Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Garry Wroe]

Mr. Galloway, a clerk employed in the City, ....... informed the constable of what I had seen, and pointed out the man's extraordinary resemblance to the individual described by Cox. The constable declined to arrest the man, saying that he was looking for a man of a very different appearance."
The Star, 16 November 1888.

Not surprising, really, given that the Blotchy lookalike was an undercover detective. I cannot recall where the fuller story was detailed, but here’s an extract from The Evening News of 17 November:-

‘The police state that the man who aroused the suspicion of Mr. Galloway by frequently crossing and recrossing the road, is a respectable citizen, and that he was, as a matter of fact, acting in concert with them in his "mysterious movements."’

Sugden has a great deal to answer for.

[Wickerman]

Not surprising, really, given that the Blotchy lookalike was an undercover detective. I cannot recall where the fuller story was detailed, but here’s an extract from The Evening News of 17 November:-

‘The police state that the man who aroused the suspicion of Mr. Galloway by frequently crossing and recrossing the road, is a respectable citizen, and that he was, as a matter of fact, acting in concert with them in his "mysterious movements."’

Sugden has a great deal to answer for.

Reasonable, but a "respectable citizen" is perhaps either, a private detective or more likely a member of the Whitechapel Vigilance volunteers?

Do I take it you accept the other three instances mentioned, and we can put this issue to bed?

Regards, Jon S.
P.S.
I do think it necessary to mention I think Ben already offered that as a solution to which I may not have responded because this 'solution' only answers the question of why this 'Blotchy' was not arrested. It does not answer the rest of the reply that the constable:
"was looking for a man of a very different appearance."

[harry]

I do not think it is innuendo that is being brought against Hutchinson.He signed a statement alledging a series of incidents occured.Except in one instance,none of the incidents were witnessed,and none were proven.It would be quite legitimate,in a court of law,had there been a trial,to suggest those incidents did not happen,and it is quite in order that today the same thing can be argued.

[Ben]

The evidence for Hutchinson’s discrediting has been provided.

I’m sorry for those whose world views are negatively affected by this, but it is a reality nonetheless. To call it “unsubstantiated conjecture” is therefore factually incorrect, and those who have threatened to “always throw back” this allegation whenever the subject of Hutchinson’s discrediting is broached cannot have been participating in these threads for very long if they think that this approach will have any effect. For as long as you’re prepared to call it “unsubstantiated conjecture”, I for one will always reject that accusation and explain why it is nothing of the sort.

The Echo’s disclosures were the result of a direct communication with the police – fact. Their information came directly from the Commercial Street police station, and we know for certain that it was accurate. It therefore constitutes direct evidence, not obtained second hand from a press agency in Morning Advertiser fashion. By all means continue the discussion as to how this might impact on our overall impression of Hutchinson, but it is both futile and wrong in the extreme to assert that he was not discredited.

The suggestion that the Echo were making up their police communication can be thus safely expunged from any further consideration, let alone discussion. The fact that the police exchange lasted more than one day only reinforces the fact that such an exchange took place, and the communication from the 14th clearly validates the communication from the 13th. What is the alternative? That the Echo approached the police on the 14th, and said, “Hello cops, yes, we lied about talking to you yesterday, but do tell all today!”

Let’s have a look at Jon’s points and see if they really indicate a sustained police interest in Hutchinson.

“Point 1: At about ten o'clock this morning, a man answering every description to the particulars furnished to the police by G. Hutchinson, as seen by him on the night of the murder of the woman Kelly, attracted attention in Queen Victoria-street, Blackfriars....
Evening News, 16 November 1888”

He "attracted attention" because he bore a similarity with a description that had been circulated widely in the newspapers at that time. A member of the public evidently reported this man based on Hutchinson's description, believing that the Astrakhan man was still considered vital evidence. There is absolutely no evidence, however, that the police were interested in this individual based on his alleged physical similarity with Hutchinson’s man.

“Point 2
Mr. Galloway, a clerk employed in the City, ....... informed the constable of what I had seen, and pointed out the man's extraordinary resemblance to the individual described by Cox. The constable declined to arrest the man, saying that he was looking for a man of a very different appearance."
The Star, 16 November 1888.”

Garry has dealt with this already, and I have pointed out the following:

Regardless of the date on which his account was published, the actual sighting was alleged to have occurred “in the early hours of Wednesday morning”, which was only a very short time after Hutchinson’s account had suffered a “very reduced importance”, as reported on Tuesday evening by the Echo. Since the first doubts surrounding Hutchinson’s credibility surfaced on the evening of the 13th, it is unsurprising that the policeman on beat were still searching for the Astrakhan man in the “early hours” of the 14th. This was all to change very quickly, of course. If nothing else, it demonstrates the extent to which Hutchinson’s short stay in the limelight derailed the investigation, with Cox’s potentially crucial evidence being temporarily cast aside in favour of a futile Astrak-hunt.

”Point 3,a
The arrest of Nikaner Benelius....”the prisoner is a man of decidedly foreign appearance, with a moustache,but otherwise cannot be said to resemble any of the published descriptions of men suspected in connection with the Whitechapel murders (the prisoner had been arrested by the police and detained in connection with the Berner-street murder).”The Times, 19 November, 1888.”

“Cannot” be said to publish any of the published descriptions.

Of course he wasn’t being compared to the Astrakhan man, and there is certainly no permitting the inference that the police were interested in him because of his appearance. He was detained in connection with the Berner Street murder, and there is no evidence of Hutchinson coming forward and description Astrakhan-types at that location.

”the suspected man was of gentlemanly appearance and manners, and somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been seen in the company with Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered”

This was published in both the Echo and the Star, amongst other newspapers, and these two at least were aware of both Hutchinson’s discrediting and the fact that he did not appear at the inquest. So you can forget the idea that the man with gentlemanly appearance and manners referred to Astrakhan man. This was clearly a reference to the evidence of Sarah Lewis, who did describe a “gentlemanly” individual, and who did attend the inquest.

So this isn’t evidence of a sustained interest in Hutchinson either, just like the preceding press snippets weren’t. Not looking terribly rosy for the attempts to undiscredit Hutchinson so far. Let’s look at the last one:

Point 4
That of Josef Isaacs, “the man who was arrested in Drury-lane on Thursday afternoon on suspicion of beingconnected with the Whitechapel murders. It transpired during the hearing of this charge that it was committed at the very time the prisoner was being watched as a person 'wanted'.....”the prisoner, who's appearance certainly answered the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat”
London Evening News, 8 December, 1888.

Oh, this one again. I've dealt with it more times than I care to remember, but ear with me while I type in “Isaacs” in the keyword search engine….here we go:

Joseph Isaacs was arrested because of his criminal act and allegations that he intended violence, not because of his appearance. The alleged Astrakhan similarity was observed by the press only, and the extent of that similarity must be doubted, considering Isaacs' impoverished circumstances at the time of his arrest. Anyone alleged to threaten violence to any woman over the age of 17 was guaranteed to attract negative police attention, irrespective of his appearance.

In not one of these “points” do we find the slightest indication that the Astrakhan man continued to be pursued after the Star reported that Hutchinson’s account had been discredited. This was not made up by the Star either, unhappily for those who continue to pretend to believe it was. Included in the same article denouncing these “Worthless Stories” was Matthew Packer, and nobody makes nearly as much fuss when it is observed that HE was discredited, let alone asserts that the Star invented the fact that he was.

None of the articles provided above cast the slightest doubt on this.

I think Frank’s sensible observation was missed; that a serial killer would not behave in a manner that was practically guaranteed to impede his chances of pulling off an efficient crime, such as dressing in the most conspicuous manner possible in the least suitable location at the least suitable time – a manner that would have deterred his intended victims while attracting the attention of muggers, policeman, and twitchy wannabe vigilantes.

Finally, it doesn’t matter remotely if Hutchinson himself didn’t state explicitly that the man’s attire was unusual for the location. It was unusual, simple as that. It’s time to do some research and revise your opinion if you think that opulently dressed men with thick gold chains and evening gaiters were commonplace in the Whitechapel streets in the small hours of the morning.

[Garry Wroe]

Reasonable, but a "respectable citizen" is perhaps either, a private detective or more likely a member of the Whitechapel Vigilance volunteers?

As I have already stated, Jon, another newspaper provided much more in the way of detail, and there is no question of the man having been a private detective or vigilante. He was an undercover policeman.

I do think it necessary to mention I think Ben already offered that as a solution to which I may not have responded because this 'solution' only answers the question of why this 'Blotchy' was not arrested. It does not answer the rest of the reply that the constable: "was looking for a man of a very different appearance."

Although I’m confused as to your intended meaning with reference to Ben, I think it abundantly obvious that the policeman concerned merely sought to reassure Mr Galloway in order to protect the integrity of whatever operation his undercover colleague was engaged on. That is the nature of police work, Jon. We know neither the essence of this particular operation, nor for how long it had been active. But of one thing we may be certain: no even moderately competent policeman would have risked compromising it by taking into his confidence a member of the general public. Hence I think it likely that the officer concerned provided an explanation that was simply calculated to deter Mr Galloway from further pursuing the matter.

Do I take it you accept the other three instances mentioned, and we can put this issue to bed?

You do not, Jon.

At about ten o'clock this morning, a man answering every description to the particulars furnished to the police by G. Hutchinson, as seen by him on the night of the murder of the woman Kelly, attracted attention in Queen Victoria-street, Blackfriars....Evening News, 16 November 1888

This was a sighting made by a member of the general public whose ‘suspicions’ were almost certainly aroused as a consequence of the published description of Astrakhan. As such, it in no way serves to confirm the thinking of those leading the hunt for the Whitechapel Murderer.

The arrest of Nikaner Benelius....”the prisoner is a man of decidedly foreign appearance, with a moustache, but otherwise cannot be said to resemble any of the published descriptions of men suspected in connection with the Whitechapel murders (the prisoner had been arrested by the police and detained in connection with the Berner-street murder).”The Times, 19 November, 1888.

‘[C]annot be said to resemble any of the published descriptions of men suspected in connection with the Whitechapel murders’. So how is it, Jon, that you consider this supportive of your argument that police continued to view Astrakhan as a viable suspect?

The Star, reporting on the same story went a little further, that ,...”the suspected man was of gentlemanly appearance and manners, and somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been seen in the company with Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered”

Oh, I see. The Star. Isn’t this the very newspaper that you have previously condemned as untrustworthy?

As far as I’m aware, no-one who appeared at the inquest hearing deposed that Mary Jane was seen in the company of an urbane individual on the morning of her death. I suspect that this is mere confusion on the part of The Star and perhaps alludes to the ‘clerkly’ man with whom Kelly was allegedly seen consorting in the Britannia. But, as with the Blackfriars incident, it provides nothing in the way of corroboration that Astrakhan continued to be viewed by investigators as a prime suspect.

That of Josef Isaacs, “the man who was arrested in Drury-lane on Thursday afternoon on suspicion of being connected with the Whitechapel murders. It transpired during the hearing of this charge that it was committed at the very time the prisoner was being watched as a person 'wanted'.....”the prisoner, who's appearance certainly answered the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat” London Evening News, 8 December, 1888.

The name of Joseph Isaacs was first reported to police by Mary Cusins shortly after the Kelly murder and on the flimsiest of ‘evidence’. Investigators were clearly not anxious to lay hands on Isaacs, otherwise they would have done a little more than advise that Cusins follow him if and when she saw him again. Almost a month after the Miller’s Court murder Isaacs was arrested after stealing a watch. He was then interviewed by Abberline purely as a matter of procedure – in other words, because his name had come to the attention of investigators courtesy of a member of the public – and was deemed to have had no involvement in the killings.

So Isaacs was never a realistic suspect, and even if his appearance did resemble that of the affluent-looking Astrakhan (which is doubtful in the extreme given the fact that he had been lodging in Little Paternoster Row), it was purely coincidental to his arrest rather than being a contributory factor.

Thus, Jon, none of the points you have raised constitute ‘evidence’ that Astrakhan was considered a realistic suspect by those at the sharp end of the investigation. If they satisfy you, then fine. But don’t be too surprised if others insist on looking at the bigger picture.

[Garry Wroe]

Apologies, Ben. There appears to have been more than a little replication regarding our most recent posts.

[Ben]

No apology necessary, Garry. On the contrary, I'd delighted to see we're in agreement here!

[FrankO]

And your objection to my comment was to suggest that anyone dressing up like Astrachan "must be mad"?

Hmm, something’s gone terribly wrong here, Jon, ‘cause I certainly didn’t suggest anything like that. I haven’t been talking about dressing up, nor have I suggested that anyone who’d do that ‘must be mad’.

All I said was that, from a weather and ‘safety’ point of view, it would have been logical for him if he’d kept his coat buttoned up.

What Hutchinson said was it was unusual to see Kelly with such a "well-dressed" man (ie; not working-class).

Yes, that’s what Hutchinson said - or at least that's what Abberline recorded of it. Based on that alone, we indeed might not draw the conclusion that well dressed men of the Mr A type were uncommon in the East End.

But, as I already wrote in an earlier post, one might wonder why Hutchinson didn’t often see Kelly in company of well dressed men. One viable reason may be that there weren’t many to be seen in the district when Kelly was plying her trade. I’m sure that such well dressed men would have been a treat to Kelly (she could sure use the money), and from their point of view, Kelly was young and apparently rather attractive with a room of her own.

Anyway, apart from the oddity that he kept his coat open and that he was there as a well dressed man on his own well after the pubs had closed, perhaps the oddity lies not so much in the fact that Kelly’s punter was well dressed, but rather in the fact that, considering the conditions, Hutchinson was able to see so many details and remember them too. And that he apparently gave no reason for doing so. The closest thing he gave as a reason was that he was just surprised to see a man so well dressed in Kelly’s company – and that’s a very thin one at that for all the actions that he took that night.

All the best,
Frank

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
The overcoat undone, the brazen showing of his watch and chain, the button boots, the kid gloves, the meeting of prostitute, and client, the ''All right my dear you will be be comfy''.not forgetting the wrapped parcel..
If all of this did occur, then one could suggest, that the whole event was staged to give the impression that the victim , was seen with a man that may warrant suspicion.
We also have the report that morning,of a couple entering the court, laughing at the reward poster close by.
My question is?
If the event was staged , for what reason?
Was the victim already dead in room 13, therefore not MJK?
It was alleged in one press report, that Mary had let her room to another woman.
We have the report of one man and two women outside Ringers, the man trying to entice the better dressed female to go with him , whilst the other watched.
We have the strange belief of the police, that Kelly's velvet jacket and a bonnet was burnt ..because they were bloodstained... explanation needed?
According to Mrs Prater, Kelly was wearing these items at 9pm Thursday evening, was she wearing them at 2am in commercial street?
We have no report about Kelly's clothing seen by Hutchinson.
Question ..Did Mary burn her clothing because they became bloodstained, surely the killer would not have.. if so why?
Also the police believed the murder happened in daylight[ press report] why?
Is it therefore a possibility, that Maxwell did see Mary Kelly, up and dressed at 8am? because she was not dead?
Lets look at what is known.
Mrs Harvey had no plans to stay at Kelly's Thursday Evening, but remarks to her 'I will leave my bonnet then'
At 9pm..Mary is seen by Prater at the corner of the passage wearing her velvet jacket , and a bonnet... she is clearly dressed up.
Question . was that to give the impression she was out to impress someone of fancy?
At midnight according to Cox, Kelly was not wearing those clothes,,, explanation needed.. was she making it known that she was bringing home men that evening[ something she was not known to do previous].
Moving on to Hutchinson's report.
''They stood opposite the court for about three minutes''
Again just across from McCarthy's shop, which was apparently still open , as Bowyer mentioned that he was fetching water at 3am.
Was that for others to note? they clearly put on a show for Hutchinson.Why would the killer, wish to advertise himself, if not just for that reason.
There is definitely more to events of the 8th/9th Nov, then is known, so a new line of inquiry is needed...
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

All I said was that, from a weather and ‘safety’ point of view, it would have been logical for him if he’d kept his coat buttoned up.

Yes Frank, I know what you said:

Still, it would be foolish to walk around with your coat open to display a thick gold chain, also in light of the fact that it was cold and possibly wet.

If you recall Fisherman made comments along similar lines, about the weather & the unbuttoned coat. I chose not to take Fisherman up on this observation as I did not wish to get into the 'wrong-day, bad weather' argument.

Speaking as someone who is continually berated by my wife for not buttoning up my coat in all the inclement weather Canada can throw at you, I really couldn't believe that anyone would make an argument based on "what is expected of them", by whom?

Why would anyone choose to argue that if a suspect wore his coat unfastened on a rainy night (but was it really?), that the witness who saw him "must be lying"?
Thats a helluva tall & lame assumption to make, especially as how the man Sarah Lewis saw outside the Britannia at 2:30am had no overcoat on at all.
Not forgetting that none of these female witnesses give any hint that coats were a necessity that night.

As for the exposed watch-chain, that is the style of fastening, if your coat is unbuttoned the watch-chain is exposed when worn through the waistcoat.
Thats how it is. Whether it was actually gold, or just looked gold is another matter entirely.

But, as I already wrote in an earlier post, one might wonder why Hutchinson didn’t often see Kelly in company of well dressed men. One viable reason may be that there weren’t many to be seen in the district when Kelly was plying her trade.

Knowing the number of businesses in the immediate area, what would be unusual is if it was not common. The depth and extent of poverty did not wholly encompass the entire area. Take a look at Booth's Map.

...... the oddity lies not so much in the fact that Kelly’s punter was well dressed, but rather in the fact that, considering the conditions, Hutchinson was able to see so many details and remember them too. And that he apparently gave no reason for doing so.

From that we can deduce anything, what we cannot do is cast Hutchinson as a liar based on what we do not know.

The Whitechapel area was thriving with wannabe detectives, volunteers, citizens, all trying to play the part of Sherlock Holmes. So Hutchinson excelled at perception, and for that he is condemed, or was he just another wannabe?

Too much is decided on too little knowledge, but we have to have our whipping-posts.

All the best, Jon

[Ben]

If all of this did occur, then one could suggest, that the whole event was staged to give the impression that the victim , was seen with a man that may warrant suspicion.

Yes, Richard.

But staged by Hutchinson.

they clearly put on a show for Hutchinson

Or, much more likely, Hutchinson put a show on for the police.

The indications that Hutchinson lied and was accordingly discredited are both plentiful and compelling, and "Mr. Astrakhan" is merely the tip of the non-existent iceberg in that respect. It seems that some people are reluctant to divest themselves of the well-dressed, upper-class image of the killer, and continue to resist the strong indications that Hutchinson fabricated his account for that reason. Amazingly, it also appears that others are still getting confused about Booth's poverty map. They see a splash or red on the map and assume that this must indicate the presence of people who dressed like Astrakhan man supposedly did in the small hours of the morning. This is wrong, and annoyingly so. The red-shaded areas on Booth's map included the Britannia and Princess Alice pubs. Is anyone seriously suggesting that these local publicans, along with shopkeepers and butchers and other "businessmen" dressed like the alleged Astrakhan man?

No, incidentally, if you're wearing two coats, the chances of a gold watch chain being visible to others on a darkened street is virtually zero, unless the chain was luminous or if the wearer had an exceptionally protruding chest.

[Lechmere]

Trouble is Ben, there's more than a splash of red, it's pretty much continuous down both sides of Whitechapel Road, Whitechapel High Street, Commercial Road, Commercial Street, Shoreditch High Street, all the turnings behind Commercial Street Police Station. There were all sorts of businesses down these streets. Is this annoying?

[Hunter]

The name of Joseph Isaacs was first reported to police by Mary Cusins shortly after the Kelly murder and on the flimsiest of ‘evidence’. Investigators were clearly not anxious to lay hands on Isaacs, otherwise they would have done a little more than advise that Cusins follow him if and when she saw him again. Almost a month after the Miller’s Court murder Isaacs was arrested after stealing a watch. He was then interviewed by Abberline purely as a matter of procedure – in other words, because his name had come to the attention of investigators courtesy of a member of the public – and was deemed to have had no involvement in the killings.

So Isaacs was never a realistic suspect, and even if his appearance did resemble that of the affluent-looking Astrakhan (which is doubtful in the extreme given the fact that he had been lodging in Little Paternoster Row), it was purely coincidental to his arrest rather than being a contributory factor.

According to the press reports, Isaacs came under suspicion after the house-to-house search following the Kelly murder and it did seem to be a considerable suspicion, if the press reports have any credence. Along with Cusins' information that Isaacs disappeared just before the Kelly murder, a lodger named Cornelius Oakes was reported to have provided incriminating information about Isaacs which included that Isaacs 'often changed his dress' and made comments about perpetrating violence against women over the age of seventeen. Oakes, also stated that he had been out with police in search of the suspect.

It was reported that a 'look out was kept for the prisoner' and that they advised Mary Cusins to inform them if he returned. When Detective Sgt. Records apprehended Isaacs on the 7th of December, a special call was put to Abberline, who personally arrived to have Isaacs transported to the Leman St. Station (H division headquarters) for questioning. Abberline was reputed to have said, when he collected his prisoner at Bow St.," Keep this quiet; we have got the right man at last. this is a big thing."

If these press reports about this 'Polish Jew' suspect bear any accuracy, the episode surrounding Isaacs was more than 'procedure'.

And where was Isaacs all of that time between the Kelly murder and his arrest for stealing a watch? On Nov. 12, he was prosecuted and convicted for petty larceny in the Barnet Police Court and sentenced to 21 days of hard labor. He had only been out for 48 hours when he returned to 6 Little Pasternoster Row and asked for the violin bow that he had left there.
.

[Ben]

Point missed, I'm afraid, Lechmere.

I wasn't referring to the proliferation of redness on Booth's map, but rather the extent to which its presence is misconstrued as evidence of opulently dressed personages parading their finery on the streets of Whitechapel a la Astrakhan man. This is what I find annoying, along with bored people who niggle away at every post I make, of course.

[Hatchett]

Hello Babybird, Wickerman, and Harry,

The ponts Jen made are certainly not innuendo.

She is quoting evidence from which she is making a reasoned conclusion. That is really what everyone does in this case because of the nature of what evidence there is or isnt.

She is accepting that these conclusions are not based on definate, self substantiating facts that directly prove this conclusion, but that they lead her to this belief.

In other words the evidence is circumstantial.

But circumstantial evidence can be taken to form a conclusion.

I believe that Jen has made a great leap forward in the arguing of her case, and that this does take a lot of the confrontation out of this discussion.

Well done Jen.

Best wishes.

David.