The Red Handkerchief...

[Stewart P Evans]

Before going...

Before going perhaps I should add the following. In 1973 when Mich Raper was in touch with Jack Hammond about the publication of the script, Raper stated, "I do not think there is any need for a preface from me unless you particularly want one, so unless I hear to the contrary, I shall leave things entirely with you."

In the event Jack appears to have asked for a preface as one appears in the booklet. In this Raper writes, "The script which follows was found, in rehearsal, to be a quarter of an hour too long and had to be cut drastically before being recorded, though none of the main points were omitted or altered.
The broadcast had a mixed reception. Some listeners felt that if Clarence was innocent there was no need to rake up the old suspicions all over again."

As this broadcast was one of a series with a fixed time slot and was found to be too long and had to be pared down, I doubt that there would have been time to include any extraneous interviews at the end.

[Stewart P Evans]

A Little Research

...
Just a little in Dave's defense if I dare, Stewart. It wasn't immediately obvious from reading these last posts that Richard had been told of this radio programme already. The answers did come across as though everyone knew and no one had told Richard....and google, like most of our memories is not what it used to be! I don't want to presume that is what Dave meant but it did come across that way to me.

Also, the reason that I suggested 'a little research' before leaping into print is the fact that by merely using the search function on this very site you will, in minutes, locate the thread where Richard was told of this broadcast by Bob Hinton. I believe that Bob also offered to send him a copy of the script but he did not want it.

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Stewart

It would appear that I owe you an apology and I wholeheartedly make it...

However, I do know from the various times we conversed in the Chatroom on here, Richard was very upset about the absence of evidence about "that" radio broadcast...needless to say he made no mention of the 01.06.72 programme at all.

[Stewart P Evans]

Thank You

Hello Stewart
It would appear that I owe you an apology and I wholeheartedly make it...
However, I do know from the various times we conversed in the Chatroom on here, Richard was very upset about the absence of evidence about "that" radio broadcast...needless to say he made no mention of the 01.06.72 programme at all.

Thank you for the gracious apology Dave, greatly appreciated. I was aware of Richard's ongoing disappointment with the non-discovery of the radio programme he alluded to. It's a pity that no broadcast fitting the bill has ever been found as he was so adamant about it.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys ..
I decided to return back to normal duties on Casebook...I have been absent too long, and really need to get my oar in once more, so much has happened in the past months..
This discussion on the Radio Programme, is fascinating, and somewhat irritating.
I heard many programmes on the subject of Jack on the radio, 'The other Victorians' was a well known series, and indeed excellent...
The show I have been on about since the dark days, was advertised twice in that weeks edition of The Radio Times,once on the front of the copy, and once to my knowledge, within its rear pages,it referred to 'The man that saw Jack', which was a reference to George Hutchinson...
The programme followed the basic case, with reference to upper class connections and then dealt with the very mysterious statement of the man Hutchinson..at the end of the broadcast..it featured [ apparently] a interview with the son of the witness, which I years later [ some 18] assumed was the man known as Reg Hutchinson, as he relayed the same account in The Ripper and the Royals', as I heard on the Radio,,,,I knew all about the £5 fee allegedly given to GH, not known to anyone in the media until 1992. so I had second knowledge from somewhere ..don't you think?.
I rejected the programme Bob Hinton referred to , because it made no reference to the interview...which I would assume..either meant it was the wrong airing. or was edited out....by some conspiracy angle..LOL.
Glad to be back,.with fresh attitudes ..after some 15 years on Casebook.,I needed to recharge my battery..
Regards Richard,

[Robert]

Welcome back Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Thanks Robert...

[Abby Normal]

Thanks Robert...

Welcome back Richard
As one of the few posters who did not jump down my throat when as very new to these boards posited an idea related to Hutchs validity as a suspect I appreciate your courtesy on these boards. especially since I know you don't think hes a valid suspect.

I hope someone can locate that radio program for you. It would be fascinating content no doubt.

[Abby Normal]

No, the point I was making was the fact that the Raper programme is very well known in Ripper circles and was not something that had only just been found which was the drift of the post. Anyway, I appear to have caused an upset and will resume my exile from the boards.

please don't-your expertise and manner is much needed, especially for amateurs such as myself.

[caz]

Anyway...

I finally caught up with this thread and wanted to make a few observations.

From post #590:

The reason Hutchinson did not come forward is only hinted at here..
"...He afterwards heard of the murder, but for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediately put himself in communication with the police." Morning Advertiser.

From this we can rest assured Hutchinson had explained his actions, or lack thereof, to the police. But the police had no intention of sharing that reason with the press.

Absolutely. Since when did the press ever hold back about anything that was 'imprudent' to state, unless it was either libellous, or they didn't actually know the details but wanted to claim some juicy inside knowledge?

From post #735:

...the report in the Atchison Daily Globe continues:

"The witness who testified previously of having seen the woman enter the house with a man with a blotched face was evidently mistaken as to the night [because] his description of her companion is totally unlike that of Hutchinson's in every particular."

In other words, the Atchison Daily Globe's dismissal of the first witness is only because Mr Blotchy didn't fit Hutchinson's description! In fact, the report seems to think that Blotchy was seen by an unnamed man: "his description is... unlike that of Hutchinson's". This journalist was clearly not particularly "wide awake", it appears. Anyone who'd bothered to read Cox's and Hutchinson's testimony would have seen that there was no contradiction at all, only two different men seen at separate times.

PS: I've since noticed that more than one American/Canadian paper carries this story, so it was evidently a Press Agency release, and not the fault of the Atchison Daily Globe as such.

Again, this is typical of what happened when journalists employed guesswork to make sense of incomplete information, whether they could have got sufficient details from other published sources, or the police were not telling, as in Jon's earlier example.

Sam's is a perfect example of the press finding it harder to deal with two sightings of two entirely different suspects than the police did, and trying to work out which witness account the police were going with, and which they rejected, and why. But the police were quite used to juggling more than one suspect and not committing themselves either way without further information – which again they would feel in no way obliged to share with the press, and certainly wouldn't if it risked compromising the investigation.

From post #737:

That cutting only serves to show that press speculation can be founded on very dodgy logic, and can't be used as evidence that people believed Cox was mistaken about the day. The press agency thought she was, but it was they who drew that conclusion, the reason being that the man she saw didn't match Hutchinson's description - as if Kelly was only "allowed" to be seen with one man on any given night. Happily, we know better

Exactly so. We can see the same dodgy logic in action with the Echo's conclusion that Hutch's account had suffered a dramatic reduction in importance because he hadn't come forward until after the inquest – as if the police had only just realised this, or would have admitted as much to the press if this had been their reasoning. If the police said anything at all to the Echo about a reduced importance (and I've seen no evidence for it), they omitted to explain why, otherwise we would have seen it in black and white. In its place all we get is the Echo's guesswork, betraying their ignorance on the matter. They were no doubt asking themselves why the police had resumed their Blotchy enquiries if Hutch's 'last man in' story was still considered such an important lead, and reached their own faulty conclusion. In truth, the police would not have abandoned their search for Blotchy, but added Hutch's suspect to their ongoing enquiries.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Seeing as I'm here, Caz...

We can see the same dodgy logic in action with the Echo's conclusion that Hutch's account had suffered a dramatic reduction in importance because he hadn't come forward until after the inquest

The Echo were not using "dodgy logic".

They were using accurate information obtained from a visit to Commercial Street police station. We know this for a fact because they reported other details that emerged from this police visit which were only obtainable from police sources. I can dredge up the specifics (again) if you wish, but I'm sure the many previous Hutchinson threads will suffice. They did not remotely suggest that the police had "only just realised" that Hutchinson did not come forward until after the inquest. They made it perfectly clear that "later investigations" by the police had cast doubt on whatever excuse Hutchinson had originally provided for the late appearance of his evidence, and that its tardiness was now considered a major factor in the "very reduced importance" now accorded him.

They were no doubt asking themselves why the police had resumed their Blotchy enquiries if Hutch's 'last man in' story was still considered such an important lead, and reached their own faulty conclusion.

No, they were not asking "themselves".

They were asking the police, and they got they got their answer, removing any need to engage in "guesswork". Press-police communication does happen, unless we want to embrace the clearly erroneous notion that the police never divulge case-related information to certain members of the press. Blotchy has nothing to do with it. They didn't need to speculate as to why the police were resuming their pursuit of Blotchy if they had already been provided with a perfectly good explanation as to why they weren't in pursuit of Astrakhan.

That Atchinson Daily Globe piece that you quote from Gareth's post was published on the 14th November, well in advance of Hutchinson's discrediting being widespread knowledge. Most papers didn't even publish his account until that morning, which makes it understandable that they should "guess" that it had eclipsed Cox's account in terms of importance - quite unlike the Echo, who demonstrated conclusively that they were working on the basis of police information, not "guesswork".

Nice to have three Hutchinson debates on the go at the same time.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

From post #788:

Pursuant to your spot-on observations regarding Hutchinson taking inspiration from the press, this article just about clinches it:

"There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that at about half past 10 o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset street. Kelly informed her that she had no money, and it was then she said that if she could not get any she would never go out any more, but would do away with herself. Soon after they parted, and a man who is described as respectably dressed came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man accompanied the woman to her lodgings"

Notice that "murdered woman Kelly" is a direct verbatim quote from Hutchinson's statement.

All the best,
Ben

From page #884

The number of 'well-dressed' men is in any case irrelevant to the discussion in hand.

The point is and remains that Hutchinson's story matches, point for point, an account given to the press by an unamed 'associate' of Kelly shortly after her murder was discovered and widely circulated in the press.

Once agian - unless somebody wishes to argue that more than one such encounter occurred on the night of her death - by which I mean the exact same set of circumstances below:

1. Kelly meets somebody known to her at the corner of Dorset Street
2. Kelly and A.N. Other have a conversation to the effect that Kelly has no money.
3. Kelly and A.N. Other part ways.
4. Kelly is observed by A.N. Other to be accosted by a 'well-dressed' man
5. A. N. Other observes said 'well-dressed' man offer Kelly money - Fabulous! The answer to her prayers!
6. A.N. Other observes Kelly and the man go back to Kelly's lodgings.
7. Kelly is not seen again until her death.

Then the obvious conclusion is that Hutchinson's story is derivative and accordingly, fabricated.

On the balance of probability that would appear to be the solution.

I leave it to others to speculate on the reasons for his mendacity.

From page #894

None of the other hundreds of witness statements come anything close to hutches. Seems to me hutch though long and hard about his statement, like I don't know, maybe over a whole weekend.

Hmmm. Even if we allow for Hutch borrowing, consciously or otherwise, from the 'associate' story Ben quoted above, the suspect (real or fictional) cannot possibly be the same man in both cases. The first, merely respectably dressed, goes off with Kelly to her room shortly after 10.30, whereas the second, done up to the point of vulgarity, doesn't even meet her for another three and a half hours!

This contradiction ought not to have escaped the police, assuming they sifted through the various witness accounts – their own and unsourced press reports - for points of similarity. Also, while I can well believe that a time-wasting publicity seeker, trying to make a quick bob or two, might have come up with this similar tale without giving it much thought, or taking in the timing contradiction, I can't see this applying to the actual killer - especially if he had the whole weekend to think 'long and hard' about it, and pored over this article or others like it. He would be coming forward, after all, to explain his loitering around Miller's Court between 2.30 and 3am, in case he had been seen there, and could later be identified by the likes of Sarah Lewis. But so what if he was seen, merely hanging around on his own, when all the articles like the supposedly 'borrowed' one were putting Kelly with her respectably dressed killer and going back to her room together, significantly before Hutch himself was even in the vicinity? He was home dry, wasn't he? Many men must have hung around courts like that one, hoping a prostitute might come along and offer her services, and besides, previous witness 'sightings' of suspects had invariably involved men seen engaging with a victim, shortly before she was found murdered.

Hutch's statement, endorsed by Abberline after questioning him closely to ascertain its truthfulness, suggests to me that he was actually there that night, but had personal reasons for not coming forward sooner, which were perhaps of an embarrassing nature. Abberline would have asked, yet nothing was apparently written down. If the full interrogation was recorded it has not survived, unless anyone is seriously arguing that his brief report represents the sum total of questions asked and answered. I think Hutch did know Kelly, and could have gone to Miller's Court and hung around there for half an hour or so, hoping she or an associate might emerge and be willing to do business (if he had the money) or provide some rough shelter for the night (if he really was flat broke). Not something most men would readily admit, and if Kelly was already dead, or still ensconced with her killer, he'd have waited in vain, but found himself in a horrible position when he heard she had been murdered in there.

In those circumstances I could certainly see him thinking long and hard about his position over the whole weekend and being reluctant to attend the inquest, where he would have to explain his presence publicly. Whether or not he invented his sighting of a man engaging with Kelly out of whole flashy cloth, in line with what he had read in the papers, it wouldn't necessarily mean he hadn't seen her earlier with someone, or that he killed her himself, shortly after 3am, when he claimed he left the court.

Remember, the police had no evidence that he was anywhere near Dorset Street that night. They only had his claim to that effect, and claims can be legitimate or bogus.

Well Abberline had Sarah Lewis's sighting of a man watching the court as if waiting for someone, so there must have been a reason why he didn't connect this evidence with Hutch watching the court, waiting for Flash Harry to emerge. Maybe Abberline was looking at someone who was clearly nothing like the man Lewis described. How would we know? But it's possible he later found reason to believe Hutch was never there.

I don't accept that Abberline would have gone from believing Hutch was there, to believing he wasn't there, without some new information emerging which led only to that conclusion.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

I merely suggested that Hutchinson might have drawn inspiration from the Daily News account, not that he was intending to scapegoat that specific individual. He would have known that the police were bound to reject the DN story, since it included other patently false elements such as the “little boy” that Kelly supposedly lived with. He simply borrowed the elements that were potentially useful to him, such as well-dressed, lent her money, went back to her room etc etc. The fact that the original false tale happened much earlier in the night would have made it useless for inferring the guilt of that particular non-existent individual, yes, but it would not have enervated these other “useful” details.

He would surely have expected that after the bogus stories emerging in the immediate aftermath had been sifted through and revealed to be nonsense (including the above), the focus would revert to genuine eyewitness accounts of genuine “suspects” observed at or near the crime scene. And one such “suspect” was the loitering man observed by Lewis. Even if the police suspected that he was just a punter-hopeful waiting for one of McCarthy’s rents, Hutchinson would still have expected them to attempt to track the individual down in order to seek confirmation that he was merely waiting on a prostitute. If Lewis recognised him subsequently on the street, and he was consequently hauled in for questioning, the “waiting on a prostitute” excuse would only go so far, especially if the police responded with “you were probably doing precisely that, but let’s just plonk you in front of Schwartz and Lawende, just to make sure”. He had a far better chance of avoiding that outcome by coming forward as a witness, instead of being dragged in a suspect, or so several serial killers have reasoned under similar circumstances.

“If the full interrogation was recorded it has not survived, unless anyone is seriously arguing that his brief report represents the sum total of questions asked and answered.”

I’m very seriously suggesting that it represents the sum total of information that had a direct and important bearing on the question of Hutchinson’s credibility. The alternative is that Abberline deliberately withheld these details from his superiors, which is a far worse thing to argue “seriously”. The only reason submitted in the report and statement for Hutchinson’s presence on Dorset Street was his alleged fascination with Astrakhan man being in Kelly’s company. Swanson, reading that report, would come away with that impression. If Abberline was aware of an altogether different reason for Hutchinson’s presence there – wanted shelter, wanted Kelly’s services etc – and didn’t pass it on to his bosses, he was behaving negligently.

If Hutchinson was hoping for shelter, it’s a mystery that he gave up completely after 3.00am, and thought “walking about all night” was a better option than checking back occasionally to see if Astrakhan had departed. It’s also a mystery that he walked back 13 miles in the small hours in the certainty that his lodgings would be closed to him on arrival. Alternatively, if he was hoping to pay for Kelly’s services (implying that he did have cash), it’s a mystery that he didn’t secure alternative lodgings once he understand that nooky was out of the question.

“Well Abberline had Sarah Lewis's sighting of a man watching the court as if waiting for someone, so there must have been a reason why he didn't connect this evidence with Hutch watching the court, waiting for Flash Harry to emerge.”

Yes, the reason being that he never noticed a potential connection, and before we’re tempted to be surprised about that, reflect that not a single member of the press noticed the connection either. And no, it wasn’t possible for them to have been tipped off by the police in advance of the press release of Hutchinson's statement that the connection had been spotted and ruled out. There was not the time available for the police to spot the connection, investigate it, rule it out AND inform the press about it before the latter were privy to Hutchinson’s statement. The press had Lewis’s evidence and Hutchinson’s at their disposal, and yet no “connection” was made. It seems the widawake man was eclipsed in terms of significance at the time, and possibly overlooked in favour the far more obviously “spooky” man in Lewis’s account.

“I don't accept that Abberline would have gone from believing Hutch was there, to believing he wasn't there, without some new information emerging which led only to that conclusion”

A suspicion that the account was bogus ought to do it – it worked out that way in the case of Violenia. If Abberline no longer invested any credence in Hutchinson’s statement, why would he continue to cling to Hutchinson’s claim that he was there at all? From his experience, most lying witnesses had not been.

All the best,
Ben

[Bridewell]

The number of 'well-dressed' men is in any case irrelevant to the discussion in hand.

The point is and remains that Hutchinson's story matches, point for point, an account given to the press by an unnamed 'associate' of Kelly shortly after her murder was discovered and widely circulated in the press.

Once agian - unless somebody wishes to argue that more than one such encounter occurred on the night of her death - by which I mean the exact same set of circumstances below:

1. Kelly meets somebody known to her at the corner of Dorset Street
2. Kelly and A.N. Other have a conversation to the effect that Kelly has no money.
3. Kelly and A.N. Other part ways.
4. Kelly is observed by A.N. Other to be accosted by a 'well-dressed' man
5. A. N. Other observes said 'well-dressed' man offer Kelly money - Fabulous! The answer to her prayers!
6. A.N. Other observes Kelly and the man go back to Kelly's lodgings.
7. Kelly is not seen again until her death.

Then the obvious conclusion is that Hutchinson's story is derivative and accordingly, fabricated.

On the balance of probability that would appear to be the solution.

I leave it to others to speculate on the reasons for his mendacity.

An alternative 'obvious conclusion' would be that the Kelly associate who spoke to the press and George Hutchinson were one and the same. All that would then be inconsistent would be the timing of the incident which might or might not be a journalist's mistake.

[Sally]

An alternative 'obvious conclusion' would be that the Kelly associate who spoke to the press and George Hutchinson were one and the same. All that would then be inconsistent would be the timing of the incident which might or might not be a journalist's mistake.

Sorry Colin, the 'associate' was a woman. - sorry if that wasn't clear from Caz's recent cut & paste job. The story was widely circulated. Here's the version from the Daily News, 10th November.

There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that at about half-past 10 o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street. Kelly informed her that she had no money, and it was then she said that if she could not get any she would never go out any more, but would do away with herself. Soon after they parted, and a man who is described as respectably dressed came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man accompanied her to her lodgings

The phrase 'the murdered woman Kelly' is one Hutchinson used himself, when he told his version a couple of days later.