The Red Handkerchief...

[Ben]

Hi all,

Hutchinson obviously said nothing about Kelly’s attire, and equally obviously, he wasn’t asked about it by the police. His claim to have known her for three years would have been sufficient, in the minds of the police, to eradicate any doubt that he saw the deceased. Even so, protocol being what it was, the police asked Hutchinson to attend the mortuary early on the 13th November in order to identify her, which he did. This was a far better means of establishing identity than describing unremarkable clothes of the type worn by many a woman in Kelly’s circumstances. Had Abberline felt obliged to ask for a description of Kelly’s attire, it would certainly have appeared either in the statement itself or in Abberline’s accompanying report.

Its absence tells us that it wasn’t inquired about (pending the far more identity-clinching mortuary visit) or else Hutchinson claimed not to have noticed Kelly’s clothes, so intent was he on the marvel that was Astrakhan man (or so he might have claimed).

The press interview occurred after the mortuary identification, rendering a clothing description all the more pointless and superfluous for establishing an already-cemented identification.

Even in the epically unlikely event that Hutchinson did supply a description of Kelly’s clothing that mysteriously didn’t appear in either the statement or the report (making Abberline and his subordinates breathtakingly incompetent), it wouldn’t impact in the slightest on the question of honesty and potential culpability. If he was a publicity-seeking liar, he could simply have read the existing descriptions of her clothing on the night of her death, and if he was a murderous liar, he would have seen the clothes himself – either on Kelly’s body or discarded on her bedroom floor (or folded up if we accept the odd press account).

“Hutchinson” or “Mr. Hutchinson” strikes me as oddly formal for an acquaintance going back three years, i.e. considerable longer than most of her other associates, especially one who allegedly knew her “very well”. If Hutchinson was an older, venerable gent with whom Kelly had an avuncular relationship, it would make more sense, but that wasn’t the case. I don’t agree that “Mr. Hutchinson” was flirty and coquettish – first names work a lot better for that.

The oddity is neatly explained, in my opinion, if he was worried (for whatever reason) about Kelly’s true friends and acquaintances reading his account and wondering why she never said anything about this “George” bloke, with whom she was supposed to go waaaaay back. “Hutchinson” and “Mr. Hutchinson” gets round that problem by implying formality and distance, and thus a reason for the non-mention of dear ol’ George in Kelly's reminiscences about her past.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“I very strongly advice against inferring that those who do not agree with you are not of sound mind.”

I made no such inference. I invited those of sound mind to join me in confidently ruling out ludicrous scenarios, bearing in mind that it is quite possible to rule a ludicrous thing out – such as William Gull being Jack the Ripper - without declaring it impossible. Your argument seems to rely on the shaky premise that because we can’t completely discard the ludicrous alternatives to Astrakhan offering Kelly money (in the scenario allegedly witnesses and described by Hutchinson), we’re not permitted to state the obvious, i.e. that Astrakhan was doing precisely that, if indeed he existed and behaved as Hutchinson described.

I just don’t see the attraction of that pedantically purist approach. It is not “intellectually corrupt” to recognise the overwhelmingly obvious after discarding the utterly ludicrous, and it is overwhelmingly obvious that Astrakhan – as depicted by Hutchinson - was a client who did as clients do and offered the prostitute some money before going home with her, just as Mr. Respectable did in the suspiciously similar Daily News account. The latter was apparently overheard to offer Kelly money, whereas in Astrakhan’s case, Hutchinson makes it inescapably obvious and abundantly clear that the presumed client was doing precisely that. Realistically, therefore, this is one indication among many of suspicious non-“coincidental” similarity between the accounts.

Hutchinson’s account is almost certainly derived, in part at least, from the Daily News account. That is the only realistic and non-absurd explanation for these astonishing parallels and coincidences. “Almost certainly” is therefore the expression I’m using to describe this reality, and it is the expression I will continue to use (and defend to the death of necessary, pending further persistence on this point).

“Sadly, though, the point in the list said that she had no money - which is a different thing from looking for money.”

She was looking for money in both accounts, and ONLY those accounts. If “Kelly is looking for money” doesn’t appear on the list, then consider it added immediately. In neither account is it known how much money she had, if any, prior to embarking on her money-seeking walkabout, but it’s a safe bet that when and if Kelly asked Hutchinson for sixpence, she didn’t mean as a nice little addition to a wad of notes she had already collected. “I must go and find some money”, Kelly allegedly said, not “please add to my collection” (shakes money jar).

“I would stretch to "fair", Ben - never to "extremely useful". To reach that verdict, it will have to be something more significant than two people parting.”

But it’s not just “two people” parting, as we’ve discovered. It’s Kelly and associate meeting at night time near Dorset Street, with the former moving along after a brief conversation about the hunt for money, and then bumping into a respectably dressed man. Extremely specific and precise.

“I never suggested any schism. The description could point to the exact same clothing. The problem is that it could also point to totally different clothing”

The description isn’t “pointing” to anything in reality because the Daily News account is the product of invention and/or confusion. It is ludicrous to argue that an invented respectably-dressed man might have been a different kind of respectably dressed to a real man (assuming for the sake of argument and giggles that Astrakhan man was not an invention) – about as ludicrous as looking at the Mona Lisa and wondering what underwear she has on.

“You are wrong. It is not irrefutably what happened”

Yes, it is.

It is irrefutably what happened, short of eye-wateringly preposterous alternatives, and I dismiss eye-wateringly preposterous alternatives. Feel free to go round with me in circles on this.

“But it does not say in the quotation that the world is round, does it?

The exact same thing applies in Sallys point. She says that it is said in both versions that Kelly was offered money by her counterpart.”

I love the way you highlighted an extract from a poem about billboards and trees, and then conceded it had absolutely nothing to do with any aspect of anything we’re discussing here! Just fond of it, eh? It is rather nice. Oh, wait, you were using it as an example of a piece of writing that says nothing about the earth being round (or anything about the earth being anything, for that matter). In which case, I’m glad to accept that the alternatives to Astrakhan offering Kelly money for sex are equal to “flat earth” theories in terms of pure nonsense value. I hold out renewed hope that you might understand now: if a source doesn’t explicitly say “he offered her money” but nonetheless makes it clear – short of “flat earth” alternatives – that that is precisely what happened, I conclude that he offered her money, and so inescapable is this conclusion that if I were to find another source that DOES say explicitly say “he gave her money”, I will consider it identical to the first source on that point.

“It is a proven fact that no such offer is mentioned. It does therefore not belong to a list of similarities.”

Yes, it does, and I’m keeping it there forever. In fact I might write the list out again, and highlight the irrefutable similarity in bold. It depends if you drop the issue. It doesn’t need to have been mentioned if the alternative is so ridiculous it belongs on a par with flat-earth theories.

“How about "You can have my vest chain for sex - itŽs gold!". Or anything else that was not money but still useful enough to purchase sex for?”

How about no, Fisherman, because it is obviously absurd and not worth contemplating for a second.

A gold chain for a single sexual encounter when Kelly would normally have charged a few pence? A man as affluently dressed as Asrakhan clearly had money secreted about his person that he could have paid for sex with, as opposed to surrendering his precious accessories and clothing for that purpose.

“According to a poster out here - no names! - bringing a blotchy-faced man to her room, arm in arm, laughing and singing, was apparently not any stinkingly obvious affair of sex for money. It was in fact very unlikely that this was so - according to the self same source.”

That “self same source” was me, and I stand by the observation. I also note that if differs completely from the circumstances of Hutchinson’s alleged encounter with Kelly, in which the latter was not heavily intoxicated and whiling the hours away singing, but heading out in the small hours in search of money. A prostitute in the latter predicament is likely to be looking for a client.

“But it is not a "very precise and specific narrative", Ben. That is only in your head. There are many differences and the likenesses can all be very easily explained.”

This is as antagonistic as it is annoyingly ridiculous. There are not “many differences”, and the “likenesses” are so strong and plentiful that there can be no other explanation for them other than a link between the two, and by “link” I obviously mean one being based on the other. It is not only in “my” head, as it is clear others agree with me.

“And it would be a lot more odd if one of the witnesses had met her, plying her trade, in Oxford Street.”

Yes, it would be, but “oddness” is not a requirement here in order to register an identical sequence of events involving identical phraseology and the same characters, and I’ve explained why a million times. It isn’t odd that Kelly should ask people for money; the oddity here is that her behaviour on the night of her death as reported by genuine inquest witnesses is not consistent with desperation over money, or she wouldn’t have behaved as she did when seen by Mrs. Cox.

“And if the associate in the Daily News was another prostitute, what would she think was "respectable"? A jacket?”

The account is an invention. We don’t know who this “associate” was, or if she even existed. We know her account is nonsense, and we know there was no little boy living with Kelly at the time of her death in Miller’s Court. I don’t particularly care what a fabricator (or fabrication) considers “respectable”.

“The prostitutes in Millers Court DID take clients home.”

Some did. Others, apparently, did not.

Regards,
Ben

[Sally]

Hi Sally
No please suggest away!!! That was the basic point I was trying to make and have made several times in the past.

Hutches statement sounds like a script and a well rehearsed one at that.
Complete with interesting details, dialogue, action and intrigue.

No other witness description comes anywhere close.

Hi Abby,

It does sound like a script, doesn't it [ ]

It sounds rehearsed - and the most obvious explanation for that is that it was. In fact, there is no other viable explanation; and we knew this anyway, if we think about it.

Hutchinson's story was consistent when he was interviewed by Abberline; he stuck to his story throughout. We know then, that Hutchinson had his story fixed in his mind - he knew what he was going to say and he said it, repeatedly.

The majority of witness statements are not so clear cut - there is typically uncertainty or a lack of clarity in parts - for several reasons [ I don't propose to go down the old 'Was Hutchinson's memory extraordinary' road, or we really will be here all day]

I don't think there is any reason to doubt that Hutchinson's story was rehearsed and thus 'scripted'. To be fair, I don't think that stands as an indicator of dishonesty, necessarily. We should remember that Hutchinson had spent three days between his alleged encounter with Kelly to come forward with his story. That's plenty of time to fix the details in his mind - plenty of time to perfect his invention as well - I'm sure we'll see some differing views on that score!

But there are other points that are telling. Hutchinson's apparent ability to recall, in startling detail, the appearance of Astrakhan Man is in stark contrast to his apparent inability to remember, for example, which pub he stood against to observe Kelly and her mystery toff. I'm not sure his story would've made sense if he really had stood outside the Ten Bells, as he originally said - Oh no! Perhaps he slipped there...

Then there is the fact that the fine detail that makes Mr Astrakhan so memorable in his witness statement had changed by the time he talked to the press - where can we lay the responsibility for that? An errant journalist? Or Hutchinson himself?

Then there is the curious fact that he supplies no physical description of Kelly at all. I find that easier to account for in his statement to the police than in his account to the press; but its still odd.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Sally;293867]Morning Fish,

Nah, I was going to, but you've saved me the trouble

You're right, it is a minor difference, and I'm afraid I think it immaterial to the point in hand. It still isn't the informal 'George' is it?

Who says it is? What mattered to me was that we were running the risk of identifying two statements with many a differerence inbetween them as "exactly the same". Since we are discussing to what extent statements can be alike or not without it being suspicious, it would be an unfortunate mistake to make, and IŽm therefore glad you acknowledge the differences.

Nope, I think if he said 'Mr' we'd have seen 'Mr'. I was mistaken there, comes of always posting in haste - my own fault.

ThatŽs just fine, Sally - I do the exact same thing every now and then, As long as we acknowledge it, weŽll both be fine.

'Hutchinson' is still a bit peculiar, in my view.

Some obviously agree, others donŽt. In the end, it is a non-issue, I believe, not worth wasting much time on.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

Hutchinson obviously said nothing about Kelly’s attire, and equally obviously, he wasn’t asked about it by the police.

There are two things that are obvious here, Ben:

1. If Hutchinson gave a description, it did not make it into Badhams report.

and

2. Badhams report does not involve all the things that were asked from Hutchinson by Abberline.

These are facts.

Your claims are guesswork.

...the police asked Hutchinson to attend the mortuary early on the 13th November in order to identify her, which he did. This was a far better means of establishing identity than describing unremarkable clothes of the type worn by many a woman in Kelly’s circumstances.

There will be three options, basically, for a witness to use when asked "Is this dead woman the one you saw in Dorset Street, your aquaintance Kelly?"

1. To acknowledge that it is true, since you recognize the woman.

2. To be unable to be certain.

3. To lie and say "Yes it is" even if it is not true.

I would propose that somebody who was a timewaster and a liar, hoping to make a quick buck be falsely claiming an aquaintanceship with a victim, would be predisposed to lie in a case like this. Otherwise, it would be reward goodbye.

The only way in which the police can establish what is right or wrong is to ask the witnesses about as much as possible of the victimes appearance, clothing, demeanor etcetera.
This is a well known thing to the police, and it is the exact reason why they will do so.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

The only way in which the police can establish what is right or wrong is to ask the witnesses about as much as possible of the victimes appearance, clothing, demeanor etcetera.
This is a well known thing to the police, and it is the exact reason why they will do so.

Yet nothing has come down to us. How do you explain it, Fish?

[Sally]

Who says it is? What mattered to me was that we were running the risk of identifying two statements with many a differerence inbetween them as "exactly the same". Since we are discussing to what extent statements can be alike or not without it being suspicious, it would be an unfortunate mistake to make, and IŽm therefore glad you acknowledge the differences.

Yeah, but it isn't of any material importance to my argument. Sorry, Fish, but its pedantic - and irrelevant - to pick at it.

Its the formality of Kelly's use of his surname, rather than his forename; against his assertion that he knew her 'very well' and had done so for three years.

It's a cultural mismatch, as I said earlier. 'Mr' makes it even more so, insomuch as it has any effect.

[Fisherman]

Ben!

I will take Gareths advice and just make the one point that is of interest to me, and indeed, to the discussion at hand:

Was the word money ever mentioned by Hutchinson in his story about the meeting between Astrakhan man and Kelly, or was anything at all said about an affair in which Astrakhan man offered to trade either money or any other commodity for sex?

That, you see, is the only question we are discussing here. We are effectively NOT discussing how irrefutably you personally feel that this was so.

So itŽs a yes or no question, and VERY easy to answer. The answer in itŽs turn will tell us whether it was correct or not to list as a point of similarity that both the Daily News punter and Astrakhan man offered Kelly money in the two stories we are talking about.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Yeah, but it isn't of any material importance to my argument. Sorry, Fish, but its pedantic - and irrelevant - to pick at it.

Its the formality of Kelly's use of his surname, rather than his forename; against his assertion that he knew her 'very well' and had done so for three years.

It's a cultural mismatch, as I said earlier. 'Mr' makes it even more so, insomuch as it has any effect.

It is up to yourself to weigh your words, Sally. The second you claim that a mismatch is an "exact" match, you will be challenged.

I hope the exact same thing goes for me, because it is important that this is so.

When you trip over things like these, just admit it, go back, rephrase. You may have a good case, and you donŽt want that to go lost just because you feel a need to call those who are correct "pedantic".

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Yet nothing has come down to us. How do you explain it, Fish?

In the same fashion as I explain that the information about how long Hutch had known Kelly would not have come down to us if it had not been for Abberline gleaning a little bit about what was asked and answered at his interrogation.

You must also consider that Hutchinson would either have given an viable or an unviable picture of Kelly. If it was viable, Abberline would have believed him, if it was not, he would have doubted him.

We know that Abberline put faith in Hutchinson, so his description would tally with what they knew, and it would thus not be very productive to put it in the Badham report. Astrakhan man, however, was new - they would therefore put his description on paper.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

We know then, that Hutchinson had his story fixed in his mind - he knew what he was going to say and he said it, repeatedly.

This is how myths are born. Ugh!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

You may need to read this too, Sally:

"12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner Street from Commercial Street and having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed, he saw a man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out, apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road, 'Lipski', and then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man, he ran so far as the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far.

Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other. Upon being taken to the Mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen. He thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down:- age, about 30; ht, 5 ft 5 in; comp., fair; hair, dark; small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak, and nothing in his hands.

Second man: age, 35; ht., 5 ft 11in; comp., fresh; hair, light brown; dress, dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat, wide brim; had a clay pipe in his hand."

Question: why did not Schwartz' description of the woman end up in the report? Because he was never asked about it? Nota bene that Schwartz did NOT know Stride in advance, so he could not be counted upon to recognize her.

The police did not know whether Stride was standing in the entrance of Dutfields Yard at 12.45, mind you - another woman could have been standing there at that stage. There were women attending the club that evening, for example. It could have been one of them Schwartz saw, taking a breath of fresh air, getting attacked by BS man.

Could it be that the police asked Schwartz about these matters BEFORE they took him to the morgue, or did they provide him with an opportunity to lie if he was one of them timewasters that fill our boards?

Would they take that risk if they could eliminate it?

IŽll answer that one for you: Of course they wouldnŽt.

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

It does sound like a script, doesn't it [ ]

It sounds rehearsed - and the most obvious explanation for that is that it was. In fact, there is no other viable explanation; and we knew this anyway, if we think about it.

Hutchinson's story was consistent when he was interviewed by Abberline; he stuck to his story throughout. We know then, that Hutchinson had his story fixed in his mind - he knew what he was going to say and he said it, repeatedly.

The majority of witness statements are not so clear cut - there is typically uncertainty or a lack of clarity in parts - for several reasons [ I don't propose to go down the old 'Was Hutchinson's memory extraordinary' road, or we really will be here all day]

I don't think there is any reason to doubt that Hutchinson's story was rehearsed and thus 'scripted'. To be fair, I don't think that stands as an indicator of dishonesty, necessarily. We should remember that Hutchinson had spent three days between his alleged encounter with Kelly to come forward with his story. That's plenty of time to fix the details in his mind - plenty of time to perfect his invention as well - I'm sure we'll see some differing views on that score!

But there are other points that are telling. Hutchinson's apparent ability to recall, in startling detail, the appearance of Astrakhan Man is in stark contrast to his apparent inability to remember, for example, which pub he stood against to observe Kelly and her mystery toff. I'm not sure his story would've made sense if he really had stood outside the Ten Bells, as he originally said - Oh no! Perhaps he slipped there...

Then there is the fact that the fine detail that makes Mr Astrakhan so memorable in his witness statement had changed by the time he talked to the press - where can we lay the responsibility for that? An errant journalist? Or Hutchinson himself?

Then there is the curious fact that he supplies no physical description of Kelly at all. I find that easier to account for in his statement to the police than in his account to the press; but its still odd.

Hi sally
totally agree. I would just add that I also, find that phrases and statements in the story like:

she came up to me and said " Hutchinson, can you lend me.."

he took out a hankercheif,,,,,,a red one,,,,,,,and gave it to her

I met the murdered women Kelly

..all VERY awkward sounding and not at all natural if someone is explaining a series of events to someone.

I also find the description of the various detailed characters movements, all hitting there "Marks" of where they stood, walked, did this, did that etc. highly contrived, rehearsed and script like.

Let alone the clenchers of the unprobable amount of detail of aman, villainous appearance, amalgamation of previous descriptions of ripper suspects, Jewish and of course can be identified and oh yes he believes he knows where he lives.

Its obvious bullshit and if anyone believes it I have some wonderful oceanfront property in Kansas Id like to sell you.

[Sally]

This is how myths are born. Ugh!

Fisherman

Oh I think that one's already been born, enjoyed a tempestuous childhood and is now firmly established as a bona fide grownup Fish - myth or otherwise.

Anyway, all this is academic, if fabulous fun, because Hutchinson's account was demonstrably derivative. How's that? Back to square one, eh?

[Sally]

Hi Abby,

A lot of people have raised questions regarding Hutchinson's account - and still do. He has his share of supporters, which is fine - but scepticism shows no sign of abating elsewhere.

'Contrived and improbable' just about sums it up for me.