Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Wickerman]

This report was completed on the Saturday, fully two days before Hutchinson appeared at Commercial Street Police Station,..

The only date we have is the date Dr. Bond penned the report - the 10th.
It was naturally written after a full day at the mortuary and in consultation with his peers.

This report, may or may not, have been delivered to the Home Office on the evening of the 10th.
It may or may not, have been seen by someone at the Home Office that night.
Anderson, may or may not, have been in the office on the Sunday.
This report may or may not, have first been seen on Monday morning.

Anderson's first action on reading this report would be to contact Warren, seeing as they both were interested in the full report. However, this minor detail would require Anderson to summon Dr. Bond to discuss the implications for the murder inquiry.
Then, Anderson should naturally call a meeting that would involve Swanson, but on Monday Abberline is at the inquest for most of the day.

It is very likely that the first Abberline would hear of this was at Headquarters following the inquest, about the same time as he was informed about Hutchinson's statement.

The press learned about Hutchinson's statement the very next day, which became of superior importance, in the eyes of the press.
They knew nothing about Dr Bond's estimate.

Indeed, given that Bond’s time of death estimation was largely predicated on the time at which Kelly took her final meal, it was weaker than that of Phillips because the timing of this meal was never established. In short it was guesswork.

Certainly, just like Dr Phillips time of death for Chapman, yet the police concentrated their efforts on Richardson's statement which contested the estimate by Phillips.
The reason being, the police would much prefer to go with medical opinion. So long as they have one witness who contests the medical evidence, they must work on this witness to see if they can find fault.....just like they did with Hutchinson.

[Wickerman]

Or Kelly herself, for that matter, if she was already dead by the time Hutchinson claimed to have arrived on the scene.

If, Bond was correct, then that opens up more questions, naturally.
The police can deal with those issues later, questions do not stop the investigation from proceeding.
It is far better to have two suspects behind bars for the same murder, than an empty cell, because of "complications".

How did Anderson "realize Hutchinson did not see the killer"? Are you arguing that he considered him a liar for providing an account that accorded ill with the medically estimated time of death. Or did Hutchinson confuse the time or the victim (in the minds of the police)?

In my opinion, Anderson takes Abberline's conclusions as final.
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. Astrachan was not the killer, so Anderson's Jewish witness was someone else.
And, Mrs Cusin's 'potential' alibi for Isaacs, is not out of the question.


I think the above also answers your last question, but,... how do we know Hutchinson was not Jewish?

[Garry Wroe]

I, for one, know exactly what I write. You, on the other hand, have misquoted me, and on another thread you cut one quote in half, taking what I wrote out of context.

I’m going to frame that one.

And if she was around, so might Sarah Lewis too.

You gave this:

‘Indeed, it is my belief that this influenced Anderson to redirect inquiries …’

When I actually wrote:

‘Indeed, it is my belief that this influenced Anderson to redirect inquiries, that does not mean he carried this conviction to his grave!’

Then I would suggest that you check post #558 where the quote is included in its entirety.

The 'best' reason for the reduced importance is Dr. Bond's report raising Blotchy to a higher importance.

This report was completed on the Saturday, fully two days before Hutchinson appeared at Commercial Street Police Station, meaning that investigators were already aware of Bond’s conclusions when they gave Hutchinson stellar witness status. Your argument is thus unpersuasive – even more so since it assumes that Bond and his opinions were held in far greater esteem than those of Phillips or any of the other doctors who consulted on the Kelly case.

Bond was summoned by Anderson in order to help shed light on the ongoing debate regarding the murderer’s medical proficiency and knowledge. There is no evidence whatever to suppose that Anderson regarded Bond as superior to Phillips or any of the other doctors attached to the case. The simple fact of the matter is that Phillips and other medicos believed that Kelly had died several hours after the time proposed by Bond. Indeed, given that Bond’s time of death estimation was largely predicated on the time at which Kelly took her final meal, it was weaker than that of Phillips because the timing of this meal was never established. In short it was guesswork.

Now, if you believe that Anderson, Swanson and Abberline were idiots, I would have to disagree. I’m inclined to the view that each recognized the unreliability of Bond’s time of death estimation and would never have dismissed Hutchinson or any other witness on the strength of it.

But each to their own.

The dismissal of Hutchinson can only take place after Astrachan is found, and if I am correct, that occurred on 6th Dec.

No it could not, and no you are not. You have developed a hypothesis that contains more holes than your average bar of Aero. Everyone else can see it. You simply don’t want to.

Like I said, each to their own.

[Wickerman]

It was you that was confused, Jon, not I. Perhaps you should bookmark your arguments so as not to repeat the same mistake in the future.

Garry, if you could exert yourself occasionally to actually providing a full quote, you may find less to argue about, or, at least I would have a better idea what your contentions are.
I, for one, know exactly what I write. You, on the other hand, have misquoted me, and on another thread you cut one quote in half, taking what I wrote out of context.

You gave this:

Indeed, it is my belief that this influenced Anderson to redirect inquiries …

When I actually wrote:

Indeed, it is my belief that this influenced Anderson to redirect inquiries, that does not mean he carried this conviction to his grave!

So, I never said Anderson dropped Hutchinson in connection with Dr. Bond's report. He divided his resources to investigate two suspects.

Only, after 6th Dec. would Anderson realize Hutchinson had not seen the murderer.
From that point on we can accept he dismissed Hutchinson.

That, is my position.

The Discredited Hutchinson argument takes place between 12th Nov. to 15th Nov., which we have no evidence for except to accept a reduced importance, not a dismissal.
The 'best' reason for the reduced importance is Dr. Bond's report raising Blotchy to a higher importance.
The dismissal of Hutchinson can only take place after Astrachan is found, and if I am correct, that occurred on 6th Dec.

[Ben]

Hi Paddy,

Now assuming that Kelly was the last murder (which I have some doubts myself) Mr A could have been found (and have already been a suspect) He could have given an alibi.

Could you explain how? Bearing in mind:

a) Hutchinson's claim that Astrakhan man was still in the room at 3.00am.

b) Vast uncertainty prevailed as to the correct time of death.

Or are you suggesting that this alibi-provider gave a false alibi, and yet was still used years later - a known liar - as a witness upon whose evidence the suspect might have been executed? All seems rather unlikely to me.

Hi Jon,

Once the Hutchinson suspect was found (assuming I am correct), then Anderson will realize Hutchinson did not see the killer after all.

Or Kelly herself, for that matter, if she was already dead by the time Hutchinson claimed to have arrived on the scene. How did Anderson "realize Hutchinson did not see the killer"? Are you arguing that he considered him a liar for providing an account that accorded ill with the medically estimated time of death. Or did Hutchinson confuse the time or the victim (in the minds of the police)?

At least you've abandoned your previous suggestion that Isaacs was identified as Astrakhan and then cleared of murder by virtue of a 3:30am alibi. Remember all that? I'm afraid that all goes out of the window if you revert back to your previous (and still wrong) assertion that Bond's 1.00am-2.00am time of death was the reason for Hutchinson's "very reduced importance" (it wasn't).

If we think back to Anderson's claim that, once the witness discovered the suspect was a Jew, he declined to swear to him, I wondered if this was because the suspect was born in England, but of Semitic heritage - as was Joseph Isaacs.

If you're suggesting (seriously?) that Hutchinson might have been Anderson's witness, I would be interested to see the evidence that Hutchinson himself was Jewish!

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Yes I have, I see your memory is salvageable after all ... Indeed, it is my belief that this influenced Anderson to redirect inquiries, that does not mean he carried this conviction to his grave!

Somewhere in there is, I think, a retraction of an earlier denial.

So why did you ever question the validity of my earlier post?

Once the Hutchinson suspect was found (assuming I am correct), then Anderson will realize Hutchinson did not see the killer after all.

I don’t. And neither as far as I’m aware does anyone else.

Is that clear enough.

It was you that was confused, Jon, not I. Perhaps you should bookmark your arguments so as not to repeat the same mistake in the future.

[Wickerman]

You’ve been banging on for years about Bond’s time of death estimation influencing Anderson’s thinking.

Yes I have, I see your memory is salvageable after all.

According to you it was Bond who convinced Anderson that Kelly died at between one and two o’clock in the morning.

Indeed, it is my belief that this influenced Anderson to redirect inquiries, that does not mean he carried this conviction to his grave!

The medical estimate only concerns the apparent reduced importance of Hutchinson's story, a time period measured in weeks at the most.
Once the Hutchinson suspect was found (assuming I am correct), then Anderson will realize Hutchinson did not see the killer after all.

Is that clear enough.

[Garry Wroe]

These exchanges with you would go much smoother if you took the time to quote that which you feel you have the time to criticize.

You’ve been banging on for years about Bond’s time of death estimation influencing Anderson’s thinking. According to you it was Bond who convinced Anderson that Kelly died at between one and two o’clock in the morning. On this basis, you maintain, it was concluded that Blotchy must have been the killer and Hutchinson’s story was duly jettisoned.

So no, ‘these exchanges’ would ‘go much smoother’ if you could recollect what you’d argued and why.

I have certainly never said Anderson dismissed Hutchinson.

You’ve said as much repeatedly and on multiple threads. The problem is that you’ve been caught with your trousers down and are now attempting to salvage the situation with recourse to your old friends semantics and prolix.

[Wickerman]

Doubtful, Jon.

On what basis?

[Sally]

His accent must have been strongly English - London English, or perhaps Cockney, or close enough.

Doubtful, Jon. Are you sure you've got the right Isaacs here?

[Paddy]

Jon

Which tends to raise the question whether it was not obvious from his features or speech that Astrachan was a Jew.

Yes John I had forgotten that the witness did not know he was Jewish.
See attached police report re Mr A....

[Wickerman]

Jon, another theory might be.......

Cox stated in his memoir that they quickly got on the track after the last murder. Now assuming that Kelly was the last murder (which I have some doubts myself) Mr A could have been found (and have already been a suspect) He could have given an alibi. The person who provided this alibi could have been the Jewish witness who later told the truth once the suspect was safely put away as insane. This would make the suspect a very good possibility but still only a suspect?
This theory could fit with Anderson, Swanson and Coxs' statements.

Pat.................

Hi Pat.

Harry Cox was a City Detective, even though we know the Met. and the City worked together, it is possible that the City had different suspects that we have never heard of, than the Met.
Most of City Police records being destroyed in the war.

With respect to Mr A. giving an alibi, this is always possible. I had considered this point but only IF, Mr A. was actually Joseph Isaacs.

He was arrested and confined in connection with the Whitechapel murders, and curiously, several press articles which mention him describe him as "said to be a Jew" or, "described as a Jew", which I considered strange.
When the press wrote about Lawende, or Pizer, they would simply say "a Jew", with no expression of caution.
Which tends to raise the question whether it was not obvious from his features or speech that Astrachan was a Jew.

If we think back to Anderson's claim that, once the witness discovered the suspect was a Jew, he declined to swear to him, I wondered if this was because the suspect was born in England, but of Semitic heritage - as was Joseph Isaacs.
His accent must have been strongly English - London English, or perhaps Cockney, or close enough. Isaacs was cleared of any connection, but was still imprisoned for Larceny, for three months.

[Paddy]

"Anderson believed the principal witness, and the suspect, were both Jewish.
So naturally the Hutchinson suspect had to be eliminated if Anderson was correct in his belief.
- One solution to this is that he privately, or officially, accepted Dr Bond's estimate, as opposed to the statement given by Hutchinson.
- Alternately, his belief came about because the Hutchinson suspect was found, and was subsequently eliminated from their enquiries

Jon, another theory might be.......

Cox stated in his memoir that they quickly got on the track after the last murder. Now assuming that Kelly was the last murder (which I have some doubts myself) Mr A could have been found (and have already been a suspect) He could have given an alibi. The person who provided this alibi could have been the Jewish witness who later told the truth once the suspect was safely put away as insane. This would make the suspect a very good possibility but still only a suspect?
This theory could fit with Anderson, Swanson and Coxs' statements.

Pat.................

[Wickerman]

If you can't be bothered to quote me, I can.

"Anderson believed the principal witness, and the suspect, were both Jewish.
So naturally the Hutchinson suspect had to be eliminated if Anderson was correct in his belief.
- One solution to this is that he privately, or officially, accepted Dr Bond's estimate, as opposed to the statement given by Hutchinson.
- Alternately, his belief came about because the Hutchinson suspect was found, and was subsequently eliminated from their enquiries.

Either could have happened."

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=335515&postcount=1459

Have you got it now?

[Wickerman]

Then someone is obviously posting under your name, Jon, because I distinctly recall you postulating that Anderson had dismissed Hutchinson's account on the basis of Dr Bond's estimation of Kelly's time of death.

So which is it ... this week?

These exchanges with you would go much smoother if you took the time to quote that which you feel you have the time to criticize.
If you have time for the latter, then why not the former?

I have certainly never said Anderson dismissed Hutchinson.
You have asserted Anderson's belief that a Jew was the prime witness, not Hutchinson.
To which my reply is, that Anderson must have known Hutchinson did not see the killer.
How does that amount to a dismissal of his story?