The Red Handkerchief...

[GUT]

Thanks my sarcasm meter must be miss firing.

[Scott Nelson]

I'd like to meet Miss Firing. She might be related to Miss Von Flame.

[Bridewell]

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.

We are in danger of agreeing on a regular basis. We must find something new to fall out about!

[Wickerman]

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.

Hutchinson is a poor suspect because any suspicions against him are the result of modern speculation by those who are trying to make him a suspect.

When you choose to manufacture evidence against someone, evidence comprised of ignorance, misrepresentation, etc., you are giving the game away. On circumstances alone, Barnett makes for a better suspect than Hutchinson, but the police interrogated & cleared both.

The suggestion of Hutchinson's culpability most assuredly does not "rely" on his being discredited.

The lame suggestion he was discredited at all is the most obvious flaw in this theory, as demonstrated by the Echo article.
Clearly he was not, but you only see what you want to see.

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.

What is totally wrong is that you have failed to provide any connection between Abberline feeling tired and the interrogation of Hutchinson on Nov. 12th., or that of Schwartz, or those of any number of witnesses he interviewed.
Another vague & feeble generality concocted for the sole purpose of shoehorning a theory towards believability. Desperation comes to mind.

Neither Thomas Bond nor Mary Cox had anything remotely to do with Hutchinson's discrediting.

Seeing as how he was not discredited by anyone, what can I say....

The police did not endorse Bond's suggested time of death as the correct one, and not were they duty-bound to.

The police had no established time of death to work with. It was the duty of the Coroner's Inquest to establish this, which the Inquest failed to do.

You have no idea who's official opinion they were inclined to follow, this was an internal decision not shared with the press.

Given that the press became aware the authorities were pursuing two equally viable suspects at the same time we are able to deduce two reasonable conclusions:
1 - Hutchinson was still believed by Scotland Yard as an important witness at least 10 days after the murder.
2 - The Cox suspect remained a potential culprit as implicated by the report provided by Dr Bond.

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.

There you go again raising the issue of 'numbers'.

The last time you raised this issue I reached back to the archives to remind you that the most knowledgeable members do not subscribe to your misrepresentation of the facts, then you started whining to me how unfair that was.....

If you don't like the truth, stay away from the issue.

[Ben]

Are you still going?

So when you said "let it rest", what you actually meant was "let me have the last word". You'd be lucky for that strategy to work against me of all people.

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?

Well, we have a proven communication between the police and the Echo, on the basis of which the latter were able to report - accurately and faithfully - that Hutchinson's evidence had suffered a "very reduced importance" and was thereafter “considerably discounted” because of his failure to present his evidence at the inquest where it would have appeared “on oath”. Given that these reasons are inextricably linked to the question of credibility, it appears that this came to be doubted by the police, thus accounting for the complete absence of Hutchinson from any subsequent police reminiscences.

But please give me the excuse I crave to go into this in bit-by-bit detail for the millionth time.

“It was a full two days after the erroneous claim made in the Star”

It wasn’t an "erroneous claim". It was an entirely accurate claim that tallied precisely with what the police informed the Echo. I think you’ll find the Sheffield published their deeply “erroneous claim” just ONE day after the Star report. The Star and the Echo were based in London, which obviously facilitated access to the detectives “on site” (bearing in mind we’ve all thrown out your hopelessly ill-informed claim that the police never talk to the press). No such luxury was available to the Sheffield Independent, who were obliged to rely on press agencies.

“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.”

But in your “pain” (snort!) to point all this out, you fail to take on board the reality that the press would also obtain accurate information from communicating with the police directly, which is what typically happens at some stage during the course of every single police investigation in history that was on a par with the Whitechapel investigation in terms of scale. It is naïve in the extreme to claim that it never happen - shockingly naïve, in fact. I don’t doubt that the 19th Echo information was obtained from the police, just as occurred on 13th and 14th, but given the then discredited nature of Hutchinson’s account, it can only have been an uninfluential few who still supported Hutchinson’s statement, as there is certainly no evidence of the police seeking Astrakhan types after mid-November.

“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.”

Abberline placed a very short-lived “reliance” on Hutchinson that evidently ended with the latter's discrediting, which occurred very shortly after his interview with the press was published. It doesn’t matter if the interviews and reminiscences of Abberline, Swanson and Anderson were printed after the murders – Hutchinson is still very conspicuous in his absence from all of them. If credence was still invested in Astrakhan man as a potential Jack the Ripper (which it would certainly have been had Hutchinson’s account been believed), there is absolutely no way that Anderson would have written that the only person to get a “good view” of the murderer was Jewish, and nor would Abberline have written that the witnesses only saw the suspect’s back. There is no “apples to oranges” comparison here. There is just you coming up with one bad excuse after another for dismissing the later writings of senior police officials as irrelevant.

“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 the f..?

Where do you get this stuff from? Seriously. It’s painful. Joseph Isaacs was cleared as soon as it transpired that he had a prison alibi for the Kelly murder. There is not the slightest fart of a suggestion that the police were interested in him on the grounds of a similarity with Astra-discredited-khan. If the police convinced themselves at any stage that they had the real Astrakhan man in their grasp, there was not the slightest chance of "clearing" him of Kelly’s murder. That would be impossible, because it was impossible for the real Astrakhan man (let’s pretend there was such a person – just for $hits and giggles) to have had an alibi. Think, think, THINK about it.

And after you’ve thought about it, and realised how much nonsense it is, I don’t want to hear so much as a squeak from you on the subject of Joseph infernal Isaacs, who couldn’t possibly have been Astrakhan man.

“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.”

No, let’s not. Let’s not appoint you as the ultimate arbiter for setting “bars” for witness credibility. Let’s look at the actual evidence instead, and realise that "police sources" are precisely where the Echo obtained their information regarding the “very reduced importance” attached to Hutchinson’s account. Packer at least could be placed near the crime scene when he claimed to be there, unlike three-day-late Hutchinson.

“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”

I follow you around? That’s a fascinating interpretation of events, albeit one not demonstrated by your track record. I think you've got things a little back to front.

“Explain why "undoubtedly", using what as evidence?”

Because Hutchinson was “undoubtedly” discredited. However, even if a policeman did pass at some stage, that would not validate Hutchinson’s account. The onus is on you to provide evidence for this mythical corroboration that you keep making up; it’s certainly not incumbent on me to prove it didn’t happen.

“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.”

If my auntie had bollocks, she’d be my uncle. Provide the evidence. There is no evidence beyond Hutchinson’s discredited say-so that a policeman passed at that time and location, which he was very vague about anyway and apparently only disclosed to the press. Equally, there is no reason to suppose that a policeman walking past at that stage would necessarily have registered or remembered a man standing in the shadow of Crossingham’s. And as I’ve been compelled to point of numerous times, there is the near-certainty that no connection was ever made at the time between Hutchinson’s account and Lewis’ wideawake-wearing loiterer.

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

I’ve dealt with this horrifically bad, annoyingly silly, and totally impossible theory already. There is no way that Isaacs could have been cleared on the acceptance that he was Astrakhan man.

“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?”

Don’t ever try to be amusing again by asking me in Italian if I understand. “No fixed abode" obviously meant that he moved from place to place, as a transient lodger – an itinerant thief.

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

You need to pay attention when one of the foremost criminal psychologists in this country express an expert view that goes against your utterly inexpert and baseless conclusion.

“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.”

No, they did not.

They made no statements whatsoever to that effect. Had Mrs. McCarthy made any such observation, she would have been called to the inquest, and Bowyer certainly never made any such sighting, or else he would have said so at the inquest. You’re relying on bogus bits of discounted hearsay again, and not being anywhere near as selective and discerning as most other people are when it comes to assessing the worth of press tattle of the type Philip Sugden cautioned us against. They had no confirmation from Lewis of anything, and we have no evidence for the existence of that policeman.

As for “The constable on point duty in the market Sunday morning”, would that by the mysterious constable who Hutchinson told the press about, and who supposedly took the matter no further, and didn’t alert any other policeman about it. You are happy to accept, are you, that during the biggest manhunt in London’s history, this mysterious policeman just sat on the evidence – despite its obvious implications – and managed not to get torn a new one by Abberline and immediately fired when the latter learned that this policeman had known about Hutchinson for about 36 hours. Guess again. Really, this is sickeningly ludicrous stuff. And where did Hutchinson say he was on "point duty" or based in the market anyway?

“No, we are talking about the two suspects here. Two parallel investigations are pursued until every avenue has been exploited.”

Or until one of those avenues is adjudged to be a dud, and not worth pursuing any further, as occurred with Hutchinson’s evidence. No point attempting to identify a suspect that was considered to be a work of fiction.

“Packer gave conflicting statements, that was the basis for him being deemed by Swanson as unreliable.
No-one used the term 'liar'.”

No, you’re right – no-one used the term “liar” because they couldn’t prove Packer a liar. They simply arrived at the conclusion that he lied, just as they did with Violenia and Hutchinson. No proof of falsehoods, but suspicions of same. In Hutchinson’s case, his late presentation of his evidence was obviously considered a major point against his credibility.

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

You arrogantly pooh-poohed Garry’s observation that Abberline was exhausted, and that the investigation took its toll on his health, and then you mindlessly accused him of “desperation” despite the fact that he just proved you 100% wrong. If you’re ill-equipped to understand that a person’s judgment may be impaired due to exhaustion, then I’m sorry for you, but it’s an obvious reality nonetheless. As for when this near-breakdown occurred, use your imagination. Was he likely to be under enormous pressure to hunt Jack the Ripper in 1889? No. Obviously not. Be realistic and think. It would obviously - so damnably obviously – have occurred at the height of the ripper murders.

[Ben]

Hutchinson is a poor suspect because any suspicions against him are the result of modern speculation by those who are trying to make him a suspect.

Your opinion is not particularly valuable to me, and you need to understand why this is so: you are heavily biased in favour of a well-dressed suspect from the higher classes, and you allow that agenda to colour practically every post you make, especially those relating to eyewitness. You attempt to revive every discredited piece of tattle going, providing it concerns a "well-dressed" suspect, while attempting to undermine the significance of legitimate witnesses who were valued by the police, such as Joseph Lawende. It's as transparent as it is deeply irritating.

You have very little insight into other serial cases; considerably less so, at any rate, than those who recognise the merit in exploring Hutchinson's potential culpability. You also allow your thinking to be dictated by your personal animosity for me, which may explain your silly and impossible-to-justify observation about Barnett being a stronger suspect than Hutchinson. No suggestion could be more laughable and ludicrous - there are ample reasons for accepting that Hutchinson lied about his reasons for loitering outside a crime scene, whereas Barnett had an apparent alibi, and was absolved of all suspicion by the police. You expose an antagonistic ignorance with comments such as these, as you do with your baseless claim that Hutchinson was suspected, let alone "cleared" of suspicion. As far as any sort of evidence goes, I'm afraid it's very much piss or get off the pot time with that particular claim.

But what really exposes your woeful unsuitability as most vocal opponent of the Hutchinson theory is that you're counterarguments invariably consist of brand new "ideas" that attract no support and no adherents whatsoever, unlike the suggestion that Hutchinson was a liar and/or potential murderer, which tends to garner quite a few. That Isaacstrakhan stuff, for instance, went down like an absolute lead balloon, and yet this is the material you're coming up with to combat the "Hutchinsonians". Ouch for you. Very ouch.

The lame suggestion he was discredited at all is the most obvious flaw in this theory, as demonstrated by the Echo article.

I realise that Hutchinson's discrediting is utterly fatal to your Gentleman Jack theory, which most people laughed out of town two decades ago, but discredited he most certainly was - as I'm prepated to reiterate for so much longer than you're capable of saying he wasn't, if we're playing the pettiness game, that is.

What is totally wrong is that you have failed to provide any connection between Abberline feeling tired and the interrogation of Hutchinson on Nov. 12th

Look, you were caught with hands in the cookie jar trying to claim victory by patronisingly and aggressively rejecting Garry's astute observation that Abberline was exhausted at the time - so much so that he nearly broke down under the strain. I even provided an actual interview with Abberline where this was spelt out. Have the humility to acknowledge when you've been shown to be wrong, rather than forever sticking to your losing strategy of belligerence and confrontation.

You have no idea who's official opinion they were inclined to follow

Nor do you, and yet you continue to claim that the police placed all their eggs in Bond's basket, despite the lack of evidence to that effect, and despite the fact that nobody agrees with you. I realise the inquest didn't establish the time of death with any certainty, but it did deliver two witnesses whose mutually corroborative evidence indicated a time of death in in the early hours, but appreciably later than 1.00am.

Given that the press became aware the authorities were pursuing two equally viable suspects at the same time we are able to deduce two reasonable conclusions

Where are you getting "equally viable" from?

Hutchinson's evidence suffered a "very reduced importance" and was thereafter "considerably discounted" owing to the late presentation of his evidence. No such caveat was ever applied to Cox's evidence. Clearly, therefore, the justification for actually pursuing Astrakhan suspects had ground to an abrupt halt, despite a few among the police accepting his account as accurate. Still having trouble finding any actual evidence of the police actively pursuing Astrakhan men after mid-November? Thought you might be. And where is the evidence that anyone at "Scotland Yard" still believed Hutchinson "at least 10 days after the murder"?

The last time you raised this issue I reached back to the archives to remind you that the most knowledgeable members do not subscribe to your misrepresentation of the facts, then you started whining to me how unfair that was...

No, then I started laughing when you tried to recruit the bigger boys to join in the fight against me, and I think we all remember how not-too-brilliantly that worked out for you. I still love the maturity of the "all the cool and important people agree with me" argument. I do have more adherents than you, and I point that out advisedly, especially when you keep making silly grandiose statements like "the forum awaits proof". Planet Earth awaits a single supporter of Isaacstrakhan.

[Michael W Richards]

No-one saw Mary Kelly leave her room after 11:45pm, no-one. None of the court residents, nobody on the Dorset side of the tunnel, no-one in McCarthys shop...no-one. In fact, her lights were out before 1:30, after she arrived home barely able to speak because she was so drunk, and sang to Blotchy Face for over an hour continuously.

Hutchinsons story makes him a curious interloper in this murder investigation, he was not a witness to anything.

Sarah saw someone....Hutch took that spot Monday night. Why? Who knows....but is suspicious that he came in with his story at all, 4 days late,....making him..... suspicious. Not valued for his fantastically detailed description of a non-existent man.

That the police used his description for a brief time..is a matter of them following every possible lead to the hilt. His went nowhere...and he vanishes.

Cheers

[GUT]

G'Day Michael

No-one saw Mary Kelly leave her room after 11:45pm, no-one. None of the court residents, nobody on the Dorset side of the tunnel, no-one in McCarthys shop...no-one. In fact, her lights were out before 1:30, after she arrived home barely able to speak because she was so drunk,

So McKenzie and Lewis were absolutely wrong?

and sang to Blotchy Face for over an hour continuously.

We don't know that Blotchy was still there. he may well have left by then.

[Wickerman]

No-one saw Mary Kelly leave her room after 11:45pm, no-one. None of the court residents, nobody on the Dorset side of the tunnel, no-one in McCarthys shop...no-one. In fact, her lights were out before 1:30, after she arrived home barely able to speak because she was so drunk, and sang to Blotchy Face for over an hour continuously.
Cheers

Lets not waste any time debating whether a person can come and go without being seen.

Without that irrefutable fact we would not be looking for a killer.

[Observer]

Ventriloquism???

In fact, her lights were out before 1:30, after she arrived home barely able to speak because she was so drunk, and sang to Blotchy Face for over an hour continuously.

Barely able to speak yet she sang for over an hour? That's quite a feat. There is no evidence that Mary Kelly sang for over an hour.

[Jon Guy]

Barely able to speak yet she sang for over an hour? That's quite a feat. .

Have you not seen The Pogues, Observer ;-)

[Observer]

Nice one Jon hahaha. Don't tell Michael Richards though, he'll use it as evidence to prove his point! However, Mr McGowan is an exception to the rule is he not?

[Abby Normal]

Have you not seen The Pogues, Observer ;-)

Haha. Now that's funny.

[Observer]

Regarding my assertion that there is no evidence that Mary Kelly sang in excess of an hour. I did mean to specify that there is no evidence that she sang continuously for over an hour

[Michael W Richards]

Regarding my assertion that there is no evidence that Mary Kelly sang in excess of an hour. I did mean to specify that there is no evidence that she sang continuously for over an hour

I expected that I wouldnt have to explain the intention of my remarks Observer....meaning song after song, but then, I didnt notice you were lurking nearby. But for arguments sake, she could well have been singing a slow drunken medley for over an hour for all you or I know, all we know is that when a witness could hear what was coming from that room between 11:45 and about 1:15, she was singing.

Ill try to be more observant about my environment.

Cheers