The Red Handkerchief...

[The Good Michael]

Hi,
Its quite amazing , [and I am as fault as anyone] that no researcher, be it amateur /professional has ever looked through every single Radio times from 1971-75 to find the programme I have mentioned for donkeys years.
I did attempt this a few years back with two members of my family at Brighton University library , but after spending our 90 minute spot, searching frantically through the front pages of countless editions, we unfortunately did not look in the back pages, which a later memory cell informed me we should have done....
I can assure everyone that the article''The man that saw Jack'' is there somewhere, I listened to the programme a few days after I read the article, that is how I knew it was going to be aired.. I remember vividly sitting on my couch, and listening to the tale of Hutchinson the witness, and his vivid description, and at the end of the broadcast, the alleged son of the witness, talked about his fathers tale, and the last words he said,which I can quote..were''It was his biggest regret, that despite his efforts, nothing came of it''.
This is not my imagination, or is it my memory playing tricks on me, I heard that,one hundred per cent....
We must not forget this radio broadcast was approx 40 years ago, it is not surprising members of the family never heard of it. it is even conceivable that the son was not Reg, or his younger brother, but someone relaying what they knew, from a past meeting....it is irrelevant to me, it does not prove that the tale is true, or that George was not a shady customer, or even a killer..what is important is the tale was not invented for the Ripper and the Royals, it was known years before...That is my point.....
Regards Richard.

Oh yeah. That broadcast. 1971 just before the William Hardcastle interview of Dennis Wheatley...BBC 4 radio. Too bad it's lost like many other radio programmes. I wonder if this interview was timely in that in 1970 there was an article published in "The Criminologist" and in 1971 Hammer Films released "The Hands of the Ripper". It seems to me that there was an anniversary of something ripper-related in 1971 that may have been a reason to do a ripperish interview on the BBC to take advantage of the popularity. Anyway, I don't doubt for a minute there was a programme.

Mike

[Lechmere]

Hutchinson didn’t have a salary but he was undoubtedly paid wages otherwise he wouldn’t have been able to afford to stay in the Victoria Home. He was described as being not in regular employment which didn’t mean he was unemployed.

Maidman Street near Wellington/Cyprus Street? Someone needs to get their map out.

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson didn’t have a salary but he was undoubtedly paid wages otherwise he wouldn’t have been able to afford to stay in the Victoria Home. He was described as being not in regular employment which didn’t mean he was unemployed.

Good enough reason for him to be at Petticoat Lane on a Sunday morning, humping crates for a bit of ready cash.

[Wickerman]

All been provided, Jon.

And objections to the contrary all painstakingly demolished,...

Painstakingly sidestepped, more like it.

I'm arguing points that some people would consider controversial and contentious, I get that; ...

Arguing points is what we all do, but our points for the most part cannot be proven, most of us know this. The contention comes in to play when someone keeps insisting the points they argue are proven as fact.

[Sam Flynn]

Good hard evidence against Toppy being the witness, in my opinion. (See 250 pages of "Hutch in the 1911 Census".

quantity ≠ quality, necessarily. I should know... didn't I have something like 20,000-plus posts on the "pre-crash" threads? (Felt like that, anyway )

I illustrated with contemporary dictionary definitions that wideawake and billycock hats were interchangeable

Glad we're agreed on that, Ben

Lawende, unlike Cox, unquestionably saw the man's face.

I don't see what's "questionable" about Cox seeing his face. Cox, in fact, gives a pretty good description of him - marginally better than Lawende's, if anything. For one thing, she describes it in all its carroty, blotchy detail; for another, she was certainly closer to him than Lawende ever was - indeed "a few steps in front of me", as Cox, Kelly and Blotchy entered Miller's Court.

[Wickerman]

I don't see what's "questionable" about Cox seeing his face. Cox, in fact, gives a pretty good description of him - marginally better than Lawende's, if anything. For one thing, she describes it in all its carroty, blotchy detail; for another, she was certainly closer to him than Lawende ever was - indeed "a few steps in front of me", as Cox, Kelly and Blotchy entered Miller's Court.

Hi Gareth.
Cox's view appears primarily to have been from behind as they all walked down the passage. Unless Blotchy turned to look directly at Cox then the minimum we can assume might be that she saw him in profile as he turned and entered Kelly's room. So the detail provided by Cox may have been the result of seeing him in profile. And, even at that, the lamp referred to would have been behind him. It being on the wall opposite (in front of, or facing) Kelly's door.

[harry]

As to Hutchinson's description,it must pretty well have been as lewis says,as any significant difference would surely have been noticed by Badham and Aberline,who did have a cle ar view.

[DRoy]

Hi Gareth.
Cox's view appears primarily to have been from behind as they all walked down the passage. Unless Blotchy turned to look directly at Cox then the minimum we can assume might be that she saw him in profile as he turned and entered Kelly's room. So the detail provided by Cox may have been the result of seeing him in profile. And, even at that, the lamp referred to would have been behind him. It being on the wall opposite (in front of, or facing) Kelly's door.

Jon,

Cox also said she'd recognize the man again if she saw him again.

She describes a blotchy face, full carrotty moustache, shaved chin, and guesses his age at 36. I agree with Sam, regardless whether she only got a quick glance at him or not, she does pretty well in describing him.

She may have seen most of him from behind but she didn't know the color of his pants other than them being dark. She also didn't know his hair length which you'd assume would be easier to notice from behind.

It seems she paid more attention to the front than the back regardless of the length of time she had to view either side of him.

Cheers
DRoy

[Sam Flynn]

Cox's view appears primarily to have been from behind as they all walked down the passage. Unless Blotchy turned to look directly at Cox then the minimum we can assume might be that she saw him in profile as he turned and entered Kelly's room. So the detail provided by Cox may have been the result of seeing him in profile.

Hello, Jon

All you say may or may not have been the case but, nonetheless, Cox was definitely closer than Lawende, and she does give a good description of Kelly's escort, including fine details concerning his complexion and face-fuzz. Her description bears all the hallmarks of her having had a good look at him at some point. Roy's post directly above makes some excellent observations, all of which support this conclusion.

[Wickerman]

As to Hutchinson's description,it must pretty well have been as lewis says,as any significant difference would surely have been noticed by Badham and Aberline,who did have a cle ar view.

A pertinent reminder Harry, thankyou, yes it is inconceivable that Abberline would not make the connection between the two stories.

[Sam Flynn]

A pertinent reminder Harry, thankyou, yes it is inconceivable that Abberline would not make the connection between the two stories.

Two words, Jon:

George Oldfield.

[Wickerman]

Two words, Jon:

George Oldfield.

If we are to compare apples with apples, Oldfield was the equivalent of Macnaghten, how much of the day-to-day operations do you think he knew?

Whereas Abberline's (nearest?) equivalent in the Yorkshire Ripper squad would have been Inspector John Boyle, who took Sutcliffe's confession.

[Sam Flynn]

If we are to compare apples with apples, Oldfield was the equivalent of Macnaghten

If we're talking about rank, yes. However I'm not talking about rank, Jon, but the interpretation of evidence. The apples are equal.

how much of the day-to-day operations do you think he knew?

He didn't need it, for the purpose of this comparison. He had all the evidence in front of him - the letters with their "ha-ha's" and other allusions to the (Jack the) Ripper letters, and later the tapes. Yet he failed to see the connection that some other officers, and some later researchers, did.

[Wickerman]

If we're talking about rank, yes. However I'm not talking about rank, Jon, but the interpretation of evidence. The apples are equal.
He didn't need it, for the purpose of this comparison. He had all the evidence in front of him - the letters with their "ha-ha's" and other allusions to the (Jack the) Ripper letters, and later the tapes. Yet he failed to see the connection that some other officers, and some later researchers, did.

Not rank Gareth, I was alluding to the different role's they played, if you are trying to compare Abberline with Oldfield.

The ability to understand the criminal element better belongs more to the Abberline's of the force than the Macnaghten/Oldfield desk jockey's.
One thing that surfaced after the Yorkshire Ripper enquiry was a serious deficiency by the decision makers (desk jockeys).

Don't we already have examples of questionable decisions made by Officials in the Whitechapel murder case?
Incidentally, Insp. John Boyle of the Yorkshire Ripper Inquiry was commended.

[Sam Flynn]

Not rank Gareth, I was alluding to the different role's they played, if you are trying to compare Abberline with Oldfield.

My point had nothing to do with rôles, either, Jon. To reiterate, my point was simply about the interpretation of evidence, irrespective of rank or rôle. Some of us here have made a connection between - mainly tabloid - newspaper reports of the 10th November (actually, we could go further back still) and elements of Hutchinson's story. Would Abberline necessarily have made that connection? Apparently he didn't. Did Abberline necessarily read those same newspaper reports. Maybe, but maybe not. If he had, would he necessarily have subjected them to the same obsessive scrutiny as a nutty, modern-day Ripperologist like me? Doubtful.

It scarcely matters, because - for some of us, at least - the parallels between those press reports and some key events/descriptions in Hutchinson's story are rather obvious.