The Red Handkerchief...

[Abby Normal]

You likely need to look further than the end of your nose.

This was printed in the Evening News, Pall Mall Gazette, St. James Gazette, Daily News, Times, Star.
"I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but I could not. I stood there for three quarters of an hour, to see if they came down again, but they did not, so I went away."

Compare with the police version:
" I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away."

Almost identical. So he did not change his story.

In each case more detail is added in the press version, this is where we read:
"I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise."

This in addition to his story, not a change.
Likely the result of the reporter asking questions that were not asked by Badham. The press version is almost double the length of the police version, so extra detail is included in the latter.

Hi Wicky
So is your interpretation that hutch stood inside Millers court, near Mary's apartment, for 45 minutes, when he describes his "waiting for them to come out " vigil?

[martin wilson]

The extra details provoke an obvious question. The policeman he saw in Commercial street. If he had suspicions about the man then why didn't he report them to the policeman?
All the best.

[harry]

Wickerman,
I thought this going to business had been explained.For instance, I might say I went to my friend's house last night.Might be we sat in the garden and had a drink,but doesn't mean I had to go into the house to legitimise the expression.It's an ambiguous statement.Going to the court does not mean Hutchinson had to enter.It explains what happened after he left the corner of Dorset Street.He could have said he was at Crossingham's.Didn't mean he had to be inside Crossingham's.

[John G]

What I find interesting is that Hutchinson doesn't actually say it was an astrachan coat the man was wearing. In the police statement he merely states that the cuffs were trimmed astrachan, something he could easily have been mistaken about.

[Wickerman]

Just by way of comparison, one press version is posted below. The 'blue' section is comparable with what he told police - almost word for word.

The 'red' section repeats the description portion on the police statement.

The rest is extra detail, likely the result of questions by the reporter.

On Thursday last I had been to Romford, in Essex, and I returned from there about two o'clock on Friday morning, having walked all the way. I came down Whitechapel road into Commercial street. As I passed Thrawl street I passed a man standing at the corner of the street, and as I went towards Flower and Dean street I met the woman Kelly, whom I knew very well, having been in her company a number of times. She said, "Mr. Hutchinson, can you lend me sixpence?" I said, "I cannot, as I am spent out going down to Romford." She then walked on towards Thrawl street, saying, "I must go and look for some money." The man who was standing at the corner of Thrawl street then came towards her and put his hand on her shoulder, and said something to her which I did not hear, and they both burst out laughing. He put his hand again on her shoulder and they both walked slowly towards me. I walked on to the corner of Fashion street, near the public house. As they came by me his arm was still on her shoulder. He had a soft felt hat on, and this was drawn down somewhat over his eyes. 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. Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, "I have lost my handkerchief." He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket, and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for three quarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away. My suspicions were aroused by seeing a man so well dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer. The man was about 5ft 8in in height and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache turned up at the ends. He was wearing a long dark coat trimmed with astrachan, a white collar with black necktie, in which was affixed a horseshow pin. He wore a pair of dark "spats" with light buttons over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain. His watch chain had a big seal with a red stone hanging from it. He had a heavy moustache, curled up, and dark eyes and bushy eyebrows. He had no side whiskers, and his chin was clean shaven. He looked like a foreigner. I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise. I was out last night until three o'clock looking for him. I could swear to the man anywhere. I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen, but did not go to the police station. I told one of the lodgers here about it yesterday, and he advised me to go to the police station, which I did last night. The man I saw did not look as though he would attack another one. He carried a small parcel in his hand, about eight inches long, and it had a strap round it. He had it tightly grasped in his left hand. It looked as though it was covered with dark American cloth. He carried in his right hand, which he laid upon the woman's shoulder, a pair of brown kid gloves. One thing I noticed, and that was that he walked very softly. I believe that he lives in the neighbourhood, and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain. I went down to the Shoreditch mortuary today and recognised the body as being that of the woman Kelly, whom I saw at two o'clock on Friday morning. Kelly did not seem to me to be drunk, but was a bit "spreeish." I was quite sober, not having had anything to drink all day. After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed. I came in as soon as it opened in the morning. I am able to fix the time, as it was between ten and five minutes to two o'clock as I came by Whitechapel Church. When I left the corner of Miller's court the clock struck three o'clock. One policeman went by the Commercial street end of Dorset street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset street. I saw one man go into a lodging house in Dorset street, but no one else. I have been looking for the man all day.

[Wickerman]

context wicky.CONTEXT.
And I see you left out the next sentence-I stood there for three quarters of an hour to see if they would come out.

Yeah he stood IN THE COURT by her apartment for 45 minutes.

Get a grip.

You likely need to look further than the end of your nose.

This was printed in the Evening News, Pall Mall Gazette, St. James Gazette, Daily News, Times, Star.
"I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but I could not. I stood there for three quarters of an hour, to see if they came down again, but they did not, so I went away."

Compare with the police version:
" I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away."

Almost identical. So he did not change his story.

In each case more detail is added in the press version, this is where we read:
"I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise."

This in addition to his story, not a change.
Likely the result of the reporter asking questions that were not asked by Badham. The press version is almost double the length of the police version, so extra detail is included in the latter.

[Wickerman]

Investigators were unable to prove that Carrie Maxwell didn't see Kelly on the morning of 9th November, but medical and other evidence provided a clear indication as to the impossibility of this sighting.

I understand, you are offering a known situation where medical opinion raised unproven suspicions, even doubts, about the testimony of a witness.
Yes, and medical opinion is always preferred by Scotland Yard, but in this case the Time of Death window, even though broad, was still not broad enough to include 8 o'clock in the morning.

In offering this example of Medical Opinion vs Maxwell, you have at the same time justified the use of Dr. Bond's estimated Time of Death which also raised questions about Hutchinson's statement.
You appear to accept that medical opinion can cause doubts with Maxwell's story, but medical opinion cannot cause doubt with Hutchinson's story, perhaps you might explain that?

Ben and I recognize that police did not entirely trust Hutchinson’s account by Tuesday, 13 November (the date of the Echo’s ‘diminution’ story), and had dismissed it altogether by the time the Star published its ‘worthless stories’ report two days later.

Right, you both show and quote the press criticizing Hutchinson's story, but neither of you have anything to show the police did this, only the press.
In fact that article credits the police with them acknowledging two suspects. We at least agree that Hutchinson's statement may have become less significant 24 hours after it was first released, and this article does not change that.
The police are still pursuing two suspects.

I have merely stated that investigators would never have jettisoned Hutchinson and his story without first having compelling reasons for so doing, an assertion based upon the police procedures of the time.

What I see is that you have a habit of reading something in the press and then jumping to the conclusion that this is police opinion, as opposed to press opinion – while not providing the slightest evidence to support your conclusion.
You have nothing to show that the police “jettisoned Hutchinson and his story”, let alone them having compelling reason to do so.

In both cases you are drawing conclusion from conjecture. What is more, you offer what can only be described as a circular argument.
The press dismiss Hutchinson, which, you say, is due to police opinion, and your proof of this police dismissal are the press reports? – circular argument!
Do you have anything else to support your belief?

Well, you have offered Anderson's view, that the “best” witness to have seen the killer was a Jew, so clearly not Hutchinson.
But then, it is not a forgone conclusion that Hutchinson did see the killer.
And, neither Schwartz nor Lawende can be said to have “certainly” seen the killer, even in the eyes of the police, so where does this leave Anderson's view?

The Echo of 13 November encapsulated the police thinking at that time: ‘Dr. Phillips' evidence, together with that of Mary Anne Cox, Elizabeth Prater, and others, proves that the murder was committed shortly after three o'clock …’

Really?
Well, Dr. Phillips wasn't talking, as usual.
You want proof, will the Echo do as a source?
-Dr. Phillips was especially emphatic in his desire that the investigations should not to be made known. Echo, 9 Nov.
-Up to the present the police refuse the Press any information. Echo 9 Nov.
-Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of the H Division, whose reticence is justified by an assurance he gave of secrecy. Echo, 10 Nov.
So we have no opinion from Dr. Phillips.

Prater, suggested the cry of murder must have been after 4 o'clock.
Cox, admitted to hearing nothing at all after 1 o'clock.
That paragraph from the Echo is blatantly inaccurate. You would do better if you read those testimonies yourself first before you blindly accept a press article as fact.

This piece, moreover, makes it perfectly clear that the Met viewed Blotchy as the prime suspect in the Kelly murder, which explains the press reports from later in the week detailing police raids on low lodging houses and casual wards.

The most interesting line is this one:
“The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement.”
When you are “induced” to follow a line of inquiry, you have been persuaded, or directed, or required to follow the guidance of others.
This is another clue that the police had been influenced by some means to look again at the Cox suspect. Dr. Bond's report is such an instrument to “induce” Scotland Yard to divide their inquiries.

By the way, when the police are making enquiries in Lodging Houses, or Casual Wards, they are also looking for witnesses. They are asking the public if they were out on the night in question, did they see anything, etc.
The best place to deal with the public in one location is the Lodging House, or the Casual Ward. This doesn't mean they are only pursuing one suspect, and that this one suspect must be a dosser. They were also checking the Docks for Drovers, and Sailors, then the Lunatic Asylums, insane medical students, and so on.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the extant record is sympathetic to the notion that police continued to view Astrakhan as the likely murderer.

Ah, so now you want to deal with the “extant record”?
Nothing in the extant record indicates Hutchinson was disbelieved by the police.
Nothing suggests the police dismissed the Hutchinson suspect, and only pursued the Blotchy suspect.
Nothing in the extant record suggests Abberline was contacted by telegram to come to Commercial St. to take Hutchinson's statement.
Nothing exists to indicate that Abberline was even present when Hutchinson gave his statement.
Nothing has ever been produced to indicate that words attributed to Sarah Lewis by the press at the inquest contain any errors of contradiction with the Coroner's version.

All this is pure fantasy, the product of conclusion drawn from conjecture.
Should you ever happen to stumble across anything remotely resembling conventional evidence for any part of your hypothesis, please don't keep it a secret.

Most extraordinarily of all, you once argued that Astrakhan remained the prime suspect in the case even though Hutchinson’s story had been discounted.

Given that his story was never discounted, I'm not following your meaning.
As far out as 6 Dec. the press recognized that Abberline believed he had finally caught Astrachan.

[Abby Normal]

That has to be one of the most amusing objections ever put forward.
"I went to the court" - means he stood outside the entry?

Take for example, "I went to the Church", are you suggesting this means standing at the door, but not going inside?

What about, "I went to the Mall", "I went to the Hospital", "I went to the Market", "I went to Mitre Square".

Do none of these expressions mean going "in to" the Mall, or "in to" the Hospital, or "in to" the Market, or "in to" Mitre Square?

"I went to the Court" means just the same as the examples above, unless you can offer a case for special pleading?

context wicky.CONTEXT.
And I see you left out the next sentence-I stood there for three quarters of an hour to see if they would come out.

Yeah he stood IN THE COURT by her apartment for 45 minutes.

Get a grip.

[Wickerman]

Except for discrepancy of in the press account he now says he followed them into the court and stands outside her apartment.

HUGE discrepancy IMHO.....

That has to be one of the most amusing objections ever put forward.
"I went to the court" - means he stood outside the entry?

Take for example, "I went to the Church", are you suggesting this means standing at the door, but not going inside?

What about, "I went to the Mall", "I went to the Hospital", "I went to the Market", "I went to Mitre Square".

Do none of these expressions mean going "in to" the Mall, or "in to" the Hospital, or "in to" the Market, or "in to" Mitre Square?

"I went to the Court" means just the same as the examples above, unless you can offer a case for special pleading?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

What do you think of Richard's argument on the other thread, that Aman could be Francis Thompson?

not much

[Sally]

No, I've just pinched myself and this really isn't a dream ...

Nightmare?

Druitt and Isaacs???

In it together? Perhaps they met in the fancy coat shop?

[John G]

Hi Sally
Raise it of course.

I have often felt Hutchs inspiration for Aman might have been a rich man of whom he was jealous of and didn't like. Perhaps someone he used to work for and/or fired him. Maybe a rich horse owning Jew. You know-Romford, groom, horseshoe pin and all that.

And then he added details to that from what he read in the papers about other suspects.

Hi Abby,

What do you think of Richard's argument on the other thread, that Aman could be Francis Thompson?

[martin wilson]

Hi Abbey and Sally.

Thank you, informative and interesting.
One query, Wasn't the previous man dressed 'somewhat like a sailor'? Astrakhan man obviously wasn't. However it's certainly possible that he was a conflation of the previous suspect and Leather Apron or at least a jewish suspect.
One peculiarity is the clarity of the description.I vaguely remember a mother who killed her children in the USA who described a black assailant. Iirc a policeman described him as 'a smudge in a hat'. Obviously, because he didn't exist.
The significance of the red handkerchief takes on a new importance seen in the light of your insights, and indicates Hutchison was possibly a reward seeker (although exactly how is a mystery) or someone who as you say had read about the case and was looking to get involved for some reason.
Gut instinct say's he's important, Hutchison, but exactly how I don't know.
All the best.

[Abby Normal]

Indeed Abby - and as far as I'm concerned, it's looking increasingly likely that he did just that

Here's a question - if we could pinpoint Hutchinson's source of inspiration for his story, how would that - if at all - affect his suspect status?

Hi Sally
Raise it of course.

I have often felt Hutchs inspiration for Aman might have been a rich man of whom he was jealous of and didn't like. Perhaps someone he used to work for and/or fired him. Maybe a rich horse owning Jew. You know-Romford, groom, horseshoe pin and all that.

And then he added details to that from what he read in the papers about other suspects.

[Sally]

Many of his details in the story, indeed even his specific wording, seem to be gleaned directly from the papers

Indeed Abby - and as far as I'm concerned, it's looking increasingly likely that he did just that

Here's a question - if we could pinpoint Hutchinson's source of inspiration for his story, how would that - if at all - affect his suspect status?