Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[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?

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[Paddy]

Do you mean a press story concerning the walk-around the neighborhood searching for Astrachan, as mentioned by Abberline?
If so, then no.

Just seen your message Jon, thanks.

Pat.....

[Sally]

Ben,

Isaacs was imprisoned in Edinburgh - twice. Some people just never learn. I've just returned from a week away only to find the Isaacs debate still raging - to what end I'm not sure, since clearly he was in custody on 8th November (again)

I think I should've stayed in Wales...

[Ben]

“Consider for a moment, why would the police use a witness who had already proven to have provided an unreliable/erroneous/false statement?”

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 do not suggest that she was considered an unreliable witness at that point; I suggest she was considered so the moment it emerged that Isaacs had been in prison at the time of the murder, and that her “pacing about the room” claim was at best inaccurate as to the date it occurred, and at worst an outright fabrication. 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.

“The press apparently knew Isaacs was in prison for the Farmer attack even before his first court date (Dec. 7th), so Issacs had talked - so why didn't the press also mention him being in prison for the "mutilations"?”

Jon, please read my counterpoints to this as opposed to just repeating the original point as though it were never addressed. I’ll repeat (and when you read the duplicate on the other thread, only respond to one of them!):

You are making an unnecessary "issue" over the fact that the discovery of Isaacs's alibi for the Farmer attack apparently predated the discovery of his imprisonment during the Kelly murder, and for some reason prefer to ignore the obvious and logical explanations for this, which are as follows:

a) The coat-stealing offense occurred within the jurisdiction of A-division, rather than H, and the facts may have taken longer to ascertain as a result.

b) The Kelly murder was far more serious in nature than the George Street offense, and accordingly warranted absolute ironclad certainty of the suspect's non-involvement before there could be any question of alerting the nearest newshound about the development.

“Itinerant, does not mean "no fixed abode".”

Yes it can, and does.

If he was a thief, he was untrustworthy, and if he was in the habit of moving regularly from place to place, he was an untrustworthy itinerant thief; in other words, the last person on the planet anyone would expect 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”?

“We still have no "alibi" for him on the night of the 9th Nov.”

I disagree, as you know, but I was making a slightly different point.

Never mind.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Do you mean a press story concerning the walk-around the neighborhood searching for Astrachan, as mentioned by Abberline?

If so, then no.

[Paddy]

Can any of you tell me if there was a press statement concluding Hutchinsons supposed search with the police for Astrakhan Man after Mary Janes' murder?
If there is previous info in the forum could someone point me in the right direction please?
Many Thanks
Pat.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

You are referring, of course, to a second-hand piece of hearsay that appeared in the press, which is of highly questionable provenance,

Hi Ben.
Consider for a moment, why would the police use a witness who had already proven to have provided an unreliable/erroneous/false statement?

Mary Cusins had provided the police with her statement on the weekend (Nov 10/11) that her missing lodger, Joseph Isaacs, had been in his room on the night of the murder.

You believe this is proven false by Isaacs (in your opinion) been shown to be in prison on that night. You also believe the police found this out.

Then, four weeks later, Dec 7th, Mary Cusins, as a reliable witness, is brought into court for the prosecution against Joseph Isaacs on trial for watch theft?

What's wrong with that picture Ben?

No, Jon.

It isn't necessary to believe either of those things. The evidence, which overwhelmingly favours Isaacs being in prison on the morning of the 9th, is perfectly compatible with him alerting the authorities about his alibi at the earliest opportunity, i.e. as soon as the police quizzed him on the subject, following on from which inquiries would naturally have been made with the relevant authorities; those responsible for arresting him on the 8th, who belonged to a different division. None of this would have happened overnight.

Actually, yes it would, and just as quick.
The police had no need to apply for a Remand if either Isaacs or the Barnet police had known he was in their custody.
The press apparently knew Isaacs was in prison for the Farmer attack even before his first court date (Dec. 7th), so Issacs had talked - so why didn't the press also mention him being in prison for the "mutilations"?
The answer is, Isaacs had not told them - and we know why.

Nope, that doesn't follow at all.

Look at what your own research has uncovered and pay heed to it:

"Joseph Isaacs, an itinerant musician, was charged with having, on November 8th, stolen from the Green Dragon Inn, High-street, Barnet, two coats, of the value of 30s, the property of John Bennett."

If the police knew he was an "itinerant", they knew he had no "fixed abode",

Itinerant, does not mean "no fixed abode".
Even in Court in Edinburgh, for theft once again, he gave his home address as Paternoster Row.
Itinerant only means someone who travels, not that they have no fixed address, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Isaacs's prison alibi was discovered before he had a chance to become a "prime suspect", and "Astrakhan" (let's pretend he even existed) could not possibly have been "checked out and dismissed" because it would have been impossible for him to procure an alibi under those recorded circumstances.

We still have no "alibi" for him on the night of the 9th Nov.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Like I keep saying, the only evidence that exists which has any bearing on his whereabouts on Nov. 9th is the statement by Mary Cusins, that he was pacing his room.

You are referring, of course, to a second-hand piece of hearsay that appeared in the press, which is of highly questionable provenance, and in terms of historical value is complete filth in comparison to your recently discovered record of Isaacs's arrest on the 8th December for stealing a coat, wholly endorsing the 23rd December Lloyds Weekly article attesting to the man's imprisonment for precisely that offense. What's this "statement" you speak of? We don't have a "statement" from Mary Cusins. We don't have anything from Mary Cusins herself, unless you count an unreliable press paraphrasing effort as a statement. Again, I can only implore you to be guided by the fruits of your own labour, and not to deny them because they didn't happen to produce the result you were hoping for.

For it to be correct we have to believe that Isaacs choose not to tell police he was in their custody on the night of the Kelly murder, and on top of that we have to believe that Barnet Police choose not to tell Scotland Yard they had him in custody.

No, Jon.

It isn't necessary to believe either of those things. The evidence, which overwhelmingly favours Isaacs being in prison on the morning of the 9th, is perfectly compatible with him alerting the authorities about his alibi at the earliest opportunity, i.e. as soon as the police quizzed him on the subject, following on from which inquiries would naturally have been made with the relevant authorities; those responsible for arresting him on the 8th, who belonged to a different division. None of this would have happened overnight.

Incorrect, having a postal address in early November is not "no fixed above".

Nope, that doesn't follow at all.

Look at what your own research has uncovered and pay heed to it:

"Joseph Isaacs, an itinerant musician, was charged with having, on November 8th, stolen from the Green Dragon Inn, High-street, Barnet, two coats, of the value of 30s, the property of John Bennett."

If the police knew he was an "itinerant", they knew he had no "fixed abode", which meant there was next to no possibility of them letting him go and expecting him to wait, like a good and honest thief, for his impending summons at his temporary accommodation. Indeed, only the most hilariously short-sighted of ninnies would expect that. The phrase "likely to abscond" obviously applies to anyone for whom the act of absconding would be an easily achievable, and thus predictable, expedient. The mentality that impels a person to commit theft is utterly incompatible with sitting pretty at a temporary lodging house awaiting a "summons", and more importantly, a half-competent police officer would appreciate that. The naughty schoolboy, leaving a smelly poo in the locker of the nerdy kid after P.E. class, does not run directly post-deed to the headmaster's office requesting a caning, and the homeless career criminal does not sit around waiting for a letter demanding that he come and be punished - not when he could simply relocate to alternative lodgings.

All those who came nearest to that category were thoroughly checked out, and dismissed, along with Isaacs/Astrachan.

Isaacs's prison alibi was discovered before he had a chance to become a "prime suspect", and "Astrakhan" (let's pretend he even existed) could not possibly have been "checked out and dismissed" because it would have been impossible for him to procure an alibi under those recorded circumstances.

Regards,
Ben