Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[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]

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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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