Are the reports in the contempory newpapers sufficient to discredit Hutchinson?

[Batman]

Hutchinson has the all attributes of another Paker. Maxwell was also likely fibbing and we have The Star doubting Kennedy because Lewis was already on the record saying virtually the same thing.

If anyone doubts Hutchinson is a just looking for his 10 minutes of fame, check this out. http://casebook.org/dissertations/ripperoo-hutch.html

1. Hutchinson's story is only corroborated by Lewis who describes a completely different man standing where he claims and Lewis story was out before Hutchinson turned himself in. Lewis's story was available during the inquest which was before Hutchinson turned himself in. Lewis story was also out orally in Dorset St. and nearby.

2. Not a single policeman noticed him or bothered to check him out through all the hours he claimed to be standing there.

3. Despite giving us a pantomime Jewish villian described down to the quantum level, Hutchinson doesn't even include seeing Lewis who he got this story from even though she went down the court!

4. Mary doesn't even bother saying hi to her friend on passing him by.

5. Even if Abberline initially believed him, Hutchinson was never used indentification parades (which they had) despite having a better view of JtR than Scwartz and Lewende put together.

There's more. The article above is v.good.

[Wickerman]

There is no way Hutchinson responded to a "list" provided by Badham, unless you're seriously suggesting that, in addition to height, weight etc, Badham had a form for witnesses to fill in which included "shirt collar material?", "eyelash colour?", "tie-pin design?", and other sillinesses. Unless you think that happened, it's quite clear that Hutchinson's Astrakhan description was offered more as a narrative.

This is part of the form, judge for yourself.

Wouldn't have needed to.

There is no obvious difference in the clothing and headgear worn by Wideawake and Blotchy - at least as far as we're aware.

If the clothes & hats were the same, I wouldn't have asked the question.

Just in case anyone wondered what "Hatchett"'s unprovoked random attack on me was all about, I stepped in a few years ago when he harassed another Casebook member, and it seems he's borne a grudge ever since. That's why he's pretending to have an opinion on Hutchinson, and repeating the same generalized nonsense that has been refuted in depth on multiple threads.

Oh now come on Ben, when I came back to Casebook in '08 you were bullying Christer, and you've tried it with me on and off ever since

You have to accept it Ben, it's what you do.
Anyway, whats this about you coming to Toronto, when?
I'm about an hour away but if possible, maybe we could get together for a brew?
Stranger things have happened...

[Ben]

Just in case anyone wondered what "Hatchett"'s unprovoked random attack on me was all about, I stepped in a few years ago when he harassed another Casebook member, and it seems he's borne a grudge ever since. That's why he's pretending to have an opinion on Hutchinson, and repeating the same generalized nonsense that has been refuted in depth on multiple threads.

[Ben]

Women, in the 19th century could be anywhere & everywhere, but unless there was some specific reason to draw attention to a woman, they generally blended into the background.

An interesting point, Jon, and one I admittedly hadn't considered.

The police form provided to compile a suspect description is very detailed, it begins with the obvious, like; Name, Age, Profession, but goes into fine detail like, Hair, Eyebrows, Eyes, Nose, Lips, Chin, Ears, etc.

Ah, not quite such a good point.

There is no way Hutchinson responded to a "list" provided by Badham, unless you're seriously suggesting that, in addition to height, weight etc, Badham had a form for witnesses to fill in which included "shirt collar material?", "eyelash colour?", "tie-pin design?", and other sillinesses. Unless you think that happened, it's quite clear that Hutchinson's Astrakhan description was offered more as a narrative.

Did he go home to change his hat & clothes, then come back?

Wouldn't have needed to.

There is no obvious difference in the clothing and headgear worn by Wideawake and Blotchy - at least as far as we're aware.

All there is, is a desire to create spurious suspicion where none existed.

Plenty of people are suspicious, so regardless of your unfounded insistence that the suspicion is motivated by "desire", it exists (just as it existed in 1888), it is widespread, and it certainly isn't going away.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi,

I still dont understand (even with Ben's juvenile bullying tactics) why people dont beieve in Hurchinson's statement. It was vouched by Abberline and even Dew regarded it as true. There is no reason to believe that it was made up or that the Police believed it was made up ( apart from the one obscure press "add" that Ben relies on.

Best wishes.

Exactly, there is no reason.
All there is, is a desire to create spurious suspicion where none existed.

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson's story could have been made up from reading the news.

Which news?

He omitted Lewis who had a reason to pass a man standing outside while she was going into the court.

Women, in the 19th century could be anywhere & everywhere, but unless there was some specific reason to draw attention to a woman, they generally blended into the background.
Happily, times have changed, but to understand why these apparent anomalies existed we have to avoid looking at these statements with 21st century social attitudes.

It is doubtful he is even the person she described seeing.

It isn't doubtful, but it is not certain.

He omits loads of details and yet can remember this guy down to quantum level, lol.

If you notice the detailed description given by Hutchinson is quite separate from the account he provided to Sgt Badham.
It does not form part of the same statement, it is appended afterwards.

That is an indication that Hutchinson was specifically questioned on the point, likely by Badham, after he gave his voluntary statement.

The police form provided to compile a suspect description is very detailed, it begins with the obvious, like; Name, Age, Profession, but goes into fine detail like, Hair, Eyebrows, Eyes, Nose, Lips, Chin, Ears, etc.

It looks to me like Hutchinson was questioned by Badham on these specific points as he reads down the list, but because we are not aware that a form is being used it leaves the modern reader with the impression that Hutchinson is pulling this all out of a hat.

The detail is not entirely credited to Hutchinson, but also to the professionalism of Sgt Badham.

The man outside is Blotchy waiting to use the window trick to go back in to kill MJK after checking things out.

Did he go home to change his hat & clothes, then come back?

[Hatchett]

Hi,

I still dont understand (even with Ben's juvenile bullying tactics) why people dont beieve in Hurchinson's statement. It was vouched by Abberline and even Dew regarded it as true. There is no reason to believe that it was made up or that the Police believed it was made up ( apart from the one obscure press "add" that Ben relies on.

Best wishes.

[Batman]

Hutchinson's story could have been made up from reading the news. He omitted Lewis who had a reason to pass a man standing outside while she was going into the court. It is doubtful he is even the person she described seeing. He omits loads of details and yet can remember this guy down to quantum level, lol. Mary his friend didn't even say hi to him passing by.

The man outside is Blotchy waiting to use the window trick to go back in to kill MJK after checking things out.

[Ben]

He should have asked Hutchinson for some violin lessons.

Given the bogus nature of Hutchinson's account, I'd say he was taking Violinia lessons, Gareth! (I'll get mi' Astrakhan).

Hi Caz,

Apologies for the late catch-up.

Isaacs was arrested for stealing a coat for heaven's sake (and was known to nick musical instruments he couldn't play), so why the hell couldn't he have fancied himself in a bit of flashy stolen clobber before flogging it on?

Absolutely. I've acknowledged in the past that this is a realistic possibility. If Isaacs was ever in possession of an Astrakhan coat - and in my view, there is no evidence to suggest he was - it was because he pinched it. My point has always been that there was enough physical similarity between the Astrakhan man and Isaacs to justify the observation that they might have been the same man, irrespective of the Astrakhan coat. Remember that the press were well aware of his thieving ways, so even if they saw him dressed like the homeless thief he was (but about 30 years old, Jewish looking, with a dark moustache etc), they could still have explained away the incongruity between his clothing and Astrakhan's on the grounds that the former was a known thief who could easily have pinched such a coat.

But if you are right, the press must have credited him with at least two coats to his name: the one he was wearing when they saw him, and the one trimmed with astrakhan, described by Hutchinson.

Well strictly speaking, there is no evidence that he wore a coat at all when the press spotted him.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Isaacs... was known to nick musical instruments he couldn't play

He should have asked Hutchinson for some violin lessons.




I shouldn't have said that. I'll get me coat.

[Wickerman]

The description of the man in the Astrakan trimming most closely resembles a known individual, and it isnt Isaacs,...though I am interested in this fellow.

Astrakan Man's description very closely matches that of double agent General Frank Millen, although I believe there is some evidence that he was not in London at the time.

That wouldnt prevent someone from attempting to frame him for the crime though...should George have had that in mind.

Cheers

Wouldn't you first need to establish if G.H. even knew Millen existed?

[caz]

If Isaacs was certainly a Jew, certainly 30 years of age, and certainly wore a moustache, and if it is certain that the Astrakhan description includes those three attributes, we have more than enough material to warrant the observation that Isaacs certainly answered the published description in those respects.

Hi Ben,

If Isaacs's appearance certainly answered to the published description of the man wearing a coat trimmed with astrakhan, the possibility has to remain that he wore such a garment, or could have acquired one. Isaacs was arrested for stealing a coat for heaven's sake (and was known to nick musical instruments he couldn't play), so why the hell couldn't he have fancied himself in a bit of flashy stolen clobber before flogging it on?

But that is still missing the point. The point is, the press were not simply making some gossipy housewife's observation: "ooh, those two must look like two peas in a pod"; they were speculating (rightly or wrongly) that Isaacs was Astrakhan Man, and a person of major interest in the ongoing ripper enquiry until such time as he could be eliminated. From a press point of view, Isaacs must have had the coat described by Hutchinson, or he could not possibly have been the man described by Hutchinson. Surely you can concede that much, without losing the rest of your argument?

You may be right about Isaacs wearing a completely different coat when the press noted his appearance and suggested he was Astrakhan Man; there is no hard evidence either way. You interpret their words one way, I interpret them another. But if you are right, the press must have credited him with at least two coats to his name: the one he was wearing when they saw him, and the one trimmed with astrakhan, described by Hutchinson.

So you might be better off allowing Del Boy - sorry, Isaacs - just the one coat, the flashier one, which he likely pinched anyway.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

The description of the man in the Astrakan trimming most closely resembles a known individual, and it isnt Isaacs,...though I am interested in this fellow.

Astrakan Man's description very closely matches that of double agent General Frank Millen, although I believe there is some evidence that he was not in London at the time.

That wouldnt prevent someone from attempting to frame him for the crime though...should George have had that in mind.

Cheers

[Ben]

Just give the Isaacs nonsense a rest. You accuse me of having obsessions, but this is an obsession of yours, and yours alone. "Isaakstrakhan" is an execrably bad construct that you stubbornly invest in despite all evidence against it, and when the pitfalls of continuing to persist in this hopeless notion are spelt out to you, you resort to personal abuse. Your sneering, condescending rudeness towards Sally and gross misrepresentations of Garry's posts from years ago are simply appalling, and injures your credibility further. Why don't you do as Sally suggests and "broaden your horizons"? See what's going on with the Stride threads, I would. You might have better luck there.

Then in your view every 30-ish Jew with a moustache was a "certain" fit? One of any number of hundreds, of "certain" fits?

You miss the point.

I'll explain again, and try my damnedest to me patient in doing so:

If Isaacs was certainly a Jew, certainly 30 years of age, and certainly wore a moustache, and if it is certain that the Astrakhan description includes those three attributes, we have more than enough material to warrant the observation that Isaacs certainly answered the published description in those respects.

Then you go straight back to picking up the fight about Hutchinson's discrediting, and I'm positively foaming at the mouth with excitement at the opportunity to repeat all this again. "Very reduced importance" was the phrase used by the Echo in reference to the status of Hutchinson's credibility in the minds of the police late on 13th November. This was ascertained through a direct communication with the police, during which the latter also supplied information that we know to be true, and which was only obtainable from legitimate police sources, despite your hilarious claim to the contrary.

In the same paper, and courtesy of the same police source, it was reported that Hutchinson's statement had been "considerably discounted" because it was not supplied at the inquest on oath, and in the "proper manner". The Star reported a day later, in harmony with the findings if the Echo, that Hutchinson was merely "another witness, now discredited".

I have seriously entertained the idea of offering a legitimate financial reward to anyone who can come up with the proof that you can only talk about.

You'd best cough up immediately then.

It's fascinating to hear you talk of "obsession" when you're prepared to go to such extreme and zealous lengths to undermine my observations, and what an extremely poor job you're making of it. It is clear from the sources available that Hutchinson was discredited. That is irrefutable, and I'll reiterate it until I expire if necessary. No, I'm not saying the police had discovered proof that he lied, but the indications are they he was suspected of having done so.

And this too, you repeat ad nauseam, two controversial details in which you totally stand alone in promoting it as a fact, and, refusing all challenges to provide your proof.

Again with the malicious, sinister and deliberate misrepresentation. I have never "refused" a challenge. I've responded in considerable detail when asked to clarify my stance on Hutchinson's discrediting. You can disagree with my answers - you can even make a fussy, ponderous, boring noise about it if you wish - but don't ever accuse me of "refusing" to respond to a "challenge" or "request".

Meaning....we have no assurance that Oakes ever told the police, or spoke about his suspicions prior to Lloyds turning up at his door.

The police would not have exhibited such a serious interest in Isaacs unless there was something more substantial beyond a physical similarity with a witness description that may or not have been legitimate, and which may or may not have been of the real killer, even if it was. Moreover, it's ludicrous to argue that the police would place such an investigative focus on a suspect they hadn't even bothered to conduct any research into. The assumption that they were familiar with the claims of both Cusins and Oakes is thus a very safe one indeed. I wouldn't cling with undue desperation to that silly, second-hand hearsay quote attributed to Abberline regarding a "big thing", "we've got the right bloke" (etc) either. If true, it would paint Abberline in rather a supercilious light, which is why I'd prefer to believe if isn't.

On the contrary, your refusal to progress any further

As opposed to you, who is doing what, exactly?

Making leaps and bounds in your progress into "Isaacstrakhan"? Finding hitherto undiscovered material? Pouring over microfiche? Squirreling away in the dusty archives? Locating Mrs. Kennedy's long lost pet tortoise?

Nope.

It's pretty much just squabbling with me, isn't it?

So off you must toddle now to a different area of ripper research. The Druitt threads are looking a bit quiet, and you like him, remember?

[Wickerman]

Of course there is.
If it was "certain" that Isaacs was a "30 yr old Jew donning a moustache", and "certain" that Hutchinson described a man fitting that description, we have sufficient material with which to justify the "certainly" observation.

Then in your view every 30-ish Jew with a moustache was a "certain" fit? One of any number of hundreds, of "certain" fits? Really Ben, to what lengths are you prepared to go to defend your argument?
You have not only tried to translate "reduced" into meaning "discredited", but now "certainly" also means "generally".

You're forgetting the individuals who can actually be shown to have worn Astrakhan coats, such as foreigner Anton Pischa.

And,... as to race?, moustache?, residence?, gold chain?, ...need I go on?

You're also forgetting that superficial facial similarity with a published description is rendered horridly meaningless if (a) the published description was completely discredited, ....

Here we go again, .....is this an attempt at brainwashing, or the result of brainwashing?

I have seriously entertained the idea of offering a legitimate financial reward to anyone who can come up with the proof that you can only talk about, because dammit, this proof is more elusive than hens teeth. Obsession with a particular opinion appears to have replaced rational thinking.

..... or (b) a police investigation determined that the suspected individual could not possibly have been the character seen by the witness, even if that witness was taken seriously.

And this too, you repeat ad nauseam, two controversial details in which you totally stand alone in promoting it as a fact, and, refusing all challenges to provide your proof.

We're not talking about first date anxiety or a floppy willy here. Isaacs was accused of threatening violence to all women over 17, ....

I don't know if you have noticed this, but this claim also comes from Lloyds, but only after they had interviewed Oakes themselves, which was several days after the original story broke.
Meaning....we have no assurance that Oakes ever told the police, or spoke about his suspicions prior to Lloyds turning up at his door.
So it does not do you any good to claim Abberline was looking for Isaacs due to idle gossip - and well you know this is all it was.

No, Abberline was chasing Isaacs because of the apparent fact he resembled the Whitechapel murderer, and the press confirmed as much.

Now for crying out loud, have the maturity and life experience to recognise that we're progressing no further with this infernal Isaacs nonsense and leave the damned thing alone.

On the contrary, your refusal to progress any further is an indicator of your own limitations to accept anything which weakens your own opinions.