The Red Handkerchief...

[caz]

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.

(Major Rule) '5. Don't create multiple user accounts. If you suspect someone is a sock puppet, PM the administrator. Do not make a public accusation on the boards.'

[caz]

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.

Hi Ben,

It's irrelevant when it was established in this instance that (allegedly commonplace) cries of murder had been heard that night and at least one case of insomnia reported. I was merely using these examples to demonstrate that when Hutch came forward he would not have needed to be remotely psychic to fear that anyone could have been awake and heard noises that brought them to their window, or been woken by those noises, and therefore anyone could have seen him breaking into Kelly's room or leaving it - but only of course if he did those things.

If he did, he presumably heard the same cries of murder that others heard, and he'd have been hard pressed to break into that room and launch into the attack without making the slightest sound, especially while checking every nearby window for signs of anyone peering out from the darkness within.

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

But an outside lamp wouldn't have helped Hutch see inside a darkened room, where someone could have peeped out from behind a dark curtain to investigate any nocturnal comings and goings.

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

I do fear you are missing the point. It's not that anyone did see the ripper breaking into or leaving the room afterwards. It's the fact that anyone could have done, and he would not have known about it either way - even after the inquest, as any such witness testimony could have been held back to give the murderer a false sense of security. It's what Hutch didn't know, and couldn't know, that should have made him much more wary of showing his face again if he was the killer.

Love,

Caz
X

[Bridewell]

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.

Ben,

Apologies for the late reply - only just seen this.

My preference is to keep my options open. We know that Abberline interrogated Hutchinson and found his story credible. That is what he said. Is it possible that Abberline subsequently changed his mind? Yes, but that is an unknown. Could Hutchinson have killed MJK? Yes. Could he have been just an attention seeker? Yes. Has anyone ever proved that he was anything other than what he said he was? No.

There must be doubts about Hutchinson's truthfulness but that's all they are - doubts, not certainties.

[caz]

Hi Ben,

I notice you still haven't explained how Hutch would have registered the fact that Lewis was among the large crowd of people at the Town Hall, and would be giving evidence at the inquest. Did he register the fact by seeing and recognising her face (while hiding his own in case she recognised his)? Did he have a psychic moment and connect the face with the name Lewis? Or what exactly? Did he merely hang around afterwards and happen to hear that a woman named Lewis had described a suspicious character who was watching the court, and realise she had been describing him - the ripper himself?

Again, was he hanging around as all the inquest witnesses arrived and left?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Indeed, Lech.

Ben can never, ever, be 'wrong'. But at least he admits to having an 'unusual' turn of phrase. I'd call it unique myself.

How 'mean', 'miserly' and 'stingy' of anyone to stand in the rain when they could be nice and dry indoors.

And yes, I'm being churlish and childish, while waiting for Ben to finally address my inquest question.

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

Indeed, Lech.

Ben can never, ever, be 'wrong'. But at least he admits to having an 'unusual' turn of phrase. I'd call it unique myself.

Hi Caz

This is true. It is the reason that I referred to the notion that the police did not investigate Hutchinson as a possible suspect or accomplice in the Mary Kelly murder as silly. Of course I chose my words carefully ( for me) so as not to offend, but it seems Ben took it to heart, and for this I apologise. Ben is an intelligent individual, but as you say, once he sets out his stall he'll not move an inch, much the same as I in truth. None of us like being corrected, it's a part of what we are, human beings, it's just the way it is.

Regards

Observer

[Patrick S]

Funny. I was just reading about Hutchinson last night (Sugden) and found him intriguing as a witness. Personally, I put a lot of stock in the fact that Abberline stated outright that he found him to be truthful. He believed his version of events. So let's follow this a bit.......

If one believes Abberline, then Hutchinson was telling the truth. Taking a quick detour back to Mitre Square - if we believe Levy about the red handkerchief worn about the man's neck, then the red handkerchief is a regular part of this person's attire. When it's chilly, he puts on his red hanky. Red hankys are useful for, say, wiping away blood. Blood is red after all and doesn't show up quite as well on a red hanky! Also, it keeps him warm, and it looks sharp. Returning to Miller's Court. Hutchinson sees the man give his red hanky to Kelly. They disappear inside number 13. It stands to reason that if this guy was JtR then he took his hanky back. It's handy for hiding blood. It's functional in that it keep him from catching a chill, and it's obviously a prized accessory!

[Tecs]

Funny. I was just reading about Hutchinson last night (Sugden) and found him intriguing as a witness. Personally, I put a lot of stock in the fact that Abberline stated outright that he found him to be truthful. He believed his version of events. So let's follow this a bit.......

If one believes Abberline, then Hutchinson was telling the truth. Taking a quick detour back to Mitre Square - if we believe Levy about the red handkerchief worn about the man's neck, then the red handkerchief is a regular part of this person's attire. When it's chilly, he puts on his red hanky. Red hankys are useful for, say, wiping away blood. Blood is red after all and doesn't show up quite as well on a red hanky! Also, it keeps him warm, and it looks sharp. Returning to Miller's Court. Hutchinson sees the man give his red hanky to Kelly. They disappear inside number 13. It stands to reason that if this guy was JtR then he took his hanky back. It's handy for hiding blood. It's functional in that it keep him from catching a chill, and it's obviously a prized accessory!

Hi Patrick,

I noticed the red hanky connection and wondered if the description was common knowledge at the time Hutch gave his description?

If not, then surely it's a big plus for his credibility? And explains why Abberline took him seriously. You can imagine Abberline's ears pricking up if he heard him describe the red hanky.

And on that, I've always wondered if the reason Hutchinson pretty much dissappears from the story is because he was kept closely under wraps after having proven himself?

But I suppose if it was common knowledge that the man the Police were hunting wore a red hanky then it might just be that he was regurgitating what he had heard or read.

regards,

[Tecs]

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

Hi Michael,

Surely this is the key issue. A man who voluntarily goes to the Police and admits that he was at the murder site at the right time and that not only did he know the victim, but he actually spoke to her shortly before she was murdered is either a completely innocent albeit naiive individual, or was up to no good.

The no good could have been trying to throw the Police off the scent with a false description or just attention seeking.

The fact that Hutchinson appears nowhere in Police files or memoirs as a suspect suggests that nobody in the Police thought that he was a likely Ripper. We cannot rule out the possibility that he was an attention seeker but we don't have any real reason to consider that he was.

So that only leaves the first option and everything we know about the situation suggests that he was simply an ordinary man who happened to get dragged into the story.

The fact that Abberline spent time with him, looked him in the eye, quizzed him and came away believing him is a massive point for me. I've made the following point many times but it's worth repeating. Although there is a tendency to believe that the LV's were in some way stupid or, shall we say, much less refined than we are today, they were actually extremely practical people who made the best out of very tough circumstances. No, they never used the internet, they wouldn't know how to send an email, wouldn't know how to use a mobile phone etc, but in terms of what they could and did do, they were extremely practical and for a LVE Policeman, intuition and interpreting body language was perhaps even more important than it is now. Especially when one considers the lack of alternative "tools" at their disposal.

Basically, if Abberline said it was so, it was. Or at least it is for me. That's not to say that he couldn't have made a mistake or been fooled, but in the absense of any reason to doubt his conclusion I don't think that we should.

I've never been into the idea of changing things to fit what we think is comfortable eg Maxwell must be mistaken because it is uncomfortable to accept what she says.

Hutchinson was only ever treated as a witness. End of. And we have no right to change that now.

And as for why he took 4 days to come forward? There may be a sinister explanation but how about he was either shocked or traumatised? Or more likely he realised the situation he was in and spent the weekend going over it in his mind before doing the right thing? Assuming he wasn't completely stupid and/or naiive, he must have known what could happen to him if he comes forward. Considering that, I propose that he was actually extremely brave.

Or as a final point to consider, it's possible that Astrakhan man also got a good look at him. Knowing what this man was capable of, I'm sure most of us would consider the pro's and con's before putting our head above the parapet, in fact be honest, how many of us would actually come forward at all?

Now if Hutchinson decided to come forward but used an alias. And if he was in fact Jewish.......


Anderson???


regards,

[Patrick S]

I have much the same opinion as you do with respect to Abberline. He was there. He investigated these crimes, he saw the bodies, saw the crime scenes, spoke with witnesses, interviewed suspects. In my view, it's folly to dismiss his opinions. With respect to Hutchinson, Abberline stated explicitly that he believed the man. This is something the he did not always do throught the course of these investigations. From what I've read, Abberline seems to have not been one to shy away from saying that he was unsure of something. He seems, in contrast to some of the other police figures of the time, to have been fairly honest and straightforward, and not one to feel ashamed in saying, "I don't know."

As we know, Lewende and Hutchinson give differing desciptions. But could they have both seen the same man?

The ages are close. Lewende says 30, Hutchinson 34 or 35. Lewende described the man's complexion as 'fair', Hutchinson says it was 'pale'. Height is given as 5"7' by Lewende, 5'6" by Hutchinson. Lewende says the man was of medium build, Hutchinson does not describe build. I think the main discrepency is that Lewende says the man's complexion AND mustach was 'fair', while Hutchinson says the man's 'slight mustache' (curled at the ends) was 'dark'. Taking into consideration things like lighting, quality of memory, influnces on memory, vantage point, perspective, etc., this could very well be the same man. Both mention a red handkerchief.

If we consider that Hutchinson states he stepped up to the man and looked him square in the face, we might trust his opinion a bit more with respect to hair color.

Based upon the times these men were observed the times the body (Eddowes) was found, and the estimated time(s) of death (Kelly), I believe it's likely (though not certain) that both men saw the killer.

So if you take the commonalities in the physical desciption given by one witness and not given (or contraticted) by the other you have a composite:

- Average Height / 5'6 or 5'7"
- Average Build / 145-150 lbs. (my estimate)
- 30 to 35 Years Old
- Fair/Pale Complexion
- Dark Mustache (turned up at the ends)
- Carrying/wearing a red handkerchief

Most detectives will tell you that eye witnesses are generally pretty unrealiable. Memory is tricky and very individual thing. Assuming that's true, we may be doing pretty well to get descriptions this consistent.

[Sam Flynn]

If one believes Abberline, then Hutchinson was telling the truth.!

Not quite, Patrick. The best one could say is "If one believes Abberline, then Hutchinson was believable". Whether he was telling the truth or not is another matter.

[Patrick S]

Not quite, Patrick. The best one could say is "If one believes Abberline, then Hutchinson was believable". Whether he was telling the truth or not is another matter.

I guess we could have a semantical argument, if you think it's important. If we did, I'd stand by what I said. Abberline said, "I have interrogated him this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true." Thus, Abberline did not say he is of the opinion that he seemed "believable". He said that, in his opinion, his statement is "TRUE", i.e. he "was telling the truth". Therefore, my statment, "If one BELIEVES ABBERLINE, then Hutchinson was telling the truth", holds. If I had said Hutchinson was telling the truth without adding the caveat "If one believes Abberline (which I puposely added to avoid this kind of discussion), then you'd have a point.

But who wants to nipick semantics?

[Varqm]

In my opinion as long as the witness did not have bulging eyes turning left and right or made circles with his hands etc, while answering Abberline/investigator the tendency was to believe.They had nothing to go on with, and anything like Hutchinson's statement was big enough to pursue further.They investigated a number of witnesses's statements, meaning they appear to be believable at first, otherwise they would not have and a number of them were false. How would one report to their superiors about these witnesses? I think Abberline's statement was normal ie,. Sir the guy does not seem to be lying, Sir he seemed believable, Sir in my opinion he is saying the truth..it's all the same. Further investigation of the statement is what mattered. Hutchinson's statement was dismissed and nothing significant was given to it further.

[Sally]

Hi Varqm,

Hutchinson's Astrakhan Man fitted contemporary press accounts of a well-dressed man seen in suspicious circumstances; which, whether Hutchinson was telling the truth or not, would probably have helped to convince when he gave his statement to the police.

Naturally, the simplest explanation is that Hutchinson saw the same man reported in contemporary press accounts.

That said, I think to accept that at face value would be simplistic in this case. The press reports describing the well-dressed man are sufficiently generic as to make it impossible to know whether there was one, or several men. The general hysteria in the area following the murder of Kelly encouraged suspicion of virtually anybody thought to be behaving 'oddly' as the general populace, if not the authorities, grasped at any straw they could find. In such circumstances, the extent to which we can safely rely on contemporary press reporting is debateable.

Of course, there is also the obvious possibility that Hutchinson consciously modelled Mr. Astrakhan on those same press reports. It may seem improbable at first glance, but when you consider that Hutchinson's statement to the police matches slightly earlier press reports almost verbatim at several points; maybe not so improbable.

Were that the case, then we might begin to wonder at his motivation.

There are many possibilities here.

[caz]

And as for why he took 4 days to come forward? There may be a sinister explanation but how about he was either shocked or traumatised? Or more likely he realised the situation he was in and spent the weekend going over it in his mind before doing the right thing? Assuming he wasn't completely stupid and/or naiive, he must have known what could happen to him if he comes forward. Considering that, I propose that he was actually extremely brave.

Or as a final point to consider, it's possible that Astrakhan man also got a good look at him. Knowing what this man was capable of, I'm sure most of us would consider the pro's and con's before putting our head above the parapet, in fact be honest, how many of us would actually come forward at all?

Hi Tecs,

Some very good points here in an excellent post.

I was thinking the same thing, that if Hutch believed he had seen the ripper and followed him and Kelly back to Miller's Court, he'd be taking a considerable risk by giving the police an accurate and highly detailed description of this very dangerous man. It may explain why he didn't fancy appearing at the inquest to do it under oath. It stands to reason that if Hutch could have gone to the Town Hall and learned that Lewis had fingered him as a suspect, then the man Hutch described could have gone there too and might have taken deadly revenge if Hutch had fingered him publicly. He would have expressed any such concerns to Abberline, when explaining his delay in coming forward, and genuine fear would have given his story credibility. Why would he be so frightened of this man if he was not telling the truth about him?

The only reservation I have is that Hutch apparently went straight to the papers with his description, which sounds on the face of it a stupid thing to do if he was seriously worried about the ripper's reaction. But then the ripper would have to find him first, and we don't know if any of the published details about Hutch were even correct, or would have been sufficient to track him down if they were. That may have been something else arranged by Abberline, to help protect a potentially major witness who was accompanying the police to look for the man he saw. The story may have reached the papers with the blessing of the police because the details had not come out at the inquest.

There is also the possibility that Hutch gave a wildly different description of the man he saw, in a bid to reassure him that he hadn't grassed him up.

Love,

Caz
X