The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?​

[Iconoclast]

Talk about being in absolute denial.

Apart from one off instance which is the diary’s coup de grace there are other factors too. The red handkerchief is one example.

One example of what exactly? The casual reader could hardly be blamed for assuming that ‘red handkerchief’ must be something which disproves the authenticity of the scrapbook. There it is in black and white, and I for one would like a straight answer to the question it poses: how does the author’s mention of ‘red handkerchief’ disprove the possible authenticity of the scrapbook?

i am asking because it is far far easier to shout ‘hoax’ than it is to actually prove one.

[Lombro2]

35 in the dark usually means 45. Unless you’re a professional night time witness.

Are there exceptions who look their age even in the dark?

Keep talking. Keep digging.

[Lombro2]

One off instance?

Sort of like “the one-off-instance” negative paternity test that you can throw away while you go after your “baby daddy” with “the real one-off”, false positive.

I’d have just run away backstage in shame.

[Lombro2]

Tell it to

Rubenstein
Canter
Feldman (late great)

A businessman with a biggish nose and no beady eyes in Victorian Whitechapel…

[rjpalmer]

Hi Herlock,

It just dawned on me how Ike can sidestep the red handkerchief. We can't underestimate the mental gymnastics of the true believers...

He'll argue that Hutchinson's Jewish gentleman, aged 34, did indeed give Kelly a red handkerchief...and left it in No. 9 Miller's Court as a present when he departed the room 60 minutes later.

Kelly, revitalized and still very much alive, hits the streets again and now uses her fancy red handkerchief as a prop to flirt with her next customer....James Maybrick, gentile, aged 50, just back to the East End after attending an evening concert in Redhill.

I certainly don't think this is what the diarist had in mind when he penned the line, 'a handkerchief red, led to the bed'--I also think the diarist is laying claim to being Hutchinson's suspect---but it allows Ike to temporarily escape the noose while he stares at his navel and contemplates the meaning of 'One Off Instance.'

[Herlock Sholmes]

Were you expecting Snidley Whiplash?

Abraham Rosenberg?
Israel Bernstein?
Aaron Friedman?

or is it the non-Jewish James Maybrick?

The ‘not-looking-even-vaguely-Jewish’ looking James Maybrick?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve never claimed that the red handkerchief was proof that Maybrick couldn’t have been the ripper but it’s obvious to anyone that, as part of the diary, it’s a point for consideration. The diarist is clearly claiming to have been the man that Hutchinson saw with Kelly. The description though is absolutely nothing like Maybrick. It’s a fact that can of course be brushed under the nearest convenient carpet but I’d suggest that we would be on safe ground in suggesting that if this description had matched Maybrick then it would have been perfectly acceptable to mention it. The louder the better no doubt.

It’s a strong point against Maybrick. This is simply a fact.

[Lombro2]

Were you expecting Snidley Whiplash?

[Iconoclast]

Red handkerchief, anyone?

I’m sure someone bigged-up some reference to ‘red handkerchief’ like it really showed insight on their part.

Or did RJ and I simply dream it???

[Herlock Sholmes]

No one would describe Maybrick as Jewish-looking unless he owned a Rabbi Disguise Kit as Inspector Clouseau might have done. He didn’t have a ‘slight’ moustache. We have no evidence of him having a curled-up-at-the-end one either. He was 50 and yet Hutchinson described his man as 15 years younger. So..

a) this description favours the case that Hutchinson saw James Maybrick,

or,

b) this description favours that Hutchinson saw someone that clearly wasn’t James Maybrick.


Is this a difficult choice for anyone?

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ike,

I'm at my desk today and can give an immediate response, but I suspected (wrongly, as it turns out) that Herlock may have been thinking of an argument first raised by Bob Hinton.

Due to the rods and cones in our eyes, we humans aren't very good at seeing color in dim light, and red is one of the hardest colors to see. Hinton's argument was that there is no way in hell--if I can use that phrase--that Hutchinson could have known the handkerchief was red, so he dismisses Hutchinson as a liar.

Obviously, if there was no red handkerchief this poses a problem for the diary.

I think the argument (though no one actually made it) is rather weak. There is a type of red handkerchief that has a distinctive pattern, and Hutchinson could have recognized that pattern even in monochrome; further, we don't really have a good sense of the ambient light conditions, so I'm hesitant to call George a liar.

I am, admittedly, one of those rare souls that believe Hutchinson has been given something of a raw deal. Abberline interrogated him, believed his story, and I'm in no position to second guess a detective inspector who was there when I obviously wasn't. Old Fred had a lot of experience, and police detectives tend to be skeptical of witnesses and witness descriptions as a rule, so his opinion carries some weight.

I don't think Maybrick looks particularly Jewish, though.

[Lombro2]

Shut down the forums then. We can all get our profiling and behavioural science from ex law enforcement and from academics who need a controlled research study for violent crime.

[Iconoclast]

Out of curiosity, why should Ike be concerned about the diary's reference to a red handkerchief?

What a good question you pose, RJ. Like you and every other one of my dear readers, I too was thinking "What the **** has the red handkerchief got to do with the price of fish?".

Hutchinson either saw James Maybrick get out a red handkerchief or else he did not but a hoaxer wrote as though he had. How does this unresolvable dichotomy of possibilities get us any further towards the truth - or, to be more specific, how does that prove the Maybrick scrapbook to be a hoax?

Sometimes, RJ, I think you and I think surprisingly alike. You were just more polite than I was on this occasion. As per, I guess.

Ike

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks, Herlock.

I get that---I was just wondering if there was something else that I might be missing. It's not a great description of Maybrick to be sure.

I don't know when the photograph of James Maybrick with the watch fob, etc., was first published, but I reckon the hoaxer saw it and thought the get-up he was wearing might vaguely pass for Hutchinson's suspect (no Astrakhan, of course) thus the use of Middlesex Street as his alleged bolt hole in the text.

Cheers.

I’m of the same opinion Roger. A vague pass without much thought being put into it. Just the fact that Hitch’s man was better dressed than your average Whitechapel early hours of the morning lounger. I just can’t imagine anyone describing Maybrick as Jewish looking.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Roger,

For me this just isn’t a description of Maybrick. He’s described as being fifteen years younger than he actually was and I’ve never seen a photograph/picture of him with a ‘slight’ moustache curled up at each end. Most of all though I can’t see any reason why anyone would describe him as being Jewish-looking.

Thanks, Herlock.

I get that---I was just wondering if there was something else that I might be missing. It's not a great description of Maybrick to be sure.

I don't know when the photograph of James Maybrick with the watch fob, etc., was first published, but I reckon the hoaxer saw it and thought the get-up he was wearing might vaguely pass for Hutchinson's suspect (no Astrakhan, of course) thus the use of Middlesex Street as his alleged bolt hole in the text.

Cheers.