Once you have eliminated the impossible

[curious4]

Hi C4
I'm unaware of the evidence showing that humans had increased night vision in the 19th century I'm afraid so I'll leave that one. Would be interesting to read a scientific report on it though...
Hutchinson claimed he was beneath the light of the Queens head as they passed....that is not when the supposed red handkerchief appeared, that happened at the entrance to millers court. Hutchinson was not standing next to them at that time....allegedly

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

[Wickerman]

Hi curious4
I take it this description was not in darkness?
Hutchinson's wasn't just ridiculously detailed he could see what others can not in the dark....the colour red

No prize for guessing where that nonsense came from.

Most likely in my view is that it was fed to him by Abberline....he just signed it.

Abberline was not present when that statement was signed.

Who could believe he just stood there after coming back from Romford for three quarters of an hour?
If that suspicious surely at least a little wander up the court before leaving
Three quarters of an hour just about right for the 'lookout' to be there while the slaughter was taking place me thinks....

According to whom?

Hutchinson claimed he was beneath the light of the Queens head as they passed....that is not when the supposed red handkerchief appeared, that happened at the entrance to millers court.

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.

[Wickerman]

There was another lamp at the Millers Court passage.

[packers stem]

Hello Packers

Don't forget people had much better night vision at the time. And without double-checking I believe there was some light. Enough for someone to see him, anyway.

Best wishes
C4

PS Actually in "The Definitive Story" by Paul Begg, it states that Hutchinson stood under a lamp and saw the couple distinctly as they passed. Presumably by the light thrown by the lamp. Sorry, but I think he could see that the handkerchief was red.

Hi C4
I'm unaware of the evidence showing that humans had increased night vision in the 19th century I'm afraid so I'll leave that one. Would be interesting to read a scientific report on it though...
Hutchinson claimed he was beneath the light of the Queens head as they passed....that is not when the supposed red handkerchief appeared, that happened at the entrance to millers court. Hutchinson was not standing next to them at that time....allegedly

[curious4]

Hi curious4
I take it this description was not in darkness?
Hutchinson's wasn't just ridiculously detailed he could see what others can not in the dark....the colour red
Most likely in my view is that it was fed to him by Abberline....he just signed it.
Who could believe he just stood there after coming back from Romford for three quarters of an hour?
If that suspicious surely at least a little wander up the court before leaving
Three quarters of an hour just about right for the 'lookout' to be there while the slaughter was taking place me thinks....

Hello Packers

Don't forget people had much better night vision at the time. And without double-checking I believe there was some light. Enough for someone to see him, anyway.

Best wishes
C4

PS Actually in "The Definitive Story" by Paul Begg, it states that Hutchinson stood under a lamp and saw the couple distinctly as they passed. Presumably by the light thrown by the lamp. Sorry, but I think he could see that the handkerchief was red.

[packers stem]

Hello Packers,

When the Swedish foreign minister was killed some years ago, a hairdresser came forward with a description of the murderer. He wasn't believed, because his description was "too detailed". Turned out he was right. Some people just make very good witnesses.


Best wishes
C4

Hi curious4
I take it this description was not in darkness?
Hutchinson's wasn't just ridiculously detailed he could see what others can not in the dark....the colour red
Most likely in my view is that it was fed to him by Abberline....he just signed it.
Who could believe he just stood there after coming back from Romford for three quarters of an hour?
If that suspicious surely at least a little wander up the court before leaving
Three quarters of an hour just about right for the 'lookout' to be there while the slaughter was taking place me thinks....

[curious4]

Hi C4.
Ah, you were talking about George Arthur specifically, my mistake.
I was merely pointing out that gentlemanly looking males were arrested and quickly let go. When I wrote "him", I meant the killer, not George Arthur specifically.
Sorry.




I wasn't aware anyone suspected George Arthur.

The Ottawa Free Press (Canada)
21 November 1888

EXCITEMENT IN LONDON
Report of Another Murder in Whitechapel

THE ASSASSIN FAILS THIS TIME

He Flies in Terror and is Hotly Pursued--His Capture is Certain.


London, Nov. 21--Great excitement was occasioned this morning when it was reported that another woman had been mudered and mutilated in Whitechapel. The police immediately formed a cordon around the premises and an enormous crowd gathered.

ONLY AN ATTEMPT
An investigation of the reported murder reveals the fact that the woman was only wounded in the throat. She stated to the police that a man visited her lodgings and suddenly attacked her with a knife. She struggled and screamed and the man becoming alarmed fled. The would be murderer was chased fully 300 yards, but succeeded in eluding his pursuers. The woman states that she will be fully able to identify her assailant. His arrested is hourly expected.


A BARONET ARRESTED
New York, Nov. 21.--The World's London correspondent says:--The most intense amusement has been caused among all classes of the London world by the arrest of Sir George Arthur on suspicion of being thte Whitechapel murderer. Sir George is a young baronet holding a captaincy in the regiment of Royal Horse Guards, and is a member of most of the leading clubs in town. He is also a well-known amateur actor, and was a great friend of the late Prince Leopold.

Since the past few weeks the old mania for "slumming" in Whitechapel has become fashionable again. Every night scores of young men who have never been to the East end in their lives prowl around the neighborhood in which the murders were committed, talking with the frightened women and pushing their way into overcrowded lodging houses.


THE VIGILANT POLICE
So long as any two men keep together and do not make a nuisance of themselves the police do not interfere with them, but if a man goes alone and tries to lure a woman of the street inot a secluded corner to talk with her he is pretty sure into trouble. That was the case with Sir George Arthur. He put on an old shooting coat and a slouch hat and went down to Whitechapel for a little fun. He got it. It occurred to two policemen that Sir George answered very much the popular description of Jack the Ripper. The watched him and when they saw him talking with women they proceeded to collar him. He protested, expostulated and threatened them with the vengeance of Royal wrath, but in vain. Finally a chance was given him to send to a fashionable western club to prove his identity, and he was released with profuse apologies for the mistake.

The affair was kept out of the newspapers, but the jolly young baronet's friend at Brook's Club considered the joke too good to be kept quiet. Sir George is quite a figure in his way in London. He is a son of the late Sir Frederick Arthur.

A score of other men have been arrested by the police on suspicion of being the murderer, but the right man still roams at large. The large sums offered for the capture of the fiend have induced hundreds of amateur detectives to take a hand in the chase, but all of no avail.

Hello Wickerman,

He's always been on my list :-).

[curious4]

Hello Packers,

When the Swedish foreign minister was killed some years ago, a hairdresser came forward with a description of the murderer. He wasn't believed, because his description was "too detailed". Turned out he was right. Some people just make very good witnesses.


Best wishes
C4

[Wickerman]

It's sort of ironic that you point the finger at Hutchinson's 'imagination'.

[packers stem]

A tad suspicious that schwartz wasn't called to stride's inquest... I mean who wants anyone knowing there may be an accomplice if you can avoid it....it's only thanks to the star that anyone got wind of it at all

[packers stem]

Let's not forget pipeman...who in the newspaper reports was 'second knife man'......
Sarah Lewis' observations and that of Mrs Kennedy if they were different people. Don't think they were but Kennedys story is different enough to remain possible.
All point to a 'lookout' as does the madness of believing what was done to Eddowes could be carried out in the 'darkest corner of mitre square'.... How was the moonlight that night?
It was only after the accomplice pardon that Hutchinson appears as if by magic,conveniently after the inquest.. Was there a change of heart regarding the possibility of an accomplice and Hutchinsons imagination a convenience,or was it fed to Hutchinson to cover for the sighting of the lookout??
Being trapped in the back of Hanbury Street would have been a bit tricky as well,unless there was someone keeping watch.
Yes,all supposition obviously.... With common sense thrown in

[Wickerman]

Hello Wickerman

"The papers often report a gentleman being arrested, held for questioning, and then set at liberty. They could have had him and not known it."

I think they would have known in this case - he kicked up such a fuss and claimed to be a friend of royalty until they sent to his club for someone who could identify him.

Hi C4.
Ah, you were talking about George Arthur specifically, my mistake.
I was merely pointing out that gentlemanly looking males were arrested and quickly let go. When I wrote "him", I meant the killer, not George Arthur specifically.
Sorry.

Wearing a shooting coat as well and approaching a prostitute, but gets off because he was a "somebody". Enjoyed acting and dressing up. I have always thought that the cartoon of the mirror with all the faces round it portrayed people who could be Jack, but it could also be the many faces of an actor. I certainly wouldn't rule out Sir George Arthur.

I wasn't aware anyone suspected George Arthur.

[Bridewell]

I think Jack was a loner who hid in plain sight. An anonymous little man, a bit surly perhaps, not the sort to invite confidences. He was mostly in employment I think, a local who just blended into the neighbourhood that he knew like the back of his hand, worked, came home to his own room, drank a bit at the pub. His neighbours probably didn't give him a second glance.

Spot on I suspect.

[Bridewell]

G'day C4

Invincible yes but Invisible too, like the postie or priest or milko are invisble because we are so used to seeing them we don't.

G K Chesterton would certainly agree.

[Shaggyrand]

Okay, Shaggyrand, let's consider the idea of Jack being the dominant partner. What is their motive for killing poor "unfortunates" in the worst quarters of London? People back then killed for the same reasons as now: money, inheritance, anger or passion, revenge, and so forth. Pairs of murderers might be hired by a third party to terrorize others, along the lines of criminal organizations or gangs, but I can't help thinking that two men hooking up just to kill for "thrills" would not be common back then, and certainly not among the lower classes, where staying alive from day to day was enough of a struggle. Surely two men from Whitechapel would pick wealthier victims to kill, if robbery was the aim?

I would think "Jack" having an accomplice who helped him for no particular gain except the excitement of killing would suggest some support for the "Gentleman Jack" idea (consider a master and servant, for instance). Of course, they might be young men with no one to answer to, nor employment, but thrill killers are more common today, when work hours are less, and free time more plentiful.

I think the choice of victim was more quantity and available opportunities over anything else. Yes, if they had an aim beyond just killing they would have picked a different class of target. The psychology behind them pairing up would be the same as today as well. If, and I'm not sold on the idea but think its possible enough to not dismiss out of hand, there's plenty of reasons for them to partner up. Often those who need some more extreme levels of control will seek out submissive partners. I don't think it would be harder to find someone who one could mold into the desired kind of submissive in 1888 London than it would now, it might even be easier. The conditions among the lower class seem perfect to breed them. If it was a pair I would lean toward them being like the DC Snipers. A male kid that is desperate for some kind of paternal affection and someone who supplies it as an early means of control.
The submissive partner's gain would not be something other than money or anything that tangible. Just the passing praise or a word of approval from the dominant would be enough.