Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Batman]

Who said it was?

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

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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!

[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]

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]

Hi John,

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?

Well, Isaacs was a very naughty boy, for sure; but evidently, there was nothing factual linking him to the Whitechapel Murders - just gossip.

There is no certainty that he was Hutchinson's suspect - in fact, it's fairly unlikely. We have a contemporary source telling us that he was in prison when Kelly was murdered for a start. Whether he was or not, he must have been able to produce a firm alibi for his movements on the night of Kelly's death. Had he really been Hutchinson's Astrachan Man, that might have proved a bit tricky.

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!

I'm not convinced, personally - mainly because Hutchinson's account can be shown to be highly and specifically derivative. The first press 'eyewitness' accounts of an associate of Kelly witnessing her meeting a well-dressed man in the street pre-date Hutchinson's account by days. They are remarkably similar to what he later presents as his own account.

Did he lie? Probably. Beyond that, it's all conjecture.

[Batman]

A simple solution is that she never went out after meeting blotchy and died about 1:30am.

Hearing screams of murder at 4am would have been pretty remarkable though... if anywhere else but Dorset St., in Whitechapel in 1888, where it happened all the time and nobody paid any attention.

Also there is no reason to believe MJK cried murder. Could be anyone seeing anything. Maybe someone in the court who saw a dead MJK through the window and decided they didn't want any part of what they seen. 'Oh murder!'... I'm outta here...

Hutchinson is just a post-inquest attention seeking through and through.

Lewis saw a man standing at the top of the court looking down. There is no reason to believe he was there for any longer than the time Lewis saw him. Five minutes waiting for a prostitute to come out who never did. Probably plenty people did that. Even those living there would stand at the top of the court and look out onto Dorset St. They are soliciting.

There is nothing preventing Blotchy with a drunk MJK going for a smoke outside to make sure the coast is clear either. Anyone could have walked into MJKs room once learned in the broken window latch trick. Goes back in, clothes on the fire, blitz attack on the bed.

[Sally]

I don't think she went out again either Batman. It's by far the simplest solution.

[Wickerman]

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.

Hi John.
Cusins providing an alibi is only a guess, there may have been another detail we are not aware of. Sadly we only have the press to rely on for how the story unfolded. In so far as the investigation of Isaacs, we are told:

"...it was said by the police that they wished the fullest inquiry as to the prisoner's movements on the night of Nov. 8. For that purpose he was remanded, but Detective Sergeant Record, H Division, said that so far there was no further charge against the prisoner."
Daily News 15 Dec. 1888.

The "wrong day" argument (in your quote) is being applied to anything and everything in recent years, it is almost as if there is some desperate attempt to avoid the story as it has been handed down to us. "Why", would be a good question.

Cusins was interviewed by the police during the house-to-house investigation which began on Friday afternoon and continued all weekend.
So perhaps not much longer than 24 to 48 hours had passed, that is all.

The "wrong day" argument might be believable if she were being asked to recall something last month, or a couple of weeks ago, but this happened a matter of hours before she was interviewed.

The fact thee most horrendous crime in living memory had just occurred on the very same night must anchor her memory down to the minute.

John, what were you doing at the time 911 happened?, well, I'm sure all the residents of Spitalfields were asking themselves the same question.
What was Mary Cusins doing the night Mary Kelly was butchered?
Listening to that heavy footed lout pacing up and down all night!!!

Confuse the night?, do you really think so.


On hearing of the murder, 11:00-12:00 on Friday everybody was heading for Millers Court to learn what all the fuss was about. But not Isaacs, for some inexplicable reason he headed off in another direction - according to Cusins, he fled and never came back.
If it wasn't him who was seen with Mary on the night of her murder, why take off?

[Wickerman]

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.

Interesting that we have the same opinion on this at least.
A confidence trickster/petty thief has more the character of a sneak, and a coward, than a murderer, and one that mutilates on top of that.
I doubt he was the killer.
Abberline should have been able to see that too.

[Batman]

After the murder of MJK the lead detectives had to deal with a mass of data to get through. I see no reason why the Hutchinson/Abberline formation wasn't just how they dealt with the most immediate 'witnesses'/'tasks' etc. Like, oh here is this witness Abberline, he is yours, while Swanson was given the task of beating the bushes in the jewish districts to turn up a crazed Jew of Bond's profile. They might have just delegated it this way themselves. If we follow through with what happens after MJK, the Abberline/Hutchinson path doesn't go anywhere and the trail went cold, however for Swanson and Cox, they seemed to turned up some Jewish suspects they felt where interesting enough to spy on ... and even haul before witnesses if we accept the marginalia.

[c.d.]

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.

Hello Harry,

Abberline had no way of knowing whether Astrakhan man actually existed, all he had was Hutchinson's story which may or may not have been true. However, according to Hutchinson's own account he knew Mary and was the last person (discounting the possible fictional Astrakahn man) to see her alive. If that didn't set off alarm bells in Abberline's head then he was an extremely incompetent detective. Did that automatically make him a suspect? That is hard to say but it most certainly made him a person of interest and Abberline would have entertained suspicions until he got satisfactory answers. Apparently those suspicions were somehow calmed and therefore Hutchinson never became a suspect as far as we know.

What do I base my reasoning on? Well, where I live (Washington, D.C) there are always stories in the news about some woman being found dead under mysterious circumstances. A few days later the police will say that they are looking for her husband/ex-husband/boyfriend/ex-boyfriend/co-worker/neighbor. Always described as a person of interest who was last seen with the victim. A few days later an arrest is made and it is almost always somebody who knew the victim and was last scene with her. I have to believe the same was true in 1888 and Abberline had been around the block before. It is possible to have suspicions about a person of interest. They get questioned and checked out so that they never become a formal suspect. But the suspicions are there initially. I think that is how Abberline viewed Hutchinson.

c.d.