Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Wickerman]

Hi Gareth.
In the centre of this yellow square.

[Ben]

Right, but we must remember we don't know if the place he usually slept had closed before his arrival in Commercial Street at 2:00

Yes we do, Jon.

We know for an absolute certainly that the place where he “usually slept” was the Victoria Home, which closed its doors at 1.00am to anyone not in possession of a daily or weekly bed ticket, thus rendering all the more perplexing his decision to saunter 12 miles in frigid conditions, in the small hours of a November night, in the certainly that his lodgings would be closed to him by the time he arrived “home” in Whitechapel.

Nobody misjudges their journey home by a whole hour, and even if Hutchinson inexplicably managed it, there is still no explanation for his failure to secure lodgings anywhere else, which he could so easily have done if - as you suggest - he was in possession of the required funds.

“Some claim they can't trust the type of characters they see coming in to these places. Some claim there are just too many rules.”

In winter? In southern Ontario? I don’t believe you, Jon. With the best will in the world, I won’t buy it a million years. The immediate priority of any homeless person is to remedy their homeless predicament, and that is especially true of people who find themselves in such circumstances during freezing cold winter conditions - the majority of them not being great lovers of hypothermia and all that.

For you to suggest otherwise, that Hutchinson spurned warmth and shelter, despite having both the necessary funds and a multitude of venue options in which to procure same, is indicative of astonishing ignorance on the subject. It’s the most absurd piece of nonsense I’ve yet encountered from you, Jon, and I’m afraid it’s up against some very stiff competition in that regard.

Was there bad weather along the route that day causing him to seek shelter for a few hours

What was preventing him from securing his doss in the locality of this bout of bad weather? Why was that a poorer option than deliberately “sheltering” for so long that he missed the cut-off point at the Victoria Home by over an hour? If you claim there are “reasonable explanations” for his failure to meet the deadline, it’s about time you provided some.

“What "fact" have you seen that tells you the PC did not make a note of whatever Hutchinson's said to him”.

Damn, you got me there. I must have foolishly ruled out the possibility that the PC in question made a note of Hutchinson’s story, but deliberately neglected or forgot to alert his superiors about it. I also failed to countenance a scenario in which Abberline received the PC’s note regarding Hutchinson, but expunged it from his mind before the latter arrived in person on 12th November. Very remiss if me.

“So by all means you carry on dancing & juggling for your tight-nit cheerleaders who can't think for themselves. (yeh, Ben...I agree Ben....Yeh, good post Ben...etc, etc).
It provides a dash of entertainment for the rest of us.”

Wow, I really do hit upon a nerve whenever I draw attention to your lack of adherents, don’t I? I suggest you cultivate at least some degree of originality when you insult people simply for agreeing with me, rather than stealing the expressions of others. The self-serving abuse is fun to behold too; the idea that if people refuse to buy what you’re selling, it must be because they are “unable to think for themselves”.

I do love your reference to “the rest of us”, as though you’re one of a majority of posters who share your irrational and paranoid aversion to any hint of criticism towards Hutchinson. Nobody else gives a monkeys, Jon - only you (and now, all of a sudden, RJ) have made the defence of Hutchinson your ultimate crusade, which is all the more perplexing given that nobody has gone out of their way, of late, to present an aggressive and strident case for Hutchinson’s culpability (on this forum, at least).

I have no doubt he was exposed to both theories on the Saturday, just not on Friday. There was only one theory under discussion on Friday.

So you keep saying, but what was his excuse for not coming forward on Saturday morning then, when you agree he would have been “exposed to both theories”?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Are you certain it's not just a photographic artifact?



Regards,

Simon

[Ben]

I’m surprised to see you invoke the spectre of Isaacs after that particular train derailed so badly several years ago.

There is absolutely no evidence that Isaacs ever attired himself in a manner similar to the Astrakhan man; nor is it likely that he ever had the financial means to pull off even a vaguely convincing facsimile. On the one occasion in Dover, where he attempted to pass himself off as a policeman, his attempts failed miserably and he was promptly arrested.

There is no suggestion that Isaacs ever attempted to pull off a “faux-flashy” appearance in the heart of Whitechapel at the height of the ripper murders, less still convince anyone that he was genuinely wealthy.

You completely bypassed BusyBeaver’s sensible observation, which was that “well-dressed” men would have preferred a west end brothel over an east end one, because the former entailed an appreciably slimmer risk of being mugged. This isn’t to say that “slumming” didn’t occur; I’m quite sure it did, but the slumbers in question would certainly have dressed down for the occasion.

“The common reason, but another weak attempt, is to claim that because Lewis had seen someone in a wideawake hat, and dark clothes, it had to be Hutchinson”

But you think it was Hutchinson, silly! Remember? Or would you rather undermine your own argument, and in the process make all manner of embarrassing concessions to those who insist he wasn’t there at all (and was thus a mere publicity seeker), all for the sake of a desperately unsuccessful attempt to pooh-pooh the conclusions of those who regard him with suspicion? You’re very weird with your priorities, Jon. Think about it - if he wasn’t the man seen by Lewis, that’s your “passing up the court” theory pretty much buggered, isn’t it?

Lewis’s superficial description of the wideawake suspect did not preclude the possibility of her being able to recognise that suspect again.

Hutchinson’s suspect incorporated all manner of sinister attributes that had been circulating in the press and elsewhere, from the Nichols murder onwards. It borrowed heavily from “Leather Apron”, it borrowed heavily from the Daily News account from 10th November, and it borrowed heavily from bogus accounts (which you love) depicting the miscreant as a carrier of a black bag or parcel.

[Wickerman]

Not certain of anything Simon. The circular shape could be merely 'faces in a cloud' or 'shapes in a fire'. Look how many people thought they saw letters on Kelly's wall. A trick of the eye, especially with black and white photo's.

While that circle may be said to match the, "within a yard or two" of the entrance, we also read the actual lamp threw light, "nearly on to the passage".
But this is directly above the passage.

That photo was taken about 40 years after the murder, so even if it is the footprint of a fixture, it could have been something mounted there years later.

[Ben]

I’m sorry to say that it’s a good deal easier to spot nonsense written on the subject of Hutchinson’s visual and recollective abilities than it was to register not only a handkerchief, but its colour and pattern, from 120 feet away on a darkened Victorian street at night time.

It’s great that people are conducting “experiments”, but I would be ever so slightly more assured of their comparative validity if the experimenters at least made a effort to understand the nature of street lamps in 1888 London. Is it appreciated, for instance, that the lamps in question consisted of naked flames underneath bulbous glass “cages”, and continued in that state until the invention and introduction of the gas mantle in 1891?

So negligible was the extent of light emitted by these lamps, which served primarily as beacons, that any colour would have revealed itself as a mere shade when viewed in darkness, unless the object was pressed up against the light source. If the item was on display for the duration of the sighting, one could accept that an educated guess as to colour could have been attempted, but Astrakhan’s rag was produced but for a fleeting instant, with Hutchinson observing from 120 feet away with only the aforementioned beacons as visual aids (and realistically only one of them).

I’m also surprised that RJ has claimed to have conducted a faithful comparison with Hutchinson’s account, despite conceding that he knew the colour of the object in advance of the experiment. I think it only fair to point out that such prior knowledge cannot help but colour (quite literally) the effectiveness of the exercise.

I would also encourage any would be experimenter to contemplate the validity of Hutchinson’s claim to have heard Kelly bemoan the loss of a handkerchief from 35 metres away. Obviously it’s all perfectly credible, as some will no doubt insist, because Hutchinson said she used a “loud voice” when making this exclamation, but why would she over-vocalise such a casual and everyday complaint(?), is surely the more immediately pressing question.

Always happy to go round and round in circles on these ad nauseam-repeated arguments.

[Wickerman]

There is absolutely no evidence that Isaacs ever attired himself in a manner similar to the Astrakhan man; nor is it likely that he ever had the financial means to pull off even a vaguely convincing facsimile.

One day Ben, you might surprise me and actually do your homework as opposed to guessing your way through most arguments.

There is no suggestion that Isaacs ever attempted to pull off a “faux-flashy” ......

Really?
"...a flashily-dressed Jew, named Joseph Isaacs, pleaded guilty....etc...etc"
Edinburgh Evening News, 11 Dec. 1890.

"....whose appearance certainly answered to the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat."
Lloyds Weekly News, 16 Dec. 1888.

"When searched, the Prisoner was found to be wearing a sham medal on his breast and an imitation gold chain, but no watch."
Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald, 30 July, 1887.

Don't take this personal Ben, I'm just more inclined to take the word of people who actually saw him, than the opinion of some latter-day part-time theorist.
Isaacs managed to travel around the country, always dressed above his station. Pennyless, he wasn't.

You completely bypassed BusyBeaver’s sensible observation,....

Ah, on a recruiting drive are we?
I should have known....

which was that “well-dressed” men would have preferred a west end brothel over an east end one, because the former entailed an appreciably slimmer risk of being mugged. This isn’t to say that “slumming” didn’t occur; I’m quite sure it did, but the slumbers in question would certainly have dressed down for the occasion.

I repeat....you really, really need to do your homework and quit guessing.
I know it's the cheaper way, but the results are far superior if you take the time to research what you choose to cast an opinion on.

But you think it was Hutchinson, silly! Remember?

Are you tired?
I believe it was Hutchinson because of his story, not because of Lewis's description.
That description draws attention to no-one.

Lewis’s superficial description of the wideawake suspect did not preclude the possibility of her being able to recognise that suspect again.

If he thought he could be recognised he wouldn't choose to loiter outside the inquest attempting to pick up scraps of information.
You can't have it both ways, so which is it?

Hutchinson’s suspect incorporated all manner of sinister attributes that had been circulating in the press and elsewhere, from the Nichols murder onwards. It borrowed heavily from “Leather Apron”, it borrowed heavily from the Daily News account from 10th November, and it borrowed heavily from bogus accounts (which you love) depicting the miscreant as a carrier of a black bag or parcel.

It's a world away, and you know it.

[Abby Normal]

Yeah, like when you forget and leave the toilet seat up. Boy, do they notice that.

c.d.

Or anniverseries. Yikes

[Abby Normal]

Hi Simon. Roughly nine p.m. here. I did an experiment just now. I live out in the "sticks." It is literally pitch black outside other than the stars and the moonlight, and tonight it's somewhat overcast. I set a red and a white piece of cloth outside, with some moderate ambient light shining out into the darkness from a kitchen window. I then walked in complete darkness to the end of the drive; I'm guessing 30 yards. The colors were easily distinguishable.

I think the Hutchinson crowd has been codding you, dear boss. It doesn't matter a smidgeon how dark it was in Dorset Street; it only matters how close Kelly and Astrakhan were standing to that lamp. I am out in the blackness and can't see my own shoes or my own hand in front of my face, but I can see those hanky's from 90 feet away with just a wee bit of loitering light from a nearby window. If Kelly and J were standing anywhere near that light, the color of the hanky would be have been obvious. The argument is malarkey.

Hi rj
If you actually did this experiment then i have no problem beleiving you and agreeing with you that hutch may have been able to see the color of the hanky.

So i disagree with my fellow hutchinsonian ben somewhat on this.

However. I cant help that considering the amalgram that aman seems to be of previous sightings that the red hanky... yes it was red... he took it out and it was red... and she took the red hanky... lol. And hutches seemingly weird empasis that it was red. I mean who gives a flying **** what color the hanky was.

That he either left it there himself and or was using the previous reports of it to bolster his false claim. Personally i think he knew it was red because it was hus and he left it there.

Tom wescott i beleive wrote an interesting piece about it.

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

Not that it matters a jot in the great scheme of things, but how do we know that Mr. A's handkerchief wasn't green or a shade of tan?

The Electrical Journal, 1901 -



Regards,

Simon

[rjpalmer]

Hi Simon. Thanks for the article; it’s a good one. But of course, this only addresses whether Hutchinson was accurate in calling the hanky red; it has no bearing on whether he was honest in calling the hanky red—if you see the distinction. The gaslight may have played tricks on his eyes, but he believed what he was telling Badham. By contrast, I think Hinton’s argument was that there can be no color in poor lighting (due to the lack of wavelengths, etc) so someone claiming to have seen any color is inherently a liar.

Abby – ‘fig’ only requires three asterisks, not four.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
It is not within the realms of possibility That Hutchinson incorporated the handkerchief into his account because he was worried that the red one which belonged to him,. which he left in Mary's room that morning , would incriminate him.
I am not implying he killed her, just realised once she was found dead, all items in her room would have been noted.
Lets say Mr A existed, she did come across him as stated, he did accompany Mary back to Millers court, but stayed with Kelly only around 45 minutes , and left..
Hutchinson then walks up the passage and asks Mary could he doss down for a couple of hours until dawn. she allows this, and lets him in, shortly after, she asks to borrow a handkerchief, he hands it to her [ a red one] and upon leaving just after six , leaves it in the room.
Topping was described as rather dapper, the description of attending a music hall with suitable clothing including a cane [ which nearly tripped up his bride to be] suggests that. so he may well have been in the habit of carrying a silk handkerchief.?
Lets consider this scenario..
Late Friday morning he hears of the murder in the court, he then hears its the Kelly Woman.
He would be asking for trouble informing the police he stayed with her that morning,, but realised that he had left his handkerchief in her room, a silk one, and was paranoid the police might associate it with him, as he may have been well known for having one.[ who knows?].
But he did see Mr A , If he incorporated that handkerchief into that account, he would be .
a] Giving a description of a man he saw Kelly with, [ even if he knew he had left He may have returned later for all he knew.]
b] Explaining how the Handkerchief got into her room..
The fact that he said a Red One, was a mistake on his part,, as it has been discussed on here how adamant he was, which was silly of him.
All of this does not incriminate Hutchinson,he did see Mr A, he could not admit being in Mary's room, so he used the stranger as a means to give an identity to who the item belonged to.
Regards Richard.

[harry]

If we are to accept Hutchinson told the truth,that he did not fabricate any part of his statement,that he told it exactly as it happened,on what occasion w as he able to observe those items below neck level.His statement is that he looked up into the man's face as Aman passed under the light.No mention of him(Hutchinson) looking down.Yet the lower details are as detailed as the facial descriptions.

Like any other part of his story,it has to be shown there was any light at all.Was that particular lamp lit that night?Was the ambient light good enough to observe small objects?

.Same thing about lamp light and other light sources at the court.We Have Lewis's description of Hutchinson to contend with.How much did she see.Not much,and she was a whole lot closer at that location.

[Sam Flynn]

It is not within the realms of possibility That Hutchinson incorporated the handkerchief into his account because he was worried that the red one which belonged to him,. which he left in Mary's room that morning , would incriminate him.

I've sometimes seen this suggested by various people on all sides of the argument, but I can't quite work out how the handkerchief could have been traced back to him, especially in the days before DNA analysis. The only realistic mechanism I can imagine is if his full name was embroidered on the hanky, which would be extremely unlikely.

[Wickerman]

Hi RJ,

Not that it matters a jot in the great scheme of things, but how do we know that Mr. A's handkerchief wasn't green or a shade of tan?

The Electrical Journal, 1901 -

[ATTACH]18736[/ATTACH]

Regards,

Simon

Good morning Simon.

I think you'll find that posters who basically take Hutchinson at his word don't really care what the true colour of the handkerchief was.
However, you may incur the wrath of some anti-Hutchinson posters who demand it must be red to connect Hutch with the Eddowes murder.
They can't afford to lose any points of argument, they have so few to start with.