PC did not pass Dorset St. in his beat

[Varqm]

As this is used to argue astrakhan was still a suspect.

Daily News
United Kingdom
8 December 1888

Joseph Isaacs.

-- This is the reason the police was after him.

"on the house to house inspection gave information to the police"... Mary Cusins:

"she remembered that on the night of the murder she heard the prisoner walking about his room"

-- Reporter's opinion not the reason police was after Isaacs:

"After her statement a look out was kept for the prisoner, whose appearance certainly answered the published description of
a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat."

[Wickerman]

The couple up the street as seen by Lewis was at 2:30 am ,Hutch still had to do his 45 minutes wait and "They stood at the corner of Miller's-court for about three minutes",so he must have left at 3:15 am but he said he left at 3:00 am at least in Times (London) Wednesday, 14 November 1888 and Pall Mall Gazette 14 November 1888.

Be careful about this reference to "2:30". If you notice in her court record she says she was at the Keylers, at 2:30. Not in the street.
"I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning".

The Daily Telegraph provides a little more detail.
".....went to her house at 2, Miller's-court, at 2.30a.m. on Friday. It is the first house. I noticed the time by the Spitalfields' Church clock."

The reporter for the Echo understood her to say:
"On Friday morning witness was at No. 2 Room, Miller's-court, at half-past two o'clock."

The Daily News reported the same detail:
"and went to see her on Friday morning at 2.30 o'clock by Spitalfields Church clock."

The St. James Gazette reported the same:
"she was at No 2 Room, Miller's court, at half past two o'clock on Friday morning."

You will notice the various accounts suggest Lewis was at the Keyler's when the clock struck 2:30, she does not say how long she had been there, two minutes, five, ten?
These accounts do not say she arrived there at 2:30, but when the clock struck the half hour she was at the Keyler's..

We do not know when Hutchinson began his vigil. He does say it was "about 2:00" when he was at Thrawl Street and first met Kelly.
He also says his vigil lasted "about 45 minutes".
The only firm time he provides us with is the clock striking 3:00 when he left.

Any time we see "about" we can allow some flexibility of several minutes either way. So all we can determine from this is that Lewis saw this couple some time, minutes, before she arrived at the Keylers, but we don't know what time she arrived.
The clock struck 2:30 sometime after she arrived.

[Wickerman]

But these witnesses had something to offer,albeit in other inquests,Emma Green,Alfred Ma(u)lshaw-Nichols, George Clapp,Richard Pearce - Eddowes.

Every Coroner conducts his inquests in his own way. If Macdonald had been the coroner in those previous inquests then you may have a point, but as he was not, then there is no point in claiming that Macdonald must conduct his inquests in the same way as previous coroners.

"When I left the corner of Miller's court the clock struck three. One policeman went by the Commercial street end of
Dorset street while I was standing there"

And did'nt the PC have to go in/through Dorset St.instead of seeing him pass by commercial St.?

No, whoever that constable was, we do not know if Dorset street was part of his beat. He may have only walked straight passed the end of Dorset street keeping to Commercial street.
Millers Court is about 120+ feet down Dorset street from the Commercial street end, so it is unlikely the constable could have seen anything of note so far away in the dark.

[Wickerman]

As this is used to argue astrakhan was still a suspect.

Daily News
United Kingdom
8 December 1888

Joseph Isaacs.

-- This is the reason the police was after him.

"on the house to house inspection gave information to the police"... Mary Cusins:

"she remembered that on the night of the murder she heard the prisoner walking about his room"

-- Reporter's opinion not the reason police was after Isaacs:

"After her statement a look out was kept for the prisoner, whose appearance certainly answered the published description of
a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat."

It isn't that quote, but one published on the day before (on the 7th Dec.).

When Isaacs was arrested on the 6th, Abberline was quoted as saying:
"Keep this quiet; we have got the right man at last. This is a big thing.”

Because Isaacs fit the description given by Hutchinson it is evident that as far as Dec. 6th, Abberline still believed in Hutchinson.

But even before then, the Echo had reported on Nov. 19th, that the Hutchinson suspect was still being looked for.

"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."

These reports demonstrate that the claim by the Star on the 15th Nov., that Hutchinson had been discredited was false. Yet many today choose to believe the claim by the Star, and ignore the evidence that shows it was not true.

Such is the desperate state of the arguments against Hutchinson, all derived from false claims and inaccurate theories.

Abberline believed Hutchinson, he said so in writing. This belief never changed. In fact it may have even contributed to Abberline's later belief in George Chapman being the killer, because he resembled the description given by Hutchinson.

The importance of the constable in this case is due to an apparent need to find some justification for Abberline believing in Hutchinson's story. But the constable referred to by Hutchinson may have seen nothing at all.

[Sam Flynn]

When Isaacs was arrested on the 6th, Abberline was quoted as saying:
"Keep this quiet; we have got the right man at last. This is a big thing.”

Abberline wasn't quoted (as if in an interview or a formal press statement), but was reputed to have said it to another officer, according to one report in a provincial newspaper, the Northern Daily Press. The precise source of this information was not identified, as far as I'm aware, but it's strange that it never appeared in the London press, even though they, too, covered Isaacs' arrest, and obviously had more "skin in the game" when it came to the Ripper case. You'd have thought they'd have pounced on this nugget, if true.

[Sam Flynn]

These reports demonstrate that the claim by the Star on the 15th Nov., that Hutchinson had been discredited was false.

To be precise, the Star says that Hutchinson's story was discredited, not Hutchinson the man. It's an important point to bear in mind, as is the fact that to "discredit" can also mean to "not believe"; it needn't mean the trashing of a reputation, which is the primary sense in which the expression is used today.

On another tack, nowhere is it stated that the Star's claim was false. Subsequent reports might cast doubt on the Star's claim, but that's not the same as "demonstrating" that the claim was downright untrue, or even mistaken. On the contrary, it could well be that opinion was divided on Hutchinson's description, and there is some evidence that suggests that this may have been the case. That being so, what the Star said would have been perfectly true to those who found themselves in the "non-believing" camp.

Equally, it would be wrong to claim that Hutchinson's story was universally discredited; clearly, there were others who continued to believe it, Abberline perhaps among them. The only fair conclusion one can draw from all this is that the jury, then as now, is very much out when it comes to the reliability of Hutchinson's story. It is by no means as cut and dried as some might think.

[Wickerman]

Abberline wasn't quoted (as if in an interview or a formal press statement), but was reputed to have said it to another officer, according to one report in a provincial newspaper, the Northern Daily Press. The precise source of this information was not identified, as far as I'm aware, but it's strange that it never appeared in the London press, even though they, too, covered Isaacs' arrest, and obviously had more "skin in the game" when it came to the Ripper case. You'd have thought they'd have pounced on this nugget, if true.

It's a fine line between reporting a quote delivered second-hand, or first-hand. A quote is still a quote, if it is not a quote then it should be paraphrase, which it isn't in this case. So, even a second-hand quote is still a quote.

"It is further stated that 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.” "
Northern Daily Telegraph, 7 Dec. 1888.

Is it true?, well that's another question.

[Sam Flynn]

It's a fine line between reporting a quote delivered second-hand, or first-hand. A quote is still a quote, if it is not a quote then it should be paraphrase, which it isn't in this case. So, even a second-hand quote is still a quote.

But it's not a quote from Abberline. It's a quote from the unnamed "subordinate" mentioned in the article, maybe, or it's a quote from the unnamed person who heard about it. I'd observe that the very choice of words "the inspector was heard to say" practically defines this as hearsay, rather than a quote as such.

It might be true, of course, and maybe this item of hearsay has preserved precisely what Abberline said. If so, I reiterate my puzzlement that this wasn't seized upon by any newspaper other than the Northern Daily Telegraph, which was based in far-away Blackburn, Lancashire.

[Wickerman]

To be precise, the Star says that Hutchinson's story was discredited, not Hutchinson the man. It's an important point to bear in mind, as is the fact that to "discredit" can also mean to "not believe"; it needn't mean the trashing of a reputation, which is the primary sense in which the expression is used today.

On another tack, nowhere is it stated that the Star's claim was false. Subsequent reports might cast doubt on the Star's claim, but that's not the same as "demonstrating" that the claim was downright untrue, or even mistaken. On the contrary, it could well be that opinion was divided on Hutchinson's description, and there is some evidence that suggests that this may have been the case. That being so, what the Star said would have been perfectly true to those who found themselves in the "non-believing" camp.

Equally, it would be wrong to claim that Hutchinson's story was universally discredited; clearly, there were others who continued to believe it, Abberline perhaps among them. The only fair conclusion one can draw from all this is that the jury, then as now, is very much out when it comes to the reliability of Hutchinson's story. It is by no means as cut and dried as some might think.

The situation as described on the 19th by the Echo, had not changed from their report on the 13th, that police opinion was unsure as to a particular suspect. Both accounts suggest that Blotchy and Astrachan were the principal suspects, which suggests the Met. which includes Scotland Yard, was divided.

Also, we read that there was division between the City police, who favored a more 'well-dressed' suspect, as opposed to those Met. colleagues who were looking for Blotchy.
Because of these differing divisions among authorities it could be seen by the press that if some detectives are looking for a rough-looking suspect (Blotchy), then perhaps there is some reservation about the story Hutchinson told them.
This does not suggest Abberline had changed his mind. Abberline was not the only detective on the case.

That is probably closer to the truth, in my opinion, which equally shows that Hutchinson's story was not discredited.
Something needs to be shown to be faulty, wrong, or untrue for it to be regarded as 'discredited'.

The Star just exaggerated the situation, as they have in many other contentious articles they were known to have published.

No police department is going to pursue inquiries towards a particular suspect if the story which implicates him is found to be wrong, or untrue.
The contention published by the Star is just rubbish.

[Sam Flynn]

The situation as described on the 19th by the Echo, had not changed from their report on the 13th, that police opinion was unsure as to a particular suspect. Both accounts suggest that Blotchy and Astrachan were the principal suspects, which suggests the Met. which includes Scotland Yard, was divided.

Ergo, what the Star said, exaggerated or not, was true up to a point. If opinions were divided, it follows that Hutchinson's statement was "discredited" by some officials, but not all. Given that there were some officials who "discredited" Hutchinson's statement, then what the Star said was at least partly true.

[Wickerman]

Ergo, what the Star said, exaggerated or not, was true up to a point. If opinions were divided, it follows that Hutchinson's statement was "discredited" by some officials, but not all. Given that there were some officials who "discredited" Hutchinson's statement, then what the Star said was at least partly true.

When the police are in a position of receiving information towards two particular suspects, neither of which has been proven to be faulty, they will pursue both suspects.
The expectation being that sooner or later information will be uncovered that proves one of the stories is wrong, leaving them with the true suspect.
This is the situation we seem to have in the second week of November, the police are interested in two suspects.

On the one hand, internally, the Met. had received a medical estimate (from Bond), concerning Kelly's time of death aimed at between 1:00-2:00 am, which lends credence to the story given by witness Cox.

On the other hand they had a witness who insists he met with Kelly between 2-3:00 am, and she was with another man. Subsequent inquiries, reported in the press on the 13th, discovered that several other residents in Millers Court had seen Kelly out after 2:00, which lends credence to the story given by Hutchinson.

(The reputation of accepting a purely medical opinion had suffered to some degree with the Chapman case and Dr Phillips own estimate on her time of death, being contradicted by Richardson.)

In neither case (Cox/Hutchinson) do we have anything faulty or defective in either story, so neither Cox nor Hutchinson had been discredited by the 15th, when the Star made their claim.
The police were still investigating both suspects.

[Sam Flynn]

The police were still investigating both suspects.

That doesn't mean that opinion wasn't divided, nor that some police no longer believed Hutchinson's account.

[Sam Flynn]

On the other hand they had a witness who insists he met with Kelly between 2-3:00 am, and she was with another man. Subsequent inquiries, reported in the press on the 13th, discovered that several other residents in Millers Court had seen Kelly out after 2:00, which lends credence to the story given by Hutchinson.

Who are these "several other residents of Miller's Court" who place Kelly on the streets after 2:00?

[Varqm]

Be careful about this reference to "2:30". If you notice in her court record she says she was at the Keylers, at 2:30. Not in the street.
"I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning".

The Daily Telegraph provides a little more detail.
".....went to her house at 2, Miller's-court, at 2.30a.m. on Friday. It is the first house. I noticed the time by the Spitalfields' Church clock."

The reporter for the Echo understood her to say:
"On Friday morning witness was at No. 2 Room, Miller's-court, at half-past two o'clock."

The Daily News reported the same detail:
"and went to see her on Friday morning at 2.30 o'clock by Spitalfields Church clock."

The St. James Gazette reported the same:
"she was at No 2 Room, Miller's court, at half past two o'clock on Friday morning."

You will notice the various accounts suggest Lewis was at the Keyler's when the clock struck 2:30, she does not say how long she had been there, two minutes, five, ten?
These accounts do not say she arrived there at 2:30, but when the clock struck the half hour she was at the Keyler's..

We do not know when Hutchinson began his vigil. He does say it was "about 2:00" when he was at Thrawl Street and first met Kelly.
He also says his vigil lasted "about 45 minutes".
The only firm time he provides us with is the clock striking 3:00 when he left.

Any time we see "about" we can allow some flexibility of several minutes either way. So all we can determine from this is that Lewis saw this couple some time, minutes, before she arrived at the Keylers, but we don't know what time she arrived.
The clock struck 2:30 sometime after she arrived.

Nonsense.And how long to reach Keyler's house from Britannia,1-3 minutes.Lewis did not mention stopping or having a conversation.
The couple seen by Lewis was at around 2:30 AM.-even 2:27 or 2:28 am.
If Hutch left at 3:00 AM.,then Kelly and astrakhan man went in to Kelly's room at around 2:15 am then Hutch waited for 45 minutes taking it to 3:00 am, the time Hutch said he left.Kelly and astrakhan man could not have been the couple seen by Lewis.

[Wickerman]

Who are these "several other residents of Miller's Court" who place Kelly on the streets after 2:00?

It's just a brief account which appeared in the press on the 14th.

The Press Association:
Although no evidence was produced at the inquest as to her having left her room after one o'clock, at which time she was heard singing, the police have obtained statements from several persons who reside in Millers Court, that she was out of her house and in Dorset street between two and three o'clock. It appears almost certain that her life was taken about the last named hour.
Sheffield Evening Telegraph, Dundee Courier, Nottingham Evening Post, Morning Advertiser, Irish Times, Nov 14th 1888.

The police had already canvassed the residents of Millers Court on the day of the murder, and nothing transpired at the inquest to change what they had been told. In the intervening hours, between the inquest and this press report the only new information was the sudden appearance of Geo. Hutchinson.
It would appear then that Hutchinson's statement had caused the police to return to Millers Court to re-interview the residents (on the 13th?), or perhaps locate some residents who had not been at home on the day of the murder.