Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
In the meantime, we may be content to accept that all available evidence and common sense points squarely in the direction of Isaacs being detained in police custody following his arrest for stealing a coat,...

Hi Ben.
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.
To date, there is no confirmation of him being detained, nor of him being issued with a summons. So no evidence either way.
That's the truth of the matter.

Yep, thanks for providing that independent corroboration for Lloyds's "coat-stealing" report - the one you previously insisted was nonsense.

It still is nonsense, the Lloyds report is corrupt.

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.
Either scenario alone would be intolerable, but both together make it inconceivable that he was in custody.

Isaacs was of no "fixed" abode; his temporary lodgings at Paternoster Row were not in the least bit "fixed"....

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

He was only classed as of "no fixed abode" after he had been released from prison in early December, which only stands to reason.

Listen to your police historian. Summons were issued to those considered unlikely to abscond,...

'Unlikely to abscond' is also based on a past history of the accused where summonses have been issued and he has not answered them.
If there is no such prior history, regardless of his criminal activity, then what cause do they have to believe he will abscond this time?
So long as he has answered previous summonses, he is treated accordingly.

The existence of that "possibility" would not have prevented Astrakhan man from becoming the prime suspect ......

Any Prime suspects were extremely short term. All those who came nearest to that category were thoroughly checked out, and dismissed, along with Isaacs/Astrachan.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Not until we find paperwork confirming that his appearance at Barnet Police Court was the result of a warrant, or on remand, or in answer to a summons. Only then can we close the book on that window of time.

In the meantime, we may be content to accept that all available evidence and common sense points squarely in the direction of Isaacs being detained in police custody following his arrest for stealing a coat, as opposed to the police being so cretinous and incompetent as to allow a known homeless thief to do an immediate runner. He was arrested on the 8th, sentenced on the 12th, and we have an independent report saying he was in police custody on the 9th. I wonder what the logical explanation is (not)?

All I have confirmed at present is that Isaacs was indeed in prison at the time of the assault on Annie Farmer. And that this was the Joseph Isaacs who stole the coat(s) referred to in the press.

Yep, thanks for providing that independent corroboration for Lloyds's "coat-stealing" report - the one you previously insisted was nonsense. You have also provided immeasurably strong support for the claim (in the same report) that Isaacs was in prison on the 9th, and it would be an absolute travesty for you to disavow your own research in support of that conclusion, purely because you would have preferred the reality to be different. Who is more respected, do you think, in the ripper community - the researcher or the "theorist"? The former, of course. So who cares if your good research trumps your unconvincing theories?

Isaacs was of no "fixed" abode; his temporary lodgings at Paternoster Row were not in the least bit "fixed" and the police - being collectively endowed with more than one brain cell - would not have considered them in the least bit so. Isaacs was a known itinerant, which meant he was free to up sticks at the drop of a hat. If there was anyone in London who matched your police historian's criterion for preferring a period of detention over a summons, "If the police had reason to believe the accused would abscond (ie; he has no fixed address).", it was Joseph Isaacs, for whom the choice between going to prison and easily escaping punishment was a no-brainer.

If they held back every summons because of a possibility he might abscond, they wouldn't be handing them out at all.

Listen to your police historian. Summons were issued to those considered unlikely to abscond, i.e. non-career criminals and otherwise respectable citizens committing one-off misdemeanours, for whom the act of absconding would have attracted far greater censure, opprobrium and even ostracization. Think "local GP caught speeding" and you won't be far off the mark. Think "known local thief and casual dosser" and you'd be way off it.

That only makes him a person of interest, the possibility exists that he left just five minutes after Hutchinson, and that Kelly went back out again.

The existence of that "possibility" would not have prevented Astrakhan man from becoming the prime suspect if Hutchinson's account continued to be believed (it didn't, of course). It would have prevented him from being considered a proven murderer, yes, but he would have remained the prime suspect.

Because the police realized he wasn't the killer?

Not even a possibility, unless they could prove that Kelly was killed before or after Astrakhan supposedly left the room, and they never could.

Prater gave no specifics about hearing the cry, or when she heard it.

But she did provide other details that she didn't even mention at the inquest. The point - which we're straying from - is that Prater's press interview was not sanctioned by the police, and nor was Cusins's.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

It has been established beyond reasonable doubt that Isaacs was in prison on the morning of the 9th November, ...

Not even close young fella. Not until we find paperwork confirming that his appearance at Barnet Police Court was the result of a warrant, or on remand, or in answer to a summons. Only then can we close the book on that window of time.
Until then, his whereabouts on the night of the murder is still unknown.

Honestly, if you're not willing to support the conclusions that your own research leads you inexorably to, what is the point of conducting any research at all?

All I have confirmed at present is that Isaacs was indeed in prison at the time of the assault on Annie Farmer. And that this was the Joseph Isaacs who stole the coat(s) referred to in the press.

You've provided no information on the credentials of this "learned" individual; nor have you acquainted him with the facts of the case.

Now that would be stupid wouldn't it?
To obtain an opinion by misrepresenting the details, only to post the complete account on-line for all the world to see?
Have a bit more consideration Ben.

.. or else your Police Historian (so much better informed than policemen, according to you) would be aware of the laughable futility of letting a homeless career criminal go and expecting him to stick around for a "summons".

He wasn't homeless.
I obtained those very same cautions directly from the same source.
Don't you remember me posting them for you?

"Reasons to hold someone might be:
- If the accused displayed threatening behaviour towards or likely to interfere with the witness.
- If the police had reason to believe the accused would abscond (ie; he has no fixed address).
(At this time he resided at Paternoster Row.)"

I am well aware of the possibilities, but summonses were issued for petty larceny & misdemeanor's all the time. And, sometimes the accused did abscond, fixed address or not - it happens Ben. If they held back every summons because of a possibility he might abscond, they wouldn't be handing them out at all.

They had a witness who, according to you, saw him enter the home of Mary Kelly and remain in that room until around the time she was killed.

That only makes him a person of interest, the possibility exists that he left just five minutes after Hutchinson, and that Kelly went back out again.
The police have no proof that this did not happen, so likewise, they have nothing firm to charge Astrachan with.
What they need him for is to talk with him and obtain his account.

Why no mention of him in the Macnaghten memoranda?

Because the police realized he wasn't the killer?
If it's a distinct possibility to me, then it must have been obvious to police.

Divulging a last sighting of Kelly is pretty "specific" in my book,

Get a new book, Prater gave no specifics about hearing the cry, or when she heard it.

The idea that Mary Cusins didn't provide a time for Isaacs's "pacing" because she wanted to be a good girl to the police is utterly without foundation.

Good grief Ben, much of what we talk about is without foundation.

[Ben]

So a scream at 3:30 means the killer is there until 4:15-4:45 roughly.
So, Mary Cusins hearing footsteps in the room between 3:00-4:00, roughly, provides an alibi.

No, Jon.

It most certainly doesn't.

You need to expunge the word "alibi" from your vocabulary in this context, but it cannot possibly apply.

If Isaacs was heard - not seen - pacing in his room "between 3:00-4:00 roughly", and the cry of "murder" was heard "between 3:00-4:00 roughly", how the blazes does Isaacs have an alibi for the Kelly murder, especially when the two locations were separated by a mere two-minute walk? He doesn't. He can't possibly have. The notion is absurd. Considering that the timings in question were merely "approximate", there was every possibility that the cry of murder occurred prior to the "room-pacing" allegedly heard by Cusins.

Even if the police were able - using some dark magic - to prove that the "pacing" preceded the "cry", there was still no question of an "alibi" because the police were still considering the possibility that the murder happened at least an hour in advance of both, in accordance with Dr. Bond's evidence.

The fact remains (fact, not opinion), that Isaacs location on the night of Nov. 8th/9th has still not been established.

It has been established beyond reasonable doubt that Isaacs was in prison on the morning of the 9th November, thanks to your research, with confirmation from the 23rd December edition of Lloyds. Honestly, if you're not willing to support the conclusions that your own research leads you inexorably to, what is the point of conducting any research at all? Just be an "Isaacstrakhan" theorist and go round and round in circles defending that theory every day. It's a lot easier.

And, as learned opinion has stated that a misdemeanor only requires the issue of a summonze c/w the evidence of Mary Cusins hearing him in his room, the likelyhood is leaning in the favor of Isaacs being out on the streets.

This is irritating nonsense.

You've provided no information on the credentials of this "learned" individual; nor have you acquainted him with the facts of the case. You can't have done, or else your Police Historian (so much better informed than policemen, according to you) would be aware of the laughable futility of letting a homeless career criminal go and expecting him to stick around for a "summons".

He isn't a prime suspect Ben, the police have nothing to 'suspect' him with.

Yes, they did.

They had a witness who, according to you, saw him enter the home of Mary Kelly and remain in that room until around the time she was killed. That would have made Isaacs the prime suspect in the absence of an "alibi", which, as we've clearly established, he could not possibly have provided. Why do we hear nothing about this prime suspect (who must forever remained such, if we accept your version of events) in years to come? Why no mention of him in the Macnaghten memoranda?

Oh yes, that's right, because he was never a prime suspect, but rather a temporary suspect who turns out to have been in prison when Kelly was murdered.

Two days before the inquest, Mrs Prater gave no specifics away to the press.

Yes, she did.

Divulging a last sighting of Kelly is pretty "specific" in my book, and any form of press communication would have been against the wishes of the police. The idea that Mary Cusins didn't provide a time for Isaacs's "pacing" because she wanted to be a good girl to the police is utterly without foundation.

Regards,
Ben

P.S. I do not expect a reply to this post for at least five hours.

[Wickerman]

No she couldn't, Jon.

What if she was slightly out in her estimation of the time?

Ben, 1n the late 19th century it was normal that times given by witnesses were an approximation. We are only preoccupied with a precise time because of present day technology.

The police themselves are only dealing with estimates (ToD, "scream"), but the point with this scenario is, whoever the killer was, he had to be present in that room for the best part of an hour after the scream.
So a scream at 3:30 means the killer is there until 4:15-4:45 roughly.
So, Mary Cusins hearing footsteps in the room between 3:00-4:00, roughly, provides an alibi.

Conversely, the police have no cause to believe Astrachan could be responsible for the earlier 1:00-2:00 am ToD, that honor is given to Blotchy.

Personally, I prefer the one backed up by strong evidence, which is that Isaacs was in prison on the 9th November, and Astrakhan was a fabrication.

The fact remains (fact, not opinion), that Isaacs location on the night of Nov. 8th/9th has still not been established.
And, as learned opinion has stated that a misdemeanor only requires the issue of a summonze c/w the evidence of Mary Cusins hearing him in his room, the likelyhood is leaning in the favor of Isaacs being out on the streets.
Like it or not.

Then what?

What if those investigations didn't result in the procurement of proof either way? What then becomes of the prime suspect who was strongly believed to have been in Kelly's room at around the time she was murdered?

He isn't a prime suspect Ben, the police have nothing to 'suspect' him with.
Joseph Isaacs is nothing more than a Person of Interest. Therefore, until & unless anything surfaces in the three months he is locked up, then he walks, like any other innocent man.

Are you talking about the Star report? Where, in that report, does she say anything about hearing "nothing through the night"?

There are more reliable newspapers Ben, than the Echo & the Star.
Try looking around...

"Elizabeth Prater, the occupant of the first floor front room, was one of those who saw the body through the window. She affirms that she spoke to the deceased on Thursday. She knew that Kelly had been living with a man, and that they had quarrelled about ten days since. It was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased. She had heard nothing during the night, and was out betimes in the morning, and her attention was not attracted to any circumstances of an unusual character. Kelly was, she admitted, one of her own class, and she made no secret of her way of gaining a livelihood."
Daily Telegraph, 10 Nov.

Two days before the inquest, Mrs Prater gave no specifics away to the press.

[Ben]

Cusins could establish Isaacs was in his room just after 3:00 am, regardless whether the police believe this to be the actual time of death.

No she couldn't, Jon.

What if she was slightly out in her estimation of the time? Bear in mind she would only have needed to be slightly out for the whole "Isaacstrakhan alibi" to be completely nullified (which it is anyway, for other far more important reasons, like Isaacs being in prison at the time).

The police only have two potential ToD's, if they can't place him at the murder scene at either of those times, (assuming they find no heart in his room), then they would be hard pressed to make a charge stick.

Exactly, so no possibility of an "alibi" for Astrakhan in the absence of a definite time of death. If Astrakhan was identified, alibi-less, as Isaacs, he would have continued to be the prime suspect by a very long sea mile, but since that definitely didn't happen, we must seek out an alternative explanation for the abrupt loss of interest in both Isaacs and Astrakhan. Personally, I prefer the one backed up by strong evidence, which is that Isaacs was in prison on the 9th November, and Astrakhan was a fabrication.

It may be a boring, unglamorous explanation, devoid of gold chains and blag bags, but it's indisputably the best one.

Yes, a time parallel with the entire duration of the Whitechapel murders, at least from Nichols to December 1st. They had the luxury of time to investigate him if necessary.

Then what?

What if those investigations didn't result in the procurement of proof either way? What then becomes of the prime suspect who was strongly believed to have been in Kelly's room at around the time she was murdered?

Prater did talk to the press, but told them she heard nothing through the night. Sarah Lewis didn't talk at all.

Are you talking about the Star report? Where, in that report, does she say anything about hearing "nothing through the night"? What she did provide was a last sighting of Kelly at 9.00pm on Thursday, to which she made no reference at the inquest. If a witness blabs to the press, especially prior to the inquest, they are acting against the wishes and instructions of the police.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

And likewise, the police can't possibly have accepted that Astrakhan had an "alibi" for the Kelly murder.

No relation.
Cusins could establish Isaacs was in his room just after 3:00 am, regardless whether the police believe this to be the actual time of death.
They certainly cannot pin a 1:00-2:00 am ToD on him, neither can they entertain a ToD later than 4:00 - no supporting evidence for that.

The police only have two potential ToD's, if they can't place him at the murder scene at either of those times, (assuming they find no heart in his room), then they would be hard pressed to make a charge stick.

Yeah, for three months.

Yes, a time parallel with the entire duration of the Whitechapel murders, at least from Nichols to December 1st. They had the luxury of time to investigate him if necessary.

Oh, so Isaacstrakhan was the murderer then? Otherwise why the denial,...

Same reason 99.999% of the male population in London would have denied being there. Also, he can claim he is not the only Jew with such a coat.

What do the police have on him, to charge him?

The police requested that their witnesses did not provide any details, and the ones that ignored this request and blabbed anyway were in no way reticent about providing full details of their experience.

Wrong again.
Prater did talk to the press, but told them she heard nothing through the night. Sarah Lewis didn't talk at all.

[Ben]

As the police most certainly did not 'know' the true time of death, then likewise the police are in no position to accuse Astrachan

And likewise, the police can't possibly have accepted that Astrakhan had an "alibi" for the Kelly murder.

You see it, now?

The police could only accept a suspect's "alibi" if they had a definite time of death for the victim, and as you acknowledge, they certainly did not in this case.

They couldn't, which is why they let him admit guilt to larceny and "go straight to jail".

Yeah, for three months.

"Well done, boys, the streets of London are now safe, as the likely perpetrator is behind bars and will not emerge until three whole months are up, at which point we, err, well, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, eh?"

And, if Astrachan was Isaacs, all Isaacs needed to do was insist it was not him who Hutchinson saw.

Oh, so Isaacstrakhan was the murderer then? Otherwise why the denial, and risk digging a deeper whole? And I do hope you're not seriously suggesting that such a denial would have been the end of the matter as far as police interest was concerned. If Isaacs-related events truly occurred as you suggest, he would have remained at the very top of the list of suspects for many years to come. Forget Druitt and Kosminski; in poll position on Macnaghten's memoranda would have been "Joseph Isaacs - the surly Jew who was almost certainly the man seen in Kelly's room by star witness Hutchinson at around the time the murder was committed, but against whom we could never find that final proof, damn it!". None of that happened. Instead we see Joseph Isaacs sinking without trace after the 15th December, when it was reported that no further charges were being made against him.

Well, until we learn on 23rd December that he was in prison at the time of Kelly murder, which is supported by an independent source and is almost certainly correct.

The fact the press were unable to extract a time from Cusins, is likely due to police cautioning her on speaking to the press. As with several Millers Court residents, although they did speak to the press, they do not give anything too precise away.

That's not true in the slightest.

The police requested that their witnesses did not provide any details, and the ones that ignored this request and blabbed anyway were in no way reticent about providing full details of their experience. Hence, we may be certain that Cusins's claim to the press involving Isaacs supposedly "pacing the room" was not remotely sanctioned by the police, and accordingly, her failure to provide a time for this "pacing" begs a better explanation - like, for instance, the obvious one; that she lied about the incident or was way off in her recollection of the date (I favour the former).

I only offered one example where he could have had one just to show how wrong you are.

But your "example" failed to demonstrate any such thing.

You realise, I hope, that an "alibi" is utterly worthless unless the police recognise it as such? Good. In which case, you're compelled to accept that the police could only accept an "alibi" for Isaacstrakhan (I've almost grown immune to the absurdity of the construct - almost) in the event that they knew exactly when the Kelly murder occurred, which of course they didn't.

Cusins could not possibly have given him an "alibi". In theory, of course, it is possible for Isaacstrakhan to have darted out of room #13 and popped back home for some much needed "room-pacing", in time for yet another black package wielding well-dressed man to enter her room and kill her; laughably ridiculous and unlikely, but not physically impossible. That isn't an "alibi", however, because hardly any of it could have been proved, including - and most importantly - the time of death.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

If Hutchinson was telling the truth about the policeman,it is puzzling that the policeman appears not to have recorded and passed that information to supperiors.My opinion is that it was investigated,that no record of Hutchinson speaking to a policeman was evident,and that police suspicions of Hutchinson's story being true, began from that.

I couldn't agree more, Harry.

It is also very unlikely to be a mere "coincidence" that Hutchinson's story was reported as being discredited shortly after the publication of his press account, in which the incident involving the mysterious, negligent policeman was recounted.

Best wishes,
Ben

[harry]

Aberline gave Hutchinson the benefit of the doubt,at that time.Three things however,and this would have occurred to Aberline,could be checked without difficulty.They were,Hutchinson's address,the policeman Hutchinson gave his story to,and the Victoria home resident,Hutchinson says he (Hutchinson) told.
If Hutchinson was telling the truth about the policeman,it is puzzling that the policeman appears not to have recorded and passed that information to supperiors.My opinion is that it was investigated,that no record of Hutchinson speaking to a policeman was evident,and that police suspicions of Hutchinson's story being true, began from that.

[Wickerman]

It doesn't matter if it was - it still doesn't provide the so-called "real" Astrakhan man with an alibi for a whole host of reasons:

1) The police did not know the actual time of death, which meant that if they gave someone an alibi for the 3.00am-after 4.00am time frame, they must have ruled out as impossible other suggested times of death, most notably Dr. Bond's 1.00am-2.00am, which you previously insisted that the police continued to subscribe to.

As the police most certainly did not 'know' the true time of death, then likewise the police are in no position to accuse Astrachan, so why hold him?
They couldn't, which is why they let him admit guilt to larceny and "go straight to jail".
And, if Astrachan was Isaacs, all Isaacs needed to do was insist it was not him who Hutchinson saw.

2) The time at which the cry of "murder" was heard was merely guessed at by Lewis and Prater, and the police were in absolutely no position to rule out the possibility of the cry occurring slightly earlier that either woman assumed, i.e. between 3.00am and 3.30am.

They can always speculate, but that wouldn't stand up in court. They would know this.

3) Cusins could equally have been incorrect in her estimation of the time, and was, in any case, only an earwitness to the alleged pacing of the room by Isaacs (which technically happened during the morning, rather than at night, if it happened at all).

The police live in a constant awareness of uncertain times offered by witnesses, so lets not think they do not make allowances for errors.

The fact the press were unable to extract a time from Cusins, is likely due to police cautioning her on speaking to the press. As with several Millers Court residents, although they did speak to the press, they do not give anything too precise away.

So the penny's finally dropped for you, in other words, and you accept the impossibility of Astrakhan having an "alibi"?

Oh ye of short memory.
This question of an alibi began with your insistence that " if Isaacs was Astrachan, and was in that room around 2:30-3:00, it would be "impossible" for him to have an alibi".

I never suggested that he had to have one, as I said above, he could just as easily claimed it wasn't him.
I only offered one example where he could have had one just to show how wrong you are.
Cusins "could" have given him an alibi, that does not mean I believe she did.

Even if Isaacs was a 'dead ringer' for Astrachan in the eyes of the press & Abberline, the police had nothing on him to place him at the murder scene.
As he was held on a charge that would send him away for three months anyway, giving police more time to investigate, they had no cause to press the point. If something did turn up, they knew where they could find him.
It's not like they were letting him go, he was on his way to jail regardless.

[Ben]

We do not know what time that was, but as she was able to provide support for him being in his room, regardless of the time, it is therefore quite possible Cusins could have given police a time of, say 3:00-3:15 am.

It doesn't matter if it was - it still doesn't provide the so-called "real" Astrakhan man with an alibi for a whole host of reasons:

1) The police did not know the actual time of death, which meant that if they gave someone an alibi for the 3.00am-after 4.00am time frame, they must have ruled out as impossible other suggested times of death, most notably Dr. Bond's 1.00am-2.00am, which you previously insisted that the police continued to subscribe to.

2) The time at which the cry of "murder" was heard was merely guessed at by Lewis and Prater, and the police were in absolutely no position to rule out the possibility of the cry occurring slightly earlier that either woman assumed, i.e. between 3.00am and 3.30am.

3) Cusins could equally have been incorrect in her estimation of the time, and was, in any case, only an earwitness to the alleged pacing of the room by Isaacs (which technically happened during the morning, rather than at night, if it happened at all).

4) Oh yeah! And Isaacs was in police confinement at the time, probably awaiting his sentence on the 12th.

They do have medical opinion, an estimate, that the murder occurred between 1:00-2:00 am.
They also have witness estimates of the cry of "murder" between 3:30-4:00 am.

The police have nothing conclusive to help them determine which is the more reliable estimate. This being the case, the police must allow for either possibility, and pursue any suspects, and confirm any alibi's related to either theory.

So the penny's finally dropped for you, in other words, and you accept the impossibility of Astrakhan having an "alibi"? It's extremely simple; if the police were allowing for "either possibility" in terms of Kelly's time of death, they were in no position to start dishing out "alibis". They could only do that if they were entirely confident that one of those proffered times must be the correct one, and all the others definitely wrong. In the grotesquely unlikely event that were able, with the aid of crystal ball, to prove him innocent of committing the crime when the "murder" crime was heard, he could still have been responsible for the murder if it had been committed between 1.00am and 2.00am, which is an option that you insist the police were keeping open.

Your claim, then, that Isaacs was Astrakhan and proven innocent of the Kelly murder is absolutely 100% impossible, which may explain the complete lack of support for the theory.

I anticipate the timeline provided in this post:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...6&postcount=45

will clarify once and for all why the erroneous claim by Lloyds contradicts what can be established via documentation.

Far from doing any such thing, your attempted "clarification" only lends support for the claim made in Lloyds.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

But we know you’re definitely not “correct”, Jon, because it was impossible for the “real” Astrakhan – if he existed – to procure an alibi after 3.00am.

You already know this assertion to be incorrect, Cusins told police he was pacing his room on the night of the murder.
We do not know what time that was, but as she was able to provide support for him being in his room, regardless of the time, it is therefore quite possible Cusins could have given police a time of, say 3:00-3:15 am.

I am saying this is possible, which it clearly is, so I am interested in how you see it as impossible, as you choose to believe.
What was preventing Cusins from giving a time?

I accept you prefer it to be unlikely, but unlikely is not impossible.

As I’ve explained before, too much doubt existed as to the likely time of death to rule out one ventured time in favour of another, and even if the police placed all their eggs in the “oh murder” basket, they could only have used it as a very rough guide.

The importance of Astrachan's alibi, is directly connected to the importance the police gave to Hutchinson.

They do have medical opinion, an estimate, that the murder occurred between 1:00-2:00 am.
They also have witness estimates of the cry of "murder" between 3:30-4:00 am.

The police have nothing conclusive to help them determine which is the more reliable estimate. This being the case, the police must allow for either possibility, and pursue any suspects, and confirm any alibi's related to either theory.
You often talk about "ruling out", but police will only rule one out when they have proof, until that point, there will exist two parallel lines of inquiry.

Similarly, Isaacs being in prison at the time puts a kibosh on any consideration that Isaacs was Astrakhan and proven innocent thanks to a magic, impossible alibi.

No.
I anticipate the timeline provided in this post:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=346366&postcount=45

will clarify once and for all why the erroneous claim by Lloyds contradicts what can be established via documentation.

[Ben]

Hi Caz.

“You see Ben, this is what makes no sense. The only possible reason why a mere sighting of a man who happened to resemble Hutch's description should have necessitated police interest (and presumably by 'interest' you mean actively following up the lead, rather than saying "Ooh yes, thank you Mrs Busybody, we'll be sure to look into it", before filing the note in the waste paper basket), would be that they had not given up the routine task of seeking to eliminate Hutch's suspect from their enquiries.”

You would be surprised at what little was required, at that late stage of the investigation, to warrant investigation into a “suspect” following a tip-off from a member of the public. I recall the case of one man who was required to provide information regarding his whereabouts for the murder night(s) after a woman reported him to the police for “smiling” at her in a way that apparently gave her the willies. The reality was that the police could not have risked the backlash of criticism from press and public, which would inevitably have occurred had they chosen to ignore completely an alert from an ordinary citizen. It was undoubtedly a case of “Here we go again, another Astrakhan-spotter”, but they couldn’t simply have ignored it. If the police failed to demonstrate interest and proactivity in response to “Mrs. Busybody”, the latter might then have involved the press, resulting in yet more accusations of complacency and incompetence being directed at the police.

“They were trying to solve a string of murders first and foremost, and had clearly not been too concerned with keeping the press and public sweet to date, so why start after the latest?”

On the contrary, Caz, the evidence suggests they were very concerned indeed about their image in the minds of the press and public. Abberline in particular was anxious to expedite the presentation of Isenschmidt to the Fiddymont’s pub witnesses with a view to identifying him as the Chapman murder suspect (and thus the ripper, apparently), thus allaying the “strong public feeling that exists”.

“Well no, Ben, again it's only your opinion that if the police told the Echo about Hutch's account now having a "very reduced importance", it was due to doubts about his credibility.”

As I’ve mentioned on other threads, the police cited Hutchinson’s failure to come forward earlier as a reason for his "very reduced importance", which is an irrefutable slight against his credibility, however misleading a “reason” it may have been for giving his evidence the heave-ho. The police would not have made such a slight, via the Echo, unless the true reason for his discrediting had at least something to do with suspicions of dishonesty on Hutchinson’s part.

“Hmm, well isn't it your contention that Hutch had been murdering the prostitutes, in which case what chance was there of him thinking it a good idea to carry on slaughtering, once he had shown his face as a witness and supposedly been discredited for his efforts?”

Interestingly enough, a 1980s gathering of experts in criminology observed the following:

“Generally crimes such as these cease because the perpetrator has come close to being identified, has been interviewed by the police, or has been arrested for some other offence. It would be surprising if Jack the Ripper simply would suddenly stop, except for one of these reasons.”

Obviously, if Hutchinson was the murderer, the “interviewed by the police” bit would have been self-engineered, but then other serialists have injected themselves into their own investigations despite the likelihood of it spelling doom for their immediate future’s murdering prospects. I say “immediate” - the next prostitute mutilation murder was that of Alice McKenzie in 1889, which was committed a stone’s throw away from the Victoria Home, and literally footsteps away from the building’s rear entrance at the end of Chess Court, leading onto Castle Alley.

“But the point is, since people were still reporting Astrakhan types as possible rippers, apparently oblivious to your reassurances that he wouldn't have been seen dead looking like that near deepest, darkest Dorset Street, never mind luring prossies to their death, and since these reports 'necessitated' police interest, it would also have been in the real ripper's interest not to look anything like Astrakhan Man, whoever he was, and certainly at that time.”

I agree, but it was “in the real ripper's interest not to look anything like Astrakhan Man” at any stage of his murdering career, including on the 9th November when seeking victims in the very locality that his previous crimes had made even more notorious than they were already. The members of the public who were still reporting Astrakhan types need not have been oblivious to my reassurances, since none of them – unsurprisingly – were reported as being present in Whitechapel or Spitalfields, but rather in parts of London where such opulently dressed men weren’t quite as uncommon.

“So if the press were speculating, rightly or wrongly, that Astrakhan Man was no longer a credible suspect, it would arguably have been in the police's best interests to let them get on with it, so the police could get on with their job without the killer being any the wiser.”

Yes, but I rather hope we’ve established by now that the press were not “speculating”, but rather passing on information supplied to them, true or false, by the police, who would surely not have made Hutchinson appear to be less than honest purely to fob them off. Whatever their “job” was at that stage, it certainly wasn’t a continued treatment of Hutchinson as the star witness.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“As I said, if I am correct, and Isaacs was Astrachan, and Astrachan was cleared of involvement in December by Abberline, then clearly Hutchinson had not seen the killer.”

But we know you’re definitely not “correct”, Jon, because it was impossible for the “real” Astrakhan – if he existed – to procure an alibi after 3.00am. As I’ve explained before, too much doubt existed as to the likely time of death to rule out one ventured time in favour of another, and even if the police placed all their eggs in the “oh murder” basket, they could only have used it as a very rough guide. Just so with Mary Cusins, whose estimation of the time the police would have been required to treat as gospel if they were to absolve from all suspicion a man who was last recorded as being in the victim’s room at 3.00am; which, unless they were idiots, they would not have done.

Similarly, Isaacs being in prison at the time puts a kibosh on any consideration that Isaacs was Astrakhan and proven innocent thanks to a magic, impossible alibi.

All the best,
Ben