The Red Handkerchief...

[sleekviper]

Yes Ben, bending light causes a change in intensity. The intensity of light is the relationship of photons; the closer they are, the brighter the light. The property of glass is not going to slow every photon at the exact same rate, so photons that were never going to simulate the same path, now do.

[DJA]

Not familiar with Victorian mens wear?

There was a wide range of styles of Gaiters, some had a stirrup fitting at the bottom that looped under the instep. This style did not cover the instep.
Also, men's buttoned boots tend to button up from the bottom of the instep, which means, if worn with the afore mentioned gaiter the buttons would be visible at the front.

http://antique-gown.com/index.php/en/victorian_shoes/victorian-lace-up-boots-with-spats,-ca-1890.html

There are a number of pictures taken at different angles.

http://antique-gown.com/index.php/en/victorian_shoes/black-victorian-high-button-boots,-ca-1900.html

Women's,however you get the idea.


If the gas lamps outside the two different Public House were in the same spot as today's lamps,we have a "problem".
The Queens Head lamp is up Fashion Street a bit.
Ten Bells is pretty much on the streets corner.

[DJA]

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. He'd hardly be standing next to Mary and AM while they were kissing and chatting at the entry to Millers Court! He saw what he saw from a distance.

If he saw the alleged red handkerchief from a distance in semi darkness.....try replicating that at 15 - 20 feet.

Oddly Hutchinson said he saw Mr A at the Ten Bells Public House,until some unknown person changed the Police statement.

OP was questioning the whereabouts of the red handkerchief after Mary Kelly's demise.

[DJA]

"Not familiar with Victorian mens wear?"

I am actually.

Hutchinson was describing gaiters with white buttons ie spats,which cover the instep and any boot buttons.

I've worn both gaiters and spats,the latter with a Gordon Highlanders kilt.

"A pardon was issued before Hutchinson came forward."

I am obviously referring to the pardon Phillips sought immediately after Hutchinson came forward.

Firstly,given Hutchinson's superhuman observations,confusing those two pubs is remarkable.
Does not look like Abberline's handwriting.

[Rosella]

Crikey,he can also see through gaiters to the buttons on the boots.

Also,according to at least one newspaper, Mary's companion had a seal on the gold chain.

Anyone checked Ancestry for Clark Kent!

Still reckon Hutchinson was a lookout for Jack the Ripper and that his description of "A Man" was a not too subtle way of reminding Abberline etc that he was untouchable.

When Phillips sought a pardon,they dropped Hutchinson like a hot potato.

Incidentally,who changed the hotel in Hutchinson's Police statement from the Ten Bill (sic) to the Queens Head Public House without initialing it?

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. He'd hardly be standing next to Mary and AM while they were kissing and chatting at the entry to Millers Court! He saw what he saw from a distance.

[Wickerman]

Crikey,he can also see through gaiters to the buttons on the boots.

Not familiar with Victorian mens wear?

There was a wide range of styles of Gaiters, some had a stirrup fitting at the bottom that looped under the instep. This style did not cover the instep.
Also, men's buttoned boots tend to button up from the bottom of the instep, which means, if worn with the afore mentioned gaiter the buttons would be visible at the front.

When Phillips sought a pardon,they dropped Hutchinson like a hot potato.

A pardon was issued before Hutchinson came forward.

Incidentally,who changed the hotel in Hutchinson's Police statement from the Ten Bill (sic) to the Queens Head Public House without initialing it?

Back in the archives someone claimed that the correction was made by Abberline. I'm not sure the person was qualified to judge.

[DJA]

Amazing.

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

Crikey,he can also see through gaiters to the buttons on the boots.

Also,according to at least one newspaper, Mary's companion had a seal on the gold chain.

Anyone checked Ancestry for Clark Kent!

Still reckon Hutchinson was a lookout for Jack the Ripper and that his description of "A Man" was a not too subtle way of reminding Abberline etc that he was untouchable.

When Phillips sought a pardon,they dropped Hutchinson like a hot potato.

Incidentally,who changed the hotel in Hutchinson's Police statement from the Ten Bill (sic) to the Queens Head Public House without initialing it?

[Wickerman]

Amazing.
First we get someone trying to convince us that Hutch is a liar because "he thinks" red looks blue in poor light.
Then another tried to tell us that Hutch was a liar because "he thinks" it was pitch black at 2:00 am.
Now, further down the yellow brick road we have another who has backed himself into a corner by needing to quantify what the luminous intensity of "dim" actually was!

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

[Ben]

Hi Sleeks,

"Bending" the direction of the light would have done nothing to enhance its intensity, and on the latter point, there is absolutely no disputing that the light emitted was negligible in comparison to just five years later, after the technology had been invented for making gas lamps brighter. Prior to 1891, anyone haunting the streets of London had to make do with naked flames under glass, and it shouldn't require a lot in terms of either imagination or experimentation to determine that they were only capable of emitting a dim glow.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Thankyou S.V.
The wall lamps along the north side of Dorset St. (photo in "Ultimate"), are all open bottom.

[sleekviper]

Lighting had a dual purpose in those days, it is seen in the shape of the cover surrounding the flame. Light waves travel in a straight line, thus we have shadows when an object appears in front of the source. Glass and water allow light to pass through, but at the same time slow the speed of light, causing it to bend. When a object is partway in water, for instance, it looks bent or not attached. That is the bending of light causing the effect making the object appear distorted. When the base, holding the source of light, is smaller than the area of glass that the light will pass through, light will bend below the area as it passes through the glass. Victorian street lamp covers angled the glass away from the source, so that light would bend down and not simply travel straight. If the sole purpose was a beacon, like a lighthouse, the design is different; a reflector around the source keeps the majority of light focused in a set direction. So by design, light was bent up, seen at a distance, and bent down for use directly below. For the purpose of a beacon, it would have a concave reflector around the source to focus strictly for distance.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Now, as you know, there are those on here who will repeat the assertion that, "Hutchinson never told police.....(something).
Given that we have no knowledge what was discussed in that interrogation, then it is incorrect to make such a claim.
This is where the interrogation report enters the debate.

An "interrogation report" doesn't enter any debate for the simple reason that no such thing ever existed. There was a a report accompanying the statement (which has survived), and there were probably notes written in a pocket book, taken down by Abberline at the time of the "interrogation".

I don't recall anyone every asserting that "Hutchinson never told the police" X or Y detail. What I have observed is that Abberline had the opportunity to pass on any details that emerged from that interrogation, and what's more; he did precisely that - he mentioned that Hutchinson had known Kelly for three years and occasionally lent her money, amongst other details. Would Abberline deliberately withhold information that was more important than this? The answer is obviously no, which unfortunately nullifies the argument that all our doubts and suspicions regarding Hutchinson would be put to rest if only we had access to these "lost notes".

From what I know of police paperwork in 1888, there were no interrogation forms, they used the same standard letter head stationary.

But the accepted convention, then and now, electronically or otherwise, is to make reference to any additional paperwork accompanying the "forwarding note", and that is precisely what Abberline did; he forwarded the statement and mentioned that he was forwarding it. He would certainly have done likewise for other bits of paper had they existed.

Witness statements, hundreds of them.

You're suggesting that Abberline spent the fours hours between the interrogation and the submission of the statement looking through "hundreds" of witness statements. What could he possibly have been hoping for that might have vindicated Hutchinson?

I understand you seem to be a numbers man, not me, and I dare say, not the majority on Casebook either.
I look upon that as a schoolyard mentality.

I'm very pleased to hear it, Jon; in which case I don't expect to hear another word about "vocal minorities".

If there was to be a second sitting Mrs Kennedy would have been one among another 4 or 5 witnesses.

No, she wouldn't have been.

If there was "to be a second sitting", it was to ensure the existing inquest witnesses, Phillips most notably, were quizzed on matters that were not covered during the first "sitting". There was never any suggestion of introducing brand new witnesses. Had Kennedy been treated as genuine but was kept in reserve for some crazy, senseless reason, the authorities would have ensured that a second sitting occurred if only to accommodate her evidence. What certainly would not have been tolerated under any circumstances is what you seem to be envisaging: "Oops, that inquest finished a bit early, but we forgot to use the most important eyewitness, and we're not going to have a second sitting. Bugger!".

Lighting had to be sufficient or the police would not assemble beneath such a light source for illumination while exchanging notes.

Did you have a look at that video I posted of a Bray Burner gas lamp? You'll observe that the negligible amount of light in emitted would have facillitated the "exchanging (of) notes", but very little else.

Abberline is not concerned with convincing his superiors that the witness saw the deceased, and besides, "those notes" he does provide cannot in any way constitute an "interrogation".

Yes, he would most certainly have been "concerned with convincing his superiors that the witness saw the deceased" - even Caz agrees with me on that one. I realise that the notes on the accompanying report do not "constitute an interrogation", but they were obviously the notes that Abberline considered to be the most important to have emerged from the interrogation.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Something im sure the police picked up on, with another one fresh in their minds-Packer. Which would help explain him dropping like a stone from the case.

Agreed, Abby.

Dropped like a stone on the assumption that he was a fame or publicity-seeker, just as a whole host of dud witnesses had been before him. Might they have overlooked other possible explanations for him telling fibs? Yes, of course, but under the circumstances, who can blame them?

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Ah, but that's not what I've been arguing, Jon.

My point has always been that you cannot rely on "lost reports",

I don't think that is the way it goes Ben.
I am quite satisfied with what was in the Statement (though it could have been more detailed).
We also have Abberline's opinion in writing, and the fact he conducted an interrogation - so far so good.

Now, as you know, there are those on here who will repeat the assertion that, "Hutchinson never told police.....(something).
Given that we have no knowledge what was discussed in that interrogation, then it is incorrect to make such a claim.
This is where the interrogation report enters the debate.

There would be no need to debate the existence of such a report if those erroneous claims had not been made. In other words, it is one way of reminding those members that "they/we" do not know everything said between Hutchinson and police - and that, is the fact of the matter.

So lets refrain from talking about what Hutchinson did not say to police, because we simply do not know all what was said.

There is plenty "existing to indicate as much", most notably the covering report, which makes no mention of other documents being submitted in addition to the statement.

The notes taken by Abberline are also attributed to Hutchinson, all of it collectively is his statement to police.
From what I know of police paperwork in 1888, there were no interrogation forms, they used the same standard letter head stationary. So there actually is no distinction between his voluntary statement and the information given to Abberline.

Regardless, the fact Abberline does not make a distinction is not proof those notes were not included.

Giving Abberline time to check...what? You still haven't addressed this question.

Witness statements, hundreds of them.

What you describe as "my" claims did not, in fact, originate with me, and were advanced long before I became interested in this subject.

Ok, so they are the claims you champion then

The forums I generally attend do not demonstrate any partisan collaboration, each member stands on his own not looking for appreciation from others.
I understand you seem to be a numbers man, not me, and I dare say, not the majority on Casebook either.
I look upon that as a schoolyard mentality.

But there was every expectation that he would have let the woman believed to have been the last witness to see Kelly alive with the potential murderer speak, as opposed to withholding her in preference to other witnesses

Being slated for a possible second sitting is not "holding the witness back".
If there was to be a second sitting Mrs Kennedy would have been one among another 4 or 5 witnesses. We cannot know for sure, but the possibility exists, and that means it is untrue to claim Kennedy was not believed or she would have been at the first sitting.

I doubt very much that your source would disagree with my observations, based as they are on the known capabilities of gas lamps prior to 1891.

Lighting had to be sufficient or the police would not assemble beneath such a light source for illumination while exchanging notes.

For the same reason that other details from the interrogation were repeated in the cover report (stop calling it a "note", that's not what it was),

Don't get so testy, that cover report includes "those notes", that is what I am referring to.

You'll notice that these details are all concerned with establishing Kelly's identity, and her clothing would have been an obvious and logical detail to include in that particular mix (in support of Hutchinson's identification being correct), if Hutchinson had provided it, of course.

Abberline is not concerned with convincing his superiors that the witness saw the deceased, and besides, "those notes" he does provide cannot in any way constitute an "interrogation". If anything, those sample notes are nothing more than casual details.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,



Yes, I find it very perplexing that anyone should think along those lines (most don't, of course, which is reassuring). I can only suggest that some people are so paranoid that any concession that Hutchinson might have lied might fuel suspicions that he might also have been a murderer, that the screamingly obvious tends to get resisted at all costs.

I suspect that these same people would concede the point if it wasn't for that paranoia.



It's a great point, Abby.

It's amusing in some ways - the suggestion that Hutchinson considered it terrifically important to relate details of the material used to construct the man's shirt collar, but worthless to mention anything about standing outside the victim's feckin' window and only recording silence and darkness from within, i.e. an obvious potential sign of a murder already committed.

I'm afraid it's only fair and necessary to call nonsense on that one.

All the best,
Ben

yes Ben-exactly.

And if the Hutch Defenders use the reason that he only added it to the press account to embellish and spice up his account, then he is at the very least a liar, noncredible and time wasting "witness".

Something im sure the police picked up on, with another one fresh in their minds-Packer. Which would help explain him dropping like a stone from the case.