Vetting Hutchinson

[Wickerman]

His statement has provided those sticks to which you refer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Funny Abberline didn't see any sticks, but then he knew far more than we do.

[Ben]

Oh, and here's me thinking you said not at any time in any way. I guess you changed your mind. Or is it that memory again?

It's you picking silly off-topic fights for no reason again.

It is an indisputable fact that people will often have different opinions as to what has and has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise juries would reach unanimous verdicts all the time.

No, I didn't waste any time Ben. I have an instinct for troublesome posts. When I see them, I Bookmark them, knowing full well that this post will come back to haunt the poster at some point.

That's the most tragic thing I've ever heard in my entire life.

You "bookmark" posts with the intention of re-posting them later, hoping you can catch your perceived opponents out when some imagined opportunity presents itself? I realise you lot had a particularly harsh winter, but really - what a depressing expenditure of anyone's time. The post you quoted is not "haunting" me in the slightest because I stand by every word I wrote in it. If you dispute it, you're factually in error - simple as, and yet we won't find me "bookmarking" your spurious rejection of a commonsense reality just so I can pick a fight about it years later on an unrelated thread.

Sad.

You are. Don't you accept a telegram that somehow vanished?, and you thoroughly believe there is a court record that also mysteriously vanished.

No, I said nothing about a "court record that also mysteriously vanished".

Check your bookmarks, though, and see if you can find a "troublesome" post that exposes my alleged belief in such a mysterious vanishing act. I couldn't care less about any telegram either, although I do care about your double-standards insistence that an uncorroborated press report asserting that the statement was conveyed between stations by a special footman in a powdered wig must be accurate.

That wouldn't work though, not when Abberline thought he had caught Hutchinson's suspect in early December.

Abberline did not think that.

He might have thought he had a viable ripper suspect in custody in early December, but not "Hutchinson's suspect". Get this nonsense out of your head that Isaacs and Hutchinson are joined at the hip. There is no evidence whatsoever that Abberline was interested in Isaacs because of Hutchinson's evidence. None at all.

It's the ball and chain around the theory. The complete lack of anything to substantiate these accusations.

Who agrees with you that Sarah Lewis saw a couple walk into the court?

Nobody.

Who agrees with you that Isaacs was Astrakhan and had an alibi?

Nobody.

Who agrees with me that Hutchinson probably didn't tell the truth?

Lots of people.

Now why, Jon, why would that be the case if I was the one suffering from this supposed "lack of anything to substantiate" me views?

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi JohnG,

Lawende's description isn't anywhere near as detailed as Hutchinson's. Lawende's couple were stationary at the time of the sighting and close to where the three men were standing. Hutchinson's alleged couple, by contrast, were on the move when the sighting supposedly occurred, and the only opportunity for Hutchinson to notice actual detail passed very fleetingly as the couple passed by a weak gas lamp - an opportunity he spent staring into the man's face. Moreover, Astrakhan and Kelly were much further away from Hutchinson when the alleged red hanky was produced fleetingly at the entrance to Miller's Court, whereas at least the pepper-and-salt jacketted individual was wearing his neckerchief the whole time.

More importantly, Lawende's sighting continued to be taken very seriously by the police - not so Hutchinson's.

All the best,

Ben

[Sally]

I have an instinct for troublesome posts. When I see them, I Bookmark them, knowing full well that this post will come back to haunt the poster at some point. Time is always on my side.

What??

Now I've heard it all...

Hey Jon, don't suppose you've any Morning Advertiser bookmarks handy have you?

Ah! That was a debate and a half! Seeing as we're dredging up old threads at the moment, I don't see why we can't have that one back as well?

[Wickerman]

Abberline did not think that.

He might have thought he had a viable ripper suspect in custody in early December, but not "Hutchinson's suspect".

How might he have thought that?

- Isaacs did live a short walk away from Millers Court.
- Isaacs did disappear from his lodgings hours after the murder.

His arrest, in December,..."a singular arrest, which was reported to be in connection with the Whitechapel murders."

Abberline himself went to fetch Isaacs:
"....and subsequently brought away the prisoner in a cab, which was strongly escorted."

Perhaps not the exact words, but the importance is expressed adequately.
"...the inspector was heard to say to one of his subordinates: "Keep this quiet; we have got the right man at last. This is a big thing.”."

The reporter who saw him stated:
"...whose appearance certainly answered the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat."

He appears to have been the subject of very searching inquiries:
"...and it was said by the police that they wished the fullest inquiry as to the prisoner's movements on the night of Nov. 8."

The expressed importance is indicated by the involvement of Abberline himself.

How could he have been "viable", unless believed to resemble the murderer?

Then, in your opinion, which suspect does he resemble?

[Ben]

Jon's bringing up Isaacs again, look.

- Isaacs did live a short walk away from Millers Court.

Not at the time of the Kelly murder he didn't. He was in prison.

- Isaacs did disappear from his lodgings hours after the murder.

No, he didn't.

He disappeared from his lodgings well in advance of the murder because by then he was in prison.

Unless you enjoy uncorroborated press reports of the type you caution everyone else against listening to it, I wouldn't buy into that nonsense about Abberline allegedly exclaiming "this is a big thing". I can't think that Abberline was quite the idiot depicted in the article. "Hey guys, this is Jack the Ripper! Woohoo! I'm so excited! But GUYS, follow my example and don't get overheard by the press, yeah?"

Isaacs was Jewish and aged about 30, which meant he answered the description of Jewish man, aged about 30, who happened to wear an Astrakhan coat. This was a press observation only. There is absolutely no evidence that the police were ever interested in Isaacs on the basis of a physical similarity with any eyewitness sighting.

Why were the police really interested him?

Well, it was reported that he threatened violence to all woman over the age of 17, and that he left the murder district after the last murder. That was more than sufficient reason for the police to be interested in Isaacs without having to wheel in silly Astrakhan discredited man.

[Sally]

Jon's bringing up Isaacs again, look.

So he is.

As you say Ben, Isaacs was reported as having been in prison when Kelly was murdered. Evidently, if true, he can't have been Hutchinson's Mr Astrakhan.

I see no reason to dismiss the report in Lloyds. I think the problem with doing so is that it's so specific; telling us that Isaacs was in prison for stealing a coat. Now, as I know that he did in fact steal a coat at another point in his criminal career, this is quite plausible.

I don't see the problem. We know that he was convicted on 12th November for 21 days - a suitable charge for coat-stealing. Obviously this isn't the date on which he was arrested. We don't know how long beforehand he was in custody beforehand exactly; but there is no reason why he could not have been in custody when Kelly was murdered - it was commonplace to hold prisoners on remand until they were tried; and for longer than the three or four days we're talking about here.

Then, of course, there is the problem of proving an alibi if he was in fact Astrakhan Man - I can see how that would be difficult. Prison would do it.

And finally, there is the mismatch between the physical appearance of the actual Joseph Isaacs and Hutchinson's Astrakhan Man. The latter was allegedly 5' 6"; Isaacs was 5' 3'.

Isaacs had a distinctive hooked nose and very curly hair - obvious features to mention in terms of identification you would think, yet absent from Hutchinson's account; which is remarkably detailed in other respects.

There really is nothing to tie the two together other than wishful thinking; and furthermore, there is evidence which argues strongly against the proposition.

[Wickerman]

Why were the police really interested him?

Well, it was reported that he threatened violence to all woman over the age of 17, and that he left the murder district after the last murder. That was more than sufficient reason for the police to be interested in Isaacs without having to wheel in silly Astrakhan discredited man.

What kind of violence was this Ben?
Kicking their 'ass', giving them a good whipping?, smack 'em across the head?

I'm quite sure the reporter would have held nothing back if the threat had been to "slice 'em up", but no, nothing to dastardly murderous.

In a period when violence towards women was common, the police are well accustomed to men bullying women, and children for that matter.
Abberline has no cause to arrest a common bully with a strong escort, and then hold him on remand while his movements on the night of the 8th are investigated.
There was more to this arrest than that.

[Wickerman]

When court records are available, and no court record exists to suggest he was in prison on the 9th, then a newspaper claim that he was is of no value.
Especially when it is known, and confirmed, that this claim was a direct confusion with the Annie Farmer case, when he was in prison.

Uncorroborated press stories are not to be trusted, isn't that what you believe?

[Sally]

When court records are available, and no court record exists to suggest he was in prison on the 9th, then a newspaper claim that he was is of no value.

He was convicted on the 12th Jon. He was almost certainly remanded in custody prior to that date. It's no use claiming that he 'would have' been arrested over the weekend, much as you might like that to be true. You have no idea in fact. Sometimes time in remand was counted against the sentence, sometimes it wasn't. If it wasn't, there was no cause for it's inclusion in the conviction record - no mystery there.

Especially when it is known, and confirmed, that this claim was a direct confusion with the Annie Farmer case, when he was in prison.

Rubbish. It isn't 'known and confirmed' at all. It's been suggested as an explanation, that's all.

Uncorroborated press stories are not to be trusted, isn't that what you believe?

Ho Ho Ho

Evidently, it's not what you believe, is it?

Kennedy and Ronay - Press
Isaacs resembling Astrkhan and being wanted on that account - Press
Abberline saying 'it's a big thing' - Press - and not even widespread press at that.

Etc.

Where, oh where, is the supporting official documentation for all of that then?

[Wickerman]

He was convicted on the 12th Jon. He was almost certainly remanded in custody prior to that date.

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.

Rubbish. It isn't 'known and confirmed' at all. It's been suggested as an explanation, that's all.

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

Ready to begin "questioning everything", yet?

[Batman]

What clothing was left in her room, apart from the shawl, what else?

The point is this. Not one detail about her. Not even a hello when she walks back past him. Yet he can tell us this man's eyelash colour.

Here is a question for you. Did the investigators ever omit to ask about what the victim was dressed like, before?

[Wickerman]

Like I said, if the police do not know what she was wearing at that time of night, why does it matter what Hutchinson says, or doesn't say?
The police ask those questions to make sure the witness saw the victim, and not some other woman, because generally the victim will still be wearing the same clothes.

This is not the case here, so your objection is irrelevant.

[Garry Wroe]

Like I said, if the police do not know what she was wearing at that time of night, why does it matter what Hutchinson says, or doesn't say?

Investigators did know what Kelly had been wearing. She possessed one set of clothes - that which was found at the crime scene. She'd also been seen wearing those same clothes shortly before midnight by one of her near-neighbours.

The police ask those questions to make sure the witness saw the victim, and not some other woman, because generally the victim will still be wearing the same clothes.

Hence, contrary to your previous assertion, it does 'matter what Hutchinson says, or doesn't say'.

This is not the case here, so your objection is irrelevant.

It is the case here. Investigators were aware of the clothing Kelly had been wearing on the last night of her life. Had Hutchinson described a different set of clothes police would have had an indication that he was either lying or mistaken about having seen Kelly in her final hours.

[Garry Wroe]

What??

Now I've heard it all...

With respect, Sally, I can't say I'm surprised to learn that Jon bookmarks 'troublesome posts' for future reference. His obsessive nature has been evident for years and is becoming more pronounced with time. This is the man who trawls the Press Reports section for gems such as that which had Sarah Lewis sighting a couple passing up Miller's Court as she made for the Keylers. Then, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he sticks to the story like Shi'ite to a blanket. Remember too that he spent years refuting Hutchinson's fall from grace as a police witness, again in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. When finally he did succumb to the inevitable, he adopted the extraordinary position that investigators continued to regard Astrakhan as a realistic suspect even though Hutchinson's story had been rejected.

Staggering.

There was a time when Jon made interesting and pertinent contributions to the boards. Even when I disagreed with him I could at least appreciate the underlying logic of his argument. That is no longer the case. Nowadays I don't even bother to engage him in debate. What would be the point when he remains unreceptive to anything that conflicts with whatever pet theory he's hawking at the time?

I sometimes feel that the freedom of speech is a little overrated.