Jack The Ripper solved?

[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]

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

[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

[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.

[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 ...

[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.

[Jon Guy]

Do we have an age for Joseph Isaacs ?

[Sally]

He was allegedly 30 in 1888.

[Jon Guy]

He was allegedly 30 in 1888.

Cheers Sally

[Lechmere]

Ben
The very fact that the Echo story (about Hutchinson being discounted very early on) was far from being universally accepted by the press should tell us that this account should be treated with caution. Yet you base a large part of your case on it.
The issue about top hats being in the area and the relative wealth of the average inhabitants of Whitechapel, which was considerably higher than post Ripper mythology tells us, has a bearing because it means that the A-man was not so out of place as you suggest.
This has little relevance on whether Tumblety specifically would have been noticeable and out of place on those same streets.

[caz]

Caz:

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

Hi Fishy,

You misunderstood me. If the argument goes that Hutch's story was discredited because the police no longer believed his suspect existed or had entered the room with Kelly as Hutch claimed, then his knowledge of a red hanky found at the scene would still have required a good explanation.

I know your theory is that Hutch simply got his nights muddled up, but that's a different argument. In that event only, then yes, a red hanky found in the room could have helped support A Man's existence, although it wouldn't have put anyone there on the right night.

Bottom line though is the complete lack of evidence that a red hanky was in that room.

To All,

I very much doubt Hutch would have mentioned a red hanky at all if he was the killer and A Man didn't exist. He'd have known if he'd left a red hanky of his own at the scene or not. If he had, why admit to knowing anything about it when nobody was even asking? As I said, it would have needed explaining if the rest of his story were to collapse through lack of credibility. And if he didn't leave one at the scene, why claim Kelly was given something, knowing the police wouldn't find it? It would only serve to cast doubt on his account.

Not such a big deal for a man just spinning a yarn, or a witness flowering things up - as witnesses often tend to do.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

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.

Hi Ben,

I prefer the simple 'no evidence of a red hanky at the scene' angle myself.

It is far more likely that he sought to establish a connection with Lawende's red neckerchief and thus lend his account some gravitas.

Gravitas? You jest. If your argument is that nobody dressed like A Man would have been seen dead near Miller's Court, it would be like Hutch describing a woolly mammoth offering Kelly a red hanky, knowing Lawende had described a Jack Russell terrier sporting a red collar.

Either than or he mistakenly believed he'd left the hanky in the room and used his account to legitimise its (and his) presence.

As I posted earlier, I can't see the murderer volunteering his knowledge of such an item if it belonged to him and he thought the police would find it at the crime scene. If nobody was asking about it, why mention it and make it imperative that they believe in his A Man, or face some very awkward questions?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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."

Hi Jon,

Well unless the press were being deliberately and wholly misleading, the implication is quite clear in the language used, that the prisoner's appearance answered the description as published - ie down to the coat trimmed with astrakhan. It's a meaningless observation otherwise.

The prisoner's appearance certainly answered the published description of a man in a clown suit, red nose and huge shoes. (But the prisoner himself wore nothing of the kind.) Yeah, right Ben.

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

I agree. Anything else is a stretch too far.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Stop right there, Ben. He was a thief. Why would he not have begged, borrowed or stolen the means to rig himself out with a cheap, second-hand astrakhan collar to attach to his second-hand coat - if he could not stretch to a ready trimmed coat? This idea of yours that such a garment had to be brand new or cost an arm and a leg is a very strange one.

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.

But that's twisting Jon's quote to make it say what you need it to say. He didn't merely 'resemble - in some respects - a man who happened to wear an astrakhan coat'. His 'appearance certainly answered' a description which featured such a coat. If his appearance had 'certainly answered' a description which featured Swastika badges, there would be no cause, no possible point or reasonable excuse, for the press to mention such badges if the man in question wore none himself.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

Hi Fishy,

You misunderstood me. If the argument goes that Hutch's story was discredited because the police no longer believed his suspect existed or had entered the room with Kelly as Hutch claimed, then his knowledge of a red hanky found at the scene would still have required a good explanation.

Ah - I´m with you now, Caz!

I know your theory is that Hutch simply got his nights muddled up, but that's a different argument. In that event only, then yes, a red hanky found in the room could have helped support A Man's existence, although it wouldn't have put anyone there on the right night.

True enough.

Bottom line though is the complete lack of evidence that a red hanky was in that room.

Yep - but I think we may be fairly certain that many a thing in the room was not listed for posterity. Like the metal thingy under the bed, for example.

To All,

I very much doubt Hutch would have mentioned a red hanky at all if he was the killer and A Man didn't exist. He'd have known if he'd left a red hanky of his own at the scene or not. If he had, why admit to knowing anything about it when nobody was even asking?

All very true too - unless he was in the habit of sporting embroidered hankies with his initials on them: GTH, sort of, as it were.

The best,
Fisherman