The Red Handkerchief...

[Ben]

I'm sure you are well aware that in every close relationship murder (mariticide, uxoricide, ambicide?) the spouse/partner is the first suspect.

What's "ambicide"?

There is amebicide, which means to kill an amoeba. Is that what you mean? In which case, I can see how it may be tempting to accuse the amoeba's spouse or partner in such cases, but one shouldn't overlook the possibility of a chemical drug injecting itself into the investigation (or the body)!

The same consideration applies to the last known witness to see the victim alive.

But Hutchinson was not "known" to have been the last witness to see Kelly alive, anymore than Violenia was known to have been the last to see Chapman. The latter was suspected of having lied about being there at all, and the same was evidently true of Hutchinson.

And, in Hutchinson's case, if there are any other witness's who can confirm the existence of this mystery couple walking up Millers Court.

But we've established for a fact that no witness claimed to have seen a mystery couple walking up "Miller's Court", so there was nothing to "confirm" in that regard, and certainly no need for Lewis to reiterate a claim she never even made.

P.S. Packer was one of the last people to see Stride alive, if that particular claim was true. I'm not sure how that eradicates any possibility of guilt.

[Ben]

“Ineloquent, I?”

Well, yes, as the above rather amusingly illustrates!

I think you mean “Ineloquent, me?”.

I thought “pretentious, moi?” was ironic enough, but yours is even more hilarious.

“Get over what? How did it backfire? It antagonised you. Bulls eye in fact.”

Ah, good. So you admit to joining a thread for the express purpose of antagonising me. Never have guessed.

“You are the one who should go back and have look at the thread. One poster, Abby Normal expressed an opinion that he was a good candidate for the murder, but who still voted no”

Another poster, Babybird, wrote:

“I don't think there is enough evidence to say he definitely did it, but I believe he is our best suspect, so I can neither answer yes or no definitively”.

You obviously have it in your head that anyone who voted “no” or didn’t vote at all must be vehemently opposed to the possibility of Hutchinson’s culpability, and that’s a long way from reality. If it was actually important to me that Hutchinson was considered the ripper (i.e. if it would help my book sales and that major Hollywood blockbuster I’ve got coming out), I’d be absolutely chuffed with four votes indicating an opinion that he WAS the killer, plus additional opinions to the effect that he’s one of the better suspects, if not the best one, and a recent TV series in which the screenwriters scrutinised ripper websites and literature and came away with the same impression.

“Care to comment oh magnificent one? I believe it was Mr Evans who took you down a peg or two on a previous occasion was it not?”..”

Magnificent one? Thanks for the promotion, Obs, but I preferred it when you used to call me “Boy Blunder”. That was always funny. Now that you mention it, I do recall a discussion with Stewart along the lines you mention, but that was way back before the message board “crash” some time in 2008 and there is no record of that discussion now. You must have a good memory. It’s strange, though - I don’t recall anyone named “Observer” being an active poster in those days…

“I distinctly remember you posting that the reason Hutchinson was discredited was due to the fact that he was extremely late in coming forward to give his evidence.”

Well remembered. You would also have noted my observation that this reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting is inextricably linked to the question of honesty and credibility.

“Although I suspect you are now going to tell me that the police did not connect the sighting of Lewis' wideawake loiterer with Hutchinson”

…Which amounts to a basic acknowledgment of the weakness of your argument. Why bother with the observation if you know precisely what I’m going to respond with in order to undermine it successfully? Yes, I am “going to tell you” that the police did not connect wideawake man with Hutchinson. Had it been otherwise, and had anyone in 1888 made the connection, it would have been alluded to in the press WAY in advance of the police ever having the opportunity to investigate the potential connection and determine that no link existed. It’s odd how on the one hand you argue that Hutchinson was corroborated by Lewis “in the minds of the police”, but then argue that Hutchinson wasn’t even there!

“They sure were; which is why, after a modicum of investigation, they eliminated him from their inquiries altogether.”

Yep, pretty much.

After a "modicum of investigation", and after deciding that all was not entirely well with his account – with its suspiciously late, post-inquest appearance – they came to the conclusion that he was yet another time waster, i.e. just like Violenia, who claimed to have been the last witness to see a ripper victim alive.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Hutchinson said:" I believe that he lives in the neighbourhood, and I fancied I saw him in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning...", implicating that he had seen the man on other occasions too

Ah, not quite the point I was making, though.

I can perfectly understand people wanting to get round the implausibility of Hutchinson's alleged nocturnal observations and recollections by suggesting his press-only Petticoat Lane encounter was true, and that he clarified the bits he wasn't sure about by gawping at them in daylight. That's fine, but unfortunately, it makes an absurdity out of Hutchinson's claim in the same interview only to have "fancied" that he saw the same man again, and wasn't "certain" about it. We're talking about very specific sartorial and accessorial detail here. It is impossible to argue that he spotted these things in the dark, then spotted them again in daylight - clarifying in his mind precisely what they were - only to decide that it might be somebody different after all.

("Friday man's eight-inch long tightly-clasped parcel was wrapped in American cloth, whereas Sunday man's eight-inch long tightly-clasped parcel looks more like imitation leather"...etc...)

The only true guidance we have in this errand is the fact that Abberline, who knew very much more than we do, and who was quite aware about all the parameters involved, had nothing at all to object to when he heard Hutchinsonīs story.

Not initially perhaps, but the interview allowed for little more than a face-value assessment based largely on faith. It was reported that "later investigations" were conducted subsequent to this interview, and that they resulted in Hutchinson's account suffering a "very reduced importance". Maybe Abberline did take a couple of officers to the scene, and after "recreating" Hutchinson's account, discovered a problematic element or two?

If the couple was walking towards Hutchinson fairly slowly, he would have a number of seconds to take in things

I used the expression "fleeting moment" to describe the likely window of opportunity Hutchinson had in order to notice the more detailed aspects of Astrakhan's appearance when the latter was in "illuminating" range of the lamp, but since that range was tiny, he'd have had to cram it all in within the space of a few seconds. It is doubtful that Astrakhan would have been walking all that slowly after registering Hutchinson's intrusive behaviour.

"Almost certainly" - ahem! How does that tally with my assertion that the police almost certainly ALWAYS did this check, as a matter of routine? Iīll tell you how it tallies: It almost certainly tallies very badly.

Very badly indeed, yes, and that is a good thing from my perspective as there is no evidence that the police "always" asked about the victims. clothes. When they did ask, the detail was recorded. Simple as that, I'd have thought.

We are going over the same old grounds again, Ben, and that will get us nowhere.

Agreed, Fisherman. You may return to your "well-earned slumber", and I'll pop back to mine!

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Jon,

Please explain where the evidence is for Hutchinson ever having been considered a suspect at the time.

As far as I can see, the known facts point decidedly to the reverse.

No woolly answer please - no 'must haves' based on your personal opinion - just the evidence.

Thanks in advance.

I can help you out on that one, Sally!

There are no records of Hutchinson having been regarded as a suspect.

What records there are, are incomplete (we do not know what was asked and answered at the interrogation, for example).

Empirically, we know that the police will always take great interest in people who are known to be the last persons - or among the last persons -to have seen murder victims alive.

Until they can clear themselves of any suspicion of having had something to do with the murder, they will remain "persons of interest".

But donīt you think it is a tad unneccesary to discuss this? And does it not border on the childish to go "Da-da-da-da-da-da-you-have-no-evidence"?

Procedure evidence is also evidence, albeit in a broader sense.

Having said this, I would presume that the police to some extent use their sense of smell, so to speak. They will sometimes feel that somebody is unlikely to be the perpetrator, just as they sometimes will instintively "know" that they have the right guy.
And the interesting thing about that is that they will sometimes be wrong - it is an inevitability. It is precisely because of this they can never vouch for a persons innocence until it is a proven thing.

My own stance on the matter is that two things would have weighed heavily in Hutchinsonīs favour:
He came forward of his own free will.
He gave a very honest and straightforward impression.
A third factor may well have contributed: He may have been given the green flag by aquaintances, working comrades, doss house keepers and relatives. The police will have asked around about him (although we have no evidence about it, Iīd suggest that it would be foolish to think that the police never did anything to have Hutchinsons story corroborated and his person commented on - what do YOU think, Sally? It is not in the records, so you can easily go for a verdict of me being ridiculous about it).

Dew tells us that he was not a man to reflect about as anything but an honest citizen. There is not a negative word about him to be found anywhere. But we know that the police awarded less - though some! - interest to his story at a later stage.

It all speaks of a man that was cleared in the eyes of the police, and who remained a respected citizen.

So apart from that initial stage, I donīt think he came close to being regarded as a suspect. Initially, though, logic dictates that the police knew that he was potentially a dangerman. Of course, I cannot demand that you buy my logic, since I habitually donīt buy yours. We therefore need to leave it to others to judge the matter for themselves.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

...no 'must haves' based on your personal opinion - just the evidence.

And YOU speak of Kafkaesque matters? I cannot believe that you are demanding a thing like this!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

Hi Fisherman

Hi Ben!

Ah, not quite the point I was making, though.

I know - it was I who made it.

I can perfectly understand people wanting to get round the implausibility of Hutchinson's alleged nocturnal observations and recollections by suggesting his press-only Petticoat Lane encounter was true, and that he clarified the bits he wasn't sure about by gawping at them in daylight. That's fine, but unfortunately, it makes an absurdity out of Hutchinson's claim in the same interview only to have "fancied" that he saw the same man again, and wasn't "certain" about it. We're talking about very specific sartorial and accessorial detail here. It is impossible to argue that he spotted these things in the dark, then spotted them again in daylight - clarifying in his mind precisely what they were - only to decide that it might be somebody different after all.

("Friday man's eight-inch long tightly-clasped parcel was wrapped in American cloth, whereas Sunday man's eight-inch long tightly-clasped parcel looks more like imitation leather"...etc...)

Can you also perfectly understand if Astrakhan man was someone Hutchinson had met/seen on a number of occasions (I believe he lives in the neighbourhood)?
Can you also perfectly understand - if this was the case - that Astrakhan man can have worn for example his gold chain and jewel habitually?
Can you also perfectly understand that such a thing could manifest itself in peopleīs minds?

Good. I rest my case.

Not initially perhaps, but the interview allowed for little more than a face-value assessment based largely on faith. It was reported that "later investigations" were conducted subsequent to this interview, and that they resulted in Hutchinson's account suffering a "very reduced importance". Maybe Abberline did take a couple of officers to the scene, and after "recreating" Hutchinson's account, discovered a problematic element or two?

Letīs look at it from your point of wiew, Ben:

It was not "perhaps hard" to make out what Hutch made out, was it? It was not "difficult" to do it, was it?

Not according to you.

To you it is totally and utterly impossible. Not improbable - impossible. It was never something that one would have to reflect a second about. Claiming or even suggesting that Hutchinson could have done it is absolutely laughable.
It is, if I remember correctly, "arsenumbingly" obvious that what Hutchinson did could not be done - nothing even near it could be.

... and Abberline was "arsenumbingly" ignorant of this "fact"?

I rest my case once more.

I used the expression "fleeting moment" to describe the likely window of opportunity Hutchinson had in order to notice the more detailed aspects of Astrakhan's appearance when the latter was in "illuminating" range of the lamp, but since that range was tiny, he'd have had to cram it all in within the space of a few seconds. It is doubtful that Astrakhan would have been walking all that slowly after registering Hutchinson's intrusive behaviour.

And thereīs the next choice: "tiny". The time space was "tiny". And this we may conclude since your personal take on things is that Astrakhan man walked by quickly.

I think we may need a wee bit more than that.

Very badly indeed, yes, and that is a good thing from my perspective as there is no evidence that the police "always" asked about the victims. clothes. When they did ask, the detail was recorded. Simple as that, I'd have thought.

And all the things Abberline asked about in his interrogation were ALSO recorded.
Seen that record lately, anybody? No?

Agreed, Fisherman. You may return to your "well-earned slumber", and I'll pop back to mine!

Thanks! And please donīt wake me up again if you can avoid it. If somebody needs their beauty sleep, itīs me!

Zzzzzzzz ...

Fisherman

[Sally]

I can help you out on that one, Sally!

Aw! Thanks Fish!

However would I manage without you??

There are no records of Hutchinson having been regarded as a suspect.

Exactly so. I'm so glad that's settled - and it saves Jon from the effort of a reply as well!

We know that Abberline initially accepted Hutchinson's account, because we have him on record. We also know, from the contemporary press, that his account was dismissed shortly afterwards.

And yet, no reference, ever, to Hutchinson ever having been regarded as a suspect by the police - ergo, he wasn't: ever.

Not when Abberline had interrogated him

Not when his account had been dismissed.

The logical conclusion is that he was regarded as a timewaster. We know that a great many men came forward at the time with stories of 'suspicious men' - we hear nothing more of them, of course, because their stories were similarly dismissed.

The only difference is that Hutchinson had his 15 minutes of fame first.

But donīt you think it is a tad unneccesary to discuss this? And does it not border on the childish to go "Da-da-da-da-da-da-you-have-no-evidence"?

Says the man who quibbles over semantics

Just trying to get at the facts, Fish - with less of the... what was it now?
Oh yes, 'Cudda Shudda Wudda'

So apart from that initial stage, I donīt think he came close to being regarded as a suspect. Initially, though, logic dictates that the police knew that he was potentially a dangerman.

Why? Becuase he placed himself in the company of the Ripper's latest victim shortly before her death?

But as you point out, Fish, he came forward voluntarily - you don't think that would've been enough to deflect any suspicion? No?

What about this then? He came forward voluntarily and gave the police the suspect that was foremost in the public mind. He set up Astrakhan Man to be Kelly's killer - he waited for ages and he still didn't come out of Kelly's room; and he effectively exonerated himself of any wrongdoing by coming late to the party by telling the police that he, plain old George, didn't think the man looked suspicious.

Consdering the strkingly close correspondence between his account to the police and the earlier account of 10th November; the idea that he was unaware of the composite well-dressed lurker reputedly stalking the streets of Whitechapel is untenable. He obviously read the papers.

We are expected to believe that he saw a man strongly resembling the dodgy geezer apparently spotted by several others toddle off to Kelly's room - who was allegedly a friend of his, remember - and not emerge for an age on the night of her death and it never occurred to him once that said man might be her killer?

I can accept that there may be more than one explanation for his behaviour, but I can't accept his story at face value - it just won't wash.

[Sally]

And YOU speak of Kafkaesque matters? I cannot believe that you are demanding a thing like this!

The best,
Fisherman

What, you mean like you don't?

[Fisherman]

Sally:

Aw! Thanks Fish!

However would I manage without you??

Letīs face it - you wouldnīt.

Exactly so. I'm so glad that's settled.

It didnīt need to be. It was always a fact that there are no such records.

We know that Abberline initially accepted Hutchinson's account, because we have him on record. We also know, from the contemporary press, that his account was dismissed shortly afterwards.

Eh - whoīs "we"..?

And yet, no reference, ever, to Hutchinson ever having been regarded as a suspect by the police - ergo, he wasn't: ever.

Not when Abberline had interrogated him

Not when his account had been dismissed.

There is that US paper that Ben quoted in his Ripperologist article, actually. It is very interesting in this context, since it points a finger at Hutchinson as the potential perpetrator.

If a paper in the US could draw the deduction that Hutch needed to be looked at with some suspicion, why would not the police - whoīs job it is to net criminals - be able to do the same?

I seem to remember that Ben pointed to that article as being very sharpwitted.

The logical conclusion is that he was regarded as a timewaster. We know that a great many men came forward at the time with stories of 'suspicious men' - we hear nothing more of them, of course, because their stories were similarly dismissed.

The only difference is that Hutchinson had his 15 minutes of fame first.

There ARE other differences, actually - like Dew clearing Hutchinson in retrospect. That never happened to your armada of timewasters, did it?

Says the man who quibbles over semantics

Semantics? Not me, Sally. I demanded truthfulness from your list, and you called me pedantic for doing so. That didnīt do your cause any favours at all, since we have at long last arrived at the insight that you were wrong to claim that money was offered on both occasions. Eh - "we" meaning Ben and me.

Why? Becuase he placed himself in the company of the Ripper's latest victim shortly before her death?

Because the police habitually take an interest in people who have been at a crime scene and who belong to the last ones to have seen a victim alive. But I thought I said so before...?

But as you point out, Fish, he came forward voluntarily - you don't think that would've been enough to deflect any suspicion? No?

Yes. Thatīs why I wrote: "My own stance on the matter is that two things would have weighed heavily in Hutchinsonīs favour:
He came forward of his own free will..."

What about this then? He came forward voluntarily and gave the police the suspect that was foremost in the public mind. He set up Astrakhan Man to be Kelly's killer - he waited for ages and he still didn't come out of Kelly's room; and he effectively exonerated himself of any wrongdoing by coming late to the party by telling the police that he, plain old George, didn't think the man looked suspicious.

If he saw the man, what was he to do? Maybe you should ponder that.

Consdering the strkingly close correspondence between his account to the police and the earlier account of 10th November; the idea that he was unaware of the composite well-dressed lurker reputedly stalking the streets of Whitechapel is untenable. He obviously read the papers.

Or met with a mildly similar situation as one described in the papers. Maybe you should ponder that too?

We are expected to believe that he saw a man strongly resembling the dodgy geezer apparently spotted by several others...

Who says it was the same man? Were there not two well dressed or respectably clad men around in London?

... toddle off to Kelly's room ...

Yeah, I didnīt see that coming - a prostitute with a room who prostututes herself in that room. Whatīs the world coming to?

... and not emerge for an age on the night of her death and it never occurred to him once that said man might be her killer?

Let me get this straight: A prostitute takes a man to her room, and it is strange that somebody who saw that did not immediately scream "Blue murder!"...?
Is that what you are suggesting?

Or are you suggesting that he did not realize that Astrakhan man could have been her killer as he went to the police?

Which is it?

I can accept that there may be more than one explanation for his behaviour, but I can't accept his story at face value - it just won't wash.

I think we are wawing farewell to reasoned realitites if we rule out that Hutchinson was completely honest. The second we do, we have a liar on our hands, who may have ended up on that note undeservedly.

I refuse to go along with that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

What, you mean like you don't?

On the contrary - I do.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally!

I see now that I gave you the wrong answer in post 1209:

You wrote:

But as you point out, Fish, he came forward voluntarily - you don't think that would've been enough to deflect any suspicion? No?

and I answered

Yes. Thatīs why I wrote: "My own stance on the matter is that two things would have weighed heavily in Hutchinsonīs favour:
He came forward of his own free will..."

What I mean is NOT that "any" suspicion would have been deflected by his coming forward of his own free will, but instead that some of it may have been.

I was fooled by my own certitude that nobody would ever suggest that any suspicion would have been deflected. Silly me!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

I'm sure that you knew what I meant Fish. Semantics won't save good 'ole Hutch I'm afraid.

[Fisherman]

I'm sure that you knew what I meant Fish. Semantics won't save good 'ole Hutch I'm afraid.

From what, exactly?

In my world - and many other worlds - he never needed any saving at all.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

From what, exactly?

In my world - and many other worlds - he never needed any saving at all.

The best,
Fisherman

Oh I can't comment on 'other worlds' I'm afraid, Fish - all a bit metaphysical for me.

Meanwhile, in this one, the facts speak for themselves - no need for semantics.

[Fisherman]

Oh I can't comment on 'other worlds' I'm afraid, Fish - all a bit metaphysical for me.

Meanwhile, in this one, the facts speak for themselves - no need for semantics.

Itīs not the facts speaking for themselves, Sally. Itīs you speaking for the suggestions.

Biiiiiiig difference.

The best,
Fisherman