Vetting Hutchinson

[Sally]

Really?
- When he appeared in Court on a Monday, Sept 19th, he had been arrested the previous Friday afternoon, 16th.

- When arrested at Dover on Sunday 24th July, he appeared in court the very next day, Monday the 25th.

You were saying something about "almost certainly", remind me again what you said.

Hmm, what was that about being remanded in custody over the weekend?

You surely must realise that the speed at which a prosecution was progressed from arrest to conviction was dependent on variables?

So, either you have a record of Isaacs' arrest prior to his conviction on the
12th and can evidence the date; or you don't and thus have only your personal, unevidenced opinion.

Which is it?

The confusion being identified in the press long before Lloyds picked up the story. That is independent confirmation that confusion existed.

And this demonstrates that Lloyds were in error how, exactly?

You'd like it, I'm sure - but you have no evidence for your contention.

Not unless you can produce that evidence of arrest.

[Batman]

So they did know what she wearing. I thought so. Too many witnesses not to note that.

It isn't just clothing though. He doesn't indicate he knows exactly where she lives either in the court nor what she looks like in ANY detail despite his attention to said detail.

[Wickerman]

"Clothing", was found in the room, we know this already. None of this clothing was itemized beyond, if I recall a shawl, but what else?
Clothing was burned too, traces were found, but much was missing.

All this is immaterial, Hutchinson was the only witness to say he knew her. None of the previous witnesses, in previous cases said they knew the victim, so it was necessary to establish a description of who they saw, but not who Hutchinson saw.
This is not a detriment to Hutchinson, if anything it is Badham who chose to believe him.

All Hutchinson had to say was he knew Kelly, and Badham may very well believe him. How is that any basis for accusations being leveled against him?

Why do you feel the need to nit-pick on unimportant questions that may, or may not, have been discussed?
It is about time you focused on what is known, on what he did say, leave what we do not know to speculation.

[Wickerman]

Hmm, what was that about being remanded in custody over the weekend?

Your assumption is obviously flawed. There is no basis to assume he was 'detained' on the night of the 8th. - as you prefer, actual cases demonstrate otherwise.

So, either you have a record of Isaacs' arrest prior to his conviction on the
12th and can evidence the date; or you don't and thus have only your personal, unevidenced opinion.

Or, I am in the process of obtaining it.

You'd like it, I'm sure - but you have no evidence for your contention.

Not unless you can produce that evidence of arrest.

You can only prove a detention on the 8th by providing the court record of his arrest, an accusation by the press that never happened cannot be proven.
You can't prove a negative.

[Wickerman]

It isn't just clothing though. He doesn't indicate he knows exactly where she lives either in the court nor what she looks like in ANY detail despite his attention to said detail.

You have been given experienced opinion on the subject.
If I recall, Trevor has suggested that some interviewing officers are better than others. Colin has also suggested that any deficiencies, or errors in the statement could be due to Badham, not necessarily attributed to Hutchinson.
In past threads Stewart has told us that there is nothing suspicious about Hutchinson's statement.

You offer a Straw-man argument, try to make your question to be of extreme importance, then knock it down, so you can claim "this is suspicious".
The only thing suspicious, is your intent, and the intent of those who do likewise.

What exactly is your experience in these matters, if any?

[andy1867]

Description age about 34 or 35. height 5ft6 complexion pale, dark eyes and eye lashes slight moustache, curled up each end, and hair dark, very surly looking dress long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed astrakan. And a dark jacket under. Light waistcoat dark trousers dark felt hat turned down in the middle. Button boots and gaiters with white buttons. Wore a very thick gold chain white linen collar. Black tie with horse shoe pin. Respectable appearance walked very sharp. Jewish appearance. Can be identified.
Always seemed a bit over the top to me....(No I am not an ex policeman or anything)..Still its always seemed a bit "too" detailed"
I mean..If i just took one of of those items away and asked you to name it...some would struggle...
Did Hutchinson sorta stand in front of him for 10 minutes just staring...?
And surely if the bloke was walking "sharp" , How much time did Hutchinson have to take in this sort of detail?

[Wickerman]

I mean..If i just took one of of those items away and asked you to name it...some would struggle...

If you gave that 'someone' three days to think about it, they might not.



Don't forget, he did say: "I stooped down and looked him in the face.", the implication therefore is, he did look intently at him, maybe even did stare him in the face, as evidenced by him then saying: "He looked at me stern.". Which suggests they met eye to eye.

If we knew who this Hutchinson character was, whether his vocation required an attention to detail - for example, what does "of military appearance" mean? He may have been upright in stance and very clean cut in appearance.
A groom does need to pay attention to detail, and that is what he claimed to be.
I don't think we can judge him until we find him, only then can serious research begin to find out just who he was.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“In a period when violence towards women was common, the police are well accustomed to men bullying women, and children for that matter.”

I do hope you’re not seriously suggesting that the police would ignore a suspect who reportedly threatened violence to all women over the age of 17, and departed the area immediately after the Kelly murder? At that moment in history? At the peak of the largest manhunt London had ever witnessed? If you don’t think such a suspect qualifies as a “big thing”, you can guess again. There doesn’t need to have been any “more to his arrest than that”, and it certainly doesn’t need the involvement of any silly description from a discredited account.

“If I recall, Trevor has suggested that some interviewing officers are better than others. Colin has also suggested that any deficiencies, or errors in the statement could be due to Badham, not necessarily attributed to Hutchinson.
In past threads Stewart has told us that there is nothing suspicious about Hutchinson's statement.”

And “if you recall”, Trevor also conducted an experiment which illustrated the unlikelihood of Hutchinson being able to notice all that he alleged in the time and conditions available. If we’re deferring to the opinions of policemen - whose participation in the “debate” your eagerly attempting to recruit, I notice - you should note Bob Hinton’s finding: “I have spoken to many serving and ex-police officers, and without exception they all dismiss Hutchinson’s description as pure fantasy. The general consensus of opinion being that witnesses generally get the sex and the height about right, but after that it’s pot luck”.

And no, you're not about to accuse him of lying, or the police officers in question of being crap.

Criticising Badham is just silly, and yet another illustration of the fallacy that everyone else must be depicted as heavily flawed and incompetent in order for discredited Hutchinson to come out smelling of roses.

“Don't forget, he did say: "I stooped down and looked him in the face.", the implication therefore is, he did look intently at him, maybe even did stare him in the face”

Oh well, if Hutchinson “said it” then of course we must all accept it as gospel. Circular again. Unfortunately for the opinions of the “vocal minority” who insist that Hutchinson told the unembellished truth, the only opportunity Hutchinson had to notice any detail (short of the silly “two sightings” excuse) occurred as the man passed by him outside the Queen’s Head. This constituted a second or two at most, and yet he allegedly spent that opportunity gazing into the man’s mug. Unless Hutchinson was a bluebottle fly, he could not have noticed the minute details of the man’s upper body at the same time as noticing the minute details of the man’s lower body at the same time.

The above is an inescapable and irrefutable reality, and Hutchinson’s “character” doesn't have any bearing on it. Being “upright in stance and very clean cut in appearance” (unlike liars, who are always hunchbacked and tend to smell of cabbage) does not bestow superhuman powers of recollection and observation upon an individual, and nor does having a background in horse-grooming…shockingly enough.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
I do hope you’re not seriously suggesting that the police would ignore a suspect who reportedly threatened violence to all women over the age of 17, and departed the area immediately after the Kelly murder?

Hey Ben.
Lets not hide behind a generic term, what kind of violence are we talking about?
The bottom line is, if the threats included brandishing a knife, especially after the Kelly murder, the reporter would have only been happy to emphasize this.
So, we can take it that these threats were nothing close to murder.

And “if you recall”, Trevor also conducted an experiment which illustrated the unlikelihood of Hutchinson being able to notice all that he alleged in the time and conditions available.

Do you recall Trevor also agreeing that we cannot replicate the scene?
Enough said.

... you should note Bob Hinton’s finding: “I have spoken to many serving and ex-police officers, and without exception they all dismiss Hutchinson’s description as pure fantasy. The general consensus of opinion being that witnesses generally get the sex and the height about right, but after that it’s pot luck”.

Isn't that an easy remark to make when you are trying to promote your theory?
It's akin to your, "Everyone agrees with me".
Maybe you and Bob are cut from the same cloth.

Criticising Badham is just silly,

Tell that to those who did.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

The bottom line is, if the threats included brandishing a knife, especially after the Kelly murder, the reporter would have only been happy to emphasize this.

But if the reporter didn't know because Oaks hadn't told him (presumably because he didn't know either), what were the police to conclude? That the violence Isaacs allegedly threatened to all women over 17 probably extended only to the light smacking of bottoms, with the occasional nostril-tweak thrown in? I somewhat doubt it. It doesn't matter in the slightest if the nature of the violence wasn't specified. If a man reportedly lived right near Mary Kelly and departed the area after her murder, and threatened violence to all woman over the age of 17, he warranted serious and immediate attention as a suspect. That's an obvious, irrefutable reality.

Do you recall Trevor also agreeing that we cannot replicate the scene?

Do you recall his general thoughts on Hutchinson's statement being far more in alignment with mine than they are with yours?

Isn't that an easy remark to make when you are trying to promote your theory?

So you are accusing Bob of lying? And you're saying that because he and I are "cut from the same cloth", I must be a liar too? Charming as always, Jon.

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

Hi Jon,
But if the reporter didn't know because Oaks hadn't told him (presumably because he didn't know either),...

Well there you have it then, at best idle gossip, at worst just another Neanderthal who ruffs up women.

.....what were the police to conclude? That the violence Isaacs allegedly threatened to all women over 17 probably extended only to the light smacking of bottoms, with the occasional nostril-tweak thrown in? I somewhat doubt it. It doesn't matter in the slightest if the nature of the violence wasn't specified. If a man reportedly lived right near Mary Kelly and departed the area after her murder, and threatened violence to all woman over the age of 17, he warranted serious and immediate attention as a suspect. That's an obvious, irrefutable reality.

(You do like that word, 'irrefutable'.)

More likely it was a combination of what Cusins, Oakes and 'Catherine', told police. The points of note may be as follows:

First point worthy of note is this suggestion that he answered to the published description of 'Astrachan'. The comment does not appear to be attributed to a reporter. In each case where mentioned it is in paraphrase where the story by Mrs Cusins is being given.
It appears to be attributed to Mrs Cusins.

If it was attributed to the reporter then that would mean Isaacs showed up in court at Worship Street in December, still wearing this coat, not impossible, but not very likely.

Oakes did say Isaacs was able to change his dress. And we do know at one time he impersonated a Detective, he must have had different sets of clothing in his room. Oakes also said he had more than one hat.

Mrs Cusins told police he was pacing his room on the night of the murder, she may also have told them when he came in that night. Also, that he left as soon as news broke about the murder, after mid-day.

The police wished to look for him, so naturally they will ask Mrs Cusins for a name & description. This may be where she said he had been wearing a coat trimmed with Astrachan.
Cusins may also have taken the police to his room, to go through his belongings, the Astrachan coat may have been there hanging up.
The significance of the coat was not realized until Hutchinson came forward.

Now Oakes tells the police that Isaacs threatened violence to mature women, and another lodger, Catherine, made "serious allegations" against him.

Then on the 12th, Hutchinson comes forward and gave a description that matched that given by Mrs Cusins, and he was wearing the same coat they saw in his room, no wonder Abberline believed Hutchinson.

This, all taken together, would explain why Abberline was so anxious to get this 'watch thief' behind bars when he surfaced in December.

[Garry Wroe]

Then on the 12th, Hutchinson comes forward and gave a description that matched that given by Mrs Cusins, and he was wearing the same coat they saw in his room, no wonder Abberline believed Hutchinson.

And yet despite the emergence of a potentially crucial link between a named 'suspect' who lived not far from the Kelly murder scene and the seeming likelihood that Astrakhan was Kelly's killer, Abberline makes no mention of such information in the summary report submitted to his superiors.

[Sally]

First point worthy of note is this suggestion that he answered to the published description of 'Astrachan'. The comment does not appear to be attributed to a reporter. In each case where mentioned it is in paraphrase where the story by Mrs Cusins is being given.
It appears to be attributed to Mrs Cusins.

If it was attributed to the reporter then that would mean Isaacs showed up in court at Worship Street in December, still wearing this coat, not impossible, but not very likely.

Oakes did say Isaacs was able to change his dress. And we do know at one time he impersonated a Detective, he must have had different sets of clothing in his room. Oakes also said he had more than one hat.

Mrs Cusins told police he was pacing his room on the night of the murder, she may also have told them when he came in that night. Also, that he left as soon as news broke about the murder, after mid-day.

The police wished to look for him, so naturally they will ask Mrs Cusins for a name & description. This may be where she said he had been wearing a coat trimmed with Astrachan.
Cusins may also have taken the police to his room, to go through his belongings, the Astrachan coat may have been there hanging up.
The significance of the coat was not realized until Hutchinson came forward.

Now Oakes tells the police that Isaacs threatened violence to mature women, and another lodger, Catherine, made "serious allegations" against him.

Then on the 12th, Hutchinson comes forward and gave a description that matched that given by Mrs Cusins, and he was wearing the same coat they saw in his room, no wonder Abberline believed Hutchinson.

This, all taken together, would explain why Abberline was so anxious to get this 'watch thief' behind bars when he surfaced in December.

I was mistaken earlier on - now I've heard it all.

You do know, don't you Jon, that there is absolutely no evidence - none whatever - that Isaacs was Hutchinson's Astrakhan Man?

There is no indication, ever, that his involvement in the case went beyond the reported concerns of Cusins et al.

In short, it's nothing but a fantasy.

You'll need to do better than this if your aim is to 'exonerate' Hutchinson.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

(You do like that word, 'irrefutable'.)

I'm extremely fond of its applicability here, yes.

It is wholly irrefutable that Isaacs would have been of tremendous interest to the police entirely irrespective of any dreamed-up similarity with any dreamed-up suspect wearing a dreamed-up Astrakhan coat.

First point worthy of note is this suggestion that he answered to the published description of 'Astrachan'. The comment does not appear to be attributed to a reporter. In each case where mentioned it is in paraphrase where the story by Mrs Cusins is being given

It doesn't need to be "attributed" to a reporter.

The whole thing is written by a reporter, and it is his claim that he resembled a man wearing an Astrakhan coat. Could Mary Cusins have mentioned it also? It isn't inconceivable, but she wasn't the police either, and what we're searching for - and what you're failing to provide - is any evidence that the police were interested in Isaacs because of a supposed Astrakhan man resemblance.

If it was attributed to the reporter then that would mean Isaacs showed up in court at Worship Street in December, still wearing this coat, not impossible, but not very likely.

What coat?

Nobody said anything about Isaacs wearing a specific type of coat. It was simply observed by the press that he answered the description of someone who supposedly did, which is hardly surprising considering that Isaacs was a 30ish Jew, as was the alleged Astrakhan man. That, along with the possible addition of a moustache, could have been the full extent of the "similarity" between the two. I certainly wouldn't cling to the whole "impersonated a detective" episode as any sort of indication that he could pull off an Astrakhan outfit successfully. He tried to impersonate a detective, which obviously meant he was lousy at it and didn't get very far.

You just need to dislocate Hutchinson and Isaacs, and research them as separate entities. The latter will forever be useless as a pawn with which to fend of "accusations" levelled at the former, so let's stop trying to cloak him in Astrakhan and see what items of interest your strictly non-Hutchinson-related research into Isaacs might uncover. He is an worthy area of interest in his own right, you know.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

And yet despite the emergence of a potentially crucial link between a named 'suspect' who lived not far from the Kelly murder scene and the seeming likelihood that Astrakhan was Kelly's killer, Abberline makes no mention of such information in the summary report submitted to his superiors.

I wouldn't expect him to either, a responsible Inspector should not entertain his superiors with conjecture.
Whether the unnamed Hutchinson suspect truly was the named Cusins suspect can only be established once they find him.