View Single Post
Old 08-16-2018, 05:37 PM
Ben Ben is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,843

The fact Abberline was reported as being excited at the Dec. 6th arrest of the Astrachan look-alike (Isaacs), shows he still held Hutchinson's story in high regard.
There is no evidence that Isaacs even vaguely resembled Astrakhan, nor is there the slightest hint that Abberline was interested in Isaacs for that reason (always assuming he was “interested” in him at all, and that the “keep this quiet!! We’ve found the ripper at last!!” quote attributed to him in the press wasn’t a vast mound of steaming fictitious cow dung, as it so obviously was).

As they are still investigating it 4 days later
The evidence for which is...?

We’re still waiting.

A story may be “discredited” without being proven false. I have never claimed that Hutchinson was “proved” a liar; only that he was suspected of having lied. If this distinction isn’t “so obvious it doesn't need explaining” I don’t know what is. What was “bogus” about the Star’s report that Hutchinson had been discredited? What possible motive are you ascribing to them for falsely devaluing the account, bearing in mind the same newspaper had enthusiastically published it the previous morning?

The report also groups three previous suspects as in keeping with the Astrachan suspect, namely, the report suggests - the Berner-street suspect, the Hanbury-street suspect, & a Bucks Row suspect.
In what respect are any of those suspects “in keeping” with Astrakhan man?

Yet that flies in contradiction with the story given by Galloway on the 16th, where a Met. constable indicates he is looking for, "a man of a very different appearance", meaning Astrachan.
No, NOT meaning Astrakhan.

We’ve been over this a million times. The man observed by Galloway was “working in concert with the police”, and the policeman he encountered simply fobbed him off. Not to be misconstrued as evidence supporting a continued hunt for Astrakhan man.

Maybe you should be aware that the story published by the Echo on the evening of the 13th, was a copy of an article first published in the morning press.
Where’s your evidence that any “copying” occurred, as opposed to two different newspapers independently obtaining their information from the same source? The Echo had no reason to “copy” any other paper when they were in direct and proven communication with the police.

Another reason the Echo were in possession of details unavailable to their “morning contemporaries” was simple chronology - the “later investigations” that had so drastically reduced Hutchinson’s credibility had not yet occurred, or at least were not known about, by the time the morning newspapers went to print early on the 13th; whereas the Echo, being an evening paper, were able to report on events and decisions that had occurred throughout that day.

The only “tampering” here is being done by you, erroneously and baselessly claiming that the Echo reworded an article from a morning paper, whereas in fact they were reporting on an entirely separate issue - one that was totally unknown to the “Morning Post” in the morning of 13th November. It all boils down to your annoyance that the Echo article doesn’t support your conclusion regarding the ultimate treatment of Hutchinson.

That annoyance evidently extends to the inquest evidence, and its conspicuous absence of your favourite “well-dressed” suspect, which is why you’re compelled to invent and conjure up a whole load of mythical Astrakhan-spotters, insisting (without a shred of evidence) that it was they who comprised the 53 statement-providers alluded to in the Echo, and that they were all “slated to appear” at a phantom “second sitting”.

The far more logical explanation, however, is that the vast majority of these 53 “witnesses” provided neither valuable information to the investigation nor any insight into Kelly’s final movements, and were filtered out prior to the opening of the inquest.

Last edited by Ben : 08-16-2018 at 05:41 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote