A stout JtR?

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“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.”

The Star identified the phenomenon of “half a dozen” women copying an account involving a cry of “murder”. That doesn’t mean they were the only journalists to come into contact with these women; indeed, Mrs. Kennedy’s account appears in several other papers besides the Star. The fact that the Star merely clocked a trend would not have enabled them to gag these other woman or prevent them from talking to other journalists. My point being that if these “half a dozen” women were copying PRATER’S account, we’d see suspiciously Prater-esque accounts appearing in other papers. But we don’t get that. We only get suspiciously LEWIS-esque accounts.

“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.”.

Yes, exactly.

As I said, the Star only spotted the behaviour. They were not to know, at that stage, that Mrs. Kennedy was not the original source being plagiarized, but rather one of the plagiarizers herself.

“It is only the cry of "murder" that they say was repeated by several women”

Well, the woman obviously repeated more than that, otherwise it would just be, well, weird…wouldn’t it? Several women independently approaching the same journalist, saying ONLY that they heard a cry of murder before…what, running off with a giggle?

“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.”

I’m doesn't work remotely like that, Jon.

Try this instead:

First point: Regardless of whether I’m correct or not, someone else agrees with my interpretation.
Second point: I agree with author X about some things, and not about others. No problem at all
Third point: If author X is wrong about one thing, it certainly doesn’t follow that he must be wrong about everything.

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

Absolutely, but your claim, remember, was that it IS a foregone conclusion that Astrakhan was NOT the last to see her alive. Your suggestion was that Abberline was somehow in a position to identify Astrakhan man as Isaacs, and then somehow, by some miracle “realise” that he was not the killer of Kelly. I’m still waiting for you to explain how this can possibly work considering that a) uncertainty existed as to the correct time of death, and b) the fact that, if Hutchinson told the truth, Isaacstrakhan the non-ripper was still in Kelly’s room at 3.00am, extremely close to that very ambiguous time of death.

“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?”

Yes, but we don’t know where and we don’t know when. As Sally observed elsewhere, there is no mutual exclusivity between the Lloyds Weekly article and the LMA.

“How do we find this out Ben, we go to the official source.”

But we don’t have an official source as yet. This is what you said you were in the process of looking into, and which I'd hoped would obviate the need to argue in circles over. As matters currently stand, we have a press article with nothing to contradict it, and a perfectly logical explanation for the sudden loss of interest in Isaacs as a suspect – a sudden loss that would be extremely difficult to explain unless he had a concrete alibi for the Kelly murder, as the Lloyds Weekly article states. Good on you for looking into it, so why not wait and see what your researcher uncovers before jumping to conclusions?

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

I’m afraid “we” see nothing of the sort. You often quote that extract from the Echo, 19th November, but all it tells us is that "some" of the authorities continued to place “most reliance” on the Astrakhan description supplied by Hutchinson, evidently in spite of the fact that the statement had been “considerably discounted” (Echo, 14th November). What isn’t specified is just who amongst the authorities towed this line, and more importantly, how much influence their beliefs had on the direction of the investigation. My strong suspicion would be not much, considering that none of the senior police officials, such as Abberline, Anderson and Swanson, ultimately placed "most reliance” upon Hutchinson's description. Quite the reverse, in fact.

What you absolutely won’t find is a single instance of the police actively looking for Astrakhan types on the basis of Hutchinson’s description, at least not after mid-November. If any of the authorities continued to believe in Astrakhan man after mid-November, it could only have been an uninfluential minority, and it evidently had no effect on the actual direction of the investigation. Unless, of course, you have evidence to the contrary?

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

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.

Lewis was with another woman, by her own words.
So, who was that woman?

Lewis was the only version used by the Coroner, but that does not mean Kennedy was not the other woman, neither does it mean Kennedy was lying.
Lewis was not talking to the press, so the only original source the press were aware of on Saturday 10th, was Kennedy.

Manchester Courier
November 16, 1888

Hutchinson suspect is the only suspect being sought.

I don't have an issue with that, Ben might.

In fact, you can add these two to your list:

Yesterday the police were busily occupied in endeavouring to obtain a clue to the identity and movements of the man with whom the woman Kelly was last seen, and a detailed description of whom has been published.
Daily News, 15 Nov.

"The police are now to a great extent concentrating their efforts upon an endeavour to find a man so vividly described by George Hutchinson.."
Sheffield Independent, 16 Nov.

Press releases of this type only serve to demonstrate how false the claim is that Hutchinson was discredited, it is obviously not true.
That said, it is also true that we have no evidence the police curtailed their search for Blotchy either.

[Wickerman]

Well, the woman obviously repeated more than that, otherwise it would just be, well, weird…wouldn’t it? Several women independently approaching the same journalist, saying ONLY that they heard a cry of murder before…what, running off with a giggle?

Why weird?
That was all Prater heard. A solitary cry of "murder", if she can hear just that, why not others making the same claim?
2nd woman: "Oh, I heard it too, about 1 o'clock".
3rd woman: "I heard a scream about two thirty"
4th woman: "I heard a cry of murder about 3 o'clock."

Oh, forget it ladies, sorry I asked....

Absolutely, but your claim, remember, was that it IS a foregone conclusion that Astrakhan was NOT the last to see her alive. Your suggestion was that Abberline was somehow in a position to identify Astrakhan man as Isaacs, and then somehow, by some miracle “realise” that he was not the killer of Kelly. I’m still waiting for you to explain how this can possibly work considering that a) uncertainty existed as to the correct time of death, and b) the fact that, if Hutchinson told the truth, Isaacstrakhan the non-ripper was still in Kelly’s room at 3.00am, extremely close to that very ambiguous time of death.

Ok, but don't ask again, your getting it all at once

On Dec 7th Abberline questions Isaacs (Astrachan) about his movements on the night of Nov 8th/9th.
Isaacs tell him he was with Mary, but they left together, she went east and he went west, on Dorset St.
He doesn't know what time it was because he has no watch. (Isaacs wore an imitation gold watch chain, with no watch).
Isaacs says Mary went up to Commercial St., and he went down to Paternoster Row, back to his room.
To verify what time Isaacs came home that morning, Abberline interviews Mary Cusins, his landlady, and she says she heard him come in and "walk around his room all night".(Cusins said this to reporter)
(We don't know what time this was, but if it was just after 3:00 am, five or ten past three, then there is his alibi.)

- Hutchinson left Dorset St. about 3:00 am.
- Isaacs & Kelly leave Millers court about 3:00 am, just minutes after Hutchinson, but they go their separate ways. Kelly went to get some food (fish & chips?) with her earnings.
- Mrs Kennedy, arriving at the Britannia "about 3:00 am", see's Kelly standing with a strange man & a woman on the corner by the Britannia.
- Isaacs is back at his rooms just minutes after three o'clock.

What does Abberline charge him with Ben?
The cries of murder were only heard between 3:30 and 4:00 am., and the killer had to remain in the room mutilating the body for anywhere between 30 minutes to an hour after the cry of murder.

What does he charge him with?, tell me.

Yes, but we don’t know where and we don’t know when. As Sally observed elsewhere, there is no mutual exclusivity between the Lloyds Weekly article and the LMA.

Of course, but the article is not detailed enough to believe, and there is no reference. Where did they get this story from?
Mary Cusins already told the police Isaacs was in his room on the night in question. So, unless we can find a reliable source for him being in prison, I'm afraid Mary Cusins is the version to accept.

But we don’t have an official source as yet. This is what you said you were in the process of looking into, and which I'd hoped would obviate the need to argue in circles over.

As I said, Van Onselen has already looked, and there is no record of him before his case on the 12th at Barnet.
I feel obliged to verify this, and obtain photocopies of all convictions & depositions involving Joseph Isaacs.
I also have a list of papers which might contain details of his two arrests (Nov & Dec), but these are not digitized yet so I need to get them photocopied.
There's a host of prison records to delve into so hopefully later this year I will have something definite and we can close this issue once and for all.

[Batman]

That said, it is also true that we have no evidence the police curtailed their search for Blotchy either.

They stopped looking for him by the time Galloway pointed someone out that looked like him. A day or so after Hutchinson came forward.

The paper and date above says specifically they stopped looking for Blotchy (Manchester Courier - November 16, 1888).

Blotchy was never identified it seems, even though it looks like PC was able to identify him quite well and said he was a respected citizien working in conjunction with the police somehow. This tells me he was something like part of the WC Vig. committee and the only reason why he was 'cleared' was because he was respected by the locals in some way, i.e - not on the radar.

[Wickerman]

They stopped looking for him by the time Galloway pointed someone out that looked like him. A day or so after Hutchinson came forward.

The paper and date above says specifically they stopped looking for Blotchy (Manchester Courier - November 16, 1888).

Ah, ok I found it.
I think this article actually tells the reader something else.

"The police are working diligently upon the clue furnished by George Hutchinson. Judging from a communication made by Mr. Galloway, a clerk employed in the City and living at Stepney, no reliance is now placed upon the statement made by the woman Cox, and the detectives rely almost exclusively upon Hutchinson's description of the supposed murderer."

If you read the wording carefully (especially my bold) it tells you that the reporter is using the Galloway story to make an assumption about the direction of the Whitechapel murder enquiry.
This is one fine example of how the press created a story without any official input from the police, due to the fact the police continued to tell the press nothing.

So, to your point, I don't think this sentence indicates an official police position, it is only a reporters conclusion based on Mr Galloway's story.

If you read this paragraph below, it details the division between the suspicions of the City police as opposed to the suspicions of the Met. (Scotland Yard).
Two suspects were being sought.

"It is, however, noteworthy that there were two descriptions given of the suspected Mitre-square and Hanbury-street murderers which agree in some respect with that furnished by the witness Cox of the man seen in Kelly's company on Thursday night. About ten minutes before the body of Catherine Eddowes was found in Mitre-square, a man about thirty years of age, of fair complexion, and with a fair moustache, was said to have been seen talking to her in the covered passage leading to the square. On the morning of the Hanbury-street murder a suspicious-looking man entered a public-house in the neighbourhood. He was of shabby genteel appearance, and had a sandy moustache. The first of these descriptions was given by two persons who were in the orange market, and closely observed the man. The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox. The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement. The descriptions of the dark foreign-looking man mentioned in connection with the previous crimes are, however, as we say, in the description of the man seen with the victim on the morning of the 9th. "
Echo, 13 Nov. 1888.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“That was all Prater heard. A solitary cry of "murder", if she can hear just that, why not others making the same claim?”

Yes, but a whole story accompanied the account (as one would only reasonably expect), didn’t it? Prater didn’t simply approach the witness stand at the inquest, exclaim “I heard a cry of murder”, then sit down again, and nor would any sane reporter expect or tolerate such mysterious brevity. If other women then started “echoing” her, and claiming that they too had heard such a cry, it would have been a case of “Really? You too? Well, off you go then – let’s hear your story…expand”.

“On Dec 7th Abberline questions Isaacs (Astrachan) about his movements on the night of Nov 8th/9th.
Isaacs tell him he was with Mary, but they left together, she went east and he went west, on Dorset St.
He doesn't know what time it was because he has no watch. (Isaacs wore an imitation gold watch chain, with no watch).
Isaacs says Mary went up to Commercial St., and he went down to Paternoster Row, back to his room.
To verify what time Isaacs came home that morning, Abberline interviews Mary Cusins, his landlady, and she says she heard him come in and "walk around his room all night".(Cusins said this to reporter)
(We don't know what time this was, but if it was just after 3:00 am, five or ten past three, then there is his alibi.)”

‘Kinell, Jon!

Top marks for creativity, at least.

Just to clarify, is this a strictly “what if” scenario in response to my specific query, or does the above reflect what you actually think happened?

Well, a few tiny problems jump out at me immediately. Firstly, and as we’ve already discussed, there was considerable uncertainty as to the correct time of death. You even singled out Abberline as having been in a "dilemma" owing to the various different times of death suggested, and yet you fascinatingly now claim that anyone who arrived back home to Paternoster Row shortly after 3.00am (according to whose watch?), therefore has an “alibi” for a murder that might have been committed half an hour later.

That’s just not credible.

You’ve gone from Abberline harbouring doubts over the likely time of death – owing to the disparity of evidence – to an utter conviction that she must have been killed when the cry of “murder” occurred.

It would only require one party (or both) to be slightly out with their recollection of the time for an “alibi” to be considered valueless. To make matters worse, there is no evidence that Cusins heard this alleged “pacing the floor” as late as 3.00am (in this non-visual and thus unreliable piece of “evidence”).

- Hutchinson left Dorset St. about 3:00 am.
- Isaacs & Kelly leave Millers court about 3:00 am, just minutes after Hutchinson, but they go their separate ways. Kelly went to get some food (fish & chips?) with her earnings.
- Mrs Kennedy, arriving at the Britannia "about 3:00 am", see's Kelly standing with a strange man & a woman on the corner by the Britannia.
- Isaacs is back at his rooms just minutes after three o'clock.

This is decidedly wacky stuff, Jon, if you don’t mind my saying.

I’m not suggesting Abberline would be in a position to “charge” him (in your extraordinary new scenario), but Isaacs would at the very least be been propelled to the very top of the suspects list and placed under surveillance. In reality, though, that wasn’t what happened. In reality, he got completely dropped from consideration as a potential suspect, and the last we hear of him is on the 23rd December when we learn that this was due to the discovery of a prison alibi for the murder. It’s not nearly as exciting as “suspect with the victim right up until the moment before she was killed, but leaves her at the last minute and grabs himself an alibi, whereupon the victim quickly leaves and finds someone else who then kills her” (which would almost certainly have found its way into the papers, had it been true), but it is by far the simplest and most logical explanation.

The prison alibi was evidently discovered very early on, because even on 7th December it was reported that the police were not considering him in connection with the “mutilations”, but wondered if he might be in the frame for the attack on Annie Farmer.

“Of course, but the article is not detailed enough to believe, and there is no reference.”

It doesn’t need to be “detailed” to be “believable”. Remember that this article was published for the general public, not sceptical Jon 123 years later. It was no skin of their noses (or the police’s) if the claim wasn’t believed. It’s doubtful that the police even bothered to reveal their sources; indeed, it was generous of them even to reveal the reason for their sudden loss of interest in Isaacs.

Again, best of luck with your research into this, but that might have to be it for Isaacs on this thread, unless you have evidence that he was a "stout jtr"?

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“Lewis was the only version used by the Coroner, but that does not mean Kennedy was not the other woman, neither does it mean Kennedy was lying.”

Yes, it does.

Yes, it certainly does.

Or else we’re left with an utterly ludicrous scenario in which Lewis and Kennedy experience implausibly near-identical experiences on both the Wednesday AND the Friday, neither one mentioning the other in their respective accounts, and one of them not even being called to the inquest despite claiming to have seen the actual victim at 3.00am!

“In fact, you can add these two to your list:

Yesterday the police were busily occupied in endeavouring to obtain a clue to the identity and movements of the man with whom the woman Kelly was last seen, and a detailed description of whom has been published.
Daily News, 15 Nov.

"The police are now to a great extent concentrating their efforts upon an endeavour to find a man so vividly described by George Hutchinson.."
Sheffield Independent, 16 Nov.”

No, you expunge those two from the “list” – the empty list, that is.

The 15th November was still relatively early in terms of widespread knowledge of Hutchinson’s discrediting, and the Daily News – notorious for their sloppy misreporting of details of the Kelly murder – evidently had yet to catch up. The 16th was later still, but then the Sheffield Independent weren’t exactly on site, and were compelled to rely on the (often delayed) reports from press agencies.

I notice that confusion still reigns over the Gallloway sighting. The policeman’s remark to Galloway had nothing to do with any fictional prioritization of Hutchinson’s account over Cox’s. The remark was made purely to put Galloway off the scent of the man who he thought resembled Blotchy, but who was in fact an undercover police officer. The policeman, being fully aware of this, did not want his colleague’s (boss’s?) cover blown, and so he fobbed Galloway off with a bogus excuse for not following the man. In reality, of course, the police were very much in pursuit of the REAL Blotchy man described by Mrs. Cox.

This episode had nothing at all to do with Hutchinson or the Astrakhan description.

“If you read this paragraph below, it details the division between the suspicions of the City police as opposed to the suspicions of the Met. (Scotland Yard).
Two suspects were being sought.”

Yep, two suspects:

The Metropolitan Police were in pursuit of the Blotchy suspect, according to the Echo article you provided, with the City Police hunting the Mitre Square suspect described by Lawende – according to the same article.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
Yes, but a whole story accompanied the account (as one would only reasonably expect), didn’t it? Prater didn’t simply approach the witness stand at the inquest, exclaim “I heard a cry of murder”, then sit down again, and nor would any sane reporter expect or tolerate such mysterious brevity.

What are you suggesting Ben, that every version should include "the cat woke me up and I brushed it off and heard the cry of murder"?
Are you serious?
There is no accompanying story, it is quite simply that several women claimed to hear the cry of murder (nothing else), but designated different times to it.

Just to clarify, is this a strictly “what if” scenario in response to my specific query, or does the above reflect what you actually think happened?

Pure speculation, simply to demonstrate that although Abberline was led to believe Astrachan was the last to see Kelly alive, he does not have sufficient cause to charge him with murder - IF, Mary Cusins had given him that alibi.

Well, a few tiny problems jump out at me immediately. Firstly, and as we’ve already discussed, there was considerable uncertainty as to the correct time of death.

Excuse me for bringing this up, but I recall you insisting in the past that the police did have a reliable source that the murder occurred after 3 o'clock, you often quote this passage:
" Dr. Phillips's evidence, together with that of Mary Ann Cox, Elizabeth Prater, and others, proves that the murder was committed

SHORTLY AFTER THREE O'CLOCK"

Star, 13 Nov.

Are you backing away from that belief now?

You even singled out Abberline as having been in a "dilemma" owing to the various different times of death suggested, and yet you fascinatingly now claim that anyone who arrived back home to Paternoster Row shortly after 3.00am (according to whose watch?), therefore has an “alibi” for a murder that might have been committed half an hour later.

Absolutely, his alibi rests purely on the word of Mary Cusins (in this scenario), and without evidence to the contrary Abberline cannot charge him with murder.

Besides, if you recall, in December Astrachan/Isaacs was being held on remand for a charge of theft, so he wasn't going anywhere. Abberline asked him if he wanted to plead guilty to the charge, which he did, and subsequently Isaacs was no longer "of no fixed abode" at least for the next three months.
So Abberline knew where to find him should anything new turn up in the case.

It would only require one party (or both) to be slightly out with their recollection of the time for an “alibi” to be considered valueless.

I included Kennedy for your benefit
I assumed it is only to be expected that any scenario I envisage which gets Isaacs off the hook must include the statement by Kennedy, as you know I see no fault with her story.
I can hardly offer you a scenario that conflicts with Kennedy's story, that wouldn't be correct on my part.
Even if Mrs Kennedy showed up at 5 minutes past three, it is still workable.

However, looking at it from your perspective, that Kennedy was lying(?), this scenario works quite well too.
Hutchinson leaves about 3:00 am, the first cry of murder is heard after 3:30 am, so Isaacs has the best part of a half hour (3:00-3:30) to emerge from Millers Court and walk home down the street, still arriving before the screaming starts.

I’m not suggesting Abberline would be in a position to “charge” him ....

Really?
This is what you wrote:
"...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...."

You challenged me to come up with a scenario, and I did.

..... but Isaacs would at the very least be been propelled to the very top of the suspects list and placed under surveillance.

Ben!!! ....he was under surveillance.
Isaacs is in prison for the next three months - does that qualify as surveillance?

The prison alibi was evidently discovered very early on, because even on 7th December it was reported that the police were not considering him in connection with the “mutilations”, but wondered if he might be in the frame for the attack on Annie Farmer.

Exactly, and it is in that story where we read that he couldn't be responsible for that assault because he was in prison at the time.
Change "assault" to "murder", and you have your error.

On the other hand, there was a Joseph Isaacs in prison on Nov 9th for stealing a coat, but it wasn't THIS Joseph Isaacs. The one in prison was 42 years old, and this happened in 1887, not 1888.
Oops, perhaps the Weekly News reporter got wind of the wrong Joseph Isaacs

Seriously though, your belief in that Weekly News story requires a believable source (suspiciously absent), mistakes in news stories are a common occurrence. As you know, a good number of erroneous stories provide no sources. This is just another example of sloppy journalism.

[Batman]

I am not sure I buy the idea that the PC was protecting 'Blotchy' because he was a fellow officer undercover who might have his cover blown, because the person was doing a damn fine job of blowing it themselves by assaulting women in public and drawing attention to themself as per Galloway.

What is more likely is that this was a well known person to the police and part of some organized crime-fighting like the Vig. Comittee. That it was the 'well known' and 'liked' factors which excluded him from the PC's mind as well as the alternative JtR immigrant jew description. Basically could have been a person like Bundy (Republican party clerk) or John Wayne Gacy (very respectable 'mayor' type personality known to politicians and police alike for good things). Like 'no way' could it be him...

... but usually is.

Even if he was police doesn't mean he wasn't JtR.

So either Blotchy was never found or... this is Blotchy and no one cares.

--

As for Blotchy being looked for as well as Hutchinson's person of interest, I tend to think from the news articles that Blotchy was no longer considered the suspect of choice and Hutchinson's lasted a little while until obviously Swanson decided it to pursue his insane jew hypothesis with Abberline slowly vanishing from the picture only to put his chips in with Chapman.

[Wickerman]

As for Blotchy being looked for as well as Hutchinson's person of interest, I tend to think from the news articles that Blotchy was no longer considered the suspect of choice and Hutchinson's lasted a little while ....

Another one to add to your list, and this one deals with two issues of yours.
- An aristocrat not frightened to walk around Whitechapel in his Sunday best.
- A man arrested for wearing this particular coat, and not for being of Jewish appearance.



Because of this coat, he was detained until he gave a satisfactory and detailed account of his recent movements.
And this, on Nov. 27th, a full 2 weeks after Hutchinson gave his suspect description to police.

[Batman]

Another one to add to your list, and this one deals with two issues of yours.
- An aristocrat not frightened to walk around Whitechapel in his Sunday best.
- A man arrested for wearing this particular coat, and not for being of Jewish appearance.

Because of this coat, he was detained until he gave a satisfactory and detailed account of his recent movements.
And this, on Nov. 27th, a full 2 weeks after Hutchinson gave his suspect description to police.

Amazing how a shooting coat and a slouch hat becomes Astrachan a week after the story broke. He was approaching women not just wearing what he did.

[RockySullivan]

Another one to add to your list, and this one deals with two issues of yours.
- An aristocrat not frightened to walk around Whitechapel in his Sunday best.
- A man arrested for wearing this particular coat, and not for being of Jewish appearance.



Because of this coat, he was detained until he gave a satisfactory and detailed account of his recent movements.
And this, on Nov. 27th, a full 2 weeks after Hutchinson gave his suspect description to police.

Thanks wickerman, another one for guts poi list

[Ben]

There is no accompanying story, it is quite simply that several women claimed to hear the cry of murder (nothing else), but designated different times to it.

No it isn't, Jon.

It wasn't "simply" a case of several other woman saying that they had also heard a cry. The specific charge was that the women in question were retailing an existing account as their own experience, which is quite different, and obviously implies that the woman responsible for this "retailing" had listened to a full account involving - not restricted to - a cry of murder, and were seeking to emulate that. Financial gain is what typically motivates such people, and they wouldn't have had the slightest hope of achieving that if they simply lied about hearing such a cry (and nothing else?!) before running away into a lodging house.

Pure speculation, simply to demonstrate that although Abberline was led to believe Astrachan was the last to see Kelly alive, he does not have sufficient cause to charge him with murder - IF, Mary Cusins had given him that alibi.

...Which she couldn't possibly have done, as I've already demonstrated. It isn't possible for anyone still in Kelly's room at 3.00am on the morning of her murder to have an alibi. Even if your scenario was feasible, Isaacs would have been the permanent prime suspect, which obviously didn't happen.

Excuse me for bringing this up, but I recall you insisting in the past that the police did have a reliable source that the murder occurred after 3 o'clock, you often quote this passage

Indeed, and I continue to rely on the source as the best indication we have of the contemporary police opinion on the likely time of death. You'll note that the article gives the time at "shortly after three o'clock", which doesn't work very well with your "purely speculative" alibi for Isaacs provided by Mary Cusins (occurring at around that time, according to you). He could easily have stumbled into Paternoster Court "shortly after three o'clock" and "paced the floor" of his room, having already committed the murder.

“So Abberline knew where to find him should anything new turn up in the case.”

Yep, and in the meantime – in your scenario – Isaacs was the hottest suspect by many long sea miles. Except, In real life, that wasn’t what happened, and Isaacs was simply dropped from consideration, first as a contender for the “mutilations”, and subsequently as Annie Farmer’s possible attacker – his thieving ways evidently providing alibis (proper ones) in both cases.

“However, looking at it from your perspective, that Kennedy was lying(?), this scenario works quite well too.
Hutchinson leaves about 3:00 am, the first cry of murder is heard after 3:30 am, so Isaacs has the best part of a half hour (3:00-3:30) to emerge from Millers Court and walk home down the street, still arriving before the screaming starts.”

But the above scenario only “works well” if the police were silly enough to accept that all witnesses must have been 100% reliable in their estimation of the time, which they probably weren’t. The Millers’ Court witnesses were very vague in their recollection of the time at which the “murder” cries were heard. Who’s to rule out the possibility of the cry being before 3:30am? And who’s to rule out the possibility of Mary Cusins being wrong in her estimate of the time (not that Cusins actually supplied any specific time)...?

“You challenged me to come up with a scenario, and I did.”

I challenged you to “come up with a scenario” in which Isaacs is identified as Astrakhan, and then proved innocent of Kelly’s murder. The scenario you came up with fell very short of being remotely convincing, although I am reassured to learn that it was “pure speculation”.

“Exactly, and it is in that story where we read that he couldn't be responsible for that assault because he was in prison at the time.
Change "assault" to "murder", and you have your error.”

Your error, you mean.

I don’t believe that any error occurred.

I instead accept the extant evidence which points to Isaacs serving two prison sentences; one for stealing a coat, and the other for stealing a watch. I wouldn’t be unduly confident that the supposedly older coat-stealer from 1887 was a different Joseph Isaacs. The calendars can be many years out on dates, and as I’ve also explained, they only record convictions, not commencements and terminations of prison sentences.

“This is just another example of sloppy journalism.”

But you’ve provided no evidence of sloppy journalism on the part of Lloyds Weekly; just a hope that their report might be wrong.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

... The scenario you came up with fell very short of being remotely convincing, although I am reassured to learn that it was “pure speculation”.

And yet, you attempt to replicate my suggestion on another thread in order to clear Blotchy of suspicion.
Replication is the sincerest form of flattery.

The calendars can be many years out on dates, and as I’ve also explained, they only record convictions, not commencements and terminations of prison sentences.

Ah, his age can be a couple of years out at the most, but the incident occurred in 1887, not 1888.
Separate catalogue, already filed and closed.

But you’ve provided no evidence of sloppy journalism on the part of Lloyds Weekly; just a hope that their report might be wrong.

The vague, unreferenced article, is the best example of sloppy journalism.
Whereas the only two court cases in 1888 concerning Isaacs, the first at Barnet on 12th Nov., and then at the Worship St. court on the 14th Dec., are correct, and confirmed by official records.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Another one to add to your list, and this one deals with two issues of yours.
- An aristocrat not frightened to walk around Whitechapel in his Sunday best.
- A man arrested for wearing this particular coat, and not for being of Jewish appearance.

More specifically, Jon, this episode illustrates:

- What an aristocrat might expect to happen if he's silly enough to walk around Whitechapel at night in his Sunday best at the height of the ripper scare.

- That the Echo considered it "incomprehensible" that an arrest was made on the basis of a coat described in a discredited account. Evidently, these particular coppers didn't get the memo. If Astrakhan men were still being sought as potential ripper suspects at that stage (which they weren't), the arrest would not have been "incomprehensible", but "perfectly understandable".

And yet, you attempt to replicate my suggestion on another thread in order to clear Blotchy of suspicion.

Blotchy was sighted at 11.45pm, giving him ample time to procure an alibi, whereas Astrakhan was last recorded as having been in Kelly's room at 3.00am, rendering alibi-procuring difficult if not impossible.

Ah, his age can be a couple of years out at the most

No, it can be out by a lot more than that, actually.

Do we have any idea when the term of imprisonment for stealing a coat occurred?

The vague, unreferenced article, is the best example of sloppy journalism

Absolutely not, Jon.

It was probably all the information the police were willing to supply, which was already pretty generous. Can you imagine how heartily the detectives would have laughed had Lloyds demanded that they reveal their proof of Isaacs's imprisonment? Why would the police care if Lloyds didn't believe them? And why would the latter be sceptical, anyway? It was simply a report of the latest unsensational development. "It wasn't this bloke either" - the piece is essentially saying, not "let's assuage Jon's doubts". Nobody at the time thought: hang on, hadn't we better provide our sources just in case someone out there has a special ripper theory which relies on Isaacs not being in prison at the time? Shockingly, enough...

All the best,
Ben