The Red Handkerchief...

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,



I've been enjoying the lighthearted banter that has characterized our recent exchanges, and I'll probably look ridiculously po-faced and paranoid for asking such an obvious question, but just to clarify - you were just kidding with the above, I take it? You don't really believe you have created a "credible and viable" scenario in which Astrakhan man is Kelly's fiancee, do you? Ah good, just checking! Can you imagine if you weren't kidding?!



Haha!

Good one!

"Ooh la la, monsieur fiancee Astrakhan! I was out looking for money because I was desperate to pay the rent, but silly dappy girl that I am, I forgot that I only had to wander into you on one of your small hours walkabouts and grab a few bank notes off you, you sexy ATM machine on legs, you!"

"Would that it were true, wife-to-be, but you forget I'm just Joseph Isaacs from Paternoster Row. None of this bling is real, my love. I simply yoinked it from some depressed-looking barrister I found wandering up and down the Minories, and now I'm off to play my violin and pace the floor all night if you fancy joining me?"

"No, my gorgeous, mysterious and highly conspicuous new fiancee who has inexplicably remained a secret from everyone else I know. Come to my place before you get robbed or lynched for being Jack the Ripper. I’ve told you before about pinching poncy clothes and wearing them here. Everyone’s been sayin’ the real killer has a black bag and parcel, and look what you swan in with, you great tit-head!”

Ah, good laughs…



Brilliant!

I can't rule out the possibility that there is a rhino called Dave playing croquet in the nearby park.

But again, imagine if you were serious about this. Imagine if you were seriously suggesting, with a straight face, that the inescapable connection between the Hutchinson account and Daily News article is nullified on the basis that Astrakhan might have been Kelly’s fiancée, wandering the streets in search of a French cuddle!



Good call!

(That’s from this post onwards, by the way).

All the best,
Ben

So it´s more of the same again - let´s ridicule Fisherman and make him out as totally naïve.

It is getting a bit tiresome. But I have patience, so I will once more tell you that my own take on the affair is that is seemingly is one of paid-for sex.

But that is not the issue here. Naïvety is always a consequence of not having taken in or realized the full picture. And that is where you lack, Ben.

I am not saying that Astrakhan man probably was Kelly´s fiancée.

I am saying that it cannot be excluded as a possibility.

The whole issue at hand is the question "Do we have proof that Astrakhan man offered Kelly money for sex?"

That question cannot be swept away by jestering. It calls for an answer.

So drop all the ridiculing, drop the sarcasms and all that stuff, and answer the very simple question:

Do we have proof that money was offered by Astrakhan man in exchange for sex?

And don´t tell me it´s bleeding obvious that he did, that is NOT the issue. The only issue is whether we have proof that he did so.

Answer that question truthfully with either a "yes" or a "no". And if you choose the "yes" option, provide the proof.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

But Sally, there is no "those", it is yourself who defends the arguments which cast Hutchinson in a negative light. Then, when you think you are loosing the argument you claim to only be "impartial" anyway.
Others at least own up to their position against Hutchinson, up front.

Facts are what they are, Jon. There is ample demonstration that Hutchinson's account was deriviative in this thread.

And you are quite wrong. Much as in the tedious case of the Morning Advertiser [demonstrably a trade paper]; and come to think of it, the yet more tedious case of 'Isaacs' [in prison] the documentary evidence supports my argument and that, as they say, is that.

I wouldn't bother otherwise.

To produce a counter argument that has any meaning, you'll have to get around the evidence - nothing else will do. I'm not 'loosing' any arguments, although I rather fear that you are.

You want my position on Hutchinson? Sure, he made the whole thing up. I'm not going to speculate as to why, becuase I'm not sure I care - we may guess, but we'll probably never know for sure so what's the point? As it stands, one explanation is as good as another.

But I've been saying all that for the past several posts, right here, on this thread - maybe you weren't paying attention.

[Sally]

Mr and Mrs Isaacs-Kelly...

Well I liked your post Ben (no disrespect to Fisherman). Its nice to see a bit of levity whilst we polish our Accredited Hutchinsonian cards.

[Wickerman]

And you are quite wrong. Much as in the tedious case of the Morning Advertiser [demonstrably a trade paper]; and come to think of it, the yet more tedious case of 'Isaacs' [in prison] the documentary evidence supports my argument and that, as they say, is that.

Not sure what you are arguing for here.
Proof has been provided that Isaacs was in jail from Nov. 12th to Dec. 3rd.

I assume you are referring to him being in jail on Nov. 9th?, well, the invitation to provide proof (as I have done), is extended to yourself.
Or, is your proof, like Ben's, limited to what you read in the press?

Lloyds Weekly can be demonstrated to have confused the George St. assault with the Dorset St. murder.
Mary Cusins placed Isaacs in his room on Nov. 9th. - per Lloyds Weekly, and other sources.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Wickerman,

Oh I see now. You want to discuss Joseph Isaacs under the auspices of a George Hutchinson Suspect Thread.

Well that's fine, but isn't it a little bit like trying to fire a bullet around a corner. Because this thread is predicated on the assumption that George Hutchinson made up his story whole cloth because he, George Hutchinson was Jack the Ripper.

So you are arguing Hutch told the truth and in fact he saw Jack the Ripper, and that man was Joseph Isaacs.

Yet you are arguing this on a George Hutchinson Suspect Thread. That's the part I don't get. But you are certainly free to do as you like.

Roy

[Wickerman]

So you are arguing Hutch told the truth and in fact he saw Jack the Ripper, and that man was Joseph Isaacs.

Yet you are arguing this on a George Hutchinson Suspect Thread. That's the part I don't get.

Roy

Alas, it's not the only thing you don't get Roy.
If you choose to step in then please familiarize yourself with what is being argued first.

[Wickerman]

... Much as in the tedious case of the Morning Advertiser [demonstrably a trade paper]; ...

What has been demonstrated by way of contemporary evidence, in the form of published listings, is that the Morning Advertiser was a leading Daily newspaper found among such contemporaries as Morning Post, Times, Daily Telegraph, etc.
not a trade paper, the leading Daily owned by the Brewery.

In fact I listed the Breweries other publications, their trade papers, not that you care to remember (conveniently).

The Morning Advertiser is not the issue here, it contributes nothing to the Hutchinson debate except to publish an article that Ben did not agree with, hence the subsequent tirade against the paper.
The real issue here, if we are concerned about press contributions, is the Star.
Given Ben's sad promotion of this 19th century version of the National Enquirer, I am surprised you have not seen fit to advise him of this misdirected devotion.
Silly me....maybe not.

[Sally]

Alas, it's not the only thing you don't get Roy.
If you choose to step in then please familiarize yourself with what is being argued first.

Yes - I don't think anybody's arguing that either Hutchinson or Isaacs was Jack the Ripper.... are they?

[Sally]

The Morning Advertiser is not the issue here, it contributes nothing to the Hutchinson debate except to publish an article that Ben did not agree with, hence the subsequent tirade against the paper.

You are right, the Morning Advertiser isn't the issue here. But it you are alson right in that it doesn't contribute anything to the Hutchinson debate, then I can't imagine why you spent so much time and energy arguing about the 'article that Ben did not agree with'

My argument with you, as I explained to you at the time, was that you insisted that the Morning Advertiser wasn't chiefly a trade paper, when it demonstrably was. There is ample evidence, modern and contemporary to that effect.

It is always best to understand the sources we utilise in their context, if we can.

[Sally]

Not sure what you are arguing for here.
Proof has been provided that Isaacs was in jail from Nov. 12th to Dec. 3rd.

Yes [sigh...] I know
.

I assume you are referring to him being in jail on Nov. 9th?, well, the invitation to provide proof (as I have done), is extended to yourself.
Or, is your proof, like Ben's, limited to what you read in the press?

I wouldn't be so sure that there isn't proof, if I were you: that's still to be determined.

Lloyds Weekly can be demonstrated to have confused the George St. assault with the Dorset St. murder.

No it can't. An explanation for the confusion has been suggested, which I'm afraid I find unconvincing.

Mary Cusins placed Isaacs in his room on Nov. 9th. - per Lloyds Weekly, and other sources.

So she did. And Lloyds later placed him in prison. You do know that prisoners were frequently taken into custody well ahead of trial, don't you? I've seen examples in which prisoners had been in custody for over a month - we're talking about three days here.

At present neither of us knows for certain when he was arrested; but I see no reason why he couldn't have been arrested and taken into custody before Kelly was killed. Lloyd's 'in prison' doesn't necessarily indicate that he'd been convicted.

What we know for sure is that he was later arrested and questioned on suspicion of being the Whitechapel Murderer - and subsequently released. Ask yourself how that came to pass if he didn't have an ironclad alibi?

[Roy Corduroy]

Yes - I don't think anybody's arguing that either Hutchinson or Isaacs was Jack the Ripper.... are they?

I rest my case

Roy

[Fisherman]

I've seen examples in which prisoners had been in custody for over a month - we're talking about three days here.

Not "we" - you are. Me, I´m talking about FOUR days ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Not "we" - you are. Me, I´m talking about FOUR days ...

The best,
Fisherman

Quite correct Fish.

Post in haste, repent at leisure.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I never jest in order to "ridicule", Fisherman. I do so for the purpose of injecting a bit of levity into what I perceive as an stroppy debate, and as I explained, I genuinely thought we were on the same page in this regard, and genuinely thought you were just mucking about with your suggestion that Astrakhan as Kelly's fiancee makes for a "credible and viable" proposal. It certainly wasn't my intention to cause offense.

In the Daily News article, the "respectable" man offered Kelly money, and in Hutchinson's account, Astrakhan man was obviously doing precisely that. I'm afraid the existence of painfully unlikely alternative scenarios (to Astrakhan offering her money) don't make it any less obvious either. One wonders how this mystery woman mentioned in the Daily News was able to observe the respectable man offering Kelly money, unless, after parting company with Kelly herself, she loitered weirdly around the area, hovering in close proximity to Kelly and taking an unusual interest in her interaction with Mr. Respectable.

Sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it?

To the list of striking similarities must we add "unusually proactive, and arguably obtrusive interest in Kelly and her respectable client".

Do we have proof that money was offered by Astrakhan man in exchange for sex?

And don´t tell me it´s bleeding obvious that he did, that is NOT the issue. The only issue is whether we have proof that he did so.

Answer that question truthfully with either a "yes" or a "no". And if you choose the "yes" option, provide the proof.

I answer with a resounding "no", Fisherman, on the basis that I don't believe Astrakhan existed, less still offered anyone phantom money. If you're asking me if Hutchinson wanted to create the impression that Astrakhan offered Kelly money, I'd say we require proof of this obvious reality as much as we require proof that there isn't a turquoise hippo called Henry currently hiding underneath your house.

That dissertation was called the Cable Street dandy.

I know, and it's a misleading title because there is no evidence that Klosowski was a "dandy" when he was living in Cable Street. By the time he returned from America, he had dandified himself to an extent after reinventing himself as George Chapman. No evidence that he wore a sailor's cap during his time in Cable Street either.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

It was a very brief inquest, after all, and Roderick McDonald was keen to establish the facts of the case, and little else.

He would have been hard-pressed to find a more pertinent case-related fact than Kelly taking home a respectably clad client on the night of her murder, which is why I suggest that if this particular detail had been considered true and accurate, its originator would have been called to the inquest. I quite agree that many of the early press accounts may have been Chinese-whispered versions of genuine eyewitness accounts, and think it quite possible that the Daily News article is based very loosely on the Cox and Lewis sightings.

I don't dispute that Cox was one of the better witnesses to emerge from the case, and that her description was better than most, but if we're to accept her man as the likely ripper, it is noteworthy that Lawende's sighting of the even-more-likely ripper made no reference to a blotchy complexion of a carroty moustache. This is best explained by:

a) Lawende's man being the actual killer, and Cox's man not.

b) Cox filling in a few blanks based on brief glimpses of the man's face.

c) The blotchy carrottyness not being particularly conspicuous.

I personally would reject:

d) Lawende failed to notice the man's full blotchy-carrotty glory despite getting a detailed description of the man's clothing, headgear and neckware.

All the best,
Ben