The Red Handkerchief...

[Wickerman]

1. Kelly meets somebody known to her at the corner of Dorset Street
2. Kelly and A.N. Other have a conversation to the effect that Kelly has no money.
3. Kelly and A.N. Other part ways.
4. Kelly is observed by A.N. Other to be accosted by a 'well-dressed' man
5. A. N. Other observes said 'well-dressed' man offer Kelly money - Fabulous! The answer to her prayers!
6. A.N. Other observes Kelly and the man go back to Kelly's lodgings.
7. Kelly is not seen again until her death.

Of course, the Daily News Inquest coverage demonstrates quite clearly that Sarah Lewis saw a loiterer, and a couple in Dorset St.
The woman being both hatless and the worse for drink, and that the couple passed up the court, watched by the loiterer.
Prettywell confirms Hutchinson basic story.

There is nothing suspicious about a similar story being published in the press providing very basic and common details of how Kelly conducts her business.

We are all well aware of how real coincidences are, nothing can compare with that between Elizabeth Watts & Elizabeth Stride.

"Mrs. Elizabeth Watts, of Bath. It had since been clearly proved that she was mistaken,......... If her evidence was correct, there were points of resemblance between the deceased and Elizabeth Watts which almost reminded one of the Comedy of Errors. Both had been courted by policemen; they both bore the same Christian name, and were of the same age; both lived with sailors; both at one time kept coffee-houses at Poplar; both were nick-named "Long Liz;" both were said to have had children in charge of their husbands' friends; both were given to drink; both lived in East-end common lodging- houses; both had been charged at the Thames Police-court; both had escaped punishment on the ground that they were subject to epileptic fits, although the friends of both were certain that this was a fraud; both had lost their front teeth, and both had been leading very questionable lives."

If Hutchinson had told us about Elizabeth Watts, and provided all those coincidental details to substantiate the existence of the woman, I'm sure you would have us believe no such coincidences can happen, he must be a liar!

And....yes, you would.

[Sally]

I think the reality of this situation has been amply illustrated. Of course, nobody need take it at face value that Hutchinson's account is derivative and therefore likely to have been fabricated.

There is a wide selection of digitised press reports available on the internet which can demonstrate the fact.

Fish - you fail to account for the striking similarity between the two accounts when you suggest that they represent a generic transaction. As has been pointed out and well illustrated on this thread; that is emphatically not the case.

Jon - the regularity with which you insinuate that those who disagree with you on the topic of Hutchinson and his account have a covert agenda is beginning to wear a bit thin. Aside from anything else, it only makes your arguments look weak, so it really isn't in your interests to persist. Actually, you have no idea what my views are - you simply make assumptions based on your own personal bias. Of course you're going to argue with the idea that Hutchinson may have invented Mr. Astrachan - you prefer to cling to your personal theory that Joseph was the man in question; for which you have no evidence at all - and which is actually countered by contemporary evidence.

As far as I'm concerned, the close correspondence between the earlier story and Hutchinson's later account is quite sufficient to raise doubts about the truth of his story. When we take into account his use of the exact phrasing used by one particular paper, even more so.

We might also consider, whilst we're at it, that he changed his statement to the police; apparently initially stating that he stood outside the Ten Bells and then changing it to The Queen's Head. We can only speculate as to why - but surely, for a man whose recollection of minute detail was apparently so well developed, remembering which pub he was loitering outside should have been an easy feat?

[Fisherman]

Sally:

I think the reality of this situation has been amply illustrated. Of course, nobody need take it at face value that Hutchinson's account is derivative and therefore likely to have been fabricated.

Nobody should, I think. Questioning is always healthy. Accepting things at face value in cases like these can be very costly in the end.

Fish - you fail to account for the striking similarity between the two accounts when you suggest that they represent a generic transaction. As has been pointed out and well illustrated on this thread; that is emphatically not the case.

What I suggested was that you wrongly claimed that there was an offer of money on behalf of Astrakhan man visavi Kelly, providing one of the points you listed. Nothing else. For some reason, that topic does not seem to appeal to you any longer.

I do not in any way fail to account for the similarity - I acknowledge it, but think it may have a very natural explanation.
And then I discount wrongly made claims, so that we do not immerse ourselves in a swamp any deeper than necessary.

We might also consider, whilst we're at it, that he changed his statement to the police; apparently initially stating that he stood outside the Ten Bells and then changing it to The Queen's Head. We can only speculate as to why - but surely, for a man whose recollection of minute detail was apparently so well developed, remembering which pub he was loitering outside should have been an easy feat?

He may well have remembered it - but mistakenly coupled the wrong name to the right pub. Such things do happen often and easily. Myself, I think he mistook one day for another. That is a graver mistake - but nevertheless a very common one too.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

He may well have remembered it - but mistakenly coupled the wrong name to the right pub. Such things do happen often and easily. Myself, I think he mistook one day for another. That is a graver mistake - but nevertheless a very common one too.

Sorry Fish, not convinced.

There are too many 'coincidences' and points that require special pleading if we wish to accept Hutchinson's account at face value.

The effort it requires to present a squeaky clean, entriely honest Hutchinson is considerable and it still doesn't work. That ought to tell you that there's something wrong here.

And unless my geography is out [not impossible] he couldn't have observed Kelly and her alleged beau from outside the Ten Bells.

[Fisherman]

Sorry Fish, not convinced.

There are too many 'coincidences' and points that require special pleading if we wish to accept Hutchinson's account at face value.

The effort it requires to present a squeaky clean, entriely honest Hutchinson is considerable and it still doesn't work. That ought to tell you that there's something wrong here.

And unless my geography is out [not impossible] he couldn't have observed Kelly and her alleged beau from outside the Ten Bells.

You do not have to be conviced, Sally. Once you admit that people sometimes ascribe the wrong name to localities like pubs and restaurants, my point is home and dry: this could have been what happened.

But maybe you deny that this ever has happened, what do I know?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

For the record, Sally, I am not saying that Hutchinson necessarily WAS a hundred per cent honest and "squeaky-clean".

But I am saying that he may well have been.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

You do not have to be conviced, Sally. Once you admit that people sometimes ascribe the wrong name to localities like pubs and restaurants, my point is home and dry: this could have been what happened.

But maybe you deny that this ever has happened, what do I know?

The best,
Fisherman

Of course not, Fish. That would be silly.

You seem to be quite keen on this 'misremembered' premise: First Hutchinson got the day wrong, now he got the pub wrong as well??

Of course, yes, people misremember. However [ and I do believe that we've had this conversation before...] not generally when it comes to:

a] people they know well and
b] places they see every day

Hutchinson lived in the immediate locale; he was closely familiar with the scenery. At best, it doesn't seem likely that he forgot which pub he was standing outside - particularly when you consider the vivid detail in which he was able to recall the rest of his story.

[Fisherman]

Of course not, Fish. That would be silly.

You seem to be quite keen on this 'misremembered' premise: First Hutchinson got the day wrong, now he got the pub wrong as well??

Of course, yes, people misremember. However [ and I do believe that we've had this conversation before...] not generally when it comes to:

a] people they know well and
b] places they see every day

Hutchinson lived in the immediate locale; he was closely familiar with the scenery. At best, it doesn't seem likely that he forgot which pub he was standing outside - particularly when you consider the vivid detail in which he was able to recall the rest of his story.

Ah - so if you are detailed generally speaking, it will be extremely suspicious if you mistake the names of two pubs for one another?

I did not know that.

Have you considered that we do not know if A mans gloves were really kid gloves instead of some other material?

Has it dawned on you that his shoes may not have been spats but instead another model?

Was it American cloth on that parcel? Or was it velvet?

Putting it differently - how do we know that Hutchinson really did get all these things right, when we do not have anything but his story to go by?

Whenever people accusing Hutchinson of being a liar try to make a case, it always goes wrong for some reason. Like now.

What happened to the claim about Hutchinson having seen or heard A man offering Kelly money, by the way?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Whenever people accusing Hutchinson of being a liar try to make a case, it always goes wrong for some reason. Like now.

A case for what, exactly?

This is very simple, Fish. Hutchinson's account is derivative - demonstrably so. The fact that he changed his statement may indeed be due to an genuine mistake, or it may not. We have no way to know and in any case, it doesn't make any difference to the above - it's immaterial.

If his account is derivative, it strongly suggests that he wasn't telling the truth.

That doesn't make him a murderer, and nor am I suggesting such. Don't assume an interest in Hutchinson is equivalent to favouring him as a 'candidate' - it demonstrates an extremely limited view of the world.

I'm absolutely bored with the way in which some try to polarise these discussions into 'camps' or 'sides of the fence'. It's utterly tedious, not to mention misleading.

There are mulitple views out there and plenty of room for all of them.

[Ben]

Don't assume an interest in Hutchinson is equivalent to favouring him as a 'candidate'

Oh, but Sally, you must realise that if you explore the possibility that Hutchinson didn't tell the truth, you're a card-carrying "Hutchinsonian". Oh yes. Don't be fooled by the fact that the likes of Martin Fido, Ivor Edwards, Bruce Paley and Trevor Marriott have all published books championing completely different suspects; the fact that they have all publicly expressed doubts about Hutchinson's credibility tells us all we need to know about their zealous loyalty towards the Hutch-the-ripper cause.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

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.

You continue to miss the point, Fisherman. It doesn't matter in the slightest how "mundane" or "odd" the words or descriptions were. What matters is that there was a potentially infinite number of suitable and applicable "mundane" words or phrases in the English language that were available for Hutchinson to use in preference to "met the murdered woman" or "murdered woman Kelly". I'm at a loss as to how I could explain this more clearly, but let's try this: imagine that there were only a hundred possible "mundane" ways of saying that he encountered the deceased, and the Daily News picked option #35 out of a hundred "I met the murdered woman Kelly". It would be remarkable in the extreme if Hutchinson also picked the 35th option without being influenced by the Daily News, especially if the content of both sources - Hutchinson's account and the DN - was virtually identical, as Sally's post succinctly and successfully demonstrates.

If you're seriously suggesting that anyone describing these identical events had no choice but to use those particular expressions or else risk saying something "odd" or complicated" or "controversial", then I can only hope your imagination and vocabulary is extensive enough to reconsider that view.

“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.”

And that laughter would be directed exclusively at those in the courtroom who still argued against a causal relationship between two accounts with identical content and identical phraseology. Each individual identical element is significant enough in isolation, but when assembled together, the case for borrowing and invention is overwhelming to the point of being irrefutable.

“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"?”

I can think of many equally good and equally applicable ways to present them, and to be honest, I feel a little sorry for anyone who can’t.

“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.”

With respect, Fisherman, my frustration levels at your inability to accept that this “normal versus odd” distinction has absolutely nothing to do with this argument are steadily increasing. We are talking about a specific chronology of events. It doesn’t matter how unusual or otherwise the behaviour is. We are dealing with a specific sequence of events following the same identical pattern, and with the same identical phrases being used to describe that very specific sequence. It would be unusual in the extreme if the two accounts were unrelated.

Another point you overlook is that the Daily News account is itself a fabrication, which is why it doesn’t appear at the inquest, and which is why it quickly transpired that there was no little boy living with Kelly at Miller’s Court in reality. To the toilet, then, must we consign any suggestion that here were two genuine independent witnesses observing the same event, which means that if you want Hutchinson to have told the truth and for him not to have been influenced by the Daily News, you are left with a palpably and painfully ludicrous scenario in which Hutchinson’s genuine account accidentally coincided with near exactitude to a made-up sequence of events. For the “unrelated” argument to have any semblance of validity, therefore, you would have to revive not only Hutchinson, but the Daily News article as accurate. I don’t envy your task of trying to find evidence to support the existence of Kelly’s young boy living with her.

Oops!

“And still, "tin match box - empty" is a lot more special construction than "met the murdered woman Kelly".”

No, it absolutely is not, and frankly, how odd that you should think so.

Nobody queries this phrase because it is odd or special, but because it is specific, and identical to the way in which the police report described it. This is significant because there are potentially loads of non-odd, non-special ways of describing a tin match box.

“Have you read the descriptions of the posh George Chapman? The la-de-da fellow, always striving to be elegant in his attire?”

Not “always”.

From about 1895 onwards, after he’d been to America, and when he wasn’t living in the East End.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

I thought I’d seen it all on Hutchinson threads, but the latest suggestion that Astrakhan wasn’t offering Kelly money is a new one on me. Are people even vaguely serious with that one? If Hutchinson told the truth, Astrakhan was most assuredly offering Kelly money, and if he didn’t, he was most assuredly trying to convey the impression that his fictional character was doing precisely that. Those are your only options, short of straying into fantasy.

According to Hutchinson (and more importantly, those who believe him), Kelly was actively seeking money, and when she couldn’t obtain any from Hutchinson, she moved on, i.e. to other people, unless she bargained on a successful cobble-combing session in search of discarded coins, and the next person she bumped into – according to Hutchinson and his supporters – was a person who showed all the outward and visible signs of having money to give to Kelly, and plenty of it. Is anyone seriously suggesting that a money-seeking Kelly, having found a prime money-purveying target in Astrakhan, took him home for hours without receiving any money? Is anyone entertaining it even as a possibility? What could the alternative possibly be?

Astrakhan: “No, my dear, as you can see from my thick gold chain, I’m afraid I have no money to give you. However, I still want to spend the night with you, or several hours of it at least, thus putting an end to any possibility of you getting money from anywhere else before rent collection. Do we have a deal?”

Kelly: (oozing sarcasm): “Shockingly, Mr. Hastrakhan, NO! If you can’t give me money, I’m in desperate need of finding somebody who can. Now ‘op it!”

Astrakhan: What if I were to tell you I could do so much better than money…? What if I could tell you I could do better than a whole night’s earnings? What if I could give you the chance…

Kelly: (the suspense is unbearable): Yes?

Astrakhan: …to BLOW YOUR NOSE. ...With my special hanky.

(Pause)

Kelly: (aside) How can I refuse such an offer? I’m so snotty. One jolly good blow would be worth all the riches in the entire world! No. I cannot. I must honour my agreement with the rent collector.

I’m sorry, guvna, but my answer is no! (goes to exit).

Astrakhan: Wait…

(Kelly turns, slowly)

It’s a red one.

(Beat)

Kelly: Come along my dear, you will be comfortable.

Now, I’ll be honest, the above sounds a tinsy winsy bit like bollocks to me, but it’s the sort of scenario we’d need to conjure up if we wish to argue that Kelly’s decision to take Astrakhan home had nothing to do with any monetary transaction. However, if it did – and we may regard it as a certainty unless we’re insane (or believe it never happened because Hutchinson made it up) – it would tally precisely with the unattributed witness account that appeared in the Daily News. The man in the latter account “offered her some money”, while Astrakhan must have done precisely that in order for Kelly to take him home. There is indisputable harmony on this point.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

A case for what, exactly?

A case for Hutchinson being a liar. That´s why I wrote "Whenever people accusing Hutchinson of being a liar try to make a case..."

This is very simple, Fish. Hutchinson's account is derivative - demonstrably so. The fact that he changed his statement may indeed be due to an genuine mistake, or it may not. We have no way to know and in any case, it doesn't make any difference to the above - it's immaterial.

If it had been very simple, Sally, we would not have had this debate. Of course, I too think it is simple, but I am for another simplicity.

If his account is derivative, it strongly suggests that he wasn't telling the truth.

Yes. If. And if it is not derivative, we can make no such assumption.

That doesn't make him a murderer, and nor am I suggesting such. Don't assume an interest in Hutchinson is equivalent to favouring him as a 'candidate' - it demonstrates an extremely limited view of the world.

It is exactly as "limited" as the view that you think he he was a liar.

I'm absolutely bored with the way in which some try to polarise these discussions into 'camps' or 'sides of the fence'. It's utterly tedious, not to mention misleading.

The polarizing is guaranteed the second you claim that you know that his story is derivative and that he is thus a liar. People WILL disagree, and for areason.

There are mulitple views out there and plenty of room for all of them.

Yes. Only the fewest of posters have a habit of trying to stop others from expressing their wiews, luckily.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Oh, but Sally, you must realise that if you explore the possibility that Hutchinson didn't tell the truth, you're a card-carrying "Hutchinsonian".

All the best,
Ben

Then I am a card-carrying Hutchinsonian. It´s a day full of surprises!

[Fisherman]

I thought I’d seen it all on Hutchinson threads, but the latest suggestion that Astrakhan wasn’t offering Kelly money is a new one on me.

Try as you may, Ben, it will change nothing. For all we know, Astrakhan man could have been Kelly´s fiancée!

Of course, that´s a laugh and a half to you. But it changes nothing - not a word is uttered about any offer of money or any other payment.

Sally tried the exact same angle: "What do you think, Fisherman - that they were playing tiddlywink?"

I explained to her what I explain to you:

Much as we may think that he offered money, that is something we cannot substantiate.

Try, and you will see!

The best,
Fisherman