The Red Handkerchief...

[Wickerman]

The quote I produced from the Times were the first words on the entire subject of the Kelly murder published that day.

Really?, well maybe this is part of your problem.

For your future reference, the most recent press articles are towards the bottom of the page. The type-set of the period did not allow for re-arranging a page to include recent news, it had to be appended.

The paragraph you choose to omit is the same one repeated across 11 dailies and is the most dominant theory on the day.

"A tailor named Lewis says he saw Kelly come out about 8 o'clock yesterday morning and go back. Another statement is to the effect that Kelly was seen in a public-house known as the Ringers at the corner of Dorset-street and Commercial-street, about 10 o'clock yesterday morning, and that she met there her lover, Barnet (sic) and had a glass of beer with him."
Times, 10th Nov.

There is really nothing to add. If Hutchinson did read about the murder over the weekend then he was as confused as everyone else, and knowing that several people claimed to see Kelly late on Friday morning would give him no cause for concern about his own early morning sighting.

[Ben]

You're onto an absolute loser with this one, Jon.

There is no way - absolutely no way - that Hutchinson or anyone else reading the media coverage of the Kelly murder on the 9th and 10th November would come away with the impression that Kelly was probably killed in the later morning. The early morning time of death was covered far, far more extensively that the late morning version suggested by Maurice Lewis and Maxwell. Your favourite witness, "Mrs. Kennedy" (yours and nobody else's, that is) was covered in a great many newspapers on the 10th November, and the chances of Hutchinson missing this - if indeed he was reading any newspapers at all - were slim to non-existent.

But no, you ignore all this and claim, unbelievably, that the story of "a tailor named Lewis" was the "dominant story of the day"! That's scary nonsense, Jon, and I'm not even sure you were being serious with that one.

We're overlooking another crucial point that exposes the flaws in your impossible and never-before-suggested explanation for Hutchinson's late appearance. He lived in the Victoria Home, which was a few hundred yards from the crime scene. He wouldn't have been able to take more than about ten footsteps out of the front door without being alerted to the fact that another mutilation murder had occurred in Miller's Court where'd he'd been just a few hours earlier, and that's assuming he didn't hear about it in the lodging house itself before he even had a chance to leave it.

But despite this reality, you remain insistent that Hutchinson withheld his potentially vital evidence, choosing instead to wait for the press coverage to see if his sighting of the victim with a strange man on the morning of her death was "relevant"? And that after reading Maurice Lewis' account and somehow managing to miss the enormous wealth of media coverage indicating an earlier time of death, he decided it wasn't?!?

Not a chance. Not even a vague whiff of one.

For your future reference, the most recent press articles are towards the bottom of the page.

Yes, but the piece on the Kelly murder commenced with:

"During the early hours of yesterday morning another murder of a most revolting and fiendish character took place in Spitalfields."

There is really nothing to add.

Yes, I agree that we're done with this off-topic debate.

[Bridewell]

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

A room still warmed "by the heat from the dying ashes"? - a room with two broken window panes in the early hours of a November morning. Warm ashes will not heat a draughty room. They might preserve a little heat in the iron of the grate but that's about it.

"Rigor mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination."

This on a body which had been extensively mutilated. We've had this discussion before so, briefly, it's onset time and progress are not an exact, or reliable, indicator of time of death. The state of rigor at 2pm does not preclude the possibility of a later TOD. Other factors might but this doesn't. Quite apart from anything else Bond's 'six to twelve hours' for an onset time is simply wrong.

[Wickerman]

You're onto an absolute loser with this one, Jon.

The issue is not one of winning or losing Ben, the issue is one of recognising the most circulated stories available to the public over the weekend.
We have seen the most dominant stories published, and that the press and therefore the public, were completely unaware of the true time of death.
Hutchinson is numbered among these who would have been confused.

There is no way - absolutely no way - that Hutchinson or anyone else reading the media coverage of the Kelly murder on the 9th and 10th November would come away with the impression that Kelly was probably killed in the later morning.

Given what has been shown, your claim is unfounded.

The early morning time of death was covered far, far more extensively that the late morning version suggested by Maurice Lewis and Maxwell.

Your attempt to show I was mistaken has failed rather miserably, my count was eleven instances of Kelly been reported as alive late in the morning, do you want to try again?
There is no time limit, if you want to find more than eleven cases where an early time of death was conjectured, please, be my guest.

Your favourite witness, "Mrs. Kennedy" (yours and nobody else's, that is) was covered in a great many newspapers on the 10th November, and the chances of Hutchinson missing this - if indeed he was reading any newspapers at all - were slim to non-existent.

You must be referring to Mrs Kennedy hearing the cry of 'murder'?
This is the same cry that tenants heard all too often in street brawls and as a result had not associated this cry with a true case of murder?
Have you also forgotten that Mrs Kennedy's claim was contested in the press?
"This evidence as to the cry of "Murder" is extremely important in view of the fact that a number of witnesses have come forward and stated that they saw the deceased woman Kelly as late as ten o'clock on the morning that the murder occurred."

The public therefore are no wiser when Mary Kelly was really murdered. In fact this Kennedy issue only reinforces my argument.

He lived in the Victoria Home, which was a few hundred yards from the crime scene. He wouldn't have been able to take more than about ten footsteps out of the front door without being alerted to the fact that another mutilation murder had occurred in Miller's Court where'd he'd been just a few hours earlier, and that's assuming he didn't hear about it in the lodging house itself before he even had a chance to leave it.

No-one is saying that he wasn't aware of the murder, obviously he must have been. The issue is that nobody over that weekend had any reliable clue as to when, at what hour, Kelly was murdered.
Coupled with the fact that Mrs Maxwell lived so close to the crime and was naturally telling anyone and everyone (possibly even Hutchinson himself?), that Mary must have died late in the morning, because she met and spoke with her!
As far as Maxwell was concerned, it was already a fact.

Yes, but the piece on the Kelly murder commenced with:

"During the early hours of yesterday morning another murder of a most revolting and fiendish character took place in Spitalfields."

Yes Ben I am aware of this. What I am trying to explain to you is that the first paragraphs are the oldest, that the latest pieces to come in just before publication are appended to the bottom of the set.
The method of type-set in use at this time did not allow for a complete re-organization of the page, so it is necessary to look further down for the 'latest news'.
This is where the later sighting is published.

[Ben]

You just said there is "nothing really to do" Don't then add more simply because I've responded.

The most widely circulated stories over the weekend were the ones involving an early morning time of death, as I'm prepared to repeat for a million more pages if necessary. It was covered more extensively, and was evidently invested with considerably more importance, than the later morning time of death. That is just obvious, not least because Kelly was very quickly attributed to the Jack the Ripper series, and all the previous victims had been murdered and mutilated earlier in the morning.

Your ridiculous and childish argument that you've counted more papers supporting to a later time of death than I have counted papers supporting an earlier one is another obvious failure of a debating strategy. It fails to take on board the reality that the suggested later times of death, as reported by Maxwell and Maurice Lewis, were simply reported on with little or no commentary from the press as to whether or not they should be taken seriously. When it came to the accounts involving an early-morning time of death, however, it is clear they were invested with some significance:

This woman's (Kennedy'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"

It is also potentially significant that the better-respected papers paid more heed to reports of an early morning time of death than the raggy ones.

And do try to understand (as anyone reading the papers in 1888 would have understood) - if, as you appear to accept, there was a degree of understandable and inevitable confusion concerning the correct time of death, the possibilities for "eyewitness validity" remain open. However, for your disastrous argument to work, Hutchinson needed to bypass all of this "confusion", fail to notice a single reference to the theory that Kelly died early in the morning, and somehow only notice the Maxwell/Lewis conjecture regarding a later morning time of death.

That is not possible.

It is beyond ludicrous to argue that anyone reading the papers on the 10th would come away with the impression that Kelly was definitely killed late morning, and that any sightings of her in the early hours of the morning must be completely irrelevant. The minds of the sane don't work like that.

What I am trying to explain to you is that the first paragraphs are the oldest, that the latest pieces to come in just before publication are appended to the bottom of the set.

But the extract I quote from the Times was the first piece of news Hutchinson would have read pertaining to the Kelly murder that day. It wasn't the "latest piece to come in". It was the first detail reported on the Kelly murder.

[Wickerman]

The most widely circulated stories over the weekend were the ones involving an early morning time of death, as I'm prepared to repeat for a million more pages if necessary.

I'm sure you will, that is your style when you have no data to prove your case. Noise fades in a short time but the published evidence remains forever.

Your ridiculous and childish argument that you've counted more papers supporting to a later time of death than I have counted papers supporting an earlier one is another obvious failure of a debating strategy.

The caustic response is an obvious failure by yourself to measure up to your wild claims. I stopped at eleven because that was enough, then you yourself added the Kennedy material.
You are not a graceful loser Ben.

It fails to take on board the reality that the suggested later times of death, as reported by Maxwell and Maurice Lewis, were simply reported on with little or no commentary from the press as to whether or not they should be taken seriously.

Why should press opinion have any bearing? If the press did not think the Lewis/Maxwell stories had any worth they would not publish them.
If you recall the Star subtitled one paragraph as 'worthless stories' which included an account of the Britannia-man. Yet Coroner Macdonald showed a special interest in the presence & appearance of this man in the testimony given by Sarah Lewis. Clearly, the Coroner did not think the subject 'worthless'.
The press are only guessing Ben, they know nothing for sure.

It is also potentially significant that the better-respected papers paid more heed to reports of an early morning time of death than the raggy ones.

My quotes included the better respected papers (Times), plus your raggy ones (Star/Echo), they shared the news.

However, for your disastrous argument to work, Hutchinson needed to bypass all of this "confusion", fail to notice a single reference to the theory that Kelly died early in the morning, and somehow only notice the Maxwell/Lewis conjecture regarding a later morning time of death.

Hutchinson, in reading both reports (the few that suggest an early murder, and the many later reports of her still alive), should naturally be confused.
It might be expected that he would show up down Dorset St. to see if anyone knew anything more. The claims by Maxwell would be dominant in the area, who knows, he may have even spoke to her himself. No doubt leaving the street convinced that Kelly was killed late in the morning.

But the extract I quote from the Times was the first piece of news Hutchinson would have read pertaining to the Kelly murder that day. It wasn't the "latest piece to come in". It was the first detail reported on the Kelly murder.

Agreed, so naturally he is going to look up the latest reports. You agree yourself that the first reports are typically mistakes, assumptions or exaggerations, until everything settles down.
Wouldn't he know that too?

[Ben]

Are you still going?

Noise fades in a short time but the published evidence remains forever.

My "noise" will only "fade" when you desist, Jon, and not a split-second before. Yes, the published evidence will "remain forever", but not in your argument's favour. I'm caustic in my response because I don't appreciate your point-scoring approach, especially when you aren't scoring any points. No, my search of the newspaper archives was not exhaustive but sufficient, I felt, for illustrating my point. I wasn't aware that it was ever disputed that the early morning time of death received most coverage. Well, it hasn't, except by you.

Why should press opinion have any bearing? If the press did not think the Lewis/Maxwell stories had any worth they would not publish them.

You miss the point.

I'm not saying press opinion should have any bearing on our treatment of witness evidence. I'm saying it may well have influenced the opinion of the average man on the street, like honest-to-goodness, daahhhn-on-his-luck, warm, cuddly, truth-telling Hutchinson. He would have registered the fact that particular attention was paid to the witnesses whose evidence indicated an early morning time of death. The average man on the street would also have been aware that the ripper usually struck at that time.

My quotes included the better respected papers (Times), plus your raggy ones (Star/Echo), they shared the news.

The Times doesn't help you out.

It states that Kelly was killed in the "early hours".

Unlucky.

Nobody thinks the Echo is "raggy", but you might hear the square and outdated view every now and that the Star journalists were a bit naughty and controversial.

It might be expected that he would show up down Dorset St. to see if anyone knew anything more. The claims by Maxwell would be dominant in the area, who knows, he may have even spoke to her himself.

Just Maxwell and her megaphone, eh?

Don't think so, somehow. Kennedy was no less "dominant" at that time, and we know Elizabeth Prater spoke to the press. No evidence that Maxwell was shouting them down or exerting greater influence on those nosing their way into Dorset Street. In the case of Hutchinson, he would realistically have been exposed to both the early and late morning times of death, which meant he couldn't possibly know whether his evidence was "relevant" or not. The worst and most illogical course of action in that event is to assume it isn't.

Agreed, so naturally he is going to look up the latest reports.

And just as naturally, he is going to read about Kelly being killed in the "early hours".

[Elenahoyos66]

The fact that it was a "red" handkerchief, and the fact that he pulled it out to treat her like a lady, as if with a show of gallant chivalry, almost seems farcical.

Speculation at most, but I'm sure his story is complete bullshit.

[Ben]

Exactly, Elena.

And as if the prostitutes of the 1888 East End needed "gallant chivalry" to entice them into conducting business!

[richardnunweek]

Hi all.
I don't know if any of you are aware, that a member of the Hutchinson family is now a member of forums , his name is Rob , and he is the nephew of the much discussed Reg.
I have not communicated to date, but it would appear that he is in the dark somewhat on the case, but I am sure he knows something of interest ..in case you are inclined to possibly seek clarification, on possible misunderstood points.
Regards Richard.

[GUT]

G'Day Richard

Can't be because Hutchinson was really Fleming

G.U.T.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

I would be delighted to hear from Rob, and would be interested to hear what light he has to shed on his relatives. I'm curious as to how you noticed this as I can see no recent posts from anyone connected to Reginald Hutchinson.

Just the usual correction, though. He is a member of "a" Hutchinson family, not "the" Hutchinson family.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

... I wasn't aware that it was ever disputed that the early morning time of death received most coverage. Well, it hasn't, except by you.

Well, you are now. And you've seen the proof of it.
So you have learned something at least.

... He would have registered the fact that particular attention was paid to the witnesses whose evidence indicated an early morning time of death. The average man on the street would also have been aware that the ripper usually struck at that time.

The average man in the street was not aware that Kelly was alive at 2:30, though Hutchinson knew this. So, an early morning time of death before that time was bogus to Hutchinson.
Only those rumors about a murder between 3:30-4:00 might have caught his attention. The Star wrongly gave a time of 2:00 am for the cry, which Hutchinson knew would be unrelated to her death. The Star also offered the fact that Lewis saw Kelly at 8:00 am, & Kelly was seen in the Ringers at 10:00 am, ...do we really have to go over this?

Nobody thinks the Echo is "raggy", but you might hear the square and outdated view every now and that the Star journalists were a bit naughty and controversial.

Not an opinion of scholarly research.
No-one who has any experience on 19th century journalism holds the Star in such high esteem as you do.
Which speaks volumes for your theories.

Don't think so, somehow. Kennedy was no less "dominant" at that time, and we know Elizabeth Prater spoke to the press. No evidence that Maxwell was shouting them down or exerting greater influence on those nosing their way into Dorset Street.

Kennedy did not live in Dorset St, Prater said nothing about a time of death. How do you mean 'no evidence of Maxwell telling her story to all and sundry'?, how do you think the press found her - good grief!

And just as naturally, he is going to read about Kelly being killed in the "early hours".

With nothing to substantiate it but a cry of murder, compared with two accessible live witnesses who, taken together saw Kelly four times that morning (Lewis twice & Maxwell twice).
We can see which story carried the most influence to a (potentially) inquisitive Hutchinson.

[Ben]

Disappointing, Jon.

Your last contribution to the "Suspect Number #1" thread was very sensible, but it seems we're still experiencing difficulties with this one.

If you're content to acknowledge that confusion existed with regard to the correct or likely time of death, as you appear to be, then your argument that Hutchinson deliberately withheld his evidence on the assumption that his evidence was not relevant (i.e. to the wholly unresolved and unknown time of death) is completely dead in the water. This argument can only work if Hutchinson was aware only of the rumours involving a later time of death, but given how absurdly unlikely that is, the argument clearly doesn't work.

Please don't start all that boring, old-hat Star-bashing again. We had a crap book and an even crapper documentary subjecting us recently to the "revelation" that the Star were the ultimate baddies in the equation, and the last thing we need or want now is you wrapping the knuckles of yesterday's whipping boy. I never said I held them in "high esteem", but I recognise a silly argument for dismissing their findings when I see one, and such arguments tend to emanate only from you these days.

If they got a few things wrong with regard to Kelly's murder, boo-hoo - so did a great many papers in the immediate aftermath of the murder. That doesn't enervate the fact that the early morning time of death was extensively reported, and enjoyed far greater coverage than the Maxwellian late-morning theory. It doesn't matter if they were a little out with the timing. Hutchinson had the gumption to realise that slip-ups often occur soon after the event itself, before the full facts have been established. It wouldn't be unusual if they were out by an hour, even.

Kennedy did not live in Dorset St

How do you know?

She plagiarised Lewis' account, so she was clearly "on site" to parrott off the experiences of genuine Miller's Court witnesses (oh, and copy and pastes from other threads to come if you want to start that argument again).

How do you mean 'no evidence of Maxwell telling her story to all and sundry'?, how do you think the press found her - good grief!

Probably by interviewing the lodging house deputy and discovering that his wife had allegedly seen Kelly later in the morning.

With nothing to substantiate it but a cry of murder, compared with two accessible live witnesses who, taken together saw Kelly four times that morning (Lewis twice & Maxwell twice).
We can see which story carried the most influence to a (potentially) inquisitive Hutchinson.

(a) That is complete nonsense. The early morning time of death was covered far more extensively than the Maxwell/Lewis version, and the papers made clear the fact that the former was considered indicative of the likely time at which the victim was murdered, as opposed to the latter, which was only offered in the spirit of reporting all available witness evidence. There is simply no way that Hutchinson remained oblivious to the cry of "murder", Kennedy etc, IF he was reading the newspapers.

(b) What sort of tit-head decides for himself - after reading in the newspapers that several times of death had been suggested for Kelly - that despite his small-hours sighting being utterly crucial to one of those suggested TODs, he irrationally picks another as the correct one, and uses his irrational adherence to this minority-reported time of death as an excuse for sitting on his arse and assuming his experience must be irrelevant?

Not honest old Hutchy-Poops I hope?

[Wickerman]

Disappointing, Jon.

Your last contribution to the "Suspect Number #1" thread was very sensible, but it seems we're still experiencing difficulties with this one.

If you're content to acknowledge that confusion existed with regard to the correct or likely time of death, as you appear to be, then your argument that Hutchinson deliberately withheld his evidence on the assumption that his evidence was not relevant (i.e. to the wholly unresolved and unknown time of death) is completely dead in the water. This argument can only work if Hutchinson was aware only of the rumours involving a later time of death, .....

Ben.
Options are never so limited.

Human nature being what it is, and if Hutchinson did care anything about Mary, our expectation is that he will dismiss the conflicting press stories and go straight to Dorset St. to see the source for those stories of a later sighting.
You cannot tell me that this is not what you would do, whether he did or not will never be known, but to assume he wouldn't flies in direct conflict with human nature.

Please don't start all that boring, old-hat Star-bashing again. We had a crap book and an even crapper documentary subjecting us recently to the "revelation" that the Star were the ultimate baddies in the equation, and the last thing we need or want now is you wrapping the knuckles of yesterday's whipping boy.

Try promise me that one day you will research 19th century journalism for yourself. If you choose to argue about it you need to know about it from the professionals.

.... That doesn't enervate the fact that the early morning time of death was extensively reported, and enjoyed far greater coverage than the Maxwellian late-morning theory.

Claiming less was more fails to impress, you don't have the numbers because they do not exist. The 'later sightings' far outnumber any earlier conviction of murder - you have seen it for yourself, and so has everyone else, who can count.

She plagiarised Lewis' account,

Kennedy did not plagiarize anyone, she was an independent witness who arrived later than Sarah Lewis.

Probably by interviewing the lodging house deputy and discovering that his wife had allegedly seen Kelly later in the morning.

Oh right, Maxwell didn't want anyone to know she was the last person to see the victim alive? ..HA!

Morris Lewis & Mrs Maxwell were gossiping, that is why the press picked up their stories so quickly. And, anyone (like Hutchinson, or a reporter), who wanted to know more would be shown where and with whom those stories originated.

Really, if you feel compelled to ignore human nature you could at least try to make up something believable.