The Red Handkerchief...

[Abby Normal]

It's just common sense. I fail to see what is dangerous, or particularly speculative, about the suggestion that most middle/upper class men wouldn't have ventured into such a rough area at that time of night in search of sex, or at most times of the day for that matter.

I'm with Sam on this one.
I doubt affluent well dressed men frequented the east end on their own in the middle of the night.

And all things considered with hutch, his affluent well dressed man was probably the rarest of the type. A virtual unicorn I would say.

[Sally]

Sorry Ben - cross-posted.

[Fisherman]

Ben:
It doesn’t need to be “strange” for my case to have obvious, irrefutable validity.

Yes it does, unless we have very long strings of words knit together. Very mundane expressions like the ones you are speaking of do not qualify, I fear.

It wouldn’t be “strange” phraseology if I wrote “Kelly was found murdered in Miller’s Court”. It’s a mundane and brief description of what actually happened, but guess how many Google hits that gets? Zero. This is because there are potentially hundreds if not thousands of ways of describing things, most of them about as “strange” as the sentence I just invented.

You are exactly right, Ben. It would not be in the least strange if that sentence surfaced. And if it did, and was then reiterated by somebody else, it would STILL not be strange since - as you say yourself - it is a very mundane description of what happened.

The same goes for "met the murdered woman Kelly" - it is a very mundande way of saying that you met the murdered woman Kelly.

It is not until you bring in specific elements that are NOT mundane into a phrase that we can suggest that it would be odd for somebody to use the exact same phrase. And "met the murdered woman Kelly" has no such element at all.

Imagine that this was the object of a trial. If it was suggested that Hutchinson could not have come up with the expression "I met the murdere woman Kelly" without guidance from press articles, the defence would have a field day.
The only thing you would get out of it would be a damaged sense of hearing, due to the laughter.

He could have JUST said that, yes. In which case, the fact that the identical phrase appears in the Daily News would be mildly interesting, but not proof of a copy-cat job.

Proof of a copy-cat job!? Is THAT what you believe you have...? Is that what "proof" means to you...?

However, he also said “met the murdered woman” which also appears identically in the Daily News, as does "murdered woman Kelly".

She WAS the murdered woman Kelly. Can you think of any better way to present these facts? "The assasined lady Kelly"? "The slain girl Kelly"? Isnīt "the murdered woman Kelly" the perhaps most logical and covering description? I know it is in my eyes!

He also described bumping into Kelly.

Yes. Am I to take it it was a strange thing to do so at the corner of Dorset Street and Commercial? He knew Kelly, he was in Dorset Street, she was in Dorset Street, they met.

Other people also knew Kelly, other people were also in Dorset Street when she was there.

He also described the two of them parting company when the latter disclosed that she had no money.

Yep. Kelly was short on it. So why would she not have asked friends, aquaintances, relatives for it? And when it was apparent that they had none, why would Kelly not part with them, looking for somebody who HAD money - or customers?

He also described seeing her encounter a respectably dressed man and walking home with him.

Absolutely. And what do prostitutes do? They approach men. And why? To procure them as clients. And which men do they prefer, given a choice between shabby, poor-looking men and more respectably clad, perhaps slightly more affluent men?

How hard can it be?

Sure the stories are much alike. But once again, there are logical explanations as to why.

Huh?

Are we having language barrier issues here, or what? “Tin match box –empty” is about the most bland, ordinary way of describing the item and its condition. An “unusual and complex wording” would be “container fashioned of a light metal, wholly devoid of cigarette-lighting implements”.

And still, "tin match box - empty" is a lot more special construction than "met the murdered woman Kelly".
If it had NOT been, then it would not have been questioned. Itīs a very basic thing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Oh no, Sally - you summarised those key points of similarity better than I did, and I couldn't agree more. I can't see how anyone can read your points 1-7 and come away with the impression that the Daily News' article had no influence on Hutchinson's narrative.

The onus od proof does not lie on anybody else than yourself when you challenge academic authorities.

The onus of proof lies with the originator of the claim, Fisherman, regardless of who the originator is, or was. You say that the works in question are "referenced", and I was simply asking for people to shed a little light on those references. I'm sorry if you think that's lazy of me. I thought you'd be only to happy to disabuse me of my scepticism if you were in a position to do so with "references" citing the presence of dressed-up "slummers" walking the East End streets and departing unmugged.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

I'd love to know who wears an exquisitely "elegant" short jacket with a peaked cap, Fisherman. Let that be your Google challenge for today. Find me that winning fashion combination of peaked cap and "exquisite" short jacket, and post your results to the Stride threads!

So, Ben, a peaked cap guarantees a ruffian...? Have you read the descriptions of the posh George Chapman? The la-de-da fellow, always striving to be elegant in his attire?

Thereīs a dissertation on him here on Casebook if you are interested. Itīs titled "The Cable Street Dandy".

Maybe he didnīt know that the peaked cap gave him away. If so, that only goes to show that not all people realize what it is that gives them away.

I will leave this area of discussion to you for now. Peaked caps, ruffians and all.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I'm with Sam on this one.
I doubt affluent well dressed men frequented the east end on their own in the middle of the night.

And all things considered with hutch, his affluent well dressed man was probably the rarest of the type. A virtual unicorn I would say.

Yes, that much we may agree on - Astrakhan man was an oddity. Not, however, too odd for Abberlineīs taste!
And I donīt think it has been suggested that men like A man were thirteen a dozen in Whitechapel, only that there would not have only been ruffians in torn clothes around. Many people were and looked respectable.

Thereīs an article in a Boston Newspaper on Buckīs Row. The writer is baffled by how clean and neat the houses are inside, and it is apparent that the street was inhabited by respectable people striving to make a decent living.

These people also belonged to the East End, and not only during office hours.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

The number of 'well-dressed' men is in any case irrelevant to the discussion in hand.

Actually, it is not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Actually, it is not.

The best,
Fisherman

Yes it is.

See above.

[Abby Normal]

Cont...



It doesn’t need to be “strange” for my case to have obvious, irrefutable validity. It just needs to be a specific phrase that appears in one source, and is then reproduced exactly in another, and in no other press or police source from 1888 covering the ripper murders. That is what we see with Hutchinson’s account and the Daily News article. "Met the murdered woman" is unique to those two sources. A remarkable thing in isolation, but when coupled with the near identical detail and other specific phrases reproduced with exactitude, it pretty much ceases to be a possibility that Hutchinson’s account had nothing to do with the Daily News article.

It wouldn’t be “strange” phraseology if I wrote “Kelly was found murdered in Miller’s Court”. It’s a mundane and brief description of what actually happened, but guess how many Google hits that gets? Zero. This is because there are potentially hundreds if not thousands of ways of describing things, most of them about as “strange” as the sentence I just invented.



He could have JUST said that, yes. In which case, the fact that the identical phrase appears in the Daily News would be mildly interesting, but not proof of a copy-cat job. However, he also said “met the murdered woman” which also appears identically in the Daily News, as does "murdered woman Kelly". He also described bumping into Kelly. He also described the two of them parting company when the latter disclosed that she had no money. He also described seeing her encounter a respectably dressed man and walking home with him. ALL of which appears in the Daily News article.



Huh?

Are we having language barrier issues here, or what? “Tin match box –empty” is about the most bland, ordinary way of describing the item and its condition. An “unusual and complex wording” would be “container fashioned of a light metal, wholly devoid of cigarette-lighting implements”.

Hi Ben

I totally agree with you. I had always thought that hutch using the phrase "the murdered women Kelly" was an awkward and odd way to talk. As was many other examples in his statement. Two more off the top of my is when he says-Mary came up to him and said "Hutchinson, can you..." and the other is when he says a man took out the handkerchief, a red one, and gave it to her.

It's like he is consciously trying to emphasize things and in a way that just sound made up or copied.

Added to that is his overall statement with its unbelievable amount of detail and script like depiction of events, and constant overt and covert references to being able to ID and even find him. None of the other hundreds of witness statements come anything close to hutches. Seems to me hutch though long and hard about his statement, like I don't know, maybe over a whole weekend.

[Sally]

Oh no, Sally - you summarised those key points of similarity better than I did, and I couldn't agree more. I can't see how anyone can read your points 1-7 and come away with the impression that the Daily News' article had no influence on Hutchinson's narrative.

Thanks Ben. I have held this view for some time of course - and have noted that others have also remarked in the past on the striking similarities between the early report of Kelly's 'associate' and the later account told by Hutchinson. Those who are posting their agreement on this thread are by no means alone in their view.

I really don't see how it's possible to get around it. It's all there, in black and white - no speculation necessary for once.

That is the crux of the matter.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, that much we may agree on - Astrakhan man was an oddity. Not, however, too odd for Abberlineīs taste!
And I donīt think it has been suggested that men like A man were thirteen a dozen in Whitechapel, only that there would not have only been ruffians in torn clothes around. Many people were and looked respectable.

Thereīs an article in a Boston Newspaper on Buckīs Row. The writer is baffled by how clean and neat the houses are inside, and it is apparent that the street was inhabited by respectable people striving to make a decent living.

These people also belonged to the East End, and not only during office hours.

The best,
Fisherman

I totally agree with you fish. It's just that the rarity and circumstances of a rich well dressed man that hutch describes leads me to the interpretation that points to hutch lying not telling the truth.

[Fisherman]

I totally agree with you fish. It's just that the rarity and circumstances of a rich well dressed man that hutch describes leads me to the interpretation that points to hutch lying not telling the truth.

Fair enough, Abby! It could be either way. Plus it could be inbetween - an embellishment of the man.

In neither case must Hutchinson have been a killer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Thanks Ben. I have held this view for some time of course - and have noted that others have also remarked in the past on the striking similarities between the early report of Kelly's 'associate' and the later account told by Hutchinson. Those who are posting their agreement on this thread are by no means alone in their view.

I really don't see how it's possible to get around it. It's all there, in black and white - no speculation necessary for once.

That is the crux of the matter.

Well, I for one managed to get around one of your points - the offering of the money. Maybe I am missing something, but I cannot see that either the police report or the Daily News article mentions any offering of money on Astrakhan manīs behalf.
Of course, one can read between the lines and make the assumption that money was offered. But since you are searching for the ad verbatim connections here, Sally, you may want to have that wording about offering money in print. Most punters offer money. Thatīs the nature of the beast.
Otherwise, the only offering is the red hanky.

... and thatīs not in the Daily News.

Am I missing something here?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

To be honest Fish, we don't need much 'reading between the lines' here, do we? What do you think Kelly and Mr. Well-Dressed were going back to her place to do - play tiddlywinks?

The only generic element here is the common transaction between prostitute and client - the rest is highly specific.

It has been suggested by posters on this thread who would rather avoid the conclusion of Hutchinson's mendacity that some of the details in his account differ - but this is irrelevant and a false construct.

It's to compare an orange and a bunch of bananas for a start [or grapes, perhaps...] because the first account contains nothing like the same degree of detail as Hutchinson's account. Thus, the comparison is invalid.

Secondly, none of what has been countered so far alters or in any way diminishes the fact that both accounts report the exact, precise, sequence of events.

In neither case must Hutchinson have been a killer.

Who said he was?

The inescapable conclusion that he made it all up doesn't make him a killer - there are several other possibilities.

At the end of the day, so what if he fabricated the lot? I don't see the problem unless one holds dear a theory that requires a well-dressed man to have been stalking the streets of Whitechapel slaying unfortunates.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

To be honest Fish, we don't need much 'reading between the lines' here, do we? What do you think Kelly and Mr. Well-Dressed were going back to her place to do - play tiddlywinks?

On the contrary, Sally. We need to provide ALL information about that money by reading between the lines.

You made a list where you brought up similarities between Kellyīs colleagues story and Hutchinsons ditto, and one of the points you made was that both stories involved money being offered.

It clearly says in the first story that money WAS offered, but not a word about it is said in the second one.
It therefore applies that anything could have been offered in exchange for sex - not necessarily money. If it was an example of sextrading, which is a tempting suggestion. My own take is that it WAS such a matter, but Iīll be damned if I can prove it!

Playing the devilīs lawyer, letīs see what happens! Here are the relevant parts of the quotation:

A man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her.

No prostitution implied here, necessarily.

They both burst out laughing.

Well, we know from Benīs take on the Cox affair that the merrier the woman, the less likely will it be that she is prostituting herself.

I heard her say alright to him.

... which could mean that he said "How are you?"

And the man said you will be alright for what I have told you.

Armwrestling? Perhaps.

He then placed his right hand around her shoulders.

They had become friends, see?

He also had a kind of a small parcel in his left hand with a kind of strap round it.

Not necessarily a condom case.

I stood against the lamp of the Queen’s Head Public House and watched him. They both then came past me and the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern. They both went into Dorset Street I followed them. They both stood at the corner of the Court for about 3 minutes.

Couldnīt find a single connotation about sextrading here!

He said something to her.

"Gee, thatīs a nice skirt!"

She said alright my dear come along you will be comfortable.

Since she was willing to offer him her best chair.

He then placed his arm on her shoulder and gave her a kiss.

Out of thankfulness.

She said she had lost her handkercheif he then pulled his handkercheif a red one out and gave it to her.

Okay.

They both then went up the court together.

But whatever else they did together, who knows?

Now, donīt get me wrong here, Sally. This is not what I personally would argue. Itīs what a defence attorney would argue, trying to get Kelly off the hook for prostitution. And do you know what his main argument would be? No?

Then Iīll tell you: He would argue that prostitution is sex for money, and then he would point out that not a word is spoken here that says a iot about any economical transaction.

And then Kelly would be off the hook. The only thing that can clinch a prostitution case is proof about the deal being payed for.

So you see, my dear, there never was any offer of money on Astrakhan mans behalf that we know of. We may suspect it, but thatīs all.

That is why this point of yours is wrong.

...none of what has been countered so far alters or in any way diminishes the fact that both accounts report the exact, precise, sequence of events.

It records - in both cases - a very mundane scene, where a sex affair is seemingly (thatīs all we can say in Hutchinsonīs case) made up, much in the way they are normally made up.

We should not expect them to do the business first and then meet in Dorset Street afterwards.

We should not expect Kelly to leave her respective counterpart before she knew if they had money or not.

The sequence of events is completely logical in both cases, and I would go so far as to suggest that it could well be that the exact same scenario had been played out many times before the evening at hand:

She was approached by a punter - thatīs what punters do.

She spoke to the punter - thatīs how it goes down.

They agreed on a deal - that happens.

They went to her room to do the business - well, that WAS to be expected, was it not?

There are two elements that bring a little heat to your suggestion:

1. The man was respectably dressed in both stories. If we can conclude that only one man in the whole of London was well dressed, we are on to something.

2. Kelly asked both respondents for money, before turning to prostitution again. But we know that she was in dire problems moneywise. Unless Barclays Bank would vouch for her, she would have to resort to ask her aquintances for it.

But to be honest, would it not be a coincidence if these parameters were the same, anyway?

Yes, it would.

Do coincidences happen?

Yes, they do.

Who said he was?

Specifically in your post or over the years on these boards?

The inescapable conclusion that he made it all up doesn't make him a killer - there are several other possibilities.

But it is not inescapable other than to you and Ben and Garry and some other people. I escaped that conclusion with ease, and so did lots of other people, Abberline being one of them, initially at the very least. A conclusion is only inescapable if it cannot be escaped, Sally. Itīs only when everybody concurs that an escape is impossible. And that never happened.

At the end of the day, so what if he fabricated the lot? I don't see the problem unless one holds dear a theory that requires a well-dressed man to have been stalking the streets of Whitechapel slaying unfortunates.

Nor do I, Sally. To me, Hutchinson was either a very honest man, who told things the way he experienced them, or a man that embellished on a story, or a man that made the whole thing up.
He was furthermore George William Topping Hutchinson, and he was in all probability not any killer.

And he told a story in which he never mentioned any money offered by Astrakhan man.

All the best,
Fisherman