The Red Handkerchief...

[Jeff Leahy]

I think it is you that cannot see the problem, based on your observations no one would be able to see any colours until they were right on top of the person, especially in poor lighting. red,blue, black purple would all be indistinguishable in that poor lighting,

I think you need to go and experiment. I have done so, and as a result that is how I arrive at my conclusions

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Much though i don't like to agree with Trevor Marriot this is the second time in two days I've found myself doing so, once with his comments to Michael Portillo and now about the colour of the pocket watch and chain..

In the dark could you tell the difference between a Gold or Silver pocket watch?

To someone as poor as Hutchinson such an item would be the stuff of dreams, a status symbol so I'd imagine in his head and imaginative description there wouldn't be much difference between Gold or Silver, he was after all painting a pretty picture.

Then the other day I came across a News Paper article in Rob Houses book that is just left as a throw away, but it's been playing on my mind ever since. As you may have noted I've been postulating that Aaron Kozminski first came to the attention of the police on 14th October and that the police investigation into the Batty Street shirt forced him to go into hiding. A man being watched and rather paranoid is it possible he changed his appearance on his next venture out into the night? A man living in a Tailor might have access to fine coats or clothes but would he have access to a watch and Chain?

In April 1886, Woolfs house at 62 Greenfeild Street was broken into, as reported in the illustrated Police News:

"John Isaacs, seventeen, has been charged, at Thames Police court, with burglariouly entering the premises of Woolfe Abrahams of Greenfeild street, Whitechapel, and attempting to steal therefrom various articles, value 12 pounds, on the previous night. The prosecutor stated that when he and his brother in law entered the front room they saw the prisoner lying under the bed. As soon as he saw witness he said "Be quiet. Your watch and chain are under the bedstead and then sent for a constable. When the prisoner was searched at the station a silver watch, some matches, a piece of candle, a knife, and 6d were found in possession."

So one thing that we do know is the 'Prime Suspect' in the case had access to the sort of watch possibly described by Hutchinson. Perhaps nothing more than another strange co-incidence but surely one of many?

Was Astracan Man, simply an elaborate disciuse?

Yours Jeff

[Bridewell]

There lies the problem with the witness statements they have to be taken on face value, but when you read into them there are many questions which could and should have been asked but were not.

I'm intrigued as to how you are able to discern, from the content of a witness statement, which questions were not asked of a witness. How do you discount the possibility that the question was asked but the answer not deemed, by the statement taker, to be worthy of inclusion? Or the possibility that the question was asked but the answer was of no value e.g. "I can't remember that" or "I don't know".

Another point occurs (not related to Trevor's remarks):-
Sometimes, in the eagerness to elicit information, an over-enthusiastic officer can press the witness too much, forcing him/her to feel pressured into giving material they are unsure of-

"Surely you can remember more than that?"
"You must be able to recall if there was a stone on his watch chain!"
"Obviously he will have worn a tie-pin; what was the design of it?"

I find Hutchinson's description difficult but my default position is not that he was a liar; I haven't eliminated the possibility that he was trying a little too hard to be helpful.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm intrigued as to how you are able to discern, from the content of a witness statement, which questions were not asked of a witness. How do you discount the possibility that the question was asked but the answer not deemed, by the statement taker, to be worthy of inclusion? Or the possibility that the question was asked but the answer was of no value e.g. "I can't remember that" or "I don't know".

My comments in main were directed at the inquest testimony, where it is clear to me having taken hundreds of statements over the years, that not all the statements from the witnesses were taken by experienced statement takers.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

I think it is you that cannot see the problem, based on your observations no one would be able to see any colours until they were right on top of the person, especially in poor lighting. red,blue, black purple would all be indistinguishable in that poor lighting,

I think you need to go and experiment. I have done so, and as a result that is how I arrive at my conclusions

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Your analysis is entirely guesswork.
You have no idea how poor the lighting was, no idea how visible the chain, seal & handkerchief were, no idea how slow the couple approached Hutchinson. No idea the proximity of the lamp to the people involved.

Without knowing any of the above circumstances, no-one can accurately conduct an experiment to replicate what Hutchinson saw. So, I'm sorry to say Trevor, but you are at best fooling yourself, at worst rigging your experiment to provide the results you prefer.

[Wickerman]

Visible beneath two coats?

No, Jon.

The waistcoat was visible. So both coat & jacket being unfastened would allow the waistcoat to be visible.
So clearly it is not a "no", it is "very possibly".

According to one of your recent posts (which I haven't been arsed to "bookmark!), you deny people the right even to use it in support of an argument, which makes it all the more mysterious that you're suddenly relying on the press-only detail that Hutchinson allegedly saw the Astrahan man on more than one occasion.

The Sunday morning sighting is not proof of anything. The point is, if Hutchinson did see him in daylight then we have some justification for the detail offered in his statement.

No, not just "an opinion".

The actual experience of several retired and serving policeman. I'd be fascinated to see an eyewitness statement as "detailed" as Hutchinson's, though.

There is no experience that can prove a negative. These officers may not have taken very detailed statements before, that is all we can take from their opinion.

If you accept what the Echo "actually wrote", you'll naturally accept them at their word when they "actually wrote" that Hutchinson's statement was "considerably discounted" because it was not made at the inquest and in the proper manner.

I'll explain later why not.

Unless you're envisaging the Astrakhan coat being practically skin-tight and many sizes too small.

?? Not sure what you are suggesting.
With an unfastened coat and jacket, raise one arm and he exposes the waistcoat. Why is that so difficult to envisage?

The only opportunity to register any detail occurred as Astrakhan passed by a gas lamp, which as Harry pointed out, lasted but a few seconds.

No, rubbish.
It takes more than a few seconds to walk from south of Flower & Dean, to the corner of Fashion St.

But nobody has "skills" good enough to compare with Hutchinson's powers of observation and recollection.

"Nobody" - another one of your absolutes?
I take it you must have asked "everybody" then?

[Garry Wroe]

In 1888, at a time when offenders pretending to witnesses were unheard of, Hutchinson could have been quite confident banking on the unlikelihood of the police viewing him as a suspect.

To be fair, Ben, investigators did have experience of offenders coming forward under the guise of witnesses. It was precisely for this reason that rewards ceased to be offered in 1884. That said, I very much doubt that any investigator would have entertained the possibility of Jack the Ripper walking into a police station at the height of the Whitechapel Murders masquerading as an innocent eyewitness. Had this been the case Violenia would never have escaped so lightly after claiming to have sighted Annie Chapman on Hanbury Street shortly before her murder.

[Trevor Marriott]

Your analysis is entirely guesswork.
You have no idea how poor the lighting was, no idea how visible the chain, seal & handkerchief were, no idea how slow the couple approached Hutchinson. No idea the proximity of the lamp to the people involved.

Without knowing any of the above circumstances, no-one can accurately conduct an experiment to replicate what Hutchinson saw. So, I'm sorry to say Trevor, but you are at best fooling yourself, at worst rigging your experiment to provide the results you prefer.

You are correct but even under subdued modern day street lighting which is probably a tad brighter than a Victorian gas lamp it still is impossible !

The test was to prove or disprove not to rig the result as you suggest.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

"What is color? No object of itself alone has color.

"We know that even the most brightly colored object, if taken into total darkness, loses its color. Therefore, if an object is dependent upon light for color, color must be a property of light.

"And so it is."

Paul Outerbridge, Photographer, 1896 - 1958

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Yes, the colour of an object is merely the light it reflects, meaning the colour of the spectrum which is not absorbed by the material itself.
If the handkerchief reflects the colour red, we see it as red.

Light must be present to see colour, subdued light will affect the true colour.
The debate here is, to what degree was the light subdued from regular daylight.

Given that we have no idea how close the nearest lamp was, nor how bright it was, we cannot replicate the scene.
Meaning, we cannot duplicate what was seen to confirm, nor dismiss the account.

So long as some light was present, then some degree of colour was available, therefore to claim Hutchinson could not see colour is false. There would need to be a total absence of light for him to see no colour.

19th century people were better accustomed to subdued light than we are.

[Ben]

“The waistcoat was visible. So both coat & jacket being unfastened would allow the waistcoat to be visible”

Circular reasoning, Jon.

The “waistcoat was visible” according to what source? Ah yes, Hutchinson. You’re trying to defend Hutchinson’s statement with, y'know, Hutchinson’s statement, and it just won’t do. If Astrakhan’s coat was “muscle fit” and several sizes too small, the act of lifting an arm slightly might expose a small part of the waistcoat – not the whole thing, and certainly not a red handkerchief tucked into a pocket.

“The point is, if Hutchinson did see him in daylight then we have some justification for the detail offered in his statement.”

Only if Astrakhan wore the very same clothes and accessories when Hutchinson allegedly next saw him (which would make a big ol’ nonsense of his claim that he only “fancied” that it was the same person the alleged second time), and only if we’re accepting press versions of his statement as accurate, which according to your recent assertion, is something we shouldn’t do.

“These officers may not have taken very detailed statements before, that is all we can take from their opinion.”

Or a more sensible conclusion is that they have all taken “very detailed statements” before, but found them to be false, based on their experience of what eyewitnesses are usually capable of noticing and memorizing.

“I'll explain later why not.”

Nah, don’t bother.

You’ve made your views on the subject very clear a great many times, and frankly, we could do without the repetition.

“With an unfastened coat and jacket, raise one arm and he exposes the waistcoat. Why is that so difficult to envisage?”

Because it’s nonsense.

Find your biggest coat and wear it on top of a lighter overcoat and a waistcoat, then stand in front of the mirror and raise your arm as you would if you were touching the shoulder of a shorter lady. You’ll see. While we’re on the subject, just why was the silly sod quite so unbuttoned when Hutchinson claimed to have seen him, i.e. when the weather was cold and wet and where there was a very real risk of his gold chain attracting deeply unwanted attention?

“It takes more than a few seconds to walk from south of Flower & Dean, to the corner of Fashion St.”

So you think Hutchinson managed to register a linen collar, a horseshoe tie-pin, "light buttons over button boots", a red stone seal and much more all the way from Fashion Street, when the suspect was stationed “south of Flower and Dean Street”? I think a visit to the locality in question would benefit you enormously. Do stop saying we have “no idea” what the circumstances were. Yes, we do. We know precisely what sort of light gas lamps emitted in 1888, and it was a very negligible amount. We also know that the likelihood of a waistcoat handkerchief being on display under two coats was very slim indeed. The only opportunity Hutchinson had at his disposal to notice a red handkerchief was when Astrakhan allegedly produced it very briefly at the corner of the court, at which time Hutchinson was allegedly standing at the corner of Commercial and Dorset Streets. Unfortunately, the light and distance weren’t remotely sufficient in that situation to facilitate the observation of colour on an object so small, and at such a distance.

I often can’t help but suspect that the “we don’t know this, we don’t know that” plea is a none-too-subtle means of discouraging people from using very basic common sense.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Bridewell,

Another point occurs (not related to Trevor's remarks):-
Sometimes, in the eagerness to elicit information, an over-enthusiastic officer can press the witness too much, forcing him/her to feel pressured into giving material they are unsure of-

"Surely you can remember more than that?"
"You must be able to recall if there was a stone on his watch chain!"
"Obviously he will have worn a tie-pin; what was the design of it?"

The problem with this suggestion is that Hutchinson regurgitated the same details - with various interesting additions - when relating his account to a reporter the next day, making it very hard to accept that the specifics he imparted initially to the police were merely the result of "pressure" exerted by a supposedly over-zealous Badham. Clearly, Hutchinson had committed these details to memory whether he had actually seen them or not, and a hypothetical grilling from Badham would fail to explain their reappearance in the newspapers.

It also seems rather unlikely that Badham should have been dissatisfied with the answers Hutchinson provided, and unless the former was very inexperienced and incompetent, I can't see him putting pressure on Hutchinson to offer more detail about a tie pin, for instance, which was in itself an extraordinary detail to have noticed considering what we can reasonably expect to be true about the lighting conditions and the time Hutchinson had available to record such details.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

So long as some light was present, then some degree of colour was available, therefore to claim Hutchinson could not see colour is false. There would need to be a total absence of light for him to see no colour.

Not so. Please refer to my earlier post concerning ocular rods and cones. Under low light conditions rods mediate human vision. Since rods function at a monochrome level only, humans are incapable of seeing colour under such circumstances. Even with modern street lighting it is often impossible to distinguish between red and blue cars after nightfall.

[Trevor Marriott]

Not so. Please refer to my earlier post concerning ocular rods and cones. Under low light conditions rods mediate human vision. Since rods function at a monochrome level only, humans are incapable of seeing colour under such circumstances. Even with modern street lighting it is often impossible to distinguish between red and blue cars after nightfall.

He has been told but wont accept it !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Ah, just briefly Garry, (seeing as you found the time to surface), your criticisms of my defense of the Met.? may be based on this exchange from 2013, in this thread, The Press, and what they knew....

Where I expressed the opinion, to Ben:
"And I have not claimed that it never happened. Certainly an individual PC's lips could be loosened by the offer of a free whiskey or two.
How reliable is information obtained in such a fashion? How thick will the icing on the cake be once the PC realizes he can obtain another whiskey for the sake of a little creative embellishment?"
Post 235.

And your opinion was more centered on Scotland Yard:
"I think it naive in the extreme to suppose that journalists and their editors wouldn't have fostered special relationships with individuals prepared to leak inside information in exchange for cash or other favours. It happened with the Monarchy, Parliament and big business, so why on earth you believe that the Met or any other police force were corruption-free is beyond my comprehension"
Post 245.

So you see, I never claimed no policeman ever gave a reporter a bit of information, likely for the price of a drink.
That, as I indicated, does not amount to obtaining case related info from Scotland Yard Detectives. No beat constable is going to know details of the investigation, and what he does see, or hear, will not constitute accurate inside knowledge. Especially when he realizes that for the sake of a little embellishment, he can obtain for himself a second whiskey.

It is not a case of whether it happened, it is more a case of the value of these observations.

Another typical example of true relations between the police and the press:
"On Saturday they shut the reporters out of the mortuary; they shut them out of the house where the murder was done; the constable at the mortuary door lied to them; some of the inspectors at the offices seemed to wilfully mislead them;"

... Even with modern street lighting it is often impossible to distinguish between red and blue cars after nightfall.

At a distance of course, but Astrachan passed right under Hutchinson's nose.
You walk up to a car under a street lamp, you can see it is red, proof you can establish for yourself. But not, if it is a distance away, across or down the street.

[Sally]

19th century people were better accustomed to subdued light than we are.

Yep Jon, if you say so.

I expect that explains everything.