Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Batman]

The only inference from the Astrakhan man incident is that Blotchy is innocent. Not that Astrakhan is innocent. He would be prime suspect and no reason to dismiss him at all.

... If one where to have that much faith in Hutchinson's and his pantomime Jew that is.

[Wickerman]

...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”.

Hi Ben.
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


Typically you bring this up as part of your assertion that the Echo had an inside source, a reliable source, for their Whitechapel murder stories.

Well, lets just see if we can put this to a kind of test shall we.

It isn't common that we have an actual press account and a police account, on the very same subject, but fortunately here is one involving the Echo.

Read this, and take particular note of the terminology.

"Among the many discredited rumours current in the neighbourhood is the assertion that Sir Charles Warren on visiting the yard on Sunday morning last discovered some writing on the wall in chalk, which gave expression to very objectionable sentiments of a religious character, and which was supposed to have been the handiwork of the murderer. This was alleged to have given such great offence that Sir Charles, fearing a disturbance in the neighbourhood, directed the writing to be washed out. Investigation, however, has proved, so far as can be judged, the absolute fallacy of the story. A careful examination of the brickwork in the yard this morning has revealed beyond dispute the fact that there has been no effacement of chalk marks on the walls, certainly within recent date."
Echo, 2 October, 1888.

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".

The first point should be noted that they say the graffiti was written in a yard. They may be referring to Dutfields Yard, or perhaps calling Mitre Square, a yard, its hard to say. If the Echo had any idea what was written they would know it couldn't have been left in Dutfields Yard.
They obviously know nothing of Goulston St., so where these so called, "rumours current in the neighbourhood" originated from is a question, if it was the neighbourhood of Goulston St. they would know it wasn't a yard.
Why publish rumours if they have a reliable source?

The "investigation" that they mention is not a police investigation, but their own, and the extent of this "investigation" is that their reporter checked the walls in this "yard" for signs of chalk writing that had been washed off - what on earth did they expect to find, a wet wall???.
Having found no evidence of chalk writing (and, being at the wrong location anyway), they assert the story is an "absolute fallacy".

We know different, don't we Ben. Official paperwork proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the story, the real accurate story, was indeed true.

This press account is wrong on so many laughable points. Clearly the Echo have no reliable source at the Met., or Scotland Yard.
Contrary to the assertions of some

So much for inside sources - don't make me laugh!

[Ben]

I know all this stuff is repetitive after so long a time in debating Hutchinson; but hey - at least it has absolutely nothing to do with Murderin' Charlie the Bloody [or not] Carman

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

Hi JohnG,

Thanks for your reply.

I still think Abberline would have been missing a trick by failing to infer a facial match between Klosowski and Astrakhan. If he was truly as obsessed as you suggest by his suspect theory in 1903, Hutchinson's description offered far more of a potential asset than useless rear-view sightings. Klosowski had a dark moustache, a surly countenance, and was obviously "foreign" in appearance, just like Astrakhan. I would suggest that these "matches" are far more compelling than an easily explainable difference in age.

No, either Abberline failed to take advantage of an obvious opportunity to promote his theory, or he knew full well that owing to Hutchinson's discrediting 15 years earlier, Astrakhan was a no-go zone for comparisons with new suspects.

I strongly urge the latter option.

All the best,
Ben

[John G]

Hi Ben,

Sorry for late reply but I've just found the thread again. Reference your reply, post 435, why I've long believed that Abberline had become obsessive about Chapman is the way he addressed the problem of Champan's age in 1888, I.e. he was 23, therefore appreciably younger than the estimated age of any suspect given be any witness. Now he could, of course, have simply argued that Chapman might have looked older than his actual age, I.e. because he was always reasonably well dressed. But he didn't. Instead he addressed the problem by taking the extreme a and extraordinary step of attempting to exclude every major witness that had claimed to have observed a suspect from the front which, by implication, included George Hutchinson.

[Sally]

The fact that Isaacs dropped off the map completely is a testament to the fact that he ruled out as both the murderer and Astrakhan man – most probably on account of the fact that he was in prison at the time.

He probably was in prison at the time - he generally was. Best place for him.

I'm delighted to see Good Ol' Kennedy being wheeled out again by Jon as an 'independent' witness. Surely we've been here before, but since there lived a family of Kennedy's merely across the road from Sarah Lewis in 1888, it does seem at least plausible that one of them was the inspiration for 'Mrs Kennedy'.

As you say Ben, either a parrot, or a pseudonym.

I know all this stuff is repetitive after so long a time in debating Hutchinson; but hey - at least it has absolutely nothing to do with Murderin' Charlie the Bloody [or not] Carman.

A refreshing change.

[Ben]

Couldnt it simply have been that they believed Hutchinson but then after further investigations decided that the man he saw was not the killer?

Not very likely at all, Hatchett, given that the stated reason for Hutchinson's diminished "importance" concerned his credibility and motivation for coming forward, and not because of any arbitrary "decision" on the part of the police that he must have seen someone other than the killer. What could such a decision be based on, realistically?

What we do know, however, is that Abberline believed him, and he was a very experianced Policeman.

So in my opinion that is the most likely explanation.

What is?

That Abberline believed Hutchinson?

It has never been disputed that Abberline was initially of the opinion that his statement was true. It is clear that this approval did not last, however.

You realise of course that when Abberline sent that report signalling his faith in Hutchinson, there was no way for the former to have conducted any investigation at that stage? What do you suppose his opinion was based on if it was arrived at before any investigation could realistically have occurred?

Hi GUT,

What amazes me even more is that we have Isaacs who s said to have fit the description to a T and yet people insist on saying that no one dressed like that would venture into the East End.

Where is your evidence that "Isaacs was said to have fit the description to a T"? Considering that Isaacs was an itinerant (essentially homeless) thief living off one of the worst streets in London, the chances of him being able to doll himself up like Astrakhan are incredibly remote.

But I guess if you want your rippers well-dressed and exotic...

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Continued...

Please don’t keep repeating that impossible, proven-false Daily News article as though it hasn’t already been killed off. As Batman points out, Lewis did not see anyone “pass up the court”. That is an absolute, irrefutable set-in-stone fact, as evinced by her police statement and all other press accounts of her inquest testimony. Nobody saw “such a funny man up the court (that) morning” either – this appeared in a ludicrous second-hand piece of press hearsay which we know to be false, or else it would have appeared in a police statement (from Mrs. McCarthy or her alleged informant, or preferably both) or at the inquest.

The idea that the alleged (non-existent) informant was Sarah Lewis is particularly ridiculous because she makes it very clear that there was “nobody in the court”. Incidentally, there is absolutely no suggestion that Lewis ever went into McCarthy’s shop that night, or did anything other than walk directly from Commercial Street, down Dorset Street and into the Court, perhaps noticing wideawake man only upon entering the passage – having been preoccupied previously with the man at the corner of Ringers’.

“So, a full week later we have indications the police were still actively involved investigating Hutchinson's story.”

Nope.

That isn’t evidence of anything other than an uninfluential minority – which evidently did not include the men with overall charge of the ripper investigation – still wondering that there might be a nugget of truth in a discredited but not wholly disproven story. But there is no evidence of any officially-sanctioned pursuit of Astrakhan men after mid-November. None at all.

“There is one case, I think her name, Lady Hamilton, riding through Brushfield St. (behind Dorset St.) in her carriage, when some local thief jumped up on the step, and reached in grabbing her watch, and ripped it from her, taking off down the street.”

Illustrating…?

What happens to people who are silly enough to parade their wealth around notorious districts?

Yep, thanks for he example. Meanwhile, if you want to have any hope of destroying the “urban myth” that “no-one would dress like that” in such an area at such a time, let’s see some evidence that might contradict that common-sense reality. The problem, as ever, is that you’re perpetually hooked on the idea of a “well-dressed” ripper.

“No answers to the above questions are contained within his initial statement, and until his story is verified, Hutchinson - by his own admission is a suspect due to the fact he is the last person who claims to have been in the company of the victim shortly before her death.”

Nope, no evidence at all for this assertion either, based as it is on an obvious lack and knowledge or experience. Here I must copy and paste from the unnecessarily duplicated “debate”:

Were Schwartz, Lawende, Harris and Levy treated as suspects at any point? Was Emanuel Violenia, who claimed to have been the last to see Annie Chapman alive, despite the fact that he was thought to have been telling porkies? The key word here is “claim” – Hutchinson “claimed” to have been the last person to see her alive, with the exception of the presumed murderer, and it was the job of the investigating officer to “interrogate” the witness for the purpose of determining whether that “claim” was truthful or the work of a publicity-seeker (and the police had been deluged with the latter). Those were the options the police were likely to entertain when faced with a voluntary witness in 1888, not “is this Jack the Ripper waltzing into the police station requesting an interview?”.

You suggest that Hutchinson was interrogated for the purpose of ruling him out as a suspect, but here you hit your usual stumbling block: how was Abberline in a position to prove Hutchinson innocent of the Kelly murder during that “interrogation”. Did Hutchinson provide CCTV footage, proving his innocence? No. Abberline was obliged to accept Hutchinson’s claims purely on faith in the absence of any investigation into them, which could not possibly have occurred between the termination of the “interrogation” and the writing of his report to his superiors.

“Hutchinson's responses need to be recorded so they can be investigated.
He can only be a valued witness if he can clear himself of any suspicion.”

It wasn’t written down in full, though.

It couldn’t possibly have been.

It is only you who insists that full transcripts were made – HOW??!!! – of interrogations with witnesses. Who agrees with you, and can they explain how this was even possible, even if you can’t?

“This paperwork has not survived.”

The usual convenient cop-out excuse. I’m secretly the King of Spain and I would be able to prove it, were it not for the fact that the "paperwork has not survived”. I’m afraid “the paperwork hasn’t survived” is right up there with “a psychopath just might…” in terms of bad cover-all arguments.

“And yes, Blotchy likely did exist, but I am pointing out to you that the accusations against Hutchinson for the existence of Astrachan can be equally applied to Cox for the existence of Blotchy.”

The difference being that Cox’s evidence appeared at the inquest, it wasn’t three-days late, it wasn’t ultimately discredited, and it didn’t contain an impossible degree of detail (please challenge these points and give me the excuse I’m gagging for to go off on those tangents again).

What’s this you keep repeating about Kelly needing to sell her wares into the small hours in order to pay for food the next day? Why could this not have been achieved during the day on a continual work-earn-spend basis, as apparently adopted by the other victims?

Blotchy was described as holding a “quart can” which can carry about two pints, and no, it isn’t remotely likely that Blotchy forbade Kelly to drink from it. That would just be weird. Kelly was described as being so drunk that she was scarcely capable of bidding her neighbour goodnight; on top of which there was Blotchy’s can to share. If you think extreme intoxication must always be accompanied by “jelly legs” you might need to sink a few and discover otherwise.

“Cox is a little confused, first she claims to hear singing after 1 o'clock..
"I returned about one o'clock. She was singing then. I warmed my hands and went out again, she was still singing."

Then claims to hear nothing after 1 o'clock..
"I heard nothing whatever after one o'clock.”

Which is it?”

Both.

Obviously.

Cox heard Kelly singing “about 1 o’clock”. She then goes out again “still about 1 o’clock”, but hears nothing after 1 o’clock. This only becomes a problem for those who wish inexplicably to argue that a couple of minutes either side of 1 o’clock can’t possibly qualify as “about 1 o’clock”.

Otherwise, no "confusion" here at all.

“Right.....As Kelly was heard to be singing at 12:30 by another tenant who lived in the Court, and by Cox just before 1:00, but all was quiet and dark from 1:00-1:20 (by Prater), then there is not sufficient time for the murder AND the mutilations to have taken place.
Therefore, Mary Kelly must have gone out again before 1 o'clock.”

Therefore…NO, Jon.

Why “must” she have gone out at all? Why have you ruled out the other very obvious possibility that Kelly fell asleep shortly after 1.00am, and was surprised by her killer in her room a few hours later?

You quote the press:

"Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday."

That’s nonsense, though, as everyone else knows.

Had there been any serious consideration that Kennedy had seen Kelly at 3.00am, she would have appeared at the inquest. Let’s not have that nonsense again please about Kennedy not appearing at the inquest because her evidence was too similar to Lewis’s. That just isn’t the way it works in real life. If Kennedy wasn't a discredited plagiarist, her evidence would offer some much needed corroboration for Lewis' claims and would have been a crucial inquest inclusion for that reason. Indeed, if anything, Kennedy would have been the better choice given that she claimed to have seen Kelly (which Lewis never alleged) and at a later time in the morning. The very notion that two witnesses can have such identical experiences and fail to reference each other in their respective accounts is ludicrous enough as it is.

No, Kennedy was either a plagiarist of Lewis’s evidence or was Lewis herself incognito. Those are your only options.

Dr. Phillips argued for a much later time of death than the one proffered by Dr. Bond. A separate article indicated that the two men shared nearly every opinion on Kelly, and it is evident that time of death wasn’t one of them.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I see Batman has addressed many of your points very well, but is it really necessary to keep bringing up Isaacs in every Hutchinson thread going? I thought you said you were researching him independently. How’s that going?

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. Alibis you can forget, and that goes for any suggested identity theory for Astrakhan, not just Isaacs. 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. How were the police in any position to rule out the possibility of Prater and/or Lewis being mistaken as to when they heard the cry of murder, bearing in mind both were essentially guessing after dozing off?

“But not Isaacs, for some inexplicable reason he headed off in another direction - according to Cusins, he fled and never came back.”

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

You assured me before that the nonsense about Mary Cusins giving him a magic alibi was fanciful speculation at best, but now it seems clear that it is your preferred version of events. 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. 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?

Several posts later, you claim that Isaacs had an alibi for the “specific” time of Kelly’s death. Please “specify” what time that was, and explain why you’ve changed your tune about the police supporting Bond’s earlier time of death.

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.

Isaacs doesn’t help Hutchinson out in the slightest, and it’s time to realise that and move on. Keep researching Isaacs, sure, but without the omnipresent Hutchinson agenda in the background. I realise your problem - you so desperately want to avoid the conclusion that Hutchinson was discredited that you seek other, far more tenuous explanations for the complete non-reference to Hutchinson in any later police reminiscences. But try as you might, the Issacs = Astrakhan = proven-innocent-thanks-to-impossible-alibi just doesn’t work.

“Right or wrong, what I am pointing out is that Abberline's eventual departure from the Hutchinson suspect does not mean he did not believe him, another reason is available.”

Well come up with a good one then, and don’t keep wheeling on Isaacs when he doesn’t belong. If the police had successfully identified and apprehended Astrakhan man, there was simply no way of exonerating him because there was no way for him to provide a concrete alibi. This holds true as much for Isaacs as everyone else. The fact that Isaacs dropped off the map completely is a testament to the fact that he ruled out as both the murderer and Astrakhan man – most probably on account of the fact that he was in prison at the time.

[Ben]

Hi John,

A while ago you wrote:

“What I find most remarkable about Hutchinson's evidence is that even though it seems pretty implausible from a modern perspective- too much detail/ suspect too well dressed- a highly experienced detective, Inspector Abberline, believed him.”

And then signed the post off with:

“His misguided comments are therefore driven by his obsession that Chapman was the killer, causing him to have selective amnesia regarding witness testimony”

The problem here is that it becomes rather difficult to reconcile the two. If we characterise Abberline as “misguided”, “obsessed” and suffering from “selective memory”, why would we then accept uncritically his initial faith-based thoughts on Hutchinson’s credibility?

It doesn’t seem very likely that Lawende was prioritized to the exclusion of all other witnesses, including those who were honest and accurate (assuming it was he, and not Schwartz, who was used). The others could still have seen the same person Lawende did – and thus still be of considerable value – despite not getting quite as good a “view”.

As I’ve already mentioned, Abberline had a golden opportunity – if he truly was obsessed with his Klosowski theory – to infer superficial parallels between Astrakhan man’s appearance and Klosowski’s, but he missed it. Unless, of course, he knew or strongly suspected that no “Astrakhan man” existed.

“In the case of Kelly, for example, we have no real idea what time she was killed - Dr Bond calculated sometime between 2:00am and 8:00am- therefore Hutchinson's suspect, if identified, and assuming he existed, could simply have argued that Kelly was fine when he left her.”

He might have argued that, yes, but without being in any position to demonstrate his innocence, Astrakhan man would still have been the prime suspect in the Kelly murder, and Hutchinson a crucial witness worth mentioning in interviews and reports. But that evidently didn’t happen. Either we settle for an explanation that involves Abberline lying in 1903 in an attempt to shore up his Klosowski theory, or we continue to use this interview as “supporting evidence that he no longer had faith in Hutchinson”, which I humbly submit that it inescapably is.

“And as I noted earlier, to a modern observer what makes astrachan man so unlikely is the incongruity of such a well-dressed man being present in such a notorious neighborhood. However, not to Abberline it seems.”

But this wasn’t any old “well-dressed man”. This was presumably Jack the Ripper himself – the mysterious uncaught ghoul who many suspected of being a villainous Jew or a doctor. Who knows what this monster would do (or wear, or think, or say)...or so an 1888 detective with absolutely no experience or knowledge of serial offenders might reason.

“Therefore even if astrakhan man existed, it might have been reasoned that he was, in all probability, innocent.”

Only if the police placed all their eggs in one controversial, minority-accepted basket as far as an estimated time of death went. They certainly didn’t go with Maxwell’s late-morning sighting, and nor do they appear to have exhibited a preference for either Bond or Phillips. The available evidence instead indicates that they came to favour the mutually supportive evidence of Lewis and Prater – the cry of “murder” - as the most likely time of death. This would put Astrakhan man right in the frame (certainly not “in all probability innocent") if Hutchinson’s account continued to be accepted as both truthful and accurate.

There is no evidence that Joseph Isaacs – a homeless thief and former cigar-maker – was remotely capable of dressing as affluently as the alleged Astrakhan man. If any similarity existed, it probably extended only to them both being Jewish, dark-haired, moustachioed (?), and about the same age. Isaacs himself was reportedly in prison at the time of the Kelly murder for the offense of stealing a coat, which neatly explains the sudden lack of interest in him as a suspect. This reality completely undermined the account provided by Mary Cusins who obviously wanted rid of her unsavoury neighbour, possibly in the same way that many Germans in the 1930s “got rid” of their undesirable fellow citizens by lying about them to the Gestapo.

A terrible recent theory – blissfully unpopular and only championed by that sole theorist - asserts that Abberline was in a position to both identify Isaacs as Astrakhan man AND clear him of Kelly’s murder. This is not a possibility. Whoever Astrakhan was – if we embrace the discredited notion that he even existed – he could not possibly have been exonerated of her murder, if and when he was identified.

This doesn’t stop Isaacs being in interesting character in his own right, worthy of further research. It’s just a pity that at present he is only ever wheeled in as a supporting player to lend non-existent support for Hutchinson.

“And why were other witnesses, including PC Smith, apparently rejected in favour of Lawende? Could it be simply be a case of the police focusing on the importance of proximity of sighting to estimated time of death of a victim, at the exclusion of all other criteria?”

Only if the police were confident enough to rule out the possibility of other witnesses having seen the same man that Lawende described, albeit not as close to the “estimated time of death of a victim”. This doesn’t seem very likely. Donald Swanson’s report hints at the likely reason for the apparent non-prioritization of PC Smith’s evidence: the latter’s sighting occurred earlier than that of Schwartz, and was apparently of a different person. The implication being that Stride’s likely killer arrived in the form of Schwartz’s broad-shouldered man after Smith’s man had left. And Schwartz, of course, is still considered a candidate for Anderson’s witness.

Please bear in mind that this post is addressed to “John G” and not Jon aka “Wickerman”, just so there is no confusing which Jo(h)n I'm currently interested in hearing from. The latter’s posts I look forward to addressing when time permits.

All the best,
Ben

[Batman]

Hello Batman,

Yes, I've got this book, maybe I should have checked it first! 143 officers in plain clothes does, of course, seem like a high number for such a relatively small district. However, how many of those officers, I wonder, were experienced detectives? I might be wrong but wasn't it the case that they temporarily transferred a significant number of uniformed officers into plain clothes?

It's a great book. Love it. One of my favs actually. I assumed they just took the uniformed officers and put them in plain clothes and back into uniform when things got quiet. That's sort of what I gleaned from reading that chapter/book.

[John G]

p.204

585 of all ranks in Whitechapel by Jmonro dated 18.7.89

If you want questions about Soctland Yard, numbers etc., this book is the one to turn too.

By december 1888 they had 143 officers in plain clothes.

In January they reduced it to 102. By Feb it had dropped in 47.

Hello Batman,

Yes, I've got this book, maybe I should have checked it first! 143 officers in plain clothes does, of course, seem like a high number for such a relatively small district. However, how many of those officers, I wonder, were experienced detectives? I might be wrong but wasn't it the case that they temporarily transferred a significant number of uniformed officers into plain clothes?

[Batman]

Scotland Yard Investigates by Evans and Rumbelow

p.204

585 of all ranks in Whitechapel by Jmonro dated 18.7.89

If you want questions about Soctland Yard, numbers etc., this book is the one to turn too.

By december 1888 they had 143 officers in plain clothes.

In January they reduced it to 102. By Feb it had dropped in 47.

[Wickerman]

I sense that by this time the Whitechapel force was pretty much in meltdown. It should be remembered that they probably had only a handful of detectives to commit to numerous murder inquiries and vicious crimes that occurred in 1888.

Well, at the risk of sounding like an advertisement, Monty's book must give the numbers. I know I have read the numbers allocated to the Whitechapel murder case several times in various sources. So the numbers are out there.

After mid November the press no longer give it the coverage they used to.
It would be a mistake to assume that because the press moved on that the police must also have walked away from the case.
The press knew very little of what Scotland Yard were doing even throughout the murders, with respect to specific case related information the press knew nothing.
That was how the Met. police wanted it.

[Wickerman]

Why was Isaacs described as a Polish Jew?

His father may have been, but not Joseph -- he was born in Whitechapel.

Several news reports word it as, "said to be a Polish Jew".
It occurred to me that it may not have been obvious, neither by his features nor his accent. Given that he was born in London he may have had a local East End accent.
Yes, he was a Polish Jew by descent, his father David was a Polish Jew by birth.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

Well, as we all know, the police records are incomplete. So no one knows for sure. Barnet was with her that night and cleared. The Police were reluctant in supplying the press with info,so it is unlikely that they would have known.

What we do know, however, is that Abberline believed him, and he was a very experianced Policeman.

So in my opinion that is the most likely explanation.

Best wishes.