The Red Handkerchief...

[Ben]

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

Ooh I dunno, Caz, conjuring up non-existent problems with a perfectly simply premise, borne out by examples of known serial killer behaviour, ought to qualify as "invention" in my book.

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?

I'm not suggesting there was anything to "stop" him. I'm simply wondering why it should be considered a remotely tempting suggestion when we have no evidence that the man did any such thing, and no evidence beyond Hutchinson's discredited say-so that the man even existed. Added to which, there is no reason to think that Hutchinson saw the man enter Crossingham's lodging house. It could just as easily have been one of the buildings further down the street and away from Miller's Court (and away, thus, from any real significance). I'm not sure why you think this man makes for a more suspicious character than the man loitering outside Crossingham's, seemingly fixated on Miller's Court, and who - unless we accept striking "coincidence" as a palatable explanation - should have been Hutchinson.

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...

Please let's not have this "window" nonsense again.

Hutchinson would not have been remotely concerned about neighbours staring out of their windows in the very small hours of the morning (for what possible reason?). Even if he harboured the slightest doubt in that regard, he could have assuaged his paranoia by peering into the windows themselves and reassuring herself that nobody was star-gazing at that time. He couldn't rule out the possibility that he'd been seen entering the court itself (by potential meddlers on Dorset Street), which may he explain why he added the detail of entering the court itself when speaking to the press.

The only source of concern Lewis realistically presented was the extent of her 2:30 sighting on Dorset Street, which may have included a more detailed and thorough description than she provided at the inquest (in response to a prior request to withhold the detail), or the ability to recognise the man again. If Hutchinson was responsible, the later time of death could be explained by a perceived necessity on his part to allow Lewis time to settle down to bed and sleep. If he'd ventured into the Court too soon after Lewis disappeared into, then there was a greater risk of being seen out of the window by a laundress snuggling into her PJs and preparing a hot water bottle.

Regards,
Ben

[caz]

At the time of the original sighting on Dorset Street, Hutchinson may have considered Lewis' passing more of a "near miss" - a woman who didn't pay him much attention, who probably didn't get a good look at his mug in the darkness, and under the broad brim of his wideawake hat. He have have cursed his misfortune at having to wait for this new entry into the Court to settle down to bed and sleep, but I'm not suggesting he necessarily considered her a particularly serious threat until he registered her presence outside Shoreditch Town Hall (pursuant to the reality that serial killers will closely monitor investigative progress, not just in the press), and concluded that she had seen more than he had given her credit for at the time of the original sighting. He would then have fully anticipated Lewis to divulge the "loitering man" detail, even if he wasn't able to hear her verbatim description (which wouldn't have taken long to do the rounds on the streets).

I'm still left wondering about the logistics of Hutch going to the Town Hall (presumably without a wideawake hat, but possibly wearing a false beard) to check out the witnesses, clocking Lewis and 'registering' her as definitely (or do you mean possibly?) someone who had seen him hanging around the court and had just given evidence to this effect, then hot-footing it to the cop shop, before he could reasonably have found out everything she said, and without having the foggiest idea what she may have been asked to hold back.

Added to which, your red hanky argument was that Hutch would have mentioned it to lend some validity to his Astrakhan story, if he thought he might have left it in the room. So would he not, using the same argument, have mentioned seeing Lewis while he was waiting for Mr. A to come out, thus lending even more support to his account? After all, your theory is that he only came forward because he assumed the police - and Lewis - would be on the lookout for him as a direct result of her inquest testimony.

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

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

Hi Caz

To be fair to the good people who frequent this forum, there are only a very very few silly people who believe that Hutchinson would not have been investigated (as to his possible involvement in the murder of Mary Kelly) after his dealings with Inspector Abberline and friends.

Regards

Observer

[caz]

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

Yes, 'negative' personality attributes, ie to be churlish implies unpleasant behaviour, so while it could include being mean or miserly towards others, it doesn't work well in the context of self denial, as in standing out in the rain when there is shelter to be had.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Please let's not have this "window" nonsense again.

Yes, Ben, I can see why you must stop this at all costs.

Hutchinson would not have been remotely concerned about neighbours staring out of their windows in the very small hours of the morning (for what possible reason?).

Er, cries of murder? Sleeplessness? I think we have evidence of both such things afflicting the near 'neighbours' that very night.

Even if he harboured the slightest doubt in that regard, he could have assuaged his paranoia by peering into the windows themselves and reassuring herself that nobody was star-gazing at that time.

Yeah, like he'd have been able to see if anyone had been peering out of a nearby window, if they had no candles or fire burning at the time and it was pitch dark inside. They'd have seen more looking out than Hutch could have seen looking in.

He couldn't rule out the possibility that he'd been seen entering the court itself (by potential meddlers on Dorset Street), which may he explain why he added the detail of entering the court itself when speaking to the press.

So how was he ruling out the possibility that he'd been seen leaving the court, considerably later than his claim of 3am - unless he really did leave at 3 and had nothing to hide?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi again, Caz,

Firstly, it was reported that there were a great many people in attendance at the Shoreditch Town Hall, so I think Hutchinson could have afforded to leave his false beard at home. Secondly, it was only reasonable for Hutchinson to have assumed the worst after registering the fact that Lewis was due to appear as a witness. Unless he was aware of her Wednesday episode involving the pale-faced man with the black bag, he had ever reason to fear that the loitering 2:30 man would be the focal point of her testimony.

So would he not, using the same argument, have mentioned seeing Lewis while he was waiting for Mr. A to come out, thus lending even more support to his account?

It's not quite the same argument. Unlike the red hanky detail, a reference to Lewis may have rendered it too obvious to the police that it was her evidence that forced his hand. There was an obvious incentive to conceal any fear on his part that the police "would be on the lookout for him as a direct result of her inquest testimony". It was thus in his interests to at least trivilialise the fact that a woman had walked passed him and into the court.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Caz

To be fair to the good people who frequent this forum, there are only a very very few silly people who believe that Hutchinson would not have been investigated (as to his possible involvement in the murder of Mary Kelly) after his dealings with Inspector Abberline and friends.

Regards

Observer

Indeed, Observer.

At the very least, putting someone in that room with the murder victim would have left Hutch looking for all the world like a potential accomplice/lookout who was protecting the real murderer, once the police had reason to drop Astrakhan Man from their enquiries.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi again, Caz,

Firstly, it was reported that there were a great many people in attendance at the Shoreditch Town Hall, so I think Hutchinson could have afforded to leave his false beard at home.

But he is meant to have been worried that Lewis would recognise him again! Make up your mind, Ben.

Secondly, it was only reasonable for Hutchinson to have assumed the worst after registering the fact that Lewis was due to appear as a witness.

Sorry, but you still haven't explained how he would have registered the fact that Lewis was 'due' to appear (by name or by face?) or that this was the same woman who had spotted him loitering.

And that's if he even noticed a woman watching him watching the court.

Was he hanging around as all the inquest witnesses arrived and left? He should have had two false beards in that case, in different colours.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Er, cries of murder? Sleeplessness? I think we have evidence of both such things afflicting the near 'neighbours' that very night.

Yes, but after the event.

It was only established after the release of the inquest details that people were hearing "cries of murder" and were afflicted by sleeplessness. Unless you're arguing that Hutchinson was psychic and could therefore have anticipated this, the whole "why wasn't Hutchinson scared about being looking out of the window?" protest falls a bit flat. It was extremely unlikely that anyone was gazing out of their window at the fascinating internal walls of Miller's Court at 3:30am, and Hutchinson would have been aware of this extreme likelihood, realistically speaking.

Yeah, like he'd have been able to see if anyone had been peering out of a nearby window

Actually, there was a lamp right outside the only windows that reasonably offered a good potential sighting of anyone entering room #13.

So how was he ruling out the possibility that he'd been seen leaving the court, considerably later than his claim of 3am - unless he really did leave at 3 and had nothing to hide?

They would depend when he left.

If he snuck out when Dorset Street was busy with market workers and horses, not such a huge problem.

Yes, 'negative' personality attributes, ie to be churlish implies unpleasant behaviour, so while it could include being mean or miserly towards others, it doesn't work well in the context of self denial, as in standing out in the rain when there is shelter to be had.

Whereas I contend it does, at least according to the proven-correct usage of the word as outlined in the dictionary or thesaurus. You can argue that it might be unusual to describe a person as being miserly to his or her self, but you can't call it wrong.

Cheers,
Ben

[Ben]

At the very least, putting someone in that room with the murder victim would have left Hutch looking for all the world like a potential accomplice/lookout who was protecting the real murderer, once the police had reason to drop Astrakhan Man from their enquiries.

Is that what Emmanuel Violeina looked like when he was simply cast aside as an attention-seeker? A potential accomplice who approached the police station requesting an interview, risking his neck to bail out his old mate Jack the Ripper? Was Packer, who was proven to have been at the Stride crime scene when the murder took place? Nope, they were simply disregarded as publicity-seekers, and in Violenia's case, they also disregarded his claim to have been there at all. The same evidently occurred with Hutchinson, so as much as some - well, a tiny few who are bothered about doing so, actually - might seek to discard Hutchinson as a person of interest on the grounds of imaginary police suspicions resulting in an imaginary absolving of those suspicions, there just isn't the evidence to justify it.

But he is meant to have been worried that Lewis would recognise him again!

Not in a vast crowd that threatened to overwhelm the coronor's office, such was its size. That is quite apart from the suggestion that he may have been seen by her alone on the uncrowded streets again.

Sorry, but you still haven't explained how he would have registered the fact that Lewis was 'due' to appear (by name or by face?) or that this was the same woman who had spotted him loitering.

The lighting in Dorset Street was sufficient for Hutchinson to have registered a face, and it would not have taken the Paparazzi to observe which women were being ushered into the court room to be used as witnesses. It was very unlikely that she could have clocked a a face in the crowd - i.e. one not being taken into the court - thus removing the need for Hutchinson to have worn coloured false beards.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

To be fair to the good people who frequent this forum, there are only a very very few silly people who believe that Hutchinson would not have been investigated

Personal abuse, Observer.

Not good.

You've come along way from your probable former username "Clem" or "The Cleminator" when you threatened to track down my location and make me "piss blood" (lovely!), but while dismissing those who disagree with you as "silly people" is tame by comparison, it still takes us back to those terrible old days.

But you need to provide evidence for these unpleasant and antagonistic assertions. Do you have any evidence at all that Hutchinson was suspected? No, you don't. Do you have any evidence at all that Hutchinson was dismissed as innocent after being suspected? No, you don't. Do we know what happened to witnesses who were suspected of lying despite also claiming to have been at the crime scene when the crime occurred?. Yes, we do. They were discarded as attention-seekers and not investigated as suspects. To ignore all this, and still claim Hutchinson "must" have been grilled as a suspect is, well, silly.

[Abby Normal]

As this murder series progressed more and more witnesses came forward with descriptions of supects and the ripper may have been feeling the heat. if it was hutch he may have felt the need to come forward, especially if he thought he may have been recognized.

It really only is as simple as that.

The history of serial killers is riddled with killers who were already known to police, insert themselves into the investigation or were formerly witnesses. Its not unreasonable to think that Hutch as the ripper did the same.

[Observer]

Hahaha. And again he accuses me of being this Clem individual. Shame on you.

Personal abuse? You accuse me of personal abuse? Well I never, as the pot said to the kettle. How many times have you been suspended from this Forum?

Take a look at this

It's not quite the same argument. Unlike the red hanky detail, a reference to Lewis may have rendered it too obvious to the police that it was her evidence that forced his hand.

Never! Never in the entire World! The LVP using their common sense, and putting two and two together! And this without any knowledge of the devious tricks of the modern serial killer. Who would have thought it?

Regarding Violenia and Packer. As you imply Violenia was a nut, the police I suspect did not believe he was even at the scene. Packer had an unshakable alibi for the murder of Liz Stride, he being in his house with two other people during the time in which Liz Stride was murdered. So no, not really comparable with Hutchinson.

Hutchinson however, well different kettle of fish. Alone, without an alibi, seen stood opposite Mary Kelly's room, indeed seen peering up the very Court in which she lived, on the night of her murder, at the appropriate time. Well what can one say.

But it gets better.

On top of all this he goes to the police three days after the event, after the inquest has ended, and tells a **** and bull story, about seeing Mary Kelly with an obviously fictitious character, evidence which is eventually considered greatly reduced. This revelation of course, this discrediting of Hutchinson, would undoubtedly have left him high and dry. In effect, he is now the last person to have been seen in the vicinity of the Mary Kelly crime scene. And not only observed, but observed taking an active interest in the Court. In Sarah Lewis's opinion.

" The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one."

As Caz has implied behaving for all the world as if he were an accomplice at least.

So, 125 years later Ben, with good reason I must say, suspects Hutchinson of being JTR. The LVP? Not a clue. Dream on.

[Michael W Richards]

There is no need for Hutchinson to have attended the Inquest, clandestinely or otherwise. He would have been aware that a witness spotted someone with a Wideawake Hat and have an approximate time for that sighting....things he could use if he felt he needed to come forward to provide a story that suggests he was that man. Im wondering though.....why then would he feel the need to come forward and place himself in precarious shoes at all? If he didnt attend the Inquest he would have no issues with any recognition issues on the part of Sarah Lewis, she didnt identify the man as someone she knew or could recognize again anyway. Why not stay out of it entirely..since the Inquest was over and it was after all, 4 days after the fact. The criminal he says he saw could have sailed away in 4 days...he certainly doesnt offer something that has immediate potential...its 4 days old. The guy could be anywhere, and wearing anything but the items George identifies the man wearing.

So why come forward at all? Fear he might be called into a lineup that Sarah Lewis views?...not likely after the Inquest. Trying to get some limelight? Possibly. Trying to implicate someone in Marys murder...whether he actually was there and saw her, or not? Possibly.

The distinct similarities in the description of the man he says he saw matches someone that Abberline would be familiar with, and he would have reason to suspect was active in some criminal scheme. There is evidence that suggests The Home Office/Special Branch considered Kellys murder may have been committed by Irish Self Rule factions. Which would then make that ID quite plausible. Royal Irish Constabularies and Members of Parliament, recently re-convened, visited that site on the same morning early the week after the murder.

I wonder whether the fact Abberline seems to believe George is related to a suspect description that Abberline would recognize? One that would fit some theories about the parties responsible.

Cheers

[Lechmere]

Oh dear
The amusing inability to gracefully concede the incorrect usage of ‘churlish’ is of a piece with the way obtuse issues are defended to these hilt on these Hutchinson threads.