The Red Handkerchief...

[Fisherman]

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

This is all I find of interest in this post - the rest has had it´s answer numeous times, and I won´t sacrifice any more work on it today.

Chapman, however!

That dissertation was called the Cable Street dandy.

Where in the US was that Cable Street to be found?

It would be interesting to hear you argue a case where George Chapman looked like a ruffian on account of that peaked cap he wore on theose (British) photos.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

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.

Actually, I find your scenario quite plausible Ben.

However, having given the matter further and careful consideration, I think I may have the answer.

Kelly was in fact none other than Eliza Doolittle [the press having misreported her name as Emma] and Astrachan was a man called Higgins [same initials as Hastrachan, it's a done deal]

Hutchinson was really called George, as well.

'The Corset in Dorset lands often on the Faucet'

What do you think?

[Sally]

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

Absolutely. Mine has a picture of Fairclough one side and another of Lord Randolph Churchill on the other.

Yours?

[Sally]

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

It's derivative, Fish.

I'm done with going round in circles with you now. You may think as you wish, and I shall do the same.

[Sam Flynn]

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 me, that makes the Daily News account "confused", Ben - likely a mishmash of gossip, error and truth. I wouldn't write off the whole as a "fabrication", and any seasoned researcher should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. If it didn't appear at the inquest, that's because newspaper reports rarely did - even the non-confused ones.

[Ben]

Kelly was in fact none other than Eliza Doolittle [the press having misreported her name as Emma] and Astrachan was a man called Higgins [same initials as Hastrachan, it's a done deal]

Exactly, Sally.

He was offering his small-hours services as expert dialectician and grammarian, and his bag contained a recorder.

"Now, once more, Mary. It's a "H" sound, you see? Huh-huh-huh!

Horrible whore-hating Hutchinson hacked happily in Hanbury Street.

Now you try"

"She tries) "Orrible, ore-ating 'utchin"

No, no no!!

[Fisherman]

Since it is very easy to produce a credible and viable scenario in which Astrakhan man is Kellys fiancée, let´s do it - just for jolly!

Here it is, my additions/suggestions in bold. After this, the discussion about how obvious it is that the man offered Kelly money for sex is over, I´m afraid:

A man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her.
Hello, dear, here´s your Sugar Daddy again! What do you say we go to your room and ... cuddle a bit à la Francais!
They both burst out laughing. I heard her say alright to him. And the man said you will be alright for what I have told you.
He then placed his right hand around her shoulders. He also had a kind of a small parcel in his left hand with a kind of strap round it. 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. He said something to her:
Geez, I´ve ben walking the streets for hours, and my feet are killing me!
She said alright my dear come along you will be comfortable He then placed his arm on her shoulder and gave her a kiss. She said she had lost her handkercheif he then pulled his handkercheif a red one out and gave it to her. They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away.

So, this is how easy - and fun! - it is to produce a totally viable scenario in which Astrakhan man was Kellys fiancée and lover, and where no money was payed in exchange for sex.

Don´t get me wrong now - I don´t favour this scenario as the most probable one.
I cannot, however, exclude that this was what happened. No sensible person can.

And that´s that for the suggestion that we "know" that Astrakhan man was a punter who offered Kelly money for sex. May the suggestion never be brought up again, other than as a mere suggestion.

Not a "known" fact.

Not even a "near certainty".

Only as a suggestion.

It does thus not belong to any list of similarities inbetween the Daily News woman and Kelly.

One was offered money.

The other may have been.

But we don´t know. Not a single one of us.

That´s one point off Sally´s list.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I don´t expect anybody to come forward and say: "Yes, you were right. I was wrong".

It would be nice - and correct - but one may only hope for so much.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I wouldn't write off the whole as a "fabrication", and any seasoned researcher should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I'll take that as a hint, Gareth.

It's difficult to recognise any wheat midst the chaff in this particular article, otherwise the former would surely have filtered though and, in all likelihood, found its way into a police report and the inquest. While I'd agree that some legitimate accounts can only be found in the press, this would not have held true for the more crucial pieces of evidence, like for instance a genuine eyewitness sighting of the victim going home with a man. As such, the absence from the inquest of any component of the Daily News story is a pretty sure indicator that there were no gems 'neath that particular pile of rubble.

I do accept what you're saying, however, with regard to some press accounts being a "mishmash of gossip, error and truth", and I believe this happened in the case of Sarah Lewis, whose account was peddled around by gossipers until its true originator gave her police statement and subsequent inquest evidence.

A final point on the Blotchy issue (while I've got you!): It is of course reasonable to infer that Cox may have glimpsed his side profile as he entered the room, but since - strictly and pedantically speaking - the sighting took place primarily from the rear, that might account for the police's apparent non-use of Cox as an alternative (or additional) choice of witness to Lawende when it came to attempting suspect identification with Sadler, Grainger, and possibly Kosminski.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

It's difficult to recognise any wheat midst the chaff in this particular article, otherwise the former would surely have filtered though and, in all likelihood, found its way into a police report and the inquest.

There is actually rather a lot of "wheat" in that article, Ben - and we really shouldn't read much into what did or didn't make it through to the inquest. It was a very brief inquest, after all, and Roderick McDonald was keen to establish the facts of the case, and little else.

A final point on the Blotchy issue

Oh, I doubt it'll be a final point! I'm still pretty convinced that Cox would have had a much better view of her man than most other witnesses would have had. She was certainly closer than any of them and, as I've said, she gives a pretty darned good description.

As to the police not using her subsequently, that may or may not be true. We tend to forget that what has come down to us is far from complete, and much is forever lost that was never published in the press, preserved in official records, or scribbled in the margins of books.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Since it is very easy to produce a credible and viable scenario in which Astrakhan man is Kellys fiancée, let´s do it - just for jolly!

I've been enjoying the lighthearted banter that has characterized our recent exchanges, and I'll probably look ridiculously po-faced and paranoid for asking such an obvious question, but just to clarify - you were just kidding with the above, I take it? You don't really believe you have created a "credible and viable" scenario in which Astrakhan man is Kelly's fiancee, do you? Ah good, just checking! Can you imagine if you weren't kidding?!

Hello, dear, here´s your Sugar Daddy again! What do you say we go to your room and ... cuddle a bit à la Francais!

Haha!

Good one!

"Ooh la la, monsieur fiancee Astrakhan! I was out looking for money because I was desperate to pay the rent, but silly dappy girl that I am, I forgot that I only had to wander into you on one of your small hours walkabouts and grab a few bank notes off you, you sexy ATM machine on legs, you!"

"Would that it were true, wife-to-be, but you forget I'm just Joseph Isaacs from Paternoster Row. None of this bling is real, my love. I simply yoinked it from some depressed-looking barrister I found wandering up and down the Minories, and now I'm off to play my violin and pace the floor all night if you fancy joining me?"

"No, my gorgeous, mysterious and highly conspicuous new fiancee who has inexplicably remained a secret from everyone else I know. Come to my place before you get robbed or lynched for being Jack the Ripper. I’ve told you before about pinching poncy clothes and wearing them here. Everyone’s been sayin’ the real killer has a black bag and parcel, and look what you swan in with, you great tit-head!”

Ah, good laughs…

“I cannot, however, exclude that this was what happened. No sensible person can.”

Brilliant!

I can't rule out the possibility that there is a rhino called Dave playing croquet in the nearby park.

But again, imagine if you were serious about this. Imagine if you were seriously suggesting, with a straight face, that the inescapable connection between the Hutchinson account and Daily News article is nullified on the basis that Astrakhan might have been Kelly’s fiancée, wandering the streets in search of a French cuddle!

“After this, the discussion about how obvious it is that the man offered Kelly money for sex is over, I´m afraid”

Good call!

(That’s from this post onwards, by the way).

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

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.

But Sally, there is no "those", it is yourself who defends the arguments which cast Hutchinson in a negative light. Then, when you think you are loosing the argument you claim to only be "impartial" anyway.
Others at least own up to their position against Hutchinson, up front.

In your previous post, you appear to suggest coincidences do not happen:

Once agian - unless somebody wishes to argue that more than one such encounter occurred on the night of her death - by which I mean the exact same set of circumstances below:

In view of this it seemed necessary to demonstrate that coincidences certainly do exist, and you do know this. So the premise in your post appeared to me to be deceptive.
You do not want the reader to consider these details are coincidental, yet you know yourself that coincidences do exist.

Even Swanson himself made reference to the possibility that Stride had been assaulted in the same 15 minutes, at the same location, by two different men.
Coincidences are a part of real life, they do happen.

And, those press reports you raise from 10th Nov. have always been taken as nothing more than coincidental.

So what is it that you are trying to sell?

Nov. 10th press reports have Kelly complaining about being short of money.
Hutchinson tells us that Kelly asked for money.
The truth is, we have independent sources which demonstrate that Kelly was indeed short of money.

Once again, the press reports have Kelly soliciting in the Dorset St. Comm St. area.
Hutchinson has Kelly soliciting in Comm. St.
The truth is, we have independent sources which mention Kelly soliciting on the streets, and various 'patches' have been identified.

And again, the press reports have Kelly taking her client to her home.
Hutchinson tells us Kelly took Astrachan home.
The truth is we have independent sources which tell us that Kelly did use her home for business. Prater tells us what those tenements were used for, and that Kelly was seen taking a client home, ie; Blotchy (Cox).

There is nothing suspicious here, what we have are unrelated sources all confirming the same common details.

You are right in claiming that these are not coincidences, but wrong to claim this indicates Hutchinson fabricated his story.
Coincidences do not have causal effect, these accounts all show causal effect, which is why they are not coincidental.

In each case we have independent confirmation of what is reported in the press on 10th Nov. & by Hutchinson.

[Wickerman]

To me, that makes the Daily News account "confused", Ben - likely a mishmash of gossip, error and truth. I wouldn't write off the whole as a "fabrication", and any seasoned researcher should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. If it didn't appear at the inquest, that's because newspaper reports rarely did - even the non-confused ones.

I had to wonder if you noticed how your opinion appeared to change from one debate to the other.

Just recently, you accepted that although Halse's entire statement had not been recorded in the official Eddowes inquest records, you felt comfortable believing the Times when they added "in the building" to his testimony.

Yet, previously, when debating Sarah Lewis's testimony, we see the official Inquest record does not include statements that she saw the couple go "up the court", etc. But they were captured by the Daily News, you had the reverse opinion.

The circumstances were the same, yet one you chose to believe, the other not.

Any thoughts on consistency Gareth?

[Wickerman]

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

When we are dealing with East Enders we have to accept a degree of dishonesty in everyone simply as a means of survival.
What is the real issue here is that the suggestions Hutchinson was dishonest (lying?) are based not on evidence, there is none, but on "ifs", "buts", and "maybe's".

The only statement he made that I can see as not truthful was his claim to have walked the streets all night.
If you recall, John Kelly made the same claim (I think, with respect to Eddowes?), it was a euphemism.

Vagrancy was a crime, sentences varied from a fine of a few shillings to several days hard labor. Sleeping in doorways, abandoned buildings, or on stairs was an offense in the eyes of the law. Constables would tend to move you on more out of sympathy than anything else, but they could just as easily take you in.
Admitting to vagrancy was also an offense.
The usual response was "I walked the streets all night", though the law knew they were lying, but they knew why.

[Wickerman]

It's difficult to recognise any wheat midst the chaff in this particular article, otherwise the former would surely have filtered though and, in all likelihood, found its way into a police report and the inquest.

Not really, Macdonald did not concern himself with peripheral details, for all we know he could have read these statements and decided they have nothing to offer towards determining when, where, how & by what means she died.

There is an odd sentence in that D.N. article, after the female witness, presumably the initial source, walked away from Kelly, we read:

"...Soon after they parted, and a man who is described as respectably dressed came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man accompanied the woman to her lodgings, which are on the second floor, the little boy being sent to a neighbour's house. "

The first witness has left, so who told them this, who was this second(?) witness?
Who saw her in the street and followed her to her lodgings?

Rather than accusing the press of making this story up (to what end?), it is just as possible there were two separate stories involving different women, merged together. There was apparently more than one witness.
Obviously, it is not the witnesses who merged these two stories together, it was a reporter, this is where the error crept in, he assumed they were talking about the same woman.

We have no reason to believe Kelly was the only woman from Millers Court soliciting men in Dorset St. that night.
In this case the woman had a child, it wasn't Kelly, thats all.

We do have a couple of questionable sightings of Kelly, her neighbors don't seem to be 100% sure they knew Kelly well enough to recognise her on the street.