The Red Handkerchief...

[Chava]

Oh I agree. Hutchinson stinks like a ten-day-old mackerel.

[Sam Flynn]

Oh I agree. Hutchinson stinks like a ten-day-old mackerel.

Don't ten-day-old mackerel start to glow in the dark? Perhaps that boosted the ambient light around Hutchinson sufficiently for him to tell what colour the hankie was. On the other hand, perhaps "Hutch" was his nickname because he could see in the dark like a rabbi.

PS: Re. Victorians being used to the low levels of light and thus being able to discern colours more effectively than us... can't be, I'm afraid. It's partly to do with physics, and partly with biology. The cone cells (the colour receptors of the eye) become less and less effective with progressively dimmer light - and the ability to distinguish colours gets gradually worse as a result. This is wired into the biology of the cells of the eye, and this won't have changed much (if at all) in a mere 120 years.

Suffice to say that a tipping point exists before which colours can be discerned, after which it becomes tricky and then practically impossible. Colour-blindness and individual differences aside, that threshold is largely determined by the quality and quantity of ambient light available. On that basis we can't definitively say that it was impossible for Hutch to have seen a red handkerchief without knowing precisely what lighting conditions prevailed at the time.

It may well be impossible to perceive a handkerchief as "red" when seen by gaslight on a cloudy, moonless night - but I don't honestly know for certain. It should be fairly easy to test, however.

[Chava]

Sam!

Maybe that's what killed his credibility with Abberline. Who road-tested a red handkerchief under the light in question and realized he couldn't tell what colour it was!

It's always interesting how people trip themselves up. Just that one small detail, and it makes a nonsense of the whole statement!

[Tresschen]

I agree that the killer probably wouldn`t have killed MJK, if he knew there was someone who had seen him and was still nearby.
I am not so sure about the whole Hutchinson-affair, yet, but I am trying to think through every possibility.
One thing I just think important to say is: handkerchiefs at that time often bore the initials of the owner, so there could really be a reason for the ripper to take it with him.

[Convert]

At the moment I am far from convinced that GH had anything to do with the murder of MJK but i will leave that for another thread.
With regards to the red hanky, despite poor lighting conditions, etc, I think GH could have indicated it was red in his personal belief, as that is what he thought he saw. He may have been mistaken in its color, it may not have been found in MJK's room as it was totally destroyed in the fire or at least beyond any recognition or even taken by the killer as he is described as an organized serial killer and doesn't leave personel items at the crime scene.

[Ben]

With regards to the red hanky, despite poor lighting conditions, etc, I think GH could have indicated it was red in his personal belief, as that is what he thought he saw.

If he was standing at the corner of Dorset Street while this alleged hanky transfer was taking place, we also have the problem of his claim to have heard a specific snippet of dialogue - "Come along my dear, you will be comfortable" - from that distance, which stikes me as most implausible unless Kelly was shouting very loudly indeed. Try it yourself if ever you get an opportunity to visit the site.

You can only take the argument that Hutchinson "believed" he saw things that he couldn't have so far. The idea that he noticed and committed to memory a horseshoe tie-pin, for example, in addition to a myriad of other accessorial and clothing details within a fleeting moment. You can't just believe you saw such a specific item. Eithe he invented it, or he really saw it, and the latter option is clearly ludicrous.

This is where the "confabulation" explanation falls short for me.

Welcome, by the way!

Ben

[Malcolm X]

Hi All,

It's been mentioned before, but how did GH determine the handkerchief was red when gaslight (which burns with a greenish hue) renders red objects as either brown or black?

Regards,

Simon

yup, in fact that late at night all colours are muted..they'd all be shades of dark grey.... try it yourself go outside right now, HUTCHINSON's statement is riddled with faults; he saw way too much detail..e.g noticing exactly what the parcel in his hand looked like......American cloth/straps, how the hell could you tell that at 3am on a drizzly rainy dark night..........cloud cover, no moon and very weak street lighting

more like, ``he had a parcel in his hand..or a packet or something``............nearly everyone would be asleep, so the ambient lighting would be poor...

[Malcolm X]

street lights are nearly all on one side of the street only, now which side of the street was kelly walking back on, no idea, for him to see that much detail he'd have to be very close indeed ( i have to mention this because i dont know exactly how powerful those street lights were, so he might've seen quite a lot) ...........even so, no more than 50% of what he sais.

what he wouldn't notice is a red handkerchief and the red stone ( on a chain) and highly doubtful that he'd notice that horseshoe pin.

but he would definitely notice the coat/ hat/ button boots and gaiters..but i doubt the white buttons.........good grief when i read it again, it looks like garbage!..... i go for about 50% accurate, which means as far as i'm concerned he's lieing through his back teeth......i'm off to bed, good night

[Pablito]

a while ago someone posted something about Hutchinson's son, that he had given a detailed statement to a particular author in the mid - nineties, and someone on these boards had managed to obtain Hutchinson's signature. Who was it on these boards who managed to get his signature please? Sorry i can't find the original thread.

[IchabodCrane]

Hello Pablito,

the thread is here http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=78027

But take your time, it is quite long...
Best wishes,
IchabodCrane

[Mr.Hyde]

Think the gas street lights were put out from 11PM.

[Convert]

Hey Ben, thanks for the welcome mate.

In your post:
"If he was standing at the corner of Dorset Street while this alleged hanky transfer was taking place, we also have the problem of his claim to have heard a specific snippet of dialogue - "Come along my dear, you will be comfortable" - from that distance, which stikes me as most implausible unless Kelly was shouting very loudly indeed. Try it yourself if ever you get an opportunity to visit the site".

In GH statement to police on 12th he saids he was standing outside the Queen's Headagainst the lamp and watched them. They went past him and into Dorset Street and he, ie GH, followed them. So from this we can gather he had left the corner and followed them some way down Dorset street making it not impossible that he did hear this dialogue correctly while the stranger and Kelly were at the corner of Millers Court. He does not mention where exactly or how far he was from the couple.
(Does anybody know if the Queens Head is on the corner of Dorset and Commercial Streets or on Commercial Street alone,ie in between Dorset and Whites Row?)

In his second interview that he gave the press on the 13th, he states he followed tham as far as the corner (ie Dorset and Commercial Streets)and watched them at the entrance to Millers Court. He then saids Mary states loudly "I have lost my handkerchief". And the stranger provides her with a red one.
Nowhere in this interview does he claim to have heard anything else concisely from Mary or the stranger. He does mention they are talking together but he cannot hear.

Although there is a slight descrepancy between the two interviews, I would favor the first one given to police. I believe GH was an honest witness due to a crush he had on MJK and this is the reason for his precision in description of the stranger. He was making a jeolous observation of this man. Although some of his testimony may not be accurate (to the point of been more of a guess)it was to the best of his belief.

The color of the handkerchief could have been determined when the couple passed him under the lamp as it could have been sticking out of his pocket as was the custom at the time.

[Ben]

Hi Convert,

They went past him and into Dorset Street and he, ie GH, followed them. So from this we can gather he had left the corner and followed them some way down Dorset street making it not impossible that he did hear this dialogue correctly while the stranger and Kelly were at the corner of Millers Court.

The newspaper versions of his account elaborate somewhat. After the Queen's Head encounter, Hutchinson claimed to have followed them across the road and stood at the corner of Dorset Street while Kelly and Astrakhan hovered at the entrance to Miller's Court for "about three minutes". In addition to it being highly improbable that he heard the alleged dialogue from that vantage point, the idea that he ventured further down Dorset Street raises even more questions:

If all three were already some distance into Dorset Street at the time, just how oblivious did Kelly and Astrakhan have to be to avoid noticting Hutchinson following them all the way from the pub and then hovering in extremely close proximity?

For the record, the Queen's Head was not in Dorset Street but across Commerical Street, on the corner of Fashion Street.

Nowhere in this interview does he claim to have heard anything else concisely from Mary or the stranger. He does mention they are talking together but he cannot hear

I don't think he ever mentioned that he couldn't hear what was being said. A claim to have heard just one sentence is implausible enough from that distance - the corner of Dorset Street to the entrance to Miller's Court. It would have to be incredibly loud, slowly spoken, and with great articulation to have been heard from that distance.

I believe GH was an honest witness due to a crush he had on MJK and this is the reason for his precision in description of the stranger. He was making a jeolous observation of this man.

I'm not quite sure how "jealousy" would have prompted Hutchinson to be any more "observant", or for that matter, how jealousy would bestow upon him some truly amazing powers of observation and recollection in such mitigating conditions. If his observations were simply to the best of his belief, I wouldn't expect such meticulous specificity of detail, both in terms of clothing and accessories.

As for the handkerchief, I don't believe it was customary at the time to have one sticking out of your overcoat pocket. If he had a handkerchief in any pocket, it would have been his waistcoat, and in that scenario, there's no way he could have noticed in at the alleged Queen's Head encounter, let alone memorize it.

Best regards,
Ben

[Crystal]

Frankly, I don't believe a word of it. I think our George had been reading too many stories...

[Convert]

I see your various points but still not convinced. I consider that GH first interview he gave to police to be an honest one. I feel that he finally did come forward to absolve himself of the crime and at the same time to commit himself to have any chance of reward money. If he stayed silent he may have thought he would have been tracked down later by police and treated with suspicion and also because if the culprit was caught he wouldnt share in any reward. I feel later reports to the press and elaborations he stated simply reflected his desire to be more involved in the crime so he would be entiltled to any reward. Therefore his claim to have followed them into Dorset Street could be very true. He didn't have to make himself obvious to the couple that he was following them, he could have walked past them and heard the dialogue and stopped further down the street and came back when the couple went into the court.

The press statements on the following days do elaborate on some aspects. For instance you point out where exactly he was when he was observing/eavesdropping on the two and its unlikely to have heard anything. However, the elaboration does not extend to what he heard, it gets diminished. He saids he heard MJK rather loudly exclaim she has lost her handkerchief while in the interview he gave police he claims to have overheard alot more.
In the instance of this witness, I do not believe the later reports of his accounts to the press are as important as to the original one he gave police. Due to the reasons above. I understand the descrepencies in later accounts but is this detail important? There seems to be conjecture in other threads as to who supplied the press with these accounts in the first place. If he is a truthful witness, and I believe he is, at least in most aspects of what he saw and heard, then I believe he saw MJK that night with the stranger he describes.
I also submit that jelousy or some such emotion would certainly enhance an overall interest in the stranger as I believe GH had a crush on MJK. We know he used to give her money on occasion and since he is poor class he wouldn't have done this with just anybody. He may have had sexual favors in return. So on the night in question he see's his women of affection and desire, and checks this stranger out. "Is he good looking, what is he wearing to impress her, etc"? And a folded handkerchief could well be sticking out of his coat pocket and remembering it was red as they passed under the lamp would not be in the realms of impossibilty.