The Red Handkerchief...

[Rosella]

The trouble with giving descriptions of any the female victims, IMHO, is that each of them wore dark clothing which, away from the direct glare of street lamps, would have just looked black.

If they wore a flower, hat or coloured shawl there is sometimes an attempt at a description (as in Stride's red flower) but all we usually get from the male witnesses who were presumably given a description of their clothing is that to the 'best of their knowledge' that is the woman'.

Mary doesn't seem to have habitually worn a hat, we know from Dew that she usually wore an apron and she might have worn a red cross-over shawl. If Mary wore none of those items that night then all Hutchinson would have seen probably is Mary in a dark dress . He wouldn't have taken notice of style or any buttoning etc on her dress, because most men don't take in such details.

[Wickerman]

Actually Rosella, I suspect part of the problem is human nature.

Just ask any man what his wife was wearing last night.

Conversely, ask any woman what another woman was wearing.

If you see what I mean.

[Robert]

So what do you think this suggests?

I don't understand, Jon.

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

He may have done, but why wasn't there something in his police statement about it?

After all, despite GH saying that he knew Kelly, and that she and Mr A went up the Court, the police still asked him to identify the body. So they were being quite careful.

[Wickerman]

So what do you think this suggests?

I don't understand, Jon.

Sorry Robert, that wasn't too clear.
I meant, what do you think the omission of any description of Kelly implies?

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

He may have done, but why wasn't there something in his police statement about it?

After all, despite GH saying that he knew Kelly, and that she and Mr A went up the Court, the police still asked him to identify the body. So they were being quite careful.

There are a number of details omitted in that police statement, as Stewart took pains to point out, yet whether these omissions are attributed to Hutchinson or Badham is not easy to determine.

It is always possible that when asked to describe both Kelly & Astrachan, Badham only thought it necessary to record the description of the suspect, as this was the important feature of the statement.

It can't be denied that the police took witness claims of recognition on faith, by example, Mrs Maxwell also claimed to have recognised Kelly Friday morning, yet even the authorities at the time began to be doubtful about that.

Why Hutchinson was asked to identify the body is interesting, as from what we can see, very little remained of facial features to distinguish the body with any certainty.
What was there beyond the false teeth and the hair?

[Rosella]

Mary's eyes, I suppose. It's intriguing that she supposedly had a couple of false teeth, hardly the sort of thing you'd expect a poverty-stricken East End prostitute to possess. They might have been rather prominent natural buck teeth of course and just looked false.

[Bridewell]

Hi Robert.

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

It's perhaps a minor point but we don't known that Schwartz did not describe the woman - we only know that there is no record of him doing so. It would, to my mind, not be logical for such detail to be included in the written record - on the basis that the woman would have to be Stride unless it was thought conceivable that two different women might be attacked in the same spot within ten minutes of each other.

[Wickerman]

It's perhaps a minor point but we don't known that Schwartz did not describe the woman - we only know that there is no record of him doing so. It would, to my mind, not be logical for such detail to be included in the written record - on the basis that the woman would have to be Stride unless it was thought conceivable that two different women might be attacked in the same spot within ten minutes of each other.

I agree. In having only Swanson's summary, but not the original police statement, we cannot know for sure whether Schwartz described the woman.
But as you say, the interviewing officer (again, Abberline) might have drawn the same conclusion as yourself.

The situation is similar in the Kelly case where we have no existing record of what Hutchinson told Abberline, he may well have described the clothes Kelly wore that night just to satisfy Abberline's curiosity.

The observation that started this line of thought is an often repeated one in that "Hutchinson did not tell the police (something)", when in reality, we simply do not know everything that he told police, more specifically, what he told Abberline.

Once again, criticisms leveled against Hutchinson are solely based on what we do not know.

[GUT]

It's perhaps a minor point but we don't known that Schwartz did not describe the woman - we only know that there is no record of him doing so. It would, to my mind, not be logical for such detail to be included in the written record - on the basis that the woman would have to be Stride unless it was thought conceivable that two different women might be attacked in the same spot within ten minutes of each other.

Unfortunately there is so much lost to us, this is a constant problem for anyone trying to keep an open mind, did it once exist and is lost or was it never there.

Sometimes we just have to accept that the police were not fools and did their jobs and the answer is simply lost to us.

[Ben]

Hi Rosella,

“But Ben, Hutchinson doesn't claim to have been standing at the corner of Dorset St. In his statement he says 'They both went into Dorset St. I followed them. They both stood at the corner of the court for about 3 minutes'.”

He later elaborated on his location to the press:

“I put down my head to look him in the face, and he turned and looked at me very sternly, and they walked across the road to Dorset-street. I followed them across and stood at the corner of Dorset-street. They stood at the corner of Miller's-court for about three minutes”

Such a vantage point would have rendered it more or less impossible to pick out the colour red on a very small object, revealed for a fleeting moment from that distance away, and Kelly would have been required to enunciate and bellow the words “I’ve lost my handkerchief” for Hutchinson to hear them.

Before anyone is tempted to attribute this “corner of Dorset Street” location to journalistic invention, it is worth bearing in mind that if you want to "re-position" Hutchinson to a spot closer to the couple, you run into a brand new problem: the absurdity of Kelly and Astrakhan not noticing Hutchinson taking his snooping curiosity further. Astrakhan had already registered his displeasure at Hutchinson’s antics, and would hardly have hovered outside Miller’s Court “for about three minutes” if he suspected for a moment that he was still being followed. There was no possibility of Hutchinson escaping detection “on the other side of the street”.

“However, if Hutchinson is to be believed, he must have standing within eye and earshot.”

Well, the fact that he couldn’t have been standing “within eye and earshot” without being noticed is one of many reasons I don’t believe him. Having said that, the “corner of Dorset Street” was the only location Hutchinson ever specified for his vantage point that time, so "if" he is to be believed, why not accept it?

“After they disappear up Millers Court he says he went to the court to see if he could see them but could not, so he must have been nearby but not in the immediate vicinity if Mary had time to whisk Astrakhan Man indoors.”

Which is perfectly consistent with the corner of Dorset Street.

“If Mary wore none of those items that night then all Hutchinson would have seen probably is Mary in a dark dress . He wouldn't have taken notice of style or any buttoning etc on her dress, because most men don't take in such details.”

Most men don’t “take in” such details of another man’s attire as “light buttons over button boots”, “linen collar” and “horseshoe tie-pin” either, especially not for a fleeting moment in the darkness of a Victorian London street at night. If he was capable of noticing a "red stone" dangling from Astrakhan man’s watch seal (mysteriously on display underneath two coats), he was certainly capable of noticing Mary Kelly’s red shawl or “pelerine”, which she was apparently wearing that night.

Whatever reason Badham and/or Abberline had for failing to extract details of Kelly’s clothing, I doubt very much that it was due to a lads’ understanding that there was no use trying to notice girls’ clothes. I can’t envisage Abberline saying with a thin smile and a wink: “Don’t worry, I won’t ask you to describe a woman's clothes – bit much to ask of a chap, what! But about that horseshoe tie-pin; was it made of silver or platinum?”.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

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

But you probably are alone in suggesting that Swanson secretly rejected Anderson’s conclusions with regard to the Jewish witness and suspect because he secretly championed Hutchinson as the star witness (assuming I haven’t misunderstood your position?). Hutchinson aside, I will just make the off-topic observation that if Swanson did not agree with Anderson, as you claim, it seems odd that he made the point, that no ripper-like murder occurred in London after the Jewish suspect’s identification, in obvious support of the his boss’s conclusion.

“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.”

Astonishing then that Abberline chose to submit to his superiors only what “Badham believed to be of consequence”, and kept what he considered "of consequence" to himself. You keep trying to trivialise the importance of the written statement – presumably out of frustration at what you believe to be unanswered questions contained therein, as they inevitably invite doubt and suspicion – but if the document was as worthless as you keep insisting it was, it would have been better to circumvent the entire process of statement-taking and concentrate on the interrogation itself. If Abberline extracted details from Hutchinson that did not appear in the statement, but which were nonetheless regarded as being “of consequence”, they would have been mentioned in the report that accompanied the statement – irrefutably so.

“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.”

And if anything “of consequence” transpired from that “exploration”, it was Abberline’s duty to alert his superiors at the earliest opportunity, rather than sitting on them and pretending he had overall command of the ripper investigation, which he didn't.

“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”

When?

Between the end of the interrogation and the submission of the statement? I wonder how many hours we’re talking about here – two? Could you provide some credible suggestions as to what could have been “checked” within that time period? The fact that he resided at the Victoria Home, perhaps? Great, but not likely to be very revealing in terms of verification for his story or his propensity to lie. Anything else?

“On the other hand, to address your argument, there is no cause, no reason, and no substance to suggest Hutchinson lied about anything.”

What “argument” are you addressing? The general debate over whether Hutchinson lied or not? Well, the weight of evidence and popular perception says he did (sorry!), but perhaps you mean that Abberline had no cause to suspect him of lying at the time of the interrogation thanks to Hutchinson’s superficially convincing demeanour? In which case, I agree.

“As you well know, my point was to allay any fears you might have that 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."

But you haven’t remotely “allayed any fears” in that regard; I’m still as fearful as ever that “Mrs Kennedy cannot have been believed or she would have been at the inquest”, and I’m also very safe in that conviction. There is no credible set of circumstances under which a witness of Kennedy’s potential significance would not have appeared at the inquest had she been believed. Forget the idea of the inquest “running its intended course” before she had a chance to provide her evidence; the authorities would have made damn sure that the inquest did not “run its course” until she had.

“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.”

Or “we” can accept that I’ve provided the evidence in patient and meticulous detail literally hundreds of times, and that I’m disinclined to do so again at your behest. There are (thanks largely to you) nearly 15,000 posts in the Hutchinson forum, and I would suggest revisiting those; otherwise I guess I’ll have to do conduct a very tedious keyword search followed by an even more tedious copy-and-paste job, which I’d rather avoid.

“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.”

But if you had done your homework, you would have learned that the gas lamps used in 1888 served essentially as beacons, and were next to useless for providing illumination, let alone the sort that Hutchinson’s observational feats would have required. The gas mantle, which provided half-decent illumination, was only invented in 1891.

“Once again, criticisms leveled against Hutchinson are solely based on what we do not know.”

Who’s criticising Hutchinson?

If anyone was at fault for failing to elicit details of Kelly’s clothing, it was the police. You speak of “what we do not know”, and for all “we know”, the police did neglect to ask such a question; otherwise they might have smelt a rat when, or if, Hutchinson claimed not to have remembered Kelly’s clothing, or offered a description that failed to match that provided by Cox and others. Returning to Caz’s earlier point, the notes accompanying the statement illustrate that Abberline was keen to convey to his superiors that he had correctly established the woman’s identity, so why omit details of Kelly’s clothing in support of this conclusion? The obvious answer is that he wouldn’t have done, had such details been procured.

I just hope nobody’s trying to argue that a “correct” answer to an “off-the-record” question regarding Kelly’s attire must illustrate that Hutchinson was being truthful, as opposed to snatching the details from Cox’s publicly available press description, or registering the clothes in the room himself.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Unfortunately there is so much lost to us, this is a constant problem for anyone trying to keep an open mind, did it once exist and is lost or was it never there.

I don't mind people speculating either way, GUT.

I do have a problem when people claim it "must have" existed once upon a time, and "must have" said what X or Y theorist wants it to have said.

[GUT]

I don't mind people speculating either way, GUT.

I do have a problem when people claim it "must have" existed once upon a time, and "must have" said what X or Y theorist wants it to have said.

I have the same problem, along with those who say the documents we do have don't say "X" so the authorities never asked about "X".

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
But you probably are alone in suggesting that Swanson secretly rejected Anderson’s conclusions with regard to the Jewish witness and suspect because he secretly championed Hutchinson as the star witness (assuming I haven’t misunderstood your position?).

Hi Ben.
Oh, I think you know very well that you have misrepresented my position.
All Swanson was doing, was identifying Anderson's suspect. I made no suggestion that Swanson championed Hutchinson.
It really is tiresome for you to continuously make claims that I never wrote.

Hutchinson aside, I will just make the off-topic observation that if Swanson did not agree with Anderson, as you claim, it seems odd that he made the point, that no ripper-like murder occurred in London after the Jewish suspect’s identification, in obvious support of the his boss’s conclusion.

Tell me, what was the date of this identification?

Astonishing then that Abberline chose to submit to his superiors only what “Badham believed to be of consequence”, and kept what he considered "of consequence" to himself.

Reports were submitted daily, if I recall, three times daily communications (mail?) were picked up & delivered.
You make it sound like this was the only time he sent in a report. You don't know if he sent further reports in subsequent pick-ups.

And if anything “of consequence” transpired from that “exploration”, it was Abberline’s duty to alert his superiors at the earliest opportunity, rather than sitting on them and pretending he had overall command of the ripper investigation, which he didn't.

Who said he was sitting on them?

When?

Between the end of the interrogation and the submission of the statement? I wonder how many hours we’re talking about here – two?

More likely four.

What “argument” are you addressing? The general debate over whether Hutchinson lied or not?

Yes, and I don't see it as "popular". There is certainly nothing mainstream about Hutchinson being understood to have lied about anything.
If we had all read such claims in Sugden, Evans, Begg, Skinner, etc. etc. then you might have a point, but because a vocal minority choose to believe this does not make it "popular".

Forget the idea of the inquest “running its intended course” before she had a chance to provide her evidence; the authorities would have made damn sure that the inquest did not “run its course” until she had.

Like Macdonald did with Dr. Phillips you mean?
Not even giving the good doctor the time to provide the official time of death, can't get much more important than that. It was one of the Coroner's duties to provide this to the jury, yet he cut the proceedings short.

But if you had done your homework, you would have learned that the gas lamps used in 1888 served essentially as beacons, and were next to useless for providing illumination,...

Really?
I can see you have not done yours either.
Police chose 'point' location under lamps so the Inspector had enough light to make notes with the constable.
Didn't know that did you.

Who’s criticising Hutchinson?

If anyone was at fault for failing to elicit details of Kelly’s clothing, it was the police.

We can only make judgements on what was written, the fact something was not written does not mean it was not discussed. Neither should we proceed under the misguided illusion that ALL reports, memo's, files, etc. have survived.
Abberline refers to 1600 sets (files?) of papers created throughout the investigation - where are they Ben?

[harry]

As Ben states,the street lamps were no more than beacons.A policeman had his own means of light for the purpose of writing in notebooks,and for illumination of objects not discernable by street lighting.

[Wickerman]

I prefer to believe Neil.