Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[John G]

Isaacs wasn't a murderer John. Conman, thief, impersonator of many [including himself] yes; but not that. I'm not saying that the police didn't miss a trick with him in other respects, because it's certainly possible that he was involved in bigger things at the time; but not the murder of prostitutes.

Incidentally, he well have been in custody when he 'disappeared' from his room on Paternoster Row shortly after Kelly's murder on 8th November. At least one paper states that he was in prison for stealing a coat at the time.

Maybe it was the Astrakhan coat that Hutchinson saw?? That'd solve a few problems.

Hi Sally, yes I'm sure your right. There certainly seems to be very little evidence against him, any certainty that he was Hutchinson's suspect, or even that Hutchinson was there that night. And is there any evidence that Hutchinson positively identified him?

What I do, however, find fascinating about Hutchinson is that, as unreliable as his evidence might seem, I just can't help feeling there's some truth to it somewhere! Maybe he was Astrakhan and he identified himself!

[Sally]

Assuming that it was Cusins who provided the alibi, I wonder how thoroughly this was investigated, and whether she may have even have got the dates mixed up.

Isaacs wasn't a murderer John. Conman, thief, impersonator of many [including himself] yes; but not that. I'm not saying that the police didn't miss a trick with him in other respects, because it's certainly possible that he was involved in bigger things at the time; but not the murder of prostitutes.

Incidentally, he well have been in custody when he 'disappeared' from his room on Paternoster Row shortly after Kelly's murder on 8th November. At least one paper states that he was in prison for stealing a coat at the time.

Maybe it was the Astrakhan coat that Hutchinson saw?? That'd solve a few problems.

[John G]

Hi Wickerman,

Thanks once again for your very informative reply. Assuming that it was Cusins who provided the alibi, I wonder how thoroughly this was investigated, and whether she may have even have got the dates mixed up. In fact, that's just what Caroline Maxwell seemed to have done in relation to her sighting of Kelly at 8.30.

Regarding the police's ability/ willingness to thoroughly investigate new leads, I sense that the explosion in the murder rate in 1888 resulted in the Whitechapel force being completely overwhelmed. I mean, exactly how many detectives did they have to investigate all of these serious crimes? As the total Whitechapel strength was only 548 in 1888, I doubt if it was more than a handful. In respect of Blotchy, for example, very little effort seems to have been made to locate him, despite his distinctive complexion and the fact that he was surely considered an important person of interest. Was this due to inadequacy of resources?

And, of course, during the Yorkshire Ripper enquiry a far more modern West Yorkshire police force found themselves completely out of their depth, and the card index system that they relied upon seems to have been completely useless.

Let us not also forget that the police were under enormous pressure from the media and were inundated with witnesses coming forward with various suspects and dubious pieces of evidence. With the limited resources available, how thoroughly could they investigate any piece of evidence, regardless of how important it might have seemed?

I also sense that the local force were simply not used to carrying out detailed investigations in circumstances when there were no obvious suspects. Consider the Coles murder. By 1891 things had quietened down a great deal. Nonetheless, they charged Thomas Sadler, despite the fact that it was subsequently revealed that at the time of the murder he had been seriously intoxicated, had been involved in several brawls and possessed only a blunt knife. None of this came to light during the police inquiry, such as it was. It was left to his legal representatives to find the evidence.

Still, perhaps all of this should be the subject of another thread!

[harry]

C.D
Could Aberline reasonably have formed any opinion,until after he had listened to Hutchinson's account,and we know by Aberline's report,his opinion was that Hutchinson was truthfull.There was a suspect,Astrakan.You and I may doubt the truth of w hat Hutchinson stated,we may be critical of Aberline's opinion of truthfulness and the use of the word interrogation,we may cast suspicion Hutchinson's way. What w e cannot do is state Aberline had suspicions of Hutchinson.None is shown.
Hutchinson was a person of interest,always will be,and that is all.
Regards.

[Wickerman]

For instance, on what basis was Isaacs cleared? Did he provide alibis, and if so were they relevant for MJK's murder or for some of the other suspected Ripper killings? How safe were any alibis he provided? According to Begg he wasn't arrested until the 6th December, almost a month after Kelly's murder, so could any alibis he provided, for the night in question, have got the dates mixed up?

Yes, Isaacs was eventually arrested on Dec. 6th, but that was due to him stealing a watch on the 5th.
He had appeared in court for an unstated crime on Nov. 12th, coincidentally on the same day as the Kelly inquest, and was sent down for 21 days. So he was in prison for most of the time Abberline was looking for him.

Clearly if he provided a cast iron alibi for the night of Kelly's murder that would raise serious concerns as to why Hutchinson came forward.

Any alibi must have concerned a specific time on the date in question, not a different day. Mary Cusins informed the police, during their house-to-house inquiries on the 10th-11th Nov., that she had a lodger missing.

Interestingly, Evans and Rumbellow (2006) state that a witness, Mary Cusins, deputy-keeper of a lodging house in Paternoster Row, where Isaacs was staying at the time of the Kelly murder, had heard him walking around his room on the night in question. Was she his alibi?

Very likely, the issue may have been at what time of night did she hear him walking about. Any time between, say 2:00 - 3:30 am, would provide him with an alibi. Sadly, no press account from Cusins provides the time.

If Isaacs was Astrachan, he could have left Millers Court about 3:00 am, just after Hutchinson walked away, and still arrived at his lodgings around the corner in Paternoster Row. This would be before the stated times of the cry of "murder" between 3:30 - 4:00 am.
Plus the killer would need some time for the mutilations. If Mary Cusins said Isaacs was pacing his room about 3:15?, he is out of the running as a suspect.
Under this scenario Kelly would have gone back on the streets, likely meeting her real killer.
That is where the evidence of Mrs Kennedy comes into play.

Did Hutchinson even confirm that Isaacs was the man that he saw, or did he simply fit the description? Were the police still in contact with Hutchinson at this time, or had he disappeared?

I wish we knew.

Did Abberline come to believe that Kelly had been murdered much earlier or much later than Hutchinson's sighting?

I think there was a degree of confusion over the time of death.
Dr. Bond estimated a ToD of between 1:00 - 2:00 am, implicating Blotchy.
Then we have the cry of murder given variously between 3:30 - 4:00 am.
The press tell us Dr. Phillips believed a ToD of about 5:00 - 6:15, or thereabouts? - I'm not sure that is trustworthy.
The press also tell us that Dr. Bond's report was with the collaboration of Dr. Phillips. So how Phillips could support two separate times of death for the same body is inexplicable.
Sadly, the inquest was intended to provide an official Time of Death, which never happened.

Abberline had a real problem, how can he focus on a particular suspect without an established time of death?

[John G]

Hi Wickerman,

Thanks for your informative reply. I must admit that I have long been fascinated by George Hutchinson as witness but, until now, knew little of Joseph Isaacs.

I suppose so many questions arise if we consider that Abberline ultimately rejected Hutchinson as an important witness, believing his suspect had been cleared.

For instance, on what basis was Isaacs cleared? Did he provide alibis, and if so were they relevant for MJK's murder or for some of the other suspected Ripper killings? How safe were any alibis he provided? According to Begg he wasn't arrested until the 6th December, almost a month after Kelly's murder, so could any alibis he provided, for the night in question, have got the dates mixed up?

Clearly if he provided a cast iron alibi for the night of Kelly's murder that would raise serious concerns as to why Hutchinson came forward. I mean, it is hardly likely he got the dates mixed up because he gave his evidence within days of the alleged sighting and, according to him, he'd just returned from Romford, so that should have fixed the date firmly in his mind.

Interestingly, Evans and Rumbellow (2006) state that a witness, Mary Cusins, deputy-keeper of a lodging house in Paternoster Row, where Isaacs was staying at the time of the Kelly murder, had heard him walking around his room on the night in question. Was she his alibi? If so, why was he subsequently arrested? And why would Cusins apparently cast suspicion on him by, reportedly saying, that he disappeared immediately after the murder?

Did Hutchinson even confirm that Isaacs was the man that he saw, or did he simply fit the description? Were the police still in contact with Hutchinson at this time, or had he disappeared?

Did Abberline come to believe that Kelly had been murdered much earlier or much later than Hutchinson's sighting? It would some strange if this was the case given the conflicting medical/ witness testimony as to likely time of death.

The possibilities seem endless.

[Wickerman]

You have asked this question before.

A significant difference is that the Coroner has his own agenda quite different from a trial. A Coroner has no need to invite more than one witness to tell the same story.
- Kennedy & Lewis both tell of the same Wednesday night confrontation.
- Kennedy & Lewis both describe the same encounter with a man outside the Britannia on Friday morning.

- Only Lewis saw a man loitering outside Millers Court, therefore Lewis gets the ticket.


Was Kennedy listed to appear as a witness after the adjournment? Quite possibly, her statement was taken by Abberline.
Dr. Phillips was asked to save his medical evidence for the adjournment, but this never happened either.
The Coroner decided to curtail the inquiry early.

[Batman]

Who said it was?

One of your witnesses was dropped from it. The other arrived after it.

[Wickerman]

An inquest is not a murder trial.

[Batman]

Which of those witnesses attended the inquest again?

[Wickerman]

IF Blotchy didn't pay her.... IF. You need that.

Not at all, the payment from one client is not sufficient for rent, and food & drink through the next day. She needs more than one transaction for that.
I am assuming Blotchy payed her, but she needs more than one 6d.

She has drink there with her. Pale of Ale. Is MJK, an alcoholic, expected to sit there and not indulge?

Why do you call it a pale?
It was described as a pot, a simple beer mug. A pale is something larger, a pot is smaller than a pale.
How full was this pot, half, or nearly empty?
How full do you want it to be to suit your theory?

She is singing at well past midnight into the wee hours. She is not getting more sober to go out again.

She doesn't need to be sober to go out again, she was quite capable of walking in to her room, so she is quite capable of walking out again.

She ate the fish and potatoes recently unless you think she had the digestive system of a crocodile.

The question is, "when" did she eat the meal.

Prater didn't see her leave. Cox didn't see her leave. Neither did they see Blotchy leave. Prater is there for 30 minutes. Cox in and out too. Neither see MJK going back out for that matter.

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?

Prater returned "about 1 o'clock", and stood there for 20 minutes, no light, no sound, no singing - good enough.
This suggests to me she was either dead already, or had gone out before 1 o'clock.

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.

The only reason to believe she is out is Hutchinson. That's it. That's all.

No, it isn't.
"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."

Dismissing two unrelated witnesses (Hutchinson & Kennedy) is the only way you can defend your theory.

[c.d.]

It has been suggested that Aberline first viewed Hutchinson as a suspect.How can that be?
Hutchinson arrived at the police station and gave his statement,verbally I presume.It w as considered important to inform Aberline He decided to go himself to the police station and question Hutchinson.So,it is obvious that Aberline,before speaking to Hutchinson,w as aware that Hutchinson was claiming to be an eyewitness,and that there was another person,seen by Hutchinson,who was suspect,and it was this suspect who,on Hutchinson's testimony,w as the last person reportedly seen with Kelly before her being found dead.Why would Aberline remotely suspect Hutchinson knowing that astrakhan was the logical suspect.Obviously he did not,at that time,and the word interrogation has no meaning in that sense,nor does it convey any indication that there was additional important testimony to the statement of Hutchinson,other than that written by Badham.

Hello Harry,

Rather than get hung up on semantics as to whether Hutchinson was a suspect or merely a witness let's simply call him a person of interest. 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. He is there in the flesh talking to Abberline as opposed to the Astrakhan man who may or may not have existed. Abberline would have no way of knowing whether Hutchinson was telling the truth. Therefore, as a person of interest, Abberline would have wanted to question him whether you call that an interrogation or something else.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

In 1903 Abberline clearly did reject Hutchinson's evidence, at least by implication, .....

Hi John.
The fact Abberline did not maintain Hutchinson's story can be viewed two different ways.
Rather than him rejecting it, I believe it indicates he accepted it, and the character described by Hutchinson was, in his opinion, Joseph Isaacs.

The press did describe Isaacs as "certainly" fitting the description, and Abberline was reported to be excited, retorting words to the effect that, "keep this quiet, this is something big".
The actual words used need not be accurate, whatever was said the atmosphere was one of elation as noted by the press.

Isaacs was investigated as to his movements that night, and cleared, whatever the details were are not known, but he was allowed to confess to a lesser crime and was sent to prison.
This cleared up Hutchinson's story for Abberline, he realized Hutchinson had not seen the killer after all.

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.

[Batman]

I already said, she still needs money for food & drink tomorrow, not tonight, tomorrow.

IF Blotchy didn't pay her.... IF. You need that.

Which means MJK wouldn't be a very experienced prostitute to have been conned so easily. You seem to be believing your own conjecture to allow for all the reasons for her to be about again. Yet simply, if he paid, then all those reasons go away.

She has drink there with her. Pale of Ale. Is MJK, an alcoholic, expected to sit there and not indulge? She is singing at well past midnight into the wee hours. She is not getting more sober to go out again. She ate the fish and potatoes recently unless you think she had the digestive system of a crocodile.

What reason is there to believe he stayed after 1 o'clock, when all was quiet & dark?
What reason is there to believe anyone was in that room after 1 o'clock?

She has no reason to go out if she has had food, got a client and who has brought more drink, especially if drunk.

Prater didn't see her leave. Cox didn't see her leave. Neither did they see Blotchy leave. Prater is there for 30 minutes. Cox in and out too. Neither see MJK going back out for that matter. You have her either sitting in the dark, not singing or she goes walkabout for 30min without anyone seeing her except Hutchinson and only Hutchinson at 2:00am. Why isn't she out and gone already at 1 if she has so big a need for money?

The only reason to believe she is out is Hutchinson. That's it. That's all.

Why Abberline he believe Hutchinson? It's all he had to go on post inquest. It's the only lead he had. Swanson was running house to house searches in a Jewish district looking for Bond's profile. Swanson isn't very bothered by Abberline's quest with Hutchinson it seems.

[Sally]

Where and when she obtained the fish and potatoes is not known.

Fish 'n' Chip shop on Wentworth Street?

Or maybe it was Eels and Mash that night - so many questions that may never be resolved.