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

[Wickerman]

.... and the alleged physical similarity with Astrakhan man was a press observation only.

Ah, well that is a step in the right direction.
You now acknowledge that all your previous condemnations of 'my silly'? comparison between Isaacs and Astrachan are not of my own creation.

- The comparison between Isaacs and the Hutchinson suspect was first publicly voiced, in so far as we are aware, in Dec. 1888.

- The connection was the result of the press making a visual comparison between the overall physical appearance of Joseph Isaacs, and the published description of the Hutchinson suspect.

There is certainly no evidence that the police were interested in him for that reason.

I beg to differ.
As we are told:
"It is further stated that the inspector was heard to say to one of his subordinates: "Keep this quiet; we have got the right man at last. This is a big thing.” "

Whether those were the actual words used is debatable, though the overall impression was certainly that Abberline believed Isaacs was the long sought suspect described by Hutchinson.

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.

You may as well concede, as with Sally, that this claim by you remains to be established.

[Garry Wroe]

I do give you credit though, you sold your hypothesis well enough for Garry to buy into it. If I recall Garry described it, "unquestionably correct", good job we did not take that interpretation too seriously, hey?

I did, Jon? Well, I've just followed the link you provided and can find no such statement. Perhaps you'd care to locate it and provide another link.

As for your mocking condemnation of Sally, I seem to recollect your certainty that Hutchinson could have availed himself of a free night at the Victoria Home at any time of his choosing. When others disagreed you responded with the same contempt you've just directed at Sally. Then it emerged that you were wrong. Cue deafening silence on the subject.

You're not always wrong, Jon, but you're not always right either. Casebook would be a nicer place were there more amicable disagreements and fewer personal attacks.

Just a thought.

[Wickerman]

I did, Jon? Well, I've just followed the link you provided and can find no such statement. Perhaps you'd care to locate it and provide another link.

Yes Garry, you did.
Do you contest this is/was your view on the matter? If you do contest that this was your view then I would feel obliged to relocate the phrase. Though "overwhelmingly likely" conveys the same interpretation.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=187969&postcount=257

As for your mocking condemnation of Sally, I seem to recollect your certainty that Hutchinson could have availed himself of a free night at the Victoria Home .......

I don't contest this, but neither do I recall it. As this is also your recollection (as your above comment was with me), then I guess we can allow for a slight inaccuracy in the precise wording.

You're not always wrong, Jon, but you're not always right either.

Agreed, though I do know and are able to adequately express the difference between a "possibility" and an "established fact". And never attempt to disguise one for the other, which is a distinct contributing factor to the tone of many threads.
And no, I am not hinting at yourself.

Casebook would be a nicer place were there more amicable disagreements and fewer personal attacks.

Yes, wouldn't it just.

[Ben]

“You now acknowledge that all your previous condemnations of 'my silly'? comparison between Isaacs and Astrachan are not of my own creation.”

If you remember, Jon, my objection to the suggested Astrakhan-Isaacs comparison was purely in reaction to the claim that they wore the same clothing. There is absolutely no evidence for this, and it is very unlikely (and no, you’re not about to start a repetitive discussion over that again!). I’ve acknowledged that they were the same apparent ethnicity and age, and that both may have worn a moustache, but this was likely the full extent of any “similarity”.

"It is further stated that the inspector was heard to say to one of his subordinates: "Keep this quiet; we have got the right man at last. This is a big thing.” "

Whether those were the actual words used is debatable, though the overall impression was certainly that Abberline believed Isaacs was the long sought suspect described by Hutchinson.

No, not remotely.

As I’ve already explained, there was already plenty of material to warrant a serious interest in Isaacs. Never mind that most of the allegations concerning his alleged credentials as a ripper suspect turned out to be nonsense, the fact that he was reported at that time to have threatened violence against women, to have lived within a stone’s throw of Miller’s Court, and to have left the area immediately after the Kelly murder, would have been of obvious interest to the police. It was in response to these claims that Abberline et al may have been enthusiastic, albeit initially. Nothing to do with Astrakhan or Hutchinson.

“If you do contest that this was your view then I would feel obliged to relocate the phrase. Though "overwhelmingly likely" conveys the same interpretation”

I would be the first to contest it on Garry’s behalf, and I’ll save you the bother of trying to “relocate the phrase”. Garry has never once used the phrase “unquestionably correct” about anything on Casebook. It’s really rather fortunate that we have keyword and keyphrase search facilities on this website to expose false allegations, such as this one. You ought to be aware of the obvious distinction between “unquestionably correct” and “overwhelmingly correct”. The former is an expression of certainty, while the latter is not. So, much like your uncalled for attack on Sally, an apology is owed to Garry here.

[Wickerman]

If you remember, Jon, my objection to the suggested Astrakhan-Isaacs comparison was purely in reaction to the claim that they wore the same clothing. There is absolutely no evidence for this,

The evidence is provided in the words of those who actually saw the prisoner. As has been explained to you ad nauseam, there is no "certainly" associated to any 30 yr old Jew donning a moustache.
To be certain we know that the overall appearance must match in all respects.

"whose appearance certainly answered to the published description"

The certainty is attached to his physical features AND, him wearing the Astrachan trimmed coat.

Deny, dismiss, as is your want, but the written record remains uncontested.

It is not only his age, about 30, his ethnicity, his moustache, but also his height at 5ft 4in. Isaacs was of short stature.
Quite consistent with Hutchinson's claim: "I stooped down and looked him in the face."

I’ve acknowledged that they were the same apparent ethnicity and age, and both may have worn a moustache, but this was the likely full extent of any “similarity”.

Coupled with his height, the fact Isaacs was known to flaunt a fake gold watch chain, and the press who saw him wearing the astrachan coat.

Of all the published suspect descriptions concerned in the Whitechapel murder case, not one solitary living person has ever been so closely identified with one of these descriptions, as Joseph Isaacs can be with the Hutchinson suspect.

As I’ve already explained, there was already plenty of material to warrant a serious interest in Isaacs.

Not at all, the police were used to dealing with unfounded accusations stemming from disgruntled citizens.
The suggestion Isaacs had problems with the mature female sex is not strange for the times, neither does it warrant a four-man escourt of a manacled prisoner.

Abberline was very obviously in high hopes he had at long last found Hutchinson's suspect - "a very big thing!".

[Ben]

The evidence is provided in the words of those who actually saw the prisoner. As has been explained to you ad nauseam, there is no "certainly" associated to any 30 yr old Jew donning a moustache.

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. There is absolutely nothing to suggest Isaacs ever wore an Astrakhan coat, as I am prepared to tell you "ad nauseam". Yes, I will "deny" and "dismiss" where I recognise that denials and dismissals are appropriate, as they are in this case. And since you'll be deprived of the opportunity to win a war of repetition on this subject, I would suggest being more receptive to my advice, in future, when I caution against going round in circles on the same ghastly tedious points all the bloody time. Sally has observed that we're off topic and getting nowhere, and she makes a good point.

Hutchinson described his suspect as having been 5'6", not 5'4", the former being about an average height for the period. Isaacs being of supposedly "short" stature is therefore irrelevant.

Coupled with his height, the fact Isaacs was known to flaunt a fake gold watch chain, and the press who saw him wearing the astrachan coat.

Nope, no evidence at all of Isaacs ever wearing or owning an Astrakhan coat.

Of all the published suspect descriptions concerned in the Whitechapel murder case, not one solitary living person has ever been so closely identified with one of these descriptions, as Joseph Isaacs can be with the Hutchinson suspect.

Nope, nonsense again.

You're forgetting the individuals who can actually be shown to have worn Astrakhan coats, such as foreigner Anton Pischa. You're also forgetting that superficial facial similarity with a published description is rendered horridly meaningless if (a) the published description was completely discredited, as we know it was, 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.

The suggestion Isaacs had problems with the mature female sex is not strange for the times, neither does it warrant a four-man escourt of a manacled prisoner.

Problems with the mature female sex?

Are you even slightly serious?

We're not talking about first date anxiety or a floppy willy here. Isaacs was accused of threatening violence to all women over 17, and when this allegation is coupled with equally incriminating claims regarding his place of residence and his alleged departure from the area shortly after the murder, you have all the ingredients for a serious ripper suspect worth pursuing. Nothing else was required to justify the police interest in Isaacs - the very, very short-lived police interest in Isaacs, that is.

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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.