The Red Handkerchief...

[John G]

A point I admittedly hadn't considered, Garry, for which thanks.

I would be tempted arrive at a similar conclusion in Hutchinson's case, were it not for the fact that the sighting involved a much longer distance than Lawende's, and a far briefer sighting of the alleged item.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

But what of Edward Spooner? In the pitch black darkness of Dutfield's yard he stated that there was a "red and white flower" pinned to Stride's jacket. The only light available to him would have been from a match, struck by one of the crowd who were milling around the body. However, it's worth pointing out that the Yard was so dark that, a few minutes earlier, Lave couldn't even see the side door to get back into the club. And when Louis D first looked down on Stride's body he thought he was looking at a heap of dirt. Even after striking a match he was only just able to make out the shape of a figure, and only the dim outline of a dress enabled him to ascertain that it was a woman.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“But what evidence is there that the police even tried to track down men such as Lewis's loiterer (who was supposedly under their very noses in the shape of Hutchinson)?”

There isn’t any that I’m aware of, but the fact remains that Hutchinson could not have relied on the police not making the hunt for the loiterer a priority, and even if they didn’t, it wouldn't have stopped them paying attention if Lewis alerted a police officer to the fact that she had seen the same man subsequently. Wideawake was still an obvious person of interest, even if he wasn’t a major priority owing to fact that he was not seen in the company of the victim.

“If Hutch is meant to have been the man in each case, because he was the murderer, he'd have been a fool to come forward if he resembled one or more of the descriptions already given of him.”

Not if the previous descriptions could apply to potentially thousands of men, which we know was the case. Obviously, it might not have been the cleverest idea for him to attend the station in a loose-fitting pepper and salt jacket and reddish neckerchief, but it wasn’t as if previous descriptions of a 30ish bloke with a moustache were likely to trouble him if he was the killer and "matched" that extremely broad description. He was far more likely to have been concerned about the possibility of the witnesses themselves recognising him at a later stage, and with Lewis living far closer to the Victoria Home than Lawende and Schwartz did, the chances of a subsequent meeting were markedly increased.

I’m not sure quite when this changed into a Hutchinson-as-ripper discussion, but still…!

“You're doing it again - assuming he was guilty and therefore being as evasive as possible, and using that as your argument that Abberline had no choice but to accept what he was told initially and get on with following up the lead.”

I’m not doing any such thing “again”. You’re the one who keeps introducing the “guilty” element. I’ve merely been discussing the treatment of the statement, and no, it is not just a “guilty” Hutchinson who might have had reason to provide inadequate explanations for both his failure to come forward earlier and his 45-minute vigil in Dorset Street. Even in the very unlikely event that he told the truth about the Astrakhan episode, he could still been “motivated” into giving evasive answers for other reasons, such as wanting to conceal a desire to sleep with Kelly. The point being that irrespective of Hutchinson’s possible motivation for giving insufficient explanations, the police could ill-afford to reject the entire account – and risk the almighty flak that went with it – because of them.

Abberline was very unlikely to withhold details from his bosses that supported his opinion that the statement was true, and if Hutchinson had provided satisfactory excuses for what we now consider grey areas, they would have warranted obvious inclusion in the report. But in the event if he did fail to include these supposedly sound explanations, it is clear that “later investigation” had injured their credibility less than 12 hours after they were initially made.

“Had it come out later, after expressing his belief in Hutch's truthfulness, that he had managed to elicit virtually nothing about the witness himself and what he was doing there, apart from a series of "don't knows" and "can't remembers", how well do you think that would have gone down?”

Not nearly as badly as it would have done had Abberline chosen to reject the entire account and not circulate the description purely because of those “don’t knows” and “can’t remembers”.

“If you are right, they did stand to lose by making it plain to the Echo that Hutch and his Astrakhan Man were on the way out.”

Not if they took the necessary precaution of clarifying that Hutchinson’s account had suffered a “very reduced importance” as opposed to being conclusively eliminated, which is precisely what they did.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Rather he assumed this to have been the case given the limited visual information he had available to him. It's simply what people do.

A point I admittedly hadn't considered, Garry, for which thanks.

I would be tempted arrive at a similar conclusion in Hutchinson's case, were it not for the fact that the sighting involved a much longer distance than Lawende's, and a far briefer sighting of the alleged item.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Really? It relates to a discussion from two or three years ago when you were attempting to convince all and sundry of Hutchinson's upright nature and strict adherence to the truth. At the time you were reluctantly coming round to the reality that he had been rejected as a police witness whilst still arguing for the truth of the Astrakhan story.

I was?, are you sure this isn't your imagination?
I haven't seen any evidence he was rejected as a witness, then or now.
I am not likely to though am I, as no evidence exists.

To overcome this particular difficulty you explicated upon Anderson's innermost thinking, presenting as fact a line of reasoning on Anderson's part that has never been published anywhere as far as I'm aware. Thus Anderson trusted to Bond's proposed time of death, meaning that Kelly had been murdered at approximately one o'clock in the morning. Again trusting to Anderson's innermost thoughts on the issue you explained how Anderson had concluded that, although an honest and sincere witness, Hutchinson must have been in error over the Astrakhan sighting, an outcome which explains the 'diminution' stories run by the Echo and Star.

Remember now?

That doesn't sound familiar, unless you mean that Anderson "thought" Hutchinson had been mistaken - I may have suggested that.

Anderson believed the principal witness, and the suspect, were both Jewish.
So naturally the Hutchinson suspect had to be eliminated if Anderson was correct in his belief.
- One solution to this is that he privately, or officially, accepted Dr Bond's estimate, as opposed to the statement given by Hutchinson.
- Alternately, his belief came about because the Hutchinson suspect was found, and was subsequently eliminated from their enquiries.

Either could have happened.

If so I'd appreciate any help you might be able to offer with a view to locating Anderson's published writings concerning Hutchinson and Dr Bond's projected time of death regarding the Miller's Court murder.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Don't waste your time on memoirs. All the personal beliefs about the various suspects in these memoirs are sorely short of anything like evidence.

[Wickerman]

Absolutely, Ben. A number of journalists made reference to their inside police sources. I recall one who, though clearly exaggerating, stated that he was yet to meet a policeman who couldn't be bought off. One could be forgiven for thinking that Hutchinson was the only honest man in London at the time.

The argument still holds, and so it will until you offer anything more substantial than your opinions. Opinion, is all you seem to have in this case, and opinion is easy to dismiss.

One detail that is not always clarified, as I mentioned to Ben some months ago. The City Police had a better rapport with the press than the Met., who did not have any. Which was the cause of the press in general complaining about the treatment they received.

The City Police were quite accommodating to reporters, not so the Met., and it was the Met who the press were always complaining about.

Here is one example, the Pall Mall Gazette offering a City Police source, writing about a statement from Matthew Packer..
"The statement has been investigated by the police. Our representative was courteously received this morning by Inspector Detective McWilliams, who believes that nothing will come of it."

The rule which forbade any policeman from sharing case related information with members of the press was a Metropolitan Police rule.

If you choose to contest what I write then first make sure which force you are dealing with.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I agree entirely with Garry’s thoughts on the issue.

Really?

There really weren’t that many, especially if the search was restricted to actual police witnesses who gave evidence at the inquest, as opposed to all the press nonsense that circulated in the immediate aftermath of the Kelly murder. That isn’t to say Lewis’s wideawake man might not have been overlooked somewhat in favour of other “suspects”, such as Blotchy and Lewis’ Bethnal Green botherer, but as Garry points out, Hutchinson could not have banked on such an outcome, and had every reason to expect that the wideawake loiterer would have his turn in the investigative spotlight before long.

But what evidence is there that the police even tried to track down men such as Lewis's loiterer (who was supposedly under their very noses in the shape of Hutchinson)? He was there nearly nine hours before Kelly was found murdered, and had not been seen with her, but alone, merely as if waiting for someone - who could have been anyone. He wasn't seen close to the time when "Oh murder" was heard, was he? Previous witness sightings that were followed up and treated seriously concerned men seen talking to - or in one case assaulting - the previous victims, very close in time and place to their discovered corpses. If Hutch is meant to have been the man in each case, because he was the murderer, he'd have been a fool to come forward if he resembled one or more of the descriptions already given of him. If he didn't resemble any of them enough to put him off, isn't it rather doubtful it was him at all?

If Hutchinson responded to that question would “Errr..I dunno sir, I was just curious I guess. I’ve never seen ‘er with such a fellah before, that’s all”...

...If Hutchinson responded to the above with “Dunno sir, I can’t remember just now”...

You're doing it again - assuming he was guilty and therefore being as evasive as possible, and using that as your argument that Abberline had no choice but to accept what he was told initially and get on with following up the lead. But this ignores the possibility that Hutch gave far more satisfactory answers to begin with, which didn't need passing on at that point because they were deemed satisfactory, but also not directly related to his sighting of Kelly with the man. Had Hutch responded with a "dunno" or "can't remember" to questions about his own movements, when he had just given all but Astrakhan Man's inside leg measurement, that would have given Abberline more cause for concern, and therefore more reason to pass on such vague and unhelpful responses to his bosses. Had it come out later, after expressing his belief in Hutch's truthfulness, that he had managed to elicit virtually nothing about the witness himself and what he was doing there, apart from a series of "don't knows" and "can't remembers", how well do you think that would have gone down?

As far as the “public interest” went, I stress again that the rejection of yet another bogus piece of witness evidence was no biggie, and the police would have lost nothing by telling the Echo the truth about the current status of Hutchinson’s evidence.

But you said elsewhere that the police didn't give any newspaper an official declaration of that status for fear they might turn out to have spoken too soon. If you are right, they did stand to lose by making it plain to the Echo that Hutch and his Astrakhan Man were on the way out.

Love,

Caz
X

[Garry Wroe]

It seems to be just the one poster (yep, that one!) who insists that "inside" information was never shared between senior police officials and the press. One need only read Inspector Littlechild's recollections about Central News' Tom Bulling to understand that it happened.

Absolutely, Ben. A number of journalists made reference to their inside police sources. I recall one who, though clearly exaggerating, stated that he was yet to meet a policeman who couldn't be bought off. One could be forgiven for thinking that Hutchinson was the only honest man in London at the time.

[Garry Wroe]

That is the third time I believe you have made that remark, it still doesn't ring any bells.

Really? It relates to a discussion from two or three years ago when you were attempting to convince all and sundry of Hutchinson's upright nature and strict adherence to the truth. At the time you were reluctantly coming round to the reality that he had been rejected as a police witness whilst still arguing for the truth of the Astrakhan story. To overcome this particular difficulty you explicated upon Anderson's innermost thinking, presenting as fact a line of reasoning on Anderson's part that has never been published anywhere as far as I'm aware. Thus Anderson trusted to Bond's proposed time of death, meaning that Kelly had been murdered at approximately one o'clock in the morning. Again trusting to Anderson's innermost thoughts on the issue you explained how Anderson had concluded that, although an honest and sincere witness, Hutchinson must have been in error over the Astrakhan sighting, an outcome which explains the 'diminution' stories run by the Echo and Star.

Remember now?

If so I'd appreciate any help you might be able to offer with a view to locating Anderson's published writings concerning Hutchinson and Dr Bond's projected time of death regarding the Miller's Court murder.

But I'm not holding my breath.

[Garry Wroe]

Blotchy and Wilson's attackers were carrotty and sunburned respectively for the duration of the sighting in each case, while Lawende's man had his neckerchief on display for the entire time the Jewish trio were regarding him.

To be honest, Ben, I very much doubt that Lawende could have discerned the colour of Church Passage man's handkerchief from a distance of twenty feet and under poor lighting conditions. I seem to recall that Levy was interviewed after the event and said that the passage mouth was dimly lit at the time of the sighting, but 'is much better lighted now'. This would appear to confirm that Lawende couldn't have distinguished the handkerchief's colour. Rather he assumed this to have been the case given the limited visual information he had available to him. It's simply what people do.

[Scott Nelson]

I think Isaacs was dropped in favour of David Cohen.

[Wickerman]

You're the one who claims to be in psychic communication with Anderson's innermost thoughts.

That is the third time I believe you have made that remark, it still doesn't ring any bells.
The only time I recall you bringing up Anderson is when you pointed out that he said the principal witness was a Jew - hence not Hutchinson.

I replied by agreeing, that Astrachan (if Isaacs), was cleared, so obviously Hutchinson did not witness the killer.
What does that have to do with being psychic?

Hutchinson was standing thirty yards distant in a gloomy thoroughfare...

Hutchinson was standing directly under a lamp when Astrachan, and all his accoutrements, passed under his gaze.

Where is the logic is asserting that Hutchinson first saw the colour of the handkerchief when he is at a distance that would be impossible?
Unless, you are offering another straw-man argument?

Suggest the impossible, knock it down because it is impossible, then declare him a liar - why?, ....because it is impossible!
The word, contrived, comes to mind.

Come to think of it, that is the basis of ALL the accusations against Hutchinson.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

As much as you assert it to be the case, the reality rests with their own comments, that the police tell them nothing.

Got any evidence from the journalists' "own comments" that the police never supplied any information at all to them at any stage, and would never to so in the future either? No? Didn't think you had any. Sometimes the press would approach the police to ask for information, only to receive an extended middle finger in response, but at other times - such as on the 14th November - the police would share case-related information. A crazy thing to dispute, which might explain why it seems to be only you that does.

It is a desperate man who must 'assert' his belief which sits contrary to all the known evidence.

It is a grotesquely naive man who must "assert" that the police will never ever divulge case-related information to the press at a senior level, especially when such an "assertion" is utterly and provably false.

Ah, yes.
So Lawende was also lying, the neckerchief he saw must have been blue, according to the well-informed Mr Wroe.

Could you address the point I actually made please, as opposed to straying off on a tangent? Thanks. Hutchinson would not have seen any handkerchief - red or otherwise - at the time of the alleged "stooping" encounter with Astrakhan for the simple reason that it would have been concealed inside the latter's sleeve or beneath two coats.

So if you wish to endorse the red hanky detail as accurate, you're pretty much stuck with the very small window of opportunity Hutchinson had at his disposal to register Astrakhan whipping it out briefly to give to Kelly at the entrance to Miller's Court. It's just unfortunate for your conclusions that Hutchinson claimed to have been standing at the corner of Dorset Street at the time - a significant distance away, and certainly too far to register the colour red on such a small surface area, in poor lighting conditions, and for such a fleeting moment.

This doesn't compare in the slightest to Lawende, Cox and Wilson, all of whom registered their "suspects" at comparatively closer quarters, and none of whom claimed to have spied the "redness" for a brief moment. Blotchy and Wilson's attackers were carrotty and sunburned respectively for the duration of the sighting in each case, while Lawende's man had his neckerchief on display for the entire time the Jewish trio were regarding him.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

My feeling, for what it's worth, is that the Echo had someone on the inside, almost certainly someone in a senior position, who provided the information regarding Hutchinson's reduction in status.

Mine too, Garry.

It seems to be just the one poster (yep, that one!) who insists that "inside" information was never shared between senior police officials and the press. One need only read Inspector Littlechild's recollections about Central News' Tom Bulling to understand that it happened.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

I am not suggesting the principal was not scientifically based, I am suggesting you take it out of context in order to misapply it to Hutchinson, for self serving interests.

Suggest what you like. Readers are free to examine the relevant posts and judge for themselves.

This scientific principal did not apply to Ada Wilson, nor to Edward Spooner, nor to Joseph Lawende, and neither to Mary Cox.
One has every right to ask why, that out of five witnesses, who were all out at night, who all saw something red, all in poor light, only Hutchinson "could not" correctly distinguish the colour 'red', yet all the other four were quite capable of seeing red.

Perhaps, then, you'd care to identify the post in which I made such a claim.

Could it be, that you are purely biased in attempting to assert this scientific principal can only apply to Hutchinson?

No. I responded to a claim made by yourself - one which dealt solely with Hutchinson.

All the while hoping the reader will remain oblivious to the fact it obviously did not apply to four other witnesses.

This would be the four other witnesses of whom you made no mention prior to my initial response, right? You appear to be confusing the two of us. You're the one who claims to be in psychic communication with Anderson's innermost thoughts. I claim no psychic ability - least of all the gift of precognition.

Either the error is with the science, or the one who is (mis)applying it.....

Hutchinson was standing thirty yards distant in a gloomy thoroughfare when Astrakhan allegedly produced the 'red' handkerchief. So no, the error is not with the science, and nor is robust science being misapplied by myself. All that's happening here is that you're attempting to huff, puff and bluster your way out of a situation you created for yourself by making a laughably absurd claim. So what's new?

[Wickerman]

I'll just drop you a hint on this Rods & Cones issue.
Rather than me explain where you went wrong I tried to locate a quote that says the same.

In a previous post I agreed with you that the colour red can be difficult to identify "at a distance" meaning, when there is no direct light on the red object.
Seeing a red car at a distance down the street, for example, not under a streetlamp.

Where I disagreed with you is when a red object is beneath a light, regardless of the luminosity, the brighter the light, the more 'red' the colour appears. In low intensity light the colour red is a darker red, but still red.

This quote suggests the same.

Example - "Red rose at twilight:"
In bright light, the color-sensitive cones are predominant and we see a brilliant red rose with somewhat more subdued green leaves.

Meaning, even at twilight, but under a light source, you can see red clearly.

"But at twilight, the less-sensitive cones begin to shut down for the night, and most of the vision comes from the rods. The rods pick up the green from the leaves much more strongly than the red from the petals, so the green leaves become brighter than the red petals!"

Meaning, at twilight but nowhere near a direct light source, the colour red is less distinct.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.html

I explained to you that so long as there is a direct light source nearby, the colour red will be visible, the shade being dependent on the proximity & intensity of the local light source.
And, as we know Hutchinson stood by a lamp. and Lawende was also near a light source, we have no cause to question that they both were able to see the colour red.

Only in the absence of a local light source (ie; twilight, or darker) will we have trouble identifying the colour red.