The Red Handkerchief...

[Wickerman]

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.

I agree. In having only Swanson's summary, but not the original police statement, we cannot know for sure whether Schwartz described the woman.
But as you say, the interviewing officer (again, Abberline) might have drawn the same conclusion as yourself.

The situation is similar in the Kelly case where we have no existing record of what Hutchinson told Abberline, he may well have described the clothes Kelly wore that night just to satisfy Abberline's curiosity.

The observation that started this line of thought is an often repeated one in that "Hutchinson did not tell the police (something)", when in reality, we simply do not know everything that he told police, more specifically, what he told Abberline.

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

[Bridewell]

Hi Robert.

The same as Schwartz then, who did not describe the woman being assaulted in the gateway.

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.

[Rosella]

Mary's eyes, I suppose. It's intriguing that she supposedly had a couple of false teeth, hardly the sort of thing you'd expect a poverty-stricken East End prostitute to possess. They might have been rather prominent natural buck teeth of course and just looked false.

[Wickerman]

So what do you think this suggests?

I don't understand, Jon.

Sorry Robert, that wasn't too clear.
I meant, what do you think the omission of any description of Kelly implies?

Hutchinson was interrogated later, do you think Abberline might have asked him those questions?

He may have done, but why wasn't there something in his police statement about it?

After all, despite GH saying that he knew Kelly, and that she and Mr A went up the Court, the police still asked him to identify the body. So they were being quite careful.

There are a number of details omitted in that police statement, as Stewart took pains to point out, yet whether these omissions are attributed to Hutchinson or Badham is not easy to determine.

It is always possible that when asked to describe both Kelly & Astrachan, Badham only thought it necessary to record the description of the suspect, as this was the important feature of the statement.

It can't be denied that the police took witness claims of recognition on faith, by example, Mrs Maxwell also claimed to have recognised Kelly Friday morning, yet even the authorities at the time began to be doubtful about that.

Why Hutchinson was asked to identify the body is interesting, as from what we can see, very little remained of facial features to distinguish the body with any certainty.
What was there beyond the false teeth and the hair?

[Robert]

So what do you think this suggests?

I don't understand, Jon.

Hutchinson was interrogated later, do you think Abberline might have asked him those questions?

He may have done, but why wasn't there something in his police statement about it?

After all, despite GH saying that he knew Kelly, and that she and Mr A went up the Court, the police still asked him to identify the body. So they were being quite careful.

[Wickerman]

Actually Rosella, I suspect part of the problem is human nature.

Just ask any man what his wife was wearing last night.

Conversely, ask any woman what another woman was wearing.

If you see what I mean.

[Rosella]

The trouble with giving descriptions of any the female victims, IMHO, is that each of them wore dark clothing which, away from the direct glare of street lamps, would have just looked black.

If they wore a flower, hat or coloured shawl there is sometimes an attempt at a description (as in Stride's red flower) but all we usually get from the male witnesses who were presumably given a description of their clothing is that to the 'best of their knowledge' that is the woman'.

Mary doesn't seem to have habitually worn a hat, we know from Dew that she usually wore an apron and she might have worn a red cross-over shawl. 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.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

More or less what Gareth said : Schwarz would have had a quick glimpse of Stride, and after that his (frightened) attention would have been directed at the two people who might do him harm.

Hi Robert.
So what do you think this suggests?

Surely the police tried to build a picture of Kelly's clothes, to see if anything was missing. They'd have talked to Barnett, Cox, Harvey etc and I would have expected them to ask GH a couple of questions about her clothes. But we hear nothing on that score. Cox, who knew Kelly and actually saw her go into her room, furnishes a description, but not GH.

Hutchinson was interrogated later, do you think Abberline might have asked him those questions?

[Robert]

Hi Jon

More or less what Gareth said : Schwarz would have had a quick glimpse of Stride, and after that his (frightened) attention would have been directed at the two people who might do him harm. But GH (according to his statement anyway) wasn't frightened at all : he speaks to Mary, then he sees her encounter with Mr A, and he actually bends down to look Mr A in the face, receiving a stern look in reply. Then he follows them.

Excluding the apron piece, this was the only murder where the killer could have walked off with some of the victim's clothing. Surely the police tried to build a picture of Kelly's clothes, to see if anything was missing. They'd have talked to Barnett, Cox, Harvey etc and I would have expected them to ask GH a couple of questions about her clothes. But we hear nothing on that score. Cox, who knew Kelly and actually saw her go into her room, furnishes a description, but not GH.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,
Schwartz merely scuttled past the darkened entrance of Dutfield's Yard before legging it down the street sharpish. He couldn't have seen much of Liz Stride under such circumstances. By contrast, by Hutchinson's account, he practically "stalked" Mary Kelly, and even claimed to have held a conversation with her. His vantage points were much better than Schwartz's, and he had her under observation for quite some time. Under such circumstances, perhaps it is a bit odd that the only really descriptive statement he gave about Kelly referred to her "spreeishness", and little else. But all that changes when it comes to Mr Astrakhan, about whom Hutchinson produced a veritable torrent of descriptive detail.

Hi Gareth.

So, who do you blame?, Badham assuming he was supposed to direct the taking of the statement, or Hutchinson who, as Stewart has pointed out, is a witness who does not recognise what is important to police.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Jon,

The same as Schwartz then, who did not describe the woman being assaulted in the gateway.

Schwartz merely scuttled past the darkened entrance of Dutfield's Yard before legging it down the street sharpish. He couldn't have seen much of Liz Stride under such circumstances. By contrast, by Hutchinson's account, he practically "stalked" Mary Kelly, and even claimed to have held a conversation with her. His vantage points were much better than Schwartz's, and he had her under observation for quite some time. Under such circumstances, perhaps it is a bit odd that the only really descriptive statement he gave about Kelly referred to her "spreeishness", and little else. But all that changes when it comes to Mr Astrakhan, about whom Hutchinson produced a veritable torrent of descriptive detail.

[Wickerman]

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.

The same as Schwartz then, who did not describe the woman being assaulted in the gateway.

Do you think this is due to the natural inclination for people to be suspicious of the unknown male?

It doesn't appear that Sgt. Badham considered there to be any doubt about the identity of the woman with Astrachan, given that Hutchinson claimed to know her, perhaps that comment alone removed the need to ask him to describe her?
Besides, after the inquest, the police focus was on the suspect, finding one, and any fresh leads.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

Indeed, Robert. That may have something to do with the fact that details about suspects were widely covered in the press - which is where, I'd wager, Hutchinson's cut-and-paste "suspect" had his origins.

[Abby Normal]

Okay, Abby. So if Hutch came forward as a result of realising that Sarah Lewis had seen him in a particular location, and therefore admitted to the police he had been in this location (while not mentioning Lewis in case they realised he had only come forward because of her), how did he then find out, between his police and press interviews, he had also been spotted right outside Kelly's window, prompting him to change his story and mention this more incriminating detail when talking to the reporter?

And even if something like this did happen, how could he be sure he had only been seen that close to the crime scene for the 'couple of minutes' he claimed to be there - unless it was the truth and he then returned to the Dorset St entrance just as he claimed, before finally walking away?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

]Okay, Abby. So if Hutch came forward as a result of realising that Sarah Lewis had seen him in a particular location, and therefore admitted to the police he had been in this location (while not mentioning Lewis in case they realised he had only come forward because of her), how did he then find out, between his police and press interviews, he had also been spotted right outside Kelly's window, prompting him to change his story and mention this more incriminating detail when talking to the reporter?

Im not wedded to the idea that Hutch came forward because of lewis, but it dosnt seem far fetched to me, given the circs.

I have no idea how he found out he had been spotted there. maybe he was just getting paranoid, maybe he though someone from McCathys shop spotted him. Who knows?

All I know is he seems to have neglected to tell this little tidbit to the police. And Im just kicking around reasons why-and one of the main reasons why strikes me because he later thought someone spotted him there.

And even if something like this did happen, how could he be sure he had only been seen that close to the crime scene for the 'couple of minutes' he claimed to be there - unless it was the truth and he then returned to the Dorset St entrance just as he claimed, before finally walking away?

I think it was the truth, but what he did after that is anybodies guess.
He could have done just like you said, or he could have entered her apt, or left and come back.

If he entered her apartment immediately after standing there, maybe he only saw someone look out a window for a moment and then leave.

[Robert]

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.