The Red Handkerchief...

[curious4]

Night vision

Hi C4,

It isn't just "memory" that the's problem in Hutchinson's case. That part is ludicrous too, but far more problematic is his claim to have noticed all that he alleged to have seen in the time and conditions available, which consisted of a fleeting moment near a weak gas lamp on a Victorian London street at night time. I won't bother going through the specifics again, but suffice to say they stretch credibility to breaking point and beyond it.



And callously allow the trail of a potential murderer of a three-year acquaintance to grow cold and possibly to wreak more havoc elsewhere? Of all the adjectives I could use to describe that behaviour, "patient" wouldn't be topping the list. Interesting that his sloth and patience only came to an end the moment the public inquest closed, and the opportunity to be interrogated in public had passed forever.

We only have Hutchinson's word for it that he waited any appreciable time outside the Court, which was hardly in "full view" on those near-deserted streets.

All the best,
Ben

Hello Ben,

Take your point, but people did have much better night vision before the days of electric lights.

If the assumption is that he was the killer, callous is a bit of an understatement!

He was seen, though - and there were people about.

I have toyed with the idea that the eastenders had their own ideas regarding who the killer was, and that he was "posh". It has occured to me that he could have been giving a composite description of someone the locals suspected, but were reluctant to report to the police.

What motive would Hutchinson have had for giving a false statement? Had he been the killer he would be running a huge risk by placing himself at the scene. Why not say he saw Mary somewhere else? If he was prepared to walk long distances to find work he wasn't lazy and I don't know whether the press would have paid him much at that stage of the investigation - different matter if it had led to an arrest.

Best wishes,
C4

[Ben]

Hi C4,

Take your point, but people did have much better night vision before the days of electric lights.

That may be true, but only to the extent that a set of Victorian eyes might have been able to make out a few more details than a modern witness, not the most minute details of the man's accessories from button boots to tie-pin at the same time as taking in the man's facial features, which is what he claimed to be preoccupied with.

It has occured to me that he could have been giving a composite description of someone the locals suspected, but were reluctant to report to the police.

Not a bad suggestion at all.

But I would argue that his most likely motivation behind creating a "composite" from local rumours about a "posh" villain was to direct suspicion away from himself. A toff-like Jewish bogeyman was a very convenient scapegoat, and it could be argued that the ripper had engaged in similar attempts to implicate the Jewish community on the night of the double event. If true, it may be significant that Hutchinson may be the only "person of interest" who can be shown to have implicated a Jewish suspect. Interestingly, Stride's likely killer was interrupted by a dandified Jewish man...

What motive would Hutchinson have had for giving a false statement? Had he been the killer he would be running a huge risk by placing himself at the scene. Why not say he saw Mary somewhere else?

Because he discovered he had been seen loitering opposite the crime scene by a genuine witness, Sarah Lewis, who gave evidence in a police statement and at the inquest. Like other serial killers, he may have perceived a necessity to pre-empt any possible suspicion by coming forward and offering a bogus explanation (with bogus Astrakhan distraction) for his presence there. One that said, in essence: I'm innocent, I was only there because I was watching a scary man. Go get him instead.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

It seems like people are making Hutchs predicament so terribly threatening that its ok for him to have waited not only 4 days, but until just after the Inquest closed...not late Monday night, or Tuesday morning, but just after the closure, to bring in what would have to have been known to him was the single most important witness statement if true, and therefore the best lead with which to catch the murderer of a "friend", which value is greatly diminished by this delay.

The question remains to be addressed, why was Hutchinson's story so important in a case where the speculated time of death as published in the press over the weekend was anywhere up to 9:00 am Friday morning?
What is the significance of a client seen at 2:30 am?

Its not that he saw a gold pin...he saw it was a horseshoe. He saw too much for someone who would be trying not to be noticed....

You may not recall but the brief press release by the police on the morning of the 13th included the line, "with a military appearance". This can only be Abberline's observation as Hutchinson had not been seen by the press this early.
Whatever the basis was for Abberline making this deduction we cannot say, but it is quite reasonable to conclude Hutchinson may have served some time in the military and this is the result of his eye for detail.

[Abby Normal]

The question remains to be addressed, why was Hutchinson's story so important in a case where the speculated time of death as published in the press over the weekend was anywhere up to 9:00 am Friday morning?
What is the significance of a client seen at 2:30 am?



You may not recall but the brief press release by the police on the morning of the 13th included the line, "with a military appearance". This can only be Abberline's observation as Hutchinson had not been seen by the press this early.
Whatever the basis was for Abberline making this deduction we cannot say, but it is quite reasonable to conclude Hutchinson may have served some time in the military and this is the result of his eye for detail.

Hi Wicky
A great percentage of serial killers have a military background, and I agree that hutch possibly did also. It fits the profile.

[Ben]

I'd be interested to know what, if any, Victorian military training involved noticing, identifying and memorizing tiny details of a gentleman's clothing and accessories on the streets of London at the dead of night. Maybe the Romford Barracks were preparing for Operation Horseshoe: the invasion of Saville Row?

And no, the suggested 9.00am time of death didn't receive anything like as much coverage as the small-hours time of death, so we can forget the idea that Hutchinson sat on his evidence on the belief that Kelly was killed later in the morning, in my opinion.

[Wickerman]

I'd be interested to know what, if any, Victorian military training involved noticing, identifying and memorizing tiny details of a gentleman's clothing and accessories ......

A stint in the Army might have done you good.
An unpolished button, a speck on your white gloves, a hair on your tunic. Would it be fair to say that you would have spent the majority of your enlistment peeling spuds?

And no, the suggested 9.00am time of death didn't receive anything like as much coverage as the small-hours time of death....

Well, lets look at the facts.
(I hope you're sitting down)

- Friday, Echo/Evening News/Star, all report Kelly seen alive at 8:00am.

- Saturday, Daily News/Morning Advertiser/Times/Echo/Star/St. James Gazette, report Kelly last seen alive at 8:00 & 10:00am Friday.
- Saturday, Evening News, reports Kelly seen last alive at 10:30am Friday morning.
- Saturday, Pall Mall Gazette, murder reported "after 9:00 am".

While it is fair to admit that a few of these papers do mention the cry of "murder" at around 3-4:00, with the caveat that such cries are all too common, so deemed of no consequence, these same papers contain the last known sighting of Mary Kelly late Friday morning, as shown above.

Ben, this is like shooting fish in a barrel, you make these clearly erroneous claims without bothering to check if you are right, maybe you expect me to do your research for you?

Conclusion:
Hutchinson, in reading any papers on Friday or Saturday (no Sunday examples), can only conclude that the client he saw at 2:30 am Friday morning had nothing to do with her murder.

[Bridewell]

Hi Bridewell,

If you haven't already, I would thoroughly recommend reading Garry Wroe's excellent book Person or Persons Unknown, which can be found in its entirety here:

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/garrywroe_full.html

On the subject of Hutchinson noticing Kelly in her room with a client, he offers the following scenario as a possibility:

"Aware that Barnett had left her a fortnight earlier, his plan required finding Kelly alone. But after reaching through the broken window pane and pulling aside the curtain, he saw by the flickering firelight a blotchy-faced man lying beside her on the bed. Both were sleeping. Cursing his misfortune, Hutchinson withdrew from the court and installed himself on the opposite side of Dorset Street."

All the best,
Ben

Thanks Ben but, in the scenario postulated by Garry Wroe, what would be the need for Hutchinson to invent Astrakhan Man?

[Bridewell]

Its not that he saw a gold pin...he saw it was a horseshoe. He saw too much for someone who would be trying not to be noticed....

Two points:-

"Trying not to be noticed"? Hutchinson went out of his way to look into the face of Astrakhan Man, much to the latter's annoyance.

As we don't know the size of the horse-shoe pin how is it possible to judge, with certainty, that he "saw too much"? Horse-shoe pins were a popular item in the LVP and came in various sizes and styles. (Examples are regularly offered for sale on Ebay). As Hutchinson described Astrakhan Man's gold chain as "very thick", what reason is there to suppose that the same individual wore a tie-pin that was small and discreet? You also criticise Hutchinson for noticing more than that the tie-pin was gold. Hutchinson doesn't say that the pin was gold, only that it was fastened to a black tie and shaped like a horse-shoe.

[Wickerman]

Given that it seems likely Hutchinson worked with horses, a horseshoe tie-pin would be a common sight for someone who likely saw them every day.

[Ben]

Hi Bridewell,

what would be the need for Hutchinson to invent Astrakhan Man?

Because he needed to deflect suspicion in a conveniently "suspicious" direction (and who better than the generic, surly-looking well-dressed Jew?), and more importantly, because he needed to account for his loitering presence outside Miller's Court, as registered by Sarah Lewis. He couldn't have used Blotchy. If you remember, his whole explanation for loitering there was his alleged fascination at Kelly being seen in the company of a man so well-dressed. Take away the "well-dressed" conspicuous appearance, and that "explanation" disappears.

As for horseshoe tie-pins, it is extremely unlikely that such an item would show up on an extremely dark street. It's remotely possible that he noticed it as he peered into the man's face, but only if he scrutinised that aspect of his appearance, as opposed to doing what he claimed to be doing, which was peering intently into the man's face...with its pale/dark complexion and slight/heavy moustache. On top of all this, we're expected to believe that he scrutinized other, equally small accessories at the same time...and then memorized every one of them. That just isn't possible. You can't notice and memorize the smallest particulars of a man's upper body whilst at the same time notice and memorize the smallest particulars of the man's lower body (button boots, gaiters etc), especially not during a fleeting moment's encounter as the subject passed in closish proximity to a weak gas lamp.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Well, lets look at the facts.

Yes, let's.

"During the early hours of yesterday morning another murder of a most revolting and fiendish character took place in Spitalfields." - The Times, 10th November.

"This much, however, has been found, that some payment was made by the man for the use of the room; that that payment was received by someone residing in the house; and that the murderer and his victim entered the place in the small hours of Friday morning - between one and two o'clock as near as can be gathered." - East London Observer, 10th November.

"The hour at which the deed was done can only be conjectured, as the last evidence of the woman being alive was at one o'clock in the morning, when she was heard singing. - The Daily Telegraph, 10th November.

"CRY OF "MURDER!" HEARD AT 3.30. Our representative has interviewed a woman named Kennedy, who was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house situate in the court immediately opposite the room in which the body of Mary Kelly was found. This woman's statement, if true - and there is very little reason for doubting its veracity - establishes the time at which the murderer commenced his operation upon his victim". - The Echo, 10th November.

"Yesterday morning it was discovered that another horrible murder had been committed at Whitechapel. The victim has been identified as Mary Jane Kelly, 26 years of age, who lived for some time with a man named Barnet, otherwise Danny. According to an account on which reliance has been placed, Kelly was seen late on Thursday night with a respectably dressed man." - Daily News, 10th November.

“This woman's statement, if true - and there is very little reason for doubting its veracity - establishes the time at which the murder was committed...

...This description of the man suspected of the murder tallies exactly with that in the possession of the police, and there is very little doubt that the murderer entered Kelly's house late on Thursday night or early on Friday morning.” - St. James' Gazette, 10th November.

This is what happens when you dream up these brand new controversial ideas - conjured up for the sole purpose of discrediting my views - that have never before been advanced, let alone agreed with: you are inevitably proven wrong. You make insulting references to "shooting fish in a barrel" and offensively accuse me of not having conducted the necessary research, and yet when someone calls your bluff, your concepts are instantly exposed as flawed, and here is a case in point.

The only newspaper who lent heavily in the direction of a later-morning time of death was the Morning horrible Advertiser, who were the worst offenders of all for shoddy, inaccurate reporting for the Kelly murder.

Conclusion: On the basis of the above referenced newspaper reports, is is utterly inconceivable that an innocent, truth-purveying Hutchinson delayed coming forward for three crucial days purely because he supposedly read the extreme minority press coverage of a later time of death, and decided on the basis of this that his evidence wasn't relevant. This would also mean that he remained somehow oblivious to Kennedy's account, and the enormous wealth of well-publicized information to the effect that Kelly had been killed in the small hours, in common with all other ripper victims.

That's right, Jon, it's your favourite Mrs. Kennedy to the rescue, and she's demolishing your argument.

Would it be fair to say that you would have spent the majority of your enlistment peeling spuds?

No, I would have spent it ensuring that you lick my boots nice and clean, and that you're never let loose on the military archives at any point. ...""...

Now about those damned cachous, Jon. There's a conundrum. Let's see what's going on over there, shall we? I bet you've got some amazing insights and brilliant arguments for that one. You trot along there, and I'll meet you there in a minute. And MARCH!!

Oh yes, nearly forgot: ""

[Wickerman]

Yes, let's.

"During the early hours of yesterday morning another murder of a most revolting and fiendish character took place in Spitalfields." - The Times, 10th November.

Yes, and the Times also reported Kelly last seen alive at 8:00 & 10:00 that same morning (I notice you avoid mentioning this).

"This much, however, has been found, that some payment was made by the man for the use of the room; that that payment was received by someone residing in the house; and that the murderer and his victim entered the place in the small hours of Friday morning - between one and two o'clock as near as can be gathered." - East London Observer, 10th November.

You must be joking Ben, Hutchinson will know how ridiculous that article is, he himself saw Kelly at 2:30, so naturally he 'knows' this 1:00-2:00am story is nonsense.
Is this too taxing for you?

"The hour at which the deed was done can only be conjectured, as the last evidence of the woman being alive was at one o'clock in the morning, when she was heard singing. - The Daily Telegraph, 10th November.

When was she last seen alive?

"CRY OF "MURDER!" HEARD AT 3.30. Our representative has interviewed a woman named Kennedy, who was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house situate in the court immediately opposite the room in which the body of Mary Kelly was found. This woman's statement, if true - and there is very little reason for doubting its veracity - establishes the time at which the murderer commenced his operation upon his victim". - The Echo, 10th November.

The Echo also reports Kelly last seen alive between 8:00 & 10:00 am,... why do you not mention this?

"Yesterday morning it was discovered that another horrible murder had been committed at Whitechapel. The victim has been identified as Mary Jane Kelly, 26 years of age, who lived for some time with a man named Barnet, otherwise Danny. According to an account on which reliance has been placed, Kelly was seen late on Thursday night with a respectably dressed man." - Daily News, 10th November.

And, the Daily News wrote that Kelly was last seen alive at 8:00 or 10:00 am, ....you choose not to mention this?

“This woman's statement, if true - and there is very little reason for doubting its veracity - establishes the time at which the murder was committed...

...This description of the man suspected of the murder tallies exactly with that in the possession of the police, and there is very little doubt that the murderer entered Kelly's house late on Thursday night or early on Friday morning.” - St. James' Gazette, 10th November.

Yet, the St. James Gazette reported that Kelly was last seen alive at 8:00 or 10:00 am, ....you don't like to admit this?

This is what happens when you dream up these brand new controversial ideas - ...

This is what happens when you try to misrepresent the very same newspapers I already listed - this attempt at deception is easily exposed.

HINT......any published article that suggests Kelly was murdered between 1:00-2:00 am will be known by Hutchinson to be bogus!
He was with Kelly himself at 2:30 am

There is no way you can win this, though it doesn't appear to have dawned on you yet


I listed eleven newspapers which reported Kelly last seen alive on Friday morning between 8:00 & 10:30, you seem to have bottomed out at seven, yet four of your seven also listed Kelly last seen alive between 8:00 & 10:00 am but you avoided mentioning that fact....tsk...tsk

From the eleven papers which did provide stories suggesting Kelly was last seen alive between 8:00-10:30 Friday morning, clearly not only Hutchinson but the populace in general were confused by when the murder took place.

From this overwhelming representation it is quite understandable that Hutchinson was not aware that his sighting at 2:30 am was of any consequence whatsoever.

[Ben]

Yes, and the Times also reported Kelly last seen alive at 8:00 & 10:00 that same morning (I notice you avoid mentioning this).

The quote I produced from the Times were the first words on the entire subject of the Kelly murder published that day. If Hutchinson read the Times' coverage of the Kelly murder on the 10th November, these would have been the first words he set eyes on. I've never suggested that he wasn't aware of a few other stories doing the rounds alluding to a later time of death, but for your weak argument to work, he needed to have been utterly oblivious to all reports that gave a small-hours time of death, and given how heavily extensive and widespread the publication of the latter was, that is completely impossible.

You must be joking Ben, Hutchinson will know how ridiculous that article is, he himself saw Kelly at 2:30, so naturally he 'knows' this 1:00-2:00am story is nonsense. Is this too taxing for you?

Lose the appalling point-scoring attitude and read the quote properly - "between one and two o'clock as near as can be gathered". In other words, the presumed time of death was roughly the same sort of time that Hutchinson observed Kelly and Astrakhan. An innocent truthful Hutchinson would have been impossibly stupid and unimaginative not to have deduced that it was still the early stage of the investigation, and that the suggested times were only very rough guides (as indeed they were acknowledged to have been).

I've told you why I don't mention the fact that some of these newspapers also made reference to Maxwell's account. I don't need to. My argument (actually an indisputable reality) doesn't rely on Hutchinson only being exposed to reports of an early morning time of death, whereas your argument must rely on Hutchinson having failed to read a single report giving an early morning time of death, and having inexplicably read only the reports of a late morning time of death.

That is impossible, but it's what you need to be true in order to keep buoyant your cripplingly terrible suggestion that Hutchinson sat on his evidence because he thought she was killed late morning, and that his evidence of a stranger entering her room on the morning of her death was therefore "irrelevant".

There is no way you can win this, though it doesn't appear to have dawned on you yet

I feel genuinely sorry for people who view the discussion of a series of brutal murders as a game to be won or lost. The irrefutable fact that you have been proven totally wrong is simply a reality. No game-playing necessary.

I listed eleven newspapers which reported Kelly last seen alive on Friday morning between 8:00 & 10:30, you seem to have bottomed out at seven, yet four of your seven also listed Kelly last seen alive between 8:00 & 10:00 am but you avoided mentioning that fact

What the blazes are you on about?

Virtually none of the newspapers you mentioned gave any indication that they actually supported the later-morning time of death. They were simply providing all the evidence collated to date. No same person reading those newspapers would have come away with the impression that the later time of death was the more probable.

From this overwhelming representation it is quite understandable that Hutchinson was not aware that his sighting at 2:30 am was of any consequence whatsoever.

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE NONSENSE.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THAT A TRUTHFUL HUTCHINSON COULD HAVE GARNERED THE IMPRESSION THAT KELLY WAS KILLED LATER IN THE MORNING THAN THAT WHICH WAS PUBLISHED EVERYWHERE - I.E. IN THE SMALL HOURS WHEN ALL OTHER RIPPER VICTIMS WERE KILLED. EVEN IF HE DID, THAT IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ASSUMING HIS EVIDENCE WAS INCONSEQUENTIAL.

I can shout louder than you can.

[Michael W Richards]

Jon,

If you truly believe that anyone believed that Caroline Maxwell saw a living Mary Kelly Friday morning near 8am, then you havent read how she was introduced to the Inquest, and then you also must believe that the woman in the bed wasnt the same Mary Kelly. You also must believe that the real Mary Kelly had no idea what had gone on in her room. Kinda far fetched, dont you think?

Kelly wasnt killed in the daylight morning....despite what youve read, Rigor is highly unlikely to be present in a few short hours in a room still warmed by the heat from the dying ashes. And you have the demi god Bond to reference for that question. All you have to do is consider that if Caroline was correct then the doctor was wrong and anyone coming and going in that court that morning until 11am missed seeing light in Marys room. One was Elizabeth Prater....she apparently knocked on Marys door early that morning.

Mary was likely killed near the time a woman was heard to call out in the courtyard.

Its time Caroline Maxwell was put to bed for good I think....at least by those of us that have studied these cases long enough to know better.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Michael.

All we are talking about here is what was the most publicized theory available in the press to Hutchinson over the weekend.

So long as Hutchinson was able to read that various people had seen Kelly on Friday morning between 8:00-10:30, then he had no cause for concern to come forward about seeing Kelly with a client at 2:30 am.

We can see these late sightings were the most published across at least eleven daily papers. And that is all that needs to be established for Hutchinson to have a legitimate reason for not being alarmed - he was not aware of the true time she died.

...then you havent read how she was introduced to the Inquest

She was introduced with caution at the inquest because the Coroner was a Surgeon, and he did know when Kelly had died. The public over the weekend did not.