The Red Handkerchief...

[Sam Flynn]

What we must bear in mind when discussing this is an Echo article that commences: "Bowyer, the young man in Mr. McCarthy's employ..."

That's my point, Fish. If Bowyer was erroneously described as a youth in some press accounts, that might give us a few pointers as to where Dew got his ideas.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Right, and by his own admission, he is the last person 'known' to have seen Kelly alive.
My dear fellow, an admission is like a confession.

Absolutely, but it's only an "admission" if it's true.

If not, it is just a false claim.

Nobody "admits" to seeing pigs fly, but some people might make false claims to that effect.

Hutchinson was of "extreme interest to the police" inasmuch as he might have been a crucial eyewitness, and thus a means of closing the net on the killer. Their hope, of course, was that he was one such witness, as opposed to a time-wasting money/fame-seeker, as a great many of them were. Those were the only options a detective in 1888 was likely to consider. Is it impossible that they suspected him? Admittedly no, but they were very unlikely to progress with mere suspicions whether he was actually guilty or not.

Given that 'we know' the police did not share case related information with the press

Yes they did, Jon.

Yes, they most assuredly did.

And the 13th and 14th November Echo articles are cases in point.

Regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Nobody "admits" to seeing pigs fly, but some people might make false claims to that effect.

...veritable porkies, in fact

[Ben]

Indeed, Gareth. But not dear old Hutch, of course, who was trying to save his bacon!

[Fisherman]

Another post! Surely, this one will be crammed with fresh thinking and new suggestions! Let´s see here ...

No, Fisherman.

Yes, Ben.

Having volunteered his evidence as a cooperative "witness", coming forward without prompting from the police, it is extremely unlikely that he was ever looked upon as a "person of interest".

Naïve. Uninformed. Sorry.

The more you argue that he "would have been" - without so much as a scrap of supporting evidence - the more own goals you score against the Crossmere theory, and he certainly "would have been" if Paul was.

I would have thought scoring any goals at all would trump you ...?

I think the police would have regarded Lechmere too as a person of interest, but I also think he was a much more manipulative and cunning man than Toppy, who was just a plain honest guy. And Lechmere had the advantage of having Paul corroborating his story, something that Hutchinson never had. Keep in mind that Lechmere said that he noticed Paul as he had just stepped out into the street, giving himself no time to have been the killer. Once the police bought this (and they did, as per Swanson´s report), he was in the clear.

So unfortunately for you, the two don´t compare. Not in the way you would have them compare, at least.

No they don't.

Absolutely and irrefutably no way.

Interesting! So if a person comes forward to the police of his own free will, that is not a point in favour of his innocence, but instead a criterion of being a killer? And if he gives the impression of being honest, then that is in fact a sign of being a serialist? And friends vouching for somebody, are in fact doing them a disservice, since such people are normally killers?

You need to mull this over again, Ben. Or I need to watch my best friends.

Another own goal for Crossmere, whose guilt also relies on him having had a good reputation as an "ordinary bloke, exuding no menace or dodginess. A serial killer who is able to provide good character references, and who draws no negative attention to himself, will have more success than those who are more overtly menacing and suspicious. The serial killers who have been more successful have been the superificially normal, even charming, "everyman" types.

Like Angel Resendez? Like Jerry Brudos? Like David Carpenter? Like .... Good character references ... ?

Nobody who knows anything about serial killers would disagree with me, and nobody seriously arguing for Cross as the ripper would dispute this reality, unless they want to undermine their own theory.

Disagreeing with you is absolutely necessary, Ben, in many a way. That´s why people spend endless posts out here doing just that. Your thoughts and musings are deeply controversial and they do not always heed the evidence.

Now, I am going to say this just once, so listen carefully, please!

Good character references and an honest apparition are normally NOT signs of a murderous mind. Some - NOT all! - "successful" (as you put it) serialists have been people who have been regarded as good guys, and if Lechmere was the killer, then he seemingly belonged to that group. However! What we KNOW about the man is what he put on display at the inquest. He may have been a complete terror to his family and he may have been a very unsavoury character otherwise.
Not that I know it (or speculate it) but the point is that YOU don´t know it either!

I say again: Dew never described Hutchinson as a "respected citizen". He described him as somebody he thought was wrong. Of course, the only "wrong" person in the equation is Dew, because he conjured up an entirely speculative brand new reason for Hutchinson's disappearance from the record, and one which contradicts the actual reason, provided at the time of the murders, just a day after Hutchinson's first appearance.

Nice try! No, wait ...

But you told me NOT to listen to Dew because his book got "lots of things terribly wrong" and was "riddled with mistakes." You also encourage people not to listen to the contemporary and apparently unanimous police verdict that Cross was a witness, not Jack the Ripper. What am I to make of your advice when it changes with such startling regularity?

You are to realize that I am not the type who will hang on to things I no longer believe in. I move with the evidence, whereas you flatly deny it´s existence. You speak of proof instead (dear me!) and you have caused a ridiculous inflation for the word "irrefutably" all on your own.

I'm saying that's ridiculous on three levels; a) since it assumes Astrakhan wore the same clothes and accessories every time Hutchinson saw him;

He would have changed his goldchain and jewel from time to time, I take it? And he would have worn different eyelashes on different weekdays? And he only wore the Astrakhan coat on Thursday nights?

b) that in spite of this odd uniformity of dress, Hutchinson thought it might have been a different man in identical garb on Petticoat Lane

I have seen women I have thought were my wife, but been mistaken nevertheless. It all lies in the quality of the sighting. Have you even begun to consider that Hutchinson could have been nearsighted, for example? No? I didn´t think so.

c) because Hutchinson would unquestionably have said so if he'd seen the man more than twice.

He did. That´s what lies in the "I think he lives in the neigbourhood". Prostitution customers would have come from far and away, and so would market visitors. It therefore stands to reason that Hutch would have seen the man to and fro, over time and in the same neighbourhood.

It is interesting, by the way, how you always claim that people would have said this or that, without having a clue...?

It would have been considerably less than that, actually.

Five seconds would have sufficed, if you are right. Hutchinson would not have been able to sail through the interrogation if he presented "arsenumbingly" obvious lies.

As I suggested, Abberline may have visited the sites in question for the purpose of "replaying" Hutchinson's account in his mind, and it may have been at that stage that he smelt his first rat.

But then he would have first thought "that´s entirely possible", would he not? Then how could it be "arsenumbingly" obvious that Hutch lied...?
I just don´t get it.
Are you suggesting that Abberline was a complete idiot?
Or that you are much superior to him, so that things that Abberline believed would have been "arsenumbingly" easy for you to reveal as lies 126 years afterwards?

Which is it?

Whatever the merits of that suggestion, the reality is that his faith in Hutchinson's account was very short lived.

Ehrm - no. The reality is that he awarded it just as much faith but less interest due to it being unrelated to the evening in question. If you ask me. And you really should.

No, Fisherman. You!

But I've got you.

Yeah? To me it seems you never get me at all.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

That's my point, Fish. If Bowyer was erroneously described as a youth in some press accounts, that might give us a few pointers as to where Dew got his ideas.

It´s either or, Gareth. Two sources speaking of a youth is not a bad beginning for those who want to make a case for a youthful apparition.

I don´t rule out that you are correct on this score either, by the way. Indian Harry does not look youthful on that drawing, but it is just a drawing nevertheless, and a drawing of a man that had been through something horrible.

Reasoning that Dew specifically read the Echo in 1888, that he never saw Bowyer or was informed about him, that he never discussed him with other policemen, seems a bit farfetched to me.

No matter what applies, this is not about Bowyer, but instead about Hutchinson, and Dew´s recollections tally very well with the many positive press reports about the man.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: A 39 year-old could not be a "youth" by any stretch of the imagination... especially not when Dew himself was only in his early twenties at the time. To him, "Indian Harry" Bowyer should have appeared a middle-aged man, which he undoubtedly was.

One more reflection - Dew was in his twenties as he saw Bowyer (IF he saw him that is) - but he was seventyfive as he wrote the book! That could change the perspective somewhat ...
I am not saying that this would be what applies - but can we rule it out?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

One more reflection - Dew was in his twenties as he saw Bowyer (IF he saw him that is) - but he was seventyfive as he wrote the book! That could change the perspective somewhat ...
I am not saying that this would be what applies - but can we rule it out?

I believe we can rule it out, Fish. The passage of time can distort memory, but not to the point where it turns a raddled old bugger like "Indian Harry" Bowyer into a pimply errand-boy.

[Ben]

I'm with Gareth all the way with this one.

It would be nice to have nine more years as "youth", but alas!

[Ben]

and Dew´s recollections tally very well with the many positive press reports about the man.

They are not "recollections", Fisherman. They are speculations.

And there were not "many positive press reports". The Central News Agency distributed one article that appeared in several papers. Perhaps this is confusing you.

[Ben]

Another post! Surely, this one will be crammed with fresh thinking and new suggestions!

Why yes! It appears you think so...

Naïve. Uninformed. Sorry.

Yes, your insistence that Hutchinson "must have" been considered (and ruled out) as a suspect is both of those things. Sorry.

I think the police would have regarded Lechmere too as a person of interest, but I also think he was a much more manipulative and cunning man than Toppy, who was just a plain honest guy.

This is an annoyingly circular argument for a start.

Hutchinson "was just a plain honest guy" because you say so, whereas Cross, who everyone accepted at the time as a "plain honest guy", was in fact a manipulative murdering liar because you say so. On what basis, then, do you conclude that Cross would have been better at lying his way out of a noose than Hutchinson? Yep, you guessed it - your say so.

Yes, Cross's presence at a crime scene is corroborated by Robert Paul, thus denying him the possibility of being discredited as a publicity-seeker if his story was found to be suspicious. Hutchinson did have this option, which was obviously very handy for him if he was the real killer.

Keep in mind that Lechmere said that he noticed Paul as he had just stepped out into the street, giving himself no time to have been the killer.

Then you argue that the police bought it because "Lechmere said" it, and yet you're attempting to argue at the same time that the police investigated him as a "person of interest". You can only reconcile the two if the police abandoned any consideration of Lechmere as a suspect as soon as he "said that he noticed Paul as he had just stepped out into the street, giving himself no time to have been the killer". So Cross is innocent because Cross says so, and that was good enough for the coppers who initially regarded him a "person of interest".

That's real "manipulative" prowess there, Fisherman. Wowzers.

Interesting! So if a person comes forward to the police of his own free will, that is not a point in favour of his innocence, but instead a criterion of being a killer? And if he gives the impression of being honest, then that is in fact a sign of being a serialist?

It's not a sign against it, and it is only considered so by those who know nothing about serial killers. It is absurd to argue that a superficially plausible exterior and non-threatening behaviour makes it unlikely for a suspected individual to be a killer. That's just about the oldest rule in the book as far as serial killers. If history hasn't cautioned people against silly misconceptions about a serial killer's demeanour, I'd have thought a decades' worth of posting on ripper message boards might done the trick.

What irks me is that you'd rather pick a fight with me than avoid shooting holes in your own recently selected suspect theory, and you engage in the latter activity when you fruitlessly argue the above reality. Cross only works if he was of superficially good character, and was considered a normal, working bloke. You list three serial killers who didn't have good character references. Great, so you're now implying that serial killers must be known wronguns, and Cross quite clearly wasn't one of those.

You protest my observation, and you make Cross look crap as a suspect.

You agree with it, and we have no problems.

Your choice.

You are to realize that I am not the type who will hang on to things I no longer believe in. I move with the evidence, whereas you flatly deny it´s existence.

But you've admitted that you moved not with the "evidence" pertaining to the Stride murder, but with your recent choice of suspect. You argued for many years against Stride being a ripper victim, but as soon as you discovered Cross, back in the "canon" she went. And don't you have a go at me for pointing this out. I'm only reminding you of what you have admitted.

Disagreeing with you is absolutely necessary, Ben, in many a way. That´s why people spend endless posts out here doing just that.

I have a handful of people following me around because they have their own rival agendas and rival suspects. You, for instance, get disagreed with a great deal more than I do, and by considerably more people (not just the same two or three repeating themselves and losing stamina wars against me). You harbour far more controversial views, and your suspect theory enjoys far less popular support and mainstream interest - on and off line - than Hutchinson does. Please bring on the "endless posts", on which I thrive.

He would have changed his goldchain and jewel from time to time, I take it? And he would have worn different eyelashes on different weekdays? And he only wore the Astrakhan coat on Thursday nights?

Apparently! For your argument to work, at least. How else was he supposed to clarify what the various bits and bobs were that he couldn't quite make out at nighttime and needed to have a better look at during the day, as per your argument?

It all lies in the quality of the sighting. Have you even begun to consider that Hutchinson could have been nearsighted, for example?

Ah yes, let's just invent some "nearsightedness" for Hutchinson, and see if that does the trick of salvaging his credibility. No evidence, of course, but at least it's a new one!

He did. That´s what lies in the "I think he lives in the neigbourhood". Prostitution customers would have come from far and away, and so would market visitors

This is the first time I've ever heard it suggested that Hutchinson had seen the man on more than two occasions. The detail about the man "living in the neighbourhood" only appeared in the press, of course. If this man was a regular in the neighbourhood, it's a mystery that Hutchinson should have been so fascinated in him.

If there's a difference between Abberline and myself is that I'm not under enormous pressure to capture a serial killer, and nor am I nearly "breaking down" from the pressure of that strain. If you can't understand how that can impair judgment, I think you'd better just move on to another topic.

I want a nice long post in response, and then I'll make sure that my reply to that is at least ten lines longer.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

I believe we can rule it out, Fish. The passage of time can distort memory, but not to the point where it turns a raddled old bugger like "Indian Harry" Bowyer into a pimply errand-boy.

I think you are right not to believe this happened, Gareth. But I´ll be damned if I can "rule it out" ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

They are not "recollections", Fisherman. They are speculations.

Don´t be silly. Until PROVEN "speculations", they most certainly ARE recollections. This is how they are introduced on this very site:

The Hunt for Jack the Ripper" comprised one-third of Walter Dew's memoirs, I Caught Crippen (1938). Dew offers a lengthy overview of the case from Emma Smith to Frances Coles. He includes his own personal recollections of various scenes, including the arrest of "Squibby" and his initial reactions to the Mary Kelly crime scene.

So you are not only wrong, but also, I would suggest, unnecessarily respectless.

And there were not "many positive press reports". The Central News Agency distributed one article that appeared in several papers. Perhaps this is confusing you.

There´s no confusion at all -whenever Hutchinson is mentioned in the press, he is described as trustworthy.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

There are two things that are mildly interesting in your latest post, Ben:


1. This is the first time I've ever heard it suggested that Hutchinson had seen the man on more than two occasions.

You need to think a bit longer, Ben - just like I say, why would A man´s appearance in Dorset Street and at the market make Hutchinson suggest that he was a local? That´s not enough - punters from all over town and market visitors from all over town were frequent enough.
Now that you´ve seen the suggestion for the first time, you may be able to see what I am speaking of, perhaps?

The detail about the man "living in the neighbourhood" only appeared in the press, of course. If this man was a regular in the neighbourhood, it's a mystery that Hutchinson should have been so fascinated in him.

He was not - he was fascinated that Kelly should fraternize with him. That was what his fascination was grounded on.

2. I want a nice long post in response, and then I'll make sure that my reply to that is at least ten lines longer.

As you know, the administrators have repeatedly requested that none of us comments on HOW the other part chooses to post, but instead only on the inherent quality of the arguments. So you need to refrain from trying to intimidate your fellow posters into not countering your arguments. It is rude and it does not belong here.
Of course, as always when I make a point like this, I only do it once!

The best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

sigh

sometimes it is like Groundhog Day on this site.

Still, it's good to see Gareth back posting