The Red Handkerchief...

[Wickerman]

No detective supplied case related information to the press. And, our source for this reality is the press themselves.

"The police had orders to refuse the newspapers every information..."

"Up to the present the police refuse the Press any information."

"So reticent are the police in the matter, and such are the extraordinary precautions taken by the police to preserve whatever clue may be left,..."

Etc., etc.

[Bridewell]

Hi Bridewell,

No detective supplying case-related information to the press (as they certainly did on occasion) was likely to tolerate their name being published in connection with said information, for obvious reasons. Hence it may be assumed that the Echo published their report only after a strict understanding had been established with the detective(s) in question that no names would be provided for their less scrupulous journalistic colleagues to pester.

Regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

Fair point, but it still doesn't explain the use of the all-embracing term "the authorities" rather than "the police" if the latter were indeed the source. Using "the police" wouldn't amount to naming the individual officer concerned - so why not do so?

[Ben]

Hi Bridewell,

I may be wrong, but I imagine "authorities" was regarded by the press as more or less interchangeable with "police". It was not as though there was any real doubt as to who the "authorities" were in the Whitechapel murders investigation, and the Echo may have either known or assumed that the Home Officer was taking an active interest as well.

And then, distressingly, Jon returns to his:

No detective supplied case related information to the press.

Wrong.

Just wrong.

That has never held true of any high profile serial killer investigation that has even taken place...ever, and the naivity of the suggestion that detectives never disclose case-related inside information is truly shocking to behold. And citing a few instances of a few papers pissing and moaning about the police being generally reticent about disclosing details doesn't lessen that shock factor.

[Wickerman]

Bluff & bluster, no substance, no evidence, no argument.

[Ben]

Bluff & bluster, no substance, no evidence, no argument.

But enough about your Isaacstrakhan theory...

[Abby Normal]

G'Day Ben

That's just the point no PROOF that he was lying.

Thanks mate

GUT

hello and welcome Grand Unified Theory

No. No PROOF hutch was lying. but lets look at the big picture.
Ridiculous detailed decription.
script like description of the events between him mary and Aman. Both of this coming several day after he witnesses. Red Flag.
Description of Aman obviously a vilaain/supect: surly look, curled up mustache, knife sized parcel, jewish. red flag
waits 3 day to come forward and after the inquest. red flag.

Hutch should have been a very important witnes yet seemd to have been dropped by police pretty quickly-Red Flag

The events prior to this with mary and Blotchy described by Cox also mitigate againt Hutch's story:
mary was not in any shape or inclinition to venture out later that night-very intoxicated, seemingly very comfortable with Blotchy, singing, a pail of beer for more drinking, warm fire, bad night, no one other than Hutch see her out again.

The only thing that is most definitely true about Hutch is that he was there waiting and watching as corroberated by Lewis.

Now the question is-why was he waiting there? could be sany reaons, but i would sugget he was probably waiting for Blotchy to leave.

Witneses describe mary being with four men that night and i would posit that there is a good chance one of these were her killer:

Barnet-cleared by police and had an alibi.
Blotchy-???
Aman-probably fictional.
Hutch-????

Forced to make a guess. I would say Blotchy is most likely to be Mary' killer, and that hutch was lying for attention, monetary gain. In this scenario he goes to marys door, but noticing she is with someone, waits for that person to leave, gets fed up and eventually leaves.

If Blotchy was not the killer, than probably hutch, who, in this scenario, waits for blotchy to leave, blotchy leaves and hutch goes to mary room.

At the very least IMHO, hutch probably lied and at wort was her killer.

No proof he lied, no, but most probably did, for gain.

[GUT]

G'Day Abby

Possible Hutch lied? YES.
Certain Hutch lied? NO.

Other explanations? CERTAINLY

Reason to doubt his evidence? May well be.

Are these reasons to jump him to number one suspect? No.

G.U.T.

[Ben]

Hi Gut,

To be fair, Abby made it perfectly clear that he wasn't expressing "certainty" that Hutchinson lied. He acknowledged the absence of proof, but made clear his opinion that "hutch probably lied". I agree with this opinion wholeheartedly.

Are these reasons to jump him to number one suspect? No

It would have been better had you said something more along the lines of "Does this automatically make him the killer? No". By referring to a "number one suspect", I'm led to conclude that you support a particular candidate of your own who you feel ought to occupy the top spot.

[Abby Normal]

G'Day Abby

Possible Hutch lied? YES.
Certain Hutch lied? NO.

Other explanations? CERTAINLY

Reason to doubt his evidence? May well be.

Are these reasons to jump him to number one suspect? No.

G.U.T.

Hi gut
IMHO the number one suspect should be blotchy, with hutch at 1a. Anyone involved in stalking behavior of a victim shortly before her murder, and there presence is corroborated at the murder site around the possible TOD should be a top suspect. 45 minutes is a really, really long time to stand out in the bad weather at night waiting and watching for someone (especially since there is no reason that person may want you to), if there was not a very strong urge behind it-think about it.
Not to mention all the other red flags with his behavior.

Mary Kelly is the key to this mystery. In all probability her killer and her knew each other. The circumstances of her murder seem to bear that out.

After Blotchy and hutch, I think candidates like Bury, chapman, Kelly and Koz are the most viable. However, none of the latter 4 have any evidence against them or possible connection to a victim(except perhaps Koz, and that's extremely tenuous at best). Blotchy and hutch are the only suspects we have that have any actual physical connection to the case. So if not Hutch, not sure who you would think deserves a/the top spot.

Admittedly, all suspects in this are very weak, but hutch is certainly one of the best of a bad lot.

[Bridewell]

In this scenario he goes to marys door, but noticing she is with someone, waits for that person to leave, gets fed up and eventually leaves.

Abby, how does he notice this? Are you suggesting that MJK and her visitor were in plain view from Millers Court? Assuming she made some attempt to screen her room from prying eyes which, given the nature of her business, seems likely, wouldn't Hutchinson (or anyone else for that matter) have to enter the room or, at the very least, knock on the door to get that information? The alternative would involve Hutchinson having seen Kelly enter the room with someone else and, in that scenario, why would he not simply describe the man he had seen? (Sorry if that rambles a bit - wrote it as it came to mind).

[Abby Normal]

Abby, how does he notice this? Are you suggesting that MJK and her visitor were in plain view from Millers Court? Assuming she made some attempt to screen her room from prying eyes which, given the nature of her business, seems likely, wouldn't Hutchinson (or anyone else for that matter) have to enter the room or, at the very least, knock on the door to get that information? The alternative would involve Hutchinson having seen Kelly enter the room with someone else and, in that scenario, why would he not simply describe the man he had seen? (Sorry if that rambles a bit - wrote it as it came to mind).

Hi bridewell
good questions.
He could have knocked on the door and told to bugger off, but in this scenario, more than likely he heard voices (and a male voice) and realized she was with a man. we know the window was broken, which would have made this even easier.

[Ben]

Hi Bridewell,

If you haven't already, I would thoroughly recommend reading Garry Wroe's excellent book Person or Persons Unknown, which can be found in its entirety here:

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/garrywroe_full.html

On the subject of Hutchinson noticing Kelly in her room with a client, he offers the following scenario as a possibility:

"Aware that Barnett had left her a fortnight earlier, his plan required finding Kelly alone. But after reaching through the broken window pane and pulling aside the curtain, he saw by the flickering firelight a blotchy-faced man lying beside her on the bed. Both were sleeping. Cursing his misfortune, Hutchinson withdrew from the court and installed himself on the opposite side of Dorset Street."

All the best,
Ben

[curious4]

Hutch

G'Day Abby

Possible Hutch lied? YES.
Certain Hutch lied? NO.

Other explanations? CERTAINLY

Reason to doubt his evidence? May well be.

Are these reasons to jump him to number one suspect? No.

G.U.T.

Hallo G.U.T.

I don't think we can say Hutchinson was definitely lying a) on the grounds that the description was too detailed. There are people with above average visual memories. My daughter is one of them - approximately twice as good as the average, while I have no visual memory at all and have been known to walk past my children in the street.

and b) because he waited before going to the police. He could have been one of those slow, patient men who like to think through and even discuss what they were going to do beforehand. Perhaps he even realised he would become a suspect. Can't see Jack, however arrogant he was, waiting around in full view for any length of time.

Best wishes,
C4

[Ben]

Hi C4,

It isn't just "memory" that the's problem in Hutchinson's case. That part is ludicrous too, but far more problematic is his claim to have noticed all that he alleged to have seen in the time and conditions available, which consisted of a fleeting moment near a weak gas lamp on a Victorian London street at night time. I won't bother going through the specifics again, but suffice to say they stretch credibility to breaking point and beyond it.

He could have been one of those slow, patient men who like to think through and even discuss what they were going to do beforehand.

And callously allow the trail of a potential murderer of a three-year acquaintance to grow cold and possibly to wreak more havoc elsewhere? Of all the adjectives I could use to describe that behaviour, "patient" wouldn't be topping the list. Interesting that his sloth and patience only came to an end the moment the public inquest closed, and the opportunity to be interrogated in public had passed forever.

We only have Hutchinson's word for it that he waited any appreciable time outside the Court, which was hardly in "full view" on those near-deserted streets.

All the best,
Ben

[Michael W Richards]

It seems like people are making Hutchs predicament so terribly threatening that its ok for him to have waited not only 4 days, but until just after the Inquest closed...not late Monday night, or Tuesday morning, but just after the closure, to bring in what would have to have been known to him was the single most important witness statement if true, and therefore the best lead with which to catch the murderer of a "friend", which value is greatly diminished by this delay.

Its not that he saw a gold pin...he saw it was a horseshoe. He saw too much for someone who would be trying not to be noticed,.. and from what he says he was in essence spying on Mary. He places himself in Sarahs Wideawake Hat, which, considering the fact his story is that he sees Mary go into the room with a suspect in her murder, makes him appear as either a stalker or an accomplice to that act, when "inserted" into Sarahs report.

The Accomplice Pardon was issued early Saturday afternoon, a little over 24 hours after Mary was found.... and considering the strong resistance to the idea leading up to that time, it was unusual that it was issued without challenge politically.

To ignore that issuance in the case of Hutchinsons story and Sarahs story is I believe a mistake. His story confirms what she saw and places Mary inside her room with her most likely murder suspect, the man seen with her last...Sarahs story of someone spying on the courtyard is validated by Hutchs story.

Cheers