The Red Handkerchief...

[Bob Hinton]

Sorry Richard but.............

Hi,
The simple fact we all forget, Victorian eyeset was used to the light that us in modern times cannot comprehend, they were use to gaslight/candlelight, and therefore items of colour, would have been described as seen, and not thought of as suspicious by the media/police during that period.
Regards Richard.

for this to be correct you would have to re write the laws of physics dealing with light transmission.

The human eye in comparison with some animal eyes are very poor collectors of lightwaves.

In the dark or near dark all light colours appear grey to us and all dark colours appear black.

[Fisherman]

Hello all!

This issue was up on the old boards too, and that time I contributed a little something that I think may go to explain the riddle of the red hanky (although I do not believe in Hutchinsons evidence...)

We know that Hutch claimed that he took a really good look at Astrakhan man. He himself described how he stooped down to look him in the face, meaning that he would not have been more than the fewest of feet from him.
If Astrakhan was wearing his hanky in his waistcoat pocket, it may have been very clearly visible at that time. There is of course also the chance that there may have been additional light coming from a window or streetlamp at the very spot where the supposed encounter took place. Afterwards, he of course did not need to discern the colur of the hanky in the darkness outside the court, and from a distance; if he had picked up on it before, that would be it. After all, nobody questions Hutch´s pointing out of a similarly red stone seal on the goldchain he was supposedly wearing; we just assume he saw it and recognized the colour at the close encounter.

This, I feel, means that we can hardly rule Hutch out on the hanky issue.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi Fisherman,
Absolutely right, if Gh clearly described the hankerchief to the police as red, then he must have had good reason for doing so, and you mentioned a possible one,
I still maintain that Victorian eyesight was more observant then ours in darkness, not because of laws of 'Physics'.but people had a knack of describing items because of way of life, also because that was normal, the media, and the police would not have applied modern day reasoning.
Of course the hankerchief could have been, according to todays reckoning, not red, but so what, the witness described red, and went in his statement.
So whats the big deal?.
Regards Richard.

[Chava]

Yes, but the handkerchief is still missing in action, so its colour is moot. If it had been burned in the fire, there would still be identifiable bits left--they certainly could identify the other bits of material in there.

[Chris Scott]

IF there is truth - whole or partial - in Hutchinson's account is a whole different matter but, if there were, then the man seen with Kelly must have been only too aware that Hutchinson was taking a much more than casual interest in the couple. Hutchinson staring him determinedly in the face and following the couple into Dorset Street could not have gone unnoticed.
The alleged handing over of the handkerchief took place in Dorset Street itself before the couple went up the court to Kelly's room. If Hutchinson was close enough to hear what Kelly at least was saying ("Alright my dear. come along, you will be comfortable) then I think it's a fair bet the man knew that Hutchinson was there, following them.
In light of the above, would not the most logical explanantion of the fate of the red handkerchief be that the killer took it with him when he left?
Chris

[anna]

Hi all,b it obvious I know,but, perhaps Jack put the heart etc in the red hankie...so no bloodstains visible as he made his escape through the streets.I would think she used the "oh" as part of her speech....rather like "erm"....I was also wondering if the eyes and cold appearance has anything to do with drug taking..would be interesting to know if she sniffed also.There is the question of her own bonnet....as someone says she wasn't wearing one....indicating to me that she owned one herself,the other all seem to...I presume it is part and parcel of their outfits..like the apron.

[Natalie Severn]

Yes,absolutely correct Chris. Its the main reason I doubt the evidence he gave,it has nothing to do with him standing waiting etc, which I think could just have been a tired and rain sodden Hutch hoping Mary would take him in after Mr A had left.But my impression of the Ripper,if it was just one man,is that he would not have been seen like this,going off up to Millers Court with Mary Kelly etc.waving a red handkerchief in the air.Everything he did suggests he took great care not to be seen------and certainly would have taken care not to have been seen hanging outside Mary"s room for nearly an hour like Hutchinson claims he did----ie before, as some suggest, he hopped in and killed her in a fashion that caused pandemonium throughout the land-if not the World-and moreover would have meant signing his own certain death warrant by the hangman"s noose,had anyone at all actually seen him enter her room.
Best
Natalie

[perrymason]

Hello all,

Since we know very little about what specifically was found in Mary Kelly's room, there is room for speculation that a red handkerchief, or maybe a blue one may have been found in there.

And since we already know that police believed Hutchinson was not telling the truth before the end of that same week anyway....maybe its because he fudged the color of that handkerchief found.

I think we have only the single man with red hanky, as seen by Lawende...or more accurately was seen,... but he could'nt be counted on to identify it later ...as applies to the suspect as a whole.

My best regards

[Ben]

If Astrakhan was wearing his hanky in his waistcoat pocket, it may have been very clearly visible at that time.

Not at all, Fish.

A handkerchief under two coats is not going to visible either at close quarters or from a distance. It will be concealed by the coats, and cloaked by the darkness of the night, and even if it did poke out, it still wouldn't have shown up as red. In order to notice such an item, you must be paying particular attention to it, but that would be at the expense of all the other accessorial detail he claimed - impossibly - to have noticed.

Hi Chris,

If Hutchinson was close enough to hear what Kelly at least was saying ("Alright my dear. come along, you will be comfortable) then I think it's a fair bet the man knew that Hutchinson was there, following them.
In light of the above, would not the most logical explanantion of the fate of the red handkerchief be that the killer took it with him when he left?

Possibly, but it's offset by the illogicality of the killer committing murder most horrid in the full and certain knowledge that a potential vigilante or plain-clothes copper or informer had just observed him at close quarters before following and essentially stalking him.

Red herrings (literally!) have cropped up in murder investigations before. Ian Huntley's bogus witness sighting involved a red fiesta. Huntley's own car? A red fiesta. And it is likely that he'd been seen driving it by genuine witnesses.

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE=perrymason;9881]Hello all,

Since we know very little about what specifically was found in Mary Kelly's room, there is room for speculation that a red handkerchief, or maybe a blue one may have been found in there.

And since we already know that police believed Hutchinson was not telling the truth before the end of that same week anyway....maybe its because he fudged the color of that handkerchief found.


Do we "know" they didnt believe him Mike?
Knowing Robert Anderson had already assigned Dr Bond to trash a few doctor"s statements on the day after Mary"s death [Nov 10th] I wouldnt be at all surprised if he had a few other tricks up his sleeve
and already had someone "in the wings" ready to wheel on ,in order to rubbish his statement.He probably had already "verbally advised "Swanson to rubbish Hutch"s statement and press on like the clappers with finding a suitable "Polish Jew" from the "lower classes"!

[Ben]

The grandiose Bond-Anderson conspiracy of suppressing and manipulating evidence to support a theory that didn't exist yet continues....!

[perrymason]

Hi Nats,

Do we know they didn't believe him?

Well,...I can only conclude from a suspect description mentioned Nov 16th, that of Blotchy Man, that they didn't believe him about Astrakan at that time, since he was the "suspect" description as of the evening of Monday the 12th.

Understanding how Abberline could be fooled, or must have felt, is irrelevant when assessing Hutchinson's suspect, ...Mary's suspect, or rather the last man seen with her to this day, is Blotchy Man, in the last few minutes of November 8th,.. has been since Nov 16th, 1888...what is more interesting to me is the modern day efforts to elevate him to "trustworthy" again....after the contemporary police made that call long ago, based on what, who knows...(theres barely enough surviving documentation left from Kelly's investigation to know anything about that crime).

So...thats why my sarcasm, a thread question that is based on the description provided by a man after the inquest... that changed the suspect profile for 3 days, and was subsequently changed to revert back to the suspect seen as stated in the inquest by Mary Ann Cox, isn't going to lead to answers to anyones questions about that night.

My best Natalie, all.

[Chava]

Hi Natalie, Hi Perry,

Natalie, I agree. I very much doubt that the Ripper would proceed with a murder knowing that a young and probably stronger man--let's not forget that he 'stooped down' to look Mr A in the face--not only followed him with the victim but hung around outside. At least we don't know that 'Mr A' looked out to check but I can't believe he didn't after having been scrutinized full in the face like that. There are no circumstances that I can think of where an intelligent murderer would kill when there is a possible witness outside who is going to be difficult to silence. That is one reason why I don't trust Hutchinson's evidence at all.

...and Perry, the second reason is the disappearing red handkerchief. Which is why I started the thread. No handkerchief appears. Now it's possible that the killer took it with him as Chris suggests. Conjures up a lovely scenario of a murderer dancing round a bloody corpse thinking 'she put it somewhere! Where the hell did she put it???' Maybe that's the reason for the body staging. He picked up the breast and it wasn't underneath so he tucked the breast under the head to make sure he didn't pick it up again...

But you know what? I just don't think so. Fingerprint evidence wasn't in use then, so no reason to take the hanky unless he wanted something to wipe his knife/fingers like the Eddowes cloth. And if he wanted to do that or transport his trophy, well there was a ton of material burning in the fireplace. I'm sure he could have cut off a swatch if necessary. And if this was an Eddowes scenario, I'd expect to find that hanky discarded somewhere along the way. But it wasn't.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Chava

If there was red handkerchief, I reckon it would have been found amongst Kelly`s clothes on the chair by the foot of her bed.

[perrymason]

Hi again,

I'm sure anyone who knows me knows what I think of Hutchinson...I think he was a suspect that made up a suspect...maybe only due to Sarah Lewis.

But I believe the only things found in the fire were what was mentioned, (Abberline and others actually sieved the ashes themselves Saturday morning..I believe to look for traces of the heart they now knew was missing after re-assembling Mary yesterday afternoon), the "folded" clothes...(which I personally believe was Maria's take-in laundry that she brought over and the two of them did together Thursday afternoon, hence the visible tin bath in MJK1).....Marys clothes, (which I believe were not the ones referred to as "folded"), and some artifacts like a clay pipe.

I believe your correct Chava when you say had she received one, it would be there, or traces in the fire, or removed by the killer when he leaves. Since only Hutch would know that hanky was given to her, and therefore might be traced back to someone as the "giver" of such gifts on her death night, he would be the only guy who would think to take it.

Either way....there was no Astrakan, or there was, and the hanky story is also accurate...Hutchinson smells like a Fish Market.

My best regards