The Red Handkerchief...

[Ben]

Hi Abby,

One of the things that seems to be consistently missed by the Hutch beleivers is that they make the excuse in the huge difference between his police and press statements of him going in to the court as it being no big deal, or the police didn't write it down, or hutch honestly forgot to tell them that part.

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.

There is almost zero chance that all this detailed info on all their movements could have been recorded and yet the very crucial part about hutch following them into the court (a detail that includes Hutch admitting to now know exactly where the victim lived, let alone bringing him that much closer to the murder scene) was honestly forgotten about by hutch or the police neglected to record that part.

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

[Ben]

By all means, try insist no files have been lost. It's just a matter of facing reality, we can't tell what has been lost and what never existed. This is why arguments like, "he never told police.....(something)" just doesn't wash.

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

My point has always been that you cannot rely on "lost reports", less still assume or insist that they must have contained the very information that you want them to have contained. You'll notice I don't claim that Hutchinson must have slipped a murder confession under his mattress at the Victoria Home, which was destroyed in the Blitz.

There is nothing existing to indicate that several pieces of paper, his interrogation notes, did not accompany the cover note.

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. He didn't write: "An important statement has been made today, followed by an equally important interrogation, the notes for which I forward herewith, along with the statement itself", which he unquestionably would have done had there been other documents accompanying the statement and report.

The statement was taken at 6:00 pm, and sent by special detective to Abberline at Leman St. about 20 mins away, who naturally would return ASAP, so he could have been there before 8:00 pm - leaving four hours till midnight.

Giving Abberline time to check...what? You still haven't addressed this question. He could have confirmed that Hutchinson lodged at the Victoria Home and didn't have a known reputation as a dodgy, lying hound - anything else?

Preaching to the converted, Ben, how many outside your 'click' buy into your claims?
Equally, outside your 'click', how many find cause to dismiss the possibilities I offer?

Good point, Jon, there are probably scores of Isaacstrakhan-fanciers out there; they're just keeping very quiet for some reason. What you describe as "my" claims did not, in fact, originate with me, and were advanced long before I became interested in this subject.

There was no expectation that he let every witness speak who claimed to have seen Kelly alive later that night.

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 who claimed to have seen Kelly much earlier in the night. If you're suggesting that MacDonald favoured the 1.00am-2.00am, and used that as an excuse for not bothering with Kennedy, you'd be wrong, since Caroline Maxwell claimed to have seen Kelly considerably later than that, and he was quite happy to ensure that her evidence was provided.

You are only guessing, my source was not.

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.

There was nothing specific about those notes, they were very general.

Had the victim's description been included in his interrogation notes, then why repeat them on the cover note?

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), such as the detail that Hutchinson had known Kelly for three years, occasionally gave her money, and agreed to view her remains at the mortuary. 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.

All the best,
Ben

[harry]

Jon,
Believe who you like,I fail to see how my remarks conflict with anyone.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
That'll be those conveniently "lost-to-history" reports that "must have" contained that crucial Hutchinson-vindicating information if only Goering hadn't bombed them. Seriously though, the interrogation had already occurred by the time Abberline wrote his report accompanying the statement. What possible reason did he have for saving the juiciest bits for a later report?

Hi Ben.
By all means, try insist no files have been lost. It's just a matter of facing reality, we can't tell what has been lost and what never existed. This is why arguments like, "he never told police.....(something)" just doesn't wash.
We have to work with what we do see in writing, not what we don't.

As for "saving the juiciest bits", we don't know that he did. There is nothing existing to indicate that several pieces of paper, his interrogation notes, did not accompany the cover note. The original statement, three pages, is all that survived, along with the cover note.
The cover note does not say how many pieces of paper were submitted in total.

No, not "more likely four", but even that was nowhere near a sufficient amount of time to "check" the bulk of Hutchinson's claims and "prove" them correct, especially since most of them were conveniently unverifiable anyway.

It only needs to be a sample, not the whole, nor even the bulk.
The statement was taken at 6:00 pm, and sent by special detective to Abberline at Leman St. about 20 mins away, who naturally would return ASAP, so he could have been there before 8:00 pm - leaving four hours till midnight.

I think you need to open your eyes a little wider and take note of popular perception, and if I were you I'd stay very clear of popularity contests and dismissive references to "vocal minorities". Every single argument that I advance, and which you challenge, has more adherents than any of yours. Isaacstrakhan, anyone? Daily News? Kelly being descended upon by two well-dressed black package-carriers that night? I'm afraid these are all conspicuously one-man shows.

Preaching to the converted, Ben, how many outside your 'click' buy into your claims?
Equally, outside your 'click', how many find cause to dismiss the possibilities I offer?

The "good doctor" gave evidence at the inquest, whereas Kennedy did not appear at all. If Kennedy had commenced her narrative on the stand, only to be cut off before she had a chance to relate the ever-so-crucial "I saw Kelly at 3.00am" detail, you would have a valid comparison, but alas.

Macdonald was expected to provide an official time of death.
There was no expectation that he let every witness speak who claimed to have seen Kelly alive later that night.

If you recall, Macdonald was also at Millers Court that weekend along with Bond & Phillips, Macdonald being also a surgeon, I can't imagine they did not talk 'shop' between the three of them. Macdonald may have began the inquest with the belief that Kelly had died between 1:00-2:00 am, him learning this via Dr Bond (and possibly Phillips.).
He is not supposed to have a predetermined opinion, but his profession may have convinced him to agree with medical opinion expressed that weekend.

Because writing in gloomy light is soooo difficult (?). I do hope you're not disputing the point Harry and I have made;

You are only guessing, my source was not.

You've ignored the important point, Jon - Abberline's notes, which accompanied the statement, were specifically concerned with establishing the identity of the victim,..

There was nothing specific about those notes, they were very general.

Had the victim's description been included in his interrogation notes, then why repeat them on the cover note?
All we know for certain is that 4 pieces of paper survived, three pages of statement, and one cover note. That does not mean there was no other paperwork submitted, which from Commercial St. as a whole there must have been. It's all vanished except 4 pieces of paper.

[Abby Normal]

I feel a bit uneasy about the fact that, in contrast to the detailed description of Mr A, there is not one word about what Kelly was wearing.

Hi Robert
I agree. But since Hutch told them that they were friends, had known each other for several years and that mary had asked him, "Hutchinson, can you lend me..." thereby showing that she knew his name and they knew each other very well, that there was no doubt in the police minds that Hutch saw the right victim. Something that would need to be established with most witneses that didn't know the victim. And there for one way to to do that would be to ask what she was wearing-so not needed once hutch established that he knew her well.

and that brings up another odd thing about hutch-out of all the various witneses he is the only one who is not only a possible suspect but a witness who claimed to know the victim. Hmmmm... another red flag in my book.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Jon,



That'll be those conveniently "lost-to-history" reports that "must have" contained that crucial Hutchinson-vindicating information if only Goering hadn't bombed them. Seriously though, the interrogation had already occurred by the time Abberline wrote his report accompanying the statement. What possible reason did he have for saving the juiciest bits for a later report?



No, not "more likely four", but even that was nowhere near a sufficient amount of time to "check" the bulk of Hutchinson's claims and "prove" them correct, especially since most of them were conveniently unverifiable anyway.



I think you need to open your eyes a little wider and take note of popular perception, and if I were you I'd stay very clear of popularity contests and dismissive references to "vocal minorities". Every single argument that I advance, and which you challenge, has more adherents than any of yours. Isaacstrakhan, anyone? Daily News? Kelly being descended upon by two well-dressed black package-carriers that night? I'm afraid these are all conspicuously one-man shows.



The "good doctor" gave evidence at the inquest, whereas Kennedy did not appear at all. If Kennedy had commenced her narrative on the stand, only to be cut off before she had a chance to relate the ever-so-crucial "I saw Kelly at 3.00am" detail, you would have a valid comparison, but alas.



Because writing in gloomy light is soooo difficult (?). I do hope you're not disputing the point Harry and I have made; that gas lamps in 1888 were very well known to emit only a dim light - created by nothing more than a naked flame - prior to the invention of the gas mantle? This is level of illumination we're talking about here; enjoy the music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EOxkgjHnDA

You've ignored the important point, Jon - Abberline's notes, which accompanied the statement, were specifically concerned with establishing the identity of the victim, and it would have been logical in such a context to make reference to Kelly's clothing, had Hutchinson said anything about it. I afraid your usual "lost report" excuse simply won't avail you here.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben
One of the things that seems to be consistently missed by the Hutch beleivers is that they make the excuse in the huge difference between his police and press statements of him going in to the court as it being no big deal, or the police didn't write it down, or hutch honestly forgot to tell them that part.

it defies belief. Hutch recounted, and the police recorded, his story in terms of his and A-man and Marys movements so precisely-where they stood, where they spoke, where they walked, who did what when etc, etc,etc.

There is almost zero chance that all this detailed info on all their movements could have been recorded and yet the very crucial part about hutch following them into the court (a detail that includes Hutch admitting to now know exactly where the victim lived, let alone bringing him that much closer to the murder scene) was honestly forgotten about by hutch or the police neglected to record that part.

No, its obvious that hutch left that crucial part out of his police statement on purpose and later added it for the press account.

Now the only thing to ask is why? If its not for nefarious reasons like I have been mentioning before-he later thought someone saw him standing there so he admitted it later-then as many have suggested he lied about being that close to embellish and make the press account more exciting. Well at the very least, on this point, it is now demonstrated that he is a liar and his story lacks credibility.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Reports were submitted daily, if I recall, three times daily communications (mail?) were picked up & delivered.
You make it sound like this was the only time he sent in a report. You don't know if he sent further reports in subsequent pick-ups.

That'll be those conveniently "lost-to-history" reports that "must have" contained that crucial Hutchinson-vindicating information if only Goering hadn't bombed them. Seriously though, the interrogation had already occurred by the time Abberline wrote his report accompanying the statement. What possible reason did he have for saving the juiciest bits for a later report?

More likely four.

No, not "more likely four", but even that was nowhere near a sufficient amount of time to "check" the bulk of Hutchinson's claims and "prove" them correct, especially since most of them were conveniently unverifiable anyway.

Yes, and I don't see it as "popular". There is certainly nothing mainstream about Hutchinson being understood to have lied about anything.

I think you need to open your eyes a little wider and take note of popular perception, and if I were you I'd stay very clear of popularity contests and dismissive references to "vocal minorities". Every single argument that I advance, and which you challenge, has more adherents than any of yours. Isaacstrakhan, anyone? Daily News? Kelly being descended upon by two well-dressed black package-carriers that night? I'm afraid these are all conspicuously one-man shows.

Like Macdonald did with Dr. Phillips you mean?
Not even giving the good doctor the time to provide the official time of death, can't get much more important than that.

The "good doctor" gave evidence at the inquest, whereas Kennedy did not appear at all. If Kennedy had commenced her narrative on the stand, only to be cut off before she had a chance to relate the ever-so-crucial "I saw Kelly at 3.00am" detail, you would have a valid comparison, but alas.

Police chose 'point' location under lamps so the Inspector had enough light to make notes with the constable.
Didn't know that did you.

Because writing in gloomy light is soooo difficult (?). I do hope you're not disputing the point Harry and I have made; that gas lamps in 1888 were very well known to emit only a dim light - created by nothing more than a naked flame - prior to the invention of the gas mantle? This is level of illumination we're talking about here; enjoy the music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EOxkgjHnDA

We can only make judgements on what was written, the fact something was not written does not mean it was not discussed.

You've ignored the important point, Jon - Abberline's notes, which accompanied the statement, were specifically concerned with establishing the identity of the victim, and it would have been logical in such a context to make reference to Kelly's clothing, had Hutchinson said anything about it. I afraid your usual "lost report" excuse simply won't avail you here.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

I prefer to believe Neil.

[harry]

As Ben states,the street lamps were no more than beacons.A policeman had his own means of light for the purpose of writing in notebooks,and for illumination of objects not discernable by street lighting.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
But you probably are alone in suggesting that Swanson secretly rejected Anderson’s conclusions with regard to the Jewish witness and suspect because he secretly championed Hutchinson as the star witness (assuming I haven’t misunderstood your position?).

Hi Ben.
Oh, I think you know very well that you have misrepresented my position.
All Swanson was doing, was identifying Anderson's suspect. I made no suggestion that Swanson championed Hutchinson.
It really is tiresome for you to continuously make claims that I never wrote.

Hutchinson aside, I will just make the off-topic observation that if Swanson did not agree with Anderson, as you claim, it seems odd that he made the point, that no ripper-like murder occurred in London after the Jewish suspect’s identification, in obvious support of the his boss’s conclusion.

Tell me, what was the date of this identification?

Astonishing then that Abberline chose to submit to his superiors only what “Badham believed to be of consequence”, and kept what he considered "of consequence" to himself.

Reports were submitted daily, if I recall, three times daily communications (mail?) were picked up & delivered.
You make it sound like this was the only time he sent in a report. You don't know if he sent further reports in subsequent pick-ups.

And if anything “of consequence” transpired from that “exploration”, it was Abberline’s duty to alert his superiors at the earliest opportunity, rather than sitting on them and pretending he had overall command of the ripper investigation, which he didn't.

Who said he was sitting on them?

When?

Between the end of the interrogation and the submission of the statement? I wonder how many hours we’re talking about here – two?

More likely four.

What “argument” are you addressing? The general debate over whether Hutchinson lied or not?

Yes, and I don't see it as "popular". There is certainly nothing mainstream about Hutchinson being understood to have lied about anything.
If we had all read such claims in Sugden, Evans, Begg, Skinner, etc. etc. then you might have a point, but because a vocal minority choose to believe this does not make it "popular".

Forget the idea of the inquest “running its intended course” before she had a chance to provide her evidence; the authorities would have made damn sure that the inquest did not “run its course” until she had.

Like Macdonald did with Dr. Phillips you mean?
Not even giving the good doctor the time to provide the official time of death, can't get much more important than that. It was one of the Coroner's duties to provide this to the jury, yet he cut the proceedings short.

But if you had done your homework, you would have learned that the gas lamps used in 1888 served essentially as beacons, and were next to useless for providing illumination,...

Really?
I can see you have not done yours either.
Police chose 'point' location under lamps so the Inspector had enough light to make notes with the constable.
Didn't know that did you.

Who’s criticising Hutchinson?

If anyone was at fault for failing to elicit details of Kelly’s clothing, it was the police.

We can only make judgements on what was written, the fact something was not written does not mean it was not discussed. Neither should we proceed under the misguided illusion that ALL reports, memo's, files, etc. have survived.
Abberline refers to 1600 sets (files?) of papers created throughout the investigation - where are they Ben?

[GUT]

I don't mind people speculating either way, GUT.

I do have a problem when people claim it "must have" existed once upon a time, and "must have" said what X or Y theorist wants it to have said.

I have the same problem, along with those who say the documents we do have don't say "X" so the authorities never asked about "X".

[Ben]

Unfortunately there is so much lost to us, this is a constant problem for anyone trying to keep an open mind, did it once exist and is lost or was it never there.

I don't mind people speculating either way, GUT.

I do have a problem when people claim it "must have" existed once upon a time, and "must have" said what X or Y theorist wants it to have said.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“That is exactly how I see it, and I am not alone in that either.”

But you probably are alone in suggesting that Swanson secretly rejected Anderson’s conclusions with regard to the Jewish witness and suspect because he secretly championed Hutchinson as the star witness (assuming I haven’t misunderstood your position?). Hutchinson aside, I will just make the off-topic observation that if Swanson did not agree with Anderson, as you claim, it seems odd that he made the point, that no ripper-like murder occurred in London after the Jewish suspect’s identification, in obvious support of the his boss’s conclusion.

“If you are alluding to those interrogation records/notes/jottings/responses/bullets, then no, there is no relationship between what Badham believed to be of consequence, and what Abberline believed to be of consequence.”

Astonishing then that Abberline chose to submit to his superiors only what “Badham believed to be of consequence”, and kept what he considered "of consequence" to himself. You keep trying to trivialise the importance of the written statement – presumably out of frustration at what you believe to be unanswered questions contained therein, as they inevitably invite doubt and suspicion – but if the document was as worthless as you keep insisting it was, it would have been better to circumvent the entire process of statement-taking and concentrate on the interrogation itself. If Abberline extracted details from Hutchinson that did not appear in the statement, but which were nonetheless regarded as being “of consequence”, they would have been mentioned in the report that accompanied the statement – irrefutably so.

“The subsequent Detective Officer (Inspector) can, at his own will, explore any number of points that have only been lightly touched upon within the statement.”

And if anything “of consequence” transpired from that “exploration”, it was Abberline’s duty to alert his superiors at the earliest opportunity, rather than sitting on them and pretending he had overall command of the ripper investigation, which he didn't.

“Abberline did have the means to check some of his story, not all of it, but sufficient to convince him this witness was being honest”

When?

Between the end of the interrogation and the submission of the statement? I wonder how many hours we’re talking about here – two? Could you provide some credible suggestions as to what could have been “checked” within that time period? The fact that he resided at the Victoria Home, perhaps? Great, but not likely to be very revealing in terms of verification for his story or his propensity to lie. Anything else?

“On the other hand, to address your argument, there is no cause, no reason, and no substance to suggest Hutchinson lied about anything.”

What “argument” are you addressing? The general debate over whether Hutchinson lied or not? Well, the weight of evidence and popular perception says he did (sorry!), but perhaps you mean that Abberline had no cause to suspect him of lying at the time of the interrogation thanks to Hutchinson’s superficially convincing demeanour? In which case, I agree.

“As you well know, my point was to allay any fears you might have that As you well know, my point was to allay any fears you might have that Mrs Kennedy cannot have been believed or she would have been at the inquest."

But you haven’t remotely “allayed any fears” in that regard; I’m still as fearful as ever that “Mrs Kennedy cannot have been believed or she would have been at the inquest”, and I’m also very safe in that conviction. There is no credible set of circumstances under which a witness of Kennedy’s potential significance would not have appeared at the inquest had she been believed. Forget the idea of the inquest “running its intended course” before she had a chance to provide her evidence; the authorities would have made damn sure that the inquest did not “run its course” until she had.

“I think, if you had this evidence, you would have used it to impress your point.
As you have not thought to provide some details to prove your point, then we can accept you have none.”

Or “we” can accept that I’ve provided the evidence in patient and meticulous detail literally hundreds of times, and that I’m disinclined to do so again at your behest. There are (thanks largely to you) nearly 15,000 posts in the Hutchinson forum, and I would suggest revisiting those; otherwise I guess I’ll have to do conduct a very tedious keyword search followed by an even more tedious copy-and-paste job, which I’d rather avoid.

“The fact there was a lamp close to the passage indicates those who believe it was too dark to see, have not done their homework.”

But if you had done your homework, you would have learned that the gas lamps used in 1888 served essentially as beacons, and were next to useless for providing illumination, let alone the sort that Hutchinson’s observational feats would have required. The gas mantle, which provided half-decent illumination, was only invented in 1891.

“Once again, criticisms leveled against Hutchinson are solely based on what we do not know.”

Who’s criticising Hutchinson?

If anyone was at fault for failing to elicit details of Kelly’s clothing, it was the police. You speak of “what we do not know”, and for all “we know”, the police did neglect to ask such a question; otherwise they might have smelt a rat when, or if, Hutchinson claimed not to have remembered Kelly’s clothing, or offered a description that failed to match that provided by Cox and others. Returning to Caz’s earlier point, the notes accompanying the statement illustrate that Abberline was keen to convey to his superiors that he had correctly established the woman’s identity, so why omit details of Kelly’s clothing in support of this conclusion? The obvious answer is that he wouldn’t have done, had such details been procured.

I just hope nobody’s trying to argue that a “correct” answer to an “off-the-record” question regarding Kelly’s attire must illustrate that Hutchinson was being truthful, as opposed to snatching the details from Cox’s publicly available press description, or registering the clothes in the room himself.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Rosella,

“But Ben, Hutchinson doesn't claim to have been standing at the corner of Dorset St. In his statement he says 'They both went into Dorset St. I followed them. They both stood at the corner of the court for about 3 minutes'.”

He later elaborated on his location to the press:

“I put down my head to look him in the face, and he turned and looked at me very sternly, and they walked across the road to Dorset-street. I followed them across and stood at the corner of Dorset-street. They stood at the corner of Miller's-court for about three minutes”

Such a vantage point would have rendered it more or less impossible to pick out the colour red on a very small object, revealed for a fleeting moment from that distance away, and Kelly would have been required to enunciate and bellow the words “I’ve lost my handkerchief” for Hutchinson to hear them.

Before anyone is tempted to attribute this “corner of Dorset Street” location to journalistic invention, it is worth bearing in mind that if you want to "re-position" Hutchinson to a spot closer to the couple, you run into a brand new problem: the absurdity of Kelly and Astrakhan not noticing Hutchinson taking his snooping curiosity further. Astrakhan had already registered his displeasure at Hutchinson’s antics, and would hardly have hovered outside Miller’s Court “for about three minutes” if he suspected for a moment that he was still being followed. There was no possibility of Hutchinson escaping detection “on the other side of the street”.

“However, if Hutchinson is to be believed, he must have standing within eye and earshot.”

Well, the fact that he couldn’t have been standing “within eye and earshot” without being noticed is one of many reasons I don’t believe him. Having said that, the “corner of Dorset Street” was the only location Hutchinson ever specified for his vantage point that time, so "if" he is to be believed, why not accept it?

“After they disappear up Millers Court he says he went to the court to see if he could see them but could not, so he must have been nearby but not in the immediate vicinity if Mary had time to whisk Astrakhan Man indoors.”

Which is perfectly consistent with the corner of Dorset Street.

“If Mary wore none of those items that night then all Hutchinson would have seen probably is Mary in a dark dress . He wouldn't have taken notice of style or any buttoning etc on her dress, because most men don't take in such details.”

Most men don’t “take in” such details of another man’s attire as “light buttons over button boots”, “linen collar” and “horseshoe tie-pin” either, especially not for a fleeting moment in the darkness of a Victorian London street at night. If he was capable of noticing a "red stone" dangling from Astrakhan man’s watch seal (mysteriously on display underneath two coats), he was certainly capable of noticing Mary Kelly’s red shawl or “pelerine”, which she was apparently wearing that night.

Whatever reason Badham and/or Abberline had for failing to extract details of Kelly’s clothing, I doubt very much that it was due to a lads’ understanding that there was no use trying to notice girls’ clothes. I can’t envisage Abberline saying with a thin smile and a wink: “Don’t worry, I won’t ask you to describe a woman's clothes – bit much to ask of a chap, what! But about that horseshoe tie-pin; was it made of silver or platinum?”.

All the best,
Ben

[GUT]

It's perhaps a minor point but we don't known that Schwartz did not describe the woman - we only know that there is no record of him doing so. It would, to my mind, not be logical for such detail to be included in the written record - on the basis that the woman would have to be Stride unless it was thought conceivable that two different women might be attacked in the same spot within ten minutes of each other.

Unfortunately there is so much lost to us, this is a constant problem for anyone trying to keep an open mind, did it once exist and is lost or was it never there.

Sometimes we just have to accept that the police were not fools and did their jobs and the answer is simply lost to us.