A stout JtR?

[Batman]

Manchester Courier
November 16, 1888

Hutchinson suspect is the only suspect being sought.

[Batman]

Since only Lewis appeared at the inquest this is consistent with her being the original source of a story that got propagated by copycats which only makes sense because she provided justification and reason for her story in terms of why she was going somewhere when the incidents occurred.

[Wickerman]

If the press was the only medium by which a story spreads, that would be the case, but it isn't is it? Oral transmission, especially in 1888, was a vehicle by which stories got around and they certainly got around the inhabitants and the relations of people staying at Miller Court/Dorset St. These are the people we are talking about, not the general public separated by hundreds of miles, but in this case mere meters... mere meters.

How could they have failed not to have been bantering between them about the most shocking murder ever committed in the Western world?

Anyway the copy-cats ducked out of the inquest. Lewis was the one who gave testimony.

In general yes, but the Star article makes no comment about Kennedy's (or Lewis's) story being repeated. It is only the cry of "murder" that they say was repeated by several women, and none of them had the times right.

The paragraph concludes with:

"...Each story contradicted the others with respect to the time at which the cry was heard. A Star reporter who inquired into the matter extracted from one of the women the confession that the story was, as far as she was concerned, a fabrication; and he came to the conclusion that it was to be disregarded.".

So from the above we know what was repeated, what was demonstrably wrong, and why they never printed any of these stories.

Thats all there is to it, isn't it?

[Wickerman]

As I've already explained, Jon, this is not even a possibility.

There was no connection between Isaacs and Astrakhan, and even if there was, and it was ascertained (somehow?) for certain that they were one and the same, there was no possible way for Abberline to "know" that Isaacstrakhan - who was last recorded as having been in the murder victim's room at 3.00am, shortly before a cry of murder was heard by more than one witness - was not the killer. Unless you can suggest a way?

From the surviving paperwork it is not easy to appreciate Abberline's dilemma.
- On the one hand he has medical opinion that Kelly died between 1:00-2:00am, yet he knows the medical opinion is based on imprecise data, that estimates drawn from that data are flexible.
- Then, he has one witness who claims Kelly was still alive and on the street at 2:00 am, and met a client who she took back to her room at least an hour prior to the suggested cries of "murder".
- Finally, he has one woman who provided a statement that Kelly was out on the street with another man, outside the Britannia, about 3:00 am.

Then he had Sarah Lewis hearing the cry of "murder" shortly before 4:00 am, and Mrs Prater hearing the same shortly after 4:00 am.

Who is correct, which witness does he believe?
How can he accuse either suspect; Blotchy, Astrachan or Britannia-man, when he has no definitive time of death from his medical men?

With three witnesses telling widely different stories only one can be correct, and he has no definitive proof for either story.

It is not a foregone conclusion that Astrachan was the last to see her alive.

So you're now saying Abberline didn't believe Hutchinson? Or believed him but assumed he'd confused Kelly with someone else? Or...what?

I have always maintained that Abberline could not put all his eggs in one basket, not with Cox, and not with Hutchinson. That it is reasonably certain the press got wind of this dilemma which caused them to write about "the police" following two separate suspects, Blotchy & Astrachan.

This records convictions, not arrests or prison sentences,...

The article you favor says, "undergoing a term of imprisonment for stealing a coat", that is a sentence, so he must have been convicted - yes?

...and without knowing when and where the alleged offense for coat-pinching occurred, I wouldn't rely on it to reveal who wasn't in prison in 1888.

Press articles are used as a guide, they are not the last word on the subject.
We know how inaccurate press articles can be, so the accepted procedure is to use the article as a guide to locating the official record. Like his sentence at Barnett, what was it for, why go back a second time, what were the charges, what was the sentence?
How do we find this out Ben, we go to the official source.

When we have a vague comment in the press (no police court named, no court date, no length of sentence, etc), and we find no existing official record of such a sentence involving the 9th Nov. then it is quite possible this press article is false, an error.

It could be a case of the wrong Joseph Isaacs (there were several), the wrong charge, the wrong date, are all possible answers why we cannot locate the official record.

In this case, at least according to Charles van Onselen (when referring to 12 Nov & 17 Dec.)"...twice being prosecuted for minor offences in one month, there is no earlier criminal record for Joseph Isaacs, nor is there any after January 1889".
The Fox & the Flies, 2008, p. 476.

It is this claim above that I feel the need to have verified by an independent researcher. I intend to obtain all the convictions for Joseph Isaacs between 1887 - 1889, if at all possible.

[Batman]

But, Lewis did not speak to the press, so the press do not know what Lewis saw. So there cannot be "parroting" of a story that is not yet known.

If the press was the only medium by which a story spreads, that would be the case, but it isn't is it? Oral transmission, especially in 1888, was a vehicle by which stories got around and they certainly got around the inhabitants and the relations of people staying at Miller Court/Dorset St. These are the people we are talking about, not the general public separated by hundreds of miles, but in this case mere meters... mere meters.

How could they have failed not to have been bantering between them about the most shocking murder ever committed in the Western world?

Anyway the copy-cats ducked out of the inquest. Lewis was the one who gave testimony.

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

True, but it is very unlikely that all reporters were fully in the picture about which stories were genuine and which were false, especially not at that early stage.

We are only talking about a Star reporter, and the Star is the one making the claim, but you now appear to suggest they couldn't know this so soon, the day after the murder. Are you contesting your own source?

The meaning of this sentence is beyond dispute.
"One woman (as reported below) who lives in the court stated that at about two o'clock she heard a cry of "Murder." This story soon became popular, until at last half a dozen women were retailing it as their own personal experience."

I don't know where "two o'clock" came from, but otherwise the implication is clear.

In reality, however, the "parrotting" only happened in Lewis's case.

But, Lewis did not speak to the press, so the press do not know what Lewis saw. So there cannot be "parroting" of a story that is not yet known.

However, Mrs Kennedy was talking to the press, so she was the original source as far as the press were concerned on the 10th.
But, the charge of "parroting" was not applied to Mrs Kennedy's story, only to the claims of hearing cries of "murder".

No, that obviously doesn't follow at all.

The reasoning follows as below:
First point - That I must be correct because author 'X' says so.
Second point - But the caveat is, author 'X' must be correct about everything.
Third point - Because, if author 'X' is wrong about anything then that weakens my First point.

You are therefore compelled to agree with all expressed opinions by this author. Best advise, refrain from quoting the opinions of authors.

[Wickerman]

No they were not both pursued. Only Astrachan was.

Galloway saw Blotchy on Whitechapel Rd in the early hours of Wednesday 14th November and reported the person to the PC who there and then told him that they where looking for someone else of another description i.e - Astrachan.

Absolutely, I was making allowances for this paragraph a full week after Hutchinson came forward:

"The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; but so far they remain without any direct clue. Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache. Others are disposed to think that the shabby man with a blotchy face and a carrotty moustache described by the witness Mary Ann Cox, is more likely to be the murderer."
Echo, 19 Nov.

So we can see Hutchinson was not dropped on or before the 15th, as the Star would have us believe.

(Did we ever source an instance of another Jew dressed like that on the roughest streets in the world? -- I think not).

Isaacs did dress "fancy", and he did live off Dorset St.

[Ben]

Once he caught Isaacs, and made the connection, he knew Hutchinson had not seen the killer after all.

As I've already explained, Jon, this is not even a possibility.

There was no connection between Isaacs and Astrakhan, and even if there was, and it was ascertained (somehow?) for certain that they were one and the same, there was no possible way for Abberline to "know" that Isaacstrakhan - who was last recorded as having been in the murder victim's room at 3.00am, shortly before a cry of murder was heard by more than one witness - was not the killer. Unless you can suggest a way?

Preferably on a more Isaacsy thread, though.

Nothing else official exists in print (which makes it legitimate), for the police to reason otherwise.

Actually, there are press reports indicating that the police considered the mutually supportive evidence of Prater and Lewis to be a rough indication of the time of death, whereas absolutely no evidence exists to support the contention that the police accepted Bond's time of death.

What possible reason could Abberline have for pursuing a sole suspect who appeared on the scene an hour or more after she was dead?

So you're now saying Abberline didn't believe Hutchinson? Or believed him but assumed he'd confused Kelly with someone else? Or...what?

Both Blotchy and Astrachan were being pursued through November, denial will not change history Ben.

Nor will writing things that are obviously wrong, as the first part of the above quoted sentence is.

Not according to the Calendar of Convictions for 1888 he wasn't, it does not list him before 12th Nov, Lloyds Weekly News, as I suggested, was in error.

This records convictions, not arrests or prison sentences, and without knowing when and where the alleged offense for coat-pinching occurred, I wouldn't rely on it to reveal who wasn't in prison in 1888.

That said, I wish you luck with your research, and I look forward to your findings. In the meantime, it might be an idea to veer off from Isaacs for the time being, as it takes us somewhat off-topic.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

That observation seems more applicable to Mrs Cox than Maurice Lewis. He was the morning witness, if you recall, the one who said he saw Kelly drinking "in the morning", not at night

He alleged to have seen her on three occasions; first at the Horn of Plenty between 10.00pm and 11.00pm on the Thursday night, then later emerging from her room at 8.00 the next morning, and finally, in the Britannia some time after 10.00am. The fact that his evidence contrasted so significantly with the police's failure to locate anyone else who had seen Kelly at any pub either on Thursday night or Friday morning would have been sufficient to exclude him from serious consideration as a witness. Whatever the reason for his absence from the inquest, it certainly wasn't because his evidence was considered too similar to Maxwell's.

Correct, they are not about to print stories they know to be false.

True, but it is very unlikely that all reporters were fully in the picture about which stories were genuine and which were false, especially not at that early stage. If there were women out there relaying parrotted versions of Prater's account to a reporter, we would certainly know about it. In reality, however, the "parrotting" only happened in Lewis's case.

The trouble with quoting authors Ben, is you are compelled to accept their theories.

No, that obviously doesn't follow at all.

Sugden's views on Klosowski (he never said he "believed" he was the ripper, by the way) have nothing at all to do with his recognition that Kennedy was, in all probability, a bogus witness who plagiarized Lewis's account.

All the best,
Ben

[Batman]

Both Blotchy and Astrachan were being pursued through November, denial will not change history Ben.

No they were not both pursued. Only Astrachan was.

Galloway saw Blotchy on Whitechapel Rd in the early hours of Wednesday 14th November and reported the person to the PC who there and then told him that they where looking for someone else of another description i.e - Astrachan.

That's just 5 days after MJK was murdered and only a few days if not hours before Hutchinson told his tall tale about a pantomine Jew with gold around his belly (Did we ever source an instance of another Jew dressed like that on the roughest streets in the world? -- I think not).

Blotchy was quite free to go about London as he pleased it seems. Never identified.

[Wickerman]

Not in the long run he didn’t, or else he would have made reference to it in his 1903 interview,....

As I think I pointed out previously, Abberline's belief in Hutchinson seeing the killer only lasted until the first week of December at the most. Once he caught Isaacs, and made the connection, he knew Hutchinson had not seen the killer after all.

Hutchinson’s discrediting had nothing to do with Bond’s suggested time of death for Kelly. There is no evidence that the police every supported a 1.00am time of death, let alone prioritized it to the exclusion of other eyewitness evidence, such as that offered by Prater and Lewis, who both claimed to have heard a cry of “murder” much later.

Nothing else official exists in print (which makes it legitimate), for the police to reason otherwise.
What possible reason could Abberline have for pursuing a sole suspect who appeared on the scene an hour or more after she was dead?

No, the “few paragraphs published in the press” observe that because Hutchinson’s suspect had been discarded, there only remained Cox’s evidence that might be considered of value.

Both Blotchy and Astrachan were being pursued through November, denial will not change history Ben.

If Isaacs (or anyone else for that matter) was positively identified as Astrakhan man, there was absolutely no way for anyone to “realise” that he wasn’t the killer. Why? Because the police had not a hope of hell of procuring an alibi for anyone who was last recorded as having been in Kelly’s room at 3.00am on the morning of her murder. And that’s without getting into the whole host of reasons for dismissing the possibility of Isaacs being Astrakhan, even the latter was a genuine entity (which he probably wasn’t).

Thief's and confidence trickster's don't cut people up Ben. They are more cowardly, avoid confrontation, which is why they gravitate to sneaking around and impersonating others.

Was Millen in prison at the time of the Kelly murder? – Isaacs was.

According to the best evidence, anyway.

Not according to the Calendar of Convictions for 1888 he wasn't, it does not list him before 12th Nov, Lloyds Weekly News, as I suggested, was in error.
Heads-up:
On this point I have hired a researcher to detail his convictions & depositions.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Apologies for ducking in and out of our discussions like this!

Hi Ben.

Thats ok, gives me time to get some lunch...

But then I explained why the Maurice Lewis comparison doesn’t work, here:

Maurice Lewis's evidence would have been drastically undermined by the revelation that no pubs had recalled seeing Kelly or serving her alcohol on the night of her death, if memory serves.

I did read this but I couldn't see your meaning. That observation seems more applicable to Mrs Cox than Maurice Lewis. He was the morning witness, if you recall, the one who said he saw Kelly drinking "in the morning", not at night.

The fact Lewis claims to have seen Kelly leaving, but returning with milk suggests to me the reporter confused the story. Either that or Lewis couldn't tell Mary Kelly from Mrs Maxwell, who was the one who actually returned with milk.

Yes, but we don’t have a single recorded instance of anyone parroting or plagiarising Prater’s account, ....

Correct, they are not about to print stories they know to be false.
This is why they tell us these other claims of "murder" are just repetition of Prater's genuine claim.

"One woman (as reported below) who lives in the court stated that at about two o'clock she heard a cry of "Murder." This story soon became popular, until at last half a dozen women were retailing it as their own personal experience."

Hence, they only refer to Prater, who is their primary source for this singular claim.

It should not, therefore, require a deductive genius to determine which of the two “oh murder” witnesses – Lewis or Prater – had her account copied by “half a dozen woman” (Kennedy among them). Philip Sugden certainly didn't struggle in that regard.

The trouble with quoting authors Ben, is you are compelled to accept their theories. If you are perfectly happy believing Geo. Chapman was the Ripper, then by all means tell me Sugden is the go-to guy for problem solving.

Otherwise, you are compelled to accept that even Phil could be wrong, therefore, why quote him?

[Ben]

“Now, Hutchinson tells this constable he saw Kelly about 2:00 am with a fancy looking fellow, the constable's response may well have been for him to run along to Commercial St. Stn. and tell the Duty Sergeant there. Besides, what use is a story about a 2:00 am sighting, if she was actually murdered seven hours later at 9:00 am?”

Of tremendous use, as it might still have been the last known sighting of Kelly with a suspect, unless there's some rule book I don't know about that says a man seen with the victim seven hours earlier than the accepted time of death can’t possibly be the murderer of that victim. Not that it’s remotely plausible than anyone with ordinary exposure to the emerging details of the murder would have come away with the impression that the minority-reported later time of death must be the correct one.

It would also take an exceptionally negligent policeman not have made a note of Hutchinson’s basic story, given the potential magnitude of what the latter was reporting , even if he did recommend a visit to the station. I wouldn't like to be that copper on the receiving end of Abberline's wrath if the latter somehow discovered that Hutchinson's account was already police knowledge. And if the negligent copper recommended that Hutchinson contact the "desk sergeant", why didn’t Hutchinson follow it up?

“An out of work labourer like Hutchinson could well have been humping crates, labouring, so he cannot just quit and go to the Station at that moment. Likely he would lose his job.
By the time the end of the day came, he is too tired to be bothered.
Is there anything unnatural about that?”

Well, let’s see…

The brutal mutilation murder of a three-year friend/acquaintance, the best description of perhaps the most wanted man in London’s history, the likelihood of the ripper’s trail growing cold if immediate action wasn’t taken…? Nah, a mug of hot cocoa, a game of darts with the boys and a good night’s sleep must come first for Hutch who – poor bloke - is just “too tired to be bothered” with such trifles. Totally “natural” behaviour…

“We don't know why he didn't go to the police sooner, but there is no shortage of legitimate reasons for the delay.”

But there is a severe shortage of legitimate reasons that would reasonably account for the fact that this “delay” only came to an end shortly after the inquest terminated, where Lewis’s evidence of an unidentified wideawake-wearing loiterer was publicly aired.

Cheers,
Ben

[Ben]

“He believed Hutchinson's story and consequently believed the man Hutchinson saw was the killer.”

Not in the long run he didn’t, or else he would have made reference to it in his 1903 interview, in which he discussed Klosowski’s compatibility with contemporary eyewitness accounts. He spoke of “P&O caps”, obviously in reference to Lawende (who, unlike Hutchinson, continued to be taken seriously as a potential ripper-spotter), as well as witnesses who had only seen their “suspects” from behind, but nothing of the man whose close-range front-on sighting was head and shoulders above all the others in terms of detail.

An odd omission if Abberline continued to think that Hutchinson had seen the ripper – irreconcilably odd, in fact.

“Hutchinson described a man about 34-35 yrs old, as Kozminski was only 23, that, is a problem.”

Well, that along with his hopeless incompatibility with the Astrakhan man description. Not that anyone’s suggesting that Kosminski was Astrakhan man (are they?).

Hutchinson’s discrediting had nothing to do with Bond’s suggested time of death for Kelly. There is no evidence that the police every supported a 1.00am time of death, let alone prioritized it to the exclusion of other eyewitness evidence, such as that offered by Prater and Lewis, who both claimed to have heard a cry of “murder” much later.

“However, because it was only an estimate, and quite possibly subject to a few caveats, it was deemed prudent to keep both Hutchinson's suspect AND Cox's suspect (Blotchy) as prime candidates for the time being.

Which is I think born out by a few paragraphs published in the press.”

No, the “few paragraphs published in the press” observe that because Hutchinson’s suspect had been discarded, there only remained Cox’s evidence that might be considered of value.

“We don't even know if the witness was Schwartz, but not using Hutchinson can be readily explained by the fact Abberline finally caught Joseph Isaacs in early December and realized this was the man seen by Hutchinson, and he was not the killer.”

Not even a remote possibility, I’m afraid.

If Isaacs (or anyone else for that matter) was positively identified as Astrakhan man, there was absolutely no way for anyone to “realise” that he wasn’t the killer. Why? Because the police had not a hope of hell of procuring an alibi for anyone who was last recorded as having been in Kelly’s room at 3.00am on the morning of her murder. And that’s without getting into the whole host of reasons for dismissing the possibility of Isaacs being Astrakhan, even the latter was a genuine entity (which he probably wasn’t).

“Did Millen own a imitation gold watch chain? - Isaacs did.
Was Millen Jewish? - Isaacs was.
Did Millen have cause to be in the area? - Isaacs did.”

Was Millen in prison at the time of the Kelly murder? – Isaacs was.

According to the best evidence, anyway.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Apologies for ducking in and out of our discussions like this!

“I can demonstrate my assertion with Morris Lewis (who was not called) and Mrs Maxwell (who was).”

But then I explained why the Maurice Lewis comparison doesn’t work, here:

Maurice Lewis's evidence would have been drastically undermined by the revelation that no pubs had recalled seeing Kelly or serving her alcohol on the night of her death, if memory serves. His evidence only supports Maxwell inasmuch as it indicates a later time of death than that provided by other witnesses. There is nowhere near the astonishing, highly suspicious degree of detail that we find between the Kennedy and Lewis accounts. Had there been any consideration that these two were two separate accounts from two separate woman - and the concept is truly risible in its improbability - police and coroner would have jumped at the chance to establish a sequence of events that was cemented by two witnesses who corroborate each other in virtually every particular.

“The one woman who lives in the court was Prater, her address was 20 Millers court.”

Yes, but we don’t have a single recorded instance of anyone parroting or plagiarising Prater’s account, whereas we do have a glaring instance of a story that was suspiciously near-identical to the one provided by Sarah Lewis – the other genuine witness to have reported a cry of “murder”. It should not, therefore, require a deductive genius to determine which of the two “oh murder” witnesses – Lewis or Prater – had her account copied by “half a dozen woman” (Kennedy among them). Philip Sugden certainly didn't struggle in that regard.

All the best,
Ben