Once you have eliminated the impossible

[packers stem]

And how many witness do you think turn up at court honestly believing the evidence they are giving is right but it turns out they are ....... Wrong?

I am not one of those who say she was hiding something but I allow for the possibility she made an honest mistake.

But either way that doesn't impact Hutch's relabilty.

I know some people can tell colors almost 109% in Black and White photos, so don't rule out that Hutch could tell red on a dark night. I also know people with an incredible eye for detail.

Do I believe Hutch?

I don't...you couldn't spot a handkerchief at 200 feet never mind see the colour and it must have been a fairly calm night to have heard what was said I guess

[GUT]

She did turn up at the inquest though GUT and was adamant and unswerving unlike Hutchinson who missed it conveniently by..... Minutes lol

And how many witness do you think turn up at court honestly believing the evidence they are giving is right but it turns out they are ....... Wrong?

I am not one of those who say she was hiding something but I allow for the possibility she made an honest mistake.

But either way that doesn't impact Hutch's relabilty.

I know some people can tell colors almost 109% in Black and White photos, so don't rule out that Hutch could tell red on a dark night. I also know people with an incredible eye for detail.

Do I believe Hutch?

[packers stem]

Or all three could be telling the gospel truth.

The big problem I have with Maxwell is the claim she knew MJK from the rooming houses. Did she have the wrong woman?

She did turn up at the inquest though GUT and was adamant and unswerving unlike Hutchinson who missed it conveniently by..... Minutes lol

[packers stem]

its not that he could see the color of the hanky or not (at 200 feet at night regardless of where the lamps were or how bright it still would not only be a great feat of eyesight, but along with everything else-of memory.)

Its why even bother remembering its color and mentioning it and emphasizing it.

Unless your story is bull **** and many details are culled from previous newspaper descriptions of suspects-like the red hanky of lawendes suspect.

or it was yours and you left it at the crime scene.

"oh yes and he gave her a red hanky, and she said she lost her hanky, and he said here my dear have my red hanky, and he gave her his red hanky. did I mention it was a red hanky?yes very red."

what a bunch of crap.

I agree totally

[GUT]

The on thing that prevents me saying outright that Maxwell got it wrong is Lewis, who reported seeing her coming out of the house.

[GUT]

So you're both saying in all seriousness that hawkeye hutchinson could spot a red handkerchief in the dark from 200 feet?? because he was acclimatised to limited light....yet ,i'll bet Maxwell and Maurice Lewis have been written off as mistaken on a whim
Sorry ,just don't buy it and never will
and yep,absolutely you can lead a horse to water

Or all three could be telling the gospel truth.

The big problem I have with Maxwell is the claim she knew MJK from the rooming houses. Did she have the wrong woman?

[Abby Normal]

its not that he could see the color of the hanky or not (at 200 feet at night regardless of where the lamps were or how bright it still would not only be a great feat of eyesight, but along with everything else-of memory.)

Its why even bother remembering its color and mentioning it and emphasizing it.

Unless your story is bull **** and many details are culled from previous newspaper descriptions of suspects-like the red hanky of lawendes suspect.

or it was yours and you left it at the crime scene.

"oh yes and he gave her a red hanky, and she said she lost her hanky, and he said here my dear have my red hanky, and he gave her his red hanky. did I mention it was a red hanky?yes very red."

what a bunch of crap.

[GUT]

Jack the Ripper was not caught. Despite what some rather distinguished police officials and investigators may have said later in life, I don't think his identity has every been known by any person, living or dead. In fact, I strongly suspect that his true name does not appear in any case files, media reports, tall tales, nursery rhymes, or local traditions. I do not believe he was suspected by his family. He had no frieinds. He confided in no one. He spoke when he had to, little more. He lived alone. His neighbors and co-workers knew OF him, but would not have professed to know him. I think relatively few people knew him by name. He did not chit-chat or make small talk. He didn't ask for directions or attend public gatherings. He took meals at home, alone. He was not married. He had no children. He was insane, but not outwardly so. He was aware of his insanity and accepted it. He did not wish to be caught, but not live in fear of being captured. He did not live to old age. He did not commit suicide. He likely died quietly, of disease or accident as many did in that time and place. His death was barely noticed, by those charged with renting his dwelling and selling or discarding his posessions, among which there were no trophies or keep-sakes from his crimes. He was not missed. He will never be suggested as the killer by some descendent who saw a photo in an album or read his confessions in a diary. There are no photos. There is no diary. There's likely no descendents. If there are, he's forgotten. He's an obscure great-uncle who's nothing but a name on someone's ancestry.com site.

Or he's Walter Sickert. Or Lewis Carroll.

Or van Gogh

[Patrick S]

Jack the Ripper was not caught. Despite what some rather distinguished police officials and investigators may have said later in life, I don't think his identity has every been known by any person, living or dead. In fact, I strongly suspect that his true name does not appear in any case files, media reports, tall tales, nursery rhymes, or local traditions. I do not believe he was suspected by his family. He had no frieinds. He confided in no one. He spoke when he had to, little more. He lived alone. His neighbors and co-workers knew OF him, but would not have professed to know him. I think relatively few people knew him by name. He did not chit-chat or make small talk. He didn't ask for directions or attend public gatherings. He took meals at home, alone. He was not married. He had no children. He was insane, but not outwardly so. He was aware of his insanity and accepted it. He did not wish to be caught, but not live in fear of being captured. He did not live to old age. He did not commit suicide. He likely died quietly, of disease or accident as many did in that time and place. His death was barely noticed, by those charged with renting his dwelling and selling or discarding his posessions, among which there were no trophies or keep-sakes from his crimes. He was not missed. He will never be suggested as the killer by some descendent who saw a photo in an album or read his confessions in a diary. There are no photos. There is no diary. There's likely no descendents. If there are, he's forgotten. He's an obscure great-uncle who's nothing but a name on someone's ancestry.com site.

Or he's Walter Sickert. Or Lewis Carroll.

[packers stem]

So you're both saying in all seriousness that hawkeye hutchinson could spot a red handkerchief in the dark from 200 feet?? because he was acclimatised to limited light....yet ,i'll bet Maxwell and Maurice Lewis have been written off as mistaken on a whim
Sorry ,just don't buy it and never will
and yep,absolutely you can lead a horse to water

[curious4]

Hi C4
I'm far from convinced that evolution has regressed our eyesight...The eyes adjust to whatever light may be available at the time,constantly changing.It is far from common sense to me to believe human eyes are less efficient now than they were.I think people who spend a lot of time reading,on computer, phone etc may suffer but in general I'm afraid I just can't see your point at all. Do we have an ophthalmologist in the house??
As for Dickens I'm afraid I'm not a lover of reading fiction...other than Hutchinsons statement

As you say, you can lead a horse to water.....

[Errata]

Hi C4
I'm far from convinced that evolution has regressed our eyesight...The eyes adjust to whatever light may be available at the time,constantly changing.It is far from common sense to me to believe human eyes are less efficient now than they were.I think people who spend a lot of time reading,on computer, phone etc may suffer but in general I'm afraid I just can't see your point at all. Do we have an ophthalmologist in the house??
As for Dickens I'm afraid I'm not a lover of reading fiction...other than Hutchinsons statement

From what I understand, it's not evolution. It's something we gain and lose with use. Move to the middle of nowhere in the outback, it improves within a week or so. Move to NYC, it degrades. It takes a little time, just like tanning or the lightening of the hair, but it's adaptation. Not evolution.

I spent a couple weeks in the Caribbean where there were few lights. Coming home was like the old 80s song "Sunglasses At Night".

If we were to time travel to back then, we would see the same as they did in a few days. Just not that first day.

[packers stem]

Hello Packers

Wickerman has answered one of your objections, I believe and as to the other I would refer you to Dickens, in particular The Pickwick papers, and Mr Pickwick's antics with a patent lamp. In the 21st Century we are surrounded by light all round the clock, in the 19th Century this was not the case. I think that common sense would tell us that people had better night vision than we have today.

Best wishes
C4

Hi C4
I'm far from convinced that evolution has regressed our eyesight...The eyes adjust to whatever light may be available at the time,constantly changing.It is far from common sense to me to believe human eyes are less efficient now than they were.I think people who spend a lot of time reading,on computer, phone etc may suffer but in general I'm afraid I just can't see your point at all. Do we have an ophthalmologist in the house??
As for Dickens I'm afraid I'm not a lover of reading fiction...other than Hutchinsons statement

[packers stem]

No prize for guessing where that nonsense came from.
Hi Wickerman
Haven't picked that up from anyone,just observations over the years that red in near darkness looks black..


Abberline was not present when that statement was signed.

That may or may not be...we don't know.
We know the statement was taken by Badham, that's all.
Nicholas Connell and Stuart Evans book.'the man who hunted jack the ripper' states that Abberline interrogated Hutchinson,not sure what the source is though but I'm sure I've seen this elsewhere



According to whom?

45 minutes? According to Hutchinson

He didn't say that he first noticed the red handkerchief at Millers Court, all he said was that is when Astrachan pulled it out.

He made no mention of the handkerchief being pulled out before millers court so we can safely assume it wasn't pulled out before then.... If you wish to believe a word of it.
Let's remember that in the official statement he doesn't say where he viewed the handkerchief from...
In the press report in the times he says he stood on the corner of Dorset street and commercial street and watched them on the corner of millers court.This would be around 200 feet away!!!! Red handkerchief.... Lol

[Errata]

So what says it couldn't be two people, either full partners or not?

Statistically we know they don't talk with any more frequency than singles. And it's rarer but not unheard of... but other that the belief that it was one guy, what says it isn't two? Surely something rules it out.