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

[Abby Normal]

Hi Jon,



Jewish and about 30-years-old – that’s all we’ve got. Oh, and probably dressed in a manner similar to many others in his predicament, i.e that a lowly cigar-maker and essentially homeless thief. And maybe a moustache.



Yes, and he didn't get very far with that, did he?

It doesn't speak very highly for his abilities as a "confidence trickster" or fake detective. You mentioned that “someone” described him as “fancy-dressed”. Could you provide a source for this? It’s just that I don’t see any evidence that he “took pride in his appearance” or “dressed above his means” or “considered himself as some sort of Dandy”. None of that. We have but one instance of him dressing “up”, and only because he wanted to gain entry to the pier at Dover, where he could rob people. And guess what? He was crap at it. He was the proverbial giraffe in dark glasses trying to get into a “polar bears only” golf club.



Here is what Abby was referring to:

"I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise."

A somewhat crucial detail that Abberline decided to withhold from the police and only tell the press, for some reason (probably the one Abby suggested).

You ask whether it would have made more sense for Hutchinson to describe Blotchy and use him as a fictional suspect, instead of Astrakhan, if his intention was to deflect attention away from himself; and the answer is very obvious no.

If the whole purpose of Hutchinson’s decision to come forward was to legitimise his loitering presence outside the crime scene whilst deflecting suspicion away from himself, it would have made no sense to "use" Blotchy. Why? Because he was an ostensibly working class local, just like Hutchinson himself, not tall but stout, just like Hutchinson himself, and wore a wideawake/billycock hat, just like Hutchinson himself. Moreover, there was every chance that Blotchy – being a real person, and not a fictional one – might come forward and inform the police that he left the room much earlier than Hutchinson claimed to have seen him. A fictional character, by contrast, would never come forward (or get discovered) with his own version of events that drastically undermined Hutchinson’s, and all the better to make that character the well-dressed Jewish bogeyman that everyone wants him to be.

You say you have examples of opulently dressed men walking the very streets the ripper was known to haunt in the small hours. Can we see some of these please? And I don’t mean an obscure reference to a man with a bit of fur on his coat spotted near St. Paul’s. And I certainly don’t mean Joseph Isaacs!



Yes, it is.

Yes, it irrefutably is.

That is precisely what it is – that’s why the original statement itself accompanied the report. The fact that he talked about other stuff does not preclude it from being a report on his interview with Hutchinson. Any expectation that there must be a super-special mega-exciting, lost-in-the-Blitz "extra" report in addition to this is hopelessly unrealistic, in my opinion.

As Batman sensibly points out, it was most assuredly not the “prevailing opinion” that Hutchinson was telling the truth, and the evidence fully supports the contention that his statement was discredited shortly after it first appeared. Now, we can either go around and around in circles with that done-to-death argument, OR you can follow up the leads on Joseph Isaacs, about whom you are obviously very interested. Who knows? They might spark brand new debates!

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben
yup.
But I would just add that Hutch probably never saw Blotchy, and if he did happen to peak inside marys broken window, probably did not get a good enough look at him to describe anyway.

I would venture he made A-man up from the descriptions he read in the newspaper and also possibly from a rich jewish man that he was jealous of.

I would also venture that if hutch was the ripper, that the GSG was written for the same reason, and I can see a hint of jealousy and anger in both.
It hasn't been lost on me that A-man and the GSG are the ONLY direct pieces of evidence that implicate a jew. It wouldn't surprise me if the same man was responsible for both.

[Abby Normal]

Sure they are, twelve three minute ones

HAHA. Now THATS funny.

[Observer]

Hey, it kinds sounds now like you two guys aren't gonna meet up for a round at the local pub.

Sure they are, twelve three minute ones

[Scott Nelson]

Hey, it kinds sounds now like you two guys aren't gonna meet up for a round at the local pub.

[Wickerman]

... If you're suggesting that every ripper-related witness had their interrogations fully transcribed, that would mean none of the transcripts have survived.

What a bugger, eh?

Cheers,
Ben

Well, thats one guess you managed to get right.

[Ben]

Thats all you have got, it's not all I have got.

Oh yes, he once made a lame attempt to dress up like a detective, which isn't so easy if you're a homeless thief.

but that didn't stop him from providing a repeat performance

He dressed up like a detective on more than one occasion?

If this is getting too much for you Ben, you only have to say so.
It was Hutchinson, not Abberline.

Yes, Jon, I accidentally wrote Abberline when I meant Hutchinson. That means I've lost the entire argument. Clearly this is "getting too much for me", and I'm bound to give up at any moment. You continue the onslaught and watch me disappear with the stress of it all...

Which is what he told the press

Yes, he told the press that he entered the court itself, but he didn't tell H̶u̶t̶c̶h̶i̶n̶s̶o̶n̶ T̶h̶e̶ ̶Q̶u̶e̶e̶n̶s̶ ̶H̶e̶a̶d̶ M̶u̶f̶a̶s̶a̶ Abberline.

Why not?

You THINK an accused murderer is going to come forward?
And you THINK the police will accept his story, as an honest citizen, no doubt?

Yes, to both.

If Blotchy was in a position to demonstrate his innocence in the form of a concrete alibi from, say, 1am onwards (which, for all Hutchinson knew, he was perfectly capable of providing), then no problem.

Have you ever bothered to ask why an interrogation of an eyewitness in a high profile murder case is to be written down?

I think you'll find they are recorded, actually. I don't know what the 1888 equivalent option would have been, but scribbling things down at furious speed doesn't seem like an option, and nor does extending the interview by hours in order for some poor copper to write everything down at "normal"" speed. If you're suggesting that every ripper-related witness had their interrogations fully transcribed, that would mean none of the transcripts have survived.

What a bugger, eh?

Cheers,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
Jewish and about 30-years-old – that’s all we’ve got.

Thats all you have got, it's not all I have got.

Yes, and he didn't get very far with that, did he?

He wasn't very good at his chosen profession, but that didn't stop him from providing a repeat performance. Which maybe one reason he adopted a couple of pseudonyms.

Here is what Abby was referring to:

"I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise."

I see you missed the point I was making.
Hutchinson, in his police statement, did say he went to the court, that was the quote I posted.

"...They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not."

The court being the backyard of Nos. 26 & 27. It was after 2:00 am, pitch black, so he obviously wouldn't see them from standing out in Dorset St., so he went up the court. Which is what he told the press.

A somewhat crucial detail that Abberline decided to withhold from the police and only tell the press,...

If this is getting too much for you Ben, you only have to say so.
It was Hutchinson, not Abberline.

..Moreover, there was every chance that Blotchy – being a real person, and not a fictional one – might come forward and inform the police that he left the room much earlier than Hutchinson claimed to have seen him.

You are joking, right?
You THINK an accused murderer is going to come forward?
And you THINK the police will accept his story, as an honest citizen, no doubt?

That is precisely what it is – that’s why the original statement itself accompanied the report. The fact that he talked about other stuff does not preclude it from being a report on his interview with Hutchinson. Any expectation that there must be a super-special mega-exciting, lost-in-the-Blitz "extra" report in addition to this is hopelessly unrealistic, in my opinion.

"in your opinion".
Have you ever bothered to ask why an interrogation of an eyewitness in a high profile murder case is to be written down?

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Humour me Ben, just what does Joseph Isaacs look like?

Jewish and about 30-years-old – that’s all we’ve got. Oh, and probably dressed in a manner similar to many others in his predicament, i.e that a lowly cigar-maker and essentially homeless thief. And maybe a moustache.

He was arrested trying to pass himself off as a detective, with intent to gain entrance to the pier, and possibly the ship in dock.

Yes, and he didn't get very far with that, did he?

It doesn't speak very highly for his abilities as a "confidence trickster" or fake detective. You mentioned that “someone” described him as “fancy-dressed”. Could you provide a source for this? It’s just that I don’t see any evidence that he “took pride in his appearance” or “dressed above his means” or “considered himself as some sort of Dandy”. None of that. We have but one instance of him dressing “up”, and only because he wanted to gain entry to the pier at Dover, where he could rob people. And guess what? He was crap at it. He was the proverbial giraffe in dark glasses trying to get into a “polar bears only” golf club.

That is an extremely puzzling observation, considering that he never makes any such claim

Here is what Abby was referring to:

"I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise."

A somewhat crucial detail that Abberline decided to withhold from the police and only tell the press, for some reason (probably the one Abby suggested).

You ask whether it would have made more sense for Hutchinson to describe Blotchy and use him as a fictional suspect, instead of Astrakhan, if his intention was to deflect attention away from himself; and the answer is very obvious no.

If the whole purpose of Hutchinson’s decision to come forward was to legitimise his loitering presence outside the crime scene whilst deflecting suspicion away from himself, it would have made no sense to "use" Blotchy. Why? Because he was an ostensibly working class local, just like Hutchinson himself, not tall but stout, just like Hutchinson himself, and wore a wideawake/billycock hat, just like Hutchinson himself. Moreover, there was every chance that Blotchy – being a real person, and not a fictional one – might come forward and inform the police that he left the room much earlier than Hutchinson claimed to have seen him. A fictional character, by contrast, would never come forward (or get discovered) with his own version of events that drastically undermined Hutchinson’s, and all the better to make that character the well-dressed Jewish bogeyman that everyone wants him to be.

You say you have examples of opulently dressed men walking the very streets the ripper was known to haunt in the small hours. Can we see some of these please? And I don’t mean an obscure reference to a man with a bit of fur on his coat spotted near St. Paul’s. And I certainly don’t mean Joseph Isaacs!

“I'm well aware of what you refer to, but that is not a report on his interview with Hutchinson.”

Yes, it is.

Yes, it irrefutably is.

That is precisely what it is – that’s why the original statement itself accompanied the report. The fact that he talked about other stuff does not preclude it from being a report on his interview with Hutchinson. Any expectation that there must be a super-special mega-exciting, lost-in-the-Blitz "extra" report in addition to this is hopelessly unrealistic, in my opinion.

As Batman sensibly points out, it was most assuredly not the “prevailing opinion” that Hutchinson was telling the truth, and the evidence fully supports the contention that his statement was discredited shortly after it first appeared. Now, we can either go around and around in circles with that done-to-death argument, OR you can follow up the leads on Joseph Isaacs, about whom you are obviously very interested. Who knows? They might spark brand new debates!

All the best,
Ben

[Batman]

This view is what is so absurd about your argument.

What is? That the burden of proof is on the person making the claim? That's the normal logical procedure to any claim. Nothing absurd about that at all.

The defacto "historical position" has already been written, Hutchinson's story was believed, it is 'you' who are trying to distort the reality by asking questions that were answered a hundred years ago to the satisfaction of the police, but today these answers have not survived.

I can cite plenty of investigators involved in the Whitechapel murders who didn't accept Hutchinson as a witness. That should be plainly obvious by the fact they never used him as a witness long after the murder of MJK.

City Police Witness = Lawende
Met Police Witness = Schwartz
? = Hutchinson ( a few weeks running around Dorset St., looking for the man with police).

Maybe the Met used him for awhile searching for this phantom rich Jew but why didn't that last long? I suppose the person who got the best view of JtR was just put on the sideline while the investigators went for the second or third best options.

Over 1500 minimum where interviewed as possible JtR suspects. The list of suspects isn't just Hutchinson's one. Plenty more in that boat at that time. See Tumblety for example.

In consequence, because they no longer exist 'you' prefer to cast suspicion on this issue.
Abberline was no fool, and he knew far more about what happened that night than we are likely to ever know, but no, 'you', prefer to think 'you' know better.

Where are the other lead investigators supporting Abberline in this? It seems clear they decided to look elsewhere other than the man described by Hutchinson after awhile. Is Swanson's suspect Hutchinson's man?

There is no historical basis for your argument, it is all the product of ill-informed theorizing.

There are plenty of non-jewish suspects that are contempory following the murder of MJK. Show us that Hutchinson's man survived for more than a few weeks or months at best in the minds of the investigators.

I, for my part, choose to side with the prevailing police opinion and accept Hutchinson was telling the truth. My, labors are being spent in trying to expand on that view, to learn more about one key person involved in this historical drama.

That's a lot of faith to put into someone who couldn't even describe what MJK looked like and didn't appear at the inquest.

The only reason why Hutchinson's statement was sealed was because it implicates a Jew. That's a criteria we know the investigators tried to hush up. Nothing more too it.

Hutchinson's man was never found or located.

[Wickerman]

As we have already covered a dozen times over, Hutchinson's account must be taken on faith in him and him alone. I'm not the one making the positive claim this man was there. That's Hutchinson's claim. You are quite entitled to make his claim your own, but then the burden of proof lies where? With people who doubt him?

This view is what is so absurd about your argument.
The defacto "historical position" has already been written, Hutchinson's story was believed, it is 'you' who are trying to distort the reality by asking questions that were answered a hundred years ago to the satisfaction of the police, but today these answers have not survived.
In consequence, because they no longer exist 'you' prefer to cast suspicion on this issue.
Abberline was no fool, and he knew far more about what happened that night than we are likely to ever know, but no, 'you', prefer to think 'you' know better.

There is no historical basis for your argument, it is all the product of ill-informed theorizing.
I, for my part, choose to side with the prevailing police opinion and accept Hutchinson was telling the truth. My, labors are being spent in trying to expand on that view, to learn more about one key person involved in this historical drama.

[Batman]

Your argument from 'authority' isn't going to make a difference either. You can't appeal to:

1) information you have got which isn't open knowledge in Ripperology.
2) putting the burden of proof on others to disprove your claim.
3) arguements ad populum for threads that prove your version which you haven't linked.

Good luck in your new original research, really, but then you have special information on the matter you are not willing to share and can't really blame people for thinking otherwise.

Here are some things to think about from Whitechapel history.

1) Why is Dorset St., a black area on the poverty maps?
2) What is slumming?
3) What is slum tourism?

People displaying their wealth in the fashion described by Hutchinson are not slummers (who dress down) not slum tourists (it's night time) and are prime targets for robbery in the daylight let alone the night.

Hutchinson is a walk down the yellow brick road to his fantasy land. That's not a pint I'm willing to drink but good luck with your research anyhow but I think your person of interest depends on Hutchinson describing a real person and so I understand why you have so much at stake on this very topic.

[Wickerman]

... Apparently I am supposed to go off and search for it myself according to you.

Now there's an idea, as shocking as it may sound, don't expect others to do the work for you. If you want to know about something, look it up yourself.

You have not once offered a contemporary source that tells us "no-one walked about dressed like that in Whitechapel", this is only your assumption, its what you think, nothing more.

I am also learning that you have some special information that only you have now and I can read later to see what you are talking about.
.
.
Why not just cite your sources?

For starters, this research comes at a price. Secondly, it will concern as much as can be found about the criminal life of this particular Joseph Isaacs. And third, the whole picture will, if sufficient material exists, be released in some form, after it is complete.

I am only pointing out where you are making mistakes.
It is up to you to choose to reconsider your argument if you want to learn something, but it appears you would rather dig-in and defend what you believe at all costs.
Not a surprise here on Casebook.

[Wickerman]

G'day Jon

I doubt he's going to do that.

So many people believe that everyone in the East End was a "looser" but even a brief perusal of the Poverty Maps shows that isn't the case and even a very short perusal of news archives shows it is wrong but that seems to allude some here.

Exactly, there are a lot of myths about Whitechapel. Respectable people, business owners, tailors, furniture makers, hospital staff, doctors, journalists, theatre goers, they all passed through these streets at all times of day and night.
Though, in this particular case the subject at hand is a local criminal who liked to dress himself up. There was a reason why he chose to call Spitalfields his home, it was safe for his kind.

[Batman]

I know, and thats why you think the way you do.
You are not saying that you have researched this and found it to be wrong, what you are saying is you have not researched it so you don't believe it. An argument from ignorance is not a convincing argument. I also know you have no intention of ever accepting it.

Anyone can have good reasons for thinking that something does not exist.

What you are describing is called an 'argument from incredulity'. That my 'lack' of imagination when it comes to this character is all that stands between me and him being real.

It is also a burden of proof shift, that it is not the person making the 'positive' claim that has to demonstrate it true, but the person who objects to show it is false.

As we have already covered a dozen times over, Hutchinson's account must be taken on faith in him and him alone. I'm not the one making the positive claim this man was there. That's Hutchinson's claim. You are quite entitled to make his claim your own, but then the burden of proof lies where? With people who doubt him?

I have good reasons for thinking that something does not exist. We have plenty of information on that street, that general area, muggings, violence, theft, murder, you name it, Dorset St., has seen it, done it, all of it. So my doubt isn't due to lack of information, it is because Hutchinson's character conflicts with the information we have about Dorset St., and Whitechapel!

Being wealthy doesn't equal being outdoors looking wealthy on Dorset St., at night. That's called a conflation. It is also conflating to say because X was seen at another place and time wearing gold looking watches etc., that they would also look this way on Dorset St. at the time. Neither of these claims can ever be true.

Most wealthy people who went to Whitechapel slumming, dressed the part. That's the information we have on wealthy people going there unless they where being toured during daytime to look at the poor.

So I asked you a few times to cite that special information that makes Hutchinson's character a possibility because others have dressed similarly. At one stage you appealed to the many threads which show what rich people dressed rich on Dorset St., at night. You didn't link it. Apparently I am supposed to go off and search for it myself according to you. I am also learning that you have some special information that only you have now and I can read later to see what you are talking about.

Hutchinson's imagination certainly wasn't lacking but what you get by shifting the burden of proof is the possibility of accepting his imagination as real without demonstrating it is so... which is exactly what seems to have happened to you and GUT. Oh dear.

Why not just cite your sources?

[GUT]

I know, and thats why you think the way you do.
You are not saying that you have researched this and found it to be wrong, what you are saying is you have not researched it so you don't believe it.
An argument from ignorance is not a convincing argument.
I also know you have no intention of ever accepting it.

When I have concluded my research on Joseph Isaacs you can read it for yourself. Meanwhile, why don't you read up on the type of people who lived and moved around in Whitechapel, and how wealthy many of them were.

G'day Jon

I doubt he's going to do that.

So many people believe that everyone in the East End was a "looser" but even a brief perusal of the Poverty Maps shows that isn't the case and even a very short perusal of news archives shows it is wrong but that seems to allude some here.