Once you have eliminated the impossible

[Wickerman]

The issue of light affecting colours has been raised before.
Regardless whether the artificial light is gas or electric, any object within the dome of light retains its original colour.
That is a fact you can prove for yourself.

The further away the object is moved from the light source, then the more obscure the original colour of that object becomes.

Astrachan passed beneath a lamp outside the pub, any handkerchief sticking out of a top pocket would have been clearly visible at that point.
He only pulled it out when he stood beneath the wall lamp at Millers Court passage, as there was a light source at both locations then we have no cause to doubt that detail in the story.

All you are doing is struggling to raise ill conceived objections, many of which have been raised before with predictable results.
No-one to date has ever shown Hutchinson to have lied about anything. A handful of people choose to invent desperate arguments in an attempt to justify their various theories, but these same people cannot even agree on what it is they 'believe' Hutchinson lied about.

The source for Abberline's claim to have interrogated Hutchinson, is Abberline himself. Perhaps you should read the "Ultimate" thoroughly before you embark on speculation?

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....

Good idea, just stick with 'safe' assumptions.

Let's remember that in the official statement he doesn't say where he viewed the handkerchief from...

Right, and as we are told he walked down to stand opposite Millers Court, then he just might have been a bit closer than you originally thought.

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!!!!

120-125 feet, approx, as measured on the Ordnance Survey map.

Also, as Sarah Lewis saw a loiterer standing outside Crossinghams, at the same time as she also saw a man & woman (the worse for drink) walk up the court. Hutchinson had to be a good deal closer to Astrachan & Kelly to be seen by Lewis at the same time.

[packers stem]

The issue of light affecting colours has been raised before.
Regardless whether the artificial light is gas or electric, any object within the dome of light retains its original colour.
That is a fact you can prove for yourself.

The further away the object is moved from the light source, then the more obscure the original colour of that object becomes.

Astrachan passed beneath a lamp outside the pub, any handkerchief sticking out of a top pocket would have been clearly visible at that point.
He only pulled it out when he stood beneath the wall lamp at Millers Court passage, as there was a light source at both locations then we have no cause to doubt that detail in the story.

All you are doing is struggling to raise ill conceived objections, many of which have been raised before with predictable results.
No-one to date has ever shown Hutchinson to have lied about anything. A handful of people choose to invent desperate arguments in an attempt to justify their various theories, but these same people cannot even agree on what it is they 'believe' Hutchinson lied about.

The source for Abberline's claim to have interrogated Hutchinson, is Abberline himself. Perhaps you should read the "Ultimate" thoroughly before you embark on speculation?



Good idea, just stick with 'safe' assumptions.




Right, and as we are told he walked down to stand opposite Millers Court, then he just might have been a bit closer than you originally thought.



120-125 feet, approx, as measured on the Ordnance Survey map.

Also, as Sarah Lewis saw a loiterer standing outside Crossinghams, at the same time as she also saw a man & woman (the worse for drink) walk up the court. Hutchinson had to be a good deal closer to Astrachan & Kelly to be seen by Lewis at the same time.

It is pure speculation to suggest that any such handkerchief was poking out of the top pocket as they passed the Queens head,Hutchinson never mentioned it, first mention of it was at the entrance to the court..at this point Hutchinson stated he was watching from the corner of Dorset and commercial street.He said he then approached the court after they entered.
No ill conceived objection there,just going by what we've got from an official or press statement.
Pleased you've now agreed that Abberline was involved in the interview....not sure why you felt the need to point out previously that he wasn't present when the statement was signed
I'm quite happy in my own belief that a red handkerchief could not be spotted from 125 feet with the poor light available at the entrance to the court....presuming the light was lit at all!!!
What Hutchinson may or may not have seen isn't relevant to what I believe so I have no reason to dismiss him on that score, just applying a bit of common sense in terms of lighting and distance I'm far more bothered about Kennedy and Lewis... They're much more important.
If you believe they are one and the same then her story altered dramatically once Abberline got to her.
Changed from between 3 and 3.30 and seeing a couple with another man (or woman) in the shadows to the man watching the court an hour or so earlier.... Why?
If they were not the same then we have a probable sighting well after Hutchinson had disappeared
It's not the first time in the investigation that times have altered dramatically nor observations...
All these hours of darkness,fluctuating names and times eye witnesses I'm more than happy to write off as mistaken the only reliable testimony we have are in daylight hours.... Maxwell,backed up by Maurice Lewis and bowyers man..

[Wickerman]

It is pure speculation to suggest that any such handkerchief was poking out of the top pocket as they passed the Queens head,.....

You are missing the point.
The first step is Hutchinson, who said he saw it.
Then you offer your speculation, that he couldn't have seen it, and your reason why.
What I am doing is providing one perfectly viable reason that you fail to consider.
Therefore, you are the first one to delve into speculation.

Hutchinson never mentioned it, first mention of it was at the entrance to the court..

Why does he have to mention it before Astrachan took it out?

No ill conceived objection there,just going by what we've got from an official or press statement.

Right, and Hutchinson did not say he never saw the handkerchief before, it is you who insist he should have. That, is what is ill conceived, you are ignoring the obvious in order to present Hutchinson as a liar.
That is how all these arguments begin.

Pleased you've now agreed that Abberline was involved in the interview....not sure why you felt the need to point out previously that he wasn't present when the statement was signed

I didn't say he was involved in the interview.
Badham interviewed Hutchinson, and all present signed the statement.
Abberline then interrogated Hutchinson - two separate events.

What Hutchinson may or may not have seen isn't relevant to what I believe ...

But of course it is, what Hutchinson saw, or claimed to see, is the very basis of this argument. You are calling him a liar without considering the alternatives.

Re: Kennedy & Lewis.

If they were not the same then we have a probable sighting well after Hutchinson had disappeared

Yes we do.

It's not the first time in the investigation that times have altered dramatically nor observations...
All these hours of darkness,fluctuating names and times eye witnesses I'm more than happy to write off as mistaken the only reliable testimony we have are in daylight hours.... Maxwell,backed up by Maurice Lewis and bowyers man..

Yes, mistakes do happen. Though we have nothing to contest what Kennedy is reported to have said. So what is the basis for her statement being viewed as mistaken?

With Maxwell & Lewis we have their statements contested by the medical evidence. With Kennedy, we have nothing to contest it with, so why couldn't it be correct?

[Abby Normal]

You are missing the point.
The first step is Hutchinson, who said he saw it.
Then you offer your speculation, that he couldn't have seen it, and your reason why.
What I am doing is providing one perfectly viable reason that you fail to consider.
Therefore, you are the first one to delve into speculation.



Why does he have to mention it before Astrachan took it out?




Right, and Hutchinson did not say he never saw the handkerchief before, it is you who insist he should have. That, is what is ill conceived, you are ignoring the obvious in order to present Hutchinson as a liar.
That is how all these arguments begin.



I didn't say he was involved in the interview.
Badham interviewed Hutchinson, and all present signed the statement.
Abberline then interrogated Hutchinson - two separate events.



But of course it is, what Hutchinson saw, or claimed to see, is the very basis of this argument. You are calling him a liar without considering the alternatives.

Re: Kennedy & Lewis.


Yes we do.




Yes, mistakes do happen. Though we have nothing to contest what Kennedy is reported to have said. So what is the basis for her statement being viewed as mistaken?

With Maxwell & Lewis we have their statements contested by the medical evidence. With Kennedy, we have nothing to contest it with, so why couldn't it be correct?

Oh wicky
Here you go again.

Hutch said A-man took the hanky out and gave it to her at the corner of Millers court. Never mentions it before.or after.

To say that Hutch saw it at any other time is speculation on YOUR part, not Packers Stem.

Packers Stem is right and you are wrong. End of story.

[curious4]

I believe McCarthy's shop was on one side of the arch and was open until 3 or 4 a.m., so there would have been more light than just a lamp.

Best wishes
C4

[Wickerman]

Oh wicky
Here you go again.

Hutch said A-man took the hanky out and gave it to her at the corner of Millers court. Never mentions it before.or after.

To say that Hutch saw it at any other time is speculation on YOUR part, not Packers Stem.

Packers Stem is right and you are wrong. End of story.

Packers has insisted he had to mention it twice, that is speculation, and that is why you are both wrong - end of story!


Though why you gain any pleasure from repeating an error (that it must be mentioned twice!), is a little bizarre to say the least.

[Wickerman]

I believe McCarthy's shop was on one side of the arch and was open until 3 or 4 a.m., so there would have been more light than just a lamp.

Best wishes
C4

Quite correct, and we get this late time from Bowyer.

[curious4]

Hello Patrick

Actually Lewis Carroll's handwriting is very like that in the Dear Boss letter lol. But without the dagger-like "f"s.

If Jack wasn't caught, why did the killings stop?

Best wishes
C3

[packers stem]

You are missing the point.
The first step is Hutchinson, who said he saw it.
Then you offer your speculation, that he couldn't have seen it, and your reason why.
What I am doing is providing one perfectly viable reason that you fail to consider.
Therefore, you are the first one to delve into speculation.

He said he saw it...at the entrance to millers court.I am not saying he didn't see it but as he didn't say so it is obviously speculative to believe that he did.You would have to assume that the handkerchief was in view at the Queens head passing...it's not possible to know this although I'm of the opinion it's extremely unlikely to be sticking out of an overcoat pocket.If we are speculating on what Hutchinson failed to mention where will we end up?

Why does he have to mention it before Astrachan took it out

Do you only believe he saw it beforehand due to acceptance that the lighting and distance make the sighting he said nigh on impossible?

Right, and Hutchinson did not say he never saw the handkerchief before, it is you who insist he should have. That, is what is ill conceived, you are ignoring the obvious in order to present Hutchinson as a liar.
That is how all these arguments begin.

It's irrelevant.If he saw it earlier he failed to mention it so it can't be evidence.... Speculation

I didn't say he was involved in the interview.
Badham interviewed Hutchinson, and all present signed the statement.
Abberline then interrogated Hutchinson - two separate events.



But of course it is, what Hutchinson saw, or claimed to see, is the very basis of this argument. You are calling him a liar without considering the alternatives.

May be the basis of this argument but for me has no bearing... He didn't see Jack the ripper.This ever so careful killer would not have trapped himself in millers court knowing he was being watched by Kellys stalker.This of course is just my opinion, speculation if you like...
Re: Kennedy & Lewis.


Yes we do.




Yes, mistakes do happen. Though we have nothing to contest what Kennedy is reported to have said. So what is the basis for her statement being viewed as mistaken?

The only issue with Kennedy is her story about the stranger the previous Wednesday as with Sarah Lewis
We can of course speculate that they were together on that day as it was mentioned with 'a friend' and that they are different people and both friends just happened to go down Dorset street that night and see something worth reporting...but I don't like bizarre coincidence.If they are not, as most suspect,then she went from between 3 and 3.30 to 2.30 as noted by the church clock..how did this 2.30 assurance occur? And obvious scene description differences

With Maxwell & Lewis we have their statements contested by the medical evidence. With Kennedy, we have nothing to contest it with, so why couldn't it be correct?

For me the Maxwell and Maurice Lewis evidence is not contested by medical evidence at all.It's contested by Barnetts ID.... Just my opinion

[packers stem]

Apologies for the above lack of separation in quotes.Anyone like to point out how the quote separation is done lol 😁....I must have known before but I've forgotten and it may be different on a mobile anyway

[Rosella]

I'm just wondering, with the possible hidden in plain sight thing, whether many, perhaps most of the Whitechapel population, just believed that the killer couldn't have been 'one of their own'. (Always supposing he was, of course!)

Therefore there may have been a fixation on aliens (Jews) who had strange customs and therefore were likely killers, or a toff, who managed to get away with it because 'they always do, don't they?' Therefore the Jack amongst them, unless he was very strange or sinister, escaped notice.

[GUT]

I'm just wondering, with the possible hidden in plain sight thing, whether many, perhaps most of the Whitechapel population, just believed that the killer couldn't have been 'one of their own'. (Always supposing he was, of course!)

Therefore there may have been a fixation on aliens (Jews) who had strange customs and therefore were likely killers, or a toff, who managed to get away with it because 'they always do, don't they?' Therefore the Jack amongst them, unless he was very strange or sinister, escaped notice.

Exactly.

Anybody but one of them.

[GUT]

It's a bit like when someone is arrested for a grizzly murder today:

"Oh s/he seemed so normal, who would have thought they were a killer".

Because a person who is a lot like me couldn't do such a thing.

[Wickerman]

Apologies for the above lack of separation in quotes.Anyone like to point out how the quote separation is done lol ��....I must have known before but I've forgotten and it may be different on a mobile anyway

Yes it does make replying a bit of a chore

Select what sentence you wish to place in quotes, then at the beginning place the word 'quote' inside squared brackets - like this... [ quote ]

Then at the end of the sentence write the same word preceded by a "/"
Like this [ /quote ]

Just omit the spaces - I included spaces to prevent them working.

If you click on the 'quote' box in the bottom right corner of your post, you should see the text of that post begin with [quote=Packers...(numbers) etc.
This is just to create your name inside the quote window.
At the end you should see [/quote] to close out the quotation.

[GUT]

Or just copy it, hilight it and hit the speech bubble in the reply box.

To quote two posts, his the " mark at the bottom of each you want to quote then hit the "Quote Button"