Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Wickerman]

When are you talking about, Jon? If you mean on the 7th December, the police "used" her only to confirm the identity of the defendant.

I'm talking about the Worship Street appearance. Mary Cusins was deemed reliable enough in December to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution. Therefore, the police had sufficient faith in her opinion, which they wouldn't have had if they had discovered she had given a false statement to them in November, in the defense of Isaacs.

None of us can pinpoint the exact time at which Isaacs's prison alibi was confirmed, but it was at some point between the 7th and the 14th December.

You seem to be trying to avoid the obvious.
Scotland Yard had already confirmed Isaacs whereabouts for the Farmer assault, which was as a result of the same arrest that you believe put him in custody on the night of the 8th.
Scotland Yard are dealing with the same police station, the same arresting officer, the same charge, the same sentence.
So, why couldn't Barnet also confirm they had him in custody on the 8th?

Answer: They couldn't, because they didn't.

Equally, why didn't Isaacs tell them he was in custody from the 8th, so had the perfect alibi?

Answer: Because he wasn't, so he didn't.

Yes it can, and does.

Obviously not, as Mary Cusins confirmed to police his "fixed abode", in her lodging house. She told police he left his bow behind, and so fully expected his return. Police requested for her to get in touch with them on his return. Both Cusins and the police regarded the address in Paternoster Row as his abode.
Any traveler can pursue his occupation from a fixed address, it all depends on how far he travels.

... to wait around at temporary lodgings for a “summons” to arrive in the mail. What did happen “in court in Edinburgh”, by the way? Was he released back to London to await a “summons”?

The summons will be handed to him before he left Barnet Police Station.

In Edinburgh the press accounts make no mention of him being detained or given a summons. What we do know is he gave his home address as Paternoster Row then in 1890, and as a continued address for two possibly three years.

This was the account where he was described as a "flashily dressed Jew".
If you remember, at the time I first mentioned this you were insisting Isaacs was homeless without two pennies to rub together, that he couldn't afford to dress up like Astrachan.
How very wrong that was, he was quite the 'Dandy' - all false of course.

[Sally]

In Edinburgh the press accounts make no mention of him being detained or given a summons. What we do know is he gave his home address as Paternoster Row then in 1890, and as a continued address for two possibly three years.

Hang on a minute Jon - a 'continued address'? Bit of a leap, isn't it? We're talking about a man who was notorious for giving false addresses - on more than one occasion addresses of empty houses! The fact that he said he was living at Paternoster Row in no way demonstrates that he actually was.

More to the point, you cannot, of course, use his brief lodging with Nosey Parker Cusins et al. at No.3 in 1888 and his alleged residence at No.11 in 1890to demonstrate a 'continued address' at Paternoster Row - especially not for one so very itinerant as Isaacs. At the very best, he may have lodged there more than once.

[Ben]

Ta for that info and good points, Sally.

Hi Jon,

“I'm talking about the Worship Street appearance. Mary Cusins was deemed reliable enough in December to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution. Therefore, the police had sufficient faith in her opinion, which they wouldn't have had if they had discovered she had given a false statement to them in November, in the defense of Isaacs.”

I don’t dispute any of that.

The police would only have realised that Mary Curtain-Twitcher had “given a false statement” when they realised, or rather had proved conclusively, that Isaacs was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder, i.e. after her court appearance at Worship Street on the 7th. What I do dispute, and very vehemently at that, is your suggestion that it was such a doddle to extract the information from Barnet police station, and that it occurred over a minute’s exchange of “telegraphs”. To reason thusly is to downplay the magnitude of the ripper investigation, which called not for convenience and simplicity but for thoroughness.

Yes, it might have been quickly ascertained that Isaacs was already carrying out his sentence when the Farmer attack was committed, but it was of considerably less importance than "the mutilations", which the police accepted were unrelated. It might have taken a bit longer – not a lot, just a bit – to ascertain his whereabouts after his arrest but prior to his sentencing. We might imagine that the police, being thorough, would have made personal visits to the remand prison. Supererogatory, perhaps? Yes, but again, the circumstances called for it. Modern-day alibis are not cemented via text messages, just as 1888 alibis weren’t resolved by telegraph.

“Obviously not, as Mary Cusins confirmed to police his "fixed abode", in her lodging house. She told police he left his bow behind, and so fully expected his return.”

It was not a “fixed abode” – nobody agrees with you that it was. See Sally’s post.

And what’s the mystery about him being “fully expected (to) return”? He hadn’t been given an opportunity to return to Paternoster Row since his arrest on the 8th – he returned there immediately following his release from prison because that is where he was last domiciled, and that is where his possessions were located.

“This was the account where he was described as a "flashily dressed Jew".”

I want to see this quote, Jon.

I want to see a contemporary source describe him, verbatim, as a “flashily dressed Jew”.

I want to see evidence that he was ever described, or was capable even of passing himself off as, a “dandy”.

I maintain and insist that he “couldn’t afford to dress up like Astrakhan”. He could wear a shirt and tie and steal a coat, yes, but even the lamest pretense at Astrakhan’s garb would have been beyond the means of an itinerant former cigar maker “of no fixed abode”.

No more arguing with me until I’ve seen those quotes, please, Jon.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Just to clarify, Jon - I ask for these quotes not out of an expectation that you will fail to provide them, or to "catch you out", but because I'm genuinely interested. "Flashily" I can just about accept - the roughest housing estates in Bradford will have flashy people walking around them. But Astrakhan wasn't described as merely flashy, but rather unmistakably opulent, and it is the latter epithet that doesn't fit Isaacs in the slightest.

Remember, it was the failure of his "flashiness" to convince that ensured he came a cropper in Dover.

[Wickerman]

Just to clarify, Jon - I ask for these quotes not out of an expectation that you will fail to provide them, or to "catch you out", but because I'm genuinely interested. "Flashily" I can just about accept - the roughest housing estates in Bradford will have flashy people walking around them. But Astrakhan wasn't described as merely flashy, but rather unmistakably opulent, and it is the latter epithet that doesn't fit Isaacs in the slightest.

I understand, ...so Sally has not told you already?

Though Astrachan was not described as "opulent", that is your interpretation.
And, I have no doubt that among the roughest housing estates nationwide you can find "flashy" dressed people. Which is an improvement from yourself when you previously claimed no-one dressed up would risk walking through Dorset St.
So now you admit "flashy" dressed people can be found in similar areas to Dorset St.

Remember, it was the failure of his "flashiness" to convince that ensured he came a cropper in Dover.

It was not his attire that let him down, but the fact he drew attention to himself in attempting to gain admittance to the pier without a ticket, by claiming to be a Detective. This disturbance drew the attention of another Detective and a Constable who came to see what the problem was.
It was his failure to produce his warrant card that "ensured he came a cropper in Dover".

Impersonating a detective IS a serious felony.

[jerryd]

Well dressed

Sounds like he was hooked up with a gang of ruffians and living in the west end in early 1888. The man charged with assault along side him was living in Hanbury Street.

Just a note: Emma Smith was attacked in early April by a gang of men.


London Magnet April 9, 1888

[jerryd]

I know the letters don't mean much in most cases, but I found this one interesting in reference to the Joseph Isaacs address in my previous post. (City Road)

St. James Gazette
October 6, 1888

[Bridewell]

"Why did Abberline believe Hutch?"

An alternative question might be:

"Why do so many not accept Abberline's view that the man's account was credible?

[Abby Normal]

"Why did Abberline believe Hutch?"

An alternative question might be:

"Why do so many not accept Abberline's view that the man's account was credible?

Hi Bridewell:

Prima facie Hutches account has many red flags.
There are news reports that his account was quickly discredited.
Abberline is only human-there was probably a lot of wishful thinking going on-initially.
His account of a "suspect" is clearly the best sighting so far of any witness and yet he drops like a stone from the investigation.
Hutch was a good liar.
Later when Abberline is discussing Chapman as his favored suspect, he does not mention Hutch, eventhough there are obvious similarities between his A-man suspect and Chapman.

[Fisherman]

Hutch was a good liar.

Was he? How so?

Anybody who is a good liar would produce a lie that is very hard to reveal - but some say that Hutchinson´s purported lies were so extremly obvious that they would have been completely ridiculous to believe in.

How does that make him a "good liar"?

Of course, it is very premature and quite possibly totally wrong to suggest that he WAS a liar - since it is utterly impossible to prove that he lied...

[Abby Normal]

Was he? How so?

Anybody who is a good liar would produce a lie that is very hard to reveal - but some say that Hutchinson´s purported lies were so extremly obvious that they would have been completely ridiculous to believe in.

How does that make him a "good liar"?

Of course, it is very premature and quite possibly totally wrong to suggest that he WAS a liar - since it is utterly impossible to prove that he lied...

Hi Fish
I should have prefaced that with "in my opinion" or "might have been" because of course you are correct that it is impossible to "prove" he lied. He may have 100% been telling the truth.

However, in my opinion, all things considered, I have come to the conclusion that hutch, at the very least, was a liar in his account.

And since he didn't get thrown in jail for perjury or obviously fobbed off as not credible (at least on record) like Packer than he had some skill in lying.

[Wickerman]

There seems to be some very circular reasoning going on here.

He may have told the truth, but also he may have lied, and because he was never discovered to be a liar, then that makes him a good liar?????

Hows about, not being discovered makes him truthful?

Incidentally, Packer simply changed his story, nothing skilled about that. More stupid than skill, more likely just confused.

[Wickerman]

"Why did Abberline believe Hutch?"

An alternative question might be:

"Why do so many not accept Abberline's view that the man's account was credible?

I think it has become more difficult for the modern reader/researcher to identify reasonable suspects outside the murder inquiry. So they prefer to take the easy route and look inside the inquiry, but in order to do that they have to label someone a liar.

How many witnesses to date have now been labelled a liar in order to bolster some theory?

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal: Hi Fish

Hi Abby!

I should have prefaced that with "in my opinion" or "might have been" because of course you are correct that it is impossible to "prove" he lied. He may have 100% been telling the truth.

Well, you know, I was mostly being a tease - I sometimes say things about Lechmere that others think are too confident, so I may not be the one to tutor others in issues like this one...

However, in my opinion, all things considered, I have come to the conclusion that hutch, at the very least, was a liar in his account.

I know, Abby, I know. I just don´t agree.

And since he didn't get thrown in jail for perjury or obviously fobbed off as not credible (at least on record) like Packer than he had some skill in lying.

If you are correct, you mean? I guess. On the other hand, I don´t think you are correct. But that - like so many other matters Hutch - are water under the bridge! Still, I like having a friendly discussion about Hutchinson every now and then, since such beasts are incredibly rare!

[Fisherman]

How many witnesses to date have now been labelled a liar in order to bolster some theory?

Hard to say. But if you remove the suffix "in order to bolster some theory", I´d say we can count them in dozens.

Saying that everybody who reasons that a witness may have lied must do so to bolster some theory, is more or less saying that the proponents are ALSO liars. And that will take us out on deep water. Not that I can´t see the relevance of the suggestion every now and then...