The Red Handkerchief...

[Abby Normal]

And yet the red handkerchief is extraneous detail that offers no assistance in identifying the man. So why did Hutchison feel the need to include it? So far so good, he describes the proposition, relevant and necessary, then out of his imagination creates the red handkerchief? Why?
I've often wondered if money in handkerchiefs was a way of passing it so that a policeman or skulking mugger couldn't see it. Iirc Polly Nicholls had a clean white handkerchief found on her, distinct from the grubby rags she otherwise owned.
This theory suggests Astrakhan man was an experienced punter, doesn't prove he murdered MJK but imho lends more credibility to Hutchison's statement.
All the best.

Hi Martin
The main witness to the previous crime in the series, Lawende, describes a suspect seen with Eddowes who was wearing a red hankercheif.

I think hutch, if lying for just attention, read this in the papers, and used it to make his suspect seem more suspicious. Many of his details in the story, indeed even his specific wording, seem to be gleaned directly from the papers.

If he was lying because he was the killer, then he was the man wearing the red hankercheif seen with Eddowes, and of course, now is attributing the red hankercheif to another (fabricated) suspect to deflect suspicion. Especially if he left it at the Kelly murder scene.

I think the former more likely.

[Garry Wroe]

Oh, haven't you heard? Druitt carried a black bag with him, and accosted several women in the area - star witness Kennedy among them. Yes, he was hovering in the area, biding his time in anticipation of Isaacs leaving, which the latter did at 3.00am, securing a cast-iron alibi in the process. Then Druitt-the-Ripper seized his moment...

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

Druitt and Isaacs???

Please call for help, Ben. I'm seeing images of David Icke and an army of Lizard Men ...

Too late.

[Sally]

Hi Martin,

Handkerchiefs were used by prostitutes at that time as a contraceptive device. The inference in Hutchinson's account would have been clear to his contemporaries.

The inclusion of the handkerchief in Hutchinson's tale is thus not out of place. Quite apart from just how he managed to even see it in the circumstances that he describes; a better question might be: Why Red?

Most Men's handkerchiefs were white. Now there's a curious thing.

[martin wilson]

And yet the red handkerchief is extraneous detail that offers no assistance in identifying the man. So why did Hutchison feel the need to include it? So far so good, he describes the proposition, relevant and necessary, then out of his imagination creates the red handkerchief? Why?
I've often wondered if money in handkerchiefs was a way of passing it so that a policeman or skulking mugger couldn't see it. Iirc Polly Nicholls had a clean white handkerchief found on her, distinct from the grubby rags she otherwise owned.
This theory suggests Astrakhan man was an experienced punter, doesn't prove he murdered MJK but imho lends more credibility to Hutchison's statement.
All the best.

[Wickerman]

So, once again, before you start criticising others for presenting theory as fact, you might consider abstaining from it yourself - otherwise you're likely to be accused of hypocrisy.

Talking about hypocrisy, when you do decide to "question everything", you will remember to let me know.
I'd hate to miss it...

[Ben]

Anyway, keep up the good work. Common sense will prevail in the end.

Thanks for the kind words, Garry - let's hope so!

Druitt?

Druitt!!??

Oh, haven't you heard? Druitt carried a black bag with him, and accosted several women in the area - star witness Kennedy among them. Yes, he was hovering in the area, biding his time in anticipation of Isaacs leaving, which the latter did at 3.00am, securing a cast-iron alibi in the process. Then Druitt-the-Ripper seized his moment...

Just ask Jon, he'll tell you.

[Garry Wroe]

Indeed, Garry. Ah - if only Sarah Lewis had been as observant as Hutchinson allegedly was on that night it'd be case closed and Isaacs down in history as the last-person-to-see-Kelly-alive-but-not-the-murderer-of-course [because that was Druitt, naturally]; but as it is, she's just another pawn on the Dorset Street chessboard for Team Exonerate.

Druitt?

Druitt!!??

Tell me you're joking, Sally.

[John G]

Hi JohnG

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. Especially coming from a man who could recite the complicated ambulations and intereactions of himself, Kelly, and Aman like he was reading a script.

Hello Abby,

Yes, I agree, this is definitely a problem. I would speculate that the press report may have been inaccurate, or that Hutchinson exaggerated to make himself seem more heroic.

Of course, there were discrepancies between the newspaper version of Schwartz's evidence and the official police report. For example, in the newspaper version we're informed that the second man, presumably Pipeman, rushed forward with a knife as if to attack Scwartz, after shouting a warning to BS man. Interestingly, The Star also states that an interpreter was used, so you would think that the report should be reasonably accurate. Mind you, Abby, I think at this juncture I should stop writing about Scwartz in case I get a sudden urge to write the word "cachous"!

Of course, another possibility is that Hutchinson lied!

[Abby Normal]

Hi Wickeman,

Yes, as I noted on the other thread, I believe the medical testimony, regarding time of death, needs to be considered with caution: there were a lot of factors they had to take into account and, unlike the other victims, Kelly's body was discovered a significant time after she was murdered. Ultimately, we're relying on the opinion of Victorian GPs, which clearly doesn't carry the same force as a modern CSI team.

In fact, even the normally decisive Dr Bond was unusually equivocal: he did state that between 1 and 2 am was, in his opinion, the most probable time of death, but in theory it could have been anytime between 2 and 8 am. In fact, his estimate of 1 and 2 seems to be based on little more than a guesstimate of when she had her last meal. I believe it has also been argued that he failed to consider the impact of the bitterly cold evening on body temperature in his calculations.

I agree about Hutchinson's conviction; he was remarkably consistent in his evidence. I've mentioned this before but it's worth repeating: Sugden (2002) noted at least 40 points of similarity between his press account and police statement, compared with a mere two discrepancies.

Hi JohnG

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. Especially coming from a man who could recite the complicated ambulations and intereactions of himself, Kelly, and Aman like he was reading a script.

[Sally]

If you think you've got it bad, Sally, try putting yourself in Sarah Lewis's shoes.

Indeed, Garry. Ah - if only Sarah Lewis had been as observant as Hutchinson allegedly was on that night it'd be case closed and Isaacs down in history as the last-person-to-see-Kelly-alive-but-not-the-murderer-of-course [because that was Druitt, naturally]; but as it is, she's just another pawn on the Dorset Street chessboard for Team Exonerate.

What can you do?

[Garry Wroe]

You've quoted me out of context ...

If you think you've got it bad, Sally, try putting yourself in Sarah Lewis's shoes.

[Garry Wroe]

So we have Ben claiming that Hutchinson was dismissed due to suspicions that the police couldn't prove, and Garry saying his dismissal was on the basis of solid evidence?

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.

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. 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. Contrary to your claim, therefore, there is no disagreement between Ben and I. But even if there were, what of it? Are you suggesting that a difference of opinion between Ben and I would lend credence to your Isaacs scenario? If so, you are very much mistaken.

I would suggest that you abandon the strategy of attempting to make the evidence fit the hypothesis. It simply doesn’t work. 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 …’ 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.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the extant record is sympathetic to the notion that police continued to view Astrakhan as the likely murderer. Neither is there the slightest evidence that Bond’s interpretation of events eventually persuaded Anderson to change the investigative focus from Astrakhan to Blotchy. Nor is there any foundation for the assertion that Isaacs was the factor which persuaded Abberline to abandon his belief that Astrakhan was the killer. All of this is a fantasy. The reality is that Hutchinson’s account was viewed as suspicious by Tuesday, 13 November. Two days later it had been disregarded altogether. Were this not so, you would never have felt the need to reinvent the evidence of Sarah Lewis, nor promote Mrs Kennedy to the status of stellar witness, nor resort to pure invention with regard to Anderson’s case-related thinking. Most extraordinarily of all, you once argued that Astrakhan remained the prime suspect in the case even though Hutchinson’s story had been discounted.

Staggering. Truly staggering.

As I’ve already said, your attempts to disregard and distort the evidence in order to sustain what in reality is a woefully weak hypothesis have proved unconvincing to an overwhelming majority. Perhaps it’s time to stop blaming this majority for its failure to see things your way and get back to basics. By this I mean assess the available evidence in a logical, systematic and objective manner and see where it takes you.

But I’m not holding my breath.

And nor, I suspect, is anyone else.

[Sally]

Jon,

Please don't use my posts to you to make yet another thinly-veiled criticism of Ben and Garry - whose arguments regarding Hutchinson have thus far been better supported by the evidence than your own.

You've quoted me out of context - in case you've forgotten, I was criticising you - without any requirement for a veil, thin or otherwise - for your unsupported inferences regarding Isaacs, which I see you are disinclined to address.

So, once again, before you start criticising others for presenting theory as fact, you might consider abstaining from it yourself - otherwise you're likely to be accused of hypocrisy.

[GUT]

Not for guessing, for insisting their guesswork is 'proven'.
Everybody resorts to guesswork at some point, but very few, usually the same few, insist their guesswork is proven.

Sums it up in a nutshell to me, we often have to guess, rely on logic or experience but that is a whole different ball game than, "Proven".

[Wickerman]

You berate others for 'guessing'; yet that's exactly what you're doing - and wildly, at that.

Not for guessing, for insisting their guesswork is 'proven'.
Everybody resorts to guesswork at some point, but very few, usually the same few, insist their guesswork is proven.