The Red Handkerchief...

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

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

But that’s ridiculous.

If Hutchinson gave a description, it would have "made it" in to Badham’s report, or failing that (and it wouldn’t have failed that!), Abberline would have mentioned it in his accompanying report. If it appeared in neither document, it wasn’t discussed at the interrogation. If that’s “guesswork”, then “midgets are short” is guesswork. You raise the good point that we would not have heard about Hutchinson’s alleged three-year acquaintance with Kelly were it not for Abberline’s report, but the fact that Kelly’s clothing doesn’t even appear in this document is extremely telling.

If Hutchinson provided a clothing description and it tallied “with what they knew”, it was even more essential for Abberline to commit that detail to paper, if only to provide substance to his “opinion” that the statement was true, enabling him to demonstrate as much to his superiors. Indeed, if Abberline and the police officials on the ground noticed anything in Hutchinson’s account that corroborated the evidence of other witnesses, it was never more essential to make an official note of it.

“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.”

No.

The "only way in which the police can establish" for certain if the woman mentioned in the witness account is the woman whose murder is under investigation, is to arrange for the witness in question to identify the woman at the mortuary. Anything else is arguably pointless, superfluous and misleading. The same is true of Schwartz (who you keep bringing into this discussion for some reason!), who agreed to visit the morgue to determine whether or not the woman he saw was Elizabeth Stride, thus rendering pointless the exercise of trying to recite non-descript clothes, just as in Hutchinson’s case.

You suggest that the police asked for a description of the woman in order to “eliminate” the possibility of lying, but how would that work? If Schwartz was a liar and hadn’t had any access to other descriptions of what Stride was probably wearing on the night of her death, all he had to was remain deliberately vague: “I didn’t really notice, because I was more preoccupied by the assault talking taking place and registering the appearance of the two men”. Problem solved, and a lying man doesn't injure his credibility just because he professes to have no recollection of the woman's clothes.

“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?”

I will say it again, and I hope for the last time:

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.

That is my position on the subject. I’m not alone, and I’m not budging, because I’ve been given no credible reason to.

All the best,
Ben

[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?

I would love to go back to square one, Sally. It involves looking at Hutchinson in an unbiased manner.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

But that’s ridiculous.

Much is in that world of yours.

Not in other people´s though.

I will say it again, and I hope for the last time:

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.

Once more, I did not ask you what you think you can conclude yourself about the business. I specifically said that this is another issue than the one we are discussing.

I asked you whether money or any other commodity was mentioned in Hutchinsons story. I further asked you if any affair involving sex was mentioned in it.

Yes or no, Ben?

Answer that, and THEN we can discuss what you specifically think. It will differ from what I think.


The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

"On remand for theft", is pre-trial, pre-sentence.

It may not be material in this context but "on remand" can also be post-trial, pre-sentence.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
In my opinion Hutchinson is one of the worst suspects ever fingered.
A witness who gave a statement is all he is...he may have initially been looked at as suspicious by the police, but once he convinced them of his honesty , no longer was he considered on the suspect list..
It is really that simple.and yet we persist[ some of us] in wasting time on this fruitless adventure.
Was G.H being totally honest ..who knows, was he just after five minutes of fame.who knows...was it financially motivated..who know..And to be frank ''who cares''..
We are on here to discuss who may have been JTR, are we not?
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

In my opinion Hutchinson is one of the worst suspects ever fingered.

...And it's an absurdly narrow-minded opinion - impossible to justify from an historical and criminological perspective.

This is deeply disappointing stuff from you, Richard.

Of the current crop of suspects touted as such, the individual we know as Hutchinson is one of the most credible, if not the most credible. There are good reasons for concluding that he loitered opposite the crime scene, and good reasons for concluding that he lied about his reasons for loitering thusly, only coming forward after he realised he'd been seen there. He was a local working class man who lived in the very heart of the murder district.

A witness who gave a statement is all he is...he may have initially been looked at as suspicious by the police, but once he convinced them of his honesty , no longer was he considered on the suspect list..

According to whose crystal ball - yours?

There is not a shred of evidence that he was "looked at as suspicious by the police", and if he "convinced them of his honesty" (an impossible feat, unless your crystal ball was made available) his account would not have been discredited, as we know it was.

My "fruitless adventure" - my obsessive quest if you like - is not to play your hobbyist game of hunt the ripper, but rather to demolish the unimaginative and biased objections to the patently reasonable, and it does anger me with a surprising intensity whenever I encounter such objections, I admit to my shame.

You aren't even consistent; you flit from one bad excuse for dismissing Hutchinson as a suspect to another. First we hear the usual, rather pleading appeal to face value acceptance: Why, oh why can we just take everything and face value, and just...believe!?", but then suddenly you're quite happy to entertain the idea of total fabrication in pursuit of "five minutes of fame", and that he was "financially motivated". But not murder. Oh heaven forfend, no. We can't have him behaving as other serial killers have behaved - loitering opposite the crime scene shortly before the murder, and injecting himself into the investigation afterwards. Feck, no!

We are on here to discuss who may have been JTR, are we not?

No.

A great many researchers and contributors are not. Others sensibly prefer to explore the victims' backgrounds and research the history and geography of the East End, both avenues being more wholesome and productive than ripper-hunting, in my view. But you trot along to other threads that serve the purpose of discussing "who may have been JTR". We were talking about possible sources for Hutchinson's Astrakhan story.

By the way, your radio show never happened.

I'll give you five times my usual salary if you prove me wrong.

[Fisherman]

It´s a good thing that there are many posters out here that can take balanced and unemotional criticism of their beliefs graciously.

Fisherman

[Ben]

(Going back a bit...)

Hi Abby,

Is it possible that someone else on casebook actually thinks as i Do, that the best candidate for the ripper is blotchy?

I would say he's one of the better contenders.

If he was the ripper, he was obviously the man seen in Church Passage by Lawende et al. The only potential problem is the absence of a blotcy face or carrotty moustache from that description, although this is arguably surmounted if the face and 'tache weren't conspicuously blotchy and carroty respectively. One man's blotches are another man's typical weathered-looking east ender, after all.

In this context, it might be worth considering earlier descriptions, such as Ada Wilson's of a "sunburnt" man of average height who wore a wideawake, and Joseph Taylor's (of Fiddymont fame) of a "shabby genteel" man with a ginger-coloured moustache.

Best regards,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

(Going back a bit...)

Hi Abby,



I would say he's one of the better contenders.

If he was the ripper, he was obviously the man seen in Church Passage by Lawende et al. The only potential problem is the absence of a blotcy face or carrotty moustache from that description, although this is arguably surmounted if the face and 'tache weren't conspicuously blotchy and carroty respectively. One man's blotches are another man's typical weathered-looking east ender, after all.

In this context, it might be worth considering earlier descriptions, such as Ada Wilson's of a "sunburnt" man of average height who wore a wideawake, and Joseph Taylor's (of Fiddymont fame) of a "shabby genteel" man with a ginger-coloured moustache.

Best regards,
Ben

Thanks Ben
as you know I consider Blotchy and hutch as 1 and 1a as viable suspects along with a handful of others.

re your point on Blotchy-yes I totally agree with you with all you've said here.
As a matter of fact the main problem I have with Blotchy IS reconciling his description, mainly the hair color, as that with schwartz, and marshall, as I believe that they all saw the ripper (along with Lawende)-the peaked cap man I always go on about. But I can chalk that up to what you've said and also that depending on conditions like lighting that could give the perception of darker hair and mustache, especially if the ripper had a "ginger" orange/light brown hair color.

and yes I have always considered blotchys description as basically consistant with Lawende and Ada wilsons man, but not of Taylors so thank you for pointing that out! I had always thought that the fiddymont man could be the ripper but missed the hair color bit-interesting.

[Abby Normal]

Hi,
In my opinion Hutchinson is one of the worst suspects ever fingered.
A witness who gave a statement is all he is...he may have initially been looked at as suspicious by the police, but once he convinced them of his honesty , no longer was he considered on the suspect list..
It is really that simple.and yet we persist[ some of us] in wasting time on this fruitless adventure.
Was G.H being totally honest ..who knows, was he just after five minutes of fame.who knows...was it financially motivated..who know..And to be frank ''who cares''..
We are on here to discuss who may have been JTR, are we not?
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard
Yes we are and its also a thread in the Hutchinson category in the suspect section, so obviously a lot of people "care" including this website.

[Observer]

Hi,
In my opinion Hutchinson is one of the worst suspects ever fingered.
A witness who gave a statement is all he is...he may have initially been looked at as suspicious by the police, but once he convinced them of his honesty , no longer was he considered on the suspect list..
It is really that simple.and yet we persist[ some of us] in wasting time on this fruitless adventure.
Was G.H being totally honest ..who knows, was he just after five minutes of fame.who knows...was it financially motivated..who know..And to be frank ''who cares''..
We are on here to discuss who may have been JTR, are we not?
Regards Richard.

Excellent post Richard. Well done!

Regards

Observer

[Sally]

It's almost worth posting a picture of a giraffe.

[Observer]

How about an ostrich with it's head in the sand?

[John Wheat]

Hi,
In my opinion Hutchinson is one of the worst suspects ever fingered.
A witness who gave a statement is all he is...he may have initially been looked at as suspicious by the police, but once he convinced them of his honesty , no longer was he considered on the suspect list..
It is really that simple.and yet we persist[ some of us] in wasting time on this fruitless adventure.
Was G.H being totally honest ..who knows, was he just after five minutes of fame.who knows...was it financially motivated..who know..And to be frank ''who cares''..
We are on here to discuss who may have been JTR, are we not?
Regards Richard.

I agree Richard the endless pontification on Hutchinson is a waste of time.

Cheers John

[Ben]

And yet here you are, John, wasting your own time on something you insist is not worthy of it.

Hi Abby,

Suffice to say I agree with all points!

All the best,
Ben