Romford to Millers court

[Rubyretro]

It might have been known that Hutch had been paid something, even if it wasn't in all the papers..?

It might have been Melvin Fairclough who had seen the Wheeler report
during research and put the words in Reg's mouth ?

But I agree that it's a very intriguing detail, and Reg's story was what originally made me believe the Toppy/Hutch story ..

Are you going to have another go at finding that radio programme ?

[caz]

Hi Caz, any thought on the number of people who have might possessed a red hanky in the East End, November 88 ?
Wouldn't that make a huge number of suspects to investigate ?
Even taking into account only those who more or less knew MJK ?

This is getting a wee bit surreal now.

The point is, if a red hanky was recovered from the scene (and there is no evidence that it was), it would have been a clear red flag to the cops interviewing Hutch as soon as he claimed to have seen such an item being handed to the victim by its owner, shortly before the pair disappeared inside her room for a bit of hanky panky. Whatever else Hutch was claiming, he knew the hanky existed, so they would have needed to satisfy themselves as to how he knew about it, especially when its owner according to Hutch - Mr A - could not be found.

What in hell’s name would the killer have been thinking, either wearing a red hanky to Miller’s Court in the first place, or taking one with him and leaving it with Mary, then going to the cops and volunteering the fact that he knew about it, if he also knew he had been seen with his previous victim by Lawende and co, sporting a red hanky?

I’m sorry, but this has to be the clumsiest damage limitation exercise for a red-hankied ripper that one could imagine. He would have been compounding damage that was all too easily avoided to begin with.

Love,

Caz
X

[Rubyretro]

I'm sorry Caz -but I don't think that it's at all surreal that Hutch (if he was the killer), would have continued to wear the same red scarf after the murder of Eddowes, if everyone was used to him wearing such a scarf. It was a style and colour of scarf very frequent in the East End( Indeed, it would have looked odd if he'd suddenly stopped wearing it ).

Neither do I think that that it's surreal to imagine that MJK's killer would have undressed to mutilate her like that, in order to not have to walk out covered in blood.

Ergo, if Hutch was the murderer of MJK, he may very well have taken off his scarf in her room, and then forgotten it in his anxiety to get away.

If he DID lose his scarf at the crime scene, and feared later being identified as the man spotted lurking outside Miller's Court -I reckon that the scarf would have been uppermost in his mind.

If I had been Hutch, I think that I would have run to replace that scarf,
and make sure that I was noticed wearing it: Hutch had three days to do that.

If I had a new red scarf, and then came forward to identify myself as a witness, I would than be tranquil in the knowledge that nobody could make a link between the two scarves.

I would also know myself to be in possession of priviledged information (regarding the scarf in the room), which would be very tempting to use..

I can't see anything 'surreal' in any of it..!

[claire]

Now I'm confused. Can someone clarify whether this was a distinctive red scarf or a hanky? I always thought it was the latter.
Clearly it puts a very different colour (sorry) on things if we know that Hutch habitually wore a red scarf (sounds quite the dandy) than if we are simply talking about a generic red hanky, which may be a top-pocket item when clean, shoved in the trouser pocket when...not.

[Rubyretro]

As I understand it, it was a red 'neckerchief', which I imagine as being a red cotton square tied around the neck, but which could be worn (presumably) in a top pocket, or wherever you like.

In contemporary descriptions, it was a very common article worn by costermongers etc.

I imagine that they all looked very similar, and could be purchased on a 'market' such as Brick Lane.

[claire]

Thanks; found it since. However, this, from Hutchinson's statement,
'He then placed his arm on her shoulder and gave her a kiss, she said she had lost her handkerchief. He then pulled his handkerchief , a red one, out and gave it to her'
seems to me to imply that he was talking about a 'handkerchief' to be 'pulled...out,' and not a neckerchief or scarf to be unwound or untied, and worn.

[Rubyretro]

If it concerns a simple red square, then it could be used in a few ways.

If the red handkerchief has a significance, it's surely that one had been described as being worn around the neck of Lawende's suspect -and people made a link with the one described by Hutch.

[Abby Normal]

This is getting a wee bit surreal now.

The point is, if a red hanky was recovered from the scene (and there is no evidence that it was), it would have been a clear red flag to the cops interviewing Hutch as soon as he claimed to have seen such an item being handed to the victim by its owner, shortly before the pair disappeared inside her room for a bit of hanky panky. Whatever else Hutch was claiming, he knew the hanky existed, so they would have needed to satisfy themselves as to how he knew about it, especially when its owner according to Hutch - Mr A - could not be found.

What in hell’s name would the killer have been thinking, either wearing a red hanky to Miller’s Court in the first place, or taking one with him and leaving it with Mary, then going to the cops and volunteering the fact that he knew about it, if he also knew he had been seen with his previous victim by Lawende and co, sporting a red hanky?

I’m sorry, but this has to be the clumsiest damage limitation exercise for a red-hankied ripper that one could imagine. He would have been compounding damage that was all too easily avoided to begin with.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Your logic is as sound as your ability to express it. And I see your point.
However, perhaps after the the night of the double event JtR goes into full misinformation mode as he feels he has been seen by 2 jews. hence, he does the GSG/bloody apron thing implicating jews. Then on the Mk murder night the red hanky issue (in his mind) bolsters him more as a reliable witness to the police then as a suspect. And again he implicates a jew to the police (and places the red hanky in A-man's hand).

If only s.lewis had said the lurker she saw had a red hanky...
(does she give a full description of the lurker?)

[claire]

If it concerns a simple red square, then it could be used in a few ways.

If the red handkerchief has a significance, it's surely that one had been described as being worn around the neck of Lawende's suspect -and people made a link with the one described by Hutch.

I disagree. It is perfectly suitable for your purposes to state that the handkerchief [sic] is a simple red square that can be used in ways to link it to Lawende's man. But it isn't as straightforward as that--a handkerchief is a handkerchief and, being married to a man who is sufficiently old-fashioned to use such items, I've yet to come across one sufficiently capacious to be capable of being tied round the neck in any comfortable way. Lawende mentioned a reddish neckerchief, tied in a knot; Hutchinson referred to a red handkerchief, produced from a pocket or some such.

You yourself, being one of these 'people [who] made a link,' have constructed a theory involving Hutch being a customary, and acknowledged, wearer of a red scarf [sic]...and yet, instead of noting the fictional red scarf of his imaginary suspect, he decides to start calling it a handkerchief. Now, if he had been Lawende's man, and there was a scarf/neckerchief left at the Miller's Ct site, why call it a handkerchief as pertaining to his 'sighting'? If false, his detail was sufficiently rich as to permit the construction of a decent story involving a neckerchief, so it's not ideal to argue that he changed the item to make for a simpler story.

Scarves, neckerchiefs and handkerchiefs are *not* coterminous terms. Although there may be some semantic link between a neckerchief and a handkerchief, we do distinguish between them, and so did the people of the LVP. I'm sorry, because I am aware that we are unable to agree on much, but you simply can't just say that they are the same, because it suits your purposes, however handy the scarves you conjure.

[caz]

I'm sorry Caz -but I don't think that it's at all surreal...

Please don't apologise, Rubes. You are free to think whatever you like.

Anyway, it matters not, because there is no evidence that anything resembling a red snot rag or red neckerchief was found in Mary's room.

No evidence that Hutch ever sported or carried one himself, or turned up wearing one for his big moment in the spotlight.

No evidence that Lewis saw her lurker with one.

No evidence that Hutch was worried that Lewis might have seen him wearing one.

No evidence that Hutch was a red neckerchief-wearing killer who wore one when telling the cops that Mary had been given a similar item shortly before she met her end.

So good luck with this one.

Love,

Caz
X

[Rubyretro]

Please don't apologise, Rubes.

This is nothing to do with the argument -and I'm waving a capacious white hanky (which which I might just tie a knot nattily around my neck in a mo')..

.. Ruby is a an alias which I chose because I love the name -PLEASE DON'T RHYME IT WITH PUBES.

[protohistorian]

Thats why I had to give up my nickname "benitals". Dave

[caz]

LOL

I know the feeling, proto. My nickname was Millie Hunt - at least I think that's what everyone called me.

Blimey, Ruby, I truly meant no offence. I was using it affectionately, as Steph does with Ruby from Waterloo Road (who, incidentally, my daughter says was on her train this morning!).

But Rubyretro it is from now on.

And Hutch by any other name was still innocent.

Love,

Caz
X