The Red Handkerchief...

[Wickerman]

If you deduct the 45 minutes he stood in Dorset St., from the time he said he left - 3:00, then we have 2:15, right.
His observation began at 2:00, and lasted for 15 minutes - not a few seconds.

[harry]

The problem is Hutchinson did not have two seconds,nor a full frontal sighting,and his account states he was loking at the man's features,as the couple walked by.
Now had he been a trained observer or a policeman,he could immediately have put it to paper,and not relied on memory three days later.Then again w hat shade of red was the handkerchief.Surely Aberline would have asked?

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick
Maybe one or two of these details, but not all that hutch claimed.

No way in hell.

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

So, all you are really saying is, that you couldn't do it.

[Wickerman]

Evans and Rumbellow (2006) point out that Lawende claimed to observe a "reddish handkerchief" in very poor light, whilst Spooner, in relation to a possible sighting of Stride, said:" I could see that she had...a red and white flower pinned on her jacket", when he only had the light of a match to aid him.

Thankyou John, yes it is not difficult to disprove some of these hypothetical objections, is it.

[Wickerman]

So you do like Hutchinson's press account? In spite of the fact that you very recently cautioned another poster against using it in support of his point, and that press accounts of his evidence amounted only to "gossip"?

Do make your mind up.

Pay attention Ben, I do not advocate using press interviews as a primary source to 'prove' anything. The Sunday morning sighting was not being used as 'proof'.

I'm afraid you've touched upon one of the very silliest of Hutchinson-supporting arguments; the notion that Astrakhan man wore the very same clothes and accessories when Hutchinson supposedly spotted a man that might have been him on the Sunday ....

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.

There is also a magistrate who consulted a number of policemen – both retired and serving – who all dismiss Hutchinson’s statement as “pure fantasy”. Even tests for photographic memory don't require memorization feats as advanced as Hutchinson's to illustrate its presence in a particular individual.

Think about what you're saying.
One policeman has taken very similarly detailed statements, yet you counter this with "an opinion" that it cannot be done?
Detailed statements like this have been taken, that is the point.

It sounds to me your "source" lacks the required experience.

Sometimes they were silent, but at other times - wait for it! - they provided information to some members of the press. A taxing concept for some to embrace, obviously.

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.

It would either have been nestled in a waistcoat pocket, or in a jacket pocket underneath his Astrakhan coat and completely beyond Hutchinson's visual range,

Not at all.
Read where he placed his right arm, totally exposing his chest & waistcoat.

While we're on the subject of gas lamps, I'd be interested to see the evidence that the Queen's Head had a lamp of its own, separate from the nearby lamp on Fashion Street.

I'll bet you're not interested enough to look for it yourself.

[Wickerman]

Thats what I am saying, and look at it another way even if you could when someone is walking past you at walking pace you `might` notice the red handkerchief which would catch your eye but would your eyes be able to quickly focus on another small object to determine its color before the subject walked past, and would the eyes be quick enough to then focus on the subjects eyes to determine color and color of eyelashes?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

[Sally]

Oh, there are lots of things here, aren't there?

Mr Astrakhan gets a highly detailed physical description; Kelly - the woman Hutchinson claimed to have known for three years - none.

Hutchinson watches the couple from outside.... which pub was it again?

Sarah Lewis is on the street at the time - she apparently sees Hutchinson - where's she in Hutchinson's story?

It's a nasty night - cold, windy, icy rain - yet Kelly and Astrakhan meander around Dorset Street as if none of that exists. Astrakhan dressed up in his finery, apparently oblivious to the winter weather [and I'm sorry, but not even Isaacs was that crazy] while Kelly has no hesitation at all in taking up with the well-dressed weirdo; all those rumours about naughty well-dressed weirdo's stalking the neighbourhood aside. They're like characters from a story.

Elements that should be there if Hutchinson's account is remembered from real events are simply absent - probably because they didn't occurred to him while he was inventing his tale - a tale that wasn't even his to begin with.

[Abby Normal]

Are you saying that standing under a gas lamp, as the suspect walks passed, you think it would not be possible to identify the colour of the stone, or the colour of the handkerchief?

No-one should expect that he identified the colour of these items from several yards away down Dorset St. The suspect passed right under his nose, men often wear handkerchiefs displayed, in view, out of the breast pocket. Perfectly visible from 2-3 ft away, wouldn't you think?

Hi Wick
Maybe one or two of these details, but not all that hutch claimed.

No way in hell.

[Abby Normal]

I have been reading over the first few pages of this thread, with the discussion of how detailed GH was in his description of the man he supposedly saw with MJK, despite the poor lighting conditions, and I was wondering... Could Hutchinson have based his details on someone he'd seen in daylight, or in a lighted room, at an earlier time?

Was he trying to frame someone else, someone he knew, at least by sight, and perhaps had a dislike for?

Hi PC dunn
Ive often wondered the same thing.

I think hutch based his fictitious Aman on someone he knew and didn't like-like a former boss, perhaps a rich jewish horse owner that Hutch was a groom for. "horseshoe pin".

[caz]

No trouble at all, Caz, but I do wonder why we're replicating t'other thread practically verbatim. Yes, it is a fact that the police supplied the Echo with what we now know to be factually accurate information. I refer you to my recent post in "Why did Abberline believe Hutch?".

Could you give me the number of this recent post, Ben, to save me searching? Even better if you could give me a simple yes/no answer here: does that post quote from, or refer to, an official police source, outlining what 'factually accurate' information they supplied to the Echo?

Thanks in advance.

I'm quite sure that the police did not supply the Echo with each and every specific problem they had with Hutchinson's account that led to its considerably reduced importance...

Really? You don't say!

...but it is clear that among the reasons cited by "the authorities" (not the Echo's own guesswork) was Hutchinson's late post-inquest presentation of his evidence. I merely speculate these later investigations had cast doubt on Hutchinson's original excuse for this, but I'm not sure what the alternative is - unless Abberline never thought to ask and only just realised it was an issue.

Blimey, the police, via the Echo, didn't give you much of a clue, did they?

All we know is that whatever "factors" resulted in his discrediting, they related to the issue of credibility, otherwise his failure to come forward earlier and be quizzed at the inquest "on oath" would hardly have been mentioned.

It would have been mentioned if it was all the Echo had to work with - his failure to attend the inquest.

And the sheer implausibility of the police lying to the Echo.

The police didn't need to lie, confirm or deny, as long as the Echo were not printing anything damaging to the investigation. 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, in which case it would not have been limited to the one rag.

How about the 'sheer implausibility' - no, wait - the absolute certainty of a newspaper - any newspaper - claiming more inside knowledge than they actually possessed?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

He would surely have expected that after the bogus stories emerging in the immediate aftermath had been sifted through and revealed to be nonsense (including the above), the focus would revert to genuine eyewitness accounts of genuine “suspects” observed at or near the crime scene. And one such “suspect” was the loitering man observed by Lewis. Even if the police suspected that he was just a punter-hopeful waiting for one of McCarthy’s rents, Hutchinson would still have expected them to attempt to track the individual down in order to seek confirmation that he was merely waiting on a prostitute.

Hi Ben,

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. But waiting in vain for a prostitute was hardly in the same league as serial murder, so would he really have had that much to fear, as long as he had not actually been seen with the victim, or going into her room? 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.

Kelly's remains were not found until 10.45 the next morning, which made things difficult enough for the police to narrow down the potential suspects, but the sheer variety of estimated times of death from the medical experts of the day made their job even tougher. 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.

The only reason submitted in the report and statement for Hutchinson’s presence on Dorset Street was his alleged fascination with Astrakhan man being in Kelly’s company. Swanson, reading that report, would come away with that impression. If Abberline was aware of an altogether different reason for Hutchinson’s presence there – wanted shelter, wanted Kelly’s services etc – and didn’t pass it on to his bosses, he was behaving negligently.

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. Ditto if he failed to get a satisfactory explanation for Hutch not coming forward sooner. But suit yourself.

If Hutchinson was hoping for shelter, it’s a mystery that he gave up completely after 3.00am, and thought “walking about all night” was a better option than checking back occasionally to see if Astrakhan had departed. It’s also a mystery that he walked back 13 miles in the small hours in the certainty that his lodgings would be closed to him on arrival. Alternatively, if he was hoping to pay for Kelly’s services (implying that he did have cash), it’s a mystery that he didn’t secure alternative lodgings once he understand that nooky was out of the question.

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?"

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, so I'm not sure why he would have needed to pass on every such question and response to his bosses – at least not immediately and in writing (as you say, that would have been a tall order). The salient points, concerning Hutch's relationship with the deceased, and the man he saw engaging with her, were duly passed on in the form of his statement and Abberline's report. He didn't need to pass on unrelated details like when Hutch had last changed his underpants.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The problem we face with Hutchinson`s statement is that the police had no choice publicly but to accept Hutchinson`s statement, to reject it publicly would have alienated them from the public even more.

Tell that to Ben, Trev. He swears the police did reject it publicly, by telling the Echo they had serious issues with its credibility, considerably reducing its importance.

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

Are you saying that standing under a gas lamp, as the suspect walks passed, you think it would not be possible to identify the colour of the stone, or the colour of the handkerchief?

No-one should expect that he identified the colour of these items from several yards away down Dorset St. The suspect passed right under his nose, men often wear handkerchiefs displayed, in view, out of the breast pocket. Perfectly visible from 2-3 ft away, wouldn't you think?

Evans and Rumbellow (2006) point out that Lawende claimed to observe a "reddish handkerchief" in very poor light, whilst Spooner, in relation to a possible sighting of Stride, said:" I could see that she had...a red and white flower pinned on her jacket", when he only had the light of a match to aid him.

[harry]

Hutchinson had no more than three seconds,thats six paces approximately,to observe a person passing under a gas lamp,that's one and a half seconds of frontal view,and one and a half seconds of rear view.That six seconds would encompass the maximum brightness.How bright? Well that would depend on the state of the gas mantle, the glass casing,the gas pressure and maintainence,and of course the lamp being lit.Now that last item is most important,because no one knows,so it should not be taken for granted.Hutchinson may have been as liberal with the truth on that score as on most everything else.
It has been said that good old Fred Aberline would have had a better idea of the conditions than we mere posters.Not so,at least in my case,as I spent much of my earlier life walking gas lit cobbled streets,and living in gas lit houses, among persons alive when the Ripper was doing his business,and I would have had no hesitation in calling Hutchinson a liar,had he told his story to me.

[Trevor Marriott]

Are you saying that standing under a gas lamp, as the suspect walks passed, you think it would not be possible to identify the colour of the stone, or the colour of the handkerchief?

Thats what I am saying, and look at it another way even if you could when someone is walking past you at walking pace you `might` notice the red handkerchief which would catch your eye but would your eyes be able to quickly focus on another small object to determine its color before the subject walked past, and would the eyes be quick enough to then focus on the subjects eyes to determine color and color of eyelashes?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk