The Red Handkerchief...

[Rosella]

Was a male of Hutchinson's description seen near where any of the other victims were attacked and Killed? Anybody seen hanging around Dutfield's Yard or near to 29 Hanbury St, for example? Or is it your contention that Jack only took a lookout along when he picked up Mary Kelly?

[DJA]

So Mr A wore "gaiters with white buttons", which is fine, so let's stick to that.

From my perspective, I very much doubt that Mr Astrakhan really existed, so there's no point in our having a "spat" about what he wore on his fictitious feet.

Agreed.

The button boots under gaiters with white buttons is nonsense,like the Ten Bells Public House and the red handkerchief.

Ironically the red handkerchief may have been a Freudian slip.

I do however strongly suspect George E Hutchinson was a lookout for Jack the Ripper.

The Police statement was a red herring.

[Wickerman]

What has what Hutchinson saw (the red handkerchief) by the light of the lamp in the Millers Court passage got to do with what he saw directly under the lamp at the Queen's Head? Hutchinson reported that he was very close to the couple then, and was therefore able to furnish a full description.

It's likely a small point but, Hutchinson does not tell us he first noticed the handkerchief when it was pulled out, but that, "he then pulled his handkerchief out".
Hutch could very easily have noticed this handkerchief sticking out of the top of one of his pockets as Astrachan passed under the lamp, before they walked down Dorset St.
Astrachan was after all wearing a top coat, jacket & waistcoat, there were enough pockets.

Just for the record, the Ordnance Survey Map gives 125 ft. approx. from Millers Court passage to the east end corner of Dorset St., south side, with Commercial St.

[Sam Flynn]

Once again....read Hutchinson's Police Statement.

"button boots and gaiters with white buttons"

So Mr A wore "gaiters with white buttons", which is fine, so let's stick to that.

From my perspective, I very much doubt that Mr Astrakhan really existed, so there's no point in our having a "spat" about what he wore on his fictitious feet.

[DJA]

Once again....read Hutchinson's Police Statement.

"button boots and gaiters with white buttons"

[Sam Flynn]

The spats I wore went up to the calf.

Your Dictionary describes what Mr A was almost certainly wearing.

Wickerman has actually shown half chaps.
Highly unlikely to see them as street wear.
Definitely lacking white buttons.
The riding boots have no buttons.
0/10. Fail!

Sorry I stand by the OED - nowhere is it mentioned that spats must have white buttons. American gangster movies and Fred Astaire have a lot to answer for!

Besides, it should be apparent that "spats" can mean different things to many people. Ergo, we can't be precisely sure what the alleged Mr A was wearing.

[Wickerman]

Gaiters with white buttons are actually called spats.
Try reading Hutchinson's Police statement.

They are designed to cover the fastenings,whether lace or button up boots.
Think dress up, not riding or hiking gear.

I have worn both,although my spats had black buttons.
Never worn button up boots,as they went out with.....button up boots.

You're not alone, the press confused his gaiters for spats too.

[DJA]

spat, n⁵

[Abbreviation of SPATTERDASH]

1. A short gaiter worn over the instep and reaching only a little way above the ankle, usually fastened under the foot by means of a strap.
I read the Oxford English Dictionary

The spats I wore went up to the calf.

Your Dictionary describes what Mr A was almost certainly wearing.

Wickerman has actually shown half chaps.
Highly unlikely to see them as street wear.
Definitely lacking white buttons.
The riding boots have no buttons.
0/10. Fail!

[Sam Flynn]

Gaiters with white buttons are actually called spats.

spat, n⁵

[Abbreviation of SPATTERDASH]

1. A short gaiter worn over the instep and reaching only a little way above the ankle, usually fastened under the foot by means of a strap.

Try reading Hutchinson's Police statement.

I read the Oxford English Dictionary

[DJA]

Among the hundreds of styles of Victorian gaiters, these which do not cover the instep.




And, among the hundreds of styles of button boots that have buttons down the instep



Buttons visible beneath the gaiter, imagine that.

Gaiters with white buttons are actually called spats.
Try reading Hutchinson's Police statement.

They are designed to cover the fastenings,whether lace or button up boots.
Think dress up, not riding or hiking gear.

I have worn both,although my spats had black buttons.
Never worn button up boots,as they went out with.....button up boots.

[Wickerman]

A very poor, circular argument, Jon; "It was bright enough to see a red handkerchief --> because Hutchinson says it was --> which means Hutchinson told the truth --> because it was bight enough to see a red handkerchief --> because Hutchinson said it was, and so on.

Your words (in bold), not mine.

Think a little more about it, .....you have decided that the luminosity was "dim", my observation is, ...when compared to what?

Colours and objects CAN be seen in poor, bad, or "dim" light, it all depends on how bright the "dim" actually is. Seeing as how you cannot quantify the "dim", then you have not proven your point.
Therefore, so long as the dim light was sufficient for him to see the red handkerchief then your argument fails.

Have you lot decided yet whether this was red, blue, "pitch black", or just dim?

[Wickerman]

Among the hundreds of styles of Victorian gaiters, these which do not cover the instep.




And, among the hundreds of styles of button boots that have buttons down the instep



Buttons visible beneath the gaiter, imagine that.

[Abby Normal]

he knew it was red because he was wearing it the night of the double event.

Or if he wasn't the ripper, he knew it was red because he read about it in the papers.

[Ben]

Good pints, DJA.

I hadn't considered that the struck-through Ten Bells, corrected by Queen's Head, ought to have been initialled.

Cheers,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Sleek,

Placing glass around a naked flame and expecting it to create anything other than a dim light (which is what Victorian gas lamps were well known for prior to 1891) is only marginally more effective than attaching a horn to the forehead of a horse and expecting it to fly. It would have improved the situation in the former case, yes, which is presumably why they did it, but a bright light would emphatically not have been the result.

Under a wall lamp, next to Millers Court passage, it was bright enough to see a red handkerchief - that is all that matters.

A very poor, circular argument, Jon; "It was bright enough to see a red handkerchief --> because Hutchinson says it was --> which means Hutchinson told the truth --> because it was bight enough to see a red handkerchief --> because Hutchinson said it was, and so on.

The chances of anyone making out the colour red on such a small object, produced for a fleeting moment in very dim artificial light, and from such a distance, were slim to non-existent. Try it yourself.

Hutchinson reported that he was very close to the couple then, and was therefore able to furnish a full description.

Actually, Rosella, it would only have enabled him to "furnish a full description" if the encounter had occurred in daylight, and the subject had been standing still for a much longer time. Otherwise, you can pretty much forget "linen collar", "horsehoe tie-pin" and "dark eyelashes".

Regards,
Ben