The Red Handkerchief...

[Malcolm X]

```However wonderful it is that the gas lamps don’t cause “light pollution", sadly they aren’t very good at illuminating uneven pavements at night. Anyone who walks along the Wells Road in the dark is wise to carry a torch to spot hazards under foot! In these energy conscious days, the gas lamps are woefully inefficient users of energy for street lighting. They give out as much heat as light and unfavourable comparisons with kitchen toasters have been made. Now that increases in gas and maintenance prices are accelerating, there are many residents who think the gas lamps are Carbon-Unfriendly, Parish-Council-Budget-Stretching, anachronisms. ``

i couldn't find much on the web, but this tells you they were fairly poor at illumination.. especially in that part of Whitechapel and if Hutch was staring at LA DE DA whilst he was passing under a street lamp, most of his face due to his hat would've been in heavy shadow and his cothing just shades of dark grey...

how clean was the glass in the street lamps? if it's anything like Dorset st, pretty filthy....all sooted up.... a very decrepit area.
found this photo, Whitechapel would've been way darker than this, because here you have additional lighting, look at the people.......look how dark they are

[Malcolm X]

I'm sure you do, Malcolm.
At the police station, Hutch said the suspect was "pale complexioned".
But when he talked to the press, AM became dark complexioned.

Amitiés,
David

sorry i missed that point, never mind.....yes, whatever his true complexion was only God knows

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

On the question of how much light the average gas lamp at the time put out.
Neil Bell wrote a great article for Ripperologist 58 (March 2005) in which he examined the lighting in Mitre Square - but the same would apply to almost all gas lamps at the time.

He wrote:

Each lamp shone differently and all such lamps were dependent on various factors such as gas supply, mantle, etc.,......On average, the light given out from the lamps would have been the equivalent of your fridge light - and those were the good lamps.


So basically these lamps were used as beacons to aim for in the darkness, rather than actually lighting the street. How much you would be able to see of someone standing underneath one of them is hard to guess, but it probably wouldn't have been much.

Hugs

Jane

xxxx

[Malcolm X]

thanks Jane

they're actually worst than i thought

[Ben]

Thanks for that useful extract from the Ripperologist article, Janie!

Hi Richard,

We don't know how often, if ever, Hutchinson embarked on a long trek from Romford, so there's no reason to infer any weight-related incompatibility between the man who made the statement and the man described by Lewis.

It is to be ridden by a jockey called Hutchinson......
Apt i feel.

Oh, very apt; he'll take you for a ride...!

All the best,
Ben

[Convert]

Ben, I still maintain what i have said is not that implausible. You seem to be knocking holes in everything I say coming from the point of view that GH was making the whole thing up for one reason or another. As there is so much we do not know about this affair, I do not think the possibilty of GH been an honest witness is easily dismissed.
What we do know as fact is that he, ie GH, came forward and made his statement to police 3 days after the murder. This alone is vitally important in a investigation of this appalling magnitude as it places a witness very close to the time of the murder. So, do we believe him? Firstly, I do not think a common labourer would come forward with an entirely bogus and made up story and give it to police especially under the culture of fear and heightened tension this series of murders created.
So why the delay of 3 days? GH was initially scared of the suspicion he would be under if he came forward with his account which puts him at the time and place of a high profile murder of a victim that he not only knew but also had a relationship with. Time elapses and he decides to come forward because he a) knows he has nothing to fear ie he didn't kill MJK
B) like everyone else he wants the murderer caught
c) if he doesn't give a statement he will miss out on any reward money
So why/how could he give such a detailed description of the stranger.
As I have said before, GH had a desire for MJK and when he sees this stranger with her he takes a much more than casual observation of him. I dont understand why you call this observation paranoid or why you would call GH a stalker for observing a stranger with a girl he has feelings for. I thought it would be perfectly normal for a male to size up another male when it is over a female.
Now I am only concentrating on his, ie GH original statement he gave police. He indicates the couple passed him while against a street lamp. This I believe gives him the opportunity to see clearly what the stranger looked like and what he was wearing. Coupled that GH had an observational interest in this for the reasons above. He then states they went down Dorset Street and he followed. From this we do not know where he was standing when the stranger gave MJK the handkerchief. Nor do I think it is particulary important, if he's telling the truth then he saw it from where he was observing them. And like I have said previously, the handkerchief could have been folded with the tip sticking out of the strangers top coat pocket and GH noted its color when they passed under the street lamp. I dont see anything unusual in this.
However, the description that GH gives us of the stranger is certainly not above been wrong in some instances. To the best of his ability (and memory)he was describing a well dressed male but certainly not anything like an aristocrat etc. His account includes hearing the stranger speak a number of times and GH does not indicate an accent of any type. So an assumption could be that the stranger spoke with a local accent.
When you intimate that
"The more criteria you apply, the fewer the chance of a suspect fitting all of them being captured. If you keep the description vague and encompassing, you're likely to be describing a greater range of suspects, and the chances of a captured individual matching your description is markedly increased."
You have made this statement on the assumption that GH was lying. I do not think he was so I dont think this above statement applies to him.
There is a problem with later press reports of GH accounts getting more elaborate and maybe in some cases contradictory, (depending on values of importance you place on certain inconsistancies). I do not place a great deal of importance of these later press accounts because there is contention of whether they are of a primary, secondary or even tertiary sources of information. And like the press statements throughout this whole ripper affair, they are just too prone to mistakes, falsehoods and outright lies.
So back to the start, we concentrate on the facts and that is GH gave his account to police and this was initially believed by the investigators of the case. The later discreditation of the account by the press and some investigators is due to reasons that belong in another thread and too long to go into here.
This is why I currently believe GH as an important witness. Ben I understand your view that GH was an outright liar and where the reasons for this come from, I have read other threads, very entertaining too. I reckon you put too much faith in the press reports of the time and the attention to detail you place is sometimes pedantic. Not every minor detail of a crime committed is going to put down on paper.
Ben, please do not take this the wrong way and get offended. I am not saying this to belittle you in any way. I appreciate your view on the topic and the points you make are well informed and just as valid. You made this a very interesting discussion. Thank you.

Kindest Regards
Alistair (aka Convert)

[Crystal]

David writes:

At the police station, Hutch said the suspect was "pale complexioned".
But when he talked to the press, AM became dark complexioned.

Can somebody give me some references for that, please?

Ta!

[Jon Guy]

At the police station, Hutch said the suspect was "pale complexioned".
But when he talked to the press, AM became dark complexioned.

Can somebody give me some references for that, please?

Hi Crystal

The dark complexion was printed in the Times and The Star on 14th Nov 88

The pale complexion was in his police statement ref MEPO 3/140 ff 227-9

[Crystal]

Thanks very much, Jon!

Incidentally, and as a general observation, isn't the whole red handkerchief thing just a bit of Jewish stereotyping? It's a bit difficult to tell how much faith we should put in its appearance in Hutchinson's witness statement for that reason, I think.

Sorry if I've missed something - I'm sure that's all been discussed before!

[Ben]

You seem to be knocking holes in everything I say coming from the point of view that GH was making the whole thing up for one reason or another

I assure you that wasn't my intention, Alistair.

Regarding your observation that a common labourer was unlikely to come forward and invent a bogus story given the atmosphere of terror that pervaded the district. This will hold either true or false depending on his motivation for coming forward. If he was entirely innocent and simply wanted some attention, then yes, I might agree on the grounds that a publicity-seeker (i.e. one who wasn't even there when he claimed to have been) was unlikely to incriminate himself no needlessly without even bothering to give himself an alibi for the time frame encompassing the "Oh murder" period.

The situation changes if Hutchinson felt he needed to come forward with a false description, or that it was heavily in his interests to do so, and such a perceived need could well have arisen from a personal involvement in Kelly's death. Two factors suggest this as a possibile conclusion; firstly, we know that other serial killers have loitered outside their crime scenes (conducting prior surveillance) before attacking, and secondly; he came forward as soon as Sarah Lewis' sighting became had entered into the public arena.

In the above scenario, he wouldn't have been coming forward with a "bogus" account despite the risks, but because of them, acutely aware of the potentially disasterous consequences of resting on his laurels and Sarah Lewis subsequently recognising him as her loitering man from 2:30am, especially if it meant being dragged in as a suspect without having first got his explanation in and nailing his colours pre-emptively to the "I'm cooperative, and I contacted you, remember?" mast.

None of your suggested "delays" for his coming forward satisfactorily explain the coindicence of his coming forward as soon as the inquest details became public knowledge, as far as I'm concerned.

I dont understand why you call this observation paranoid or why you would call GH a stalker for observing a stranger with a girl he has feelings for. I thought it would be perfectly normal for a male to size up another male when it is over a female.

But none of that would bestow upon him the superhuman powers of observation that he would have needed in order to notice and commit to memory all that he alleged in the time and conditions, just as an interest and preoccupation with the solar system doesn't bestow on somebody the power to fly unaided to Saturn. And yes, it would be very unusual for a local labourer enamoured of Kelly to convince himself that the Astrakhan man had dressed up to "impress" Kelly. He need only resign himself to the likelihood that here was a prostitute-client scenario.

He indicates the couple passed him while against a street lamp. This I believe gives him the opportunity to see clearly what the stranger looked like and what he was wearing.

But how long does it take for a man to pass in close proximity to a street lamp - two seconds? That really wasn't enough time to notice, let alone commit to memory, all that he alleged. It just doesn't work, besides which, he claimed to be concentrating on the man's face at the time of the "street lamp" encounter. If you're focussing on the man's face to the extent that you can discern the colour of his eyelashes, you can't be paying equal attention to similarly minor detail from the man's lower body.

See what I mean?

From this we do not know where he was standing when the stranger gave MJK the handkerchief.

But it's implausible from any distance. Place him close the couple in Dorset Street and it becomes unrealistic to accept that they the couple weren't aware that Hutchinson was following them. Place him at the corner of Dorset Street - where the press did - and the distance becomes implausible for noticing colours and hearing conversation. If the man was wearing a waistcoat, dark jacket and Astrakhan overcoat, the pocket of the overcoat was the least likely place to stick a hanky, so yes, it would be unusual.

I try not to be too pedantic over "attention to detail". Somewhat unavoidable, though, when we're dealing with "dark eyelashes" and "horseshoe tie pins"!

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

David writes:

At the police station, Hutch said the suspect was "pale complexioned".
But when he talked to the press, AM became dark complexioned.

Can somebody give me some references for that, please?

Ta!

Hello Crystal,
the "pale complexion" is in Hutch's statement, so you'll find it in the Sourcebook, and it's also quoted in Begg, Sugden, etc.
The "dark complexion" is in various press reports related to Hutch, you'll easily find them on Casebook (from 13th to 15th Nov). Sorry for not being more precise, I've little time now and I'm not using my own computer.
But sharp as I know you, I'm sure you'll close this case alone.

Amitiés,
David

[Malcolm X]

the red handkercief was in his pocket, not hanging out and it was removed at the entrance to Millers court, at that location there is no street lamp overhead, (not in just that photo but in all others too) and none close by either..........HUTCH was standing at the corner of Dorset st.......... it is virtually impossible to see the colour red in near pitch blackness, (or very dark) and at that range..........the handkercief would have appeared black, as would have the clothing too.

gas lamps back then had very poor illumination indeed, it's quite possible that Kelly/LA DE DA; were almost impossible to see from where Hutch was...........it would've looked similar to the 2nd photo, or maybe even darker...........on my estate, as soon as you're 35 ft away from a street lamp you cant see a thing and these lamps are way brighter than the Victorian ones

[Convert]

Good points Ben and taken on board. Just trying to mull over the implications of what you say, ie then GH could be involved in the murder. It would account for his observations and therefore attempt to try and throw suspicion/blame onto this stranger. Still just trying to wonder if the release of Sarah's report and GH coming forward is actually just a coincedence and nothing more. Coincedence's do happen alot i mean.

Nice pics Malcolm, just wondering how do you know the handkerchief wasnt folded in triangular form with the tip sticking out of the top pocket. As the stranger was described as well dressed this could well have been the case.

[Malcolm X]

Nice pics Malcolm, just wondering how do you know the handkerchief wasnt folded in triangular form with the tip sticking out of the top pocket. As the stranger was described as well dressed this could well have been the case.

yes this could be true, i'm just guessing it was inside his pocket, even so; it's highly unlikely HUTCH saw this from the end of Dorset st.

in the vacinity of millers court it would've been very dark indeed

[Ben]

Continued from the "Solved?" thread...

Hi Caz,

Why would he need to 'vindicate' the presence of a red hanky at the murder scene, if nobody could identify it as his own, and they had no reason to even consider the possibility?

I realise I wrote "need", but I should have written "desire".

It is incredibly unlikely, as you seem to acknowledge, that the hanky was of distinctive enough appearance to tie it down to Hutchinson specifically. Unless he had his initials embroidered onto it, that really isn't an option. But if he'd convinced himself, however briefly, that he'd accidentally left it in the room and knew it couldn't have been recognised as his property, there was an obvious incentive in working it in to his fictional account in order to give the Astrakhan episode more validity.

I'd stress again that I don't believe for a moment that he actually did leave his red rag in the room, or that the police ever found one. Had it been otherwise, there would have been little chance of him escaping suspicion, and certainly no chance of the police dismissing him as a mere bogus witness who wasn't there. Moreover, had a handkerchief been located, Abberline would certainly have mentioned it in his post-interrogation report on Hutchinson.

So unless you are suggesting that finding a red hanky would have made all the difference and convinced them that A Man did exist, and had given it to Kelly before murdering her, mentioning it could have been a total disaster for a guilty Hutch.

But a guilty Hutchinson would have considered it a "total disaster" if the police didn't believe his story, hanky or no hanky, unless he'd comforted himself beforehand that if it all goes tits-up, it's okay because the police might just dismiss him as a mere publicity-seeker. Had that been his mentality, it's doubtful that he'd have come forward at all. It is far more likely that he latched onto anything that could be seen to strengthen the credibility of his tall tale, and saw one such opportunity in a red rag he thought he'd left at the scene.

That's not a good reason to mention it though, in connection with A Man, who couldn't have looked more different from Lawende's red-neckerchiefed suspect - while Hutch is meant to have been his identical twin, ie the very same man.

Well, if we're exploring the guilty Hutchinson premise, remember that he had the very difficult task of reconciling his own fictional Jack the Ripper description with previously published police-endorsed descriptions of the shabbily dressed, essentially nondescript actual ripper, i.e. him. Even if people did buy into Astrakhan, they would still note the disparity between the flashily, expensively dressed presumed ripper and the shabby bloke seen with Eddowes not ten minutes before her body was discovered. By establishing some form of common ground, he was enabling certain false inferences to be made, i.e. that Eddowes' killer was not the shabby local he seemed to be, but rather a wealthy sinister Jew who dressed down for the occasion, and even used his posh red hanky as a neckerchief in order to "blend in".

All the best,
Ben