A closer look at George Hutchinson

[c.d.]

I think cd that pointing out that Abberline did not solve these cases while at the same time recalling his pronouncements on who he believed, or what senior investigators actually knew, should be enough to look at his opinions with caution.

I agree. No one at the time solved the case. Therefore everyone's opinion should be looked at with caution.

But I think it is a mistake to say well if so and so was wrong about this then he must be wrong about that. Or the reverse, so and so was right about that so he must right about that as well.

No one should be citing Abberline as an ultimate authority or anyone else for that matter.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

But because Abberline initially gives him the seal of approval; and Abberline is seen as some of heroic protagonist, we accept the judgement of an officer who ultimately failed in his endeavours to catch the Ripper.

Correct me if I am wrong, R.D. but wouldn't that category also include every single individual involved in the case at the time? Wouldn't it also include every single modern researcher studying the case? And wouldn't it also include yourself?

Seems a very strange standard for assigning blame.

c.d.

I think cd that pointing out that Abberline did not solve these cases while at the same time recalling his pronouncements on who he believed, or what senior investigators actually knew, should be enough to look at his opinions with caution. For me, the fact that he even says at a later point in time that he believed Godley arrested Jack the Ripper when he arrested George Chapman is enough for pause. Not that I disrespect the mans career, obviously some outstanding service, but suggesting that a man who serially poisoned women in his immediate circle seems to me far removed from a man who butchered strangers soliciting out at night.

I think Abberline wanted to be able to give answers...this was the area that started his rise in the ranks, they gratefully acknowledged his work prior to these crimes. When he didnt have any, he tried to appear as if he had some clues to follow.

[Michael W Richards]

Ah, found it (I think). Just to the west of Miller's Court, running North/South and intersecting Dorset Street, is "Little Paternoster Row" according to the JtR Map. That makes a lot more sense.

Do we know anything more about this fellow?

- Jeff

As Rookie posted we can say that he was looked for in connection with MJK's murder. Maybe moreso based on Hutchinsons statement than the lodging house landlady's story of how he disappeared the night of the murder. I believe Astrakan trimmed coats were not seen often in the East End. I find it interesting that he would fit nicely into this story if connections could be discovered. He might be the man Hutchinson says he saw, or did see. He might also be the man that Hutchinson intended to suggest was the man he saw with Mary. He might be Marys other "Joe"...moving closer to her after Barnett moved out. There is also the case of the unknown Issac[s] that Louis Diemshizt says he went for help with. (Most assume he meant Issac Kozebrodski, in fact almost everyone, but I give credence to the comments made by Issac that night and he says he was "sent" by Louis or some other member for help. So this man Louis went with, is presumably an immigrant jew...who attended a meeting targeted at that segment of the population. Is it at all possible this Joseph Issacs may appear elsewhere in these Ripper victims stories? Like maybe in the Stride case? Would be fascinating if so.

Might tie in with the cigar maker angle as well, we know makers did reside in some cottages in the Berner Street passageway.

[c.d.]

The point I was attempting to make with little success is that the story given by Israel Schwartz would be relevant to the Inquest mandates.

I have never claimed otherwise, Michael. You are confusing me with Herlock. Whether he was relevant or not is a moot point. The point I keep trying to make with little success (with you) is that even if your assertion could be proven with 100% metaphysical certainty it still doesn't tell us why he was not there. It is not an if A then B argument.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

So it seems that it has been demonstrated that a witness can be believed by Abberline and not appear at the Inquest and that there is a valid reason for that.

If your saying that a witness can be believed but not relevant to the proceedings, if thats what you are saying, is fine by me. As I stated that could easily apply to Fanny, who as I said didnt see Liz after 12:35, she didnt see Eagle arrive, or Lave at the gates, she didnt see Israel coming up on Liz while a broad shouldered man was tugging on her, she didnt see Israel flee...followed by yet another man with a pipe, and she did not see Louis arrive. So as to how Liz dies, she isnt really important here. What she does do though is provide eye witness account of that street for "nearly the whole half hour", and who she does see is Leon at around 12:55..but he passes right by the club gates. She also notes the young couple on the street. They are also interviewed that night by the police and Fanny speaks with them after the discovery is announced.

The point I was attempting to make with little success is that the story given by Israel Schwartz would be relevant to the Inquest mandates. He says he saw the victim when no-one else did, being assaulted at around 12:45...when Blackwells earliest cut estimates begin around 12:46. It would be a logical assumption that if this actually happened, then the man seen with Liz likely makes the cut. Ruling out several other categories for How she dies. The issue with my argument with Herlock on what the Inquest is designed to address is that the cumulative information presented to the jury is to be considered when assessing How she dies. But ultimately all that evidence is condensed into a declaration by the jury of either Suicide or Accident or Natural or Wilful murder or Undetermined Causes. In all the Ripper victim Inquests the evidence suggested Wilful Murder to those jurors.

[c.d.]

Hello Herlock,

No apologies needed. I assumed your energies were diverted in responding to a certain individual who shall remain nameless.

I have no problem at all with a poster believing that Schwartz was not called because his story was not believed. It is the wording that they employ which somehow turns what is simply a strong opinion into a given fact. That is something you see on these boards with some frequency regardless of the issue.

His doing a runner is certainly a reasonable suggestion. I tend to favor the language problem. Trying to get a clear understanding of what a witness saw and heard can be difficult but when the witness did not understand anything of what was being said and then trying to interpret that into another language is fraught with difficulties. Look at the whole "Lipski" business. It doesn't make for a great witness experience.

And finally, because according to Schwartz Stride was still alive when he left the scene a verdict of person or persons unknown would be the inevitable conclusion with or without Schwartz. No one was on trial or faced indictment for the murder.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Herlock,

I think reasonable arguments as to Schwartz's lack of attendance at the Inquest can be made on both sides of the issue. But whether or not he should have been called is a moot point. It tells us nothing as to why he was not there. I don't see any way of getting around that conclusion.

c.d.

Hi c.d.

My apologies for not responding to your post. I don’t know how I missed it.

I agree of course. We’re never going to know why he wasn’t called. The fact that he wasn’t an essential witness can’t be stated as a reason in itself because other non-vital witnesses were called to inquests. From memory I’m pretty sure that people could simply turn up at an inquest of their own volition and ask to give testimony. This might, to at least some extent, explain some of the attendee’s at inquest where we can’t really see why they were there.

One suggestion that I think possible is that Schwartz was concerned about revealing himself at the inquest for fear of the killer getting him so he ‘did a runner’ before he could be called. How much time, effort and money would the police have been prepared to spend looking for a non-essential witness if he’d fled, with his wife saying ‘I haven’t got a clue where he is.’ Pure speculation of course.

[The Rookie Detective]

Interestingly Joseph Isaacs was arrested on Thursday 6th December in Drury Lane in connection with the murder of MJK.

That's nearly a whole calendar month after the murder occurred.

Isaacs must have held some credible interest to the police as a Ripper suspect.


If he matches the description given by Hutchinson; then that makes things even more interesting.


Did his 3 month conviction for stealing the watch inadvertently get him off the hook for being suspected in the Ripper murders?


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

He was actively sought after by the police in connection with the murder of MJK.

[The Rookie Detective]

Ah, found it (I think). Just to the west of Miller's Court, running North/South and intersecting Dorset Street, is "Little Paternoster Row" according to the JtR Map. That makes a lot more sense.

Do we know anything more about this fellow?

- Jeff

He was a 30 year old Cigar Maker...

And he served 3 months hard labour for stealing the watch.


RD

[JeffHamm]

Thanks for that Michael. Much obliged. I don't think I've ever heard of this news story before.

I'm now trying to track down Paternoster-Row to compare it's location with Dorset Street and the other crimes. Google maps doesn't find one in Spitalfields, only a Paternoster Row that is about 2 miles west of Dorset Street and the other crime locations. I'm not sure that would count as "near" Dorset Street in 1888, nor is it in Spitalfields, as it is described in the news.

Many street names have changed over the years, though, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of them, and I just need to track it down. A shame we don't have a street number for her lodging house as well. It can be helpful to view the locations of suspects, and given this fellow was arrested at the time, putting his "pin in the map" would be nice.

- Jeff

Ah, found it (I think). Just to the west of Miller's Court, running North/South and intersecting Dorset Street, is "Little Paternoster Row" according to the JtR Map. That makes a lot more sense.

Do we know anything more about this fellow?

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

A man named Joseph Issacs. From the Manchester Evening News Dec 10;

"The police are continuing their inquiries into the antecedents of Joseph Isaacs, said to be a Polish Jew, who is now in custody on a charge of watch stealing. Mary Cusins, the deputy of a lodging-house in Paternoster Row, near Dorset-street, and Cornelius Oakes, a lodger, state that the conduct of the prisoner was frequently strange. Although he had a violin and four or five other musical instruments, he was never known to play any of them. Oakes says the prisoner used often to change his dress. He heard him threaten violence to all women above 17 years of age."

London Evening News, Dec 8;

"The prisoner, who was brought up in the custody of Detective-sergeant Record, H Division, is 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 prosecutor, Levenson, said that the prisoner entered his shop on the 5th instant, with a violin bow, and asked him to repair it. Whilst discussing the matter, the prisoner bolted out of the shop, and witness missed a gold watch belonging to a customer. The watch had been found at a pawn-shop. To prove that the prisoner was the man who entered the shop, a woman named Mary Cusins was called. She is deputy of a lodging-house in Paternoster-row, Spitalfields, and said that the prisoner had lodged in the house, as a single lodger, for three or four nights before the Dorset-street murder - the murder of Mary Janet Kelly, in Miller's-court. He disappeared after that murder, leaving the violin bow behind. The witness on the house to house inspection gave information to the police, and said she remembered that on the night of the murder she heard the prisoner walk about his room. After her statement a look out was kept for the prisoner, whose appearance certainly answered the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat. He visited the lodging-house on the 5th, and asked for the violin bow. It was given to him and the witness Cusins followed him to give him into custody as requested. She saw him enter Levenson's shop, and almost immediately run out, no constable being at hand. Detective Record said that there were some matters alleged against the prisoner, which it was desired to inquire into."

Since Hutchinson gave a description that seems to fit a man staying in the immediate area of Marys lodgings, one who suddenly disappears the night she is killed, I believe the possibility that Hutchinsons statement was intended to direct the police attentions to that man as a suspect. Because I dont believe that his actual motivation was a desire to help the police quickly find his "friends" butcher, I think his information, even if true, was likely useless after such a delay being brought forward.

And as I noted, there were changes made to the investigators attentions, no longer was Wideawake a possible accomplice, just good ol' Hutchy looking out for Mary, and it would appear they lost interest in even talking to Blotchy Face, judging by the Galloway sighting a few days later.

There was a suggestion that a Pardon had been considered earlier in these crimes, Considering and actually Issuing are not the same thing. Wideawake Man is surely the impetus for the offer being made into law, but as an Accomplice. Not the killer. The killer is likely the last person she is seen with if she went indoors and wasnt seen coming back out...and that was Blotchy.

Thanks for that Michael. Much obliged. I don't think I've ever heard of this news story before.

I'm now trying to track down Paternoster-Row to compare it's location with Dorset Street and the other crimes. Google maps doesn't find one in Spitalfields, only a Paternoster Row that is about 2 miles west of Dorset Street and the other crime locations. I'm not sure that would count as "near" Dorset Street in 1888, nor is it in Spitalfields, as it is described in the news.

Many street names have changed over the years, though, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of them, and I just need to track it down. A shame we don't have a street number for her lodging house as well. It can be helpful to view the locations of suspects, and given this fellow was arrested at the time, putting his "pin in the map" would be nice.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

Too much faith is put into Abberline's judgement and his choices and beliefs regarding the case should be questioned.

I have been on these boards a long time and I have never seen anyone suggesting in any way that Abberline is somehow the Pope of Ripperology and thus wears some sort of mantle of infallibility.

Keep in mind that Abberline actually spoke with him at the time. It would also seem reasonable to assume that Abberline asked others what they thought of his story. And as it has been pointed out numerous times, we don't know the full extent of his belief and if it changed over time.

Your criticism seems to rest on the fact that Abberline had to be wrong because it doesn't match your opinion.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

But because Abberline initially gives him the seal of approval; and Abberline is seen as some of heroic protagonist, we accept the judgement of an officer who ultimately failed in his endeavours to catch the Ripper.

Correct me if I am wrong, R.D. but wouldn't that category also include every single individual involved in the case at the time? Wouldn't it also include every single modern researcher studying the case? And wouldn't it also include yourself?

Seems a very strange standard for assigning blame.

c.d.

In other words; IMO the only reason why Hutchinson's statement is ever considered even slightly viable; is because Abberline thought it so initially.

Too much faith is put into Abberline's judgement and his choices and beliefs regarding the case should be questioned.

Without Abberline; Hutchinson would have been seen as more of a suspect than a witness.



RD

[c.d.]

But because Abberline initially gives him the seal of approval; and Abberline is seen as some of heroic protagonist, we accept the judgement of an officer who ultimately failed in his endeavours to catch the Ripper.

Correct me if I am wrong, R.D. but wouldn't that category also include every single individual involved in the case at the time? Wouldn't it also include every single modern researcher studying the case? And wouldn't it also include yourself?

Seems a very strange standard for assigning blame.

c.d.