The Red Handkerchief...

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

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.

That'll be those conveniently "lost-to-history" reports that "must have" contained that crucial Hutchinson-vindicating information if only Goering hadn't bombed them. Seriously though, the interrogation had already occurred by the time Abberline wrote his report accompanying the statement. What possible reason did he have for saving the juiciest bits for a later report?

More likely four.

No, not "more likely four", but even that was nowhere near a sufficient amount of time to "check" the bulk of Hutchinson's claims and "prove" them correct, especially since most of them were conveniently unverifiable anyway.

Yes, and I don't see it as "popular". There is certainly nothing mainstream about Hutchinson being understood to have lied about anything.

I think you need to open your eyes a little wider and take note of popular perception, and if I were you I'd stay very clear of popularity contests and dismissive references to "vocal minorities". Every single argument that I advance, and which you challenge, has more adherents than any of yours. Isaacstrakhan, anyone? Daily News? Kelly being descended upon by two well-dressed black package-carriers that night? I'm afraid these are all conspicuously one-man shows.

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.

The "good doctor" gave evidence at the inquest, whereas Kennedy did not appear at all. If Kennedy had commenced her narrative on the stand, only to be cut off before she had a chance to relate the ever-so-crucial "I saw Kelly at 3.00am" detail, you would have a valid comparison, but alas.

Police chose 'point' location under lamps so the Inspector had enough light to make notes with the constable.
Didn't know that did you.

Because writing in gloomy light is soooo difficult (?). I do hope you're not disputing the point Harry and I have made; that gas lamps in 1888 were very well known to emit only a dim light - created by nothing more than a naked flame - prior to the invention of the gas mantle? This is level of illumination we're talking about here; enjoy the music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EOxkgjHnDA

We can only make judgements on what was written, the fact something was not written does not mean it was not discussed.

You've ignored the important point, Jon - Abberline's notes, which accompanied the statement, were specifically concerned with establishing the identity of the victim, and it would have been logical in such a context to make reference to Kelly's clothing, had Hutchinson said anything about it. I afraid your usual "lost report" excuse simply won't avail you here.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hi Jon,



That'll be those conveniently "lost-to-history" reports that "must have" contained that crucial Hutchinson-vindicating information if only Goering hadn't bombed them. Seriously though, the interrogation had already occurred by the time Abberline wrote his report accompanying the statement. What possible reason did he have for saving the juiciest bits for a later report?



No, not "more likely four", but even that was nowhere near a sufficient amount of time to "check" the bulk of Hutchinson's claims and "prove" them correct, especially since most of them were conveniently unverifiable anyway.



I think you need to open your eyes a little wider and take note of popular perception, and if I were you I'd stay very clear of popularity contests and dismissive references to "vocal minorities". Every single argument that I advance, and which you challenge, has more adherents than any of yours. Isaacstrakhan, anyone? Daily News? Kelly being descended upon by two well-dressed black package-carriers that night? I'm afraid these are all conspicuously one-man shows.



The "good doctor" gave evidence at the inquest, whereas Kennedy did not appear at all. If Kennedy had commenced her narrative on the stand, only to be cut off before she had a chance to relate the ever-so-crucial "I saw Kelly at 3.00am" detail, you would have a valid comparison, but alas.



Because writing in gloomy light is soooo difficult (?). I do hope you're not disputing the point Harry and I have made; that gas lamps in 1888 were very well known to emit only a dim light - created by nothing more than a naked flame - prior to the invention of the gas mantle? This is level of illumination we're talking about here; enjoy the music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EOxkgjHnDA

You've ignored the important point, Jon - Abberline's notes, which accompanied the statement, were specifically concerned with establishing the identity of the victim, and it would have been logical in such a context to make reference to Kelly's clothing, had Hutchinson said anything about it. I afraid your usual "lost report" excuse simply won't avail you here.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben
One of the things that seems to be consistently missed by the Hutch beleivers is that they make the excuse in the huge difference between his police and press statements of him going in to the court as it being no big deal, or the police didn't write it down, or hutch honestly forgot to tell them that part.

it defies belief. Hutch recounted, and the police recorded, his story in terms of his and A-man and Marys movements so precisely-where they stood, where they spoke, where they walked, who did what when etc, etc,etc.

There is almost zero chance that all this detailed info on all their movements could have been recorded and yet the very crucial part about hutch following them into the court (a detail that includes Hutch admitting to now know exactly where the victim lived, let alone bringing him that much closer to the murder scene) was honestly forgotten about by hutch or the police neglected to record that part.

No, its obvious that hutch left that crucial part out of his police statement on purpose and later added it for the press account.

Now the only thing to ask is why? If its not for nefarious reasons like I have been mentioning before-he later thought someone saw him standing there so he admitted it later-then as many have suggested he lied about being that close to embellish and make the press account more exciting. Well at the very least, on this point, it is now demonstrated that he is a liar and his story lacks credibility.

[Abby Normal]

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
I agree. But since Hutch told them that they were friends, had known each other for several years and that mary had asked him, "Hutchinson, can you lend me..." thereby showing that she knew his name and they knew each other very well, that there was no doubt in the police minds that Hutch saw the right victim. Something that would need to be established with most witneses that didn't know the victim. And there for one way to to do that would be to ask what she was wearing-so not needed once hutch established that he knew her well.

and that brings up another odd thing about hutch-out of all the various witneses he is the only one who is not only a possible suspect but a witness who claimed to know the victim. Hmmmm... another red flag in my book.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
That'll be those conveniently "lost-to-history" reports that "must have" contained that crucial Hutchinson-vindicating information if only Goering hadn't bombed them. Seriously though, the interrogation had already occurred by the time Abberline wrote his report accompanying the statement. What possible reason did he have for saving the juiciest bits for a later report?

Hi Ben.
By all means, try insist no files have been lost. It's just a matter of facing reality, we can't tell what has been lost and what never existed. This is why arguments like, "he never told police.....(something)" just doesn't wash.
We have to work with what we do see in writing, not what we don't.

As for "saving the juiciest bits", we don't know that he did. There is nothing existing to indicate that several pieces of paper, his interrogation notes, did not accompany the cover note. The original statement, three pages, is all that survived, along with the cover note.
The cover note does not say how many pieces of paper were submitted in total.

No, not "more likely four", but even that was nowhere near a sufficient amount of time to "check" the bulk of Hutchinson's claims and "prove" them correct, especially since most of them were conveniently unverifiable anyway.

It only needs to be a sample, not the whole, nor even the bulk.
The statement was taken at 6:00 pm, and sent by special detective to Abberline at Leman St. about 20 mins away, who naturally would return ASAP, so he could have been there before 8:00 pm - leaving four hours till midnight.

I think you need to open your eyes a little wider and take note of popular perception, and if I were you I'd stay very clear of popularity contests and dismissive references to "vocal minorities". Every single argument that I advance, and which you challenge, has more adherents than any of yours. Isaacstrakhan, anyone? Daily News? Kelly being descended upon by two well-dressed black package-carriers that night? I'm afraid these are all conspicuously one-man shows.

Preaching to the converted, Ben, how many outside your 'click' buy into your claims?
Equally, outside your 'click', how many find cause to dismiss the possibilities I offer?

The "good doctor" gave evidence at the inquest, whereas Kennedy did not appear at all. If Kennedy had commenced her narrative on the stand, only to be cut off before she had a chance to relate the ever-so-crucial "I saw Kelly at 3.00am" detail, you would have a valid comparison, but alas.

Macdonald was expected to provide an official time of death.
There was no expectation that he let every witness speak who claimed to have seen Kelly alive later that night.

If you recall, Macdonald was also at Millers Court that weekend along with Bond & Phillips, Macdonald being also a surgeon, I can't imagine they did not talk 'shop' between the three of them. Macdonald may have began the inquest with the belief that Kelly had died between 1:00-2:00 am, him learning this via Dr Bond (and possibly Phillips.).
He is not supposed to have a predetermined opinion, but his profession may have convinced him to agree with medical opinion expressed that weekend.

Because writing in gloomy light is soooo difficult (?). I do hope you're not disputing the point Harry and I have made;

You are only guessing, my source was not.

You've ignored the important point, Jon - Abberline's notes, which accompanied the statement, were specifically concerned with establishing the identity of the victim,..

There was nothing specific about those notes, they were very general.

Had the victim's description been included in his interrogation notes, then why repeat them on the cover note?
All we know for certain is that 4 pieces of paper survived, three pages of statement, and one cover note. That does not mean there was no other paperwork submitted, which from Commercial St. as a whole there must have been. It's all vanished except 4 pieces of paper.

[harry]

Jon,
Believe who you like,I fail to see how my remarks conflict with anyone.

[Ben]

By all means, try insist no files have been lost. It's just a matter of facing reality, we can't tell what has been lost and what never existed. This is why arguments like, "he never told police.....(something)" just doesn't wash.

Ah, but that's not what I've been arguing, Jon.

My point has always been that you cannot rely on "lost reports", less still assume or insist that they must have contained the very information that you want them to have contained. You'll notice I don't claim that Hutchinson must have slipped a murder confession under his mattress at the Victoria Home, which was destroyed in the Blitz.

There is nothing existing to indicate that several pieces of paper, his interrogation notes, did not accompany the cover note.

There is plenty "existing to indicate as much", most notably the covering report, which makes no mention of other documents being submitted in addition to the statement. He didn't write: "An important statement has been made today, followed by an equally important interrogation, the notes for which I forward herewith, along with the statement itself", which he unquestionably would have done had there been other documents accompanying the statement and report.

The statement was taken at 6:00 pm, and sent by special detective to Abberline at Leman St. about 20 mins away, who naturally would return ASAP, so he could have been there before 8:00 pm - leaving four hours till midnight.

Giving Abberline time to check...what? You still haven't addressed this question. He could have confirmed that Hutchinson lodged at the Victoria Home and didn't have a known reputation as a dodgy, lying hound - anything else?

Preaching to the converted, Ben, how many outside your 'click' buy into your claims?
Equally, outside your 'click', how many find cause to dismiss the possibilities I offer?

Good point, Jon, there are probably scores of Isaacstrakhan-fanciers out there; they're just keeping very quiet for some reason. What you describe as "my" claims did not, in fact, originate with me, and were advanced long before I became interested in this subject.

There was no expectation that he let every witness speak who claimed to have seen Kelly alive later that night.

But there was every expectation that he would have let the woman believed to have been the last witness to see Kelly alive with the potential murderer speak, as opposed to withholding her in preference to other witnesses who claimed to have seen Kelly much earlier in the night. If you're suggesting that MacDonald favoured the 1.00am-2.00am, and used that as an excuse for not bothering with Kennedy, you'd be wrong, since Caroline Maxwell claimed to have seen Kelly considerably later than that, and he was quite happy to ensure that her evidence was provided.

You are only guessing, my source was not.

I doubt very much that your source would disagree with my observations, based as they are on the known capabilities of gas lamps prior to 1891.

There was nothing specific about those notes, they were very general.

Had the victim's description been included in his interrogation notes, then why repeat them on the cover note?

For the same reason that other details from the interrogation were repeated in the cover report (stop calling it a "note", that's not what it was), such as the detail that Hutchinson had known Kelly for three years, occasionally gave her money, and agreed to view her remains at the mortuary. You'll notice that these details are all concerned with establishing Kelly's identity, and her clothing would have been an obvious and logical detail to include in that particular mix (in support of Hutchinson's identification being correct), if Hutchinson had provided it, of course.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Abby,

One of the things that seems to be consistently missed by the Hutch beleivers is that they make the excuse in the huge difference between his police and press statements of him going in to the court as it being no big deal, or the police didn't write it down, or hutch honestly forgot to tell them that part.

Yes, I find it very perplexing that anyone should think along those lines (most don't, of course, which is reassuring). I can only suggest that some people are so paranoid that any concession that Hutchinson might have lied might fuel suspicions that he might also have been a murderer, that the screamingly obvious tends to get resisted at all costs.

I suspect that these same people would concede the point if it wasn't for that paranoia.

There is almost zero chance that all this detailed info on all their movements could have been recorded and yet the very crucial part about hutch following them into the court (a detail that includes Hutch admitting to now know exactly where the victim lived, let alone bringing him that much closer to the murder scene) was honestly forgotten about by hutch or the police neglected to record that part.

It's a great point, Abby.

It's amusing in some ways - the suggestion that Hutchinson considered it terrifically important to relate details of the material used to construct the man's shirt collar, but worthless to mention anything about standing outside the victim's feckin' window and only recording silence and darkness from within, i.e. an obvious potential sign of a murder already committed.

I'm afraid it's only fair and necessary to call nonsense on that one.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,



Yes, I find it very perplexing that anyone should think along those lines (most don't, of course, which is reassuring). I can only suggest that some people are so paranoid that any concession that Hutchinson might have lied might fuel suspicions that he might also have been a murderer, that the screamingly obvious tends to get resisted at all costs.

I suspect that these same people would concede the point if it wasn't for that paranoia.



It's a great point, Abby.

It's amusing in some ways - the suggestion that Hutchinson considered it terrifically important to relate details of the material used to construct the man's shirt collar, but worthless to mention anything about standing outside the victim's feckin' window and only recording silence and darkness from within, i.e. an obvious potential sign of a murder already committed.

I'm afraid it's only fair and necessary to call nonsense on that one.

All the best,
Ben

yes Ben-exactly.

And if the Hutch Defenders use the reason that he only added it to the press account to embellish and spice up his account, then he is at the very least a liar, noncredible and time wasting "witness".

Something im sure the police picked up on, with another one fresh in their minds-Packer. Which would help explain him dropping like a stone from the case.

[Wickerman]

Ah, but that's not what I've been arguing, Jon.

My point has always been that you cannot rely on "lost reports",

I don't think that is the way it goes Ben.
I am quite satisfied with what was in the Statement (though it could have been more detailed).
We also have Abberline's opinion in writing, and the fact he conducted an interrogation - so far so good.

Now, as you know, there are those on here who will repeat the assertion that, "Hutchinson never told police.....(something).
Given that we have no knowledge what was discussed in that interrogation, then it is incorrect to make such a claim.
This is where the interrogation report enters the debate.

There would be no need to debate the existence of such a report if those erroneous claims had not been made. In other words, it is one way of reminding those members that "they/we" do not know everything said between Hutchinson and police - and that, is the fact of the matter.

So lets refrain from talking about what Hutchinson did not say to police, because we simply do not know all what was said.

There is plenty "existing to indicate as much", most notably the covering report, which makes no mention of other documents being submitted in addition to the statement.

The notes taken by Abberline are also attributed to Hutchinson, all of it collectively is his statement to police.
From what I know of police paperwork in 1888, there were no interrogation forms, they used the same standard letter head stationary. So there actually is no distinction between his voluntary statement and the information given to Abberline.

Regardless, the fact Abberline does not make a distinction is not proof those notes were not included.

Giving Abberline time to check...what? You still haven't addressed this question.

Witness statements, hundreds of them.

What you describe as "my" claims did not, in fact, originate with me, and were advanced long before I became interested in this subject.

Ok, so they are the claims you champion then

The forums I generally attend do not demonstrate any partisan collaboration, each member stands on his own not looking for appreciation from others.
I understand you seem to be a numbers man, not me, and I dare say, not the majority on Casebook either.
I look upon that as a schoolyard mentality.

But there was every expectation that he would have let the woman believed to have been the last witness to see Kelly alive with the potential murderer speak, as opposed to withholding her in preference to other witnesses

Being slated for a possible second sitting is not "holding the witness back".
If there was to be a second sitting Mrs Kennedy would have been one among another 4 or 5 witnesses. We cannot know for sure, but the possibility exists, and that means it is untrue to claim Kennedy was not believed or she would have been at the first sitting.

I doubt very much that your source would disagree with my observations, based as they are on the known capabilities of gas lamps prior to 1891.

Lighting had to be sufficient or the police would not assemble beneath such a light source for illumination while exchanging notes.

For the same reason that other details from the interrogation were repeated in the cover report (stop calling it a "note", that's not what it was),

Don't get so testy, that cover report includes "those notes", that is what I am referring to.

You'll notice that these details are all concerned with establishing Kelly's identity, and her clothing would have been an obvious and logical detail to include in that particular mix (in support of Hutchinson's identification being correct), if Hutchinson had provided it, of course.

Abberline is not concerned with convincing his superiors that the witness saw the deceased, and besides, "those notes" he does provide cannot in any way constitute an "interrogation". If anything, those sample notes are nothing more than casual details.

[Ben]

Something im sure the police picked up on, with another one fresh in their minds-Packer. Which would help explain him dropping like a stone from the case.

Agreed, Abby.

Dropped like a stone on the assumption that he was a fame or publicity-seeker, just as a whole host of dud witnesses had been before him. Might they have overlooked other possible explanations for him telling fibs? Yes, of course, but under the circumstances, who can blame them?

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Now, as you know, there are those on here who will repeat the assertion that, "Hutchinson never told police.....(something).
Given that we have no knowledge what was discussed in that interrogation, then it is incorrect to make such a claim.
This is where the interrogation report enters the debate.

An "interrogation report" doesn't enter any debate for the simple reason that no such thing ever existed. There was a a report accompanying the statement (which has survived), and there were probably notes written in a pocket book, taken down by Abberline at the time of the "interrogation".

I don't recall anyone every asserting that "Hutchinson never told the police" X or Y detail. What I have observed is that Abberline had the opportunity to pass on any details that emerged from that interrogation, and what's more; he did precisely that - he mentioned that Hutchinson had known Kelly for three years and occasionally lent her money, amongst other details. Would Abberline deliberately withhold information that was more important than this? The answer is obviously no, which unfortunately nullifies the argument that all our doubts and suspicions regarding Hutchinson would be put to rest if only we had access to these "lost notes".

From what I know of police paperwork in 1888, there were no interrogation forms, they used the same standard letter head stationary.

But the accepted convention, then and now, electronically or otherwise, is to make reference to any additional paperwork accompanying the "forwarding note", and that is precisely what Abberline did; he forwarded the statement and mentioned that he was forwarding it. He would certainly have done likewise for other bits of paper had they existed.

Witness statements, hundreds of them.

You're suggesting that Abberline spent the fours hours between the interrogation and the submission of the statement looking through "hundreds" of witness statements. What could he possibly have been hoping for that might have vindicated Hutchinson?

I understand you seem to be a numbers man, not me, and I dare say, not the majority on Casebook either.
I look upon that as a schoolyard mentality.

I'm very pleased to hear it, Jon; in which case I don't expect to hear another word about "vocal minorities".

If there was to be a second sitting Mrs Kennedy would have been one among another 4 or 5 witnesses.

No, she wouldn't have been.

If there was "to be a second sitting", it was to ensure the existing inquest witnesses, Phillips most notably, were quizzed on matters that were not covered during the first "sitting". There was never any suggestion of introducing brand new witnesses. Had Kennedy been treated as genuine but was kept in reserve for some crazy, senseless reason, the authorities would have ensured that a second sitting occurred if only to accommodate her evidence. What certainly would not have been tolerated under any circumstances is what you seem to be envisaging: "Oops, that inquest finished a bit early, but we forgot to use the most important eyewitness, and we're not going to have a second sitting. Bugger!".

Lighting had to be sufficient or the police would not assemble beneath such a light source for illumination while exchanging notes.

Did you have a look at that video I posted of a Bray Burner gas lamp? You'll observe that the negligible amount of light in emitted would have facillitated the "exchanging (of) notes", but very little else.

Abberline is not concerned with convincing his superiors that the witness saw the deceased, and besides, "those notes" he does provide cannot in any way constitute an "interrogation".

Yes, he would most certainly have been "concerned with convincing his superiors that the witness saw the deceased" - even Caz agrees with me on that one. I realise that the notes on the accompanying report do not "constitute an interrogation", but they were obviously the notes that Abberline considered to be the most important to have emerged from the interrogation.

All the best,
Ben

[sleekviper]

Lighting had a dual purpose in those days, it is seen in the shape of the cover surrounding the flame. Light waves travel in a straight line, thus we have shadows when an object appears in front of the source. Glass and water allow light to pass through, but at the same time slow the speed of light, causing it to bend. When a object is partway in water, for instance, it looks bent or not attached. That is the bending of light causing the effect making the object appear distorted. When the base, holding the source of light, is smaller than the area of glass that the light will pass through, light will bend below the area as it passes through the glass. Victorian street lamp covers angled the glass away from the source, so that light would bend down and not simply travel straight. If the sole purpose was a beacon, like a lighthouse, the design is different; a reflector around the source keeps the majority of light focused in a set direction. So by design, light was bent up, seen at a distance, and bent down for use directly below. For the purpose of a beacon, it would have a concave reflector around the source to focus strictly for distance.

[Wickerman]

Thankyou S.V.
The wall lamps along the north side of Dorset St. (photo in "Ultimate"), are all open bottom.

[Ben]

Hi Sleeks,

"Bending" the direction of the light would have done nothing to enhance its intensity, and on the latter point, there is absolutely no disputing that the light emitted was negligible in comparison to just five years later, after the technology had been invented for making gas lamps brighter. Prior to 1891, anyone haunting the streets of London had to make do with naked flames under glass, and it shouldn't require a lot in terms of either imagination or experimentation to determine that they were only capable of emitting a dim glow.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Amazing.
First we get someone trying to convince us that Hutch is a liar because "he thinks" red looks blue in poor light.
Then another tried to tell us that Hutch was a liar because "he thinks" it was pitch black at 2:00 am.
Now, further down the yellow brick road we have another who has backed himself into a corner by needing to quantify what the luminous intensity of "dim" actually was!

Under a wall lamp, next to Millers Court passage, it was bright enough to see a red handkerchief - that is all that matters.