The Red Handkerchief...

[Fisherman]

Ben: Hi Fisherman,

...or, rather, replaced by a whole load of substitute "details", all more fanciful and ornamental than the original. That's what usually happens with parrotted or Chinese Whispered stories - they don't become reduced, they become enlarged on each retelling as the original gets supplanted by more and more elaborate fiction.

I do not live in your world of Chinese whispers, Ben - I live in the ordinary world, where people who are told fifty details wonīt be able to remember them.

...those who believe he was either honestly accurate or honestly mistaken will just have to accept the evidence as he related it, which is that he didn't recount the episode to anyone until the Sunday policeman and Monday lodger.

Fine. Then show me exactly where Hutchinson says this: "I did not recount the episode to anyone until..."

Or is this a case of the "arsenumbingly" obvious again?

I've already outlined the numerous problems I have with your "date confusion" hypothesis, so I won't go into them again.

Promise?

What I have trouble reconciling with your latest suggestion is the image of a supposedly chatty, gregarious Hutchinson divulging all to any pub-goer who would listen, with a mysterious failure of this group (women? handful? pubfull) to mention Hutchinson by name? Did they all want to pretend that the account was theirs and none of them wanted to be honest and helpful, i.e. "I was talking to a man in the pub, and he said..."?

I fail to see that we have more than one woman who would have "lent" the story. And you seem to have no problems with Hutch having lent it?

If Hutch told the story on Thursday, there would have been no murder so far. It would be a good story to tell in a pub, so why would he clam up about it? Suggestions?

Wouldn't they have found it rather interesting that Hutchinson mentioned this encounter with Kelly and a strange man, only for Kelly herself to get murdered later on that night? How did he still manage to confuse the date, when he supposedly had a conversation with others who could cement it for him? So he tells his tale at a pub on Thursday night ("guess what I saw in the early hours of this morning?"), goes to bed, Kelly gets murdered during the night unbeknownst to him, and he emerges from the Victoria Home to news of her murder...

...and he's confused himself into believing that the events of Wednesday night/Thursday morning had just happened? That he forgot all about last night at the pub, and convinced himself that he'd wandered in from "walking about all night", having experienced Romford, Kelly and everything else just a few hours ago, as opposed to about 27 hours ago.

That is not possible, Fisherman, unless he received a serious blow to the head on that Thursday night pub visit.

A/ We donīt know when he found out about the murder, and
B/ The woman who told the story could have heard it AFTER the murder, thus making the connection.

All very simple, I would have thought.

I am not saying that this must have been what happened - I am saying that it COULD have. Itīs another variant of the Hutchinson-must-not-have-lied to add to our growing collection.

I'm talking about the press interview. Had they asked anything about Kelly's clothing, the detail would have appeared in that interview. The fact that Hutchinson does provide details as to who he related his story to assures us that the press did quiz him on this point...

Alas, no. He may well have stated these matters without being asked. I donīt think the press would have asked this type of question at all. And I am the journalist, remember.

The onus of proof is on you, not me. If you make the claim that people flocked to that part of the East End from all over (because the prostitutes were super special there?), it is incumbent on you to back it up with evidence.

I would say that the exact reverse applies: If you want to claim that the prostitutes of Whitechapel only were used by those living in Whitechapel, you would propose a novelty in the world of prostitution, so you better go searching for THAT proof. It should not trouble you, since you are the one of us who most easily provides all kinds of proof.

No. Probably not.

Why? Why would a great chunk of meat with heaps of blood vessels in it, freshly cut from a body, not drip blood. Explain, please!
Or is the onus of proof on me?

What's wrong with me stating my intention to go on for hundreds more pages? I enjoy Hutchinson discussions, and I want them to go on for that long. I also want lots of Hutchinson debates, even though I do sometimes feel bad for other discussions (and other suspects) that completely fade out when a Hutchathon is in session. You can't "report" me for that. If you're reading anything sinister into my boyish, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed enthusiasm and zeal, such as a desire to intimidate others, I can't do much about that. But if it's upsetting you, I'll say no more about it.

Is upsetting me.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Edit: Hi again, Fisherman - the comments Dew made regarding Hutchinson are proven to have been speculations because Dew makes it clear himself that this is precisely what they were.

He says so? I didnīt know.

It is clear that Dew speculates about an error in time for Hutchinson, but what he bases that on is a lot less clear.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Can't tell what?

What is nuts and what is not - since, as you say, the Ripper case is still unsolved. A great many solutions are therefore still viable; whacky ones included.

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

1. Lying witnesses were a proven fact in this case ala packer and violenia.

Some witnesses lied; therefore the others must have done?

2. The story hutch came up with has been shown to be derivative of an earlier press story and earlier press descriptions of the suspects appearance.

Or 'to tally with'. It depends on how this circumstance is interpreted.

3. The amount of detail he remembered was ridiculed even at the time as being sherlockian.

By whom? By the police? Where?

4. No other witness statement even comes close in its detail and script like description.

Some witnesses have better night vision than others. Some have better powers of observation. Some have stronger motives than others for noting the detail that they do.

5. No one corroborates his story of Aman.

No-one refutes it either. Hardly surprising really if no-one else was present to do so.

6. The newspapers at the time questioned his credibility by stating he did not appear at the inquest.

A sensible thing for the newspapers to do and an obvious question for Abberline to have asked.

7. Hutch states overtly and covertly in his story that he will be able to help the police catch Aman. tipping his hand that the motive is for money.

Where does he state (overtly or covertly) that his motive was financial gain?

8. Hutch goes to the papers of his own accord. Tipping his hand that part of the motive is for 15 minutes of fame.

How does a desire to cash in on his story prove that his story is false?

9. Hutch changes his story in significant detail from police to press. Saying in the press statement he now stands by her door. Uh oh.

Embellishment certainly. Hutchinson's or a journalist's? We don't know.

10. Hutch does not come forward to police until the inquest was over.

For reasons unknown to us. Did Abberline ask him about this delay? He would be a poor detective if he didn't.

11. Circumstances that night indicate that Mary Kelly was in no shape or mood to venture out again after blotchy. Singing, beer, fire, extremely drunk, bad weather.

Blotchy you accept without corroboration? Singing incompatible with re-emergence? Beer? Drunkenness? Bad weather? Would this necessarily deter a woman who owed 6 weeks rent? Others went out in it.

12. Abberline was overworked, tired and probably ready to clutch onto any lead he could.

Possibly, but he documented his opinion that the witness was truthful. If he ever issued a retraction of that view the record of such is no longer on file.

13. Police have been known to be deceived by lying witnesses.

Indeed they have, but that is not evidence that Abberline was deceived or that Hutchinson was lying.

14. Abberline may have been initially deceived by hutch because he had just heard Lewis corroborate part of hutches story of him waiting and watching outside millers court.

He may. (Or, of course, he may not.)

15. Press said at the time shortly after hutches story came out that it was greatly reduced importance.

Forgive me. I'm away from home at present but my recollection is that this was one newspaper. Well-informed? Perhaps but, as one of the chief press complaints was that the police wouldn't tell them anything, this is by no means certain surely?

16. Police had no reason to claim they didn't believe hutches story later as there is nothing to gain, it would make their initial belief look foolish,

It might, but there was nothing to stop them placing that view on record within police files or writing a comment about Hutchinson's credibility on his witness statement. The only comment we have is Abberline's.

and there is no way they could prove he was lying.

I agree. There is no way anybody else could prove it either.

17. If hutch was telling the truth then he is BY FAR the most important witness for possibly seeing the ripper, and yet quickly falls off the face of the earth as a witness.

Most of the witnesses fell off the radar, so to speak (anachronism!). As there was never a prosecution it could hardly be otherwise.

18. Blinged out rich Jewish men would almost certainly be a rarity in the east end in the middle of the night.

What reason does Hutchinson give for paying such close attention to the man he claims to have seen with Kelly? Hutchinson himself corroborates you on this point.

And I'm sure there are more I forgot about that point to hutch lying.

Maybe.

There is not a lot that is certain in this case, but one thing for sure is that hutch was lying.

And yet no-one has ever proved it. As I said in my original post, the truthful Hutchinson is far from being the only possibility. I play devil's advocate here as I'm afraid I often do. I don't ask anyone to accept that Hutchinson was truthful; I simply ask that his untruthfulness should not be treated as proven fact when no such proof exists.

[Fisherman]

I don't ask anyone to accept that Hutchinson was truthful; I simply ask that his untruthfulness should not be treated as proven fact when no such proof exists.

A modest enough request - one would think ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Hatchett]

Hi Wickerman,

I think that you have the most rational and plausible explanation for what happened.

It makes perfect sense.

Well done.

[Wickerman]

Hmm...

So you're comparing Hutchinson to a serial killer and mutilator of prostitutes?

Yes, yes, Jon, I see what you mean - nothing special about his memory at all...

Do you work hard at missing the point, or does it come natural?

[Wickerman]

Are you seriously trying to say that the police would diminish the importance of one suspect, for the only reason that there are two suspects?

The police are a little more intelligent than that.

Did you read it all?

I am seriously suggesting that Hutchinson's importance as prime witness with associated suspect, was tempered to some extent by Dr Bond's estimated Time of Death. A time which raised the importance of Cox's statement regarding Blotchy.

Both suspects became of equal importance. The City with the agreement of the Echo, were inclined towards the 'respectably dressed' suspect. While the Met. believed Blotchy was culpable.

The press though, not being privy to accurate case related details, assumed a rigid dividing line between the two forces. This is hardly possible. More likely both forces agreed that these two suspects were equally viable due to the uncertain factor of the respective evidence.

Yeah. Probably because of the proliferation of personal attacks like this and crank theories like conpiracy and and toff ripper theories.

Yes.
On the other hand, I find it hard to accept that anyone would seriously offer such an inaccurate list of objections.
1, is irrelevant.
2, is wrong.
3, is wrong.
4, is irrelevant.
5, is wrong.
etc...etc...

Footnote;
I see Colin saved me the trouble of going through your list, point by point.
Why do you do this Abby?

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

I think that you have the most rational and plausible explanation for what happened.

It makes perfect sense.

Well done.

Hi Hatchett, hope you are well.

The surgeon's attached to the force had far more influence than some prefer to accept.
We know how much pressure was applied to Richardson (Chapman case), due to his story that the body was not in the backyard at 4:45am.
All because Dr Phillips estimated an earlier time of death, even though the doctor offered some reservation.
The detectives tried hard to break Richardson's conviction.

[Abby Normal]

Some witnesses lied; therefore the others must have done?

Or 'to tally with'. It depends on how this circumstance is interpreted.

By whom? By the police? Where?

Some witnesses have better night vision than others. Some have better powers of observation. Some have stronger motives than others for noting the detail that they do.

No-one refutes it either. Hardly surprising really if no-one else was present to do so.

A sensible thing for the newspapers to do and an obvious question for Abberline to have asked.

Where does he state (overtly or covertly) that his motive was financial gain?

How does a desire to cash in on his story prove that his story is false?

Embellishment certainly. Hutchinson's or a journalist's? We don't know.

For reasons unknown to us. Did Abberline ask him about this delay? He would be a poor detective if he didn't.

Blotchy you accept without corroboration? Singing incompatible with re-emergence? Beer? Drunkenness? Bad weather? Would this necessarily deter a woman who owed 6 weeks rent? Others went out in it.

Possibly, but he documented his opinion that the witness was truthful. If he ever issued a retraction of that view the record of such is no longer on file.

Indeed they have, but that is not evidence that Abberline was deceived or that Hutchinson was lying.

He may. (Or, of course, he may not.)

Forgive me. I'm away from home at present but my recollection is that this was one newspaper. Well-informed? Perhaps but, as one of the chief press complaints was that the police wouldn't tell them anything, this is by no means certain surely?

It might, but there was nothing to stop them placing that view on record within police files or writing a comment about Hutchinson's credibility on his witness statement. The only comment we have is Abberline's.

I agree. There is no way anybody else could prove it either.

Most of the witnesses fell off the radar, so to speak (anachronism!). As there was never a prosecution it could hardly be otherwise.

What reason does Hutchinson give for paying such close attention to the man he claims to have seen with Kelly? Hutchinson himself corroborates you on this point.

Maybe.

And yet no-one has ever proved it. As I said in my original post, the truthful Hutchinson is far from being the only possibility. I play devil's advocate here as I'm afraid I often do. I don't ask anyone to accept that Hutchinson was truthful; I simply ask that his untruthfulness should not be treated as proven fact when no such proof exists.

Hi Bridewell
Those are perfectly plausible explanations/counterpoints, I just favor my interpretations, but again yours are perfectly valid. Thanks. A well balanced response.

[Abby Normal]

Did you read it all?

I am seriously suggesting that Hutchinson's importance as prime witness with associated suspect, was tempered to some extent by Dr Bond's estimated Time of Death. A time which raised the importance of Cox's statement regarding Blotchy.

Both suspects became of equal importance. The City with the agreement of the Echo, were inclined towards the 'respectably dressed' suspect. While the Met. believed Blotchy was culpable.

The press though, not being privy to accurate case related details, assumed a rigid dividing line between the two forces. This is hardly possible. More likely both forces agreed that these two suspects were equally viable due to the uncertain factor of the respective evidence.




Yes.
On the other hand, I find it hard to accept that anyone would seriously offer such an inaccurate list of objections.
1, is irrelevant.
2, is wrong.
3, is wrong.
4, is irrelevant.
5, is wrong.
etc...etc...

Footnote;
I see Colin saved me the trouble of going through your list, point by point.
Why do you do this Abby?

Hello Wickerman
The amount of mental gymnastic twisting of the facts that you come up with to attack any theory that doesnt match your well dressed ripper theory along with your increasingly personal and belittling insults has made it pointless to take you or your ideas seriously anymore. Not sure what your deal is lately.

I actually used to be sympathetic to your well dressed ripper theory ala the bethnel green man and respect some of your ideas. No more. Good luck.

[C. F. Leon]

Whos this Marty Feldman that you speak of?

ARE YOU D-MN SERIOUS??? (Shouting intended to show incredity.)

Marty Feldman (1934-82), British comedian.

Young Frankenstein: Igor ("Eye-Gore").

Silent Movie. The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother. The Last Remake of Beau Geste. Yellowbeard.

Look for clips from his TV show on YouTube.

[GUT]

G'day C.F. Leon

think Abby may have been taking the micky.

[Wickerman]

Hello Wickerman
The amount of mental gymnastic twisting of the facts that you come up with to attack any theory that doesnt match your well dressed ripper theory along with your increasingly personal and belittling insults has made it pointless to take you or your ideas seriously anymore. Not sure what your deal is lately.

Dear Abby.
There are only a handful of posters who repeatedly throw out sarcasm & demeaning comments. Predictably, these few posters are the first to complain when they get it back.

As to your list.
Some of the points you offered seemed to me to be more tongue-in-cheek humor than serious objections, hence my response.
If they were not intended that way then I apologize.

Now, to address your first comment, a number of the criticisms leveled against Hutchinson directly involve a twisting of the facts. I haven't noticed you join in with me to clear this up, so I have always taken it that you agree with this approach.
Which makes me wonder, what facts am I supposed to have twisted, in your view?

[Abby Normal]

G'day C.F. Leon

think Abby may have been taking the micky.

Hi gut and CF

Yes, obviously messing around.

Abby Normal is from Young Frankenstein, actually spoken by Marty Feldman as Igor when he describes the name on the jar that he got the brain from.