The Red Handkerchief...

[Sam Flynn]

Both Hutchinson and Lewis lived locally. It is entirely possible, therefore, that Hutchinson recognized Lewis on the night of the murder.

Lewis a couple of hundred yards to the north of Dorset Street, Hutchinson about the same distance to the south. In between, thousands of souls crammed into numerous, often temporary, dwellings. Taking these factors into account, the chances of their knowing one another can't have been particularly high. It's possible that they did, of course, but "entirely possible" is a bit of a stretch.

[Sam Flynn]

Good to see you back here!

It's great to be back, Ben, and to be corresponding/sparring with you again

[richardnunweek]

Hi Gareth,
It is indeed refreshing to see you posting again.as you can see we are still rambling on.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Gareth,
It is indeed refreshing to see you posting again.

Thanks, Nunners! Nice to see you, too.

as you can see we are still rambling on

I'm just pleased to see you've all still got the energy

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben,
I was not of the impression that researches /writers were well aware of one Reg Hutchinson and his claims at the the time of 'The Ripper and the Royal's'.
Are we talking about prior to 1992..?
As for Reg's younger brother, JD Hutchinson's father-in-law, the good lady clearly states that he was also familiar with the tale related by his father Topping.
So that makes it a brotherly invention.
Regards Richard.

[Bridewell]

Variable Street-Lighting?

The problem I have with the scenario which has a guilty George Hutchinson coming forward solely in order to deflect attention away from himself is that it isn't a logical thing for him to do. It would (and did) have the opposite effect.
A full 4 days after the murder - and after the conclusion of the inquest - no-one had offered even a tentative identification of the man seen by Lewis. What reason was there to suppose that anyone ever would? (After all, as we're constantly being reminded, the street-lighting was supposedly so poor as to make detailed observation of any individual impossible - ironically one of the main reasons why Hutchinson and his Astrakhan Man are discounted). We can't simultaneously have an argument which says that
(1) Hutchinson was a liar because he couldn't have seen that much detail but
(2) Hutchinson was in mortal peril because Sarah Lewis, from a much greater distance, and over a much shorter time, would be able to positively identify the man she saw!
That's a double standard surely? Either the lighting was good enough to get a clear view or it wasn't.
Whitechapel and Spitalfield were heavily populated with men of similar description to Hutchinson. The only way a guilty Hutchinson was ever likely to become a suspect was if he did something really stupid like hand himself in on a plate by going to see Abberline with a c**k-and-bull story.

[Ben]

Hi Bridewell,

Whether we consider it "logical" or not, serial killers have been approaching the police and injecting themselves into their investigations as "witnesses" over many decades since 1888. It is far from an unusual phenomenon, and experienced law enforcement officials will often be so familiar with the behavioural trait that they have, on occasion, laid traps in anticipation of the uncaught offender doing precisely that, and with successful results.

Hutchinson came forward almost immediately after the termination of the inquest, at which Sarah Lewis publicly divulged her sighting of the man in the wideawake who she saw loitering opposite Miller's Court shortly before the crime. It shouldn't really be surprising, therefore, that nobody had identified or named the man Lewis' saw over the days that elapsed prior to the inquest, when nobody but Lewis and the police (and the wideawake man himself) knew anything about it. What Hutchinson may have been concerned about is being recognised subsequent to the publication of the inquest witness evidence.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that the description was sufficient alone for anyone to identify the loiterer as George Hutchinson. I'm suggesting, as Garry Wroe and others have suggested before, that he may have feared being recognised by Lewis at a later stage of the investigation and dragged in as a suspect before he'd had a chance to place the "helpful witness" card.

(1) Hutchinson was a liar because he couldn't have seen that much detail but
(2) Hutchinson was in mortal peril because Sarah Lewis, from a much greater distance, and over a much shorter time, would be able to positively identify the man she saw!
That's a double standard surely?

No.

Of course not.

Because what has "detail" to do with the possibility of Lewis being able to recognise Hutchinson as the man she saw? Nothing at all. We know full well that Lewis' description of Hutchinson was far from "detailed", but that wouldn't have prevented a subsequent recognition of his face. Similarly, I've not heard it suggested by anyone that Hutchinson was incapable of recognising the Astrakhan man again - only that he could not have noticed and memorized all the detail that he claimed to have recorded in the time and conditions available. Just go and compare the level of detail in the Hutchinson and Lewis sightings.

The only way a guilty Hutchinson was ever likely to become a suspect was if he did something really stupid like hand himself in on a plate by going to see Abberline with a c**k-and-bull story.

But then that's precisely what known serial killers have done in similar situations.

If you'd prefer to accept that the killer was a well-dressed, ostentatious, sinister-looking Jew who would stand out a mile anywhere, as opposed to an ordinary local who realised he'd been seen, and lied about his reasons for being there, be my guest, but I know where my study of serial killers leads me, given the two options.

All the best,
Ben

[Varqm]

Hi,

As per my post:

"We'll we have to weigh the possiblity of the police asking Sarah Lewis if the man she'd seen was Hutchinson.
Or that she knew him.To me they would have. Common sense, Simple detective work. What came of it we do not know. Hutchinson dismissed as a witness was telling. Added to that no reports of anybody saying Hutchinson was a friend or an acquaintance of Kelly. If she knew Hutchinson and/or recognize him as the man at 2:30 AM he would have been a major witness."

The weight just go to that Hutchinson and Sarah Lewis did not know each other and therefore Hutchinson/Ripper would not have bothered.

Question, based on the case notes that we know which is more likely that Sarah Lewis and Hutchinson knew each other or not.

[Ben]

It's great to be back, Ben, and to be corresponding/sparring with you again

Likewise, Gareth. It's been far too long!

Pursuant to Garry's post, I'd argue that the possibility of Lewis and Hutchinson being acquainted, however mildly, with one another was potentially greater than the physical distances between their respective homes implied, especially if Lewis was in the habit of visiting her Keyler friends at Miller's Court. Likewise, if Hutchinson really had known Kelly for three years, the likelihood is that he was aware of her residence at Miller's Court and the comers and goers thereto, including - potentially - Lewis.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, Ben.

I'm afraid Reg Hutchinson's tall tale was not so much the "baby" to Melvyn Fairclough's proverbial "bathwater", but rather the stray pube that gets inevitably consigned, along with that bathwater, to the loving plughole.

(If you'll forgive the rather disgusting, totally apt, and not entirely unfunny analogy!)

I was not of the impression that researches /writers were well aware of one Reg Hutchinson and his claims at the the time of 'The Ripper and the Royal's'.
Are we talking about prior to 1992..?

Around the same time, Richard.

Whilst Fairclough was willing to publish Reginald's claims, none of the former's well-known researcher contemporaries would touch it, having smelt a rat.

As for Reg's younger brother, JD Hutchinson's father-in-law, the good lady clearly states that he was also familiar with the tale related by his father Topping.

Reg's younger brother is a good lady?

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Yes, he does, Jon.

He said he stood at the corner of Dorset Street, i.e. effectively still on Commercial Street.

What he told the police was, that he followed them.

"They both went into Dorset Street I followed them."

How far did he follow them?, Sarah Lewis tells us that he stood opposite Millers court while 'the couple' were in view.
You told me you believe Sarah Lewis, so if he paused momentarily on the corner of Dorset St. then thats all it was. Obviously he cannot see and hear what he claimed from that location, so we can trust he continued to follow the couple.

On the other hand, if you wish to advance the baseless idea that he was a lot closer to the couple at that time, you lose the distance problem, but you're left having to explain Astrakah/Kelly's failure to notice Hutchinson at such close quarters and query his behaviour.

What makes you think he was not noticed?

If you accept, as the police in 1888 did, that Hutchinson lied and was accordingly discredited, both of those problems disappear.

The police were quite happy with Hutchinson's account, as expressed in black and white. Anything to the contrary is make believe.

... If Sarah Lewis confirmed any aspect of Hutchinson's account, it was when he was standing outside Crossingham's lodging house as 2:30am, just as a couple passed along Dorset Street towards its western end, when there was nobody in the court, nobody "passing up" the court, and nobody preparing to "pass up" the court.

There was no other couple, remember!
He tells us himself, the only other person he saw was a man enter a lodging-house. So, Lewis's couple & Hutchinson's couple, were the same couple.

Lewis said there was no-one in the court, and Hutchinson made the same observation when he went up the court - so they agree. Reason - the couple had gone indoors!
Lewis & Hutchinson are telling the same story.

... your decision to endorse Hutchinson's press account as accurate while dismissing as "errors" the bits that don't help his credibility and don't work well with Lewis, is a flawed approach.

(Note: I endorse the police version)
Well, picky is as picky does right? - you champion the press version but at the same time dismiss the Sunday morning sighting which only exists in this press version.
I take from this that you fully understand my position of disseminating the sources - though you appear to be pretending that such an approach is flawed?

He did.

That's the whole point.

The discrediting of his account coincided completely with the publication of his contradictory, heavily embellished press disclosures, ...

Its not like we have not been down this road before, you know very well the police did not discredit Hutchinson.

Until you provide such evidence from a police source in black and white, no-one is going to believe you.
In that, I am not suggesting that there are not others who share the same belief, but make believe is not fact. And to date this argument is heavy on make believe but light on fact.

[Ben]

What he told the police was, that he followed them.

Yes, but not immediately, and not all the way to a vantage point opposite the Miller's Court entrance, or else he'd have been seen by Astrakhan and Kelly and remonstrated with. That's shockingly obvious, even more so than Hutchinson not being able to detect small coloured objects and hanky-related conversations from the corner of Dorset Street. It doesn't matter if you go with the press version or your misinterpretation of the police statement, you're completely buggered if your intention is to weave a sequence of events into Hutchinson's narrative that supposedly supports Lewis.

Obviously he cannot see and hear what he claimed from that location, so we can trust he continued to follow the couple.

You're fiddling with things again to make them seem more plausible.

He can't have seen the ornamental detail of a flying pig's silver necklace from that location, so "we can trust" that he must have had super-special binoculars.

No. We can't.

The police were quite happy with Hutchinson's account, as expressed in black and white. Anything to the contrary is make believe.

Jon, if you keep repeating the same erroneous claims, I'm never going to get bored of correcting them. You are therefore advised against wasting your own time. The police provably communicated with the Echo, and provably informed them that Hutchinson's statement had been discredited because of doubts about his credibility and motivation for coming forward. It would be tedious to have to copy and paste from previous debates if you're bored enough to go there again.

So, Lewis's couple & Hutchinson's couple, were the same couple

Emphatically not.

Absolutely and permanently no way.

This inexplicable misunderstanding is based on your wayward acceptance of the Daily News' erroneous report. Sarah Lewis saw only one couple on Dorset Street, and her evidence makes very clear the fact that they had nothing whatsoever to do with Miller's Court.

you champion the press version but at the same time dismiss the Sunday morning sighting which only exists in this press version.

I champion no such thing.

I champion the discrediting of an account that was discredited in 1888, that's all.

All the press account illustrates is weakness in his embellished narrative, specifically his claim to have seen and heard what he alleged from the corner of Dorset Street. You attempt to lessen the implausibility factor by moving Hutchinson to a location that Hutchinson never claimed to have been in at that time. You're "helping" Hutchinson by altering his account, to what end I know not.

Until you provide such evidence from a police source in black and white, no-one is going to believe you

No offense, Jon, but there are considerably more adherents to the reality that Hutchinson was discredited than there are "Isaacstrakhan" supporters, or people who buy into your proven-wrong Daily News version. Just saying.

[richardnunweek]

Good morning Ben,
I am sure you comprehended my reply regarding Reg's younger brother. although I admit it was hardly queens English.
To clarify for future generations.
One time poster to Casebook[ literally] JD Hutchinson, informed us that her father -in law was Reg Hutchinson's younger brother,and Toppings youngest son, and 'he' was also aware of his fathers tale.
With reference to the ''others's' smelling a rat, I congratulate them on their physic abilities, I personally would have considered Reg's oral history rather a scoop,[ but then that's not surprising is it Ben?]
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

Yes, but not immediately, and not all the way to a vantage point opposite the Miller's Court entrance, or else he'd have been seen by Astrakhan and Kelly and remonstrated with.

Not at all, these dwellers of the backstreets were accustomed to being watched by all and sundry - that's all there was to do in them days, loiter around and watch what everybody else was doing.

It doesn't matter if you go with the press version or your misinterpretation of the police statement, you're completely buggered if your intention is to weave a sequence of events into Hutchinson's narrative that supposedly supports Lewis.

I'd say it pieces together reasonably well.
The female in Lewis's couple was 'the worse for drink', while the female in Hutchinson's couple was 'spreeish', these couples were in the same location, at the same time, being watched by the same man.
And, Hutchinson admitted that, apart from Astrachan & Kelly, there was only one man in the street at that time - no second couple.

The police provably communicated with the Echo, and provably informed them that Hutchinson's statement had been discredited because of doubts about his credibility and motivation for coming forward.

And as with all the previous debates, you have still to provide any proof whatsoever. That, much like your argument, has remained unchanged.
Claiming to have proven some detail which to the world at large remains unproven sets a dubious example.

I champion the discrediting of an account that was discredited in 1888, that's all.

You will perhaps understand if the more serious members wait for such proof to be offered.
What really surprises me Ben is how resolutely you repeat these claims of proof when everyone reading your claims has yet to see anything of the sort.
Opinion is not proof, Ben.

You attempt to lessen the implausibility factor by moving Hutchinson to a location that Hutchinson never claimed to have been in at that time.

The implausibility is only introduced by you insisting those observations were made from a vantage point which was too far away.
Hutchinson does not say where he was when he observed the red handkerchief. It only makes common sense that he would have to be closer than the corner of the street.

Afterall, it is you who is adamant on creating implausible explanations for Hutchinson's claims. You choose the implausible in order to try discredit the witness, rather than accept the plausible which then verifies the witness - but we can't have that can we Ben

No offense, Jon, but there are considerably more adherents to the reality that Hutchinson was discredited than there are "Isaacstrakhan" supporters, or people who buy into your proven-wrong Daily News version. Just saying.

This sounds like quantity over quality.
You might be surprised how many prefer to support some kind of Royal Conspiracy, they also may outnumber the more grounded core researchers of the case - the same core that also don't accept that Hutchinson was discredited.

Isaacs = Astrachan?, merely my suggestion based on known evidence about the man. I aim to convince no-one, it is only necessary to point out that such a man as described by Hutchinson did exist.

[Ben]

Not at all, these dwellers of the backstreets were accustomed to being watched by all and sundry - that's all there was to do in them days, loiter around and watch what everybody else was doing.

Loitering around in the cold and rain at 2.30am, eschewing the opportunity of a bed and crucial rest for the following day's hard toil? You can forget that idea immediately. I don't know what you mean when you say "that's all there was to do in them (sic) days", but I think you'll find sleeping has been the number #1 activity at 2.30am for many, many years.

The female in Lewis's couple was 'the worse for drink', while the female in Hutchinson's couple was 'spreeish', these couples were in the same location, at the same time, being watched by the same man.

The only thing correct about the above is that both Hutchinson and Lewis undoubtedly observed the same couple strolling along Dorset Street. Where things go haywire, however, is your refusal to accept that they did not, as the Daily News erroneously printed, enter Miller's Court, and nor could they possibly have been Kelly and Astrakhan. The complete lack of interest shown in the couple by either the police or the press should be your first clue in this regard. If you think female intoxication was remotely uncommon back then, guess again.

And as with all the previous debates, you have still to provide any proof whatsoever.

I've provided the proof, and it is your time to waste arguing otherwise. Try to get out of the flawed mentality that everyone's monitoring these Hutchinson debates as obsessively as some of their more regular contributors are, because you'll find that's a long way from reality. So protracted and long-winded are most Hutchinson debates than any meaningful discoveries tend to get lost in the rubble, or at the very least, their significance not fully appreciated. In addition to which, a lot of "serious members" don't even bother checking the Hutchinson threads because of the interminable posting marathons that go on there.

Your rather amusing impression that the "world a large" is shining its big old Spotlight on Hutchinson threads waiting for me to provide proof is, therefore, a seriously misplaced one.

The implausibility is only introduced by you insisting those observations were made from a vantage point which was too far away.

It's called going with the evidence.

And the only location we have for Hutchinson during the alleged hanky episode is at the corner of Dorset and Commercial Street, too far to discern small coloured objects and conversation, but any closer and we're left having to explain the even less plausible scenario of Kelly and Astrakhan failing to notice Hutchinson clinging to them like a limpet.

It only makes common sense that he would have to be closer than the corner of the street.

No, it's common sense that if he was too far away to have made the observation, he probably lied about the observation. Various survival accounts from the Titanic disaster tell dramatic tales of Captain Smith being washed over on the bridge by a wave, despite the survivors in question being at least a mile away on a lifeboat. Common sense does not dictate that the fibbing survivors must have been closer to the scene.

You choose the implausible in order to try discredit the witness, rather than accept the plausible which then verifies the witness

No, you choose not to recognise that the implausible claims discredit the witness, but fiddle instead with the actual claims of the witness in order to make him seem plausible. And we can't have that, Jon.

the same core that also don't accept that Hutchinson was discredited.

It's the return of "the core" again!

I don't know where this nonsense has suddenly come from, but it's irritating me "to the core".

There is no "core" of serious researchers who even monitor Hutchinson debates, let alone regularly come down in favour of your opinions over mine.

Isaacs = Astrachan?, merely my suggestion based on known evidence about the man. I aim to convince no-one, it is only necessary to point out that such a man as described by Hutchinson did exist.

But Isaacs does nothing to enhance the credibility of Hutchinson's description. "Hutchinson did exist because...because...Isaacs!" Nope, not seeing it myself, especially as Isaacs couldn't possibly have been Astrakhan, even if the latter did exist.

[Ben]

One time poster to Casebook[ literally] JD Hutchinson, informed us that her father -in law was Reg Hutchinson's younger brother,and Toppings youngest son, and 'he' was also aware of his fathers tale.

But that isn't good enough, Richard.

It's just a claim from a "one-time poster" using the name JD Hutchinson. I'm afraid it's only reasonable to expect a little more beef than that. Uncorroborated rumours aside, there is no evidence for any "Toppy = Hutchinson" claim existing prior to the early 1990s. One researcher has been in touch with Toppy's descendants, and he didn't find any either.

With reference to the ''others's' smelling a rat, I congratulate them on their physic abilities

...whereas you should be congratulating them on their powers of discernment in rejecting Reg's account.

Regards,
Ben