The Red Handkerchief...

[Wickerman]

What's "ambicide"?

There is amebicide, which means to kill an amoeba. Is that what you mean?

Can I assume you have located the correct meaning of the word by now?

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.

Nothing of the sort Ben.
What has been proven many times over is that the official Inquest records are not complete. That it is necessary to collate all the press coverage to flesh out what was said at the Inquests.

Thankfully, and much to your chagrin, both the Daily Telegraph & Daily News included the fact the female of the couple was the worse for drink. Just as described by Hutchinson.

And, we are truly fortunate that the Daily News reporter was observant enough to capture Sarah Lewis saying that the woman was hatless (confirmed by Cox), and that the couple passed up the court together.
None of these details were known by any other person except Geo. Hutchinson, Mary Ann Cox, & Sarah Lewis.

Confirmation of the basic story given by Hutchinson is there in black & white, and will still be part of the historical record long after your "Hutchinson made it all up" theory has faded into oblivion.


Re: "The police did not share case related info. with the press"

Yes they did, Jon.

Yes, they most assuredly did.

And the 13th and 14th November Echo articles are cases in point.

How many times have we been over this Ben?
There is nothing in those articles that supports your case.
Maybe we should have a thread devoted to that very question, and specifically those press quotes you carry around with you.

[Sally]

Can I assume you have located the correct meaning of the word by now?

It's farm disinfectant isn't it? Comes in big plastic canisters


... Or do you mean killing a friend?

[Fisherman]

So are we to believe that Anderson really knew something, or that Major Henry Smith was correct when he said that the From Hell letter and kidney were sent to the Central News, and not George Lusk?

Aha - so thatīs what you mean? Then I am much more inclined to agree with you; we cannot regard what these people say as certainties.
But overall, they are people who worked the case, and so their memoirs are very important tools for our understanding of what happened. As such, we cannot call what they wrote overall speculation, although bits of it will or may well be.
Our initial stance when it comes to things presented as facts in these books must be that they are facts - unless we have other information proving that wrong ore giving fair rise to contrary suggestions. We canīt treat them as colourful packs of lies.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

So Hutch comes forward and describes a similar man to one seen by another witness. No problem there, even if the broad outline of the story had been carried by the papers. Made more credible, perhaps, by the fact that Hutch claims he saw the man further down Commercial Street than had the first witness... at least, after his Ten Bells/Queen's Head error was corrected.

Thatīs not it, no.

I am suggesting that the Daily News story was concocted by somebody who had heard Hutchinsonīs story, perhaps after it had been relayed over the jungle wire for some time.
This would mean that the Daily News "witness" never saw the deal at all, nor would any other person but Hutchinson, who told his story to somebody on Thursday afternoon or evening, after which it started doing the rounds and ended up in the press.

What I need to know is whether the deal between Kelly and a well-dressed man was related in the press BEFORE the 10:th, but I donīt think it was.

Hope you see where Iīm coming from now! I would appreciate any comment on this you may have, since I am looking for holes in the scenario, holes that I suspect may be there. Itīs just that I canīt find any so far ...

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Why can we not just accept, that Hutchinson walked into the police station, on the monday evening, and told his account, also informing the police why he had not reported it earlier[ which appears to have happened] the police accepted his story , and he immediately accompanied police officers, on a tour of the area, to see if he could point the man out, also he gave, his assurance that he would identify the victim the next morning...
Depending on the amount of help he gave too the police over the following days he was paid out of police funds, and he could even remained in assisting the police , for some time keeping a eye open..
Eventually his services were dispersed with, and he was left with only his tale to repeat throughout the remainder of his life..
What is wrong with this..is it not complicated enough for Casebook?.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Hi,
Why can we not just accept, that Hutchinson walked into the police station, on the monday evening, and told his account, also informing the police why he had not reported it earlier[ which appears to have happened] the police accepted his story , and he immediately accompanied police officers, on a tour of the area, to see if he could point the man out, also he gave, his assurance that he would identify the victim the next morning...
Depending on the amount of help he gave too the police over the following days he was paid out of police funds, and he could even remained in assisting the police , for some time keeping a eye open..
Eventually his services were dispersed with, and he was left with only his tale to repeat throughout the remainder of his life..
What is wrong with this..is it not complicated enough for Casebook?.
Regards Richard.

Overall, you will be quite close to the truth, Richard, at least if Iīm not very much mistaken.
However, I think we must accept that the interest for his story did not just die down and smoulder away over time. Something happened, something was realized that diminished the value of his story early on. Otherwise, we would have heard about Astrakhan man in many sources, not least the memoirs of the top men. I think I are on dry land suggesting this.

Otherwise, yes, Iīm with you!

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi Fisherman,
We should consider the possibility that the Ripper was caught, either shortly after Millers court, or later..this person may not have resembled A man, and therefore Hutchinson's tale was never considered important in later publications by leading police officers at the time..
We have to consider ,[ if A man was not a figment of imagination] that he may have had nothing to do with the murder, especially if morning sightings can be believed.
The obvious reason why JTR was never named , is because he was captured , placed out of harms way, and his name known to only a few , who were sworn to secrecy....even a 'hot potato '' something best kept secret...
But that's another thread...
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,
We should consider the possibility that the Ripper was caught, either shortly after Millers court, or later..this person may not have resembled A man, and therefore Hutchinson's tale was never considered important in later publications by leading police officers at the time..
We have to consider ,[ if A man was not a figment of imagination] that he may have had nothing to do with the murder, especially if morning sightings can be believed.
The obvious reason why JTR was never named , is because he was captured , placed out of harms way, and his name known to only a few , who were sworn to secrecy....even a 'hot potato '' something best kept secret...
But that's another thread...
Regards Richard.

It is!

... and you may be right, although, as you know, I am of another opinion. But that too is for another thread, methinks!

The best,
Fisherman

[Observer]

Something happened, something was realized that diminished the value of his story early on. Otherwise, we would have heard about Astrakhan man in many sources, not least the memoirs of the top men. I think I are on dry land suggesting this.

Absolutely spot on Fish.

I believe one or more of the senior officers (taking into consideration the remarkably detailed description of A man Hutchinson provided)began to doubt his story, much as we do today. This left Hutchinson (considering Lewis's corroboration of his presence at the crime scene on the night of the murder) up the creek without a paddle. I believe he realised the perilous situation he now found himself in, and told the truth, that is, it was not he who Lewis had purportedly sighted. The police then checked out his revised story, and finding it to be the truth gave him a dressing down, and sent him on his way. My guess is that he was sleeping in the VHWMH at the time of the murder.

Regards

Observer

[Abby Normal]

So Hutch comes forward and describes a similar man to one seen by another witness. No problem there, even if the broad outline of the story had been carried by the papers. Made more credible, perhaps, by the fact that Hutch claims he saw the man further down Commercial Street than had the first witness... at least, after his Ten Bells/Queen's Head error was corrected.

Absolutely spot on Fish.

I believe one or more of the senior officers (taking into consideration the remarkably detailed description of A man Hutchinson provided)began to doubt his story, much as we do today. This left Hutchinson (considering Lewis's corroboration of his presence at the crime scene on the night of the murder) up the creek without a paddle. I believe he realised the perilous situation he now found himself in, and told the truth, that is, it was not he who Lewis had purportedly sighted. The police then checked out his revised story, and finding it to be the truth gave him a dressing down, and sent him on his way. My guess is that he was sleeping in the VHWMH at the time of the murder.

Regards

Observer

So let's see. We have the Hutchinson told the lie, and fessed up scenario. The hutch was totally honest scenario. The hutch went from witness, to suspect, to cleared, to dropped scenario. The hutch was out a day scenario. The hutch was the murderer and walked into the police station scenario? Have I missed any?

C'mon folks. How about the most obvious, likely and realistic one- the hutch lied for his 15 minutes of fame and was dropped when the police realized it scenario.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

It is my contention, as you know, that Hutchinson based his account on snippets he had read in the press, which he fleshed out subsequently to his perceived advantage. There had been several stories involving well-dressed men with black bags doing the rounds in the immediate aftermath of the Kelly murder - most of them bogus - and I would suggest that Hutchinson latched onto them, using "Mr. Black Bag" as a template, onto which he added various other "scary” attributes, including Jewishness, a "stern" countenance, and a package of clasp knife dimensions.

The logical and likely motivation for this subterfuge needs no introduction - I suggest he invented the man in question and supplied him with these fictional attributes in order to deflect suspicion away from his own suspicious, loitering behaviour as witnessed by Sarah Lewis. I also suggest that the bogus account he read in the Daily News was the chief inspiration behind that fabrication.

I’m not sure what you find surprising about Hutchinson using existing stories in the press. I’m quite sure the police read the early press accounts, and I’m quite sure Hutchinson expected them to have done so, which is why it made considerable sense for him use an existing description and an existing set of circumstances, and simply fiddled with them a bit to make them his “own”, as opposed to starting from scratch (and he didn't have much time between the inquest's end at 6.00pm that Monday). Could he have masked them a bit better and made it less obvious that he was copying the 10th November Daily News account? Yes, of course, but nobody’s suggesting he was the most skilled liar ever, or else he wouldn’t have been discredited.

I completely disagree with your assessment that Hutchinson’s account seems more “original” compared to the Daily News. The latter, while still very bogus, was a matter-of-fact sequence of events devoid of too much ornamentation, whereas Hutchinson’s was weighed down with ludicrous descriptions of things he couldn’t possibly have seen, let alone memorized. Don’t be tempted to conclude that if something is less “detailed” it is more likely to be a fabrication – the reverse is far more likely to be the case.

Hutchinson told the press – and only the press - that he spoke to a fellow lodger about it on Monday, who “advised him to go the police station”, which he did JUST after the inquest, “coincidentally” enough.

“I told one of the lodgers here about it on Monday”

“Here” referred to the Victoria Home, where all his “fellow lodgers” would have been male (and thus not the Daily News’ female informant), but far more problematic for your suggestion is that Hutchinson didn't speak to this fellow lodger about the incident until MONDAY 12th November, which was two days after the publication of the Daily News article. If you go by Hutchinson’s account and accept that he told the truth, he did not divulge his account to anyone until the 12th November, which meant there was no chance of anybody overhearing it and then passing off a mangled version of it. Remember that Hutchinson wasn’t supplying a continuous narrative. He was responding to specific questions asked of him, one of which was evidently “did you tell anyone else?”, to which Hutchinson related the alleged Sunday policeman and the Monday lodger encounter. Had he related the Dorset Street episode to anyone else prior to this, he would have been lying. And if he lied about that…

“why would A manīs appearance in Dorset Street and at the market make Hutchinson suggest that he was a local?”

Because Hutchinson said he believed the man lived in the neighbourhood, and if he lived in the neighbourhood, that would make him a “local”.

“Thatīs not enough - punters from all over town and market visitors from all over town were frequent enough.”

Nah, not really.

You’ll often encounter the myth that this particular grotspot was a mecca for prostitute-seekers from all over, but a myth is all it is.

“Until PROVEN "speculations", they most certainly ARE recollections”

I’m talking specifically about his writings on Hutchinson, which DO amount to proven, self-acknowledged “speculations”.

“Thereīs no confusion at all -whenever Hutchinson is mentioned in the press, he is described as trustworthy”

Only because most of them are using a single source – the Central News Agency.

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

Yes. I have. The statement itself and the subsequent report. If there were any details relating to Hutchinson’s credibility that didn’t appear in the statement itself, they can be found in the report. If they appeared in neither, they didn’t exist, or were too trivial to mention. That’s obvious.

“As you know, the administrators have repeatedly requested that none of us comments on HOW the other part chooses to post”

I haven’t. I’m engaging in light-hearted banter about the repetitive, circular, and ceaseless nature of these Hutchinson debates. I said I want a long post, not that you’re guilty of writing them. I’m taking the piss out of myself, if anything. I’m being honest in acknowledging that I want Hutchinson discussions to dominate, which they are doing. We now have three of the bastard things as the current most popular threads, and that’s still not enough for me. I want more. See? The only person I’m being rude about is me!

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“Can I assume you have located the correct meaning of the word by now?”

I’m so relieved these jokes aren’t lost on you, Jon…

“That it is necessary to collate all the press coverage to flesh out what was said at the Inquests.”

We do more than just “collate”, though. We actually analyse them to determine which are legitimate and which are bogus, and if a press report can be shown to contradict all other sources, including inquest and police statements and all other press reporrts, we line our birdcages or, if short of bogroll, wipe out bottoms with said press report. You keep bringing this up, and the message is brought home to you every time – you’re wrong to champion the Daily News article as accurate, everyone else knows you’re wrong to champion it, and there is no possibility of it being correct.

It doesn’t matter in the slightest if they accurately reported that the woman “passing along” was hatless and in drink. Well done, Daily News, for getting this bit right, but not so well done, Daily News, for making a pig’s ear of reporting her movements correctly. She did NOT pass up the court, she passed along Dorset Street with a young man.

“Confirmation of the basic story given by Hutchinson is there in black & white, and will still be part of the historical record long after your "Hutchinson made it all up" theory has faded into oblivion.”

Good luck with that!

So despite being the single solitary proponent of this provably wrong theory, you reckon it’s going to “be part of the historical record”, and that the suggestion that “Hutchinson made it all up” will fade into oblivion. I will bet you everything I have ever held dear in this world that this will never happen in your lifetime. I don’t even think Hutchinson made it “all” up, but it receives infinitely greater popular support than your “passed up the court” one-man-show.

“How many times have we been over this Ben?
There is nothing in those articles that supports your case.
Maybe we should have a thread devoted to that very question, and specifically those press quotes you carry around with you.”

Start one, I dare you.

We’ve been over this loads, and I want to go over it loads more. For this I need you, and your fascinating proposal that the police never divulged case-related information to the press, which is about as naïve a proposal as you’re likely to see, short of “politicians never lie”.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Why can we not just accept, that Hutchinson walked into the police station, on the monday evening, and told his account, also informing the police why he had not reported it earlier[ which appears to have happened] the police accepted his story , and he immediately accompanied police officers, on a tour of the area, to see if he could point the man out, also he gave, his assurance that he would identify the victim the next morning...

Because it didn't happen like that, Richard.

That's why we can't "accept" it, and that's why continued pleas for face-value acceptance don't constitute an actual argument. The nearest we get to any sort of "explanation" for his failure to come forward earlier was a comment to a reporter to the effect that he told a policeman about it on Sunday (who mysteriously did nothing about it), but only attended the police station on the suggestion of a fellow lodger a whole day later.

If you think there are good grounds for believing Hutchinson, why not have a bash at countering my points to the contrary? Anything's better than asking why we don't "just accept" that which was discredited at the time. There is no evidence that Hutchinson continued to "assist the police" over the following days, and nor is there any evidence that he was paid anything beyond expenses for loss of earnings, like jury service today. Hence, two good reasons for not "just accepting" either proposal.

I don't demand that you agree with me, but I'd like you to expound your reasoning a little beyond "why don't we just accept" and "It was Toppy".

I'm afraid I disagree very strongly with your suggestion that the ripper was caught, and the police "sworn to secrecy" about it. That is an extremely unlikely conspiracy theory, whereas I thought you were all for "simplicity". For simplicity, you can't really beat the suggestion that a local bloke dunnit and lied to the police. Not complicated enough for Hutchbook?

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

How would Hutchinson have found out that he was "up the creek without a paddle" and that one of the senior officers didn't believe his statement, in your scenario? Was a visit paid to the Victoria Home by this officer, who told Hutchinson that despite Abberline's initial approval, he refused to go along with that assessment and insisted that he had more explaining to do, citing Lewis's evidence?

Or are you suggesting that Hutchinson went home after the interrogation and only then realised that his lie (or confusion, of whatever) accidentally coincided with a a real person, who really was loitering in Dorset Street, and who really was watching and waiting for someone to come out of Miller's Court at 2.00 (how ridiculously unlucky can a man get)? Then, when he came forward (again?) and said "Just in case you're wondering, that's not me, because I lied", how did the police then go about proving that Lewis's man could not have been him?

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben: Hi Fisherman,

Don’t be tempted to conclude that if something is less “detailed” it is more likely to be a fabrication – the reverse is far more likely to be the case.

I would not agree with that, Ben. Thatīs not to say that an overzealous liar could not overegg the pudding once in a while - but logically, if a story with lots of details is told and retold and retold and retold... what will happen is that one by one, the details will go lost.
Iīm sure you can see the relevance of that argument.

Hutchinson told the press – and only the press - that he spoke to a fellow lodger about it on Monday, who “advised him to go the police station”, which he did JUST after the inquest, “coincidentally” enough.

“I told one of the lodgers here about it on Monday”

Yes, we all know this, Ben. What we donīt know is who else he could have told! There is absolutely nothing telling us that the fellow lodger was the first civilian he told the story.

Hereīs how I would describe my scenario. Keep in mind that itīs a suggestion, nothing else:

-Hutch sees the deal with A man and Kelly on Thursday morning.
-He creeps in at the Victoria Home at around daybreak.
-He perhaps works during the Thursday, finishing that work late in the afternoon.
-He goes to the local pub for a beer and speaks to a person X about the odd couple he had seen.
-A lot of people overhear the story, and X spreads it on the streets.
-a woman cottons on to it on Friday afternoon, and then speaks to the reporters, making the story her own.
-Hutchinson hears about the murder and is reluctant to go to the police since he is afraid to be implicated.
-On the Sunday, he sees a policeman and tells him about what he had seen.
-On Monday, he tells a fellow lodger about the business, and that lodger urges him to go to the cop shop.
- ... which he does.

It all works as far as I can see. And when he arrives at the police station, he has a lot more detail to offer, since he actually saw the man, something the Daily News "witness" never did. She would be comparable to the ladies of Millerīs Court, who all said that they had heard the "Murder!" outcry, hoping for a few minutes of fame and perhaps a shilling or two for her efforts.

If you go by Hutchinson’s account and accept that he told the truth, he did not divulge his account to anyone until the 12th November, which meant there was no chance of anybody overhearing it and then passing off a mangled version of it.

But that does not say anywhere, does it? There is not a syllable about him not speaking to anybody before the 12:th, is there?
We are actually just filling in blanks when thinking that he had not said it to anybody else. And we may be wrong. He could well have mentioned that lodger specifically for the reason that this was when he was persuaded into approaching the police.

Remember that Hutchinson wasn’t supplying a continuous narrative. He was responding to specific questions asked of him, one of which was evidently “did you tell anyone else?”

But you canīt predispose that it was evident that this question was asked of him, and at the same time diss the suggestion that the police would have been interested to make sure that it was Kelly he had met, can you?
At any rate, the Badham report does not say a iot about what people he had told about it, does it? Nor does the Abberline mentioning of the interrogation say anything about it. And you habitually say "if he said something about it, it would be in the police report", donīt you? Like having spoken about Kellys appearance, for instance.

Because Hutchinson said he believed the man lived in the neighbourhood, and if he lived in the neighbourhood, that would make him a “local”.

Iīll rephrase myself, then: Why would Hutchinson believe the man lived in the neighbourhood?

Nah, not really.

You’ll often encounter the myth that this particular grotspot was a mecca for prostitute-seekers from all over, but a myth is all it is.

Thatīs what you think - but I havent seen you come even close to proving it. Itīs not until we have proof that we may shout "myth"!

I’m talking specifically about his writings on Hutchinson, which DO amount to proven, self-acknowledged “speculations”.

Not proven, no. You need to read up on the subject "proof", Ben.

One of the things that Dew is accused of - for example - is lying about slipping in the gore as he entered the Millers Court room.
It is said that the blood ran down and formed a pool under the bed, and so Dew could not have slipped in it.
But what about the flesh on the table that stood up against the door? Would it not have dripped onto the floor? And is blood not slippery?
So much for that "proof", as somebody sees it.

Dew can be questioned, yes. But proving him wrong is a lot harder.

Only because most of them are using a single source – the Central News Agency.

"Most of them ..."

Yes. I have. The statement itself and the subsequent report. If there were any details relating to Hutchinson’s credibility that didn’t appear in the statement itself, they can be found in the report. If they appeared in neither, they didn’t exist, or were too trivial to mention. That’s obvious.

So who Hutchinson had spoken to about the matter was "too trivial to mention"...? As per you?

I haven’t. I’m engaging in light-hearted banter about the repetitive, circular, and ceaseless nature of these Hutchinson debates. I said I want a long post, not that you’re guilty of writing them. I’m taking the piss out of myself, if anything. I’m being honest in acknowledging that I want Hutchinson discussions to dominate, which they are doing. We now have three of the bastard things as the current most popular threads, and that’s still not enough for me. I want more. See? The only person I’m being rude about is me!

I am not very interested in your personal problems, Ben. But I do object totally to you daring other posters to answer you, to you making remarks about in what form or shape I post, to you stating that you will go on for fivehundred posts if you have to, and you WILL have the last word. Itīs inflammatory, and it does not belong here. If you have not understood that before, then you have been presented with it now, in black and white. Please go about your posting accordingly, and we will both be fine.

The best,
Fisherman