The Red Handkerchief...

[Wickerman]

You are right, the Morning Advertiser isn't the issue here. But it you are alson right in that it doesn't contribute anything to the Hutchinson debate, then I can't imagine why you spent so much time and energy arguing about the 'article that Ben did not agree with'

Oh, I think you can, it isn't that long ago.
It's the nature of the beast, in order to defend his theory, Ben had to attempt to pass off the Morning Advertiser as 'not worthy', and this from someone who absorbs anything the Star published about Hutchinson.
Strange turn of logic.

My argument with you, as I explained to you at the time, was that you insisted that the Morning Advertiser wasn't chiefly a trade paper, when it demonstrably was. There is ample evidence, modern and contemporary to that effect.

Even when I posted all the names of the Official Trade Papers, and the Morning Advertiser was NOT listed, it was listed among the dailies, as I had already told you, even after that, you still insist you were right.
Another example of a strange turn of logic.

It is always best to understand the sources we utilise in their context, if we can.

Let me know when you reach that point... and we can have a more meaningful debate.

[Wickerman]

I wouldn't be so sure that there isn't proof, if I were you: that's still to be determined.

Desperation setting in?

No it can't. An explanation for the confusion has been suggested, which I'm afraid I find unconvincing.

Thankfully, such demonstration does not await your approval, it is in black and white.

At present neither of us knows for certain when he was arrested; but I see no reason why he couldn't have been arrested and taken into custody before Kelly was killed. Lloyd's 'in prison' doesn't necessarily indicate that he'd been convicted.

If he was arrested before the trial then he was remanded in custody, not "imprisoned", as the article suggests.
The press do know the difference between 'remanded' and 'imprisoned', if not everyone here does.

What we know for sure is that he was later arrested and questioned on suspicion of being the Whitechapel Murderer - and subsequently released. Ask yourself how that came to pass if he didn't have an ironclad alibi?

Simple. Its all here. Confusion between the Dorset St. murder and the George St. assault.

"The police, however, were led to believe that he was connected, not with the mutilations, but with the recent attempt to murder a woman in George-street, Spitalfields."

[Wickerman]

Yes - I don't think anybody's arguing that either Hutchinson or Isaacs was Jack the Ripper.... are they?

No my dear Sally, neither.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

In the Daily News article, the "respectable" man offered Kelly money, and in Hutchinson's account, Astrakhan man was obviously doing precisely that.

Obviously? Yes it seems obvious.

But when you compile a list like the one Sally compiled, it won´t do with what seems obvious. That list was a list of facts, and it was claimed that the two stories were similar because Kelly was offered money in both stories.

You see, we are not discussing what seems obvious - we are discussing what is on record.

There are other possible solutions to the story Hutchinson told.

There is nothing that says that Astrakhan man could not have been a fiancée of Kellys. I don´t believe he was, but as you will remember, what we think we see was not what the list was about. Therefore I choose to be discerning and not jump the gun.

Astrakhan man could also, for example, have enjoyed freebies from Kelly´s side - it was anything but unusual that such affairs took place. Many prostitutes would have entertained PC:s on their beats, and then the PC would look the other way when necessary. Astrakhan man could have enjoyed parallel services from Kelly.

Astrakhan man could have payed Kelly in other commodities than money - food, clothing etcetera. It would of course still amount to sex for compensation, but not necessarily for money.

Maybe it can be argued that sex for compensation was exactly what Sally meant - but then she should have said so. Not that it would have helped her case, since NO commodities, NO compensation OR money are mentioned.

The core point is that we cannot be certain in any way that money was offered, as Sally claims. We can´t even be sure that any compensation at all was offered, although it is the most obvious bid. It is a fact that no compensation at all is mentioned.

After this, we may speak of "painfully unlikely alternative scenarios" as much as we want - but it will not change the fact that money was not mentioned in the Hutchinson story, while it WAS in the other one. So the two stories do not go on the list of factual similarities for that reason.

I answer with a resounding "no", Fisherman, on the basis that I don't believe Astrakhan existed, less still offered anyone phantom money.

Yes, but that is another question, Ben.

If you're asking me if Hutchinson wanted to create the impression that Astrakhan offered Kelly money, I'd say we require proof of this obvious reality as much as we require proof that there isn't a turquoise hippo called Henry currently hiding underneath your house.

Wrong. I can prove that there is no turquoise hippo hiding under my house, Ben.
But you can´t prove that money was offered by Astrakhan man in exchange for sex. Once again, it is the obvious bid that this was so, but that is not and has never been the issue.

The issue was - and remains - that we do not have it on record. And Sally claims that we do in her list.

I trust you can see that there is a very large difference?

I know, and it's a misleading title because there is no evidence that Klosowski was a "dandy" when he was living in Cable Street. By the time he returned from America, he had dandified himself to an extent after reinventing himself as George Chapman. No evidence that he wore a sailor's cap during his time in Cable Street either.

Isn´t it bleedin ovious that he did so??? We know that he wore one on photos taken in London, so why would we even argue that he did not do so in Cable Street?

You see, Ben? This is not how a case should be argued. If we have no proof, we have no proof, and then we accept it.

So you are perhaps correct - maybe we don´t know that he wore a peaked cap in Cable Street. I won´t bother to check.

I will simply point to the fact that we have Chapman on photos from his time in London, and he always is quite respectably dressed in those photos. In a number of them, he wears a peaked cap. And then I point to what Lewisohn said about him, making a few significant words bold:

'There he sits, that is his description, he has not altered from the day he came to England, he has not even a grey hair, always the same la di da'.

.... which to me seemingly says that Chapman was always the posh type.

Finally, I add that there actually never was any question about whether Chapman wore a peaked cap in Cable Street.
The question was whether peaked caps belonged on the heads of respectably clad men in the East End at the approximate time of the Ripper scare. And Chapman is a very good example that this was so.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I'm coming back for you, Fisherman.

I'm a bit behind on sorting out some of the Wickerman stuff, so bear with me!

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I don't share your perceived necessity to demonstrate that "coincidences exist". I'm quite sure we all get that, but the bone of contention here is whether these particular "coincidences" were just that - pure freak random unrelated coincidences, and all the more astonishing for that, OR not-so-astonishing related events, with one precipitating the other. You may as well be arguing that wildly improbable things “happen”. Yes they do, but I would never pick a wildly improbable (or wildly “coincidental”) solution as the correct one on that basis, and frankly, it’s a bit of a worry if the defense of Hutchinson’s supposed truthfulness must rely, of necessity, on wildly improbable coincidence.

I don’t think much more needs to be said on those rubbishy discredited offerings from Roney, Paumier and chums. You’ll forgive my “jesting” – which is designed to ridicule the sources in question, and not the posters defending them - but if we’re running away with the idea that a few press-only accounts of spooky, black bag/parcel-carrying well-dressed weirdos equates to evidence of the real Jack the Ripper being such a man, then we’re doing what Nessie-hunters do when they accept that lots of crap Nessie sightings points towards evidence of a pre-historic monster in Loch Ness. Hoaxers and publicity-seekers will always pick the "interesting" option, as represented in this case by black bag silk hat man, and what an “interesting” coincidence that these mostly appeared in the press before sinking without trace well in advance of the inquest, whereas the prime suspects to emerge from the latter were ostensibly shabby working class men.

It was observed by one reporter that a particular account - almost certainly Sarah Lewis’ – was being repeated by half a dozen women seeking to pass it off as their own experience. There is your explanation for the “similar” accounts of a man with a black bag. There is your explanation for Roney, Kennedy, and very possibly the unnamed female source for the Daily News article. At the moment, your barometer for determining eyewitness accuracy seems to be: well, if an early press account said it, and Hutchinson also said it three days after the press account had been in the public domain, it must be legit. You need to be a lot more discerning than that. The press tattle from 10th of November – which the late Philip Sugden wisely cautioned us to “discount” – is not an “independent source”. It is something that Hutchinson could have read and then fleshed out to his advantage. You may as well argue that what Bonnie said must be true because Clyde “corroborates” it. Great.

The press tattle in question is no less crap because it might be loosely based on the experiences of a genuine witness.

“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".”

It is based on the actual content of the statement (i.e. evidence), the circumstances surrounding the timing and presentation of that statement (i.e. evidence), other eyewitness testimony (i.e. evidence), and the fact that the statement was discredited (i.e. evidence). Challenge that last point if you fancy going round in repetitive circles, I entreat you.

“Not really, MacDonald did not concern himself with peripheral details”

But it wasn’t a “peripheral detail”. If true, it was about as relevant a detail as the inquest was likely to turn up, impacting as it would have done on the question of a) the time at which the woman was killed, and b) the possible perpetrator. If MacDonald considered it true but irrelevant, he was the biggest moron in history, but fortunately for the truth, it is quite clear he didn’t.

“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?”

It’s the same unidentified female witness, Jon. The report makes that very clear.

“There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased”

As I mentioned in my post to Fisherman, it would mean that the woman didn’t simply leave the area and go about her own business, but stuck around to monitor the interaction between Kelly and the client. The “coincidental” similarity with Hutchinson’s account of his behaviour after leaving Kelly is remarkable in the extreme. That doesn’t mean the report wasn’t an accidental merging of more than one story, but the important point is that it was presented as the experience of just one woman.

I never accused the “press” of making the story up. I’m quite sure they didn’t. It may have been a mixture of invention, confusion (Daily News style) and Chinese-whispered versions of genuine accounts.

“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.”

So after all these years of Hutch the squeaky clean witness, Jon suddenly decides that he lied to conceal his criminal activity. Welcome aboard, Jon…

Hutchinson’s claim to have “walked about all night” because the Victoria Home was closed was at odds with his earlier claim to have had no money. If he had no money, the closure or otherwise of the home is irrelevant, and he should have said that he walked about all night because he had no money to get in anywhere. It effectively disposes of the issue of an alibi, whether the claim was accurate or not. If you're "walking about" or sleeping in a stairwell at 3.30am, you simply don't have the means of verifying that activity, unless there were some people implausibly awake at that time and monitoring their doorway or stairwell.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

I was trying to follow the debate you were having with Sally, but all I managed to glean from your side was “Ben this, Ben’s that”. Flattered to be constantly in your thoughts and all that, Jon, but…

Why do you find it necessary to bring Joseph Isaacs and the Morning Advertiser into every Hutchinson discussion going? Just let both go, I would, or find a suitable, preferably non-Hutchinson thread in which to discuss them. The Morning Advertiser wasn’t even responsible for that silly error-ridden article that you champion as gospel. They obtained it from the Press Association while all other press sources were printing the far more accurate, far more up-to-date report circulated by the Central News. I’m not shooting the messenger here, but merely questioning why the messenger was forced, in this case, to rely on outdated and dodgy information, even though they were not themselves responsible for it. If they were an out-of-the-loop, B-team pub-trade publication, I guess that would explain it. Whether that also explains the numerous errors they printed about the Kelly murder is a discussion for another thread (he subtly hints...).

You bash the Star again, and bash me for failing to arrive at the laughable conclusion that everything they ever wrote must be invention, but most of us are capable of recognising the pros and cons of that particular paper. Star-bashing is such an outdated, black-and-white, narrow-minded and fogeyish thing to do.

I see you’re still trying to sell the extremely wrong idea that Lloyds weekly confused the Kelly and Famer cases, so it's straight back to the archives I go to find my original response. Ah yes, here it is:

He was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder for stealing a coat, whereas later, he was arrested and sentenced to hard labour for stealing a watch. These were two separate punishments for two separate offences, not to be confused with each other. Out of the window, then, must be hurled any justification for arguing "confusion" on the part of Lloyds Weekly. The Northern Daily Telegraph article tells us that he was "connected, not with the mutilations". Why? Because his prison alibi for the Kelly murder ruled him out for the latest "mutilation" murder. Having alibi'd him for Kelly, the police still wondered if he may have been responsible for the Farmer attack. Obviously he wasn't guilty there either, because his thieving ways provided him with another separate (i.e. unrelated to the first) prison alibi in that case too. But there is no confusion here, just two different alibis courtesy of two different thefts for two completely different items.

That’ll have to be you all Isaacs’d out for this thread, I’m afraid, or there’ll be further delves into the archives, and wouldn’t that be tedious?

Regards,
Ben

[Sally]

Why do you find it necessary to bring Joseph Isaacs and the Morning Advertiser into every Hutchinson discussion going?

I think the Morning Advertiser might have been me, actually - sorry.

I mentioned it in passing and Jon picked it up from there.

As for Isaacs, he was Hastrakhan-Higgins, as surely you know.

See? Completely relevant.

[Sally]

Desperation setting in?

Hah! No.

I have no idea whether he was in custody or not when Kelly was killed. As I have to keep on reminding you, contemporary evidence says he was. Whether other contemporary evidence says so as well, we'll see.

All in good time.

Thankfully, such demonstration does not await your approval, it is in black and white.

No, I don't think so.

If he was arrested before the trial then he was remanded in custody, not "imprisoned", as the article suggests.
The press do know the difference between 'remanded' and 'imprisoned', if not everyone here does.

What?? Are you seriously making that your argument?

And you suggest that I'm desperate...

"The police, however, were led to believe that he was connected, not with the mutilations, but with the recent attempt to murder a woman in George-street, Spitalfields."

Oh dear.

The chain of inference that you're linking together here doesn't really work. It's akin to your belief that Isaacs must have been Hutchinson's Astrakhan Man because he was once arrested whilst wearing a 'sham medal' liked a bit of bling and was living in Paternoster Row at the time.

Such is the danger of joining the dots and then deciding that you know what the picture is.

[Fisherman]

I'm coming back for you, Fisherman.

I'm a bit behind on sorting out some of the Wickerman stuff, so bear with me!

No probs, Ben.

In the end, the discussion we are having is easily determined.

We both know that there is no mentioning of any money or compensation for sex in the Hutchinson variant of the story.

We both know that it seems very obvious that it WAS a case of sex for compensation.

We both know that if Sally had not said that both stories had an element of sex for money recorded, we would not be having this discussion at all.

I suggest we leave it at that, although more could be said about that list (there is, for example TWO Dorset Street corners, and we don´t know which the Kelly colleague is speaking about, I believe ...)

As for Chapman and his peaked cap, however, I am prepared to battle the issue til hell freezes over.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Obviously? Yes it seems obvious.

It is obvious, Fisherman, inescapably so.

According to Hutchinson, Kelly was on the streets in search of money, and we know for a fact that she obtained this by soliciting on the streets as a prostitute. He also claimed that shortly after leaving him and heading off in search of money, she encountered an affluent-looking individual and thereafter took him home. So inescapable is the conclusion that the Astrakhan encounter satisfied her search for money, and so offensively unlikely are the alternatives that we may refer back to Sally's list, and underline in indelible ink the part where she notes the parallels between Astrakhan offering Kelly money and the Daily News man doing likewise.

There is nothing that says that Astrakhan man could not have been a fiancée of Kellys.

That is as ludicrous as it is borderline impossible. I've illustrated as much using humour so as not to appear exasperated, but now I'm being blunt - the idea that we can can argue against Hutchinson being influenced by the Daily News article on the grounds that Astrakhan might have been Kelly's fiance is absolutely effing preposterous, and I'm quite sure you won't dispute that.

Similarly:

Astrakhan man could also, for example, have enjoyed freebies from Kelly´s side - it was anything but unusual that such affairs took place.

...is scary nonsense.

Kelly was out looking for money in the small hours of a miserable night, according to Hutchinson and his supporters, and nothing could be more indicative of financial desperation. The idea of somebody in that predicament dishing out a freebie doesn't bear the slightest scrutiny. We're not even talking about a knee-trembler here, but rather an all-nighter in her room, which was the equivalent of an whole night's worth of freebies. Absolutely and emphatically no way.

Astrakhan man could have payed Kelly in other commodities than money - food, clothing etcetera. It would of course still amount to sex for compensation, but not necessarily for money.

You're seriously suggesting that a man dressed in Astrakhan garb was likely to offer food in exchange for a shag, instead of money that he so obviously had? "As you can see from my thick gold chain, I have no money to give you, but I have a delicious turnip in my black parcel. Just one bite is worth the sixpence you charge for a quick in-out no-strings-attached job, but a whole turnip means I get you for a whole night."

Clothes?

What item of clothing was Astrakhan likely to sacrifice in lieu of money? His gaiters perhaps?

The Daily News account stated that the respectably clad man offered Kelly money, while Hutchinson's account makes clear that Astrakhan man did precisely that. There is congruity on this point, irrefutably so, and Sally's point is wholly sustained. This only ceases to be the case if we contemplate the patently ludicrous and insanely unlikely, and that's not something I propose to do.

Wrong. I can prove that there is no turquoise hippo hiding under my house, Ben.

No, you can't.

It might have have ducked into a corner when you weren't looking.

It might have been beamed back up to its spaceship.

The universe is a vast, vast place, Fisherman, and I'm surprised to see you confidently ruling out that which you can't rule out, i.e. far-away planets that are populated exclusively by turquoise hippos.

You can call it unlikely, sure...

I will simply point to the fact that we have Chapman on photos from his time in London, and he always is quite respectably dressed in those photos.

But that was ten years after the ripper murders, after he returned from America; after he had re-invented himself as George Chapman and attempted to pass himself off as an American; after he had earned the sort of a money that could realistically finance a dandy appearance. It was also after he'd spent time in Hastings, where he bought a boat and became quite the sailing enthusiast. The peaked sailor's cap was probably a leftover from those days. The ripper murders occurred before any of this.

'There he sits, that is his description, he has not altered from the day he came to England

Ah, but significantly, the "from the day he came to England" bit does not appear in the original transcripts. It snuck in afterwards.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Ah, Fish...round and round we go...

We both know that if Sally had not said that both stories had an element of sex for money recorded, we would not be having this discussion at all.

I suggest we leave it at that, although more could be said about that list (there is, for example TWO Dorset Street corners, and we don´t know which the Kelly colleague is speaking about, I believe ...)

Your argument is pedantic and thus essentially meaningless.

It doesn't matter a whit that there is no specific reference to a monetary transaction between Kelly and her potential fiance Astrakhan Man; because the context of the encounter is bleedin' obvious.

Everybody knew what it signfied then; and pretty much everybody understands it now. It's a non-issue.

As for the two corners of Dorset Street - don't even bother. It's also a total non-issue.

It is both the common elements in both stories and the common sequence of events that ties them together. The commonality between them is highly specific - and there's no getting away from it.

.

[Sally]

Sorry...

It is obvious, Fisherman, inescapably so.

I cross-posted [again, tsk!]

[Ben]

I think the Morning Advertiser might have been me, actually - sorry

Nah, you're officially off the hook, Sally.

Twas the Wickster on the 12th April.

The ruddy rubbish rag's reappeared regularly thereafter.

And those are rolled "r"s, by the way (damn it, I can't stop Higginsing now!)

[Sam Flynn]

it is noteworthy that Lawende's sighting of the even-more-likely ripper made no reference to a blotchy complexion of a carroty moustache. This is best explained by...

...Lawende being much further away from Sailor-Man than Cox was from Blotchy.

d) Lawende... a detailed description of the man's clothing, headgear and neckware.

Two things:

1. I don't see Lawende's description as superior than Cox's in those respects. Indeed, both descriptions map onto "generic East End hobo" to some degree.
3. Lawende was describing the chap's clothing. It's not as if it was his "uniform".