Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[FrankO]

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"?

Hi Jon,

I don’t know why anyone would argue that, you should ask those who do claim that Hutchinson ‘must be lying’ on account of not buttoning up his coat on a rainy night, but I'm not one of them.

What I’m saying is that only one of the oddities in Hutchinson’s whole account is that he left his coat open whilst there was a very good reason to keep it buttoned up (besides that it was cold and possibly rainy), i.e. the very real possibility of inviting muggers by displaying such a “fat, gold chain” and otherwise being obviously well dressed.

Other oddities directly linked to this are the presence of a well dressed man in one of the worst East End neighbourhoods, on his own & well after the pubs had closed, and the notion that Hutchinson - under bad conditions – was allegedly able to see so many details and remember them too.

My stance is that Hutchinson’s whole account & statements raise so many questions and contain so many oddities & conveniences that, taken together with the timing of his coming forward, I’m inclined to believe he didn’t tell the (complete) truth.

To my mind, the key question would be: at what point in his account did he actually take a good look to see that Mr. A was so well dressed?

That his account & statements raise so many questions doesn’t mean he was Kelly’s murderer, or even the Ripper. I do think that as a result of Lewis’ inquest testimony, he just felt compelled to come forward to explain his presence then & there and present a suspect with a view of deflecting possible suspicion away from himself. I’m not saying that it was wise to come forward, but such actions are known to be taken.

All the best,
Frank

[Hunter]

Be this as it may, Isaacs was clearly a low-level thief who had at least for a time resided in a slum court. It is therefore inconceivable that investigators could have entertained any notion that he and Astrakhan were one and the same. Indeed, given his social status and likely appearance, Isaacs would appear to provide additional weight to the contention that (save for a brief period) investigators did not view Astrakhan as a serious suspect and instead sought their quarry amongst those at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale.

Hi Garry,

I think we are in general agreement on this one. The Astrakhan link was in only one press report that I can recollect and it could have been conjecture on their part, based on an idea that Isaacs may have been a man of disguise and, of course, a 'Polish Jew'. Also, I believe the house-to-house search was conducted before Hutchinson came forward on Monday evening, and thus, the suspicion of Isaacs precluded that. I suppose it could be argued that Hutchinson's man of Jewish appearance strengthened that suspicion, but that would only be conjecture to do so. From an historical perspective, I tend to view all uncorroborated press reports with caution; even at the expense of not reaching a valid determination of some events... And there lies the rub with entire Hutchinson saga.

Apparently Isaacs was well known to the police in the area as a low level thief - as you say - and might have been an informant as well. He had been arrested before and received a fairly light sentence for his offense. Detective Sgt. Records was stated to have immediately recognized him upon apprehension.

What is amazing to me is the fact that Isaacs was in jail at Barnet the whole time H Division detectives were looking for him and no effort of coordination with other departments as to Isaacs' whereabouts seemed to have been made. I believe this error possibly stimulated the January' 89 call for suspect reports from other divisions, as is shown in the surviving 'suspect reports' from that same period.

Charles Van Onselen found the Police Court records on Isaacs and published them in his book The Fox and the Flies. Although he was trying to make a case that his man 'Lis' was Isaacs, and therefore the Ripper, the information he compiled on Isaacs is most interesting.

[Garry Wroe]

I do understand the need for you to "spin" the interpretation in such a fashion that it supports your theory. That is just to be expected.

You mean like misquoting ‘light’ as ‘white’ in order to substantiate a claim of new information?

Heaven forbid we should be allowed to take the statement directly as it was given.

That’s exactly what you did do, Jon. You took the oft-cited Galloway extract exactly as it was written and used it to support your argument that investigators were hunting Astrakhan rather than Blotchy. Unfortunately, you were unaware that the Blotchy lookalike was an undercover detective, the recognition of which places the Galloway incident in an entirely different light.

It’s certainly odd, though, Jon, that you should now be advocating that we take press statements on trust after arguing for weeks that The Echo and Star denunciations of Hutchinson should be dismissed out of hand.

Seems to me like yet another example of evidential double-standards.

[Garry Wroe]

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.

Many thanks, Hunter. Most informative. I was unaware of Isaacs’ imprisonment, as indeed must have been those leading the Ripper manhunt if there is any truth to the newspaper claim that Oakes ‘had been out with police in search of the suspect.’

Be this as it may, Isaacs was clearly a low-level thief who had at least for a time resided in a slum court. It is therefore inconceivable that investigators could have entertained any notion that he and Astrakhan were one and the same. Indeed, given his social status and likely appearance, Isaacs would appear to provide additional weight to the contention that (save for a brief period) investigators did not view Astrakhan as a serious suspect and instead sought their quarry amongst those at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale.

[Ben]

"The City police have been making inquiries for this man (Ripper) for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox."

Where are you getting “Ripper” from, Jon?

Here’s the relevant extract from the Echo, 13th November:

About ten minutes before the body of Catherine Eddowes was found in Mitre-square, a man about thirty years of age, of fair complexion, and with a fair moustache, was said to have been seen talking to her in the covered passage leading to the square. On the morning of the Hanbury-street murder a suspicious-looking man entered a public-house in the neighbourhood. He was of shabby genteel appearance, and had a sandy moustache. The first of these descriptions was given by two persons who were in the orange market, and closely observed the man. The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox.

The City police apparently did not believe that Lawende and Cox saw the same man. Fair enough. Maybe they didn’t. But that’s a long way from suggesting that the City police did not think the Blotchy man looked like “the Ripper”. There is not the slightest indication that there was any “re-alignment” in the investigation from Blotchy onto Astrakhan, especially after the latter was discredited.

Thank you for providing that interesting extract from the 17th October Echo article, but all this demonstrates (again) is that this particular newspaper had close contacts with the police, and were accordingly able to report that “they were anxious to avoid a premature disclosure of facts of which they had been for some time cognisant”, and that “The police have taken exceptional precautions to prevent a disclosure”. It hardly makes sense, therefore, to claim that the police were keeping things secret from the press, and then use a press source stating that the police did precisely that to demonstrate this secrecy.

If the police kept secrets from the Echo, how did the latter know precisely what these secrets were, and that the police were being deliberately secretive about it?

You talk of throwing the press off the scent. Possible, but not in the Echo's case, as you’ve just demonstrated. So why doubt their report that Hutchinson was considerably discounted owing to the tardy arrival of his evidence, especially when you now appear to accept that this newspaper was familiar with the police efforts to avoid a disclosure?

You can’t have the Echo as both confidents of the police (or at least journalists who knew of their motivations for withholding certain details) AND hapless idiots who reported what the police told them without question.

Best regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Oh, so YOU don't believe Hutchinson either? I 'm glad we got that sorted.

See, that was a trick question and as a result you obtained the wrong answer :-)
Hutchinson, in my opinion, was not describing a member of the gentry. It was just a very detailed description of a middleclass "foreign-looking" man.

Still waiting to hear those explanations...are they going to be logical ones at all?

I have not decided whether to put together a dissertation on the subject so I was holding off replying.

The central point in this might be that your (collective) ideas about Hutchinson "falling from grace" turns on the suggestion that the police "were induced" to re-align their inquiries.

I think this was an attempt by the police at throwing the press off the scent, rather the same way they tried after the Berner St. murder.
Take this quote for instance:

"though on Monday afternoon the truth of the statement was given an unqualified denial by the detective officers immediately after its publication, and this presumably because they were anxious to avoid a premature disclosure of facts of which they had been for some time cognisant. The police have taken exceptional precautions to prevent a disclosure,..."
Echo, 17 Oct.

The police did not want to jeopardize their surveillance on a leading suspect in a neighbouring street.

There is also a statement which could be interpreted as meaning the "suspect surveillance" was given a boost on the day that Kelly's body was found.
The implication might be that someone who fit the description of their suspect was seen on that day in the vicinity of the murder.

I am suspicious that Scotland Yard had not realised who this new description (by Hutch) related to, until after the description had been issued to the press. Then, sometime on Tuesday morning there was a sudden change of plan, essentially to shut down any press speculations as to the existance of this suspect.
The scenario then caused the Echo to print:

"The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement."

Effectively taking steps to take the heat off for fear their suspect will go to ground, which he apparently did.

It's something I am still looking into, a work in progress, and nothing is certain, and it might not pan out, there's a few more points to track down.

Ok, the games afoot I guess, my secret is out.

Despite Hutchinson's down- to -eyelash -colour description of the last man to enter Mary Kelly's room before she was found murdered and mutilated?

Hardly, ....there was still at least a half-hour to 45 minutes - minimum, after Hutchinson left Dorset St. for the stranger to leave and her take up with someone else.
The man Lawende saw was only minutes before her murder and the subsequent description issued was quite suitable.
The man Hutchinson saw is only one candidate among several.

I do not have a suspect and do not promote anyone as the potential Ripper, on the other hand if I see a few points leaning in a particular direction I am not concerned about pursuing them.
Regards, Jon

[Wickerman]

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.

I do understand the need for you to "spin" the interpretation in such a fashion that it supports your theory. That is just to be expected. Heaven forbid we should be allowed to take the statement directly as it was given.
Especially as the Constable's response was quite consistent with the opinion of the City CID, as offered by the Echo, on the subject of Cox's description:

"The City police have been making inquiries for this man (Ripper) for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox."

But then neither did the Echo, not that their opinion matters, but they appear to express the (dare I say?) obvious?

"The descriptions of the dark foreign-looking man mentioned in connection with the previous crimes are, however, as we say, in the description of the man seen with the victim on the morning of the 9th."

The overall subject of the paragraph being the apparent re-alignment of the Metropolitan Police inquiries, at least the public face, while behind the scene's the story appears to have been playing out a little different.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18881113.html

Regards, Jon

[Ben]

A) My observations were neither "sweeping" nor inaccurate, so you're not "correcting" me.

B) My post was neither rude nor aggressive.

C) It wasn't even addressed to you.

[Lechmere]

Ben
If you avoided making so many sweeping and inaccurate observations, coupled with aggressive and rude denunciations of anyone who might challenge your inaccuracies, then I wouldn’t feel compelled to correct you.

[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.

[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.

[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.
.

[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?

[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.

[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