Romford

[babybird67]

Make the further assumption that you see this man in company with a good friend of yours! Add to it that you take a keen interest in the man, since there is a rumour going round that a "very strangely clad man" has killed four people.

But Hutchinson never said he was suspicious of this man being the murderer.

Abberline states that Hutchinson gave his reason for his vigil being because

he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them

You have to accept that Hutchinson was 'suprised' and therefore voluntarily spent 45 minutes following/observing the couple - for what? Or that he was lying about his motives and his reasons for being there.

I know which option makes more sense to me.

[Ben]

You are, of course, completely spot on, Miss Marple.

Unless the Astrakhan man had an oddly protruding chest, there is very little chance of a watch chain being visible underneath two coats, including an Astrakhan coat. Anyone can try it for themselves and watch themselves in a mirror. Hutchinson was obviously so eager to implicate a wealthy type of suspect that he neglected to consider the practical implications of his fabrication, and slipped up accordingly. It certainly isn't the only instance of this happening. A few sketches were made of the Astrakhan man based on Hutchinson’s description, and depict the ridiculous over-the-top pantomime villain, which was essentially what Hutchinson described in his discredited account.

A lot of people perpetuate the fallacy that if Astrakhan’s appearance was comprised of a whole host of interesting-looking accessories, it was possible for someone to notice all of them, just because they were. This is, of course, complete nonsense. Had Astrakhan man really been swanning around the streets of the East End, anyone who saw him would have described an opulently-dressed individual, and perhaps picked out one or two details such as an Astrakhan collar, but any more detail than that can be thrown on the skip.

Besides containing a ludicrous degree of detail that couldn’t even have been noticed let alone memorized, the very concept of that sort of individual descending on the district is preposterous. Anyone without a death wish would no better than to parade their fineries at that particular place at that particular time. Suspiciously, the man’s appearance contained most if not all of the “sinister” elements that had been popularly associated with the ripper’s appearance.

You’ve successfully drawn attention to yet another implausible element to Hutchinson’s description, which was fortunately discredited shortly after it appeared.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Likewise, later when he reached into a pocket to pull out the red handkerchief, this could have been an inside pocket, once again opening apart his loose coat.

Nonsense.

Hutchinson was allegedly 30 yards away from the couple when Astrakhan pulled out a red handkerchief - an expedient that would have taken a second or two. If you think this was sufficient time and conditions to register the thickness of a watch chain, then you need to be disabused of that idea. Similarly, unless the overcoat was undersized or unusually tightly fishing, the out-stretching of an arm would not have made a scrap of difference to the non-visibility of the watch chain.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"You’ve successfully drawn attention to yet another implausible element to Hutchinson’s description, which was fortunately discredited shortly after it appeared."

Write www.google.com, enter the site, click "images" and write "watch chain" in the search field, have a look at the results - and then think again.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Next up:

"Write www.google.com, enter the site, search for the strain "watch chain visible", follow the links to the photos on the sites - and then think again.

We can easily make a nice collage with dozens of pictures of men displaying their watch chains under coats, some of them even buttoned to an extent!

Never try things like these on a former newspaper researcher. It won´t work, I´m telling you.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

"That's right miss. And I usually wear my horseshoe pin so's yer could see it right above me vest, but I've misplaced it you see, going down to Romford."

"But, But, But."

[Fisherman]

For starters, Mike, yes. And then there are all the rest.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Why would I be able to see a man's watch chaiin and vest if he was wearing a coat and an overcoat?

1. he looked at the time
2. He pulled out some tobacco from his vest
3. He reached under his shirt and squeezed a pimple
4. He reached down the back of his pants and scratched his a$$
5. He reached down the front of his pants to adjust his testicles
6. He leaned rakishly against a lamp post which exposed everything
7. It was too hot when the rain stopped so he opened up his overcoat to unbutton the jacket underneath
8. He opened his coat to put one side around a poor girl's cold shoulders
9. He liked the way it looked to have all things showing. His fashion statement.
10.He kept a mouse in his inside pocket and wanted it to be able to breath, so he opened it periodically.
11. He knew that 120 years later, he would be considered a non-entity if he allowed Hutchinson to see much of what he was wearing and we'd never catch the ripper because of it.

What? No way. It is never possible to have an overcoat open so that you can see what's beneath it. It would be stupid to think that could happen.

Mike

[Archaic]

Imagine, Miss Marple, if you will, that you on Regent Street among all ordinary people meet a man clothed in a pair of bright orange shorts with suspenders, a white t-shirt with the text "SATAN" in capital letters all over it, a large propeller attached to it´s back, between the mans shoulders, bright red facial painting, a screwdriver thrust through both cheeks and coconut shells on his feet.

Just another Saturday night in Seattle.

Cheers,
Archaic

[The Good Michael]

For starters, Mike, yes. And then there are all the rest.

I was only adding the horseshoe pin. Everything else that was described can be plainly seen in that photo, and why? The guy's standing with his weight shifted onto one foot and he has his thumb tucked into his trousers. Another funny thing in that photo and one that is seen in many contemporary photos in the Old West in America, is how the man's jacket doesn't fit closely and the vest is so plainly visible. We wear our jackets today much bigger than they did. I seem to remember a similar photo of Lusk with the same (to modern eyes) ill-fitting coat.

Mike

[babybird67]

lmao Archaic!

you always make me smile xxx

[Stephen Thomas]

Write www.google.com, enter the site, click "images" and write "watch chain" in the search field, have a look at the results - and then think again.

Hi Fisherman

Here's the link but I can't think what it proves. However I do know, as I sometimes wear a traditional overcoat over a suit, that an unbuttoned overcoat over an unbuttoned jacket would certainly show the tie-pin and watch chain.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1259&bih=555&q=watch+chain&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=g1g-m9&aql=&oq=

[Fisherman]

Archaic:

"Just another Saturday night in Seattle. "

Yeah, I know, Archaic! Actually, much the same goes for small Helsingborg, where I live too.

It is hard to come up with a useful comparison to what Hutch´s man would have represented. Maybe I should have spoken of a orangutang dressed the same way ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Stephen Thomas:

"Here's the link but I can't think what it proves."

Scroll down and you will find a number of watch-chaindisplaying gentlemen, Stephen. And just like you say - that´s to be expected.

Better still, write the strain "watch chain" and then add "overcoat" - and there you are. Even Hercule Poirot is represented - and he would know ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

I'm sorry but I don't get the point of these inane posts...

to demonstrate a watch could be displayed.

Nobody disputes that it could be displayed.

The trick comes in explaining what a gentleman wealthy enough to be wearing one would be doing with an unfortunate like Mary Kelly in that district at that time of night, and WHY he would be displaying it? Displays occurred where there were rivals to impress. During social occasions where men would be competing for partners. Not in the dead of night down one of the worst streets in the London where there was nobody (bar Hutchinson, of course) to be impressed by it.

Oh yes, I forgot, he was stupid wasn't he. He went out to murder someone complete with recognisable knife shaped parcel, dressed so conspicuously in case anyone should fail to notice him and he should fail to be caught and hanged ( oh wait a minute, said conspicuous gentleman was only noticed by one person...hmmm...strange...and he wasn't caught or hanged so his method of disguise paid off) so obviously he was stupid enough to be displaying his finery in area where there were poor people and theives to rob him.

Silly me.