Once you have eliminated the impossible

[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

[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

[Wickerman]

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

[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

[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 :-).

[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 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

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

[Wickerman]

There was another lamp at the Millers Court passage.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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.