The Red Handkerchief...

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
It was reported at the time that Mrs Cox had mistaken the day..and Blotchy was from a previous encounter., this view holds some credence, as it would explain the discrepancy in Kelly's clothing compared with Prater.
Also it was reported that Hutchinson's A man was described by another witness, who had no connection with Hutchinson..
So there we could have a completely different series of events that evening....
Regards Richard.

[Roy Corduroy]

What's "ambicide"?

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

Gawd, Ben. You're in the theater, right. Your posts are so funny.

I don't buy none of this Hutchinson stuff though. There's a term for this, its called

Guilt By Association

Hutch
Robert Mann
Charles Cross
LeGrand

But I do enjoy your posts, Ben, always have. Way back to a certain cutaway jacket.

Roy

[Scott Nelson]

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..

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...

Words of wisdom.

[Abby Normal]

Words of wisdom.

another conspiracy theory? really? words of wackiness more like it.

[Fisherman]

another conspiracy theory? really? words of wackiness more like it.

Problem is, Abby, that we canīt tell, can we?

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The trouble is guys ..''Words of Wackiness''.. applies to almost every word spoken on this subject since day one...My scenario of the Ripper being caught,,is just as likely , then him not being caught...
Prove otherwise?
Regards Richard.

[Scott Nelson]

The ghost of Marty Feldman has got your soul, Mr. Normal.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

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.

...or, rather, replaced by a whole load of substitute "details", all more fanciful and ornamental than the original. That's what usually happens with parrotted or Chinese Whispered stories - they don't become reduced, they become enlarged on each retelling as the original gets supplanted by more and more elaborate fiction.

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.

If he lied to the press, then yes.

Otherwise, those who believe he was either honestly accurate or honestly mistaken will just have to accept the evidence as he related it, which is that he didn't recount the episode to anyone until the Sunday policeman and Monday lodger.

I've already outlined the numerous problems I have with your "date confusion" hypothesis, so I won't go into them again. What I have trouble reconciling with your latest suggestion is the image of a supposedly chatty, gregarious Hutchinson divulging all to any pub-goer who would listen, with a mysterious failure of this group (women? handful? pubfull) to mention Hutchinson by name? Did they all want to pretend that the account was theirs and none of them wanted to be honest and helpful, i.e. "I was talking to a man in the pub, and he said..."?

Is everyone naughty except Hutchinson?

Wouldn't they have found it rather interesting that Hutchinson mentioned this encounter with Kelly and a strange man, only for Kelly herself to get murdered later on that night? How did he still manage to confuse the date, when he supposedly had a conversation with others who could cement it for him? So he tells his tale at a pub on Thursday night ("guess what I saw in the early hours of this morning?"), goes to bed, Kelly gets murdered during the night unbeknownst to him, and he emerges from the Victoria Home to news of her murder...

...and he's confused himself into believing that the events of Wednesday night/Thursday morning had just happened? That he forgot all about last night at the pub, and convinced himself that he'd wandered in from "walking about all night", having experienced Romford, Kelly and everything else just a few hours ago, as opposed to about 27 hours ago.

That is not possible, Fisherman, unless he received a serious blow to the head on that Thursday night pub visit.

You ask us to look for holes in your suggestion, and here is a yawning great chasm.

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?

I'm talking about the press interview. Had they asked anything about Kelly's clothing, the detail would have appeared in that interview. The fact that Hutchinson does provide details as to who he related his story to assures us that the press did quiz him on this point, "Did you relate this incident to anyone else?" was the question they obviously asked, to which Hutchinson recounted the alleged Sunday PC and the alleged Monday lodger.

Thatīs what you think - but I havent seen you come even close to proving it

The onus of proof is on you, not me. If you make the claim that people flocked to that part of the East End from all over (because the prostitutes were super special there?), it is incumbent on you to back it up with evidence.

But what about the flesh on the table that stood up against the door? Would it not have dripped onto the floor?

No. Probably not.

What's wrong with me stating my intention to go on for hundreds more pages? I enjoy Hutchinson discussions, and I want them to go on for that long. I also want lots of Hutchinson debates, even though I do sometimes feel bad for other discussions (and other suspects) that completely fade out when a Hutchathon is in session. You can't "report" me for that. If you're reading anything sinister into my boyish, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed enthusiasm and zeal, such as a desire to intimidate others, I can't do much about that. But if it's upsetting you, I'll say no more about it.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

But I do enjoy your posts, Ben, always have. Way back to a certain cutaway jacket.

Kind of you to say so, Roy, and likewise of course!

Yes, those cutaway days were a hoot. We got dangerously close to going through all that again a few pages of posts ago, but we managed to swerve it.

Edit: Hi again, Fisherman - the comments Dew made regarding Hutchinson are proven to have been speculations because Dew makes it clear himself that this is precisely what they were.

[Bridewell]

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.

Why is the "most obvious, likely and realistic one" not the "Hutch was totally honest" scenario?

The idea that a well-dressed man of Jewish appearance might have been walking along a major London thoroughfare in the small hours of the morning and with half an eye out for a prostitute is not earth-shatteringly improbable. His description is too detailed to be true? He can't possibly have seen that much detail in the prevailing light? If that is such an obvious absurdity why did Abberline find him credible?

I'm not arguing that Hutchinson as a truthful witness is the only possibility, far from it, but it seems to have become a Casebook default setting that Hutchinson 'must have been' a liar because he gave such a detailed description of a man he claimed to have seen. We didn't (and cannot) visit the Spitalfields of the 19th century, but Abberline did and knew it as well as anyone. If the detail of his account was as wholly implausible as so many seem to accept, that fact would have been immediately obvious to a man of Abberline's local knowledge and experience. If Hutchinson was lying, Abberline was deceived. That is not impossible, but I think it unlikely.

[Wickerman]

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


... Or do you mean killing a friend?

Where would Ben be without his sidekick...

Yes, to kill a friend.

[Ben]

Hi Bridewell,

An oft-overlooked point about he police of 1888 - particularly the detectives working "on the ground" - is that they were a heavily beleaguered, heavily criticized and occasionally, even vilified group of professionals. They were not mulling leisurely and obsessively over specific, esoteric aspects of the case as we are. Abberline, in particular, reported that the pressure was so intense that he nearly broke down, and we ought to remind ourselves that as one of the senior officers working the case in Whitechapel, it would have been he who dealt most with the press - bearing the brunt of their wrath and dissatisfaction. It was not as though the police had any experience of unsolved serial crime on their doorstep, and organised policing in general was still in its relative infancy in 1888.

In the aftermath of the Chapman murder, he sought to expedite the viewing of Isensschmidt by the witnesses from Mrs. Fiddymont's pub "for the purpose of allaying the strong public feeling that exists". In other words, let's hope to goodness they all say it's him, so we don't get in any more doggy-do with press and public for failing to capture the killer".

Even the late James Tully, who argued for quite another suspect, appreciated that Abberline's initial, short-lived faith in Hutchinson was not that significant, as by then the police "were ready to clutch at any straw". And "clutch" they didn't by the 13th when, in the cold light of day, the full implausible implications of Hutchinson's statement (as well as further "investigations") were realised.

Yes, it is "earth-shatteringly improbable" that a man would walk into what was well-known as the worst street in London (and its surrounding locality) in the most ostentatious and opulent clothes and accessories imaginable. There are accounts aplenty of men appearing just vaguely out of place being pursued by a twitchy and suspicious mob. He was a walking advertisement for muggers, plain-clothes coppers and vigilantees (both legitimate committee members and wannabees), and the chances of him departing the locality unaccosted were slim to non-existent. If this doesn't sound unlikely enough, reflect that some people want this person to have been the real ripper. Is that how Jack evaded capture? By attiring and bedecking himself in a manner than pandered to all the "bogeyman" images ascribed him in the press?

Quite aside from anything else, the "Hutch as totally honest" scenario fails because it wasn't the contemporary view, except perhaps for a few hours after the initial interrogation. Shortly thereafter, his account was considerably discounted for reasons that irrevocably concerned his credibility, or rather perceived lack thereof.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hi,
The trouble is guys ..''Words of Wackiness''.. applies to almost every word spoken on this subject since day one...My scenario of the Ripper being caught,,is just as likely , then him not being caught...
Prove otherwise?
Regards Richard.

Prove Otherwise that the ripper being caught is just as likely as him being not caught?
Ok. That's easy. The case is unsolved.

Proven.

[Abby Normal]

Problem is, Abby, that we canīt tell, can we?

The best,
Fisherman

Can't tell what?

[Abby Normal]

The ghost of Marty Feldman has got your soul, Mr. Normal.

Whos this Marty Feldman that you speak of?