The Red Handkerchief...

[DJA]

Amazing.

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

Crikey,he can also see through gaiters to the buttons on the boots.

Also,according to at least one newspaper, Mary's companion had a seal on the gold chain.

Anyone checked Ancestry for Clark Kent!

Still reckon Hutchinson was a lookout for Jack the Ripper and that his description of "A Man" was a not too subtle way of reminding Abberline etc that he was untouchable.

When Phillips sought a pardon,they dropped Hutchinson like a hot potato.

Incidentally,who changed the hotel in Hutchinson's Police statement from the Ten Bill (sic) to the Queens Head Public House without initialing it?

[Wickerman]

Crikey,he can also see through gaiters to the buttons on the boots.

Not familiar with Victorian mens wear?

There was a wide range of styles of Gaiters, some had a stirrup fitting at the bottom that looped under the instep. This style did not cover the instep.
Also, men's buttoned boots tend to button up from the bottom of the instep, which means, if worn with the afore mentioned gaiter the buttons would be visible at the front.

When Phillips sought a pardon,they dropped Hutchinson like a hot potato.

A pardon was issued before Hutchinson came forward.

Incidentally,who changed the hotel in Hutchinson's Police statement from the Ten Bill (sic) to the Queens Head Public House without initialing it?

Back in the archives someone claimed that the correction was made by Abberline. I'm not sure the person was qualified to judge.

[Rosella]

Crikey,he can also see through gaiters to the buttons on the boots.

Also,according to at least one newspaper, Mary's companion had a seal on the gold chain.

Anyone checked Ancestry for Clark Kent!

Still reckon Hutchinson was a lookout for Jack the Ripper and that his description of "A Man" was a not too subtle way of reminding Abberline etc that he was untouchable.

When Phillips sought a pardon,they dropped Hutchinson like a hot potato.

Incidentally,who changed the hotel in Hutchinson's Police statement from the Ten Bill (sic) to the Queens Head Public House without initialing it?

What has what Hutchinson saw (the red handkerchief) by the light of the lamp in the Millers Court passage got to do with what he saw directly under the lamp at the Queen's Head? Hutchinson reported that he was very close to the couple then, and was therefore able to furnish a full description. He'd hardly be standing next to Mary and AM while they were kissing and chatting at the entry to Millers Court! He saw what he saw from a distance.

[DJA]

"Not familiar with Victorian mens wear?"

I am actually.

Hutchinson was describing gaiters with white buttons ie spats,which cover the instep and any boot buttons.

I've worn both gaiters and spats,the latter with a Gordon Highlanders kilt.

"A pardon was issued before Hutchinson came forward."

I am obviously referring to the pardon Phillips sought immediately after Hutchinson came forward.

Firstly,given Hutchinson's superhuman observations,confusing those two pubs is remarkable.
Does not look like Abberline's handwriting.

[DJA]

What has what Hutchinson saw (the red handkerchief) by the light of the lamp in the Millers Court passage got to do with what he saw directly under the lamp at the Queen's Head? Hutchinson reported that he was very close to the couple then, and was therefore able to furnish a full description. He'd hardly be standing next to Mary and AM while they were kissing and chatting at the entry to Millers Court! He saw what he saw from a distance.

If he saw the alleged red handkerchief from a distance in semi darkness.....try replicating that at 15 - 20 feet.

Oddly Hutchinson said he saw Mr A at the Ten Bells Public House,until some unknown person changed the Police statement.

OP was questioning the whereabouts of the red handkerchief after Mary Kelly's demise.

[DJA]

Not familiar with Victorian mens wear?

There was a wide range of styles of Gaiters, some had a stirrup fitting at the bottom that looped under the instep. This style did not cover the instep.
Also, men's buttoned boots tend to button up from the bottom of the instep, which means, if worn with the afore mentioned gaiter the buttons would be visible at the front.

http://antique-gown.com/index.php/en/victorian_shoes/victorian-lace-up-boots-with-spats,-ca-1890.html

There are a number of pictures taken at different angles.

http://antique-gown.com/index.php/en/victorian_shoes/black-victorian-high-button-boots,-ca-1900.html

Women's,however you get the idea.


If the gas lamps outside the two different Public House were in the same spot as today's lamps,we have a "problem".
The Queens Head lamp is up Fashion Street a bit.
Ten Bells is pretty much on the streets corner.

[sleekviper]

Yes Ben, bending light causes a change in intensity. The intensity of light is the relationship of photons; the closer they are, the brighter the light. The property of glass is not going to slow every photon at the exact same rate, so photons that were never going to simulate the same path, now do.

[Ben]

Hi Sleek,

Placing glass around a naked flame and expecting it to create anything other than a dim light (which is what Victorian gas lamps were well known for prior to 1891) is only marginally more effective than attaching a horn to the forehead of a horse and expecting it to fly. It would have improved the situation in the former case, yes, which is presumably why they did it, but a bright light would emphatically not have been the result.

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

A very poor, circular argument, Jon; "It was bright enough to see a red handkerchief --> because Hutchinson says it was --> which means Hutchinson told the truth --> because it was bight enough to see a red handkerchief --> because Hutchinson said it was, and so on.

The chances of anyone making out the colour red on such a small object, produced for a fleeting moment in very dim artificial light, and from such a distance, were slim to non-existent. Try it yourself.

Hutchinson reported that he was very close to the couple then, and was therefore able to furnish a full description.

Actually, Rosella, it would only have enabled him to "furnish a full description" if the encounter had occurred in daylight, and the subject had been standing still for a much longer time. Otherwise, you can pretty much forget "linen collar", "horsehoe tie-pin" and "dark eyelashes".

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Good pints, DJA.

I hadn't considered that the struck-through Ten Bells, corrected by Queen's Head, ought to have been initialled.

Cheers,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

he knew it was red because he was wearing it the night of the double event.

Or if he wasn't the ripper, he knew it was red because he read about it in the papers.

[Wickerman]

Among the hundreds of styles of Victorian gaiters, these which do not cover the instep.




And, among the hundreds of styles of button boots that have buttons down the instep



Buttons visible beneath the gaiter, imagine that.

[Wickerman]

A very poor, circular argument, Jon; "It was bright enough to see a red handkerchief --> because Hutchinson says it was --> which means Hutchinson told the truth --> because it was bight enough to see a red handkerchief --> because Hutchinson said it was, and so on.

Your words (in bold), not mine.

Think a little more about it, .....you have decided that the luminosity was "dim", my observation is, ...when compared to what?

Colours and objects CAN be seen in poor, bad, or "dim" light, it all depends on how bright the "dim" actually is. Seeing as how you cannot quantify the "dim", then you have not proven your point.
Therefore, so long as the dim light was sufficient for him to see the red handkerchief then your argument fails.

Have you lot decided yet whether this was red, blue, "pitch black", or just dim?

[DJA]

Among the hundreds of styles of Victorian gaiters, these which do not cover the instep.




And, among the hundreds of styles of button boots that have buttons down the instep



Buttons visible beneath the gaiter, imagine that.

Gaiters with white buttons are actually called spats.
Try reading Hutchinson's Police statement.

They are designed to cover the fastenings,whether lace or button up boots.
Think dress up, not riding or hiking gear.

I have worn both,although my spats had black buttons.
Never worn button up boots,as they went out with.....button up boots.

[Sam Flynn]

Gaiters with white buttons are actually called spats.

spat, n⁵

[Abbreviation of SPATTERDASH]

1. A short gaiter worn over the instep and reaching only a little way above the ankle, usually fastened under the foot by means of a strap.

Try reading Hutchinson's Police statement.

I read the Oxford English Dictionary

[DJA]

spat, n⁵

[Abbreviation of SPATTERDASH]

1. A short gaiter worn over the instep and reaching only a little way above the ankle, usually fastened under the foot by means of a strap.
I read the Oxford English Dictionary

The spats I wore went up to the calf.

Your Dictionary describes what Mr A was almost certainly wearing.

Wickerman has actually shown half chaps.
Highly unlikely to see them as street wear.
Definitely lacking white buttons.
The riding boots have no buttons.
0/10. Fail!