Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[c.d.]

Maybe, but Abberline's report was "I am of opinion his statement is true". That's pretty categorical for someone who who harbours any significant doubt.

Right, but did he mean I think it much more likely that his statement is true as opposed to it being a complete fabrication or did he mean I would bet the lives of my wife and children that he is telling the truth? If he harbored any doubts he probably would have discussed them in person with his superiors.

c.d.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I was wondering why McCarthy , or Mrs M, never saw any activity outside the court around 2.15 Pm,
Was the shop still opened, if not what was Indian Harry doing at the tap around 3 p.m,?
Regards Richard.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Hutch + Eddowes?

Regards,

Simon

[rjpalmer]

Simon - Lawende's suspect in The Times, 2 October - "of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak".


Evidently Lawende is allowed to see colors at night; just not Hutchinson. Best wishes.

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

In this matter I give no more credence to Lawende than I do to Hutchinson.

The only point I would make is that while Hutchinson was 40 yards from the objects of his fascination, Lawende testified that, "The man and woman were about nine or ten feet away from me."

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Hutch + Eddowes?

Regards,

Simon

It has been theorised that Hutch may have been the same man with the red neckerchief in Duke St. The 'red' neckerchief is vital to that argument.
So, be prepared to defend your possibly 'green' or 'tan' handkerchief theory.

Eddowes was wearing a red silk handkerchief when she was locked up at Bishopsgate. So likely quite common.

Edward Spooner managed to identify red (and white) flowers on Stride, by matchlight in Dutfields Yard.

No-one seems to have questioned the ability to distinguish red by poor light.

[Abby Normal]

Mine is speculation (as to why Hutchinson might have been waiting). Yours is a statement of fact about his body language, the nature of which I was hoping you might explain.

Bothe he and sarah lewis described him waiting for someone to come out. So his body language was obviously one where she could tell thats what he was doing-facing the court, watching the court, standing alertly etc.

[Abby Normal]

That may have been a conclusion that he came to at a later time, but his immediate reaction, as I recall, was to document a belief that Hutchinson's story was true.

No. His immediate reaction was suspicion. “I interrogated him thoroughly”.
Then he beleived him when he was finished.
Then soon came to think he was full of crap.

[Sam Flynn]

No-one seems to have questioned the ability to distinguish red by poor light.

It's a simple physiological fact that, at night and/or under dim lighting conditions, our eyes are less able to distinguish reds, our eyes then being more sensitive to blues and greens. (The opposite is true in daytime and/or under bright lighting conditions). The phenomenon is known as the Purkinje Effect, as illustrated by the graph below.

[Wickerman]

...
She saw a man standing alone outside Crossinghams, opposite the entrance to Miller's Court. If it was Hutchinson, this must have been some time after Kelly and Astrakhan had entered her room, otherwise why was he staring at the entrance to the court in the first place?

In her police statement she simply says that when she went up the court, there was a man standing in the street opposite.
"...when I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset St."

Then again in her inquest testimony she says the same thing.
"-- When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House."

She doesn't seem to suggest she saw the man before she arrived at the passage. Nor does she say she saw him walking on the other side.

Although Lewis mentioned another man & woman "passed along", we are in no position to determine where they "passed along", from that statement alone.
Did she mean "passed along the street", or "passed along the passage"?

Either way, the man loitering (if Hutchinson) was only 25 ft across the street from the entrance to Millers Court. Well able to see and hear what was claimed by Hutchinson.

[Sam Flynn]

In her police statement she simply says that when she went up the court, there was a man standing in the street opposite.
"...when I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset St."

Quite, but she doesn't mention Kelly and Astrakhan speaking at the entrance to Miller's Court and/or fiddling about with a handkerchief at the time. Whenever that happened - if it ever did - we simply don't know where Hutchinson was standing in relation to the pair, not from his own testimony and certainly not from Sara Lewis's.

[Sam Flynn]

Although Lewis mentioned another man & woman "passed along", we are in no position to determine where they "passed along", from that statement alone.
Did she mean "passed along the street", or "passed along the passage"?

You would only describe someone as "passing along the passage" if you were looking directly down the passage yourself and were able to see them passing along it, which Lewis was not. The passage was at a right angle to her as she walked down Dorset Street, so "passing along" here means "passing along Dorset Street".

Had the couple performed a 90-degree turn into the Miller's Court archway, Lewis - and anyone else - would have said that they'd "entered the passage" or "went through the archway"; nobody would say that they'd "passed along".

[Wickerman]

It's a simple physiological fact that, at night and/or under dim lighting conditions, our eyes are less able to distinguish reds, our eyes then being more sensitive to blues and greens. (The opposite is true in daytime and/or under bright lighting conditions). The phenomenon is known as the Purkinje Effect, as illustrated by the graph below.

[ATTACH]18740[/ATTACH]

That's only half the story though, where is the allowance for gaslight, and at what distance?

Did you know that an object placed directly under a gas lamp still retains its colour?
Except, the further you move it away from that light (while you remain stationary), the more gradual the object looses it's colour and appears to become darker.

We don't know how close Kelly & Co. stood to the source of light. So, we cannot judge either way. Even if Hutch got the colour wrong, that does not reflect on his honesty, or whether he was there or not.
There is no counter argument that challenges the colour of that same handkerchief.
So, what is the point of the argument?

Let's not forget, Astrachan passed directly under a lamp in front of Hutchinson where this red handkerchief could have been seen in his top pocket as he passed by.

[Sam Flynn]

That's only half the story though, where is the allowance for gaslight, and at what distance?

So, what is the point of the argument?

Under conditions of dim lighting, your eyes are physiologically less capable of distinguishing red colours, and you will be increasingly less able to correctly perceive an object as red the further away you are from any given light source.

Let's not forget, Astrachan passed directly under a lamp in front of Hutchinson where this red handkerchief could have been seen in his top pocket as he passed by.

Assuming it was in his top pocket and visible as he passed by.

[Ben]

Jon, you’ve got to take longer and more regular breaks from Casebook. Trust me, even the shortest of sabbaticals can often result in a fresher and more incisive perspective.

Don’t get me wrong, I always very much enjoy discussing and debating “Hutchinsonia” with you, but I do find it alarming when I’ve barely finished editing my latest post before Jonny-on-the-spot chimes in with yet another irate and indignant rebuttal. It’s little wonder it gets left to your poor wife to recall details of your Florida excursions if you spend all of them glued to Hutchinson discussions.

If we’re intent on revisiting Isaacs, I would appreciate it if you quoted me properly. Your erroneous claim, remember, was that Isaacs wore cheap but flashy clothes and accessories, designed to convey wealth, when walking the streets of Whitechapel and Spitalfields, to which I responded:

“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.”

I’ve highlighted in bold the portion you strangely omitted when quoting me.

I’m not interested in hearing what he did or how he dressed in Whitstable or Edinburgh (i.e. wear an obviously fake watch chain and thus fool nobody that he was a true “dandy”); I was specifically asking for evidence of Isaacs dressing “flashily” in the east end, and as of writing you’ve yet to provide any.

No, I’m not on a “recruiting drive”, I’m simply agreeing with another poster’s sensible observations (if that’s alright with you, of course).

“That description draws attention to no-one.”

Yes, but the superficial and vague nature of the sighting wouldn’t have precluded the possibility of Lewis being able to recognise the wideawake suspect again. I know not if Hutchinson went anywhere near the town hall on the day of the inquest, but he was unlikely to have been singled out in the crowds if he did - and they were crowds.