The Red Handkerchief...

[DJA]

Don't duck and cover, Rosemary, I have found it really doesn't help.

I am undecided about the question. I still lean a bit more to Jack having at least some basic anatomical and medical skill

Personally,I strongly suspect he taught anatomy.

Watched "Sherlock Holmes : A Game of Shadows" recently.

Prof. Moriarty had a nice big green board crammed with research in a neat schoolboy hand.
Takes a while to do that.
Might explain the chalk carrying graffito writer the night before the new term.

Also liked the kilted pipers wearing white spats

[Rosemary]

Ask them how the facial cuts are connected.

Eyelids,Maxillary sinus,upper lip,nose,Infraorbital nerve,etc.

He didn't appear to be very interested & questioned why I was interested in macabre history. He just thought, as did his friend, that some amount of anatomical knowledge was necessary, such as a pathologist's assistant if not a doctor or med student.

[Wickerman]

Where was this lamp?

There was one across the road at 16 where Hutchinson purportedly waited.

Honestly never been able to locate the Millers Court lamp,except the one near Mary Ann Kelly's room.

"There is another well frequented lodging-house next door to M'Carthy's, and within a yard or two to the entrance to the court is a wall lamp, the light from which is thrown nearly on to the passage."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/irish_times/18881110.html

There's a photo of Dorset St. in the "Ultimate", you can see three wall lamps along the north side of the street. The third one down is likely the one referred to in the article.

[DJA]

"There is another well frequented lodging-house next door to M'Carthy's, and within a yard or two to the entrance to the court is a wall lamp, the light from which is thrown nearly on to the passage."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/irish_times/18881110.html

There's a photo of Dorset St. in the "Ultimate", you can see three wall lamps along the north side of the street. The third one down is likely the one referred to in the article.

That would,in theory,be 28-29.
Sometimes referred to as McQueen's
That's more than "a yard or two" from Miller's Court entrance.

Reckon the solitary lamp on the South side, under which Hutchinson was purportedly standing, is the closest.

[Wickerman]

Actually, after enlarging that photo, there appears to be a fourth lamp further down (just visible under the 3rd lamp), then across the road almost parallel a large lamp, which just might be the one outside Crossinghams.
(I suspect that "lodginghouse lamp" outside Crossinghams is the one mentioned by Elizabeth Prater)


Borrowed this photo (East End Photographs and drawings, post 3388), please ignore red writing.
The fourth lamp is visible just above the back of the head of the woman pictured below the third lamp.

Therefore, that fourth lamp is more likely to be the one adjacent to Millers Court passage.

[DJA]

Actually, after enlarging that photo, there appears to be a fourth lamp further down (just visible under the 3rd lamp), then across the road almost parallel a large lamp, which just might be the one outside Crossinghams.
(I suspect that "lodginghouse lamp" outside Crossinghams is the one mentioned by Elizabeth Prater)

The fourth lamp is visible just above the back of the head of the woman pictured below the third lamp.

Therefore, that fourth lamp is more likely to be the one adjacent to Millers Court passage.

The photo was taken for Jack London's "The People of the Abyss",as you know.

Looked at many "versions" and suspected that was another lamp.

The questions are,where exactly was it and could a handkerchief be discerned as being red?

Also could not make out the corner of number 35 previously and surmised the two women and child were three doors further down the street.

Thanks very much.

[Joshua Rogan]

If it was impossible to discern colours under gas lighting, does that mean any other witnesses who described red clothing were also lying?

[Wickerman]

The questions are,where exactly was it and could a handkerchief be discerned as being red?

In all honesty, that is a question we cannot answer today.
What we are able to do is accept there was a lamp nearby, so any modern hypothesis that "it must have been too dark" is rendered illegitimate.

There is absolutely nothing to be gained by arguing, "yes, there was a lamp, but it was still too dark". Such an argument comes across as a refusal to accept Hutchinson's words at any cost.

We can see the lamps, one was described as "within a yard or two", and Abberline apparently saw no cause to question it.
We have no evidence to the contrary.

[DJA]

If it was impossible to discern colours under gas lighting, does that mean any other witnesses who described red clothing were also lying?

Hot question from someone with the surname Rogan.

[DJA]

Abberline apparently saw no cause to question it.

That is part of my concern.

[Ben]

What you seem to think I don´t remember is exactly what I pointed out in my post - the Bray lamp was too expensive, and so the authorities did not buy it, or any other of the powerful gas lamps constructed to meet the threat from the electric lamps.

Did you not read that? Or did you forget that you had read it? Or what?

On the contrary, Fisherman, I digested it, understood it, agreed with it.

Yes, the Bray lamp was "too expensive" on account of its superior candle power, and thus not utilised for mass production on the streets of London at that time, but if we have physical evidence of just how "powerful" that "too expensive" lamp was, i.e. pitifully not so, then just what are we to make of the illuminating potential of the Miller's Court lamp, which, thanks to your repeated assurances, we may assume to have been considerably dimmer even than that?

Take that clip, reduce its "illuminating" power by half, and that's what Hutchinson would have been relying on for his red hanky sighting from 125 feet away (thanks again, Jon!).

You produced the Youtube clip of a Bray lamp as an example of how poorly the gas lamps of the East End lighted the streets.

But the Bray lamp was not in existence on the East End streets of 1888.

Yes, exactly....because it was too expensive on account of its power.

I did indeed provide a youtube clip of a lamp that could not have been of the type that was attached to the Miller's Court entrance, and yes, it is indeed "unviable" because it was much more powerful than the lamp in question. And yet, this "much more powerful" light, as we see from the two clips, is insufficient to illuminate objects over a few feet away, and even makes the surrounding vegetation appear less distinct that it does in no artificial light at all.

You are even at liberty to claim that I cannot resist answering you.

Try it, Ben - and you will be factually incorrect again.

Okay, I'll try: You cannot resist answering me.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

But Ben, every instance of your imaginings will be on the lower side of reality, likewise, anyone viewing the lamp as brighter will imagine on the higher side.

No "imaginings" are required, Jon.

We know what 500 candle power looks like, because it is available for viewing in two separate videos, taken just a few feet away from the light source, as opposed to over 100 feet away from it as Hutchinson claimed to be. Its illuminating potential need not be speculated over because we know precisely what it looks like.

We also know that the "500 candle power" on display in those videos represented the very best one could possibly have achieved in terms of gas lighting on the streets of London in 1888, and that "Hutchinson's lamp" would have been considerably weaker than that.

In other words, the lamp in question was even weaker than the piddle-poor illuminating "power" of the lamp featured in the video.

You have no intention of accepting there was a light available within a few feet that "could" have helped Hutchinson see what he claimed to see.

You're right, Jon, I have no such intention; not when the physical evidence impels me, as it should you, towards the opposite conclusion. We should have no recourse to our "imagininigs" when we can use our eyes.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

The argument that we must treat a claim as accurate because "Abberline had no problem with it" is actually a very bad one, when you mull it over properly. Firstly, the account was discredited shortly after its author first submitted it, which would not have occurred had Abberline continued to have "no problem" with it, and secondly, Abberline had "no problem" with the idea that Klosowski the Ripper acted on an prostitute organ-harvesting commission from an American doctor, and crossed the Atlantic to commit more crimes having failed to secure enough innards for his boss in London.

Does that mean we should likewise have "no problem" with that theory?

[Tecs]

and secondly, Abberline had "no problem" with the idea that Klosowski the Ripper acted on an prostitute organ-harvesting commission from an American doctor, and crossed the Atlantic to commit more crimes having failed to secure enough innards for his boss in London.

Does that mean we should likewise have "no problem" with that theory?

Hi Ben/all.

I've made the following point before but for some reason people don't seem to understand and instantly go back to the scenario described above.

Basically, I don't think that Chapman was working on commission from an organ harvester at all but is it possible that an avaricious individual who had training in using a knife (whatever level that might be!) could hear on the grapevine that samples of the uterus were worth a small fortune and then take it upon themselves to use their skills to go and get some?

I've always been surprised how quickly people dismiss any version of the organ harvester theory, after all a man turns up offering £20 for samples of the uterus, then a few weeks later bodies start turning up in the street with that organ missing, or obvious attempts to get them. Didn't happen before, didn't happen after the "Autumn of Terror."

Who could say for certain there's no link?


regards,

[Abby Normal]

Hi Ben/all.

I've made the following point before but for some reason people don't seem to understand and instantly go back to the scenario described above.

Basically, I don't think that Chapman was working on commission from an organ harvester at all but is it possible that an avaricious individual who had training in using a knife (whatever level that might be!) could hear on the grapevine that samples of the uterus were worth a small fortune and then take it upon themselves to use their skills to go and get some?

I've always been surprised how quickly people dismiss any version of the organ harvester theory, after all a man turns up offering £20 for samples of the uterus, then a few weeks later bodies start turning up in the street with that organ missing, or obvious attempts to get them. Didn't happen before, didn't happen after the "Autumn of Terror."

Who could say for certain there's no link?


regards,

Hi Tecs
I don't think its that far out either. as a matter of fact Ive put the idea out there that Tumbety was the American dr looking for specimans that Baxter alluded to at the inquest. Perhaps him and Chapman being in the "medical" field hooked up and Dr T was paying him to get the said specimans.

of course its total speculation and dosnt explain all the peripheral cuts and mutilations the ripper did. and of course we are totally off topic. but to reel it back in I don't think Abberlines theory is so off the mark.

I usually agree with Ben 98% of the time but not on this one. Dr T or not, someone may(Very slight may I admit) have paid chapman to do it, or someone else. I doubt it but not so far fetched I think.