, or just skim them? Because I can assure you they’ll do the latter for as long as you keep eschewing the quote feature in favour of writing in that silly bold typeface.

[Fisherman]

Caz:

Otherwise it was a red herring introduced by Hutch to add even more colour to his story.

Ah, Caz - lovely linguistic touch, that!

It would have rung alarm bells, however, if there had been such an item in the room. His knowledge of it would have required an explanation one way or another.

But was not that exactly what he gave them? An explanation? I don´t really understand the point you are making here, Caz.

I like to think that the hanky was there, and as such, it underlined Hutchinson´s truthfulness. Maybe we can even persuade Ben to admit that such a thing would add that value, who knows? And if it was NOT there, it could well be a truthful story just the same - the only difference being that it would make Astrakhan man a more likely suspect, having brought as much evidence as possible of his presence in the room with him when he left.

So my money is on the hanky being there.

The best,
Fisherman