Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

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,

Hi Frank.
But doesn't your suggestion of "odd" depend on your take on how bad the weather was, or was not, on that night?

There was another man, if you recall, outside the Britannia who is not described as wearing an overcoat. We cannot include the man Lewis saw (Hutch?), as she could not describe his clothes.
So here are three men out, all alone, in Commercial-street.
How many others there may have been, unrelated to the events described, is unknown.
So there is not much to compare the Astrachan-man with as far as whether his clothing indicated a cold/wet night. And he did carry a pair of brown kid-gloves in his hand, he wasn't wearing them.
We know it had been raining on and off, but to what degree?

As far as the women go, Cox was in and out several times, she didn't mention wearing a coat, only that her hands needed warming. Cox did describe Kelly at midnight wearing a pereline (mini cape) & shabby skirt, but no coat. Kelly did have a man's coat hanging in her room if she really needed one.

All points considered Frank, there isn't a great deal to go on to argue that it was sufficiently cold that Astrachan should have buttoned up his coat.

Now, as far as the visible watch chain goes. Some have assumed this was visible to anyone passing in the street, that his coat wide open exposing a potential source of wealth for the next Bill Sykes to help himself to.
We do not know this for sure.

What we do know is that at some point Astrachan (presumably?) pulled back his coat and reached into a jacket/waistcoat pocket and pulled out a red handkerchief.
Is this the point when his watch-chain, briefly exposed, glinted in the night?
If that is the case then this brief glimps hardly constitutes endangering his safety.

.... and the notion that Hutchinson - under bad conditions – was allegedly able to see so many details and remember them too.

If it wasn't for Hutchinson apparently spilling all he knew to the press I might have posed the question as to whether he was 'only' the labourer he claimed he was. Hutchinson appeared to have the perception and stamina for a lonely vigil normally associated with undercover detectives. The fact he was described as "of military appearance" only adds to the possibility. Whatever military appearance meant, perhaps close cut hair, trimmed moustache and upright stance more indicative of a policeman than a common labourer.
That is the only aspect of Hutchinson I find "odd", but all that seems to be only coincidence.

All the best, Jon S.

[Ben]

Kelly and Cox were almost certainly too poor to own a coat, the point being that for those who did have funds enough to buy two of them - as Mr. Astrakhan supposedly would have been - it makes no sense at all to have them both unbuttoned on such a cold and wet night. The Astrakhan man allegedly produced his handkerchief at the entrance to Miller's Court, when Hutchinson was stationed at the corner of Dorset Street. It would have been impossible for Hutchinson to have noticed a gold chain below two overcoats from that vantage point.

[Hatchett]

Hello Ben,

I think a point you could have over looked is that a watch and chain is there to be displayed. Astro Man could have had his jacket and overcoat buttoned up until he spotted Mary Kelly, and then opened them to display his finery. That is what happens on the street today (except for the watch and chain.)

It is all part of the chase, so as to speak.

Best wishes.

[Ben]

Hi Hatchett,

Such a display would have been highly unnecessary in order to procure the services of somebody like Kelly. She was an impoverished prostitute living in a tiny hovel in what was widely alluded to as one of the worst streets in London. Her majority clientele would have been comprised of the working class poor. It wasn't as if a woman in Kelly's predicament could afford to reserve her services only for those clients who displayed the extent of their wealth in the fashion of a Bird of Paradise.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

And besides which...

If Astroman was a random Dosser Street traveller who happened to chance upon Kelly (whether his name was Jack or not) - how did he know that Kelly didn't have a couple of roughs hiding in the shadows?

There are a number of stories of prostitutes leading johns back to lodging houses - let alone private residences - ostensibly for sex; but with the actual intention of providing a victim for accomplice muggers - I'm sure the practice was fairly widespread.

Astroman would have been rather foolish to display his evident wealth in the dead of night in Dorset Street, I should say. It doesn't matter, either, whether his gold watch was in fact brass - as others have pointed out, who could have told the difference in the dark?

It would have been a risky strategy. But then, perhaps that's the point - Astroman is an unfeasible figure in Dorset Street in the early hours. His highly unusual appearance (both in Dorset Street and in physical terms) and his rapid pick up of the hapless Kelly all signal determined intent, and disregard for convention and personal safety.

Astoman was bound to attract attention and suspicion. And so he did - Hutchinson, the only person to see him, apparently, was indeed suspicious. But not that he was the murderer, which exonerated him from comig forward sooner rather nicely.

[Hatchett]

Hello Ben,

Whether it was unnecessary or not doesnt mean that it didnt or could not have happened. Vanity and ego are strange things. Just because you wouldnt do it, or you cannot understand why it was done, is irrelevent.

Sally,

I hate to repeat myself, but at the end of the day no matter what you or I think Abberline did not think Hutchinson's statement was preposterous.

No offence, but I take his judgement over yours.

Best wishes.