The Red Handkerchief...

[Ben]

Well, whaddoyaknow - you are absolutely right!

Glad we got there eventually, Fisherman!

Then again, she WAS the murdered woman Kelly, right?

Yes, she was.

She was also "the deceased", "the latest victim", "the dead woman", and a myriad other synonyms that Hutchinson could have chosen to describe her, but he just just happened to pick the exact phrase used in an account that appeared in a freely accessible newspaper account from the 10th November, and which was identical to his in terms of specific events and their chronology. He also stated that he "met the murdered woman" - a phrase that also appeared in the Daily News account and nowhere else.

I never suggested that the expressions used were "complicated" or "illogical". I'm saying there were a great many suitable alternatives to that particular expression that Hutchinson could have used. It sounds as though you're denying even this, and suggesting both parties had no choice but to describe her as "the murdered woman Kelly", but since that's so obviously not the case...

We either have an almighty "coincidence" here (another one), or Hutchinson's account was a fairly transparent copy-cat job of the unattributed Daily News article, and one in which he failed to alter the specific phrasing used by the reporter with regard to Kelly.

Being the Googler that I am, I decided to take a look at the phrase "The murdered man Jones". It turned out that there were 1790 hits.

Sounds rather painful for poor Mr. Jones!

I wonder what he did to deserve that? Mal-googling perhaps?

Google ye not, Fisherman, unless you can be sure the results illustrate your point successfully.

Ben, alcoholists - and there is every chance that Kelly was one, or en route to becoming one - will drink no matter what mood they are in. And prostitutes would have been treated by their customers, more than likely.

Less than likely, unless the prostitute was Miss Thompson in a discreet room at the Horse & Groom, Belgravia, and the client was Lord Marmaduke Bonkalot (that well-known Dorset Street regular). For a woman in Kelly's dire straits, however, the "treat" came in the form of a few coins for a back-ally knee-trembler from the occasional non-smelly, non-violent customer. Otherwise, it was grotty old business as usual, and that business did not involve fragrant boozy hour(s)-long seduction routines. It would have required one heck of a financial incentive for Kelly to remain indoors for hours with one person, when she could have been out servicing a lot of clients on the streets in a relatively short space of time, and then return home, full of pocket, to her unsemeny bedsheets at the end of her working night. Was Blotchy - that secret millionaire slummer - really in a position to offer such an incentive, or is the better explanation that Blotchy was a drinking buddy with possible benefits?

There's this fascinating notion doing the rounds that Kelly's occupancy of a tiny hovel on the worst street in London elevated her way above her lodging house peers, even to that of the "upper-lower-classes" according to Jon's quaint new construct. Kelly belonged to the lowest of the low, class-wise, and an "upgrade" from a dodgy doss house on a bad street to a dodgy hovel on a terrible street would not have changed that, and nor would it have prompted her to adopt a "slummers-only" policy with her work.

Could Kelly have charged slightly extra because she was a bit younger and prettier? Yes, maybe, but not dizzy sums that were likely to exclude the overwhelming majority client base, i.e. poor, working class locals.

Yeah - all of them, supposedly? No prostitute took any punter home, no punter was seduced by a girl smiling and flirting, no sex affair was accompanied by a song that year - not one.

Once in a blue moon, a posh ninny might wander into the district dressed down, and in a position to pay a higher price for the services of a local prostitute (because the safer, better prozzie hotspots were busy?!). Could someone in Kelly's position make a sustainable living on these "blue moon" events? No. Is there any reliable non-discredited evidence of flashily-dressed men waltzing into Dorset Street and the surrounding locality? No. Is it remotely likely that anyone would venture into such a “vicious, semi criminal” area dressed in such a manner, let alone when the ripper was known to be active around those very streets; when anyone looking even vaguely out of place was likely to be accosted by a twitchy mob? No.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

“Seriously, ask yourself, why should a liar need to have stolen this phrase (met the murdered woman) to what end? - it doesn't serve any purpose to suggest this, it doesn't make his tale any more believable”

You’ve seemingly missed the point, Jon. Nobody’s suggesting he consciously borrowed the phrase. I have argued that he copied the story and carelessly used the same rather specific phrases of the reporter's. Critics of the “Maybrick” diary note the diarist’s use of the phrase “tin max box empty” and the appearance of the exact phrase in the police report – something that neither the real killer nor Maybrick would have been privy too at the time. The observation being that the hoaxer was clumsy enough not to alter the wording, thus giving away the fact that s/he was a modern writer working from the report.

“what else is he going to say?”

Any one of the hundreds of things he could have said that mean “I met the murdered woman Kelly” without actually being “I met the murdered woman Kelly”.

“3 - Well dressed men are a frequent enough novelty in the Dorset St. area and are mentioned several times in the papers. Nothing out of the ordinary here.”

Long-necked plesiosaur-type creatures are a “frequent enough novelty” in Loch Ness, and are mentioned several times in the papers. Nothing out of the…WAIT, on second thoughts, let’s consider an amazingly controversial and whacky alternative here. What if – and you might think me crazy – what IF those plesiosaur-type creature stories are NOT TRUE? What if they were made up by people seeking attention and money, because they know that plesiosaur-type creatures are interesting and exciting, and maybe even titillating, whereas floating logs and over-sized otters are not? In the same way, perhaps, that dashing docs with black bags make interesting rippers, whereas shabby working class locals make boring ones.

“Which only emphasizes why, if Hutchinson was intent on inventing a fictional suspect, would he not keep the pertinent physical details the same. He has a ready-made villain, why change anything?”

To incorporate as many bogeyman elements as possible.

What trouble are you having with the suggestion that Hutchinson, or anyone for that matter, could have taken the pre-exiting “bogeyman” template and fleshed it out for good measure? If, for whatever reason, he wanted to deflect suspicion in the direction of the Jews (as Jack the Ripper almost certainly did on the night of the “double event”), there was every reason to give the black bag-wielding stranger a Jewish appearance. Every little might have helped - Astrakhan coats help reinforce the “suspect’s” Eastern European origin, gold chains underscore wealth; black bags hint at concealed weapons, but cloth wrapped packages of knife-shaped dimensions are even better for that. You just have to be a bit imaginative. It isn’t remotely” inexplicable” for Hutchinson to have “enhanced” the current press bogeyman type to encompass all scary attributes that had been suggested of the real killer, and Astrakhan man is an amalgamation of all of them.

“Kelly takes her business home, she does not serve 'kneetremblers' down dark alley's (apparently).”

Unlikely.

Only if you’re convinced that Blotchy was a normal client, and there are good reasons for concluding he wasn’t.

“Just for the record, I don't see Astrachan as being a 'slummer', circumstantial evidence could identify Astrachan as Joseph Isaac's, simply on his way home.”

Just for the record – absolutely not.

Actual evidence places him in prison at the time of the murders.

But we’re not doing all this again.

I see we're not doing terribly well in terms of rising to Gareth's challenge for "multiply-attested instances" of slummers descending on that part of Spitalfields. In fact, we seem to be having difficulties encountering a "single-attested instance". Most of us are aware of the existence of modern books reporting the phenomenon, but there is often an absence of original source material accompanying these claims, and it would be interesting to see a contemporary account or two. That may, we might be better equipped to assess the frequency, of otherwise, of that behaviour.

Not that toffs disguised as shabby locals has any bearing whatsoever on the prevalence of well-dressed men haunting those hellish streets in the small hours, and when the ripper was active

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Just for the record, I don't see Astrachan as being a 'slummer', circumstantial evidence could identify Astrachan as Joseph Isaac's, simply on his way home.

I concur that Astrakhan man must not have been a slummer - I only brought the slummers on stage to point out that may a respectable man did traverse these districts.
As for Astrakhan man, a character like him could have belonged to either group, slummers or Eastenders.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

Firstly, the Schwartz stuff.

He was asked about the man’s appearance – short jacket, peaked cap, and acting rough and tough. In other words, not an obvious picture of respectability.

The jacket and the cap belongs to the clothing, not to the overall appearance. A short jacket can be grimy and torn and it can be exquisite and elegant. THAT is where the appearance lies.

Now you are trying to conjure up a scenario where the police report on Schwartz includes the appearance, and the reason is obvious - you need something to gainsay the paper article.
Well, it is not there.

The only description we have of the man´s appearance is in the paper article, and it is not at odds with the police report.

So you prefer to accept that Schwartz provided his description of a peaked cap ruffian (in essence), and then added the detail that the man was “respectable”, only for Swanson to omit the latter piece of information, despite it being arguably at odds with the description? (And for good old Mr. Journalist to pop along later and fill in the gaps left by Swanson’s slipshod and incomplete interview?).

I prefer to go with the evidence. We have no idea why Swanson did not mention anything about the overall appearance of BS man. But we DO know that this is the case.

I ask again. Do you, according to the above reasoning, accept that Pipeman had a knife in his hand because it appeared in the press, and it was not directly contradicted by the Swanson report?

It IS contradicted by the Swanson report. In it, the man carries a pipe, not a knife.

I just have to wonder how dear ol’ Cross fits into the equation, which is something he’s supposed to do, remember, now that you suddenly accept Stride as a ripper victim.

Did you not just advice me to stick to the thread topic?

All the very best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

Yes, she was.

She was also "the deceased", "the latest victim", "the dead woman", and a myriad other synonyms that Hutchinson could have chosen to describe her, but he just just happened to pick the exact phrase used in an account that appeared in a freely accessible newspaper account from the 10th November, and which was identical to his in terms of specific events and their chronology. He also stated that he "met the murdered woman" - a phrase that also appeared in the Daily News account and nowhere else.

If Hutchinson had used a strange phrasing, you would have had a case. He didn´t, and there goes that case.

It´s like saying that it is suspicious to call a cat cute, when there are so many other alternatives for it, like sweet, cuddly, nice etcetera.

It is not until the chosen phrasing is an odd one that we can start speaking of unexpected coincindences. The rest is expected coincidences.

Could Kelly have charged slightly extra because she was a bit younger and prettier? Yes, maybe, but not dizzy sums that were likely to exclude the overwhelming majority client base, i.e. poor, working class locals.

I really can´t remember having suggested any "dizzy sums". I am quite sure that I mentioned - as an unsubstantiated suggestion - that she could perhaps have charged 30 per cent more or something like that. No dizzy sums, but perhaps enough to filter away the cheapest punters and procure a slightly better clientele, some of whom would have passed as respectable.

In other words, far from suggesting something outrageous, I suggested something very mundane.

Once in a blue moon, a posh ninny might wander into the district dressed down, and in a position to pay a higher price for the services of a local prostitute (because the safer, better prozzie hotspots were busy?!). Could someone in Kelly's position make a sustainable living on these "blue moon" events? No.

And did I say that she did? No.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Just a quickie.

Ben is of course right that Hutchinson could have used another description than "the murdered woman Kelly".

He could have said just "the murdered woman" - but then he would also have been in trouble, for that is what it says in the Daily News.

He could have used "the unfortunate woman Kelly" - but once again, the journalism of the Daily News would have had him swinging, since they used that phrasing too.

Hutchinson could have tried "the victim", "the poor woman" or "the deceased" - but he would immediately have been recognized as having plagiarized, word for word, the East London Advertiser, who actually used these very phrases!

The Echo of the 12:th of November uses another epiteth altogether, a very rare one, normally reserved for plagiarizing killers only:
"The statements of the man Barnett connecting the murdered woman Kelly with South Wales ..."

I think it may have been there he picked up on that one...

Has it occured to anybody that the poor man would have been in a difficult predicament if he needed to clear himself of any suspicions from latter day Ripperologists?

Once again, order-of-the-day phrasings that were common and logical enough, do not go to prove any plagiarizing.

The Maybrick business mentioned had the phrase “tin max box empty” worrying people when it was transferred to the diary. That is a very much more unusual and complex wording, and it is therefore quite understandable that it should cause concern.
One should, however, ponder the fact that even such a phrase could be in the clear. Otherwise, once a phrase was used in a written source it would impose a liarship upon anybody who even accidentally used the same phrase - which could well happen.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

The result of a quick search on Casebook, using the word "respectably". There were tons of pages, and I only looked at the first five. Many "respectably" belonged to Astrakhan man and the Daily News man, but there was more:

*He was well dressed in a black morning suit and coat ... he seemed a respectably dressed man.
Best and Gardners´ Bricklayers Arms´man.

*Before joining the army he had been a sailor and though always respectably dressed, still had the appearance of a sailor more than a soldier.
Ripper suspect Dick Austin

the man was described as respectably dressed and had somewhat the appearance of an American.
John Locke

On the 18 July 1889, the day after the murder of Alice McKenzie, William Wallace Brodie, described as respectably attired, though of no fixed abode and without occupation, walked into Leman Street police station and gave himself up, claiming to be Jack the Ripper.

A reliable correspondent informs us that on Friday morning, about 11.45, a respectably dressed man, a stranger to the locality, was observed to stoop and wash his hands in a puddle at the corner of Clayton street, nearest to the Kennington Oval. He wore a dark suit, black coat, black billycock hat, and had a small black leather bag with him. He was about 5ft 6in in height, under 30 years of age, broad shouldered, and wore a thick brown moustache.
Unnamed man, reported about on the 12:th of November

Later inquiries, however, show that the seriousness of the attack has been much exaggerated. The injured woman, Adelaide Rogers, of 21, Stangate, Westminster-bridge-road, ran out of Down-street between two and three o'clock this morning, and informed a policeman stationed in Piccadilly that she had been stabbed. She was bleeding from a wound on the right cheek, and had already become faint from loss of blood. She was at once conveyed to St. George's Hospital. Dr. Ward is uncertain whether the wound was inflicted by a thrust with a blunt knife, or by a blow from a stick. The police incline to the latter view, and are not disposed to attach much importance to the case. The police are in possession of Mrs. Roger's description of the man by whom she was attacked, but decline to communicate it to the Press, on the ground that her accounts are contradictory. It is stated, however, that the man is tall, dark, and respectably dressed.
Unknown man, reported about on the 19:th of September

At Southwark Police Court yesterday, before Mr. Wynham Slade, a respectably-dressed young man, giving the name of Collingwood Hilton Fenwick, aged 26, was placed in the dock, charged with unlawfully cutting and wounding a young woman named Ellen Worafold, with intent to do her grievous bodily harm.
16:th of November

"The police have received from Mr. Samuel Osborne, wire worker, 20 Garden row, London road, a statement to the effect that he was walking along St. Paul's Churchyard yesterday behind a respectably dressed man, when a parcel, wrapped in a newspaper, fell from the man's coat.
14:th of November

A respectably-dressed individual, with dark whiskers and slight moustache, wearing a long coat and sealskin cap, was apprehended some hours later by Sergeant Knapston, on suspicion of being the murderer. The prisoner, who carried a small bundle, was arrested at the railway gates, and displayed great nervous excitement.*
27:th of November

...he was middle-aged and stout, about 5ft 6in tall, respectably dressed in a small black cut-away coat and dark trousers.
Marshall´s man

Charles Ludwig, 40, a respectably-dressed German, was charged at the Thames police-court, on Tuesday, with being drunk and threatening to stab Alexander Finlay.

The officers who are making inquiries with respect to the discovery made at the new police offices at Westminster, have received information that on Saturday afternoon, at twenty minutes past five, a respectably dressed man, about 35 years of age, was seen to get over from the hoarding in Cannon road, and to walk quickly away, and that he was not followed or the police informed of the matter, because no importance was attached to the matter at the time.
4:th of October

They are all over the place, apparently.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

All over the place,but not apparently in Commercial Street at 2AM in the morning.Perhaps this is what Hutchinson means.

[Fisherman]

All over the place,but not apparently in Commercial Street at 2AM in the morning.Perhaps this is what Hutchinson means.

Very few people were around during Hutchinson´s vigil, we know this courtesy of his interviews with papers and police.

However, it has not been suggested that Commercial Street was full of respectably clad people when Hutchinson watched Astrakhan man there.

It has been suggested, on the other hand, that it would be a very odd thing for respectably clad people to traverse the East End at night, generally speaking.

And the more we look at the material surrounding the issue, the more of a myth that looks like.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

All over the place,but not apparently in Commercial Street at 2AM in the morning.Perhaps this is what Hutchinson means.

Indeed, Harry, and the above examples really were "all over the place" - all over London and all over the country, when I thought our focus was the worst part of the East End.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Thanks for posting those press extracts. Could you talk me through your motivation for posting them, just out of curiosity? Unless you’ve seen any strenuous denials that one could find respectably dressed men in Piccadilly and St. Paul’s Churchyard - both comparatively affluent areas of London - I slightly query their relevance. You do realise that most of your examples (8 out of 12) had nothing to do with the East End, and with several having nothing to do with London, but rather places like Rotherham and Portsmouth? Of the East End examples you’ve provided, it’s extremely obvious that none compared in any shape or form to the opulently-dressed Astrakhan, and if the homeless, jobless William Wallace Brodie could make himself appear “respectable” in his dress, that ought to tell us that it wasn’t all that difficult to pull off. Pull on a shirt and tie, and bob’s your uncle – even Hutchinson himself could have pulled it off (or ON!). Note the respectably dressed sketch of Hutchinson with his stoutish build and wideawake.

That being the case, where was it ever objected to that it was possible for all but vagrants to dress respectably in Whitechapel?

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Cont...

“If Hutchinson had used a strange phrasing, you would have had a case. He didn´t, and there goes that case.”

It doesn’t need to be “strange” for my case to have obvious, irrefutable validity. It just needs to be a specific phrase that appears in one source, and is then reproduced exactly in another, and in no other press or police source from 1888 covering the ripper murders. That is what we see with Hutchinson’s account and the Daily News article. "Met the murdered woman" is unique to those two sources. A remarkable thing in isolation, but when coupled with the near identical detail and other specific phrases reproduced with exactitude, it pretty much ceases to be a possibility that Hutchinson’s account had nothing to do with the Daily News article.

It wouldn’t be “strange” phraseology if I wrote “Kelly was found murdered in Miller’s Court”. It’s a mundane and brief description of what actually happened, but guess how many Google hits that gets? Zero. This is because there are potentially hundreds if not thousands of ways of describing things, most of them about as “strange” as the sentence I just invented.

“He could have said just "the murdered woman"

He could have JUST said that, yes. In which case, the fact that the identical phrase appears in the Daily News would be mildly interesting, but not proof of a copy-cat job. However, he also said “met the murdered woman” which also appears identically in the Daily News, as does "murdered woman Kelly". He also described bumping into Kelly. He also described the two of them parting company when the latter disclosed that she had no money. He also described seeing her encounter a respectably dressed man and walking home with him. ALL of which appears in the Daily News article.

“The Maybrick business mentioned had the phrase “tin max box empty” worrying people when it was transferred to the diary. That is a very much more unusual and complex wording, and it is therefore quite understandable that it should cause concern.”

Huh?

Are we having language barrier issues here, or what? “Tin match box –empty” is about the most bland, ordinary way of describing the item and its condition. An “unusual and complex wording” would be “container fashioned of a light metal, wholly devoid of cigarette-lighting implements”.

[Ben]

A short jacket can be grimy and torn and it can be exquisite and elegant

I'd love to know who wears an exquisitely "elegant" short jacket with a peaked cap, Fisherman. Let that be your Google challenge for today. Find me that winning fashion combination of peaked cap and "exquisite" short jacket, and post your results to the Stride threads!

You overlook the important point that the Star's "respectably dressed" claim was based on an erroneous description that contradicted the one given in the Swanson report. The latter referred to a "black cap with a peak", whereas the Star mentioned "dark clothes and felt hat". It is the second of these descriptions that may be considered compatible with a “respectable” appearance. Too bad it’s wrong.

We have no idea why Swanson did not mention anything about the overall appearance of BS man.

We have an excellent idea - the description of the man's attire and behaviour was so obviously at odds with an appearance of "respectability" that it was considered superfluous to requirements for either Schwartz or Swanson to provide an "overall appearance". The description was sufficient. Honestly, I'd love to hear you read the weather: In Sweden today, we have black ice on the roads, blizzards, two feet of snow, frozen lakes and rivers. "Overall" - heat wave.

It IS contradicted by the Swanson report. In it, the man carries a pipe, not a knife.

With his only hand?

If the report said "clay pipe and nothing else", we have a contradiction.

Otherwise, no.

Did you not just advice me to stick to the thread topic?

Yes, I did, but were you receptive to my advice? No, disappointingly not. I can only assume, therefore, that it is important to you to continue this off-topic "debate" here on an unrelated thread. So in the spirit of that "continuation", I was simply wondering aloud if your brand new suspect preference had affected your treatment of Schwartz's evidence in the same way you admit it affected your treatment of the "ripper victim or not" question. If you're sticking to your "BS/Pipeman = respectable" guns from 2008, despite how badly that works with the Cross theory, I can only assume the answer is no, which I guess is commendable, even though I disagree.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

The number of 'well-dressed' men is in any case irrelevant to the discussion in hand.

The point is and remains that Hutchinson's story matches, point for point, an account given to the press by an unamed 'associate' of Kelly shortly after her murder was discovered and widely circulated in the press.

Once agian - unless somebody wishes to argue that more than one such encounter occurred on the night of her death - by which I mean the exact same set of circumstances below:

1. Kelly meets somebody known to her at the corner of Dorset Street
2. Kelly and A.N. Other have a conversation to the effect that Kelly has no money.
3. Kelly and A.N. Other part ways.
4. Kelly is observed by A.N. Other to be accosted by a 'well-dressed' man
5. A. N. Other observes said 'well-dressed' man offer Kelly money - Fabulous! The answer to her prayers!
6. A.N. Other observes Kelly and the man go back to Kelly's lodgings.
7. Kelly is not seen again until her death.

Then the obvious conclusion is that Hutchinson's story is derivative and accordingly, fabricated.

On the balance of probability that would appear to be the solution.

I leave it to others to speculate on the reasons for his mendacity.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Thanks for posting those press extracts. Could you talk me through your motivation for posting them, just out of curiosity? Unless you’ve seen any strenuous denials that one could find respectably dressed men in Piccadilly and St. Paul’s Churchyard - both comparatively affluent areas of London - I slightly query their relevance.

Regards,
Ben

Yes, but then again, you apparently query the work of renowned researchers like Fishman, Diniejko and Koven, instead of looking up their referenced works. And you ask for examples...?
How about accepting that these scholars would not conjure up things, and instead go looking for any evidence that they did - if you really think they did? The onus od proof does not lie on anybody else than yourself when you challenge academic authorities.

What you seemingly fail to understand is that it would not have taken much to be pointed out as respectably dressed by your fellow Eastenders.

All the best, Ben
Fisherman