The Red Handkerchief...

[Jon Guy]

Hello

I recently re-read "Oliver Twist", and I was struck by the number of times "handkerchiefs" are mentioned. Okay, I appreciate that Fagin and the boys made a point of pickpocketing them, but the Victorians still seemed to attach more importance to them. If they were considered a sign of your social standing then maybe it could explain Hutch`s eye for detail.

[Ben]

I feel that he finally did come forward to absolve himself of the crime

But that's precisely what he didn't do, Convert.

If he wanted to "absolve himself of the crime", all he needed to do was provide himself with an alibi for where he really was at the generally accepted time of the murder. Since "walking about all night" is about the only alibiless activity he could have resorted to at the time, it's clear that he didn't provide an alibi, which means he couldn't have "absolved" himself of the crime. Part of his motivation for coming forward might have been to convince the police that he wasn't involved, but he could have done so falsely.

For example, when you say he "finally" came forward, it's essential to examine the timing of events. It became public knowledge on the afternoon of 12th November that Sarah Lewis had noticed a man standing opposite the court, apparently watching or waiting for someone at 2:30am on the morning of Kelly's death. Later that afternoon, Hutchinson came forward with a claim to have done precisely that. As far as I'm concerned, there is little escaping the conclusion that he realised he'd been seen and came forward to legitimize his presence.

I don't believe the incredibly implausible degree of detail is compatibile with a reward-seeking motive either. The more criteria you apply, the fewer the chance of a suspect fitting all of them being captured. If you keep the description vague and encompassing, you're likely to be describing a greater range of suspects, and the chances of a captured individual matching your description is markedly increased.

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.

But that's not what he claimed in any version of his account. The only placement we have for him at the time of the alleged hanky exchange was at the corner of Dorset Street, and that was too great a distance to detect conversation. Unfortunately, we can't just "put" him at a more acceptable location just to make the account seem more plausible.

Due to the reasons above. I understand the descrepencies in later accounts but is this detail important?

Immeasurably so, since they compromise his initial verson of events in several key areas. Hutchinson's account was later discredited, according to The Star (which is later lent considerable weight by various reports, memoirs and interviews from senior police officials), snd the press re-tellings may have had something to do with it.

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"?

If he was really thinking along those rather paranoid and obsessive lines, and if you rule out Hutchinson as Kelly's killer, we're essentially accepting that she was descended on by a stalker and and serial killer (independent entites) on the same night. I doubt very much that a working class prostitute needed impressing, and I doubt very much that any man needed to convey the impression of opulence in order to attract a Spitalfields prostitute.

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.

Not his coat pocket, Convert. That would most unusual. Not wholly beyond the realms of possibility, perhaps, but one more stretch of faith needed in order to accept what was, after all, an account that was apparently dismissed shortly after its inception.

All the best,
Ben

[Jon Guy]

Regarding Hutch`s statement, it is a shame we don`t have a record of whether the Police asked Hutch if he saw anyone else (Sarah Lewis) whilst he was waiting in Dorset St.

In his favour as a truthful statement, Sarah Lewis`s man was standing by Crossingham`s opposite Millers Court, whereas Hutchinson only says he waited three quarters of an hour after going up the court. He didn`t try to push the point that he was Lewis`s man.

edit :hello Ben. Just seen your post above.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

To be fair, that would only place them within feet of eachother, and the chances are slim that he'd remain rooted in one spot for the duration. Sarah Lewis only mentioned Crossingham's in her police statement, which Hutchinson would not have had access to.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi Jon,
and shame also that we don't know if the police asked him: "Were you wearing a wideawake hat that night ?"

Amitiés,
David

[Jon Guy]

Sarah Lewis only mentioned Crossingham's in her police statement, which Hutchinson would not have had access to.

Hello Ben

Sarah Lewis did state at the inquest that the man was opposite the Court, standing alone by the Lodging House.

I agree that he would not have stayed in the same spot for 45 mins, but the fact that he doesn`t state that he wandered across the road shows he didn`t attach importance to that detail, which is a good sign in believing he was there.

[Jon Guy]

and shame also that we don't know if the police asked him: "Were you wearing a wideawake hat that night ?"

Hi David

But they would have had to trick him into answering that with a "loaded" question, as Lewis tells us at the inquest that the man was wearing a wideawake. She also states the man was stout and not tall, which Hutch must`ve been for Abberline to believe the whole scenario.

[Malcolm X]

ok i found a map of Dorset st/ Thawl street/ Fashion st etc and i've noticed nothing strange, except that where Hutch was waiting ( corner of Dorset st) seems a long way from the entrance of Millers court..........

now, i've seen photos of the millers court arch on google and i see no Gas Lamp overhead or close by, so that area would've been in near pitch darkness..there is no way Hutch can detect red from that range.

when he went up millers court all was quiet and he saw no light on.

the only time when Hutch got a good view of LA DE DA was when he passed by at Fashion st, so he could only have noticed all of his ``finer clothing detailing/ jewellry/ horse shoe pin at that location.........uuum, doesn't seem right to me, at all and never has.

as for all the rest, BEN has that covered well; no need for me to repeat all that..........i agree entirely with him

Hutch recalls LA DE DA a day later to the press very similar, there are differences but not much............it looks like he's fixated a ``make believe`` personality in his mind very well indeed.

he looks like he's describing not only a posh ``theatrical jeckyl and hyde Jew, but also a member of the middle/ upper classes....almost like that Royal Conspiracy garbage, or a Sherlock Holmes type, i can imagine LA DE DA playing a Violin

[DVV]

Hi David

But they would have had to trick him into answering that with a "loaded" question, as Lewis tells us at the inquest that the man was wearing a wideawake. She also states the man was stout and not tall, which Hutch must`ve been for Abberline to believe the whole scenario.

Yes Jon, true enough. Still, Abberline's report in incredibly terse. Why so, after what he considered to be the 6th murder, and as he thought Hutch's account was "important"?
From the police point if view, it seems that Hutch came and went... Just like love!

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Hutch recalls LA DE DA a day later to the press very similar, there are differences but not much............it looks like he's fixated a ``make believe`` personality in his mind very well indeed.

Not sure, Malcolm,
How could you expect AM's complexion to become dark? It makes a BIG difference, in my opinion.

Amitiés,
David

[Jon Guy]

Still, Abberline's report in incredibly terse. Why

Not terse my friend, just British

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
It would be intresting to know the Victorian definition of 'stout', Kelly being described as such, yet her limbs that are seen intact do not appear so.
As for Hutchinson, it is hard to imagine stoutness from the photo depicting Topping which appears on Casebook, also any person who could trek from Romford to Whitechapel, would proberly not be overweight for very long
His visits to the music hall, depicts to me a 'Dapper' individual, complete with cane, a man who took pride in his appearance, that enjoyed the arts, again does not come across as a Likely as a man carrying condition.
Not to mention his passion for ice skating, which i understand he was passionate about, would not indicate being of heavy build.
If Topping was the witness Hutchinson. [ others will disagree] then i would suggest that mayby Sarah Lewis did not see him , but someone else.
To change the subject .
Saturday is Grand National day, so we all must back[ i have] DARKNESS,
Why?
It is to be ridden by a jockey called Hutchinson......
Apt i feel.
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

DARKNESS,
It is to be ridden by a jockey called Hutchinson......

Take care, Richard, he may run till Monday, 6 pm...

Amitiés,
David

[Malcolm X]

Not sure, Malcolm,
How could you expect AM's complexion to become dark? It makes a BIG difference, in my opinion.

Amitiés,
David

sorry i dont understand that

[DVV]

sorry i dont understand that

I'm sure you do, Malcolm.
At the police station, Hutch said the suspect was "pale complexioned".
But when he talked to the press, AM became dark complexioned.

Amitiés,
David