The Red Handkerchief...

[Trevor Marriott]

Your analysis is entirely guesswork.
You have no idea how poor the lighting was, no idea how visible the chain, seal & handkerchief were, no idea how slow the couple approached Hutchinson. No idea the proximity of the lamp to the people involved.

Without knowing any of the above circumstances, no-one can accurately conduct an experiment to replicate what Hutchinson saw. So, I'm sorry to say Trevor, but you are at best fooling yourself, at worst rigging your experiment to provide the results you prefer.

You are correct but even under subdued modern day street lighting which is probably a tad brighter than a Victorian gas lamp it still is impossible !

The test was to prove or disprove not to rig the result as you suggest.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Garry Wroe]

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.

To be fair, Ben, investigators did have experience of offenders coming forward under the guise of witnesses. It was precisely for this reason that rewards ceased to be offered in 1884. That said, I very much doubt that any investigator would have entertained the possibility of Jack the Ripper walking into a police station at the height of the Whitechapel Murders masquerading as an innocent eyewitness. Had this been the case Violenia would never have escaped so lightly after claiming to have sighted Annie Chapman on Hanbury Street shortly before her murder.

[Wickerman]

Visible beneath two coats?

No, Jon.

The waistcoat was visible. So both coat & jacket being unfastened would allow the waistcoat to be visible.
So clearly it is not a "no", it is "very possibly".

According to one of your recent posts (which I haven't been arsed to "bookmark!), you deny people the right even to use it in support of an argument, which makes it all the more mysterious that you're suddenly relying on the press-only detail that Hutchinson allegedly saw the Astrahan man on more than one occasion.

The Sunday morning sighting is not proof of anything. The point is, if Hutchinson did see him in daylight then we have some justification for the detail offered in his statement.

No, not just "an opinion".

The actual experience of several retired and serving policeman. I'd be fascinated to see an eyewitness statement as "detailed" as Hutchinson's, though.

There is no experience that can prove a negative. These officers may not have taken very detailed statements before, that is all we can take from their opinion.

If you accept what the Echo "actually wrote", you'll naturally accept them at their word when they "actually wrote" that Hutchinson's statement was "considerably discounted" because it was not made at the inquest and in the proper manner.

I'll explain later why not.

Unless you're envisaging the Astrakhan coat being practically skin-tight and many sizes too small.

?? Not sure what you are suggesting.
With an unfastened coat and jacket, raise one arm and he exposes the waistcoat. Why is that so difficult to envisage?

The only opportunity to register any detail occurred as Astrakhan passed by a gas lamp, which as Harry pointed out, lasted but a few seconds.

No, rubbish.
It takes more than a few seconds to walk from south of Flower & Dean, to the corner of Fashion St.

But nobody has "skills" good enough to compare with Hutchinson's powers of observation and recollection.

"Nobody" - another one of your absolutes?
I take it you must have asked "everybody" then?

[Wickerman]

I think it is you that cannot see the problem, based on your observations no one would be able to see any colours until they were right on top of the person, especially in poor lighting. red,blue, black purple would all be indistinguishable in that poor lighting,

I think you need to go and experiment. I have done so, and as a result that is how I arrive at my conclusions

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Your analysis is entirely guesswork.
You have no idea how poor the lighting was, no idea how visible the chain, seal & handkerchief were, no idea how slow the couple approached Hutchinson. No idea the proximity of the lamp to the people involved.

Without knowing any of the above circumstances, no-one can accurately conduct an experiment to replicate what Hutchinson saw. So, I'm sorry to say Trevor, but you are at best fooling yourself, at worst rigging your experiment to provide the results you prefer.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm intrigued as to how you are able to discern, from the content of a witness statement, which questions were not asked of a witness. How do you discount the possibility that the question was asked but the answer not deemed, by the statement taker, to be worthy of inclusion? Or the possibility that the question was asked but the answer was of no value e.g. "I can't remember that" or "I don't know".

My comments in main were directed at the inquest testimony, where it is clear to me having taken hundreds of statements over the years, that not all the statements from the witnesses were taken by experienced statement takers.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Bridewell]

There lies the problem with the witness statements they have to be taken on face value, but when you read into them there are many questions which could and should have been asked but were not.

I'm intrigued as to how you are able to discern, from the content of a witness statement, which questions were not asked of a witness. How do you discount the possibility that the question was asked but the answer not deemed, by the statement taker, to be worthy of inclusion? Or the possibility that the question was asked but the answer was of no value e.g. "I can't remember that" or "I don't know".

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?"

I find Hutchinson's description difficult but my default position is not that he was a liar; I haven't eliminated the possibility that he was trying a little too hard to be helpful.

[Jeff Leahy]

I think it is you that cannot see the problem, based on your observations no one would be able to see any colours until they were right on top of the person, especially in poor lighting. red,blue, black purple would all be indistinguishable in that poor lighting,

I think you need to go and experiment. I have done so, and as a result that is how I arrive at my conclusions

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Much though i don't like to agree with Trevor Marriot this is the second time in two days I've found myself doing so, once with his comments to Michael Portillo and now about the colour of the pocket watch and chain..

In the dark could you tell the difference between a Gold or Silver pocket watch?

To someone as poor as Hutchinson such an item would be the stuff of dreams, a status symbol so I'd imagine in his head and imaginative description there wouldn't be much difference between Gold or Silver, he was after all painting a pretty picture.

Then the other day I came across a News Paper article in Rob Houses book that is just left as a throw away, but it's been playing on my mind ever since. As you may have noted I've been postulating that Aaron Kozminski first came to the attention of the police on 14th October and that the police investigation into the Batty Street shirt forced him to go into hiding. A man being watched and rather paranoid is it possible he changed his appearance on his next venture out into the night? A man living in a Tailor might have access to fine coats or clothes but would he have access to a watch and Chain?

In April 1886, Woolfs house at 62 Greenfeild Street was broken into, as reported in the illustrated Police News:

"John Isaacs, seventeen, has been charged, at Thames Police court, with burglariouly entering the premises of Woolfe Abrahams of Greenfeild street, Whitechapel, and attempting to steal therefrom various articles, value 12 pounds, on the previous night. The prosecutor stated that when he and his brother in law entered the front room they saw the prisoner lying under the bed. As soon as he saw witness he said "Be quiet. Your watch and chain are under the bedstead and then sent for a constable. When the prisoner was searched at the station a silver watch, some matches, a piece of candle, a knife, and 6d were found in possession."

So one thing that we do know is the 'Prime Suspect' in the case had access to the sort of watch possibly described by Hutchinson. Perhaps nothing more than another strange co-incidence but surely one of many?

Was Astracan Man, simply an elaborate disciuse?

Yours Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

The watch chain typically runs from a waistcoat pocket, yes?
A handkerchief in the left or right pocket, and both kerchief & seal, suspended from the chain, are equally visible, at a glance.
This couple are walking towards you, so it is not like you have only 2 seconds to observe the detail.



I'm not sure where you see a problem.

I think it is you that cannot see the problem, based on your observations no one would be able to see any colours until they were right on top of the person, especially in poor lighting. red,blue, black purple would all be indistinguishable in that poor lighting,

I think you need to go and experiment. I have done so, and as a result that is how I arrive at my conclusions

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ben]

Edits to post #1422:

"I'm not disputing that “waiting in vain for a prostitute was hardly in the same league as serial murder”.

"If Hutchinson responded to that question with “Errr..I dunno sir, I was just curious I guess"

[Ben]

A handkerchief in the left or right pocket, and both kerchief & seal, suspended from the chain, are equally visible, at a glance.

Visible beneath two coats?

No, Jon.

Just no.

Pay attention Ben, I do not advocate using press interviews as a primary source to 'prove' anything.

According to one of your recent posts (which I haven't been arsed to "bookmark!), you deny people the right even to use it in support of an argument, which makes it all the more mysterious that you're suddenly relying on the press-only detail that Hutchinson allegedly saw the Astrahan man on more than one occasion.

I didn't say he wore the same clothes, the very fact Hutchinson says he was uncertain is an indication the man was not dressed entirely the same.

Which means we can dispose of the suggestion that Hutchinson used the alleged second sighting to "confirm" the existence of details he glimpsed briefly on the first.

One policeman has taken very similarly detailed statements, yet you counter this with "an opinion" that it cannot be done?

No, not just "an opinion".

The actual experience of several retired and serving policeman. I'd be fascinated to see an eyewitness statement as "detailed" as Hutchinson's, though.

You'll excuse me if I prefer to believe what the Echo actually wrote (as opposed to your 'opinion'), that the police will tell them nothing.

On some occasions.

Just some.

Not all.

It's not tricky to understand.

If you accept what the Echo "actually wrote", you'll naturally accept them at their word when they "actually wrote" that Hutchinson's statement was "considerably discounted" because it was not made at the inquest and in the proper manner.

Read where he placed his right arm, totally exposing his chest & waistcoat.

Totally doing nothing of the sort.

Unless you're envisaging the Astrakhan coat being practically skin-tight and many sizes too small.

His observation began at 2:00, and lasted for 15 minutes - not a few seconds

Nope.

Nonsense.

For the vast majority of that "sighting", Hutchinson would have been watching a dark figure in an overcoat. The only opportunity to register any detail occurred as Astrakhan passed by a gas lamp, which as Harry pointed out, lasted but a few seconds.

I appreciate that you may not think so, but you do realize that everybody's observational skills are different, yes?

But nobody has "skills" good enough to compare with Hutchinson's powers of observation and recollection. I guess he must have been just super-mega-brilliant.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“Of course, this relies entirely on two unknowns: a) the opportunity for Hutch to have learned what Lewis said at the inquest about this loitering man, and b) Hutch recognising from her description that he was that man”

I agree entirely with Garry’s thoughts on the issue. Both a) and b) obviously happened, irrespective of Hutchinson’s means of obtaining Lewis’s evidence, or else we’re left with the very unlikely “coincidence” of him coming forward and claiming he stood opposite the court “waiting for someone to come out” the moment it was publicly divulged that Sarah Lewis had seen a man doing precisely that. Personally, I agree with Garry’s surmise that Hutchinson may have registered the fact that the woman who walked up the court on the night of the murder was the same woman about to enter Shoreditch Town Hall as an inquest witness, and assumed the focal point of her evidence would be the loitering man.

I’m not suggesting that “waiting in vain for a prostitute was hardly in the same league as serial murder”, but if Hutchinson was identified on the streets as someone the police suspected merely of “waiting in vain for a prostitute”, there was still the very real possibility of Lawende and Schwartz being wheeled in to rule out the more sinister possibility associated with loitering outside a murder victim’s home. Realistically, therefore, it wouldn’t have made any difference (to that potential outcome) if Hutchinson was merely loitering or escorting Kelly up the Miller’s Court passage.

“You argue that had he not come forward and Lewis had subsequently seen and recognised him, he would have feared Lawende or Schwartz being called in to identify him. But you vehemently resist the idea that the same would have happened if he had accidentally said or done anything under interrogation to make Abberline suspicious.”

What I’m more resistant to is the notion that this possible outcome would have served as a deterrent against Hutchinson coming forward IF he was the murderer, and I resist it on the basis that numerous known serial killers who found themselves in a very similar predicament (to what has been proposed of Hutchinson) injected themselves into their own investigations as “witnesses” in order to “explain” potentially incriminating evidence linking them to the crime, in spite of the fact that this proactive manoeuvre might have resulted in their being arrested on suspicion of murder. 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.

“They couldn't safely eliminate anyone based on the time they were seen with Kelly, but equally they could hardly have tried to rope in all the men seen on their own in the vicinity of the court over a period of twelve hours or more before the murder was discovered.”

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.

“You are welcome to your opinion, but if Abberline failed to ask what Hutch was hoping to gain from hanging around for 45 minutes (and no, "waiting to see the man again" is no answer at all), he was worse than negligent – he was a useless twat.”

But he would have been a truly monstrous twat in the minds of the press and public if a somewhat vague and unsatisfactory answer from Hutchinson on the issue resulted in the entire description being dismissed. 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”, and Abberline had dropped him like he was hot in response, the opprobrium levelled at the police would have been gargantuan – not worth it, in other words.

There was a huge pressure on the police to circulate new leads as quickly as possible and ask the more serious questions later. Even if there was only a slim chance of an account being true, time was absolutely of the essence in capturing the offender, which meant putting it into circulation at the earliest opportunity. Can you imagine the furore if Hutchinson went straight to the press with his sensational account, and divulged the detail that the police didn’t want to listen? Even James Tully agrees, observing in his book that it was “not significant” that Abberline initially endorsed Hutchinson; that the situation was so desperate by that stage that the police were willing to “clutch at any straw”.

“If you can see all these mysteries, don't you think Abberline would have done so too, and tried to clear them up while he had Hutch there, right in front of him, for the express purpose of assessing the truthfulness of his statement? "So George, what made you give up waiting at 3am? Where were you hoping to find lodgings when you started back from Romford? Did you not have a pass or enough money for a bed anywhere?"”

Yes, but see above.

If Hutchinson responded to the above with “Dunno sir, I can’t remember just now”, Abberline was not about to hurl the entire account, including potential ripper description, to the wolves – not when the reputation of the police was at stake. If there were grey areas, “later investigation” could potentially shed light on them if and when the pursuit of the Astrakhan suspect failed to bear fruit.

“If the questioning was sensibly designed to test if Hutch had reasonable explanations for his own movements and timings, immediately before and after the events he had witnessed, Abberline must have been satisfied with them”

As satisfied as he could have been on the evening of 12th, before any window of opportunity had presented itself with which to investigate Hutchinson’s “explanations”, but the point is that any explanation that had a direct bearing on his credibility – in the way that frequency of underwear change did not - was an obvious detail to include in the report to his bosses (and a weird thing to withhold for no reason).

“They most certainly didn't need to tell the press anything, or correct any misreporting, unless it was considered in the public interest to do so”

They didn’t need to, no, and yet we know for a fact that in this case they did – short of shockingly unlikely theories involving the police inviting the Echo into their headquarters to impart factual information despite supposedly knowing that the same paper had published lies about them the previous day! 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.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

So now Lawende is a liar too....

[Garry Wroe]

I read an interesting article a while ago on how colours were perceived under gaslight and reds and greens were particularly emphasised, (yellows faded and blues changed shading.) Reds often appeared to be the colour of rubies. This would of course been under full lighting. We don't know what state the gas lighting was in on public streets in Whitechapel, of course.

Victorian gaslamps were of low light intensity, Rosella. Under poor lighting conditions the cones which allow us to distinguish colours become inactive. Rods then mediate visual perception. Since rods are monochromatic, humans are incapable of seeing colour under conditions of low light.

[Garry Wroe]

Of course, this relies entirely on two unknowns: a) the opportunity for Hutch to have learned what Lewis said at the inquest about this loitering man, and b) Hutch recognising from her description that he was that man.

There's an alternative, Caz. If Hutchinson recognized Sarah Lewis as she made for the Keylers, then spotted her as she entered the inquest venue, it would have been obvious that she had become a witness on some level or another. We, of course, know that the main investigative interest in her story centred on her confirmation of the cry of 'Murder!', which by inference pinpointed Kelly's likely time of death. But Hutchinson would have been unaware of this. His natural response would have been to assume that police were interested in the man she saw loitering opposite Miller's Court. It may be that Hutchinson recognized Sarah having seen her previously in one or more of the local drinking dens and feared that investigators might track him down from the local pubs to his lodgings. Thus he feared the worst and acted accordingly.

Admittedly, this is no more than surmise. The reality, however, is that something prompted Hutchinson to come forward with what was a clearly bogus story shortly after the conclusion of the inquest hearing. Whatever that something was, it must have been significant in order to motivate such an extraordinary response.

If you can see all these mysteries, don't you think Abberline would have done so too, and tried to clear them up while he had Hutch there, right in front of him, for the express purpose of assessing the truthfulness of his statement? "So George, what made you give up waiting at 3am? Where were you hoping to find lodgings when you started back from Romford? Did you not have a pass or enough money for a bed anywhere?"

Questions which, Caz, as I've stated before, must have been asked in 'casual' conversation by the two detectives who accompanied Hutchinson on the Monday night into Tuesday morning search for Astrakhan. My feeling is that Hutchinson's responses prompted some element of suspicion in the detectives, who of course would have informed more senior investigators at the first available opportunity. Whatever the truth of the matter, it is a matter of record that the Echo expressed doubts regarding Hutchinson's story on the Tuesday - in other words, within hours of the three o'clock termination of the night trawl.

[Rosella]

I read an interesting article a while ago on how colours were perceived under gaslight and reds and greens were particularly emphasised, (yellows faded and blues changed shading.) Reds often appeared to be the colour of rubies. This would of course been under full lighting. We don't know what state the gas lighting was in on public streets in Whitechapel, of course.

However, most wore very dark clothing, in which anything bright like red would stand out in a way not possible today under different lighting conditions. Victorian men in that era didn't usually wear their hankies in their breast pockets by the way, but would tuck them into their sleeve.