The Red Handkerchief...

[Wickerman]

Right you are, Jon, because I'm so desperate for the killer to have been a working class local who behaved as other serial killers have behaved in similar situations.

Under the false premise that serial killers, both ancient and modern, are the product of a cookie-cutter mentality.

[Lechmere]

It can hardly be characterised as reasonable to suggest that Lewis’s minor testimony at the inquest prompted or spooked Hutchinson into appearing at the police station – when not a single person at the time connected Hutchinson to her wide-awake man. At a time in this sequence when every detail was poured over. And Hutchinson’s tale was heavily discussed.
Strange that.
Remember also that the budding stealth killer was standing under a light, whereas Lewis was scurrying along in the inky blackness of Dorset Street. Hutchinson must have had eyes of a cat to recognise her at the inquest.
After the inquest Hutchinson must have fairly hot footed it to Commercial Street with barely a moment to collect his thoughts. And yet he managed to recount a very similar tale to the press the next day. He must have had a good memory for hastily concocted lies.

[Ben]

It can hardly be characterised as reasonable to suggest that Lewis’s minor testimony at the inquest prompted or spooked Hutchinson into appearing at the police station – when not a single person at the time connected Hutchinson to her wide-awake man. At a time in this sequence when every detail was poured over.

You completely overlook the fact that the general public hadn't even heard anything about the wideawake man until Sarah Lewis made reference to him at the inquest. The "spook" factor resided in the very public airing of that particular detail and the recognition that the unidentified man would quickly become a sought-after suspect. You're working oddly backwards with the evidence when you suggest that it was only a "minor" piece of evidence. With the fortunate benefit of hindsight, we can observe that it was relatively "minor", but Hutchinson was in no position to anticipate that outcome. Nor could he possibly have known, when he came forward so soon after the inquest, that nobody had (or would) connect Hutchinson to wideawake man.

Remember also that the budding stealth killer was standing under a light, whereas Lewis was scurrying along in the inky blackness of Dorset Street.

Nope.

No evidence for this at all.

You've completely misrepresented the scene.

There is no evidence at all that the wideawake man was standing under a lamp, and Dorset Street was described as comparatively well-lit in comparison to others. No "inky blackness" here, and certainly no need for Hutchinson to have had the "eyes of a cat" in order to see Lewis' face.

And yet he managed to recount a very similar tale to the press the next day. He must have had a good memory for hastily concocted lies.

That's only if the lie was plucked entirely from the ether, which most lies aren't. If, for instance, Hutchinson was recounting a personal encounter with Kelly (and simply placed a fictional suspect in his shoes), and the Astrakhan description was based on something or someone (some picture, even) he was accustomed to seeing, there was nothing remarkable about the supposed consistency. More worthy of note are the numerous points of contradiction and embellishments, including polar opposite descriptions.

But all this has been done to death in the 11,500 posts in the Hutchinson thread, and if might be better if you familiarized yourself with them before going over well-trodden ground.

Under the false premise that serial killers, both ancient and modern, are the product of a cookie-cutter mentality.

No, Jon.

Under the correct premise that serial killers, both ancient and modern, will often share the same or similar behavioural traits.

[Varqm]

Hi,

What I mean by they knew each other is by any reason at at all either through acquaintances/friends,hearing through them,a sighting in a bar/street or any shape or form.

About the info, first if Sarah Lewis just said maybe I recognize Hutchinson it would be important.
There should be a note or two either through newspapers or memoirs or police report. They may have even connect Hutchinson and the man seen by Lewis at 2:30 AM. There is none.
The newspapers/police searched out Kelly's past acquaintances, Mrs Buki, Fleming, Mrs Mcarthy, even may be relatives/history in Ireland , so more likely - it's in the neighborhood of the murder site - they would have found out if Hutchinson and Kelly knew each other or even Sarah Lewis and Hutchinson.There is no report.
So the weight goes overwhelmingly that Lewis and Hutchinson were total strangers. Nobody got spooked. It's made-up.

[Ben]

Hi Varqm,

Again, try to look past the suggestion that Lewis must have known Hutchinson. I think we've established that we have no evidence either way. No "weight goes overwhelmingly" to anything. Just no evidence either way. If there is any truth to Hutchinson's claim to have known Kelly for three years, it is possible that he knew Lewis mildly from her visits to the Court, assuming the 9th wasn't her first.

But the point is that Hutchinson didn't need to have been acquainted with Lewis to have feared the possibility of being recognised by her again. The fact that no such recognition was ever made (and no acknowledgement that Hutchinson was probably the man she saw either) does not negate the proposed rationale in coming forward. For all he knew at 6.00pm on the 12th November, shortly after the closure of the inquest and the release of its witness evidence, that recognition had a very real chance of happening in the near future.

The newspapers/police searched out Kelly's past acquaintances, Mrs Buki, Fleming, Mrs Mcarthy, even may be relatives/history in Ireland

Not Fleming they didn't, no.

They only heard about him.

they would have found out if Hutchinson and Kelly knew each other or even Sarah Lewis and Hutchinson.There is no report.

No, there never is, is there...

Realistically, though, there is no evidence that any of these issued were resolved. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have conducted investigations, but we can't always expect those investigations to bear fruit.

Regards,
Ben

[Varqm]

Hi Ben,

The thought that Hutchinson was spooked has to be based on something that shows they, however distant - even through 3rd or 4th party - that they crossed each other's lives at the very least. Otherwise there was no reason to get spooked. Maybe, otherwise the ripper would have acted like he did when Lawende or Long passed across him if he was the 2:30 am guy. The fact is there is none.

We can infer from the facts that we know. Those people back then were not stupid for a lack of a better word. They would have sized up the the situation and round up as much story as they could have gotten. They had access on the people in Dorset St.,the pubs, the lodging house were Hutchinson lived, Kelly's friends, Barnett, maybe also in Ireland. For a sensational event and a big murder case, the absence of it, not even a rumor, much more likely means there was none to have because they did not have a connection at all .This is the bigger thing and the first thing before imagining they might have or Hutchinson might have thought this and that. And it's just the way it is people don't know most of their neighbours in busy crowded areas.

But out of the blue, that little chance, you could imagine that maybe they did .That will never go away I understand. And besides you mention historical precedence.

Varqm

[Ben]

Hi Varqm,

The thought that Hutchinson was spooked has to be based on something that shows they, however distant - even through 3rd or 4th party - that they crossed each other's lives at the very least.

With respect, no, it doesn't.

Hutchinson and Lewis could have been complete strangers to each other, his concern being that she would recognise him subsequently. Either that or Lewis' superficially vague and brief description was much fuller in reality, and had been suppressed at the Kelly inquest, just as Lawende's had been at the Eddowes' inquest. We, of course, know that wasn't the case, but Hutchinson had no such luxury of knowledge on the 12th November.

You suggest he would have come forward "earlier" and admitted to being Lawende's suspect if he was inclined towards that form of self-preservation, but this possibility was not available to him, even if he was inclined to come forward at that time. This man was seen by the Jewish trio ten minutes before the discovery of the victim's body. How could he have said, "Yes, that was me talking to Eddowes ten minutes before the discovery of her body, but Mr. Astrakhan must have snuck in after I left, and inveigled, dispatched and mutilated her at lightening speed"..? without being suspected immediately?

In the case of Elizabeth Long, it was a rear sighting and she had mentioned a "foreigner" (one wonders how, from a rear sighting), so no problem there for Hutchinson.

For a sensational event and a big murder case, the absence of it, not even a rumor, much more likely means there was none to have because they did not have a connection at all

The fact that there was "not even a rumour" tells us that the connection was never made between Hutchinson and Lewis. It wasn't discreetly noticed, discreetly investigated, and discreetly ruled out - that was simply not possible, and the press, who as you correctly observe, would "round up as much story as they could have gotten", made no mention of Hutchinson possibly being Lewis man. If they noticed it, they would definitely have mentioned it, way in advance of the police investigating it and ruling it out.

Regards,
Ben

[caz]

Hutchinson saw a man enter a lodging house, rather than loiter outside it. In those weather conditions, it would have churlish to hang about outside when the door was open!

Ah, so you believe Hutchinson now, Ben?

Why could this man not have been doing pretty much what you claim Hutch was doing, ie loitering in exactly 'those weather conditions' for an opportunity to pop across unseen into Miller's Court and murder MJK in her room?

And do learn what 'churlish' means. It means rude, surly or ungracious, not foolish or needless.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Why could this man not have been doing pretty much what you claim Hutch was doing, ie loitering in exactly 'those weather conditions' for an opportunity to pop across unseen into Miller's Court and murder MJK in her room?

Because Hutchinson said nothing about the man "loitering". He said he saw him enter a lodging house, i.e. immediately after walking on foot from wherever he'd been. That's assuming this detail wasn't just another invention.

And do try to understand that “churlish” can also mean miserly, which is a synonym of “stingy” and “ungenerous” – my point being that it would have been “ungenerous” to his own situation to have avoided taking full advantage of the opportunity presented by an open door to what was presumably his own lodging house.

Regards,
Ben

[caz]

That's a horrible use of churlish, though, Ben. "Ungenerous to his own situation"? Are you serious? I know misers can be as mean with themselves as with other people, but I have never seen "churlish" used to describe one's treatment of oneself.

My Collins Thesaurus gives the following definitions, in this order and format:

churlish = rude, harsh, vulgar, sullen, surly, morose, brusque, uncouth, impolite, loutish, oafish, uncivil, unmannerly. Opposite: polite.

Nothing there about being "miserly", either with oneself or with others.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Because Hutchinson said nothing about the man "loitering". He said he saw him enter a lodging house, i.e. immediately after walking on foot from wherever he'd been. That's assuming this detail wasn't just another invention.

Well you'd know more about invention than some of us, Ben.

Assuming this detail was actually true, what was to stop this man, or any other for that matter, coming out of the lodging house again when Hutch was no longer in a position to see? There would have been other men on the streets besides Hutch (assuming he was there at all that night), any of whom could have done the deed after 3am, when Hutch - by his own admission - was no longer hanging around to be observed or to do any observing.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Caz,

You were being a bit of a churlish lout there with Ben. Hope I used it correctly.

Mike

[caz]

Hutchinson and Lewis could have been complete strangers to each other, his concern being that she would recognise him subsequently. Either that or Lewis' superficially vague and brief description was much fuller in reality, and had been suppressed at the Kelly inquest, just as Lawende's had been at the Eddowes' inquest. We, of course, know that wasn't the case, but Hutchinson had no such luxury of knowledge on the 12th November.

Can you not see how this makes a nonsense of your argument that Hutch came forward knowing what Lewis had said at the inquest about him and therefore wanting to put someone else - Astrakhan Man - in the room with MJK to explain his own loitering near the scene? He didn't know, and he couldn't have known the extent of her sighting or her police statement - in which case there would even have been a possibility that she had looked out of a window later to see the same man - Hutch - entering the room, as he must have done if he was the murderer.

How could he have said, "Yes, that was me talking to Eddowes ten minutes before the discovery of her body, but Mr. Astrakhan must have snuck in after I left, and inveigled, dispatched and mutilated her at lightening speed"..? without being suspected immediately?

Ooh, I don't know. In much the same way as he said: "I watched Mr. Astrakhan and Kelly disappear into her room, and he was still in there 45 minutes later, after which I wandered about all night", without knowing what Lewis may have been able to tell the police to the contrary, and was apparently never suspected at all, even after his whole story was 'discredited', supposedly because the police came to believe Mr. A was a figment of his imagination?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

That's a horrible use of churlish, though, Ben.

According to you perhaps, Caz, but not according to the actual historical definition of the word and its origin: "churl", - from which we get the names Charles and Carl. Originally, a "churl" referred simply to "a man", but then later his status became more defined and the expression applied only to "peasants" or those with low social standing. A "churl" also had the negative personality attributes; either miserly (or n1ggardly) or rude and boorish.

The word "churlish" developed from this, and meant behaving as a churl would.

If you've never before heard that churlish can - and still does - mean "miserly", I'd be inclined to look beyond Collins if I were you. Equally, if you acknowledge that one is capable of being miserly to oneself, that shouldn't be problematic to you either.

It is often helpful to have a passing familiarity with the origin of words in order to understand their correct application, and while I'm glad of the opportunity to help out here, I think that's probably enough deviation from the "red handkerchief" topic if you don't mind.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sally]

Damn it Ben, you beat me to it

Back to the red handkerchief it is then.