Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I see Batman has addressed many of your points very well, but is it really necessary to keep bringing up Isaacs in every Hutchinson thread going? I thought you said you were researching him independently. How’s that going?

We’ve established that it is impossible for Isaacs to have been both identified as Astrakhan man and exonerated of any involvement in Kelly’s murder. Alibis you can forget, and that goes for any suggested identity theory for Astrakhan, not just Isaacs. If we pretend for a moment that the man even existed, it was impossible for him to have provided an alibi. He was allegedly in Kelly’s room at 3.00am, and severe doubts prevailed as to when Kelly was murdered and when the “murder” cry was heard. How were the police in any position to rule out the possibility of Prater and/or Lewis being mistaken as to when they heard the cry of murder, bearing in mind both were essentially guessing after dozing off?

“But not Isaacs, for some inexplicable reason he headed off in another direction - according to Cusins, he fled and never came back.”

According to Cusins, but NOT according to Lloyds Weekly News, which reported him as being in prison at the time. If Isaacs was so concerned about being arrested as Astrakhan man, is it really likely that he would risk drawing negative attention by carrying out a theft a month later, not far away from the Kelly murder?

You assured me before that the nonsense about Mary Cusins giving him a magic alibi was fanciful speculation at best, but now it seems clear that it is your preferred version of events. You were previously in the habit of reminding everyone that the police were unsure of the likely time of death but generally preferred Bond’s suggested 1.00am time. Why are you now insisting that the police accepted as fact that the cry of “murder” signalled the actual murder time, and that it couldn’t possibly have occurred before 3:30am – the time you’re now claiming Mary Cusins was able to provide “Isaacstrakhan” with a useless “earwitness” alibi?

Several posts later, you claim that Isaacs had an alibi for the “specific” time of Kelly’s death. Please “specify” what time that was, and explain why you’ve changed your tune about the police supporting Bond’s earlier time of death.

If the police felt themselves able to exonerate Isaacs on such a basis, despite “knowing” he was Astrakhan, they were the most incompetent and negligent of cretins.

Isaacs doesn’t help Hutchinson out in the slightest, and it’s time to realise that and move on. Keep researching Isaacs, sure, but without the omnipresent Hutchinson agenda in the background. I realise your problem - you so desperately want to avoid the conclusion that Hutchinson was discredited that you seek other, far more tenuous explanations for the complete non-reference to Hutchinson in any later police reminiscences. But try as you might, the Issacs = Astrakhan = proven-innocent-thanks-to-impossible-alibi just doesn’t work.

“Right or wrong, what I am pointing out is that Abberline's eventual departure from the Hutchinson suspect does not mean he did not believe him, another reason is available.”

Well come up with a good one then, and don’t keep wheeling on Isaacs when he doesn’t belong. If the police had successfully identified and apprehended Astrakhan man, there was simply no way of exonerating him because there was no way for him to provide a concrete alibi. This holds true as much for Isaacs as everyone else. The fact that Isaacs dropped off the map completely is a testament to the fact that he ruled out as both the murderer and Astrakhan man – most probably on account of the fact that he was in prison at the time.

[Ben]

Continued...

Please don’t keep repeating that impossible, proven-false Daily News article as though it hasn’t already been killed off. As Batman points out, Lewis did not see anyone “pass up the court”. That is an absolute, irrefutable set-in-stone fact, as evinced by her police statement and all other press accounts of her inquest testimony. Nobody saw “such a funny man up the court (that) morning” either – this appeared in a ludicrous second-hand piece of press hearsay which we know to be false, or else it would have appeared in a police statement (from Mrs. McCarthy or her alleged informant, or preferably both) or at the inquest.

The idea that the alleged (non-existent) informant was Sarah Lewis is particularly ridiculous because she makes it very clear that there was “nobody in the court”. Incidentally, there is absolutely no suggestion that Lewis ever went into McCarthy’s shop that night, or did anything other than walk directly from Commercial Street, down Dorset Street and into the Court, perhaps noticing wideawake man only upon entering the passage – having been preoccupied previously with the man at the corner of Ringers’.

“So, a full week later we have indications the police were still actively involved investigating Hutchinson's story.”

Nope.

That isn’t evidence of anything other than an uninfluential minority – which evidently did not include the men with overall charge of the ripper investigation – still wondering that there might be a nugget of truth in a discredited but not wholly disproven story. But there is no evidence of any officially-sanctioned pursuit of Astrakhan men after mid-November. None at all.

“There is one case, I think her name, Lady Hamilton, riding through Brushfield St. (behind Dorset St.) in her carriage, when some local thief jumped up on the step, and reached in grabbing her watch, and ripped it from her, taking off down the street.”

Illustrating…?

What happens to people who are silly enough to parade their wealth around notorious districts?

Yep, thanks for he example. Meanwhile, if you want to have any hope of destroying the “urban myth” that “no-one would dress like that” in such an area at such a time, let’s see some evidence that might contradict that common-sense reality. The problem, as ever, is that you’re perpetually hooked on the idea of a “well-dressed” ripper.

“No answers to the above questions are contained within his initial statement, and until his story is verified, Hutchinson - by his own admission is a suspect due to the fact he is the last person who claims to have been in the company of the victim shortly before her death.”

Nope, no evidence at all for this assertion either, based as it is on an obvious lack and knowledge or experience. Here I must copy and paste from the unnecessarily duplicated “debate”:

Were Schwartz, Lawende, Harris and Levy treated as suspects at any point? Was Emanuel Violenia, who claimed to have been the last to see Annie Chapman alive, despite the fact that he was thought to have been telling porkies? The key word here is “claim” – Hutchinson “claimed” to have been the last person to see her alive, with the exception of the presumed murderer, and it was the job of the investigating officer to “interrogate” the witness for the purpose of determining whether that “claim” was truthful or the work of a publicity-seeker (and the police had been deluged with the latter). Those were the options the police were likely to entertain when faced with a voluntary witness in 1888, not “is this Jack the Ripper waltzing into the police station requesting an interview?”.

You suggest that Hutchinson was interrogated for the purpose of ruling him out as a suspect, but here you hit your usual stumbling block: how was Abberline in a position to prove Hutchinson innocent of the Kelly murder during that “interrogation”. Did Hutchinson provide CCTV footage, proving his innocence? No. Abberline was obliged to accept Hutchinson’s claims purely on faith in the absence of any investigation into them, which could not possibly have occurred between the termination of the “interrogation” and the writing of his report to his superiors.

“Hutchinson's responses need to be recorded so they can be investigated.
He can only be a valued witness if he can clear himself of any suspicion.”

It wasn’t written down in full, though.

It couldn’t possibly have been.

It is only you who insists that full transcripts were made – HOW??!!! – of interrogations with witnesses. Who agrees with you, and can they explain how this was even possible, even if you can’t?

“This paperwork has not survived.”

The usual convenient cop-out excuse. I’m secretly the King of Spain and I would be able to prove it, were it not for the fact that the "paperwork has not survived”. I’m afraid “the paperwork hasn’t survived” is right up there with “a psychopath just might…” in terms of bad cover-all arguments.

“And yes, Blotchy likely did exist, but I am pointing out to you that the accusations against Hutchinson for the existence of Astrachan can be equally applied to Cox for the existence of Blotchy.”

The difference being that Cox’s evidence appeared at the inquest, it wasn’t three-days late, it wasn’t ultimately discredited, and it didn’t contain an impossible degree of detail (please challenge these points and give me the excuse I’m gagging for to go off on those tangents again).

What’s this you keep repeating about Kelly needing to sell her wares into the small hours in order to pay for food the next day? Why could this not have been achieved during the day on a continual work-earn-spend basis, as apparently adopted by the other victims?

Blotchy was described as holding a “quart can” which can carry about two pints, and no, it isn’t remotely likely that Blotchy forbade Kelly to drink from it. That would just be weird. Kelly was described as being so drunk that she was scarcely capable of bidding her neighbour goodnight; on top of which there was Blotchy’s can to share. If you think extreme intoxication must always be accompanied by “jelly legs” you might need to sink a few and discover otherwise.

“Cox is a little confused, first she claims to hear singing after 1 o'clock..
"I returned about one o'clock. She was singing then. I warmed my hands and went out again, she was still singing."

Then claims to hear nothing after 1 o'clock..
"I heard nothing whatever after one o'clock.”

Which is it?”

Both.

Obviously.

Cox heard Kelly singing “about 1 o’clock”. She then goes out again “still about 1 o’clock”, but hears nothing after 1 o’clock. This only becomes a problem for those who wish inexplicably to argue that a couple of minutes either side of 1 o’clock can’t possibly qualify as “about 1 o’clock”.

Otherwise, no "confusion" here at all.

“Right.....As Kelly was heard to be singing at 12:30 by another tenant who lived in the Court, and by Cox just before 1:00, but all was quiet and dark from 1:00-1:20 (by Prater), then there is not sufficient time for the murder AND the mutilations to have taken place.
Therefore, Mary Kelly must have gone out again before 1 o'clock.”

Therefore…NO, Jon.

Why “must” she have gone out at all? Why have you ruled out the other very obvious possibility that Kelly fell asleep shortly after 1.00am, and was surprised by her killer in her room a few hours later?

You quote the press:

"Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday."

That’s nonsense, though, as everyone else knows.

Had there been any serious consideration that Kennedy had seen Kelly at 3.00am, she would have appeared at the inquest. Let’s not have that nonsense again please about Kennedy not appearing at the inquest because her evidence was too similar to Lewis’s. That just isn’t the way it works in real life. If Kennedy wasn't a discredited plagiarist, her evidence would offer some much needed corroboration for Lewis' claims and would have been a crucial inquest inclusion for that reason. Indeed, if anything, Kennedy would have been the better choice given that she claimed to have seen Kelly (which Lewis never alleged) and at a later time in the morning. The very notion that two witnesses can have such identical experiences and fail to reference each other in their respective accounts is ludicrous enough as it is.

No, Kennedy was either a plagiarist of Lewis’s evidence or was Lewis herself incognito. Those are your only options.

Dr. Phillips argued for a much later time of death than the one proffered by Dr. Bond. A separate article indicated that the two men shared nearly every opinion on Kelly, and it is evident that time of death wasn’t one of them.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Couldnt it simply have been that they believed Hutchinson but then after further investigations decided that the man he saw was not the killer?

Not very likely at all, Hatchett, given that the stated reason for Hutchinson's diminished "importance" concerned his credibility and motivation for coming forward, and not because of any arbitrary "decision" on the part of the police that he must have seen someone other than the killer. What could such a decision be based on, realistically?

What we do know, however, is that Abberline believed him, and he was a very experianced Policeman.

So in my opinion that is the most likely explanation.

What is?

That Abberline believed Hutchinson?

It has never been disputed that Abberline was initially of the opinion that his statement was true. It is clear that this approval did not last, however.

You realise of course that when Abberline sent that report signalling his faith in Hutchinson, there was no way for the former to have conducted any investigation at that stage? What do you suppose his opinion was based on if it was arrived at before any investigation could realistically have occurred?

Hi GUT,

What amazes me even more is that we have Isaacs who s said to have fit the description to a T and yet people insist on saying that no one dressed like that would venture into the East End.

Where is your evidence that "Isaacs was said to have fit the description to a T"? Considering that Isaacs was an itinerant (essentially homeless) thief living off one of the worst streets in London, the chances of him being able to doll himself up like Astrakhan are incredibly remote.

But I guess if you want your rippers well-dressed and exotic...

Regards,
Ben

[Sally]

The fact that Isaacs dropped off the map completely is a testament to the fact that he ruled out as both the murderer and Astrakhan man – most probably on account of the fact that he was in prison at the time.

He probably was in prison at the time - he generally was. Best place for him.

I'm delighted to see Good Ol' Kennedy being wheeled out again by Jon as an 'independent' witness. Surely we've been here before, but since there lived a family of Kennedy's merely across the road from Sarah Lewis in 1888, it does seem at least plausible that one of them was the inspiration for 'Mrs Kennedy'.

As you say Ben, either a parrot, or a pseudonym.

I know all this stuff is repetitive after so long a time in debating Hutchinson; but hey - at least it has absolutely nothing to do with Murderin' Charlie the Bloody [or not] Carman.

A refreshing change.

[John G]

Hi Ben,

Sorry for late reply but I've just found the thread again. Reference your reply, post 435, why I've long believed that Abberline had become obsessive about Chapman is the way he addressed the problem of Champan's age in 1888, I.e. he was 23, therefore appreciably younger than the estimated age of any suspect given be any witness. Now he could, of course, have simply argued that Chapman might have looked older than his actual age, I.e. because he was always reasonably well dressed. But he didn't. Instead he addressed the problem by taking the extreme a and extraordinary step of attempting to exclude every major witness that had claimed to have observed a suspect from the front which, by implication, included George Hutchinson.

[Ben]

I know all this stuff is repetitive after so long a time in debating Hutchinson; but hey - at least it has absolutely nothing to do with Murderin' Charlie the Bloody [or not] Carman

Indeed, Sally, it was fun while all that Crossmere stuff lasted, but I guess it's back to Hutchy business as usual, eh?

Hi JohnG,

Thanks for your reply.

I still think Abberline would have been missing a trick by failing to infer a facial match between Klosowski and Astrakhan. If he was truly as obsessed as you suggest by his suspect theory in 1903, Hutchinson's description offered far more of a potential asset than useless rear-view sightings. Klosowski had a dark moustache, a surly countenance, and was obviously "foreign" in appearance, just like Astrakhan. I would suggest that these "matches" are far more compelling than an easily explainable difference in age.

No, either Abberline failed to take advantage of an obvious opportunity to promote his theory, or he knew full well that owing to Hutchinson's discrediting 15 years earlier, Astrakhan was a no-go zone for comparisons with new suspects.

I strongly urge the latter option.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

...The Echo made it quite clear that the authorities had come to view the late appearance of his evidence as a problem as a result of investigating the matter further.

“From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder.”

Whatever this “later investigation” turned up, it evidently undermined Hutchinson’s credibility to the extent that it suffered a “very reduced importance”.

Hi Ben.
I know you mentioned this to Caz, but I must confess, I couldn't be bothered to look back for any one of the numerous times you've mentioned it to me


Typically you bring this up as part of your assertion that the Echo had an inside source, a reliable source, for their Whitechapel murder stories.

Well, lets just see if we can put this to a kind of test shall we.

It isn't common that we have an actual press account and a police account, on the very same subject, but fortunately here is one involving the Echo.

Read this, and take particular note of the terminology.

"Among the many discredited rumours current in the neighbourhood is the assertion that Sir Charles Warren on visiting the yard on Sunday morning last discovered some writing on the wall in chalk, which gave expression to very objectionable sentiments of a religious character, and which was supposed to have been the handiwork of the murderer. This was alleged to have given such great offence that Sir Charles, fearing a disturbance in the neighbourhood, directed the writing to be washed out. Investigation, however, has proved, so far as can be judged, the absolute fallacy of the story. A careful examination of the brickwork in the yard this morning has revealed beyond dispute the fact that there has been no effacement of chalk marks on the walls, certainly within recent date."
Echo, 2 October, 1888.

Here we have the Echo making a firm assertion that the story about graffiti associated with the double murder is "discredited", and an "absolute fallacy".

The first point should be noted that they say the graffiti was written in a yard. They may be referring to Dutfields Yard, or perhaps calling Mitre Square, a yard, its hard to say. If the Echo had any idea what was written they would know it couldn't have been left in Dutfields Yard.
They obviously know nothing of Goulston St., so where these so called, "rumours current in the neighbourhood" originated from is a question, if it was the neighbourhood of Goulston St. they would know it wasn't a yard.
Why publish rumours if they have a reliable source?

The "investigation" that they mention is not a police investigation, but their own, and the extent of this "investigation" is that their reporter checked the walls in this "yard" for signs of chalk writing that had been washed off - what on earth did they expect to find, a wet wall???.
Having found no evidence of chalk writing (and, being at the wrong location anyway), they assert the story is an "absolute fallacy".

We know different, don't we Ben. Official paperwork proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the story, the real accurate story, was indeed true.

This press account is wrong on so many laughable points. Clearly the Echo have no reliable source at the Met., or Scotland Yard.
Contrary to the assertions of some

So much for inside sources - don't make me laugh!

[Batman]

The only inference from the Astrakhan man incident is that Blotchy is innocent. Not that Astrakhan is innocent. He would be prime suspect and no reason to dismiss him at all.

... If one where to have that much faith in Hutchinson's and his pantomime Jew that is.

[Wickerman]

We’ve established that it is impossible for Isaacs to have been both identified as Astrakhan man and exonerated of any involvement in Kelly’s murder.

I must have missed something, show me this "established", and who's "we"?

If we pretend for a moment that the man even existed, it was impossible for him to have provided an alibi. He was allegedly in Kelly’s room at 3.00am, and severe doubts prevailed as to when Kelly was murdered and when the “murder” cry was heard.

Do you want me to dig up those repeated assertions of yours that the murder was committed, "shortly after 3 o'clock"?

"Dr. Phillips' evidence, together with that of Mary Anne Cox, Elizabeth Prater, and others, proves that the murder was committed shortly after three o'clock..."
Echo, 13 Nov. 1888.

Moving goal posts are we Ben?

According to Cusins, but NOT according to Lloyds Weekly News, which reported him as being in prison at the time.

The fallacy of that weekend news story can be put in context when we realize that a person being accused of murder will shout his alibi from the rooftops if he was in prison at the time. That is about a near perfect alibi as you can get.
A quick telegraph to the named prison will clear that up in 30 minutes.
The real story though was quite different, he was remanded while the "fullest inquiry" was made into his movements on the night of the murder.

"...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,.."

Which they would not have needed to do if they merely had to telegraph the prison. Evidently the prison story was bogus, as I explained previously.

If Isaacs was so concerned about being arrested as Astrakhan man, is it really likely that he would risk drawing negative attention by carrying out a theft a month later, not far away from the Kelly murder?

Sure, this was his home, at least from 1887 to 1892, or thereabouts.

You were previously in the habit of reminding everyone that the police were unsure of the likely time of death but generally preferred Bond’s suggested 1.00am time.

Yes, the only reliable cause we have for the story given by Hutchinson to eventually be questioned.

Why are you now insisting that the police accepted as fact that the cry of “murder” signalled the actual murder time, and that it couldn’t possibly have occurred before 3:30am – the time you’re now claiming Mary Cusins was able to provide “Isaacstrakhan” with a useless “earwitness” alibi?

For the same reason two suspects were being investigated, Blotchy & Astrachan. The police cannot dismiss one theory concerning a time of death, or one suspect, without more concrete evidence.
Bond's estimate as to Kelly's time of death, just like that by Phillips in the Chapman case, could have been mistaken.

Several posts later, you claim that Isaacs had an alibi for the “specific” time of Kelly’s death.

If I recall correctly, it was you who said no-one could give Isaacs an alibi if it was him with Kelly that night. I invented one to demonstrate how wrong you were.

If the police felt themselves able to exonerate Isaacs on such a basis, despite “knowing” he was Astrakhan, they were the most incompetent and negligent of cretins.

Quite the contrary, there is nothing to connect Astrachan to the murder, and if his landlady says he was in his room, the police can do no more.
He is cleared - and the fact is, he was cleared.

[Roy Corduroy]

HutchTube coming ?

Good evening Ben,

it was fun while all that Crossmere stuff lasted, but I guess it's back to Hutchy business as usual, eh?

Yes but Charlie got his own TV show.

Roy (couch potato)

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“I know you mentioned this to Caz, but I must confess, I couldn't be bothered to look back for any one of the numerous times you've mentioned it to me”

Why would you need to? If I’ve mentioned it “numerous times” to you before, why didn’t you address it then, instead of saving your response for when I “mentioned it” to someone else?

“Here we have the Echo making a firm assertion that the story about graffiti associated with the double murder is "discredited", and an "absolute fallacy"…”

Yes, they are indeed making such a firm assertion, and a correct one at that. The “rumour” – the description used with perfect accuracy by the Echo to describe the nature of the information handed down to them – was that objectionable chalked writing had been found in the “yard”. The actual location of the GSG cannot possibly be described as a “yard”, so they were clearly referring to another location – probably Dutfields Yard – which they visited themselves and unsurprisingly didn’t find any graffiti.

“Why publish rumours if they have a reliable source?”

They’re not claiming to have obtained their information from a “reliable source”. They were being perfectly circumspect about the fact that they were working on the basis of a “rumour”, which they investigated and found to be false. At no point in the article do the Echo claim to have ascertained the truth from the police, which is precisely what they did do in November with regard to Hutchinson. I realise your intention is to claim that because the press had recourse to “rumour” on one occasion, they couldn’t possibly obtain accurate police information on another, but that’s an illogical failure of an argument. It is perfectly reasonable and likely for the police to supply some information to some journalists some of the time, and not others.

In any case, we know for certain that the Echo did extract case-related information from the police, just as they claimed. It doesn’t matter if they reported on the 2nd October that Jack the Ripper was a fluffy pink hippo called Algernon – it doesn’t make any difference to the FACT that they reported on a genuine communication with the police a month later.

If you fancy repeating the entire Echo argument again, you can guarantee that I will be “bothered” to look up and regurgitate the “numerous” times I’ve “mentioned it” to you.

“I must have missed something, show me this "established", and who's "we"?”

I’m not repeating myself at your behest. It has been demonstrated enough times. The “we” is everybody accept you.

“Do you want me to dig up those repeated assertions of yours that the murder was committed, "shortly after 3 o'clock"?”

You can try, but considering that I have never “asserted” that the murder was committed shortly after 3.00am, I don’t anticipate you having much luck. If it was committed at such a time – and it’s certainly possible – Isaacs doesn’t have anything resembling an “alibi”. But then because of the uncertainty over the time of death, we know he can’t have had one anyway.

“The fallacy of that weekend news story can be put in context when we realize that a person being accused of murder will shout his alibi from the rooftops if he was in prison at the time.”

How do you know he didn’t? That’s very obviously what happened. Once it was established that he was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder, the investigation shifted to his possible involvement in the Annie Farmer attack, whereupon it was discovered that his thieving ways had provided him with an alibi for that offense too. On top of which, he had those accusations of theft to explain. That needed investigating too. He doesn’t get off the hook just because stealing a watch is less naughty than murder most ‘orrid. Even if he was very quickly “alibi’d” for the Kelly murder, the fact that he remained in custody is accounted for by the necessary investigations into the Farmer attack (not guilty) and watch theft (guilty).

“Sure, this was his home, at least from 1887 to 1892, or thereabouts.”

So? Doesn’t mean he has to engage in robbery where he lives, especially after allegedly being seen with a ripper victim close to her time of death.

“Yes, the only reliable cause we have for the story given by Hutchinson to eventually be questioned.”

Nope, it had absolutely nothing at all to do with Hutchinson’s story “eventually (being) questioned”.

“The police cannot dismiss one theory concerning a time of death, or one suspect, without more concrete evidence.”

But for your theory to work, they would have to have done, remember? For your theory to work, the police would have to exclude even the possibility of the murder occurring before 3:30am. You acknowledge as much here, when you say:

“Quite the contrary, there is nothing to connect Astrachan to the murder, and if his landlady says he was in his room, the police can do no more.”

In his room WHEN? At a time when the Kelly murder cannot possibly have happened yet, presumably? So for your theory to work, Bond’s time of death must have been confidently excluded, along with any possibility that Prater and Lewis might have heard the “murder” cry earlier than they both claimed to the police.

“If I recall correctly, it was you who said no-one could give Isaacs an alibi if it was him with Kelly that night. I invented one to demonstrate how wrong you were.”

So it’s just an “invention” and you don’t believe it to be true.

I’m very reassured, considering that it can’t possibly be true.

I think that’s you pretty much done for Isaacs on this thread. Go and start a separate non-Hutchinson thread on Isaacs if you’re interested in him, I would.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Roy,

Yes but Charlie got his own TV show.

Yep, along with Billy Gull, Jimmy Maybrick and Bobby Mann.

All the big guns, it seems.

[Wickerman]

In any case, we know for certain that the Echo did extract case-related information from the police, just as they claimed.

Given the Echo voiced their displeasure in print numerous times that the police tell them nothing:

All through September..
"The police, however, refuse to give any details about the matter."

Through October..
"..Leman-street Police-station, where the officials on duty absolutely refuse to give any information whatsoever to journalists."

Through November..
"Up to the present the police refuse the Press any information."

What is certain Ben, is that the Echo in particular, and the press in general, were not party to case related information. By their own words "we" know it.

I’m not repeating myself at your behest. It has been demonstrated enough times. The “we” is everybody accept you.

I get the impression this "we" is at worst, just yourself, and at best, a vocal minority. The same vocal minority that refused to come to your aid.

If it was committed at such a time – and it’s certainly possible – Isaacs doesn’t have anything resembling an “alibi”. But then because of the uncertainty over the time of death, we know he can’t have had one anyway.

Possible, but not likely.
Regardless of the time which she was murdered there is at least a half hours worth of mutilations to follow, possibly longer.

Abberline is working with (at least) two potential times of death, thanks to an inadequate inquiry.
He can't dismiss Bond's estimate (1:00-2:00) because it reflects on the story given by Cox.
Neither can he dismiss the times given to the cry of murder (3:30-4:00), because it reflects on the story given by Hutchinson.
One of them is clearly wrong, he has no evidence to indicate which.

Only if he can locate Blotchy, or Astrachan, can he hope to make any headway. If press reports can be relied on this is what he was doing through the second & third weeks of November.
Both leads fell flat.

How do you know he didn’t? That’s very obviously what happened. Once it was established that he was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder, the investigation shifted to his possible involvement in the Annie Farmer attack, whereupon it was discovered that his thieving ways had provided him with an alibi for that offense too.

We can accept he didn't for the reason's I already gave. It will not take three days to contact the prison.
And yes, the police did know Isaacs was in prison at the time of the assault on Annie Farmer.
This, apparently, Lloyds were not aware of, hence their brief and confused article in late December.

On top of which, he had those accusations of theft to explain. That needed investigating too. He doesn’t get off the hook just because stealing a watch is less naughty than murder most ‘orrid.

Wrong, he had already been charged with that crime on the 7th. He was remanded for further inquiries in connection with the Whitechapel murder.
The police were only investigating his movements on the night of Nov. 8th, for the next several days.

So? Doesn’t mean he has to engage in robbery where he lives, especially after allegedly being seen with a ripper victim close to her time of death.

Don't most petty criminals ply their trade on their home patch?
He had been gone for almost a month, very likely thinking his association with the victim had all blown over by the beginning of December.

But for your theory to work, they would have to have done, remember? For your theory to work, the police would have to exclude even the possibility of the murder occurring before 3:30am.

Do you know what, "parallel lines of inquiry" means?

So it’s just an “invention” and you don’t believe it to be true.

I created it in response to your challenge, to show you it is quite possible for him to have had at least one alibi. It doesn't need to be true or proven, to demonstrate that you are once again mistaken.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Any reason why you're pretending that the Echo were complaining about a total lack of communication from the police for over three months, when in fact they were only talking about specific instances of understandably non-shared information?

You quote them as follows:

"Up to the present the police refuse the Press any information."

...then misleadingly state that this was the attitude of the police towards the Echo "Through November", whereas in fact that quote appears in the 9th November edition, when the murder had only just happened. Of course the police weren't supplying details at such an early stage, when they had precious few of their own. To extrapolate from this that the police never discussed any case-related details with the press at any stage is utterly ludicrous, especially when we know for an indisputable fact that information was shared, and not just with regard to Hutchinson's statement.

You also talk of a police reticence towards the Echo "through September", and "through October", which is equally nonsense. Why not acknowledge the actual reality, which was that the police were reticent on certain topics at certain times?

I get the impression this "we" is at worst, just yourself, and at best, a vocal minority. The same vocal minority that refused to come to your aid.

You reckon they're coming to yours?

Where is this "majority" who accept that Astrakhan man was identified as Joseph Isaacs and then cleared because of a phantom "alibi"?

Regardless of the time which she was murdered there is at least a half hours worth of mutilations to follow, possibly longer.

Which makes a bit of a nonsense of the suggestion that Kelly had time to see off Astrakhan man, venture out again, meet Jack the Ripper and get murdered in a time frame that would be considered compatible with the Lewis/Prater evidence, which you now oddly insist was accepted as gospel by the police. If, on the other hand, you accept that the police were working with conflicting suggestions as to time of death, you'll understand what a silliness the whole concept of an Isaacstrakhan alibi is. The police would have had to rule out the possibility of Bond's time of death - any many other possibilities besides - if they were ever to exonerate a man they had just positively and conclusively identified (somehow?!) as Astrakhan man.

It will not take three days to contact the prison.
And yes, the police did know Isaacs was in prison at the time of the assault on Annie Farmer.

I'm not suggesting it did take "three days to contact the prison". I'm sure Isaacs's alibi for the Kelly murder was discovered very quickly, which is why he quickly sank without trace as a ripper suspect. It also neatly explains the press article that observed he was wanted in connection with the Farmer and attack, not with the mutilation murders. The Lloyds article isn't in the slightest bit "confused".

"Wrong, he had already been charged with that crime on the 7th. He was remanded for further inquiries in connection with the Whitechapel murder."

Charged.

Just charged.

I do hope you're not confusing that expression with "convicted".

A charge is a formal allegation of an offense. If you're wondering why Isaacs was still in police custody, it was for the purpose of investigating this "charge" with a view to conviction. The short-lived suggestion that he might be involved in the Kelly murder or Farmer attack having been resolved very quickly with a modicum of investigation into his alibis.

Do you know what, "parallel lines of inquiry" means?

Yes, thanks.

And if you know what it means, you'll understand how impossible it is for Astrakhan to have an alibi for the Kelly murder.

I created it in response to your challenge, to show you it is quite possible for him to have had at least one alibi.

But you've failed very badly to show any such thing.

And slightly annoyingly, you keep bringing the issue up on multiple threads, including a recent one that is supposed to be about who wrote the GSG!

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

The police would have had to rule out the possibility of Bond's time of death - any many other possibilities besides - if they were ever to exonerate a man they had just positively and conclusively identified (somehow?!) as Astrakhan man.

It might be worth remembering, Ben, that Bond's time of death estimation was largely predicated on guesswork. He assumed that Kelly had taken her final meal at a given hour, then applied a digestive rate calculation on her stomach content to pinpoint the time of the murder. The problem, however, is that investigators failed to ascertain where Kelly had purchased this meal, much less the time at which it was consumed. As such, Bond's proposed time of death might have been awry by several hours. In fact, given the weight of other evidence, it must have been out by at least an hour and a half.