The Red Handkerchief...

[c.d.]

"In 1888, at a time when offenders pretending to witnesses were unheard of, Hutchinson could have been quite confident banking on the unlikelihood of the police viewing him as a suspect."

Maybe as a suspect but unless the the police were complete idiots he was a person of interest. Either way, suspect or person of interest, he was going to be questioned and his answers needed to satisfy the police. If not, he could find himself to be considered a suspect.

Even if we accept the premise that offenders pretending to be witnesses was so unheard of that the police never would have dreamed that this person could have been involved in the murder, does that premise have any limitations placed upon it? In other words, if while being interviewed a bloody kidney and knife dropped out of his pocket, would the police simply say "hey George, you dropped this" because he appeared as a witness voluntarily? I think not.

c.d.

[Ben]

“Either way, suspect or person of interest, he was going to be questioned and his answers needed to satisfy the police. If not, he could find himself to be considered a suspect.”

Vastly unlikely, CD.

As Garry observed in his recent post #1431, Emanuel Violenia completely failed to “satisfy the police” under interrogation despite claiming to have been the last person to see a victim alive, but it didn't result in him being considered a suspect. He was simply dismissed as a publicity seeker and time waster, as so many pretend witnesses had been before him, and the same evidently occurred with Hutchinson.

“Even if we accept the premise that offenders pretending to be witnesses was so unheard of that the police never would have dreamed that this person could have been involved in the murder, does that premise have any limitations placed upon it?”

Well, the situation would realistically alter only if the police were aware of some evidence linking a voluntary witness to the crime scene beyond that witness's mere say-so that he were there. In Hutchinson’s case, that was all they had – his say-so, which meant that when his evidence was eventually discredited, he did not convert into a suspect. In their minds, he wasn’t just fibbing about his reasons for being there; he was fibbing about being there at all, which placed him in the enormous, burgeoning category of bogus witnesses out for a quick buck, and not in the totally unknown category of bogus witnesses who are secretly killers.

Accordingly, if the police failed to entertain the latter option in Hutchinson's case (and if the latter option had been the correct one), they can hardly be blamed for it.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

So you see, I never claimed no policeman ever gave a reporter a bit of information, likely for the price of a drink.
That, as I indicated, does not amount to obtaining case related info from Scotland Yard Detectives.

But the latter happened anyway, Jon, in addition to reporters plying constables with whisky and bribing them out of information. I can't think of any high profile information in which important case-related information wasn't shared with certain members of the press, and nor do I know of anyone besides yourself who insists it never happened. It provably did during the Whitechapel murders investigation, that's the thing, and not just with regard to Hutchinson.

Once again, Hutchinson could not have seen the handkerchief (let alone allowed his mind to paint it red) when Astrakhan was "right under (his) nose"- not unless the latter wore his handkerchief in some pocket in his top coat, which nobody does.

Regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

But the latter happened anyway, Jon, in addition to reporters plying constables with whisky and bribing them out of information. I can't think of any high profile information in which important case-related information wasn't shared with certain members of the press, and nor do I know of anyone besides yourself who insists it never happened. It provably did during the Whitechapel murders investigation, that's the thing, and not just with regard to Hutchinson.

Readers should look over the 'What the Press Knew' thread for themselves, Ben, in order to see what Jon did and did not say on the issue. I'm not sure where Scotland Yard comes into all of this. The assertion was that the press received no inside information from those engaged on the Ripper investigation. My feeling, for what it's worth, is that the Echo had someone on the inside, almost certainly someone in a senior position, who provided the information regarding Hutchinson's reduction in status. Anderson's almost obsessive preoccupation with secrecy renders this a near-certainty to my way of thinking.

[Wickerman]

But the latter happened anyway, Jon, in addition to reporters plying constables with whisky and bribing them out of information.

Well thats the point isn't it?
As much as you assert it to be the case, the reality rests with their own comments, that the police tell them nothing. The police, in this case refers to "official" information, not leaks, hints, or the occasional nugget bribed out of a tired and underpaid constable.
It is a desperate man who must 'assert' his belief which sits contrary to all the known evidence.

I can't think of any high profile information in which important case-related information wasn't shared with certain members of the press, and nor do I know of anyone besides yourself who insists it never happened.

As is always the case, you cannot prove your accusation so you resort to your belief.

Once again, Hutchinson could not have seen the handkerchief (let alone allowed his mind to paint it red)....

Ah, yes.
So Lawende was also lying, the neckerchief he saw must have been blue, according to the well-informed Mr Wroe.
And perhaps, Blotchy's "carroty' moustache was not red either, but that was also blue. And the flower on Stride's chest, blue petals also?
And Ada Wilson's attacker with his sunburnt (red) face, was a blue face?

Back to the drawing board for someone I suggest, such nonsense is a stark reminder that a little knowledge can be a bad thing.

[Garry Wroe]

So Lawende was also lying, the neckerchief he saw must have been blue, according to the well-informed Mr Wroe.

Possibly blue. And I was citing scientific fact, not la-la-land logic.

Back to the drawing board for someone I suggest, such nonsense is a stark reminder that a little knowledge can be a bad thing.

And significantly less than a little knowledge leads to rubbish such as Isaacs as Astrakhan.

[Wickerman]

Possibly blue. And I was citing scientific fact, not la-la-land logic.

I am not suggesting the principal was not scientifically based, I am suggesting you take it out of context in order to misapply it to Hutchinson, for self serving interests.

This scientific principal did not apply to Ada Wilson, nor to Edward Spooner, nor to Joseph Lawende, and neither to Mary Cox.

One has every right to ask why, that out of five witnesses, who were all out at night, who all saw something red, all in poor light, only Hutchinson "could not" correctly distinguish the colour 'red', yet all the other four were quite capable of seeing red.

Could it be, that you are purely biased in attempting to assert this scientific principal can only apply to Hutchinson?
All the while hoping the reader will remain oblivious to the fact it obviously did not apply to four other witnesses.

Either the error is with the science, or the one who is (mis)applying it.....

And significantly less than a little knowledge leads to rubbish such as Isaacs as Astrakhan.

Your opinion is of no concern to me Garry, after all it is all you have to offer in this case.

[Wickerman]

I'll just drop you a hint on this Rods & Cones issue.
Rather than me explain where you went wrong I tried to locate a quote that says the same.

In a previous post I agreed with you that the colour red can be difficult to identify "at a distance" meaning, when there is no direct light on the red object.
Seeing a red car at a distance down the street, for example, not under a streetlamp.

Where I disagreed with you is when a red object is beneath a light, regardless of the luminosity, the brighter the light, the more 'red' the colour appears. In low intensity light the colour red is a darker red, but still red.

This quote suggests the same.

Example - "Red rose at twilight:"
In bright light, the color-sensitive cones are predominant and we see a brilliant red rose with somewhat more subdued green leaves.

Meaning, even at twilight, but under a light source, you can see red clearly.

"But at twilight, the less-sensitive cones begin to shut down for the night, and most of the vision comes from the rods. The rods pick up the green from the leaves much more strongly than the red from the petals, so the green leaves become brighter than the red petals!"

Meaning, at twilight but nowhere near a direct light source, the colour red is less distinct.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.html

I explained to you that so long as there is a direct light source nearby, the colour red will be visible, the shade being dependent on the proximity & intensity of the local light source.
And, as we know Hutchinson stood by a lamp. and Lawende was also near a light source, we have no cause to question that they both were able to see the colour red.

Only in the absence of a local light source (ie; twilight, or darker) will we have trouble identifying the colour red.

[Garry Wroe]

I am not suggesting the principal was not scientifically based, I am suggesting you take it out of context in order to misapply it to Hutchinson, for self serving interests.

Suggest what you like. Readers are free to examine the relevant posts and judge for themselves.

This scientific principal did not apply to Ada Wilson, nor to Edward Spooner, nor to Joseph Lawende, and neither to Mary Cox.
One has every right to ask why, that out of five witnesses, who were all out at night, who all saw something red, all in poor light, only Hutchinson "could not" correctly distinguish the colour 'red', yet all the other four were quite capable of seeing red.

Perhaps, then, you'd care to identify the post in which I made such a claim.

Could it be, that you are purely biased in attempting to assert this scientific principal can only apply to Hutchinson?

No. I responded to a claim made by yourself - one which dealt solely with Hutchinson.

All the while hoping the reader will remain oblivious to the fact it obviously did not apply to four other witnesses.

This would be the four other witnesses of whom you made no mention prior to my initial response, right? You appear to be confusing the two of us. You're the one who claims to be in psychic communication with Anderson's innermost thoughts. I claim no psychic ability - least of all the gift of precognition.

Either the error is with the science, or the one who is (mis)applying it.....

Hutchinson was standing thirty yards distant in a gloomy thoroughfare when Astrakhan allegedly produced the 'red' handkerchief. So no, the error is not with the science, and nor is robust science being misapplied by myself. All that's happening here is that you're attempting to huff, puff and bluster your way out of a situation you created for yourself by making a laughably absurd claim. So what's new?

[Ben]

My feeling, for what it's worth, is that the Echo had someone on the inside, almost certainly someone in a senior position, who provided the information regarding Hutchinson's reduction in status.

Mine too, Garry.

It seems to be just the one poster (yep, that one!) who insists that "inside" information was never shared between senior police officials and the press. One need only read Inspector Littlechild's recollections about Central News' Tom Bulling to understand that it happened.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

As much as you assert it to be the case, the reality rests with their own comments, that the police tell them nothing.

Got any evidence from the journalists' "own comments" that the police never supplied any information at all to them at any stage, and would never to so in the future either? No? Didn't think you had any. Sometimes the press would approach the police to ask for information, only to receive an extended middle finger in response, but at other times - such as on the 14th November - the police would share case-related information. A crazy thing to dispute, which might explain why it seems to be only you that does.

It is a desperate man who must 'assert' his belief which sits contrary to all the known evidence.

It is a grotesquely naive man who must "assert" that the police will never ever divulge case-related information to the press at a senior level, especially when such an "assertion" is utterly and provably false.

Ah, yes.
So Lawende was also lying, the neckerchief he saw must have been blue, according to the well-informed Mr Wroe.

Could you address the point I actually made please, as opposed to straying off on a tangent? Thanks. Hutchinson would not have seen any handkerchief - red or otherwise - at the time of the alleged "stooping" encounter with Astrakhan for the simple reason that it would have been concealed inside the latter's sleeve or beneath two coats.

So if you wish to endorse the red hanky detail as accurate, you're pretty much stuck with the very small window of opportunity Hutchinson had at his disposal to register Astrakhan whipping it out briefly to give to Kelly at the entrance to Miller's Court. It's just unfortunate for your conclusions that Hutchinson claimed to have been standing at the corner of Dorset Street at the time - a significant distance away, and certainly too far to register the colour red on such a small surface area, in poor lighting conditions, and for such a fleeting moment.

This doesn't compare in the slightest to Lawende, Cox and Wilson, all of whom registered their "suspects" at comparatively closer quarters, and none of whom claimed to have spied the "redness" for a brief moment. Blotchy and Wilson's attackers were carrotty and sunburned respectively for the duration of the sighting in each case, while Lawende's man had his neckerchief on display for the entire time the Jewish trio were regarding him.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

You're the one who claims to be in psychic communication with Anderson's innermost thoughts.

That is the third time I believe you have made that remark, it still doesn't ring any bells.
The only time I recall you bringing up Anderson is when you pointed out that he said the principal witness was a Jew - hence not Hutchinson.

I replied by agreeing, that Astrachan (if Isaacs), was cleared, so obviously Hutchinson did not witness the killer.
What does that have to do with being psychic?

Hutchinson was standing thirty yards distant in a gloomy thoroughfare...

Hutchinson was standing directly under a lamp when Astrachan, and all his accoutrements, passed under his gaze.

Where is the logic is asserting that Hutchinson first saw the colour of the handkerchief when he is at a distance that would be impossible?
Unless, you are offering another straw-man argument?

Suggest the impossible, knock it down because it is impossible, then declare him a liar - why?, ....because it is impossible!
The word, contrived, comes to mind.

Come to think of it, that is the basis of ALL the accusations against Hutchinson.

[Scott Nelson]

I think Isaacs was dropped in favour of David Cohen.

[Garry Wroe]

Blotchy and Wilson's attackers were carrotty and sunburned respectively for the duration of the sighting in each case, while Lawende's man had his neckerchief on display for the entire time the Jewish trio were regarding him.

To be honest, Ben, I very much doubt that Lawende could have discerned the colour of Church Passage man's handkerchief from a distance of twenty feet and under poor lighting conditions. I seem to recall that Levy was interviewed after the event and said that the passage mouth was dimly lit at the time of the sighting, but 'is much better lighted now'. This would appear to confirm that Lawende couldn't have distinguished the handkerchief's colour. Rather he assumed this to have been the case given the limited visual information he had available to him. It's simply what people do.

[Garry Wroe]

That is the third time I believe you have made that remark, it still doesn't ring any bells.

Really? It relates to a discussion from two or three years ago when you were attempting to convince all and sundry of Hutchinson's upright nature and strict adherence to the truth. At the time you were reluctantly coming round to the reality that he had been rejected as a police witness whilst still arguing for the truth of the Astrakhan story. To overcome this particular difficulty you explicated upon Anderson's innermost thinking, presenting as fact a line of reasoning on Anderson's part that has never been published anywhere as far as I'm aware. Thus Anderson trusted to Bond's proposed time of death, meaning that Kelly had been murdered at approximately one o'clock in the morning. Again trusting to Anderson's innermost thoughts on the issue you explained how Anderson had concluded that, although an honest and sincere witness, Hutchinson must have been in error over the Astrakhan sighting, an outcome which explains the 'diminution' stories run by the Echo and Star.

Remember now?

If so I'd appreciate any help you might be able to offer with a view to locating Anderson's published writings concerning Hutchinson and Dr Bond's projected time of death regarding the Miller's Court murder.

But I'm not holding my breath.