Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Might Abberline have asked about the clothing for other reasons, such as cementing identity? Yes, of course.

Glad you are now conceding this much, Ben. I could have sworn I read several posts of yours ridiculing the idea of Abberline needing to ask Hutch about Kelly's clothing, since he would be going to identify her unclothed remains on the morrow.

Also, if it's a 'yes, of course' Abberline might have asked a question that gets no mention in his brief report, then I trust you will not in future ridicule others for arguing there was more to his interrogation than has come down to us, whether detailed notes of it were made or not.

The Echo made it quite clear that the authorities had come to view the late appearance of his evidence as a problem as a result of investigating the matter further.

“From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder.”

Whatever this “later investigation” turned up, it evidently undermined Hutchinson’s credibility to the extent that it suffered a “very reduced importance”. Perhaps it was revealed that Hutchinson’s explanation for his delay in coming forward (whatever it was) cannot have been true, or perhaps Abberline’s endorsement of Hutchinson’s statement didn’t sit well with his superiors? Alternatively, Hutchinson’s press disclosures might have been undoing, given their embellishments and flat-out contradictions (as well as a claim to have contacted a policeman, which could easily have been checked out and proved false). Or did he slip up somehow on his walkabout with police one night, as Garry once suggested?

Another significant concession - will wonders never cease?

The police did not confide anything to the Echo about the nature of this "later investigation", nor what it 'turned up', otherwise we'd have seen it in print and you would not be forced to guess, just like the Echo, that whatever it was, it 'evidently' undermined Hutch's credibility. You then go on to guess what the police may have found out during this later investigation, which they clearly kept back from the Echo and didn't record for posterity either - unless of course you now fully concede that information concerning Hutch has not survived.

'From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?' - Echo, 13th November 1888.

The part in bold above is the only explanation the Echo can come up with for their own 'very reduced importance' conclusion - that the authorities are now asking themselves why Hutch did not come forward sooner. That's it. There is nothing else.

Why their own conclusion? Look again at the language, Ben:

'From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?' - Echo, 13th November 1888.

Why only 'appears' and 'seems' if this was actually the case because the police had said so, directly to the Echo, and invited them to print it with their blessing? They would have written in no uncertain terms that 'the police have informed us that they now attach a very reduced importance to his statement, and ask why he didn't come forward sooner'. Of course, the last bit would still have made no sense, as the police would not be asking anyone but Hutch such a question, and Abberline would have got the answer out of him during his interrogation.

The Echo might have guessed right on the credibility issue, if not for the right reasons (because they clearly didn't know what they were - which is why you don't either), but they were guessing nonetheless.

That much should be obvious to anyone with your grasp of the English language, Ben.

Love,

Caz
X

[Garry Wroe]

Given that I have never believed such a thing, in fact I know the opposite to be true, would it be too much to ask you to substantiate that claim, with the actual source?

When I have more time, Jon, I'll certainly try to locate the post(s) under discussion.

[Garry Wroe]

A pity that Isaacs, an interesting character in himself, is routinely reduced to the role of pawn in the pet theories of others.

Absolutely, Sally. He's one of those peripheral characters who helps us to see and understand the East End in a more realistic light.

[Wickerman]

.... In fact he once made the extraordinary claim that the 'copper on the take' didn't exist during the Ripper murders.

Given that I have never believed such a thing, in fact I know the opposite to be true, would it be too much to ask you to substantiate that claim, with the actual source?

[Sally]

All of this Isaacs as Astrakhan business is absurd to my way of thinking

It absolutely is, Garry. The premise lacks any evidential basis, defies logic and is contradicted by contemporary evidence. It is, in short, a fantasy. But there we are - he's the subject of a lot of speculative nonsense in any case. A pity that Isaacs, an interesting character in himself, is routinely reduced to the role of pawn in the pet theories of others.

[Garry Wroe]

I agree entirely, Garry.

It's just that Jon had previously argued that the police had exhibited a preference for Bond's time of death, and suggested that this was the reason for the loss of interest in Hutchinson as a witness, as opposed to the actual reasons outlined in the Echo. Trouble is, if he then wants Astrakhan man to have an "alibi" in the form of Mary Cusins, he would have to disavow that particular argument and accept that the police had confidently ruled out any possibility of Bond's suggested 1.00am time being correct.

I was aware of your position, Ben, which is why no criticism was intended. All of this Isaacs as Astrakhan business is absurd to my way of thinking - much like the frequently repeated assertion that Sarah Lewis saw a couple enter Miller's Court. As for the discussion relating to the Echo, this like many other newspapers was simply hungry for news and didn't take kindly to the lack of what today would be termed regular press conferences. But it, as with a number of other newspapers, clearly had at least one inside source, an informant who provided the information which led to the Hutchinson-as-timewaster story. But then this is a premise rejected out of hand by Jon. In fact he once made the extraordinary claim that the 'copper on the take' didn't exist during the Ripper murders. That, of course, wasn't the viewpoint of a number of journalists at the time, but there you go. As I said a few weeks ago, standards have certainly slipped on this site.

[Ben]

By his own admission, he knew Mary and was with her right before she died. That should have been enough to arouse Abberline's suspicions.

An important correction here, CD - Hutchinson claimed he was "with her right before she died", and while a "claim" can be true or false, an "admission" is always true. I can't "admit" to being a billionaire, but I can falsely claim that I am one.

Abberline would have been all too familiar with the phenomenon of bogus witnesses making false claims, whereas he had no experience at all of serial killers injecting themselves into investigations as witnesses. If we're to be truly realistic, the chances are exceptionally slim that he entertained for one moment the possibility of the real Jack the Ripper entering a police station and requesting an interview. The "interrogation" was for the purpose of ascertaining whether his claim was true or the work of one of many publicity-seekers to burden an investigation.

But even in the exceptionally unlikely event that Abberline did grill Hutchinson as a suspect, he had very little hope of determining his guilt or innocence, especially if the response to the question of his whereabouts for previous murders ran something along the lines of: "I was asleep at the Victoria Home, as usual". There wasn't the faintest hope of "checking" whether or not Hutchinson was one of the 500 lodgers to pay for a bed on a particular night three weeks previously.

Emanuel Violenia claimed (not "admitted) to have been the last person to see Annie Chapman alive, but when his account was discredited as bogus, it was simply assumed that he lied about the whole thing, including his alleged presence there that night. He did not convert into a suspect, any more than Hutchinson did.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

As such, Bond's proposed time of death might have been awry by several hours. In fact, given the weight of other evidence, it must have been out by at least an hour and a half.

I agree entirely, Garry.

It's just that Jon had previously argued that the police had exhibited a preference for Bond's time of death, and suggested that this was the reason for the loss of interest in Hutchinson as a witness, as opposed to the actual reasons outlined in the Echo. Trouble is, if he then wants Astrakhan man to have an "alibi" in the form of Mary Cusins, he would have to disavow that particular argument and accept that the police had confidently ruled out any possibility of Bond's suggested 1.00am time being correct.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

The police would have had to rule out the possibility of Bond's time of death - any many other possibilities besides - if they were ever to exonerate a man they had just positively and conclusively identified (somehow?!) as Astrakhan man.

It might be worth remembering, Ben, that Bond's time of death estimation was largely predicated on guesswork. He assumed that Kelly had taken her final meal at a given hour, then applied a digestive rate calculation on her stomach content to pinpoint the time of the murder. The problem, however, is that investigators failed to ascertain where Kelly had purchased this meal, much less the time at which it was consumed. As such, Bond's proposed time of death might have been awry by several hours. In fact, given the weight of other evidence, it must have been out by at least an hour and a half.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Any reason why you're pretending that the Echo were complaining about a total lack of communication from the police for over three months, when in fact they were only talking about specific instances of understandably non-shared information?

You quote them as follows:

"Up to the present the police refuse the Press any information."

...then misleadingly state that this was the attitude of the police towards the Echo "Through November", whereas in fact that quote appears in the 9th November edition, when the murder had only just happened. Of course the police weren't supplying details at such an early stage, when they had precious few of their own. To extrapolate from this that the police never discussed any case-related details with the press at any stage is utterly ludicrous, especially when we know for an indisputable fact that information was shared, and not just with regard to Hutchinson's statement.

You also talk of a police reticence towards the Echo "through September", and "through October", which is equally nonsense. Why not acknowledge the actual reality, which was that the police were reticent on certain topics at certain times?

I get the impression this "we" is at worst, just yourself, and at best, a vocal minority. The same vocal minority that refused to come to your aid.

You reckon they're coming to yours?

Where is this "majority" who accept that Astrakhan man was identified as Joseph Isaacs and then cleared because of a phantom "alibi"?

Regardless of the time which she was murdered there is at least a half hours worth of mutilations to follow, possibly longer.

Which makes a bit of a nonsense of the suggestion that Kelly had time to see off Astrakhan man, venture out again, meet Jack the Ripper and get murdered in a time frame that would be considered compatible with the Lewis/Prater evidence, which you now oddly insist was accepted as gospel by the police. If, on the other hand, you accept that the police were working with conflicting suggestions as to time of death, you'll understand what a silliness the whole concept of an Isaacstrakhan alibi is. The police would have had to rule out the possibility of Bond's time of death - any many other possibilities besides - if they were ever to exonerate a man they had just positively and conclusively identified (somehow?!) as Astrakhan man.

It will not take three days to contact the prison.
And yes, the police did know Isaacs was in prison at the time of the assault on Annie Farmer.

I'm not suggesting it did take "three days to contact the prison". I'm sure Isaacs's alibi for the Kelly murder was discovered very quickly, which is why he quickly sank without trace as a ripper suspect. It also neatly explains the press article that observed he was wanted in connection with the Farmer and attack, not with the mutilation murders. The Lloyds article isn't in the slightest bit "confused".

"Wrong, he had already been charged with that crime on the 7th. He was remanded for further inquiries in connection with the Whitechapel murder."

Charged.

Just charged.

I do hope you're not confusing that expression with "convicted".

A charge is a formal allegation of an offense. If you're wondering why Isaacs was still in police custody, it was for the purpose of investigating this "charge" with a view to conviction. The short-lived suggestion that he might be involved in the Kelly murder or Farmer attack having been resolved very quickly with a modicum of investigation into his alibis.

Do you know what, "parallel lines of inquiry" means?

Yes, thanks.

And if you know what it means, you'll understand how impossible it is for Astrakhan to have an alibi for the Kelly murder.

I created it in response to your challenge, to show you it is quite possible for him to have had at least one alibi.

But you've failed very badly to show any such thing.

And slightly annoyingly, you keep bringing the issue up on multiple threads, including a recent one that is supposed to be about who wrote the GSG!

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

In any case, we know for certain that the Echo did extract case-related information from the police, just as they claimed.

Given the Echo voiced their displeasure in print numerous times that the police tell them nothing:

All through September..
"The police, however, refuse to give any details about the matter."

Through October..
"..Leman-street Police-station, where the officials on duty absolutely refuse to give any information whatsoever to journalists."

Through November..
"Up to the present the police refuse the Press any information."

What is certain Ben, is that the Echo in particular, and the press in general, were not party to case related information. By their own words "we" know it.

I’m not repeating myself at your behest. It has been demonstrated enough times. The “we” is everybody accept you.

I get the impression this "we" is at worst, just yourself, and at best, a vocal minority. The same vocal minority that refused to come to your aid.

If it was committed at such a time – and it’s certainly possible – Isaacs doesn’t have anything resembling an “alibi”. But then because of the uncertainty over the time of death, we know he can’t have had one anyway.

Possible, but not likely.
Regardless of the time which she was murdered there is at least a half hours worth of mutilations to follow, possibly longer.

Abberline is working with (at least) two potential times of death, thanks to an inadequate inquiry.
He can't dismiss Bond's estimate (1:00-2:00) because it reflects on the story given by Cox.
Neither can he dismiss the times given to the cry of murder (3:30-4:00), because it reflects on the story given by Hutchinson.
One of them is clearly wrong, he has no evidence to indicate which.

Only if he can locate Blotchy, or Astrachan, can he hope to make any headway. If press reports can be relied on this is what he was doing through the second & third weeks of November.
Both leads fell flat.

How do you know he didn’t? That’s very obviously what happened. Once it was established that he was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder, the investigation shifted to his possible involvement in the Annie Farmer attack, whereupon it was discovered that his thieving ways had provided him with an alibi for that offense too.

We can accept he didn't for the reason's I already gave. It will not take three days to contact the prison.
And yes, the police did know Isaacs was in prison at the time of the assault on Annie Farmer.
This, apparently, Lloyds were not aware of, hence their brief and confused article in late December.

On top of which, he had those accusations of theft to explain. That needed investigating too. He doesn’t get off the hook just because stealing a watch is less naughty than murder most ‘orrid.

Wrong, he had already been charged with that crime on the 7th. He was remanded for further inquiries in connection with the Whitechapel murder.
The police were only investigating his movements on the night of Nov. 8th, for the next several days.

So? Doesn’t mean he has to engage in robbery where he lives, especially after allegedly being seen with a ripper victim close to her time of death.

Don't most petty criminals ply their trade on their home patch?
He had been gone for almost a month, very likely thinking his association with the victim had all blown over by the beginning of December.

But for your theory to work, they would have to have done, remember? For your theory to work, the police would have to exclude even the possibility of the murder occurring before 3:30am.

Do you know what, "parallel lines of inquiry" means?

So it’s just an “invention” and you don’t believe it to be true.

I created it in response to your challenge, to show you it is quite possible for him to have had at least one alibi. It doesn't need to be true or proven, to demonstrate that you are once again mistaken.

[Ben]

Hi Roy,

Yes but Charlie got his own TV show.

Yep, along with Billy Gull, Jimmy Maybrick and Bobby Mann.

All the big guns, it seems.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“I know you mentioned this to Caz, but I must confess, I couldn't be bothered to look back for any one of the numerous times you've mentioned it to me”

Why would you need to? If I’ve mentioned it “numerous times” to you before, why didn’t you address it then, instead of saving your response for when I “mentioned it” to someone else?

“Here we have the Echo making a firm assertion that the story about graffiti associated with the double murder is "discredited", and an "absolute fallacy"…”

Yes, they are indeed making such a firm assertion, and a correct one at that. The “rumour” – the description used with perfect accuracy by the Echo to describe the nature of the information handed down to them – was that objectionable chalked writing had been found in the “yard”. The actual location of the GSG cannot possibly be described as a “yard”, so they were clearly referring to another location – probably Dutfields Yard – which they visited themselves and unsurprisingly didn’t find any graffiti.

“Why publish rumours if they have a reliable source?”

They’re not claiming to have obtained their information from a “reliable source”. They were being perfectly circumspect about the fact that they were working on the basis of a “rumour”, which they investigated and found to be false. At no point in the article do the Echo claim to have ascertained the truth from the police, which is precisely what they did do in November with regard to Hutchinson. I realise your intention is to claim that because the press had recourse to “rumour” on one occasion, they couldn’t possibly obtain accurate police information on another, but that’s an illogical failure of an argument. It is perfectly reasonable and likely for the police to supply some information to some journalists some of the time, and not others.

In any case, we know for certain that the Echo did extract case-related information from the police, just as they claimed. It doesn’t matter if they reported on the 2nd October that Jack the Ripper was a fluffy pink hippo called Algernon – it doesn’t make any difference to the FACT that they reported on a genuine communication with the police a month later.

If you fancy repeating the entire Echo argument again, you can guarantee that I will be “bothered” to look up and regurgitate the “numerous” times I’ve “mentioned it” to you.

“I must have missed something, show me this "established", and who's "we"?”

I’m not repeating myself at your behest. It has been demonstrated enough times. The “we” is everybody accept you.

“Do you want me to dig up those repeated assertions of yours that the murder was committed, "shortly after 3 o'clock"?”

You can try, but considering that I have never “asserted” that the murder was committed shortly after 3.00am, I don’t anticipate you having much luck. If it was committed at such a time – and it’s certainly possible – Isaacs doesn’t have anything resembling an “alibi”. But then because of the uncertainty over the time of death, we know he can’t have had one anyway.

“The fallacy of that weekend news story can be put in context when we realize that a person being accused of murder will shout his alibi from the rooftops if he was in prison at the time.”

How do you know he didn’t? That’s very obviously what happened. Once it was established that he was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder, the investigation shifted to his possible involvement in the Annie Farmer attack, whereupon it was discovered that his thieving ways had provided him with an alibi for that offense too. On top of which, he had those accusations of theft to explain. That needed investigating too. He doesn’t get off the hook just because stealing a watch is less naughty than murder most ‘orrid. Even if he was very quickly “alibi’d” for the Kelly murder, the fact that he remained in custody is accounted for by the necessary investigations into the Farmer attack (not guilty) and watch theft (guilty).

“Sure, this was his home, at least from 1887 to 1892, or thereabouts.”

So? Doesn’t mean he has to engage in robbery where he lives, especially after allegedly being seen with a ripper victim close to her time of death.

“Yes, the only reliable cause we have for the story given by Hutchinson to eventually be questioned.”

Nope, it had absolutely nothing at all to do with Hutchinson’s story “eventually (being) questioned”.

“The police cannot dismiss one theory concerning a time of death, or one suspect, without more concrete evidence.”

But for your theory to work, they would have to have done, remember? For your theory to work, the police would have to exclude even the possibility of the murder occurring before 3:30am. You acknowledge as much here, when you say:

“Quite the contrary, there is nothing to connect Astrachan to the murder, and if his landlady says he was in his room, the police can do no more.”

In his room WHEN? At a time when the Kelly murder cannot possibly have happened yet, presumably? So for your theory to work, Bond’s time of death must have been confidently excluded, along with any possibility that Prater and Lewis might have heard the “murder” cry earlier than they both claimed to the police.

“If I recall correctly, it was you who said no-one could give Isaacs an alibi if it was him with Kelly that night. I invented one to demonstrate how wrong you were.”

So it’s just an “invention” and you don’t believe it to be true.

I’m very reassured, considering that it can’t possibly be true.

I think that’s you pretty much done for Isaacs on this thread. Go and start a separate non-Hutchinson thread on Isaacs if you’re interested in him, I would.

All the best,
Ben

[Roy Corduroy]

HutchTube coming ?

Good evening Ben,

it was fun while all that Crossmere stuff lasted, but I guess it's back to Hutchy business as usual, eh?

Yes but Charlie got his own TV show.

Roy (couch potato)

[Wickerman]

We’ve established that it is impossible for Isaacs to have been both identified as Astrakhan man and exonerated of any involvement in Kelly’s murder.

I must have missed something, show me this "established", and who's "we"?

If we pretend for a moment that the man even existed, it was impossible for him to have provided an alibi. He was allegedly in Kelly’s room at 3.00am, and severe doubts prevailed as to when Kelly was murdered and when the “murder” cry was heard.

Do you want me to dig up those repeated assertions of yours that the murder was committed, "shortly after 3 o'clock"?

"Dr. Phillips' evidence, together with that of Mary Anne Cox, Elizabeth Prater, and others, proves that the murder was committed shortly after three o'clock..."
Echo, 13 Nov. 1888.

Moving goal posts are we Ben?

According to Cusins, but NOT according to Lloyds Weekly News, which reported him as being in prison at the time.

The fallacy of that weekend news story can be put in context when we realize that a person being accused of murder will shout his alibi from the rooftops if he was in prison at the time. That is about a near perfect alibi as you can get.
A quick telegraph to the named prison will clear that up in 30 minutes.
The real story though was quite different, he was remanded while the "fullest inquiry" was made into his movements on the night of the murder.

"...it was said by the police that they wished the fullest inquiry as to the prisoner's movements on the night of Nov. 8. For that purpose he was remanded,.."

Which they would not have needed to do if they merely had to telegraph the prison. Evidently the prison story was bogus, as I explained previously.

If Isaacs was so concerned about being arrested as Astrakhan man, is it really likely that he would risk drawing negative attention by carrying out a theft a month later, not far away from the Kelly murder?

Sure, this was his home, at least from 1887 to 1892, or thereabouts.

You were previously in the habit of reminding everyone that the police were unsure of the likely time of death but generally preferred Bond’s suggested 1.00am time.

Yes, the only reliable cause we have for the story given by Hutchinson to eventually be questioned.

Why are you now insisting that the police accepted as fact that the cry of “murder” signalled the actual murder time, and that it couldn’t possibly have occurred before 3:30am – the time you’re now claiming Mary Cusins was able to provide “Isaacstrakhan” with a useless “earwitness” alibi?

For the same reason two suspects were being investigated, Blotchy & Astrachan. The police cannot dismiss one theory concerning a time of death, or one suspect, without more concrete evidence.
Bond's estimate as to Kelly's time of death, just like that by Phillips in the Chapman case, could have been mistaken.

Several posts later, you claim that Isaacs had an alibi for the “specific” time of Kelly’s death.

If I recall correctly, it was you who said no-one could give Isaacs an alibi if it was him with Kelly that night. I invented one to demonstrate how wrong you were.

If the police felt themselves able to exonerate Isaacs on such a basis, despite “knowing” he was Astrakhan, they were the most incompetent and negligent of cretins.

Quite the contrary, there is nothing to connect Astrachan to the murder, and if his landlady says he was in his room, the police can do no more.
He is cleared - and the fact is, he was cleared.