hutchinsons suspect

[babybird67]

sorry Sam. I dont seem to be very good at keeping to the topic in hand.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Sam.

Sorry, but since I no longer have any of my Ripper research material I can't help with the specifics of the Harvey interviews, I'm afraid. One thing of which I'm sure, however, is that they wouldn't have come from the immediate aftermath of the Kelly murder. As the clips you posted illustrate to perfection, most of the information therefrom tended to be at best contradictory, and at worst, blatently untrue. My feeling is that you ought to be looking to a point at least two days after the Kelly inquest, possibly at the Pall Mall Gazette or the Daily Telegraph. Failing that, try one of weeklies – the Illustrated Police News, for example. If all else fails, try one of Paul Begg's books. They are always beautifully referenced and may provide some indication as to the most likely sources. Given my clear recollection of the Harvey information coupled with the certainty that it was nothing new, you might even find a direct reference in there somewhere.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[babybird67]

hi again Richard

still trying to get my head round your theory...can you explain a couple of things?

Why do you think Prater and Cox would lie?

Do you think Mary would have eaten a fish meal that morning, as she would have had to, for it to have been found in the contents of her stomach, especially if as your witness states Mary told her she had been throwing up all morning?

You also seem to be saying two contradictory things in regards to Mary and her behaviour that night. On the one hand you have said she was so fearful of being alone that in your opinion she went out at around 2am to pick up a man just so she wouldn't be on her own...i've already said i find that difficult to accept, as she had females all around her in the court whom she could have called on for company if she was afraid.

Then in a later post you say you are convinced Mary must have been killed at 9am because she would "never" have taken a strange man back to her room in the middle of the night.

Which is it?

As you can see i am struggling with your theory for the above reasons, so if you could help me out with some explanations, i'd be grateful.

thanks

(sorry Sam, this is is just bugging me lol)

[richardnunweek]

Hi Jenny,
Let me explain my thoughts.
I am not saying for certain both Prater, and Cox were lying , although not convinced about the latter, my point was the clothing kelly was seen in,that night , in the space of under three hours were completely different, Prater has Mary in jacket and bonnet, whilst Cox a shawl.
If one also takes two versions of that night given by Cox, they also vary, from following Mary and blotchy into the court, to standing at her door waiting for her partner to arrive home.
I do not trust that woman.
Regarding her fear of staying alone, i would suggest that is a fair assumption, based on witness reports , note the sleepovers she had, starting when Barnett was still there, proberly because he did casual work at night.
I am not suggesting that Kelly went out to find any man , its a fair bet that she trusted her judgement, and lets also consider she may have gone out to find a woman who might welcome a nights lodgings, we have reports that she often was good hearted.
I would say that Mary would rather bring home someone that she trusted then spend the night in the very room , she allegedly had a dream that she was being murdered.
If one was being speculative[ who me?] then someone like George Hutchinson would have been perfect to take home... and that could have well happened, i am not saying he killed her, but fear may have had him invent a mystery man, for he could hardly say he spent hours in her room, and left the room with Mary still alive, who would believe him?.
So there you are jenny... a question of clothing, and Coxs authenticity, and a suggestion that kelly ventured out mayby to take home a woman that needed a helping hand, and ive even thrown in the Hutch possibility.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, Garry. Of course, the point you make about the scurrilous reports in the immediate aftermath of the murders is perfectly valid. I might add that, inquest transcripts apart (and even they sometimes contain errors), some of the later reports might not be bomb-proof either. It was, after all, the same hacks who likely wrote them. In addition, we are dealing with more than one "wretched specimen of East End humanity" (to paraphrase one description of Mrs Cox) when it comes to witnesses, some of whose official stories are riddled with holes.

[babybird67]

hi Richard

thanks. I see. I still dont really know why you distrust Cox so much.

You also still havent commented on the fish that was found in Mary's intestines. To me, that weighs heavily against Maxwell's testimony being accurate, since she has Mary telling her she has been throwing up all morning, which would mean, i would presume, there would be no fish remains to be seen in her stomach. Also, she would not have eaten a fish meal for breakfast, i don't think.

anyway all good points to consider

[Ben]

Hi Jon

The following is a continuation of the off-topic debate over Isaacs, as dredged up again on the "Jack the Ripper - solved?" thread.

If you're up for it, of course.

I hope you are.

I'll explain to you how Lloyds confused the George St. attack with the Kelly murder.

No, how about I'll explain to you how they definitely didn't.

Note the relevant passage from LLoyds Weekly Newspaper, 23rd December, which irrefutably referred to the Kelly murder:

"The result is that it is ascertained that at the time of the murder he (Isaacs) was undergoing a term of imprisonment for stealing a coat, which proves he could not have been connected with the murder"

There is the uncomplicated, astoundingly simple reason for Isaacs being dropped as a suspect. He was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder for stealing a coat, whereas later, he was arrested and sentenced to hard labour for stealing a watch. These were two separate punishments for two separate offences, not to be confused with each other. This revelation utterly destroys any value left in the pernicious rumours circulated by Mary Cusins, appearing as it did considerably later (23rd December), when the truth of the matter had been ascertained. The article in question has nothing whatsoever to do Annie Farmer, as is made clear by the fact that Isaacs could not be connected with the "murder", not just an "attack" (and as you note, he had an alibi for Farmer too).

You quote "the press" as follows:

"The police, however, were led to believe that he was connected, not with the mutilations, but with the recent attempt to murder a woman in George-street, Spitalfields..."

Yes, because the police had already found a prison alibi for Isaacs for the ripper-attributed murder, but still wondered if he may have been responsible for the Farmer attack. Obviously he wasn't guilty there either, because his thieving ways provided him with another separate (i.e. unrelated to the first) prison alibi in that case too.

Mary Cusins had already informed the police what Isaacs was doing on Nov. 9th, and the fact he left his room not to return - so clearly he was not in prison yet.

Don't you "clearly" me.

You're irrationally championing Cusins' outdated and inaccurate information over more reputable and more recent sources. You need to pay attention to the chronology of events. The 23rd of December is, as far as I'm aware, the last we hear of Isaacs. As such, the report in questions represents the latest information, and this particular information neatly explains why we hear nothing of him thereafter. Is it at odds with earlier impressions? Yes it is, but that is what happens during the course of an investigation - information gets updated and mistaken impressions are corrected. The earliest, most unenlightened reports on the Kelly murder claimed she was living with a young boy. This was later - LATER! - contradicted once a different picture emerged. By your logic, we should treat only the earliest reports as reliable.

Mary Cusins was either lying or mistaken, but the fact of the matter is that she is wrong, because Isaacs was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder. If you're asking me to choose between a reputable newspaper with absolutely no good reason to lie about this piece of information, and a nosy neighbour who evidently didn't like Isaacs and wanted rid of him (thousands of Germans were sent to Dachau via a Gestapo investigation that way during the 1930s), it's an absolute no-brainer. I go with Lloyds Weekly all day long.

“Except in this case we actually know the police were still looking for Astrachan throughout November. Which is the most powerful indication that your single source, in this case the Star, (like Lloyds Weekly) was completely false.”

The only “completely false” thing here is your claim that the “police were still looking for Astrachan throughout November. No evidence for this at all, and thus no “power” whatsoever in your non-existent “indication”.

“You really have a strong penchant for false newspaper stories.”

It is the height of hypocrisy to accuse me of endorsing false press reports. You cling to an erroneous claim made in a single newspaper that Sarah Lewis' wideawake man was standing in Kelly's doorway, and you're not in the slightest bit deterred that every other press source disputes this claim, as does Lewis' actual police statement.

“Ben has invented a special relationship between the police and their preferential comrades in the press.”

It is not an invention. It’s a proven fact. Besides which, it’s completely naďve and unimaginative to claim that the police never give preferential treatment to some pressmen over others. I’ll refer you to the Littlechild letter, which states that the presumed author of the Dear Boss letter, the journalist Tom Bulling, had better treatment from Scotland Yard than any of his journalistic colleagues. The Echo were certainly not kept at arm’s length (you accuse me of “invention” but this claim of yours is purely that); we have proof of a direct communication between the Echo journalists and the Commercial Street police station. I will detail this for the umpteenth time if anyone’s interested in starting that fight again, which, by and large, most people aren’t. Bashing the Star for being a bit naughty and a bit Maverick is yesterday’s ripperological pursuit, and is generally considered an old hat, finger-waggingly fogeyish thing to do these days. Most people recognise that they were, at the very least, successful in uncovering stories missed by all other newspapers, most notably Israel Schwartz.

“Yet, against all the odds, our highly impressionable comrade will absolutely insist (in order to uphold his theory?) that they are all wrong and he, himself, alone, is the one who knows the truth...”

Ah, here comes the personal bit.

You might be disappointed to discover that very few people – three at most – are interested in rekindling any long-winded Hutchinson animosity with me anymore. Depicting me as “alone”, for instance, won’t get you very far. My thoughts on this issue are shared by a fairly large – dare I say increasing - number of people, whereas your take on the Isaacs issue (and your fascinating claim that Sarah Lewis saw Astrakhan, Kelly and Hutchinson INSIDE Miller’s Court) is held by only you, and literally nobody else. So before getting too busy with those personal attacks – “our highly impressionable comrade” etc – and claiming I’m alone in my views, it might be as well to acquaint yourself with the actual reality of the situation.

“You might also add that the 'Hutchinson theory' has so fractured into numerous conflicting versions that if the theory had been solid in the first place this would not have happened.”

You’ll notice Tom didn’t follow your advice to “add” any such thing, presumably because he knows it to be nonsense. You’ve made this baffling claim before, and it isn’t making any more sense this time. There are lots of “theories” involving Hutchinson, which is to be fully expected. If you’re referring specifically to the Hutchinson-as-killer theory, then no, there are no more “conflicting versions” of this than there are for other suspects. It’s a popular theory, certainly, which is why it’s naďve to expect total uniformity. There are more books written about him than any other suspect, and many thousand more words posted about him on this message board – 5000 more posts on him in the suspects forum, and many more to come, with your help!

[Ben]

More on Isaacs, this time from Caz (and also imported from the derailed “Solved” thread).

“I don't give a monkey's, Ben. Isaacs's example only serves to demonstrate the fallacy of insisting that nobody could have found A Man's description remotely credible.”

I’m relieved. I was concerned for a while that you had become the third to support the obviously ludicrous “Isaacstrakhan” theory. But I fail to see how any aspect of the Isaacs episode is supposed to lend support to “A Man’s description” which extends far beyond a single coat in terms of detail. There is nothing inherently problematic about Isaacs stealing a coat and then roaming about in it during the small hours if he was that bored, weird and stupid. He was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder for the crime of stealing a coat, and who knows? Maybe it was an Astrakhan one he pinched? And maybe it was a knowledge of this that prompted a journalist to draw a comparison with Astrakhan man? The point is that it needn’t have been so, because there was already enough physical similarity between Isaacs and Astrakhan – independently of the coat – to warrant the observation that the former “certainly answered the published description” of the latter.

The point is, if there was no way on God's earth that a man in his circumstances could have done so (worn an Astrakhan coat)*, the press would have known it, and would not have entertained the possibility in the first place that he could be Astrakhan Man. Do you see the difference?

Yes, I do, but the only feasible scenario that places Isaacs in an Astrakhan coat involves him stealing one, and he was a known coat-thief. Armed with the knowledge of Isaacs’ thieving ways, the press were able justify the inference that they were one and the same, which they wouldn’t have done very successfully in the absence of any evidence of coat-pinching on Isaacs’ part. Obviously, the Astrakhan description came with a whole load of other lovely expensive-looking items that were just as incompatible with Isaacs’ known circumstances, but one can’t help but wonder how much or little attention the journalists paid to them, or if they were simply latching on, fairly mindlessly, to the latest “suspect” because there was nothing more compelling to write about.

If there’s any truth at all to the assumption that Isaacs ever wore an Astrakhan coat, it’s because he stole a real one. This makes considerably better sense of what we know of Isaacs’ character. Better, at least, than assuming he rustled something together out of bits and bobs, which was easier said than done, and even harder to pull off convincingly.

All the best,
Ben

*My parenthesis

[Wickerman]

Mary Cusins was either lying or mistaken, but the fact of the matter is that she is wrong, because Isaacs was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder. If you're asking me to choose between a reputable newspaper with absolutely no good reason to lie about this piece of information,...
I go with Lloyds Weekly all day long.

You prefer to accept uncorroborated newspaper stories to the exclusion of anything else. Even, in this case the official records from the Calendar of Convictions where, if Isaacs had been in prison, it would be so recorded.
It isn't!

Every significant point in your theory concerning Hutchinson, from the idea he was discredited, to the Echo & Star being privy to inside information, to Joseph Isaacs being in prison on Nov. 9th, are all derived from ill prepared, unsourced, and uncorroborated newspaper articles.

It is the height of hypocrisy to accuse me of endorsing false press reports.

If I am not mistaken, you readily admit to having no official sources to fall back on - just newspaper stories, which incidentally, were repeated nowhere else.

You cling to an erroneous claim made in a single newspaper that Sarah Lewis' wideawake man was standing in Kelly's doorway, and you're not in the slightest bit deterred that every other press source disputes this claim, as does Lewis' actual police statement.

None of the other newspaper accounts place this couple anywhere else, likewise, none dispute the existence of this same couple.

It is not an invention. It’s a proven fact.

You have not proven any such thing, to anyone.

On the one hand we have the Echo asking the police to confirm the source was the same as that previously published, and as that was public knowledge, then the police can readily confirm the source.
It is not inside information.

Then you have the Echo writing a paragraph which begins:
"From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now...."

When anyone is not sure of their facts, the correct approach is to be cautious and replace "we have learned" with, "it appears". And, "has been" with "seems to be", because quite naturally the Echo newspaper is not providing an official source but expressing an opinion based on surmise.
Ie; guessing.
Then along comes Ben Holme 120+ years later trying to sell it as fact.

You might be disappointed to discover that very few people – three at most – are interested in rekindling any long-winded Hutchinson animosity with me anymore.

Yes, but I'm not sure you understand the true reason why. It certainly has nothing to do with your accuracy - but more to do with

Depicting me as “alone”, for instance, won’t get you very far. My thoughts on this issue are shared by a fairly large – dare I say increasing - number of people,

Ben, I am not suggesting you are alone in your overall suspicions of Hutchinson. I am referring to your dogged stance of being in possession of certain facts which in truth do not exist, to support your claims.
It matters nothing how many think along similar lines, when both you and I know that the small central core of serious researchers & students of the case have told you quite emphatically, and in no uncertain terms, that you are wrong.
Which should be apparent to anyone that specific claims which are central to your theory are not believed by those who's opinions matter the most in Ripperological pursuits.

....whereas your take on the Isaacs issue (and your fascinating claim that Sarah Lewis saw Astrakhan, Kelly and Hutchinson INSIDE Miller’s Court) is held by only you, and literally nobody else.

Have you noted anywhere where those same core members who told you that you are wrong have ever said the same to me about Isaacs?
No, they have not.
The reason being, I have not pushed the idea down anyone's throat as if I have proven it as a 'fact'. What I have said, is that to date....there is no better match for Hutchinson's suspect than Joseph Isaacs - nothing proven, but as yet no other contenders either.

You’ll notice Tom didn’t follow your advice to “add” any such thing, presumably because he knows it to be nonsense.

That was an example of Tom's sarcasm. He's too busy to be bothered with the Kelly murder as yet.

[Ben]

Oh good, so you are up for long-winded repetitive Hutchinson debates on four separate threads? I thought for a moment I'd been wearing the wrong aftershave, but no, enticing people into marathon posting sessions is still something I'm very successful at, apparently.

You prefer to accept uncorroborated newspaper stories to the exclusion of anything else. Even, in this case the official records from the Calendar of Convictions where, if Isaacs had been in prison, it would be so recorded.
It isn't!

It's an accurate press report.

It neatly explains the sudden loss of interest in him on the part of the police.

I'm not excluding "everything else" because there is no "everything else". We have a a couple of nosey neighbours engaging in some hush-hush scaremongering nonsense in order to get rid of a local oddball thief they didn't like, and we have you trying to convert Astrakhan into Isaacs and not finding a single solitary voice of support for the theory.

Lloyds Weekly wins every time, I'm afraid.

And no, there is absolutely no guarantee that Isaacs' prison entry should appear at the London Metropolitan Archives, especially when we have no idea where the offence took place.

None of the other newspaper accounts place this couple anywhere else, likewise, none dispute the existence of this same couple.

All newspaper accounts and Sarah Lewis' police statement make it very clear that the couple in question were walking along Dorset Street and had nothing to do with Miller's Court. Only the Daily News misreported Lewis' testimony and had them walking up Miller's Court, and it is only you (isn't that some of clue??) who argues for the Daily News being correct.

Every significant point in your theory concerning Hutchinson, from the idea he was discredited, to the Echo & Star being privy to inside information, to Joseph Isaacs being in prison on Nov. 9th, are all derived from ill prepared, unsourced, and uncorroborated newspaper articles.

This is simply infuriating (perhaps designed to infuriate?) wishy-washy inaccurate nonsense that you ought to be disabused of before wading into multiple Hutchinson threads with all guns blazing. The press reports I've used have either been proven correct (i.e. with respect to Hutchinson's discrediting), or the most reliable source available. You, on other hand, champion provably false newspaper reports, including some of the long-dead, long-buried myths about the Kelly murder, and all for the apparent purpose of re-introducing "Gentleman Jack" where he never, ever belonged.

If I am not mistaken, you readily admit to having no official sources to fall back on - just newspaper stories, which incidentally, were repeated nowhere else.

Yes, I do.

The police at the "Commercial Street Police Station" more than qualify as an "official source" in the minds of the sane, and it is the "Commercial Street Police Station" who informed the Echo that Hutchinson suffered a very reduced importance owing to doubts about his credibility and motivation in coming forward so late.

On the one hand we have the Echo asking the police to confirm the source was the same as that previously published, and as that was public knowledge, then the police can readily confirm the source.
It is not inside information.

Don't even dream of starting all that again, please.

It most assuredly IS inside information insofar as it required police conformation that the two press accounts (one that appeared on the 13th and didn't include Hutchinson's name, and one that appeared on the 14th and DID) originated from the same source, i.e. Hutchinson himself. If it wasn't inside information, we wouldn't have had the Echo's press contemporaries floundering in wet turd and assuming that the two press accounts came from two separate witnesses. The fact that only the police were capable of issuing this confirmation wholly verifies the Echo's claim to have communicated with them directly.

The fact that the Echo were informed in this regard is compelling evidence that they must have enjoyed some sort of relationship of communication with the police that was denied to other, more obviously anti-police newspapers. There is no realistic possibility of the Echo truthfully imparting the result of a genuine communication with the police on one occasion, and then blowing that good relationship to smithereens on another by printing falsehoods that the police could easily read about, such as the "very reduced importance" attached to Hutchinson's account. The Echo could forget about any further info-seeking trips to Commercial Street Police Station if the police caught them telling porkies about their treatment of a witness.

Significantly, they obtained accurate information from the police after the publication of the 13th November claims. Why on earth would the police have given them anything if they already knew that the same newspaper were printing lies about them just a day previously?

Exactly. The idea is preposterous. Hence, the logical - and frankly, only possible - explanation is that the Echo obtained their information about Hutchinson's discrediting in the same way they learned about the two press accounts originated from the same, i.e. "Hutchinsonian", source - by approaching the police directly.

When anyone is not sure of their facts, the correct approach is to be cautious and replace "we have learned" with, "it appears". And, "has been" with "seems to be", because quite naturally the Echo newspaper is not providing an official source but expressing an opinion based on surmise.

Yes.

Well done.

And the fantastically obvious reason for this? Because the police could not prove Hutchinson of lying.

That is the reason for the "it appears", and "it seems", and they related as much to the Echo. The police were surmising - in the absence of proof - that Hutchinson was an unreliable witness, and the Echo were simply reporting on those police surmises. Any fantasy notion that the Echo were offering their own surmises is dealt a permanent death blow by the further revelation:

Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?

This is the reality that "Ben Holme, 120+ years later" will never, ever tire of repeating whenever that reality is fruitlessly, bombastically, and unimaginatively challenged.

I am referring to your dogged stance of being in possession of certain facts which in truth do not exist, to support your claims.

And I'm insisting that you are wrong in saying so; that the facts do exist, and that if you're determined to disagree, you'd better just do so and let the matter rest. You haven't got time to waste engaging in yet another round of "yes it is", "no it isn't"...or shouldn't have, at any rate. And please stop all that "small central core of serious researchers & students of the case" "those who's opinions matter the most in Ripperological pursuits" silliness. It's deeply irritating, elitist nonsense. I believe everyone has something of value to contribute here, and so should you.

I don't covet the good opinion of any "small core" of ripperological sages. I don't do bum-licking, and in any case, please remind me when The Wise And Talented Society graced the Hutchinson threads with their presence in order to tell me "quite emphatically, and in no uncertain terms, that (I am) wrong"? I've had polite disagreements with people, certainly, but nobody "telling me I'm wrong".

Have you noted anywhere where those same core members who told you that you are wrong have ever said the same to me about Isaacs?
No, they have not.

But not a single person supports you in your Isaacs theory, whereas the reality of Hutchinson's discrediting is accepted by many. Remember, Isaacs cannot possibly be Astrakhan man, with makes him an impossible candidate for an almost certainly fabricated individual.

That was an example of Tom's sarcasm. He's too busy to be bothered with the Kelly murder as yet.

No, that was an example of Tom really not seeing any merit whatsoever in your Isaacstrakhan suggestion.

[Wickerman]

... I thought for a moment I'd been wearing the wrong aftershave, but no, enticing people into marathon posting sessions is still something I'm very successful at, apparently.

Ah Ben, always the showman. But its your inability to present a convincing argument that makes this so entertaining.

It's an accurate press report.

Oh, you trusting soul you, as if there ever was such a thing.
Of course, the only 'accurate press reports' you acknowledge are the ones you can use to bolster your theory, isn't that right Ben?

It neatly explains the sudden loss of interest in him on the part of the police.

The police were still interested in him when he showed up in December, and for his presumed roll in the Millers Court affair. So no, clearly the police did not loose interest in Joseph Isaacs until they had him thoroughly investigated in December.

And, just like Hutchinson, the police would be able to eliminate Isaacs from their enquiries only after he gave them a full account of his movements on the night of the 9th Nov.
Sadly, whatever Isaacs told the police will likely never be known. One thing can be reasonably assumed, that the evidence from Mary Cusins will have played a role in their assessment of his veracity.

Lloyds Weekly wins every time, I'm afraid.

Not when they were easily confused between the 'murderous assault on Annie Farmer' and the 'murderous assault in Millers Court'.
Another typically confused press article.

And no, there is absolutely no guarantee that Isaacs' prison entry should appear at the London Metropolitan Archives, especially when we have no idea where the offence took place.

No record exists, all you have is another inaccurate press release.
I'll give you this Ben, you are at least consistent.

All newspaper accounts and Sarah Lewis' police statement make it very clear that the couple in question were walking along Dorset Street and had nothing to do with Miller's Court.

Not one of the alternate newspaper accounts place the couple anywhere else IN Dorset St., but in each case this couple is mentioned along with the loiterer reflective of the witness seeing them in the same vicinity of each other, which they would be when the loiterer (Hutchinson) was following the couple.
Hutchinson himself tells us he saw no other couple, only a man by himself in Dorset St.
Its the same couple Ben.

Only the Daily News misreported Lewis' testimony and had them walking up Miller's Court, and it is only you (isn't that some of clue??) who argues for the Daily News being correct.

Only the Daily News reports the sequence exactly how Hutchinson reported it - therein lies the clue that the Daily News can be relied upon.
There is no other way two independent sources could tell the same story.

The press reports I've used have either been proven correct (i.e. with respect to Hutchinson's discrediting), or the most reliable source available.

Not one living breathing soul on Casebook has ever seen this 'proof' you consistently hide behind.
The gauntlet was thrown down years ago by myself in a challenge to you, and any like-minded individuals, to step up with this 'so-called' proof.
Predictably though, rather than present proof that the police discredited Hutchinson you continuously duck & weave the issue.

You have no proof!

Yes, I do.

The police at the "Commercial Street Police Station" more than qualify as an "official source" in the minds of the sane, and it is the "Commercial Street Police Station" who informed the Echo that Hutchinson suffered a very reduced importance owing to doubts about his credibility and motivation in coming forward so late.

Commercial St. station simply confirmed what was public knowledge, they did not, and never have, offered 'inside' knowledge to the Echo on any matter concerning the progress of the murder investigation.
Once the source (Hutchinson) had identified himself (on 14th) then his story (on 13th) is automatically public knowledge.

Neither the Star nor the Echo were ever privy to 'inside' information, and we know this, and you know this too, from their very own public claims to being shut-out from being told anything.

... The Echo could forget about any further info-seeking trips to Commercial Street Police Station if the police caught them telling porkies about their treatment of a witness.

The Echo never claimed to be party to inside information, and they were absolutely never taken into the confidence of Scotland Yard at any time. It is only you who prefer to interpret their 'opinions' as 'facts'.
The Echo, like the Star, were 'guessing' in order to procure a story for publication.

Why on earth would the police have given them anything if they already knew that the same newspaper were printing lies about them just a day previously?

The police didn't give them anything.

And the fantastically obvious reason for this? Because the police could not prove Hutchinson of lying.

At last!

The police had never proven Hutchinson to have lied, neither had they ever accused him of lying.
How do we know this?

Had their principal witness, who admitted to being the last known person in the company of the victim, being even 'thought' to have lied, they would have him in the slammer so fast his feet wouldn't touch the ground.

... The police were surmising - in the absence of proof - that Hutchinson was an unreliable witness, .....

An interpretation which betrays a complete lack of understanding of police procedure, but if I recall, we have two experts on police procedure who have told you this before.

.... the further revelation:

Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?

Easily taken in by a touch of vaudevillian drama now are we?

The silliest aspect to that quote is that it was published the day after Hutchinson's lengthy interview with Abberline. So the police (the authorities) knew all about why he was slow to come forward, the police knew, but the Echo, along with the Star, always being on the outside looking in, had no clue about the true situation.

Interestingly, The Morning Advertiser (sourced from the Press Association) published a more accurate version. They acknowledge that:

"For obvious reasons certain particulars are withheld." then...

"...for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediately put himself in communication with the police."

Strange why the Echo were unable to offer the more truthful rendition, instead of going for the sensational approach.

I don't covet the good opinion of any "small core" of ripperological sages. I don't do bum-licking, and in any case, please remind me when The Wise And Talented Society graced the Hutchinson threads with their presence in order to tell me "quite emphatically, and in no uncertain terms, that (I am) wrong"? I've had polite disagreements with people, certainly, but nobody "telling me I'm wrong".

You might want to take a refresher course down the Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting thread..

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5932&page=34

As you can see, your unhealthy preference for vague, inaccurate and ill-prepared newspaper accounts was pointed out to you. And, rather than take direction from members with a proven track record in police procedure you cast off their advise and blindly choose to push on regardless.

Hence, we are still here debating issues which you have been repeatedly cautioned about over the years.

Your opinions are not the issue Ben, we can all express opinions. It is your preference to interpret certain press opinions as facts which is found to be an obstruction to any reasoned debate.

[Ben]

Ah Ben, always the showman. But its your inability to present a convincing argument that makes this so entertaining.

Oh boo-hoo.

There's my self esteem in tatters and ruins.

I neither embrace nor value your poorly conceived opinion of my arguments. They consist of lazy condemnations that are always based on a terrible misunderstanding of serial crime, the means by which journalists access information, and a badly-concealed desire on your part to champion absolutely anything - however risible and bogus - that might lend weight to your "well-dressed" Jack hypothesis.

Of course, the only 'accurate press reports' you acknowledge are the ones you can use to bolster your theory, isn't that right Ben?

The accurate press reports are the ones that were proven correct from independent sources, such as the Echo's report on Hutchinson's discrediting. The Lloyds Weekly article neatly accounts for the loss of interest in Isaacs as a suspect, and is the very last we hear of him. The screamingly simple and obvious explanation for this is that Isaacs' imprisonment at the time of the Kelly murder put paid to all the sensationalist nonsense that had been spouted about him previously.

And, just like Hutchinson, the police would be able to eliminate Isaacs from their enquiries only after he gave them a full account of his movements on the night of the 9th Nov

But unlike Hutchinson, Isaacs was treated as a suspect, and unlike Hutchinson, Isaacs was able to provide an immediate alibi for his whereabouts during the early hours of 9th November, i..e PRISON, as opposed to wandering and loitering around the general vicinity of the crime scene when that crime was committed. Mary Cusins played no role at all, except as someone who temporarily derailed the investigation by making claims about Isaacs that turned out to be false.

Not when they were easily confused between the 'murderous assault on Annie Farmer' and the 'murderous assault in Millers Court'.

They were not confused at all.

You're simply inventing confusion where none ever existed. Joseph Isaacs was arrested for stealing a coat, for which he was sent to prison during the Kelly murder. He was later arrested for stealing a watch, for which he was sent to prison during the Farmer attack. Two arrests for two entirely separate offenses.

Not one of the alternate newspaper accounts place the couple anywhere else IN Dorset St

This is a ludicrous notion that you alone cling to, and I will never tire of stamping it out whenever I see it. The accurate press reports (i.e. pretty much all of them except the Daily filthy News) observe that the loitering wideawake man was on Dorset Street, and that she saw a couple "further on", i..e further on from where the wideawake man stood on Dorset Street. Other reports state that the couple "passed along" Dorset Street, but all attest to the same observation: that the couple walked past the entrance to Miller's Court and never once entered it.

THE COUPLE IN QUESTION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MILLER'S COURT - FACT.

THE DAILY NEWS IS WRONG - FACT.

Your desperate hope is that this one pitiful and glaring example of press misreporting will lend weight to Hutchinson's account, but it doesn't even achieve that unless you fiddle with Hutchinson's own words to make it fit. Hutchinson never once claimed to be on Dorset Street when this couple were - that is a fact, but it one you insist must be wrong in order to find some non-existent harmony between Hutchinson's discredited account and the Daily News' nonsense.

"Not one living breathing soul on Casebook has ever seen this 'proof' you consistently hide behind."

Do stop pretending to speak for all of Casebook. It's inappropriate and hypocritical. Here you are asserting as fact that "it's the same couple, Ben" in contrast to all other "living, breathing souls" on Casebook who recognise that for the hopeless misunderstanding it is, and you have the audacity to scream at me for presenting facts that you wrongly insist are falsehoods. It is most assuredly a fact that the Echo obtained from the police the detail that Hutchinson was discredited, and if you or anyone else wishes to challenge point yet again, I'll provide the proof that I've provided millions of times. Do not accuse me of "weaving" the issue. I've responded to every objection raised, and in considerable detail.

Commercial St. station simply confirmed what was public knowledge, they did not, and never have

It wasn't public knowledge.

Since Hutchinson's press disclosures occurred without the knowledge and consent of the police, they would have been at pains to conceal the fact that they "proceeded from the same source" as that presented by the police. They would not have wanted it to become "public knowledge" that the author of the initial statement was called George Hutchinson, and that he had significantly undermined the initial version of events he recounted to the police. Thus, if any old press representative made enquiries, the likelihood is that the police would not have offered any commentary, and yet they did in the Echo's case, demonstrating conclusively that a relationship of communication existed.

The revelation that the 13th and 14th November press reports had a common origin irrefutably qualifies as "inside information" and it was the type of information that only the police could have provided.

The Echo never claimed to be party to inside information

This is ugly nonsense.

We know for a fact that the Echo approached the police station and obtained inside information, which is why they were able to say:

"Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before"

If the police were divulging the nature of their doubts about Hutchinson's credibility to the Echo, as they certainly were (copy and pastes at the ready if you want to challenge this again), that most assuredly qualifies not only a "claim" to have access to "inside information", but an indisputable reality that it occurred. It really is the height of cloying stubborn ignorance to keep claiming that police detectives never take certain representatives of the press - such as Tom Bulling - into their confidence.

Had their principal witness, who admitted to being the last known person in the company of the victim, being even 'thought' to have lied, they would have him in the slammer so fast his feet wouldn't touch the ground.

And this weighty pronouncement is according to...?

Oh, just you.

Well, isn't that tremendously reassuring.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, and back to the known practices of the detectives in charge of the Whitechapel investigation, we know that bogus wtnesses who claimed to have been at a crime scene when a victim was killed were not treated as suspects, but rather publicity-seekers who weren't even there when they claimed to have been.

An interpretation which betrays a complete lack of understanding of police procedure, but if I recall, we have two experts on police procedure who have told you this before

Listing people who disagree with me will only draw more attention to the minority-endorsed nature of your own views, considering that my views on the Kelly murder have a number of adherents, whereas yours have none. But this isn't about police procedure. It's about acknowledging the facts of the case as they have been handed down to us, and we learn from impeccable sources - unblemished by your failed attempts to pooh-pooh them - that Hutchinson's credibility was doubted.

Easily taken in by a touch of vaudevillian drama now are we?

What the blazes are you on about?

If you want to crap on historical sources, you'll have to do a lot better than that. There is no Vaudeville here, just a simple, unremarkable and unsensational observation about a particular witness. No news flash, just a simple acknowledgement that the latest potential star witness turned out to be anything but. It doesn't matter in the slightest that it appeared after Abberline's hasty and short lived approval of Hutchinson, which, incidentally, his police superiors need not have agreed with. The article makes clear that the doubts leveled at Hutchinson came about "in light of later investigations".

Interestingly, The Morning Advertiser (sourced from the Press Association) published a more accurate version.

I'm in pain at having to read such upsetting nonsense.

The Morning Advertiser ""more accurate"?

On the same day that this second-rate boozed-endorsed rag for the pub trade (which made more reporting errors on the Kelly murder than any other newspaper) asserted that Hutchinson's name was "withheld" to protect his safety, all the other better-respected, better-informed newspapers were publishing his name. The same article also claims that Hutchinson's suspicions were aroused by the man in consequence of the recent murders, utterly contradicted the police statement and all other press reports. They also claimed the following:

It is now conclusively proved that Mary Jane Kelly, having spent the latter part of Friday evening in the "Ringers," otherwise the "Britannia" public-house, at the corner of Dorset-street...

Really, Morning Advertiser?

It disturbs and angers me greatly that you can so ill-discerning as to claim the Morning Advertiser was truthful while the Echo was "sensational". The opposite is so startlingly obvious, even from the language used in both articles.

As you can see, your unhealthy preference for vague, inaccurate and ill-prepared newspaper accounts was pointed out to you.

This is truly nauseating hypocrisy.

The latching onto of obscure, nonsensical and provably false press reports is a behavioural trait of yours, not mine. And will you stop this pathetic habit of drawing attention to the fact that others have disagreed with me in the past? If I were to do the same with you, I'd be posting the Magna Carta by now in terms of length. Many of those who challenge my views do so because they have their own, highly controversial suspect theory of their own to push, and when they do so, they generally receive considerable more oppressive criticism than I receive over Hutchinson. My ideas on the Kelly murder have considerably more adherents than yours, which have none at all, but I'm not telling you to give up and go home.

It is your preference to interpret certain press opinions as facts which is found to be an obstruction to any reasoned debate.

Well consider yourself "obstructed" then. Pick on a weaker opponent, and stop flogging a horse that you insist must be dead. It's only you and perhaps one other who still sees any mileage in pursuing acrimonious and repetitive Hutchinson debates with me anymore, and it's about time you sought new pastures.

[Wickerman]

Interesting, an 18 month old post left uncorrected, ah well, its water under the bridge now....except for this pertinent fact.

But unlike Hutchinson, Isaacs was treated as a suspect, and unlike Hutchinson, Isaacs was able to provide an immediate alibi for his whereabouts during the early hours of 9th November, i..e PRISON, as opposed to wandering and loitering around the general vicinity of the crime scene when that crime was committed. Mary Cusins played no role at all, except as someone who temporarily derailed the investigation by making claims about Isaacs that turned out to be false.



They were not confused at all.

You're simply inventing confusion where none ever existed. Joseph Isaacs was arrested for stealing a coat, for which he was sent to prison during the Kelly murder. He was later arrested for stealing a watch, for which he was sent to prison during the Farmer attack. Two arrests for two entirely separate offenses.

If you took the trouble to search through Lloyds Weekly publications you will see beyond any shadow of a doubt that they, both reporters and editors, knew the difference between "held in custody", and "a term of imprisonment".

In all cases, 100% of the uses, the phrase "held/detained in custody" is used by Lloyds (as with every other paper), to designate a person held by police under charge, prior to going to court, typically held while investigations are completed.

While, also in 100% of the uses, the phrase, "term of imprisonment" is used after sentencing, in fact the more complete phrase is, "sentenced to a term of imprisonment". Often, the location is given, ie; "a term of imprisonment at Pentonville/Hollowey".

Anyone versed in legal terminology can confirm to you that these uses are universal in England for pre sentence and post sentence detainment, respectively.

As we know Isaacs was sentenced on the 12th November to 21 days hard labor for stealing the coats, and that he was undergoing a "term of imprisonment" at Pentonville (Nov. 12 - Dec 3) for that crime, then this confirms that the erroneous report by Lloyds concerned the attack on Annie Farmer (21 Nov.), not Mary Kelly.

[Ben]

Blimey, Jon! I know we made that secret pact to ensure the domination of Casebook by Hutchinson threads, but you’re risking our cover being blown if you don’t start being a bit more subtle about it!

“If you took the trouble to search through Lloyds Weekly publications you will see beyond any shadow of a doubt that they, both reporters and editors, knew the difference between "held in custody", and "a term of imprisonment".”

But whatever the difference might have been, the two expressions both relate to being confined in a police cell, as opposed to wandering the streets stealing watches and killing prostitutes.

“As we know Isaacs was sentenced on the 12th November to 21 days hard labor for stealing the coats, and that he was undergoing a "term of imprisonment" at Pentonville (Nov. 12 - Dec 3) for that crime, then this confirms that the erroneous report by Lloyds concerned the attack on Annie Farmer (21 Nov.), not Mary Kelly.”

It is not an “erroneous report” – or at least you haven’t remotely revealed it to be in “error”, and no, it did not refer to the attack on Annie Farmer, but rather the murder of Mary Kelly. Don’t you remember that report from the Northern Daily Telegraph?:

“The police, however, were led to believe that he was connected, not with the mutilations, but with the recent attempt to murder a woman in George-street, Spitalfields. Exhaustive inquiries were made, but as far as can be ascertained the man could in no way be connected with that outrage.”

Why “not with the mutilations”? Yes, they quickly ascertained that he could not have been responsible for the Farmer attack, but did the article continue “but he is still very much in the frame for the mutilation murders, which we’re far more interested in anyway”…? No, it didn’t. Instead, it made very clear that he was only being considered a possible culprit in the Farmer attack after having already been ruled out as having any responsibility for the “mutilations”. Why else would they report that he was believed to be connected “not with the mutilations”? The reality is that he was not considered in connection to the main ripper-related murders because he had a prison alibi for one of them, just as related in Lloyds Weekly.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

..But whatever the difference might have been, the two expressions both relate to being confined in a police cell, as opposed to wandering the streets stealing watches and killing prostitutes.

Hi Ben.
There is no "might", the distinction is well understood (even by you I dare say), it is only you who chooses to fudge a difference.

"Term of imprisonment" is a specific state of confinement, which only commences after an accused has appeared in Court and being sentenced.
This was demonstrably not the case with Mr Isaacs on the 9th of November, but clearly WAS the case by 21st November. The implication therefore is clear.

Don’t you remember that report from the Northern Daily Telegraph?:

“The police, however, were led to believe that he was connected, not with the mutilations, but with the recent attempt to murder a woman in George-street, Spitalfields. Exhaustive inquiries were made, but as far as can be ascertained the man could in no way be connected with that outrage.”

Why “not with the mutilations”?...

This report was dated Dec. 7th, before he had appeared in Court (later in the day), by the time of this report the press had not learned of the true story.

Press reports published on Dec. 8th after his court appearance are somewhat different.

The opening line in your quote is demonstrably wrong due to the fact Isaacs was arrested as a direct consequence of the actions of Cusins & Oakes (who informed police that Isaacs was the missing lodger sought by Scotland Yard), they had no involvement in the Farmer case.

Mary Cusins & Cornelius Oakes are both witnesses directly associated with the Millers court investigation, and that is why it was deemed necessary to telegraph Leman St.

Therefore Isaacs was arrested for watch stealing, and delivered to Leman St. as a person of interest in the Millers Court murder.
Nothing to do with the Annie Farmer case.

Secondly, "exhaustive inquiries" were only made AFTER his court appearance (on the 7th), inquiries which apparently took several days to complete.
Yet, it quickly was established (before his court appearance) that Isaacs could "in no way be connected with that outrage" - the outrage being the attack on Annie Farmer.

So the sequence of events begins with Isaacs arrest on the 6th.

- Dec. 6th, He is charged with stealing the watch, so he can be held in custody.

- Early investigations (the same day) establish that he was undergoing a term of imprisonment at the time of the attack on Annie Farmer, so could "in no way be connected with that outrage".

- Dec. 7th, Isaacs appears at Worship St. court, and in part, due to his appearance we read:
"He answered to the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat. - Detective Record said there were some matters alleged against the Prisoner which it was desired to inquire into, and he was remanded accordingly"

-From the 8th onwards he was held for several days, on remand, while they investigated his whereabouts on the night of the Millers Court murder.

- Dec. 14th, after the conclusion of those inquiries, Isaacs is finally sentenced for the charge made against him.


That is the sequence of events, so we can clearly see Isaacs was cleared of involvement in the Farmer case before he even appeared in court, and the reason (term of imprisonment) was also given before investigations began concerning his involvement in the Millers Court case.

This is now established with documentation. What is left to explain is how Lloyds could confuse the alibi for the Farmer case with the Millers Court case.

The timeline shows these issues were addressed quite separately, and are quite distinct.
The "term of imprisonment" established on the 6th before his court case, and the investigation of his whereabouts on Nov. 9th after his court case.

Like I have always maintained, Lloyds confused the two cases, the timeline hi-lites the error - the police already knew about his "term of imprisonment" before he went to court.

I still have a few documents to locate on related issues, but all I expect these may do is consolidate what we read above.