The Red Handkerchief...

[Garry Wroe]

Exhausted from what, running to Commercial St. from Scotland Yard?

Er, no, Jon. Abberline’s health suffered as a consequence of his workload on the Ripper case. He worked long hours in an official capacity and devoted much of what little free time remained to pursuing his own inquiries. So it was an exhausted Abberline who questioned Hutchinson. And in case you’re unaware of it, exhaustion impairs the cognitive faculties and often leads to poor decision making.

If the interviewee has mislead the interviewer, we need a solid indication of such, not 'grasping-at-straws' guesswork.

We have it in what for you is the uncomfortable reality that Hutchinson’s story was rejected by the authorities. But haven’t you admitted as much elsewhere on the boards, Jon? Didn’t you argue that Hutchinson’s story was dismissed as a consequence of Dr Bond’s time of death estimation? Small wonder that some find your arguments contradictory and not a little confusing.

And on this belabored yet unsubstantiated point, the whole argument collapses.

If you wish to continue believing that Hutchinson retained his stellar witness status, Jon, then carry on. But you do so in denial of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[Garry Wroe]

You make an excellent point; if nobody viewed Hutchinson with any suspicion until 100 years after the event, why are some people still claiming – with absolutely no evidence whatsoever – that the police “must” have been suspicious, “must” have checked him out, and “must” have found him to be innocent?

Only to then repudiate any parallel between Hutchinson and Violenia. I wonder why that should be?

[Wickerman]

Huh?

The anti-Hutchinson Clan? You mean as to his suspect status? This is a suspect thread, you know. Hello. These Hutch threads go on for so long, people forget it's a suspect thread they are posting on. It's become a sub-genre. A special place where Hutch minutiae is pondered while the elephant in the room is zonked out next door.

Suspect thread sleepwalking as a discussion of Red Hanky.

Wake up. Snap out of it !

Roy

You should realize, some of us are used to the charade. It is to be expected that anything Hutch related will turn into a suspect debate.

Ben:

Partly my fault, I suppose...

Predictably so.

To return to the point...

It is a poor suspect who's culpability relies on false claims,
- like claims of proven evidence, that has never been proven.
- like stories deemed factual without any supportable evidence.
- and the frequent use of terms like, "overwhelming", where the issue is nothing more than one consideration among many.

If the term Propaganda comes to mind, we shouldn't be surprised.

[Wickerman]

Er, no, Jon. Abberline’s health suffered as a consequence of his workload on the Ripper case. He worked long hours in an official capacity and devoted much of what little free time remained to pursuing his own inquiries. So it was an exhausted Abberline who questioned Hutchinson. And in case you’re unaware of it, exhaustion impairs the cognitive faculties and often leads to poor decision making.

Why does the term "special pleading" come to mind?


You really choose to bring Abberline's health into this, are we getting desperate Garry?

We have it in what for you is the uncomfortable reality that Hutchinson’s story was rejected by the authorities. But haven’t you admitted as much elsewhere on the boards, Jon? Didn’t you argue that Hutchinson’s story was dismissed as a consequence of Dr Bond’s time of death estimation? Small wonder that some find your arguments contradictory and not a little confusing.

For anyone who is confused, perhaps a little education on police procedure wouldn't go amiss?

The issues are:
- Dr Bond's estimated time of death certainly pointed the finger at the Cox suspect, but the police were never able to establish if this suspect ever existed.

- Medical evidence, by far the most preferred by the authorities, was also known to be subjective, to a degree, and as such not 100% reliable (note the Phillips-Richardson issue in the Chapman T.o. D.)

- That Hutchinson presented a convincing story and a believable demeanor, but like the Cox suspect, the Hutchinson suspect remained unidentified.

The police cannot afford to reject either suspect, which was likely evident to reporters of the Echo when they wrote about the authorities investigating two suspects.

The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; but so far they remain without any direct clue. Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache. Others are disposed to think that the shabby man with a blotchy face and a carrotty moustache described by the witness Mary Ann Cox, is more likely to be the murderer.
Echo, 19 Nov.

The important point to note is the first line:
The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree

A full ten days after the murder the police were still investigating two principal suspects. That of Hutchinson, and that of Cox.

So much for your claim of Hutchinson being 'rejected' by the authorities.

If you wish to continue believing that Hutchinson retained his stellar witness status, Jon, then carry on. But you do so in denial of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

That comment is somewhat redundant in view of the paragraph from the Echo above.

[Garry Wroe]

Why does the term "special pleading" come to mind?

Special pleading? Forgive me, Jon, but are you not the man who proposed the notion of phonetic similitude with regard to the pronunciations of ‘Kennedy’ and ‘Gallagher’?

You really choose to bring Abberline's health into this, are we getting desperate Garry?

Abberline’s health and state of mind are important contextual considerations, Jon, especially in the light of your claim that Hutchinson could not have pulled the wool over his interrogator’s eyes when relating the Astrakhan story. The fact that you are now attempting to dismiss such issues as irrelevant says a great deal about the manner in which you construct your arguments.

So much for your claim of Hutchinson being 'rejected' by the authorities.

And so much for objectivity. You dismiss one Star piece out of hand because it fails to support your hypothesis, yet champion another which you believe lends credence to your argument. That’s selectivity at its worst, Jon. And whatever happened to your fervent contention that the Star was a worthless rag that never printed a word of truth throughout the duration of the Ripper murders?

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

There is no evidence that the connection was ever made between Lewis’ wideawake man and Hutchinson, and NO, that does not mean that a possible connection was noticed, investigated and then ruled out. It means it passed completely unnoticed, as borne out by the fact that not a single newspaper inferred a connection. Had they noticed it, they would have reported it way in advance of the police having any opportunity to spot it themselves, investigate it, rule it out, and inform every journalist about it.

I fear you’re missing the point of the exercise with regard to the Hutchinson and Violenia comparison. Some people have suggested that Hutchinson must have been investigated as a suspect - once his account was thrown out - because he "admitted” to being the last person to see the victim alive. This is easily countered, however, by pointing out the circumstances surrounding Violenia’s evidence. Here was a man presenting himself not only as a witness, but the last witness to see the victim (in this case Annie Chapman) alive. His account was not accepted in the long run, however, and he was discredited. This was all irrefutably true of Hutchinson, and yet Violenia never went from being a discredited publicity-seeker to a potential Jack the Ripper in the minds of the police (despite your erroneous claim that he was “checked out”). The obvious and logical inference, therefore, is that Hutchinson was never suspected either.

It is irrelevant and immaterial that Hutchinson took longer to be discredited than Violenia. The only salient point is that the discrediting of the former clearly happened eventually, presumably because Hutchinson presented a more superficially convincing demeanour. What point are you trying to illustrate, incidentally, when you remind us that that Hutchinson was initially interrogated and believed? I do you hope you’re not inferring that this somehow militates against the possibility of Hutchinson being the murderer? Because that would be pretty fatal to your own suspect theory, which argues for the guilt of a witness whose account was very much believed by the police, and never once doubted or discredited. Let’s hope you were pointing it out for a different reason.

There also appears to be some confusion regarding Anderson’s views. He never dismissed Cox’s evidence – she simply didn’t get a particularly good look at the “murderer”, assuming that’s who the police thought he was. According to Cox’s own admission, she followed the couple from behind, which naturally made things a bit awkward for a really “good” view of the type alleged by Hutchinson. That’s the only reason – the only logical one, at least – Anderson preferred the evidence of one of the Jewish witnesses. Moreover, the Lawende sighting occurred just ten minutes prior to the discovery of the victim's body, and was thus almost certainly of the murderer, whereas Cox’s sighting occurred several hours before the likely time of Kelly’s murder.

No “mixing and matching” required. Regardless of whatever else the police may have disagreed over, all agreed that Hutchinson’s statement was discredited. Unlike Cox (for aforementioned reasons), Hutchinson is conspicuous in his absence from the memoirs and interviews of senior police officials, such as Abberline and Anderson. The latter observed that the only person to get a good look at the murderer was Jewish, despite Hutchinson’s alleged “look” being far superior in detail to anything the Jewish witnesses provided. Macnaghten’s memory was obviously hazier, but surely not so hazy as to have forgotten star witness Hutchinson with his minutely detailed description of the supposed murderer, if it was still considered true, that is? There is no way he'd amalgamate the sightings of Lawende and PC Smith to form a “City PC from Mitre Square” if Hutchinson was still considered a genuine witness.

I’m not sure what your comparison with Elizabeth Long is supposed to illustrate, but the only reason her evidence may not have been considered of great importance in the long run is because she didn’t see the suspect’s face. That is the only reason why “doubt” was attached to her evidence; it didn’t impact on her credibility in the slightest, and there is not a shred of evidence that she was ever suspected of lying. Compare this with Hutchinson, who we know for an absolute impossible-to-dispute certainty was accorded a “very reduced importance” because of the late presentation of his evidence and failure to appear under “oath” – reasons that are inextricably linked to doubts over credibility and honesty.

No responsible police force declares a piece of eyewitness testimony “less important” simply because it wasn’t leading to the capture of the offender. That doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense. Lawende’s description was obviously “older” that Hutchinson’s, and yet it was apparently still considered important well into the 1890s when Grainger became a suspect. The importance of the eyewitness descriptions in the Zodiac case has never lessened over time just because the perpetrator hasn’t been caught.

Finally, please don’t start all that business again about “not tall but stout” being incompatible with a “military appearance”. Nothing could be further from the truth. A chunky, bulldog-like physique is about as close to a military ideal as it’s possible to get. I don’t know where you got the idea from that a military appearance typically means tall and lanky. Possibly too much watching of Blackadder? You’re confusing the actual military idea with its comedy equivalent. At a lanky 6’5”, I’d make a lousy military type, but if the price was right, I could wax my moustache, don a flying jacket, and go up-diddly-up-up, down-diddly-down-down, whoops poop twiddly-dee.

Doesn’t make it the real deal.

[Scott Nelson]

At a lanky 6’5”...

You know, I'm not so sure.

[Wickerman]

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Special pleading? Forgive me, Jon, but are you not the man who proposed the notion of phonetic similitude with regard to the pronunciations of ‘Kennedy’ and ‘Gallagher’?

Your memory fails you Garry.
The similitude was between Keiler/Kellegher/Gallagher, nothing to do with the name 'Kennedy'.

[COLOR=windowtext][FONT=Verdana]Abberline’s health and state of mind are important contextual considerations, Jon, especially in the light of your claim that Hutchinson could not have pulled the wool over his interrogator’s eyes when relating the Astrakhan story.

Garry, you are introducing an issue of health in order to shoehorn your theory towards believability.
Amusing, but hardly relevant.

And so much for objectivity. You dismiss one Star piece out of hand because it fails to support your hypothesis, yet champion another which you believe lends credence to your argument. That’s selectivity at its worst, Jon. And whatever happened to your fervent contention that the Star was a worthless rag that never printed a word of truth throughout the duration of the Ripper murders?

Can I challenge you to use direct quotes from myself in future? Your summary of my opinion of the Star is not only inaccurate but misleading.

I have been assured by one of your confederates that the Echo is quite reliable, I used a direct quote from the Echo to demonstrate that Hutchinson was not 'rejected' even after ten days following the murder.

Now, you respond by trying to dodge the bullet?

[Ben]

You should realize, some of us are used to the charade. It is to be expected that anything Hutch related will turn into a suspect debate.

Roy's post was in response to your comment, Jon, not mine.

I challenge you to cite a single occasion where I have been responsible for turning a discussion over Hutchinson into a "suspect debate". You call it a "charade", but here you still are with your ineffectual and often inflammatory contributions, so if you intend to stick around these threads, less of the feigned exasperation please.

It is a poor suspect who's (sic) culpability relies on false claims

Hutchinson is not a poor suspect. Your idea of a good suspect is one who wears nice, posh clothes and probably belongs in the middle or upper classes. Anyone familiar with your posts understands that this is the ultimate dog in your race, and will not be unduly perturbed, therefore, when you reject an average working class local as a "poor suspect". Never once has this sort of claim originated from someone well-versed in criminal history.

The suggestion of Hutchinson's culpability most assuredly does not "rely" on his being discredited. If he was - and we know he was - the police evidently dismissed him as a publicity-seeker without ever considering him a suspect, and if he wasn't, it can be argued just as persuasively that he simply pulled the wool over the eyes of the police, which shouldn't be too taxing a concept for anyone to embrace (unless they haven't done their homework, in which case they'll probably cling to the delusion that the police are infallible and never make mistakes).

I note from your sarcastic responses to Garry that you're still refusing to accept how totally wrong you are in your failure to concede that Abberline was exhausted during the investigation, and that the workload took its toll on his health. For feck's sake, we have an actual interview with Abberline from 1892 where he informs his interviewer that the pressure at the time was so great that he almost broke down under the strain. To deny this is to be factually in error, and yet you continue to deny it, whilst accusing Garry of being "desperate" for pointing out a 100% proven reality.

And, oh dear...

You wanted me to "let it rest" when it came to the subject of Hutchinson's discrediting, but it seems you aren't letting it rest at all. You're even bringing up that quote from the Echo again, as though it were never addressed. If I see that quote produced again, this is what I'll post:

You often quote that extract from the Echo, 19th November, but all it tells us is that "some" of the authorities continued to place “most reliance” on the Astrakhan description supplied by Hutchinson, evidently in spite of the fact that the statement had been “considerably discounted” (Echo, 14th November). What isn’t specified is just who amongst the authorities towed this line, and more importantly, how much influence their beliefs had on the direction of the investigation. My strong suspicion would be not much, considering that none of the senior police officials, such as Abberline, Anderson and Swanson, placed "most reliance” upon Hutchinson's description. Quite the reverse, in fact.

What you absolutely won’t find is a single instance of the police actively looking for Astrakhan types on the basis of Hutchinson’s description, at least not after mid-November. If any of the authorities continued to believe in Astrakhan man after mid-November, it could only have been an uninfluential minority, and it evidently had no effect on the actual direction of the investigation. Unless, of course, you have evidence to the contrary?

Neither Thomas Bond nor Mary Cox had anything remotely to do with Hutchinson's discrediting. The police did not endorse Bond's suggested time of death as the correct one, and not were they duty-bound to. It is only your assertion that Bond had anything to with the "very reduced importance" mentioned by the Echo, and so far we've yet to see a single adherent to that view.

[Bridewell]

That is an impossible scenario to accept, and I strongly suspect that if people properly got to grips with the material and understood it's unavoidable implications, they would not be pooh-poohing the Echo reports as just another piece of journalistic invention. It definitely isn't any such thing.

I didn't "pooh-pooh it as just another piece of journalistic invention". I merely challenged what I took to be an assertion, by another poster, that it constituted 'overwhelming evidence' that Hutchinson was discredited.

[Bridewell]

Then reread my post, Colin. I never stated that the newspaper articles alone constitute overwhelming evidence. And I'd thank you not to misrepresent my views in future.

Your claim of 'overwhelming evidence' was in reply to Lechmere's post which read as follows:

Actually we don't really know that his story came to be dismissed or when it did.

I have, as requested, re-read your original post and I accept that it didn't state the nature of the overwhelming evidence to which you alluded. If you were claiming the existence of such evidence outside the newspaper articles then I did indeed misrepresent your views and for that I apologise.

I'm not sure that I can accept that such evidence as may exist outside the press reports is as overwhelming as you claim it to be, but that is a separate issue.

[Lechmere]

Now, now Bridewell.
If the Star or Echo ever said anything to suggest that Hutchinson was discounted then it is a hard and fast Ripper fact that Hutchinson was indeed dismissed by the police very soon after he presented himself, and all the accounts by other newspapers that suggest otherwise or that continued to give credence to his story were plain wrong.

[GUT]

G'Day Lechmere

What is a "hard and fast Ripper fact"? and how does something become one?

[Wickerman]

... if nobody viewed Hutchinson with any suspicion until 100 years after the event, why are some people still claiming – with absolutely no evidence whatsoever – that the police “must” have been suspicious, “must” have checked him out, and “must” have found him to be innocent?

Would you mind explaining the basis for believing that Hutchinson must have been suspected (of something), must have been investigated, and must have been discredited?

Three "musts" asserted on no evidential basis whatsoever.

... You’re repeating the same arguments we’ve had dozens of times. The Sheffield Independent were working with outdated information, albeit only slightly outdated, to be fair to them. The 16th November was still early days as far as news of Hutchinson’s discrediting was concerned, ....

It was a full two days after the erroneous claim made in the Star, and with the use of telegraph, the current state of affairs was communicated within hours to Ireland, USA & the world, so lets not try to suggest Sheffield was essentially 'behind the times'.

You often quote that extract from the Echo, 19th November, but all it tells us is that "some" of the authorities continued to place “most reliance” on the Astrakhan description supplied by Hutchinson,....

What degree of exactitude do you expect?
As I have been at pains to point out, these reporters created stories from hints, whispers, word on the street and by following detectives around the town.
Quite naturally then, with the police not sharing details concerning the direction of the case with the press, they are reduced to creating stories assembled from half-truths which lack specific detail, none the least is their inability to identify sources.
Why?, because they had no sources.

... What isn’t specified is just who amongst the authorities towed this line, and more importantly, how much influence their beliefs had on the direction of the investigation.

Exactly, in other words these stories lack substance.
The best that can be said is that whatever a reporter might be able to pick up on the street, and express in general terms, is all that we should be prepared to accept as possibly true.

My strong suspicion would be not much, considering that none of the senior police officials, such as Abberline, Anderson and Swanson, placed "most reliance” upon Hutchinson's description. Quite the reverse, in fact.

Are you mixing apples & oranges here?
You know very well that Abberline placed reliance on Hutchinson, you also know that we have no contemporary statements from either Anderson or Swanson concerning Hutchinson or his suspect.
So it appears you choose to ignore these facts and use their later recollections as evidence because the contemporary records (ie; Abberline) prove you wrong.

What you forget is that no-one thought the Hutchinson suspect was the murderer after Joseph Isaacs was arrested, questioned and cleared, in early December 1888.

What you absolutely won’t find is a single instance of the police actively looking for Astrakhan types on the basis of Hutchinson’s description, at least not after mid-November.

After December 6th.

... They said the same thing about Packer that very same day, and nobody makes a fuss about that or attempts to argue that they were lying about discrediting Packer just to make the police look bad (which makes no sense anyway).

It is no challenge at all to demonstrate using police sources why Packer was deemed 'unreliable'.
Lets take Packer as the 'bar' that is required to establish the viability of a witness.

You, and a few like-minded individuals, have yet to meet this 'bar' in proving or even demonstrating that Hutchinson was anything near Packer as far as being viewed as unreliable.
Just accept it, you fail the test.

And that would just be repetitive, tedious and unnecessary.

Oh, c'mon tell the truth. Only you choose to follow me around cherry-picking an occasional sentence to turn it into another repetitive, tedious & unnecessary exchange......you love it.

…where it was undoubtedly discovered that there was no policeman passing that end of Dorset Street at that particular time,

Explain why "undoubtedly", using what as evidence?

Either way, Abberline would have to have been quite the numpty to accept that Hutchinson was there when he claimed to have been on the basis of a policeman passing Dorset Street at some unspecified time between 2:15ish and 3.00am.

Why?, Abberline is looking for confirmation of Lewis's story.
If a beat constable made the same observation at generally the same time, that would be consistent with Hutchinson's claim, supported by two independent witnesses.

We have several very compelling sources that Abberline changed his mind. We have the “considerably discounted” report faithfully provided by the Echo, which couldn’t possibly be inaccurate (see previous long arguments that you’re not starting again!), which obviously reflected the official sentiment of the “authorities” at the time.

No issue there, Dr Bond's report would cause the police to reflect on the situation.

We also have the Pall Mall Gazette article which makes it very clear that he did not consider Astrakhan man even a potential Jack the Ripper...

And, Joseph Isaacs being arrested, questioned & cleared is sufficient reason to explain why Astrachan was no longer discussed as a suspect after Dec. 6th.

A thief of no fixed abode.

Again, apples & oranges.

Isaacs lived in Paternoster Row at the time of Kelly's murder, he was "of no fixed abode" when arrested in December due to him just being released from prison.
capisci?

David Canter stated that it is nonsense to claim to be able to distinguish a liar from an honest upright citizen on the basis of body language.

You need to talk to a policeman, a detective, someone with direct experience at interrogation.

Are you serious? This is a new one. I’ve never heard anyone claim this before.

The statement of Sarah Lewis is the first confirmation, the beat constable is the second. Bowyer and Mrs McCarthy both made statements to police describing a strange looking man in the court around 3:00am, or thereabouts on Friday morning.
Then there is the constable on point duty in the market Sunday morning.
These are all potential sources available to Abberline within the immediate hours following the conclusion of Abberlines interrogation of Hutchinson.

You’re completely wrong, incidentally, in your claim that a witness story will be investigated until it is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, or otherwise.

No, we are talking about the two suspects here. Two parallel investigations are pursued until every avenue has been exploited. When the suspect is identified investigations will continue until suspicions are confirmed or proven false.

Nobody proved Packer or Violenia a liar, for instance.

Packer gave conflicting statements, that was the basis for him being deemed by Swanson as unreliable.
No-one used the term 'liar'.
Violenia just fell apart under the strain.

In your unsuccessful efforts to undermine Garry’s very important point that Abberline was “exhausted”, ..

All the detectives were under stress, it is a feeble excuse to suggest that Abberline only believed Hutchinson because he was exhausted.

What date did he "almost break down", in October, November, December?

You choose to apply a general comment to a specific date in time, with (as is always the case), no supportive evidence whatsoever.
Abberline's 'exhaustion' could be applied anytime after the double murder, even into 1889. Which is why I said this excuse is of no relevance because like everything else raised as 'evidence' it is too vague and imprecise.

Another example of smoke & mirrors to try sway an argument.

[Lechmere]

GUT
A "hard and fast Ripper fact" is anything that bolsters a protagonist’s stance that is mentioned somewhere but is contradicted by other evidence.
It becomes a "hard and fast Ripper fact" when a protagonist vociferously repeats it again and again.