The Red Handkerchief...

[Wickerman]

Possibly blue. And I was citing scientific fact, not la-la-land logic.

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.

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.

Could it be, that you are purely biased in attempting to assert this scientific principal can only apply to Hutchinson?
All the while hoping the reader will remain oblivious to the fact it obviously did not apply to four other witnesses.

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

And significantly less than a little knowledge leads to rubbish such as Isaacs as Astrakhan.

Your opinion is of no concern to me Garry, after all it is all you have to offer in this case.

[Garry Wroe]

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

Possibly blue. And I was citing scientific fact, not la-la-land logic.

Back to the drawing board for someone I suggest, such nonsense is a stark reminder that a little knowledge can be a bad thing.

And significantly less than a little knowledge leads to rubbish such as Isaacs as Astrakhan.

[Wickerman]

But the latter happened anyway, Jon, in addition to reporters plying constables with whisky and bribing them out of information.

Well thats the point isn't it?
As much as you assert it to be the case, the reality rests with their own comments, that the police tell them nothing. The police, in this case refers to "official" information, not leaks, hints, or the occasional nugget bribed out of a tired and underpaid constable.
It is a desperate man who must 'assert' his belief which sits contrary to all the known evidence.

I can't think of any high profile information in which important case-related information wasn't shared with certain members of the press, and nor do I know of anyone besides yourself who insists it never happened.

As is always the case, you cannot prove your accusation so you resort to your belief.

Once again, Hutchinson could not have seen the handkerchief (let alone allowed his mind to paint it red)....

Ah, yes.
So Lawende was also lying, the neckerchief he saw must have been blue, according to the well-informed Mr Wroe.
And perhaps, Blotchy's "carroty' moustache was not red either, but that was also blue. And the flower on Stride's chest, blue petals also?
And Ada Wilson's attacker with his sunburnt (red) face, was a blue face?

Back to the drawing board for someone I suggest, such nonsense is a stark reminder that a little knowledge can be a bad thing.

[Garry Wroe]

But the latter happened anyway, Jon, in addition to reporters plying constables with whisky and bribing them out of information. I can't think of any high profile information in which important case-related information wasn't shared with certain members of the press, and nor do I know of anyone besides yourself who insists it never happened. It provably did during the Whitechapel murders investigation, that's the thing, and not just with regard to Hutchinson.

Readers should look over the 'What the Press Knew' thread for themselves, Ben, in order to see what Jon did and did not say on the issue. I'm not sure where Scotland Yard comes into all of this. The assertion was that the press received no inside information from those engaged on the Ripper investigation. 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. Anderson's almost obsessive preoccupation with secrecy renders this a near-certainty to my way of thinking.

[Ben]

So you see, I never claimed no policeman ever gave a reporter a bit of information, likely for the price of a drink.
That, as I indicated, does not amount to obtaining case related info from Scotland Yard Detectives.

But the latter happened anyway, Jon, in addition to reporters plying constables with whisky and bribing them out of information. I can't think of any high profile information in which important case-related information wasn't shared with certain members of the press, and nor do I know of anyone besides yourself who insists it never happened. It provably did during the Whitechapel murders investigation, that's the thing, and not just with regard to Hutchinson.

Once again, Hutchinson could not have seen the handkerchief (let alone allowed his mind to paint it red) when Astrakhan was "right under (his) nose"- not unless the latter wore his handkerchief in some pocket in his top coat, which nobody does.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

“Either way, suspect or person of interest, he was going to be questioned and his answers needed to satisfy the police. If not, he could find himself to be considered a suspect.”

Vastly unlikely, CD.

As Garry observed in his recent post #1431, Emanuel Violenia completely failed to “satisfy the police” under interrogation despite claiming to have been the last person to see a victim alive, but it didn't result in him being considered a suspect. He was simply dismissed as a publicity seeker and time waster, as so many pretend witnesses had been before him, and the same evidently occurred with Hutchinson.

“Even if we accept the premise that offenders pretending to be witnesses was so unheard of that the police never would have dreamed that this person could have been involved in the murder, does that premise have any limitations placed upon it?”

Well, the situation would realistically alter only if the police were aware of some evidence linking a voluntary witness to the crime scene beyond that witness's mere say-so that he were there. In Hutchinson’s case, that was all they had – his say-so, which meant that when his evidence was eventually discredited, he did not convert into a suspect. In their minds, he wasn’t just fibbing about his reasons for being there; he was fibbing about being there at all, which placed him in the enormous, burgeoning category of bogus witnesses out for a quick buck, and not in the totally unknown category of bogus witnesses who are secretly killers.

Accordingly, if the police failed to entertain the latter option in Hutchinson's case (and if the latter option had been the correct one), they can hardly be blamed for it.

All the best,
Ben

[c.d.]

"In 1888, at a time when offenders pretending to witnesses were unheard of, Hutchinson could have been quite confident banking on the unlikelihood of the police viewing him as a suspect."

Maybe as a suspect but unless the the police were complete idiots he was a person of interest. Either way, suspect or person of interest, he was going to be questioned and his answers needed to satisfy the police. If not, he could find himself to be considered a suspect.

Even if we accept the premise that offenders pretending to be witnesses was so unheard of that the police never would have dreamed that this person could have been involved in the murder, does that premise have any limitations placed upon it? In other words, if while being interviewed a bloody kidney and knife dropped out of his pocket, would the police simply say "hey George, you dropped this" because he appeared as a witness voluntarily? I think not.

c.d.

[Sally]

19th century people were better accustomed to subdued light than we are.

Yep Jon, if you say so.

I expect that explains everything.

[Wickerman]

Ah, just briefly Garry, (seeing as you found the time to surface), your criticisms of my defense of the Met.? may be based on this exchange from 2013, in this thread, The Press, and what they knew....

Where I expressed the opinion, to Ben:
"And I have not claimed that it never happened. Certainly an individual PC's lips could be loosened by the offer of a free whiskey or two.
How reliable is information obtained in such a fashion? How thick will the icing on the cake be once the PC realizes he can obtain another whiskey for the sake of a little creative embellishment?"
Post 235.

And your opinion was more centered on Scotland Yard:
"I think it naive in the extreme to suppose that journalists and their editors wouldn't have fostered special relationships with individuals prepared to leak inside information in exchange for cash or other favours. It happened with the Monarchy, Parliament and big business, so why on earth you believe that the Met or any other police force were corruption-free is beyond my comprehension"
Post 245.

So you see, I never claimed no policeman ever gave a reporter a bit of information, likely for the price of a drink.
That, as I indicated, does not amount to obtaining case related info from Scotland Yard Detectives. No beat constable is going to know details of the investigation, and what he does see, or hear, will not constitute accurate inside knowledge. Especially when he realizes that for the sake of a little embellishment, he can obtain for himself a second whiskey.

It is not a case of whether it happened, it is more a case of the value of these observations.

Another typical example of true relations between the police and the press:
"On Saturday they shut the reporters out of the mortuary; they shut them out of the house where the murder was done; the constable at the mortuary door lied to them; some of the inspectors at the offices seemed to wilfully mislead them;"

... Even with modern street lighting it is often impossible to distinguish between red and blue cars after nightfall.

At a distance of course, but Astrachan passed right under Hutchinson's nose.
You walk up to a car under a street lamp, you can see it is red, proof you can establish for yourself. But not, if it is a distance away, across or down the street.

[Trevor Marriott]

Not so. Please refer to my earlier post concerning ocular rods and cones. Under low light conditions rods mediate human vision. Since rods function at a monochrome level only, humans are incapable of seeing colour under such circumstances. Even with modern street lighting it is often impossible to distinguish between red and blue cars after nightfall.

He has been told but wont accept it !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Garry Wroe]

So long as some light was present, then some degree of colour was available, therefore to claim Hutchinson could not see colour is false. There would need to be a total absence of light for him to see no colour.

Not so. Please refer to my earlier post concerning ocular rods and cones. Under low light conditions rods mediate human vision. Since rods function at a monochrome level only, humans are incapable of seeing colour under such circumstances. Even with modern street lighting it is often impossible to distinguish between red and blue cars after nightfall.

[Ben]

Hi Bridewell,

Another point occurs (not related to Trevor's remarks):-
Sometimes, in the eagerness to elicit information, an over-enthusiastic officer can press the witness too much, forcing him/her to feel pressured into giving material they are unsure of-

"Surely you can remember more than that?"
"You must be able to recall if there was a stone on his watch chain!"
"Obviously he will have worn a tie-pin; what was the design of it?"

The problem with this suggestion is that Hutchinson regurgitated the same details - with various interesting additions - when relating his account to a reporter the next day, making it very hard to accept that the specifics he imparted initially to the police were merely the result of "pressure" exerted by a supposedly over-zealous Badham. Clearly, Hutchinson had committed these details to memory whether he had actually seen them or not, and a hypothetical grilling from Badham would fail to explain their reappearance in the newspapers.

It also seems rather unlikely that Badham should have been dissatisfied with the answers Hutchinson provided, and unless the former was very inexperienced and incompetent, I can't see him putting pressure on Hutchinson to offer more detail about a tie pin, for instance, which was in itself an extraordinary detail to have noticed considering what we can reasonably expect to be true about the lighting conditions and the time Hutchinson had available to record such details.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“The waistcoat was visible. So both coat & jacket being unfastened would allow the waistcoat to be visible”

Circular reasoning, Jon.

The “waistcoat was visible” according to what source? Ah yes, Hutchinson. You’re trying to defend Hutchinson’s statement with, y'know, Hutchinson’s statement, and it just won’t do. If Astrakhan’s coat was “muscle fit” and several sizes too small, the act of lifting an arm slightly might expose a small part of the waistcoat – not the whole thing, and certainly not a red handkerchief tucked into a pocket.

“The point is, if Hutchinson did see him in daylight then we have some justification for the detail offered in his statement.”

Only if Astrakhan wore the very same clothes and accessories when Hutchinson allegedly next saw him (which would make a big ol’ nonsense of his claim that he only “fancied” that it was the same person the alleged second time), and only if we’re accepting press versions of his statement as accurate, which according to your recent assertion, is something we shouldn’t do.

“These officers may not have taken very detailed statements before, that is all we can take from their opinion.”

Or a more sensible conclusion is that they have all taken “very detailed statements” before, but found them to be false, based on their experience of what eyewitnesses are usually capable of noticing and memorizing.

“I'll explain later why not.”

Nah, don’t bother.

You’ve made your views on the subject very clear a great many times, and frankly, we could do without the repetition.

“With an unfastened coat and jacket, raise one arm and he exposes the waistcoat. Why is that so difficult to envisage?”

Because it’s nonsense.

Find your biggest coat and wear it on top of a lighter overcoat and a waistcoat, then stand in front of the mirror and raise your arm as you would if you were touching the shoulder of a shorter lady. You’ll see. While we’re on the subject, just why was the silly sod quite so unbuttoned when Hutchinson claimed to have seen him, i.e. when the weather was cold and wet and where there was a very real risk of his gold chain attracting deeply unwanted attention?

“It takes more than a few seconds to walk from south of Flower & Dean, to the corner of Fashion St.”

So you think Hutchinson managed to register a linen collar, a horseshoe tie-pin, "light buttons over button boots", a red stone seal and much more all the way from Fashion Street, when the suspect was stationed “south of Flower and Dean Street”? I think a visit to the locality in question would benefit you enormously. Do stop saying we have “no idea” what the circumstances were. Yes, we do. We know precisely what sort of light gas lamps emitted in 1888, and it was a very negligible amount. We also know that the likelihood of a waistcoat handkerchief being on display under two coats was very slim indeed. The only opportunity Hutchinson had at his disposal to notice a red handkerchief was when Astrakhan allegedly produced it very briefly at the corner of the court, at which time Hutchinson was allegedly standing at the corner of Commercial and Dorset Streets. Unfortunately, the light and distance weren’t remotely sufficient in that situation to facilitate the observation of colour on an object so small, and at such a distance.

I often can’t help but suspect that the “we don’t know this, we don’t know that” plea is a none-too-subtle means of discouraging people from using very basic common sense.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Yes, the colour of an object is merely the light it reflects, meaning the colour of the spectrum which is not absorbed by the material itself.
If the handkerchief reflects the colour red, we see it as red.

Light must be present to see colour, subdued light will affect the true colour.
The debate here is, to what degree was the light subdued from regular daylight.

Given that we have no idea how close the nearest lamp was, nor how bright it was, we cannot replicate the scene.
Meaning, we cannot duplicate what was seen to confirm, nor dismiss the account.

So long as some light was present, then some degree of colour was available, therefore to claim Hutchinson could not see colour is false. There would need to be a total absence of light for him to see no colour.

19th century people were better accustomed to subdued light than we are.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

"What is color? No object of itself alone has color.

"We know that even the most brightly colored object, if taken into total darkness, loses its color. Therefore, if an object is dependent upon light for color, color must be a property of light.

"And so it is."

Paul Outerbridge, Photographer, 1896 - 1958

Regards,

Simon