The Red Handkerchief...

[GUT]

G'day Abby

Yes I picked up on the name ... I love Mr Brooks' work.

[Ben]

Hi Bridewell,

Abby was probably referring to this article from the Graphic, 17th November:

The very exactitude of his description, however, engenders a feeling of scepticism. The witness in question admits that at the time he saw him he did not suspect the person he watched of being the Whitechapel assassin; yet, at two o'clock in the morning, in badly-lighted thoroughfares, he observed more than most of us would observe in broad daylight, with ample time at our disposal. A man who in such a hasty survey notes such points as "a pair of dark 'spats,' with light buttons, over button boots," and "a red stone hanging from his watch-chain," must possess the eyes of a born detective"

This is useful article to produce in response to the occasional claim you might encounter to the effect that "nobody had a problem with it back then" or "people in 1888 knew the conditions better than we do".

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

Well, interpreted wrongly if people wish to revive as accurate the press tattle from the 10th November, from which Hutchinson's account is clearly derived. There is no possibility, for instance, of the Daily News woman's fictional account (which, in any case, related to much earlier in the evening) corroborating Hutchinson's.

I'm afraid I'm not remotely convinced by the argument that some people have better powers of observation and better night vision than others. That only applies within reason, whereas Hutchinson's observation and night-vision would have required super-human powers. We may as well defend the existence of flying pigs on the grounds that some swine species are more acrobatic than others.

Hutchinson may well have provided Abberline with an "excuse" for his failure to come forward earlier. Whatever that excuse may have been, however, it had obviously crumbled in the wake of the "investigations" alluded to in the Echo, or else his failure to come forward would not have been cited by the police as the primary reason for the "considerably discounted" treatment of his statement.

Kelly was reportedly heavily intoxicated, so much so that she was incapable of bidding Kelly a simple goodnight. She then undoubtedly consumed more booze from Blotchy's beer can, stupifying her further and thus rendering it very unlikely that she'd emerge "spreeish" at 2.00am. The Kelly depicted in Cox's account (which was presented at the inquest and considered both truthful and accurate by the police) was evidently not burdened with rent-related worry, or else she would not have been whiling away the hours getting sozzled in her room with Blotchy. Compare her behaviour on the night in question with that of Cox herself - who was unquestionably concerned about money owed - and you'll notice a huge difference.

One shouldn't expect an official "retraction" of Abberline's initial impression. There were a great many opinions expressed by various officials during the course of the investigation which were evidently revised in response to subsequent investigation, and we hear nothing of any official statements of revised opinion in those cases either.

As far as newspapers alluding to Hutchinson's statement suffering a "very reduced importance" go, the Echo used that particular expression, along with "considerably discounted", and this was not mere opinion, but rather the result of direct enquiry at Commercial Street Police station. We know they weren't lying about communicating with the police because they also reported information about the origin of Hutchinson's account that was both accurate and - at that juncture - only obtainable from a police source. Hence, no reason whatsoever for doubting the accuracy of the Echo's cited reason for Hutchinson's "very reduced importance". In a perfect world the police would never divulge case-related information with certain members of the press, but it's not the world we live in, and it's certainly not what happened in 1888, as this occasion - and numerous others - illustrate very well.

Most of the witnesses fell off the radar, so to speak (anachronism!).

Not so. The witnesses who continued to be taken seriously by the police were alluded to - by name or otherwise - as having provided accurate and truthful information in the subsequwnt memoirs and interviews of those who were in a position to know. Others (well, at least one) witness was used many years later in identity attempts with new suspects, such as Sadler and Grainger. Robert Anderson (with the tacit agreement of Donald Swanson) stated that the only person ever to have acquired a good look at the murderer was Jewish, which means they must have had a good reason for excluding non-Jewish Hutchinson - who got an infinitely better look than any of the Jewish witnesses - as a potential ripper spotter.

No, incidentally, "maybe they thought Astrakhan was just a punter and not the ripper" does not qualify as a "good reason". He was the last person seen alive in the company of Kelly - as per the "truthful Hutchinson" scenario - and there was no chance of him being able to provide an alibi even we do accept some of the truly funky ideas touted by some to the effect that Astrakhan was identified and proven innocent!

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

Hutchinson's.

The alternativee doesn't really bear scrutiny, considering that we're not just dealing with any old journalist, but rather a representative of the Central News Agency. That doesn't mean such a representative couldn't have lied (for some reason?!), but it's very unlikely.

"What reason does Hutchinson give for paying such close attention to the man he claims to have seen with Kelly?"

Well, exactly.

It was necessary for the man to be out-of-the-ordinary to explain away his intrusive behaviour and subsequent loitering outside her room. It would be a handy excuse for the real killer to resort to if ever he found himself in a position of having to explain why HE was seen loitering opposite the crime scene.

I simply ask that his untruthfulness should not be treated as proven fact when no such proof exists.

I personally haven't been arguing that she should consider it a fact that Hutchinson lied, although I have stressed the strong and compelling evidence that the police came to suspect dishonesty.

I realise you're playing Devil's Advocate here, Bridewell. I'm just explaining why the proverbial "devil" is so frequently oposed.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

As I've explained in numerous posts - and as the evidence conclusively demonstrates - Bond's estimated time of death for Kelly was not remotely a factor in the "very reduced importance" attached to Hutchinson's statement. You've progressed from accusing the Echo of wholesale invention to using them extensively to formulate new theories of your own, and that's a step in the right direction, but you now need to be consistent. If you endorse the Echo's conclusions with regard to Hutchinson - and your latest post makes clear that is precisely what you're doing - you'll have to accept their actual reason for Hutchinson's "discounting", and it certainly wasn't Bond's time of death.

You mention Dr. Phillips, and the apparent prioritization of his evidence over the others' in Chapman's case, but you'll recall that Phillips was also involved in the Kelly investigation and proffered his own suggested time of death for Kelly - one which was considerably later than Bond's, and even later that the "murder" cry heard by Lewis and Prater. Are you suggesting the police completely ignored Phillips's opinion in deference to Bond?

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

I'm afraid I'm not remotely convinced by the argument that some people have better powers of observation and better night vision than others. That only applies within reason, whereas Hutchinson's observation and night-vision would have required super-human powers.
All the best,
Ben

But there it is again: What Hutchinson accomplished was something that would have required superhuman powers.

And STILL Abberline fell for it...?

I mean, yes, he was put under pressure, but people put under pressure can tell when somebody is claiming impossible things. When people are telling IMPROBABLE things, it may be another matter, but not here: Here Hutchinson can be proven to have lied, since no human is superhuman.
Hutchinson could just as well have said that he met a flying pig that night, and it would not be any more fantastic than Hutchinsonīs act.

So at the same time that we have proven Hutchinson a liar, we have also proven Abberline daft beyond credibility.

Or, as an alternative, what Hutchinson did was not superhuman at all, but instead only remarkably observant.
And Abberline was not daft at all, but instead simply aware that some people are remarkably observant.

You can come out of the corner and reply any time you wish, Ben. But wait until the paint on the floor has dried.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

You can come out of the corner and reply any time you wish, Ben. But wait until the paint on the floor has dried.

I haven't been in any "corner", Fisherman. I've been away from Casebook and my computer for a few days, which is considerably healthier than spending day after day on serial killer message boards waiting for people to respond. I'm currently playing catch-up, and haven't got round to addressing your post yet. I'll address your latest points when it's your turn. In the meantime, I'm sure there's some interesting discussions going on elsewhere.

Regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben.
You are suggesting you are of the belief that Kelly was heavily intoxicated, but nevertheless managed to walk home [ followed allegedly by Cox] but she does not mention her gait was impaired.
Cox apparently recognised slurred speech, as she mentioned ''going for a song''...that does not imply being drunk....I can slur my words after a couple of beers, yet be perfectly sober, even if she shared some beer with ''Blotchy'' it still would not have made her incapable...
Fact is blind drunk. she would not have sang, she would have passed out for the count, and no way would she undertake a walk in semi deserted streets alone, in the middle of the night, with intentions of looking for a client, especially as she informed Mrs McCarthy the previous day'' He is a concern isn't he, I hear he is ripe in this area?[ reference to the killer]..
So we have to ask the question..
Did A man ever exist...Was Hutchinson hiding something./
If he was. then we are left with two possibilities..
He was a killer, even Jack...extremely unlikely...
Was he in her room , did he call on her to ask for a favour, did he doss in the room until his lodgings opened , and then left closing the door behind him...
Hutchinson could never admit during his lifetime , that A man never existed , neither could he admit being in her room , at a time medical reports state she was killed.
What would you do, in this situation, once you discovered she had been murdered, especially if you were seen lurking close by.?
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Ben: I haven't been in any "corner", Fisherman.

You have and you are - youīve painted yourself into it, by claiming that Hutchinson did superhuman things, and not realizing that superhuman things are easily revealed. By the police, for example.

I've been away from Casebook and my computer for a few days, which is considerably healthier than spending day after day on serial killer message boards waiting for people to respond.

So I have posted 8000 plus times, and you have posted nigh on 6000 times. Big difference indeed! Gesundheit!

I'm currently playing catch-up, and haven't got round to addressing your post yet. I'll address your latest points when it's your turn.

So you only posted this so that I need not worry that you would not answer? Aha.

Well, see you when the paint has dried, then!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

You are suggesting you are of the belief that Kelly was heavily intoxicated, but nevertheless managed to walk home [ followed allegedly by Cox] but she does not mention her gait was impaired.

It didn't need to be, Richard.

Mary Cox knew Kelly better than we do, and if she was able to discern that Kelly was "very much intoxicated", there is no reason to doubt her impression, enriched as it was by first-hand knowledge of the type we don't possess. Some people's extreme intoxication is more evident from their speech than from their "gait", irrefutably so. Should anyone doubt this, I'd recommend getting a few whiskies down them or spending time in the company or those who drink to excess.

I can slur my words after a couple of beers, yet be perfectly sober

To the point where you are incapable of bidding someone a simple goodnight?

You lightweight, Richard!

Fact is blind drunk. she would not have sang, she would have passed out for the count

No, unconscious she would not have sung. Heavily intoxicated, she could have belted it out out boozily for some time before passing out, which, based on non-discredited evidence, is probably what happened.

and no way would she undertake a walk in semi deserted streets alone, in the middle of the night, with intentions of looking for a client

Exactly, which is why she probably didn't.

...especially as she informed Mrs McCarthy the previous day'' He is a concern isn't he, I hear he is ripe in this area?[ reference to the killer]

Eh?

He was a killer, even Jack...extremely unlikely...

Not remotely unlikely. Quite possibly, when we consider Hutchinson's behaviour in the context of other serial murder cases.

Was he in her room , did he call on her to ask for a favour, did he doss in the room until his lodgings opened , and then left closing the door behind him...

Yes, maybe.

You'll realise, of course, that I don't subscribe to the later morning (i.e. Maxwellian) time of death, and accordingly reject it as a defense of Hutchinson's innocence or truthfulness. If Hutchinson did spend the night in Kelly's room and let himself out in the morning, it was because he was responsible for her murder.

What would you do, in this situation, once you discovered she had been murdered, especially if you were seen lurking close by.?

Dispose of any extracted viscera in the great fire of the Victoria Home's subterranean kitchen, stash my knife where it was unlikely to be found, inject myself into the investigation, ensuring that if Lewis recognises me subsequently as the man with the wideawake, I can simply say "Yep, that was me, doing precisely what I said I was doing - following Kelly with her scary man".

Oh wait, you meant that situation...

Regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
Does Eh?.mean you have never read that press report before...?
it does give some food for thought, in why Mary would endanger herself, when she would be more at risk...
Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

I must admit I'd forgotten about that one.

But yes, you make a good point.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I live in the ordinary world, where people who are told fifty details wonīt be able to remember them.

I live in that world too.

A person who invents fifty details and super-adds them to an existing model, on the other hand, will have no problem trotting them out.

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

He didn't need to.

It is made abundantly clear by the reporter's direct question, to which Hutchinson related the Sunday and Monday encounters. Had he told anyone else, the detail would have appeared in the interview in response to the same direct question, but presented as part of a continuous narrative. In any case, I think we've established that your new suggestion that Hutchinson told people about his experience on Thursday night is virtually impossible, especially when we start throwing "date confusion" into the mix.

If Hutch told the story on Thursday, there would have been no murder so far.

No, but there would have been the murder being committed shortly after Hutchinson told his story, with Hutchinson going to sleep around the same time, waking up, discovering news of the murder (as he inevitably would have done, unless he magically teleported into a rabbit hole on a remote outer Hebridean island the second he woke up), and inexplicably convincing himself that instead of spending last night at the pub discussing the previous night's experience, he had only just had that previous night's experience!

If the above has been conjured up for the sole purpose of offering an alternative to Hutchinson lying, I'm afraid it shows.

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

But that's not what I "want to claim".

I'm simply challenging the misconception that people flocked from far and wide into that part of the End End, when prostitution was available throughout London.

Why? Why would a great chunk of meat with heaps of blood vessels in it, freshly cut from a body, not drip blood.

It would make a mess of the table, but once liberated from the body, was unlikely to create rivulets of gore.

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

His investment in the opinion that Cox's man was the ripper, apparently.

The fact that Abberline initially, and very briefly, endorsed Hutchinson's statement does not mean that he swallowed his every utterance as true and accurate. He might, for instance, have accepted the barebones of Hutchinson's Astrakhan man, but wondered if he might have fleshed it out a bit in his zeal to be cooperative. In the context of Hutchinson's full account and the circumstances of its coming to the attention of the police, I consider this extremely unlikely, but not impossible. Indeed, you will encounter the odd theorist even today who defends Hutchinson's credibility while conceding that he over-egged the pudding somewhat. For all we know, Abberline's initial, faith-based assessment may have followed a similar logic. He'd still have "fallen for it", just not to a preposterous extent.

The entrenched and patently absurd "remarkably observant" argument is what really weakens the case for Hutchinson's credibility, in my opinion. I get given a better run for my money by those who at least concede exaggeration or embellishment on his part.

No more inappropriate references to me being in a "corner", please.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Ben;295007]Hi Fisherman,

I live in that world too.

A person who invents fifty details and super-adds them to an existing model, on the other hand, will have no problem trotting them out.

So if you are wrong ... Okay!

He didn't need to.

It is made abundantly clear by the reporter's direct question, to which Hutchinson related the Sunday and Monday encounters. Had he told anyone else, the detail would have appeared in the interview in response to the same direct question, but presented as part of a continuous narrative. In any case, I think we've established that your new suggestion that Hutchinson told people about his experience on Thursday night is virtually impossible, especially when we start throwing "date confusion" into the mix.

So, clearing the fog, it is evident that there is nothing at all telling us that he had not spoken about his encounter before. Not a syllable. Just as I knew.

After that, you are having all sorts of trouble trying to persuade us that you would know what goes into police and press reports. Exactly what expertise dio you have on the area? And donīt say commons sense, because I can name lots of posters that I think make a lot more sense. Plus common sense is no expertise at all, to begin with.

No, but there would have been the murder being committed shortly after Hutchinson told his story, with Hutchinson going to sleep around the same time, waking up, discovering news of the murder (as he inevitably would have done, unless he magically teleported into a rabbit hole on a remote outer Hebridean island the second he woke up), and inexplicably convincing himself that instead of spending last night at the pub discussing the previous night's experience, he had only just had that previous night's experience!

The only person hiding in rabbit holes here seems to be you, if you do not understand that there are innumerable possibilitites for Hutch not having found out until later in the process.

If the above has been conjured up for the sole purpose of offering an alternative to Hutchinson lying, I'm afraid it shows.

Look whoīs talking ...

But that's not what I "want to claim".

Fine. Then thatīs settled too.

I'm simply challenging the misconception that people flocked from far and wide into that part of the End End, when prostitution was available throughout London.

I know that. But sexuality is often a yearn for new hunting grounds, Ben. Just saying.

It would make a mess of the table, but once liberated from the body, was unlikely to create rivulets of gore.

The flesh is practically hanging over the edge of the table, Ben. Ever heard of Isaac Newton? Yes? Ever spilled a cup of coffee on a table - without having it run over the edge?

His investment in the opinion that Cox's man was the ripper, apparently.

Iīm always amazed by the things you find apparent, Ben. And oftentimes bemused.

The fact that Abberline initially, and very briefly, endorsed Hutchinson's statement does not mean that he swallowed his every utterance as true and accurate. He might, for instance, have accepted the barebones of Hutchinson's Astrakhan man, but wondered if he might have fleshed it out a bit in his zeal to be cooperative.

And this you know because ...? And it is interesting because? And fleshed it out "a bit"??? You just said it was superhuman. He would have fleshed it out beyond belief, Ben, if you are right (which I of course feel very certain that you are not). It is not any question of fleshing things out "a bit", is it?

In the context of Hutchinson's full account and the circumstances of its coming to the attention of the police, I consider this extremely unlikely, but not impossible. Indeed, you will encounter the odd theorist even today who defends Hutchinson's credibility while conceding that he over-egged the pudding somewhat. For all we know, Abberline's initial, faith-based assessment may have followed a similar logic. He'd still have "fallen for it", just not to a preposterous extent.

But if the story was "superhuman" then Abberline would have fallen to a preposterous extent. This is why I say that you have painted yourself into a corner. On the one hand, you go to incredible lengths to try and establish that Hutchinsonīs feat was not extraordinary, but instead totally and utterly impossible. Superhuman, as you like to say. Beyond the possible by quite some margin. Ridiculous. Anybody who dares to say that it could have been done must be attacked and destroyed, for it could NOT have been done.

Then again, you cannot say that Abberline was an idiot for believing it. You somehow must create a story where it is not anything strange at all that he did so.

When you can make these two bits hang together, you have equalled what you think Hutchinson did: You have done something superhuman.
Something that cannot be done.

Itīs either or, Ben, and the sooner you understand that, the better for those of us who have realized that Toppy is not our man.

The entrenched and patently absurd "remarkably observant" argument is what really weakens the case for Hutchinson's credibility, in my opinion. I get given a better run for my money by those who at least concede exaggeration or embellishment on his part.

Then discuss with them instead, if a run for your money is what you are after.

No more inappropriate references to me being in a "corner", please.

It is not inappropriate at all, Iīm afraid. Itīs a textbook example of how you argue two counterpart arguments at the same time. But I can use other analogies of you prefer that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

As I've explained in numerous posts - and as the evidence conclusively demonstrates - Bond's estimated time of death for Kelly was not remotely a factor in the "very reduced importance" attached to Hutchinson's statement.

Hi Ben.
If I'm not mistaken, what you have offered is your opinion. You "don't think" it was a factor, mainly because it undermines your pet theory. Understandable.

You've progressed from accusing the Echo of wholesale invention to using them extensively to formulate new theories of your own, and that's a step in the right direction, but you now need to be consistent.

Not following you there. My opinion of what the Echo wrote has not changed.
Certainly they obtained their information primarily off the streets. Whether it was from witnesses, or talking to an obliging medical man, or by following the detectives around.
What we do know is, that they were never made party to important case related information.

If you endorse the Echo's conclusions with regard to Hutchinson - and your latest post makes clear that is precisely what you're doing - you'll have to accept their actual reason for Hutchinson's "discounting", and it certainly wasn't Bond's time of death.

The Echo do not offer a valid reason, they are throwing out an opinion based on guesswork.
I find it amusing that you offer a "certainly wasn't", when you find yourself in the same situation as the Echo were in. When they can't find the evidence, they make something up.
Would you mind showing where your "certainly" comes from?

You mention Dr. Phillips, and the apparent prioritization of his evidence over the others' in Chapman's case, but you'll recall that Phillips was also involved in the Kelly investigation and proffered his own suggested time of death for Kelly - one which was considerably later than Bond's, and even later that the "murder" cry heard by Lewis and Prater. Are you suggesting the police completely ignored Phillips's opinion in deference to Bond?

Dr Phillips was never given the opportunity to share his opinion on Kelly's time of death. And what is reported in the press (re: 3:00) certainly did not come from Dr Phillips.

That said, I'm sure you have not forgotten this.

“Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of the H Division, whose reticence is justified by an assurance he gave of secrecy, has copious notes of the result of the post-mortem examination, and with nearly every conclusion at which he has arrived. Dr. Thomas Bond, of Westminster, a well-known expert on crimes of violence, agrees.
Dr. Phillips has only vaguely indicated to the local police the result of his investigations, but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly made by him and Dr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Charles Warren."
Echo, 10 Nov.

A clear reference to Dr Bond's report.
Dr Phillips has shared his conclusions with no-one outside the police dept. This report was created after collaboration with Dr Phillips. For all we know, the estimated time of death may also have come from Dr Phillips.

[Wickerman]

Abby was probably referring to this article from the Graphic, 17th November:

The very exactitude of his description, however, engenders a feeling of scepticism. The witness in question admits that at the time he saw him he did not suspect the person he watched of being the Whitechapel assassin; yet, at two o'clock in the morning, in badly-lighted thoroughfares, he observed more than most of us would observe in broad daylight, with ample time at our disposal. A man who in such a hasty survey notes such points as "a pair of dark 'spats,' with light buttons, over button boots," and "a red stone hanging from his watch-chain," must possess the eyes of a born detective"

This is useful article to produce in response to the occasional claim you might encounter to the effect that "nobody had a problem with it back then" or "people in 1888 knew the conditions better than we do".

We must not forget, this is not the opinion of a detective who takes witness statements on a regular basis. What we have is a reporter who is surprised by the detail.
How many other journalists were similarly impressed by the detail?

I'm afraid I'm not remotely convinced by the argument that some people have better powers of observation and better night vision than others. That only applies within reason, whereas Hutchinson's observation and night-vision would have required super-human powers.

Super human powers?
Not according to Abberline, and he was the one with experience in sorting out the wheat from the chaff at the local level. The interrogating officer.
So long as he had no problem with it then neither should we.

Kelly was reportedly heavily intoxicated, so much so that she was incapable of bidding Kelly a simple goodnight.

No, she wasn't.
Cox: "I did not notice she was drunk until she said good night."
Cox also tells us, "She said 'Good night, I am going to have a song.' ".

Please try to refrain from these unnecessary exaggerations.

We know they weren't lying about communicating with the police because they also reported information about the origin of Hutchinson's account that was both accurate and - at that juncture - only obtainable from a police source.

On the 13th the informer (Hutchinson) had not been named.
On the 14th the Echo enquired as to the source of this second story. The police (apparently) told them "from the same source". Without actually naming the source.
In other words, they simply confirmed the obvious. And, these descriptions were public knowledge, they were released through a press agency, so not "privy" to the police alone.

He was the last person seen alive in the company of Kelly - as per the "truthful Hutchinson" scenario - and there was no chance of him being able to provide an alibi even we do accept some of the truly funky ideas touted by some to the effect that Astrakhan was identified and proven innocent!

Oh, I can think of at least one.
On the conclusion of their encounter, Kelly may have innocently told Astrakhan that she was "off to get some fish & potato pie, I'm starving".
Once Astrakhan shared that passing comment with Abberline he would have realized, this isn't the killer.
The contents of Kelly stomach had not been made public.

The alternativee doesn't really bear scrutiny, considering that we're not just dealing with any old journalist, but rather a representative of the Central News Agency. That doesn't mean such a representative couldn't have lied (for some reason?!), but it's very unlikely.

Remind me, where did the Dear Boss letter originally come from?

I personally haven't been arguing that she should consider it a fact that Hutchinson lied,

Well, you have with me for the past couple of years.

...although I have stressed the strong and compelling evidence that the police came to suspect dishonesty.

You "believe" Hutchinson may have lied - that's more like it.
We all admit to beliefs, most of us resist the temptation to promote our beliefs as if they were facts.

Thankyou for this insight.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“And donīt say commons sense, because I can name lots of posters that I think make a lot more sense.”

Common sense.

I don’t value your opinion enough to be saddened by your condemnations, but if you get personal like that again, you will see me reneging on our little agreement not to discuss the Dew Spew, and not to make references to how long I intend to “endure”. If a detail materially affected Hutchinson’s credibility, positively or negatively, it is painfully obvious – arse-paralyzingly so, in fact – that Abberline would have passed it on to his superiors, as opposed to withholding it for no reason. But we’re not talking about the police report. We’re talking about the press interview, in which he was obviously asked who he had related the story to. If the answer to that question was “I told an entire pub-load about it”, it would have appeared in the papers.

“...if you do not understand that there are innumerable possibilitites for Hutch not having found out until later in the process”

For “innumerable possibilities” read “extremely far-fetched and obviously wrong suggestions”.

“But sexuality is often a yearn for new hunting grounds, Ben. Just saying.”

But whether anyone had a particular “yearning” for overweight gin-soaked prostitutes with questionable dental hygiene is less certain. A bit anti-libidinal for my tastes.

“The flesh is practically hanging over the edge of the table, Ben.”

It still wouldn’t have bled enough – once liberated from the body – to create torrents of slippery "awfulness" on the floor. I think this is the bit where you need to conduct an experiment, although I don’t think you’ll be rustling up too many volunteers for this one!

“And this you know because ...?”

I didn’t say I “know”. Read my posts more carefully before you reply (i.e. not just because you’re online when you see my message, as you usually are, and decide that it demands your immediate attention). I said “He might, for instance, have accepted the barebones of Hutchinson's Astrakhan man, but wondered if he might have fleshed it out a bit in his zeal to be cooperative”. I’m suggesting that Abberline may have accepted the account as broadly true - Kelly bumps into Hutchinson, who can’t offer her any money, so she then encounters well-dressed man etc – but thought that he might have got carried away with the nitty gritty details. For instance, even if Abberline recognised that it was impossible to detect eyelash colour in those conditions (when he was supposed to be spotting a truckload of other stuff), he might have dismissed it as creative confabulation as opposed to wholesale fabrication of the entire episode. This really shouldn’t be too taxing a concept. If it can occur to various Hutchinson apologists – who argue far more convincingly than those who insist that his every utterance must be truthful and accurate – it could certainly have occurred to Abberline.

“Then again, you cannot say that Abberline was an idiot for believing it.”

I can if I want to, but I’m not going to, because I don’t believe it to be true. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe he was capable of showing highly questionable judgment on occasion, as witness his Klosowski-as-ripper theory, which is far more shocking in its implausibility that an extremely short-lived acceptance that everything Hutchinson said was the squeaky-clean truth.

“for those of us who have realized that Toppy is not our man.”

You’ve only just realised that Toppy is not our man? Phuck! Most people figured that out in 1993.

Cheers,
Ben