The Red Handkerchief...

[Abby Normal]

Jon has kindly explained for me, Abby, but I would just add that if a cunning murderer had deliberately kept secret from the police that he had been right outside his victim's window the night she was killed, I submit that wild horses and journalists could not have dragged that detail from his lips for the world and his wife to read about over breakfast.



It's an expression - the world and his wife, meaning the world and the world's wife, as in everyone on the planet.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Thanks for the reply.
Hutch is already involved, He came forward. he spoke with the police and the press. hes in it, his name is known now in connection to the case so its not like hes trying to keep a low profile to begin with. And I submit to you that I don't know how many cases (a lot) Ive seen or read about where the person of interest/witnesss/suspect whatever has changed their story to an apparently more incriminating one, for what ever reason. And Im sure they would have known that in doing so the world and his wife (thanks for explaining-never heard that one before) would have known and yet they do it anyway, many because they have been spotted where they previously said they were not.

[Abby Normal]

Seems a bit harsh, Abby. (Another problem with British expressions I think.)



Even harsher. She passed out because he didn't wash it first, presumably.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Sorry-translation error-Blow off to me (in the US) means reject, ignore etc.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Are you suggesting that Swanson did not share Anderson’s conviction that the only person to have gained a “good view of the murderer” was the Jewish witness who supposedly identified Kosminski?

That is exactly how I see it, and I am not alone in that either.

If so, don’t you consider it slightly odd that Swanson wrote those “marginal” notes in support of that conclusion;..

Swanson wrote those marginal notes in his copy in order to expand on his Boss's beliefs. That's how I read it.
Nowhere do we have a clue as to what Swanson believed.

....alluding to the fact that no ripper-like murder occurred again in London after the suspect’s incarceration?

After the identification, Ben.
Trouble is, we don't know when that identification took place.

But I’m afraid it just didn’t happen that way.

Then why waste your time with the theatrics?

Which is far more persuasive argument, Jon, and I agree with it entirely.

So this is one argument I don't expect to be raised again - good.

But I’m afraid you can’t then argue that it was only the statements that weren’t quite up to it in “olden times” whereas the interrogations conformed to “today’s standards”.

Where, have I ever said such a thing?

Maybe the latter were also “consistent with 19th century policing” but would be considered “deficient” today, just as you suggest occurred with written statements? If you agree with me, as you appear to, that Abberline did not recognise any deficiency with Badham’s statement-taking efforts, then you’ll accept that he had no cause to redress these non-existent deficiencies; which, in turn, neatly accounts for the absence of any juicy Hutch-exonerating bombshells from the report.

If you are alluding to those interrogation records/notes/jottings/responses/bullets, then no, there is no relationship between what Badham believed to be of consequence, and what Abberline believed to be of consequence.
Badham was not a Detective Officer, he was not expected to conduct the taking of the statement as if it were an interrogation.

The two are quite separate.

No, but he could have used the interrogation to clear up any grey areas or problematic issues with the statement had he detected any, and these “clarifications” would have appeared in the post-interrogation police report.

A Detective Officer can decide to conduct an interrogation regardless of what is contained in the witness statement. The Officer (Sergeant) taking the statement is not a mind reader, his duty is to take a statement which represents as faithfully as possible what the witness said.
The subsequent Detective Officer (Inspector) can, at his own will, explore any number of points that have only been lightly touched upon within the statement.
So your objection fails again.

Firstly, the missive sent by Abberline was not a “morning report” – it was a very late evening report. Secondly, the document in question was most assuredly not a list of “the particulars of all crimes within his territory during the preceding twenty four hours”, otherwise it would have been full of other crimes unrelated to the ripper murders: “cat got burgled, policeman got punched, Hutchinson made this statement, idiot got mugged for dressing too flashily etc”. That was clearly not the nature of the report, which was concerned exclusively with the Whitechapel murders investigation.

Learning as we go are we Ben?

No, that is not what is meant by a "morning report".
This was the time of day these report(s) were sent in to headquarters, it is not when they were written.

When a Superintendent is required to send in reports, in a morning (every morning), all the Inspectors under his charge are therefore required to submit their reports sometime prior, so the Superintendent can fulfill his duty.

All reports created by an Officer are to be handed in to his immediate superior, which means if Abberline created the report at Commercial St. then he submitted it to Arnold, and Supt. Arnold submits it to headquarters, which could have been the following morning.

Fair enough, just as long as we’re not using Abberline’s impression of Hutchinson’s demeanour as any sort gauge for assessing the latter’s honesty or otherwise. If Hutchinson performed convincingly during this interview/interrogation/chinwag, it was because he was either telling the truth or a half decent liar (as a minimum requirement).

Agreed, he 'could' have fooled Abberline.
Equally, just as equally, he 'could' have told the truth.
Abberline did have the means to check some of his story, not all of it, but sufficient to convince him this witness was being honest. Otherwise he wouldn't have written what he did.
On the other hand, to address your argument, there is no cause, no reason, and no substance to suggest Hutchinson lied about anything.

Your point being what, exactly? Mrs. Kennedy didn’t appear at the Kelly inquest at all, ...

As you well know, my point was to allay any fears you might have that Mrs Kennedy cannot have been believed or she would have been at the inquest.
History shows important testimony can wait for a second, third, or fourth sitting, so Mrs Kennedy just may well have been slated to appear, if the Inquest had run its intended course.

I’ve read your point again, very slowly, and I’m afraid it is very wrong.

The lies in question were very much “noticed a hundred years ago”, and evidently resulting in Hutchinson being discredited as a publicity or money-seeker; not a particularly unusual or noteworthy phenomenon during the investigation, believe it or not.

I think, if you had this evidence, you would have used it to impress your point.
As you have not thought to provide some details to prove your point, then we can accept you have none.

“Well-lighted” in comparison to other streets at night-time in Victorian London, perhaps, but it would not be considered so in isolation.

Says who?
The fact there was a lamp close to the passage indicates those who believe it was too dark to see, have not done their homework. Not a surprise given the source of the argument.

[Ben]

“I'll settle for the police fobbing off the Echo with disinformation if you really prefer that to the paper indulging in unaided and illogical guesswork.”

A wise choice if I may say so, Caz, providing you accept that the “disinformation” at least hinted at the true reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting, i.e. doubts about the veracity of his account. Fobbing a newspaper off is one thing, but in this case we’re talking about a fob-off that made Hutchinson look decidedly dodgy. The police would not have embedded that idea in the minds of the Echo-reading public unless they thought he was decidedly dodgy, even if not specifically because he came forward three days late.

By "dodgy" I mean a potential fame-seeking liar, not a potential murderer.

I’m quite aware (and have stated several times) that Hutchinson’s late appearance cannot have been the primary reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting, or even a particularly important one, but that does not mean that it wasn’t considered a contributory factor. I’ve already explained why your comparison with Lawende is an exceptionally poor one, but since you didn’t address my comments (and merely repeated the comparison), I’ll have another go:

Lawende was merely a passer-by on the other side of the road, who evidently paid the couple scant attention. He didn’t see the woman’s face, and did not know the victim. The reverse is true for Hutchinson on almost every point. He had known Kelly for three years*, had seen her on the morning of her murder*, and took an unusually active and persistent interest in her movements*. He also lived a few hundred yards from the murder site, and would have learned of the murder very shortly after the discovery of the body, unlike Dalston-based Lawende who would have relied on press accounts. A “delay” in the presentation of Hutchinson’s evidence is therefore far more extraordinary then Lawende’s, given the hugely different circumstances.

(*According to the police acceptance of Hutchinson’s statement at that time, that is – just in case you ask me again how I “know” this to be true, which of course I don’t)

“If the police subsequently came to doubt his credibility, they didn't say a blessed word to the Echo or anyone else about what had changed between Abberline believing his statement to be true and the authorities in general doubting it.”

The police informed the Echo, rightly or wrongly, that Hutchinson’s statement had suffered a “very reduced importance” in light of later investigation, which had undermined his credibility. No, the police did not regale them with precise details, and nor should we expect them to have done, but the fact that the one “detail” they did provide related unambiguously to the issue of credibility should be sufficient to enervate all the other crap reasons submitted over the years for Hutchinson’s "diminished" importance, including “honest confusion” and “the trail went cold”. Don’t even contemplate reminding me yet again that the “delay” was probably a bogus reason. I acknowledge as much; the “delay” merely scratched the surface of the problems the police had with Hutchinson’s credibility, but the police would never have introduced the very theme of dishonesty unless that is what they suspected Hutchinson of.

“How did the police publicly 'malign' Hutch?”

By ensuring that it was published far and wide that they were all but ditching his account because he did not come forward for three days after the murder. It doesn’t matter if this reason was accurate or bogus; the point is that is made Hutchinson look bad.

“Right, so the police spotted that Hutch had omitted to tell them he had been right outside the victim's window that night, but they still never made any connection with Sarah Lewis's lurking man”

Since Sarah Lewis never mentioned seeing her lurking man in Miller’s Court (don’t start, Jon!), I’m uncertain of your point, but no, the police apparently never made the connection with Sarah Lewis’s man, and before you protest in horror over this observation, reflect that not a single journalist made the connection either. It just isn’t my problem, but rather a gripe you should take up with the police and press of 1888, who will probably explain that oversights of this nature are typical of major investigations. The seemingly innocuous wideawake man may well have received scant police attention in contrast to those actually seen in the company of women – Blotchy, Bethnal Green man etc.

and automatically presumed this sensational new detail meant he had been nowhere near the scene at all that night

It's a fact that the vast majority of bogus witnesses have nothing to do with the crimes they claim to be intimately associated with. It would have been a simple case of lumping Hutchinson with the vast majority of dud witnesses who turn out to be same-seekers, as opposed to the then-unheard-of category of offenders who come forward pretending to be witnesses.

“Er, it was a bogus reason, Ben. Keep up. Any "considerable lessening" was not due to Hutch's timing, for bleedin' obvious reasons, which Garry and I should not have needed to explain the first time, let alone the twentieth. Let's see if I can make it any simpler for you.”

No, let’s not.

Let’s put a little more effort into understanding my point instead.

I have explained – enough times now, with any luck – that I do not regard the “delay” as the most significant reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting; the police “fobbed” off the Echo by hinting at their general attitude towards Hutchinson, without going into specifics. Having said that, I don’t understand what trouble you appear to having with the idea that Hutchinson’s initial excuse for his delay, provided at the time of the “interrogation”, was later revealed to be bogus thanks to the "later investigations" alluded to in the Echo.

What’s this “Garry and I” nonsense I keep reading about, by the way? Garry is well aware of my position on the subject, understands that I do not regard the “delay” as the most damning point against Hutchinson in the minds of the police, and wholly shares my view that the police came to discredit Hutchinson after suspecting him of lying.

“First you have to prove the police did consider Hutch less important, before the trail could go cold, and you lack a valid reason, from an official police source, for this reduction in importance.”

I don’t “have to prove” any such thing.

It is quite sufficient for me to demonstrate the plentiful and compelling evidence in support of this conclusion.

“Hutchinson was no good to the police for identification purposes unless or until a suspect could be found who resembled the man he described with Kelly.”

Within reason, surely? As I think we discussed before, the chances of a hypothetically real Astrakhan man sporting the very same get-up again were fairly remote. The task would therefore have been one of finding someone who resembled Astrakhan in terms of height, build, facial features etc, and to that end, Hutchinson was arguably a far better bet to look over Jewish Kosminski than Lawende, whose ostensibly gentile sailor-like chap doesn’t sound much like He of the Solitary Vices at all. And yet Hutchinson was not used, and worse still (for fanciers of Hutchinson’s continued “importance”), Anderson observed that the only person to get a “good view” of the murderer was Jewish (and no, that wasn’t a lie craftily conjured up to conceal the fact that they lost track of star witness Hutchinson.)

“Also, many innocent witnesses only come forward after a deal of soul-searching, or not at all, especially if their own presence near a crime scene could compromise them in any way”

It just gets a bit interesting, though, when that period of “soul-searching” only comes to an end very shortly after the termination of the public inquest, where a lady reported seeing someone loitering near a crime scene.

“So there's nothing inherently suspicious about Hutchinson not initially thinking to mention his futile two-minute venture into the court, which produced no new info.”

It is frankly mind-boggling that should think so, but okay.

The police would certainly have been interested to hear that a couple who had entered the court a short time beforehand were later ensconced in darkness and silent, and however much soul-searching an innocent and truthful Hutchinson was likely to have engaged in prior to coming forward, he would surely have realised that such a crucial detail belonged firmly on the list of details to include in his narrative. It may have served as an important clue towards ascertaining a likely time of death (let alone a likely perpetrator).

“Either way, the police saw nothing suspicious about it.”

They undoubtedly recognised the contradiction when it was published in the press, shortly before he was non-coincidentally discredited.

All the best,
Ben

[harry]

Caz,
There is a danger in an interviewer suggesting or coaxing a witness,in that witnesses may adopt the suggestion as something that happened..The discrepency between the police and newspaper reports may just be that a suggestion of entering the court was put by one or the other,and Hutchinson agreed simply because it made his story more convincing.

Cox states that at 3am when she returned to the court it was raining heavily.Coincidently it must have been just prior to this that Hutchinson gave up his vigil,and walked the streets.In heavy rain? Interesting.

As to waiting for 45 minutes or so,it is reasonable to accept that he(Hutchinson) at first ,expected Kelly's companion to reappear in a reasonable time,but became convinced eventually he was staying the night.
It is not so much what Hutchinson states .it is what his story suggests that is important

[caz]

Hi Caz
Thanks for the reply.
Hutch is already involved, He came forward. he spoke with the police and the press. hes in it, his name is known now in connection to the case so its not like hes trying to keep a low profile to begin with. And I submit to you that I don't know how many cases (a lot) Ive seen or read about where the person of interest/witnesss/suspect whatever has changed their story to an apparently more incriminating one, for what ever reason. And Im sure they would have known that in doing so the world and his wife (thanks for explaining-never heard that one before) would have known and yet they do it anyway, many because they have been spotted where they previously said they were not.

Okay, Abby. So if Hutch came forward as a result of realising that Sarah Lewis had seen him in a particular location, and therefore admitted to the police he had been in this location (while not mentioning Lewis in case they realised he had only come forward because of her), how did he then find out, between his police and press interviews, he had also been spotted right outside Kelly's window, prompting him to change his story and mention this more incriminating detail when talking to the reporter?

And even if something like this did happen, how could he be sure he had only been seen that close to the crime scene for the 'couple of minutes' he claimed to be there - unless it was the truth and he then returned to the Dorset St entrance just as he claimed, before finally walking away?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caz,
There is a danger in an interviewer suggesting or coaxing a witness,in that witnesses may adopt the suggestion as something that happened..

Yes I can see that. So Hutch made his statement, Badham wrote it down, then Abberline coaxed more details, or clarifications, from him during his interrogation, jotting down notes of the questions and answers before finally including anything directly relevant to the sighting and identification of Kelly in his report.

The discrepency between the police and newspaper reports may just be that a suggestion of entering the court was put by one or the other,and Hutchinson agreed simply because it made his story more convincing.

Yes, maybe, or he only then recalled doing so, as he had still not seen the couple there. Either way, not suspicious.

As to waiting for 45 minutes or so,it is reasonable to accept that he(Hutchinson) at first ,expected Kelly's companion to reappear in a reasonable time,but became convinced eventually he was staying the night.

Yes, an entirely reasonable explanation.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

I feel a bit uneasy about the fact that, in contrast to the detailed description of Mr A, there is not one word about what Kelly was wearing.

[Abby Normal]

Okay, Abby. So if Hutch came forward as a result of realising that Sarah Lewis had seen him in a particular location, and therefore admitted to the police he had been in this location (while not mentioning Lewis in case they realised he had only come forward because of her), how did he then find out, between his police and press interviews, he had also been spotted right outside Kelly's window, prompting him to change his story and mention this more incriminating detail when talking to the reporter?

And even if something like this did happen, how could he be sure he had only been seen that close to the crime scene for the 'couple of minutes' he claimed to be there - unless it was the truth and he then returned to the Dorset St entrance just as he claimed, before finally walking away?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

]Okay, Abby. So if Hutch came forward as a result of realising that Sarah Lewis had seen him in a particular location, and therefore admitted to the police he had been in this location (while not mentioning Lewis in case they realised he had only come forward because of her), how did he then find out, between his police and press interviews, he had also been spotted right outside Kelly's window, prompting him to change his story and mention this more incriminating detail when talking to the reporter?

Im not wedded to the idea that Hutch came forward because of lewis, but it dosnt seem far fetched to me, given the circs.

I have no idea how he found out he had been spotted there. maybe he was just getting paranoid, maybe he though someone from McCathys shop spotted him. Who knows?

All I know is he seems to have neglected to tell this little tidbit to the police. And Im just kicking around reasons why-and one of the main reasons why strikes me because he later thought someone spotted him there.

And even if something like this did happen, how could he be sure he had only been seen that close to the crime scene for the 'couple of minutes' he claimed to be there - unless it was the truth and he then returned to the Dorset St entrance just as he claimed, before finally walking away?

I think it was the truth, but what he did after that is anybodies guess.
He could have done just like you said, or he could have entered her apt, or left and come back.

If he entered her apartment immediately after standing there, maybe he only saw someone look out a window for a moment and then leave.

[Sam Flynn]

I feel a bit uneasy about the fact that, in contrast to the detailed description of Mr A, there is not one word about what Kelly was wearing.

Indeed, Robert. That may have something to do with the fact that details about suspects were widely covered in the press - which is where, I'd wager, Hutchinson's cut-and-paste "suspect" had his origins.

[Wickerman]

I feel a bit uneasy about the fact that, in contrast to the detailed description of Mr A, there is not one word about what Kelly was wearing.

Hi Robert.

The same as Schwartz then, who did not describe the woman being assaulted in the gateway.

Do you think this is due to the natural inclination for people to be suspicious of the unknown male?

It doesn't appear that Sgt. Badham considered there to be any doubt about the identity of the woman with Astrachan, given that Hutchinson claimed to know her, perhaps that comment alone removed the need to ask him to describe her?
Besides, after the inquest, the police focus was on the suspect, finding one, and any fresh leads.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Jon,

The same as Schwartz then, who did not describe the woman being assaulted in the gateway.

Schwartz merely scuttled past the darkened entrance of Dutfield's Yard before legging it down the street sharpish. He couldn't have seen much of Liz Stride under such circumstances. By contrast, by Hutchinson's account, he practically "stalked" Mary Kelly, and even claimed to have held a conversation with her. His vantage points were much better than Schwartz's, and he had her under observation for quite some time. Under such circumstances, perhaps it is a bit odd that the only really descriptive statement he gave about Kelly referred to her "spreeishness", and little else. But all that changes when it comes to Mr Astrakhan, about whom Hutchinson produced a veritable torrent of descriptive detail.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,
Schwartz merely scuttled past the darkened entrance of Dutfield's Yard before legging it down the street sharpish. He couldn't have seen much of Liz Stride under such circumstances. By contrast, by Hutchinson's account, he practically "stalked" Mary Kelly, and even claimed to have held a conversation with her. His vantage points were much better than Schwartz's, and he had her under observation for quite some time. Under such circumstances, perhaps it is a bit odd that the only really descriptive statement he gave about Kelly referred to her "spreeishness", and little else. But all that changes when it comes to Mr Astrakhan, about whom Hutchinson produced a veritable torrent of descriptive detail.

Hi Gareth.

So, who do you blame?, Badham assuming he was supposed to direct the taking of the statement, or Hutchinson who, as Stewart has pointed out, is a witness who does not recognise what is important to police.

[Robert]

Hi Jon

More or less what Gareth said : Schwarz would have had a quick glimpse of Stride, and after that his (frightened) attention would have been directed at the two people who might do him harm. But GH (according to his statement anyway) wasn't frightened at all : he speaks to Mary, then he sees her encounter with Mr A, and he actually bends down to look Mr A in the face, receiving a stern look in reply. Then he follows them.

Excluding the apron piece, this was the only murder where the killer could have walked off with some of the victim's clothing. Surely the police tried to build a picture of Kelly's clothes, to see if anything was missing. They'd have talked to Barnett, Cox, Harvey etc and I would have expected them to ask GH a couple of questions about her clothes. But we hear nothing on that score. Cox, who knew Kelly and actually saw her go into her room, furnishes a description, but not GH.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

More or less what Gareth said : Schwarz would have had a quick glimpse of Stride, and after that his (frightened) attention would have been directed at the two people who might do him harm.

Hi Robert.
So what do you think this suggests?

Surely the police tried to build a picture of Kelly's clothes, to see if anything was missing. They'd have talked to Barnett, Cox, Harvey etc and I would have expected them to ask GH a couple of questions about her clothes. But we hear nothing on that score. Cox, who knew Kelly and actually saw her go into her room, furnishes a description, but not GH.

Hutchinson was interrogated later, do you think Abberline might have asked him those questions?