So would he have run?

[Wickerman]

Hi Dave,I agree with you on this the police interviewed hutchinson at the time if they thought he was our killer would he be allowed to walk away I some how doubt it.

Correct, if Abberline had any incline that Hutchinson was lying, or deeper involved than he claimed, any of the previous witnesses who were believed to have seen the killer (PC Smith, Lawende, Mrs Long, Schwartz) would have been brought forward.
Just like Lawende was in the Sadler case, and (if accurate) the apparent Kozminski I.D. Hutchinson would have been subjected to the same scrutiny.

Abberline believed Hutchinson because his basic story checked out on several points, that can be established today.
The second confirmation that Abberline believed him is written in the press a month later, on 6th Dec. when the long sought 'Astrachan' was finally located.
Reporters published Abberline's emotional outburst on the arrest of Joseph Isaacs:
"Keep this quiet; we have got the right man at last. This is a big thing.”

As it turned out, it wasn't "a big thing" afterall, but this demonstrates Abberline's belief in Hutchinson for the entire month since the murder.
Under interrogation it was realized Isaacs was not the murderer after all.

[Ben]

Correct, if Abberline had any incline that Hutchinson was lying, or deeper involved than he claimed, any of the previous witnesses who were believed to have seen the killer (PC Smith, Lawende, Mrs Long, Schwartz) would have been brought forward.

No, Jon, probably not.

That isn't to say Hutchinson didn't fear that outcome if he was the killer, but no, there is no evidence of Lawende being used in suspect identity attempts until three years after the murders. We know Joseph Barnett was considered a suspect, albeit very briefly; was he paraded before Lawende? This is all very moot, of course, considering that Hutchinson was never considered a suspect at the time.

Abberline believed Hutchinson because his basic story checked out on several points, that can be established today.

No.

Abberline wrote a report expressing his opinion that Hutchinson's statement was true before there was even a possibility of checking out his "basic story". His opinion can only have been based on a personal impression, therefore.

The second confirmation that Abberline believed him is written in the press a month later, on 6th Dec. when the long sought 'Astrachan' was finally located.

This refers, of course, to your impossible contention that Isaacs was Astrakhan man and somehow proved innocent of the Kelly murder. Issacs was not, and could not have been, Astrakhan man even if the latter was a real person, which he almost certainly wasn't. I'm very disturbed to see you present this highly controversial notion, espoused by you alone and rejected by everyone else, as fact.

Abberline's "emotional outburst" was almost certainly a press concoction, and even if it wasn't, it communicates nothing about his interest in Hutchinson, or lack thereof. Isaacs reportedly lived in the area and threatened violence to all woman over 17; he was bound to attract attention from the police for these reasons, irrespective of any witness evidence.

Let's not have the Isaacs nonsense dredged up (again).

[Barnaby]

Fisherman,

I found your post in #249 to be incredibly insightful.

To be completely redundant with him but given others aren't addressing the issue, the acoustics potentially allowed both Cross and Paul to hear each other from far off. First, we know Paul heard nothing until he was basically on the scene. That must mean Cross had been there for at least a little while, no? Second, if Cross were innocent, upon first hearing footsteps, wouldn't he go to seek help in that direction?

What I liked most about the post, however, was the portrayal of Cross as an improviser, not a maximizer. That is, he wasn't a robot calculating the odds of being apprehended based on various strategies that he could employ. He heard someone approaching who may actually be a witness and in the few moments he had initiated a highly malleable plan of action.

[Jon Guy]

Imagine, if you will, you are in the same situation, Caz - you walk, all alone, down a street when you see somebody lying, say, flat on his stomach, nose to the ground, on the other side of the street. You think "Whoa there, is that man ... dead?", and you feel very uncomfortable and intimidated by the situation, but you step out into the street to get a closer look, when luckily another man steps out through a door in that street, fifty yards away, and starts walking towards you.

I don´t know about you, but I know that I would feel relief; "Thank God, somebody to help out!" would be what I would think. And then I would call out to that person: "Hello! Sir! Could you help out? I think this man is in need of help!"

But that´s just me, of course! What would you do?

Would you stand still in the middle of the street, saying nothing, just gazing at the man coming at you?
And if he was walking on the pavement, and if you were standing in the middle of the road after having stepped out there in order to assess the situation, would you then silently approach the pavement, making it clear to the oncomer that he was about to have his passage blocked by you?

Hi Christer

Why shout and wake up the whole street at that time of the morning ?
Cross could see Paul was heading his way.

Did PC Neil blow his whistle ?

[pinkmoon]

Hi Pink,

If they thought he was "our killer", they had little option but to let him "walk away" and keep him under surveillance. The evidence, however, suggests that he was dismissed as an attention-seeker once his evidence came to be doubted. He did not become a suspect as he ought to have been, and would have been, had it been registered that he was the individual seen by Lewis outside Miller's Court.

Hi Ben,if Hutchinson was our killer we have to accept that after the awfull mutilation of Kelly he simply stopped wanting to murder and mutilate women in other words he got better.

[Lechmere]

According to Ben he didn't simply move to another area of London because he wanted to continue killing in the East End, which is why he came forward to insert himself in the investigation and get well known to the police in the East End - when he had no need to. And in any case did he continue killing despite this?
Perhaps he became too mad - as Ben thinks that Hutchinson was also Fleming and not 6 foot 7 inches tall.

[Ben]

Hi Pink,

if Hutchinson was our killer we have to accept that after the awfull mutilation of Kelly he simply stopped wanting to murder and mutilate women in other words he got better

Not necessarily.

In the 1980s, a number of experts in criminology and law enforcement assembled to review the case and conduct what is now known as the Ripper Project. An interesting extract from this document ran as follows:

"Generally, crimes such as these cease because the perpetrator has come close to being identified, has been interviewed by police, or has been arrested for some other offense."

Obviously, Hutchinson meets the criterion highlighted in bold.

As a hobbyist, rather than an expert, I would not feel at all comfortable disputing the experience of actual experts.

If Hutchinson was the killer and "stopped" for this reason, it would have been a self-imposed "cessation" to an extent, but then we have no idea how seriously he considered the threat of a subsequent recognition from Lewis, nor do we know if he had any intention of killing on a regular basis after the "awful glut" in Miller's Court.

We don't know the Kelly was the final murder. Alice McKenzie, who was murdered in Castle Alley, just a stone's throw away from the Victoria Home, remains a possible ripper victim.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Lechmere,

I do hope you're not seriously suggesting that it's a problem for Hutchinson's candidacy that there were no obvious ripper victims in that part of the east end after Kelly? Nah, you wouldn't be that silly; not when Crossmere's in precisely the same boat - living in the area after the Kelly murder, not dying, not being incarcerated etc.

Surely you wouldn't want to score such an obvious own goal as that?

[Sally]

Whoever was responsible for these crimes, I think we need to remember that context is important.

The 'awful glut' of Millers Court may be as much the consequence of opportunity as anything. Contextually, there is a world of difference between the opportunities afforded by a closed room with little chance of disturbance; and a risky pavement spot with a high chance of disturbance. What this killer was able to achieve was largely dependent on opportunity.

I don't think, therefore, that we need see 'Jack' stopping after Kelly, necessarily; nor that he should be excluded from having committed any subsequent murders [e.g. McKenzie] just because her mutilation was less severe.

[Lechmere]

Oh dear, I agree Sally.
I think there were fairly 'obious' Ripper crimes after Kelly.
I'm not sure what your mate's wittering on about though.

[Sally]

Oh dear, I agree Sally.
I think there were fairly 'obious' Ripper crimes after Kelly.
I'm not sure what your mate's wittering on about though.

Not to worry Ed Old Bean - I'm sure it'll pass.

Take a couple of aspirin and have a lie down.

[Wickerman]

... We know Joseph Barnett was considered a suspect, albeit very briefly; was he paraded before Lawende? This is all very moot, of course, considering that Hutchinson was never considered a suspect at the time.

Ben, it's the same.
We consider Barnett a preliminary suspect because;
1 - the 'significant other' is always among the first to be looked for.
2 - Barnett described his interrogation to the press.

Hutchinson was also a preliminary suspect because;
1 - He was the last person who admitted to seeing the victim alive.
2 - He had an interrogation with Abberline, though he did not describe his experience to anyone.

There is no real difference.
Both preliminary suspects were cleared after their respective interrogations.

Abberline wrote a report expressing his opinion that Hutchinson's statement was true before there was even a possibility of checking out his "basic story".

No Ben, the basic details were provided at the Inquest.
Those details you choose to regard as "lies & fabrication"? (I think is how you described it). And this, without any precedent to back up your claim.
You don't like it, so you reject it, but it does not go away.
The collective statements all quoted from Sarah Lewis are sufficient for Abberline to give Hutchinson the benefit of the doubt.

I'm very disturbed to see you present this highly controversial notion, espoused by you alone and rejected by everyone else, as fact.

"Everyone", as in the context of "Everyone who has bought into the Hutchinson must have been lying" scenario.
Show me a more likely candidate and we can discuss that. No-one has offered any more likely candidate so our choices are somewhat limited.
I'll leave any pretentious claims of "fact" to your good self, I'll just stay with probabilities.

Isaacs reportedly lived in the area...

Lived in the area; was Jewish; the right age; the right height; moustache; gold watch chain; and appears to have been seen in that specific coat ("certainly answered the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat").
You can't accept it because your theory depends on Astrachan being a figment of the imagination.

...and threatened violence to all woman over 17; he was bound to attract attention from the police for these reasons, irrespective of any witness evidence.

Women were being threatened with violence every day, being kicked, punched, beaten, and thrown around, these were hard times. None of these scenario's produced a viable Ripper suspect, and in no way could this be described as "a big thing". Abberline knows there is far more to identifying the real killer than idle threats.
Abberline had something more incriminating on his mind.

[Ben]

Hutchinson was also a preliminary suspect because;
1 - He was the last person who admitted to seeing the victim alive.
2 - He had an interrogation with Abberline, though he did not describe his experience to anyone.

No Jon, he wasn't.

Emanuel Violenia was the last person who "admitted" seeing Chapman alive, but was he considered a suspect? No. He was considered a bogus witness who lied about the whole thing, including his self-alleged presence at the crime scene. Just so with Hutchinson, evidently. Hutchinson was interrogated as a witness (to determine whether he a genuine witness or a non-genuine witness). Neither discredited witness was "cleared" as a suspect because they were never considered suspicious in that way.

There is no evidence that Lewis's account of a wideawake loiterer was ever compared to Hutchinson, and even it was, it would not have "confirmed his basic story"; it would only have "confirmed" Hutchinson's presence on Dorset Street for the fleeting moment that Lewis saw him - not why he was there, not Astrakhan, not Romford, just his presence outside a crime scene. Good luck "clearing" a person who skulked outside Kelly's house before she was murdered, but had no alibi for the likely time of the actual murder.

Show me a more likely candidate and we can discuss that

William Gull? James Maybrick? Santa Claus? At least none of them were in prison at the time of the Kelly murder, as Isaacs very clearly was; and at least none of them were proven innocent of the Kelly murder, as Isaacs very clearly was (and which the real Astrakhan could not possibly have been, had he existed!) I've explained to you an obscene amount of times now that if the police ever had the real Astrakhan man in their custody, there was no possibility of proving him innocent of the Kelly murder.

No, there is no evidence that homeless thief Isaacs was capable of dressing anything like as opulently as Hutchinson's "Astrakhan man", and the overwhelmingly strong probability is that he couldn't.

Isaacs was of brief interest to the police because he was a Jewish criminal who lived in the area, and had a couple of nosy neighbours willing to spout a load of scaremongering (and possibly anti-semitic) bollocks about him. Had the same thing occurred in 1938 Berlin, I'm sure poor old Isaacs would have been sent straight to Dachau. If Abberline ever exclaimed within press earhsot that Isaacs's arrest was a "big thing" he was an idiot, but my strong suspicion is that he wasn't an idiot, and that the nonsensical press quote attributed to him was, well, nonsense.

[caz]

Caz!

I´d like to address this matter...

Would that be how you went about it, Caz?

All the best,
Fisherman

Sorry, Fishy, but I have no idea. Some of us have lives (mine is horrendously busy right now), and I simply don't have the time or the energy or the patience to read through extremely long posts like the one I have quoted briefly from above. And judging from all your previous efforts to put forward convincing arguments, it would be extraordinary if you had succeeded here.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Sorry, Fishy, but I have no idea. Some of us have lives (mine is horrendously busy right now), and I simply don't have the time or the energy or the patience to read through extremely long posts like the one I have quoted briefly from above. And judging from all your previous efforts to put forward convincing arguments, it would be extraordinary if you had succeeded here.

Love,

Caz
X

Nice. When you have no answer to give, you imply that I have no life, and that you know that my argument would not have been convincing in either case.

Really nice, that one, Caz! Very civil of you.

Suggestion: If you do not have the time to spare to do Casebooking, and if it equals having no life to you, then I have some seriously useful advice for you:

Go away.

All the best,
Fisherman