Romford to Millers court

[Marc]

Depuis 1978

Otherwise, of course there must have been thousands of red handkerchiefs
sold all over London, and if you'd left yours in the room (and I agree, with no DNA testing available), to weave it into your story could only support that story.

I too believe so.
It might even speak in favor of Hutchinson not being JtR but only a fame seeking geek looking for more credibility through the mention of something he might have known to be among MjK's possessions.

Mentioning this red hanky wasn't after all more dangerous IMHO that telling the police he had known the victim for several years, had lend some money to her on occasion, had just seen her in company the night before she was found murdered, and had taken watch in front of 13th Miller's court for nearly an hour that night.

[Rubyretro]

..et moi depuis '85. Tu travailles en France ...?

But Hutch would have to know that she still had the hanky in her room to 'use' it in his story.

If he'd seen it in the room, or left it, then he would know it was there.

The red hanky might have been Joe's the market man (if it wasn't Hutch's own) -it doesn't 'fit' with A Man.

[Abby Normal]

(depuis combien de temps ?)

Otherwise, of course there must have been thousands of red handkerchiefs
sold all over London, and if you'd left yours in the room (and I agree, with no DNA testing available), to weave it into your story could only support that story.

I believe another witness of JtR mentioned a red handkerchief -was it Lawende ?

Yes it was-the man Lawende saw with Eddowes was wearing a red handkerchief.

And then GH places it with Astrakan man giving to MK.

The threads leading back to GH keep piling up!

[Marc]

Oui, je travaille "au pays"

The red hanky might have been Joe's the market man (if it wasn't Hutch's own) -it doesn't 'fit' with A Man.

What does make you think so Ruby ?
Too much proletarian ?

My Grand-father once told me that when he was a youngster, in the 1910's, a red handkerchief knotted around the neck was a mark for a 'bad boy', often called 'apaches' in the French press of the time, supposedly because they attacked/threatened 'honest citizens' with knives.
In late 1800's and early 1900's photographs, workers of all trades are often seen wearing a knotted handkerchief around their neck, at least in warm weather.
Wether a red handkerchief made a difference from a blue, green or black one, or not, I don't know

Just one thought, but the distance between 1888 and 1908 is the same than between 1958 and 1978, and a black leather sport jacket remained a trademark of 'bad boys' all along, even if it had became largely caricatural in the latter part.

[claire]

I certainly missed something about you-know-who being in the you-know -what ! (???)

I probably didn't read back the Posts far enough..

As far as I know, Hutch was never quoted or cited as being in the military -
-I just mooted a 'Theory', based on pure speculation as my ascerbic mate, Marc, pointed out with alacrity..

Otherwise -I agree : it was no huge feat to walk to Romford from Whitechapel, and if he interspersed other means of transport (which we'll never know), it was no big deal and perfectly possible..

Sorry, my response was in three parts, not all of them addressing just your points, Ruby, although this is certainly your thread.

You mooted the military theory; my point was merely that, given that you mentioned researching this, that there is the rider of this individual's identity. My brother, on a year of injury as a military officer, spent a lot of time piecing together regimental histories, along with being tasked with the 'flowers and photos' of fallen soldiers graves overseas; by his reckoning, prior to the 50s, around 40% of conscriptees went by more than one name or did not use a name that rendered them identifiable to family. That's all. Sorry it turned out to be utterly useless and irrelevant to you or your mates.

The sleeper reference was to the earlier post on this thread regarding the Special Branch ledgers, which you'll be familiar with. Sorry to have removed the topic too far from your thread.

Christ, you didn't use to have to apologise so damned much on here.

[Abby Normal]

I've heard of a killer injecting himself into a murder investigation. But to inject is hanky too, well, that takes a bit of swallowing.

If a red hanky was found at Room 13, it was very probably Mr A's.

Or GH's-if he left it in the room, what better way to disown it than say he saw the A-man give it to MK?

[Marc]

prior to the 50s, around 40% of conscriptees went by more than one name or did not use a name that rendered them identifiable to family

Hi Claire,

There was a similar situation in the French army before the Revolution, hence the nicknames which became last names that you can find in Quebec for instance ("La Fleur" etc...)

After conscription became lawfull, it was impossible since calls were made from madatory name rolls kept at municipal level.
This didn't concern enlistment made units like the French Foreign Legion, where anonymity was customary.

No surprise if this situation was to be found in the British army too, at least beside periods when conscription took place.
I must admit that I find it strange that conscripts (literally 'written along' ?)
could remain anonymous.

Yet, in 1888, enlistment was the order of the day in the British armed forces, so JtR, if a soldier, might have well enlisted under whatever name
he fancied

Ruby would have even more merits to find 'the right' Hutchinson
unless he might have enlisted under a name like 'Jack Dahrypur' of course


P.S : have nothing against speculations BTW, I speculate myself a lot.
My favorite current speculation is 'how long shall this hell of canicular weather last before a good storm bring us some fresh air"

[claire]

It's the age old problem, isn't it: people writing down what they think they hear or what they are familiar with (even now, with all sorts of sources to the contrary, you see the stars of the Twilight saga called Kirsten Steward, Robert Pattinson etc...just a crass example ).

Course, if anyone could find a George Hutchinson (I had a brief squiz at enlistments and couldn't find anyone standing out, but it was by no means a decent search), discharged after acting strangely following a brutal but unsolved murder at which his red handkerchief was found, that would be parfait

[Marc]

Claire,

I was just reading once again a dissertation on Casebook about Hutchinson's testimony.
Author mentions an article in his 'local newspaper' which describes Hutchinson as a man of 'military appearance', as it has been already adressed by others on this thread.
There are probabilities that JtR had been charged with 'minor' offenses earlier in his life, like many serial killers have been.
The army record path is definitely narrow, but if someone has the guts to embark upon, pourquoi pas ? :-)

The fact that you didn't see dozens of Hutchinsons after a brief look at enlistment rolls is somewhat reassuring, don't you think ? <VBG>

[harry]

First thing.Ridicule doesn't win arguements.Also a healty person is not neccessarily a fit person.Far from it.Most entrants to the army were healthy A1.They were at different stages of fitness.If you are talking about recruits,Marc,marching or walking successive 12 miles,on their first week in the army,no ,most of them wouldn't complete the task without showing signs of extreme distress.But they do not.The training program doesn't allow for it.They are brought to a peak through a set program,lasting a set period of time.In my case it was six months,and only then would it have been possible.Look do not take my word for it.Go to sites on the web that deal with this sort of thing,and then come back and tell me that Hutchinson compares.You know nothing about the person.You do not Know his state of health or fitness.No one does.I have watched the fun runs shown on television,where anyone can participate,running or walking in shorts and singlets.Healthy persons of all ages,and I have seen the distressed state of same,long before and after they have stopped.Ordinary people,and we do not know Hutchinson was of a different kind.
So I have said I do not believe Hutchinson went to Romford.I have not stated it as a proven fact so there is nothing for me to prove,But I await anything that can prove he was capable of and did make the journey.

[Robert]

Hi Abby

There'd have been no need to disown it, for it was only a red hanky. It couldn't be traced to him.

I trust no one is suggesting that GH first cooked up the Astrakhan story, then murdered MJK, taking care to leave his hanky at the crime scene? Why would he want to do that? Attention-seeking? Then why wait till the inquest was finished before coming forward?

[caz]

Well done, but....why wouldn't he mention it ?
By fear of having his DNA traces tested ?

IF he knew there was a red handkerchief in MJK's room, for whatever reasons, it being MJK's own, Astrakan Man's or his, mentioning its existence through Astrakan Man present story made a more credible witness out of him.
If you're coming forward as a witness, don't you want to appear as credible
as possible ?

Hi Marc,

I thought I already explained why a guilty Hutch would hardly have mentioned the hanky, if it belonged to him and if (the big one) he knew he had left it at the murder scene.

He would also have known that Mr A didn't really exist and could never be traced. But his admitted knowledge of the hanky could never be wished away and the police would have wanted an explanation for this knowledge, especially when his Mr A story didn't deliver.

Whoever owned that hanky would have been a wanted man, and Hutch would have been the key. We know they quickly lost interest in his Mr A, but they couldn't afford to lose interest in anyone who knew about that hanky - again, if they had recovered it from the scene. They were not complete fools.

So on balance, if the killer did give Mary a red hanky, I think he must have been careful enough to take it back before he left. Either way, the murderer would have been infinitely safer not to mention it to anyone afterwards - in whatever capacity. An innocent Hutch was not taking anything like the same risk by introducing this detail.

To sum up:

Hutch guilty=no red hanky

Red hanky=Hutch innocent

Anyone fancy a pint?

Love,

Caz
X

[Rubyretro]

Caz -all this is total supposition -we are all agreed..

Imagine that Hutch was JtR and had spent the early morning cutting up MJK.
He didn't want to disappear back into the streets covered in blood, so he had taken all his clothes off (either cutting her naked or covering himself with the laundry left in the room -with a fire to keep warm), and after he had left, he discovered that he had left behind a red handkerchief.

JtR had already been described by a witness to the crime at Mitre Square as having just such a red handkerchief.

During the inquest, a witness comes forward to describe Hutch as being in
Miller's Court, at the crucial time -he had got a very good look at this witness and recognised her as being a person that he passed frequently, but he had been standing in shadow and, as yet, she hadn't pointed him out to the Police ; but he had no idea of how much she had seen, and if her memory
would be jogged on seeing him again.

Importantly, he knew that he was someone used to being seen wearing a red hanky -common working man's attire in the East End at the time -yet, if he
was accused of being the man in Miller's Court, the fact that he had 'lost' his hanky and one was found in the room (which Joe denied ownership of), then that detail might be enough to eventually lead to his hanging..

Therefore, during the time that he was unknown to the case and just an anonymous East End working class man, he went and bought himself the very unremarkable purchase of a red hanky from somewhere far enough afield.

And he wore it around for a day or so -maybe even drawing attention to it.

So now, Hutch would be in possession of the knowledge that, whilst he had his hanky back, there was another anonymous hanky -clearly linked in public perception to JtR-in the room.

He couldn't resist using that privileged information to support his story (only the police would know it, before it was current knowledge) -he thought that he was so clever. So even though a red hanky was very working class, and doesn't correspond at all to an Astrakhan coat and gold watch, he had to weave it in (this red hanky was uppermost in his mind) -feeling that it was now something that would be proof of both his innocence and his witness statement.

That is an invented scenario -but that or something similar could very well be true..

[tnb]

One 'sticking point' with me with the 'Hutch as the killer' scenario has been the timing of his coming out with his statement. The argument tends to run thus: 'Hutch was the killer and was concerned he had been seen, so he came forward with a false statement to either explain his presence or to point the finger elsewhere', with or without him also devising some kind of thrill from inserting himself into the investigation.

However, would this not have made more sense (if he was indeed the culprit) BEFORE the inquest? Why wait until the inquest was over? Surely, in the above scenario, he would have thought he was pretty much in the clear by the time he did actually come forward? Maxwell's testimony was hardly going to hang anyone.

I have rarely brought this up before as I tend to avoid Hutchison threads, which too often degenerate quickly into either arguing or insanity, or both, but this seems a rather sensible one. So, any thoughts anyone?

[Rubyretro]

Well, you know -I never thought of the significance of the red hanky before imagining the above scenario ..

...I always thought that he came forward once Lewis did...because he knew her and thought that she might subsequently finger him (I'm guessing that JtR saw more potential witnesses than ever wanted to come forward and be involved in the case -or else their descriptions from the dark, were totally wrong so he was not immediately terrified of witnesses).

Still, forgetting the red hanky at the scene, needing to work, or pawn for money to buy a new one, and travelling to a place further away to buy a new hanky -plus wanting to establish witnesses to himself wearing 'his' hanky, may be a very good reason for waiting a few days before coming forward..