The Red Handkerchief...

[harry]

At 2.30 am,Lewis saw a male person outside Crossinghams,This is the only person she claims to have seen at that time,and at that time she entered the court,and went to a friends room.She did not claim to have seen anyone in the court at that time.At 2.30am,according to Hutchinson's statement,Kelly was in her room,in Millers Court in the company of a male person.Why not accept that Jon.What do you know that conflicts with the above.Why, if you know Hutchinson was telling the truth ,don't you show us how you know,and what compelling information implies his account is true.

[Ben]

“You have two choices, either Sarah Lewis actually saw what the Daily News reported, or, the Daily News reporter got things badly wrong.”

The Daily News got things badly wrong.

Easy.

And it’s not a “choice” either. It’s a fact. If you endorse the Daily News report as accurate – something that absolutely nobody else but you does – you are “choosing” to be factually in error.

“…"In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing"
Daily News.

"I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise."
George Hutchinson.

Correct, or wrong?”

Wrong.

Sarah Lewis made it very clear where she saw the loitering man in question, and it was only once, on the other side of Dorset Street, outside Crossingham’s Lodging House. Absolute permanent end of story. That is where the man stood on the only occasion Lewis set eyes on the man that night. This also explains why virtually all other newspaper reports place the man in the same location - Lewis having been consistent in her evidence on this point. It is therefore an established certainty that the few (only?) newspaper(s) placing him in a different location were factually in error, i.e. proven false, i.e. definitely incorrect, i.e. not worth the ridicule that any attempt at reviving it (them) as gospel would inevitably attract.

It doesn’t matter one bit if Hutchinson was the wideawake man and actually entered the court itself. The only occasion Lewis saw “Hutch-awake” was outside Crossingham’s at 2:30am, and certainly not outside the court. If Hutchinson did enter the court itself, it was after Lewis had entered her own room – number 2. So you can forget the idea of any harmony between the Daily News and Hutchinson's account.

"I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."
Daily News.

"...and they both went up the court together."
"Kelly did not seem to me to be drunk, but was a little bit spreeish."
George Hutchinson.

Correct, or wrong?”

Wrong.

Again…wrong.

According to all other sources, the couple had feck all to do with the court, but simply “passed along” Dorset Street. Some are more specific and place the couple “further on” Dorset Street from where wideawake man stood, but every source places the couple on Dorset Street and NOT entering Miller’s Court. All except the Daily pooey News, that is.

And no, the errant reporter’s goof does not coincide with Hutchinson’s claim. Either you accept the press versions of his account or you don’t, and if you treat as gospel the press-only claim that Hutchinson entered the court itself and stood outside Kelly's room, then I’d expect you to exercise some consistency and accept the other “press-only” claim that Hutchinson observed the couple from the corner of Dorset and Commercial Streets. Not from opposite the court, and certainly not from outside Kelly’s room. Of course, this spells disaster for your already-proven-false claim that the Daily News’ nonsense coincides with Hutchinson’s account. It does nothing of the sort. For it to agree with Hutchinson’s claims, the wideawake man would have to be at the corner of Dorset and Commercial Streets when the couple were “passing up the court”, but he isn’t, so it doesn’t.

“You need to provide a sound argument to explain how this Daily News reporter could get details so correct while, in your opinion, also being totally wrong.”

You crack me up, mate. Seriously.

It is proven beyond doubt that the Daily News were guilty of misreporting Sarah Lewis’ account, and if you’re asking me how proven falsehoods accidentally coincide (???) with Hutchinson’s claims, my answer is they don’t – not remotely, as I’ve unquestionably and irrefutably just demonstrated to the satisfaction of anyone with half a clue on this subject.

“And, while you are at it, explain why he would maliciously attach these spurious details to the statement of Sarah Lewis.”

Who said anything about malice?

The reporter simply goofed. He made a mistake. He conflated the court with the street, perhaps because he misunderstood and/or was unfamiliar with the geography of the area. That is understandable. What isn’t understandable – and what is really rather reprehensible – is an obstinate attempt to revive these obvious mistakes as accurate.

“The Echo (& Star, for that matter) have been proven wrong time & time again, ad nauseam, on the matter of what they claimed to know about the case.”

Nope, you’ve failed miserably in your effort to demonstrate this, and it is only your shocking naivety, lack of imagination, and unfamiliarity with high profile investigations that has led you to the truly risible conclusion that the police never divulge case-related information. Like nice boys never fart, and politicians are never corrupt, and witnesses are never dishonest. Just dream on, or better still, wake up. This is another view that appears to be adopted by you alone, and yet fascinatingly and amusingly, you say “we all know this”. The Echo most assuredly received accurate inside information from the police, as I’m prepared to point out forever.

“And, I am not the only one who has proven to you using specific articles that interest in the Hutchinson suspect continued for several weeks.”

Ah, but I never disputed “interest”. In the absence of any proof that he lied, it wouldn’t be surprising if some policeman still thought the account had legs. The complete absence of any evidence of Astarkhan men being actively pursued, however, tells us that the “discrediting” evidently originated from top brass.

“it does make your arguments tiresome and repetitive”

If you’re tired, go to bed, or find a more productive discussion. If you were so anti-repetition, you wouldn’t be regurgitating that Daily News silliness yet again.

“Yes, and in various accounts she saw a man standing outside Crossinghams, and also standing outside the entrance to Millers Court, and eventually outside Kelly's door.”

Knickers to “various” accounts. If you want to ascertain once and for all where the wideawake man stood, you need only visit Sarah Lewis’ police statement, which places him outside Crossingham’s lodging house. She did not see this man a second time, so knickers too to the argument that “the man moved, Ben”. I’m quite sure he did, but not when he was fleetingly observed on one single occasion by Sarah Lewis.

The official record from the Kelly Inquest is abridged, not complete. This is also the proven case with the Eddowes Inquest record. This is why we need the press accounts

Yep, but good ones that agree with other sources, including police statements, not crap ones that don't.

[Wickerman]

At 2.30 am,Lewis saw a male person outside Crossinghams,This is the only person she claims to have seen at that time,and at that time she entered the court,and went to a friends room.She did not claim to have seen anyone in the court at that time.

Harry.
If you choose to use the stated times as evidence of anything, then lets get them clear.
In her pre-inquest statement Lewis claimed that the time was:
"Between 2 and 3 o'clock this morning I came to stop with the Keylers,"
A whole hour leaves considerable room for estimating these events.

Then at the Inquest she said:
"I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning..."
Which suggests the events took place before 2:30, correct?
She also confirms the time by her seeing the Spitalfields clock, but she doesn't say it was 2:30 as she passed the clock, she says it was 2:30 when she was at the Keylers.
I know, the distance can only be measured in minutes, but a difference of minutes is all we need.

At 2.30am,according to Hutchinson's statement,Kelly was in her room,in Millers Court in the company of a male person.Why not accept that Jon.
What do you know that conflicts with the above.

There is no significance attached to the "2:30" time, except to recognise that Lewis was already inside the Keylers by 2:30.
She didn't say she arrived at 2:30.


***
With Hutchinson we have to work backwards from the time he left, said to be about 3:00am.
For the previous 45 minutes he had stood in Dorset St.
So we estimate his vigil began about 2:15, no argument there.

Therefore, having Lewis arrive about 2:15 is not unreasonable.
Lewis still knew the correct time by reference to the Spitalfields clock, but she doesn't say exactly what 'that' time was (as she passed).
Lewis is still correct in saying that at 2:30 she was with the Keylers, and Hutchinson's claim is still acceptable by having his vigil begin by about 2:15.

All that said, Hutchinson made no reference to the church clock in his estimation of how long he stood vigil, he said: "about three quarters of an hour", he appears to have been guessing. Perhaps it was 35 minutes?

We know he claimed to have passed the Whitechapel Church between 1:50-1:55am.
That the encounter began "about 2:00am".
That when he left the church clock struck 3:00am.
Everything that happened in between is an approximation.

Why, if you know Hutchinson was telling the truth ,don't you show us how you know,and what compelling information implies his account is true.

The base position has always been that he told the truth. This was stated at the time and has never changed.
Objections to that base position must be demonstrated by reasonable, rational, evidence. Not just guesswork.

The issue is, if you think Hutchinson lied, justify this thinking with something that is not arbitrary. Everything used to cause doubt about his reliability is guesswork.
By all means use guesswork to raise questions, but don't use guesswork to condemn him.

[Garry Wroe]

The Daily News got things badly wrong ... If you endorse the Daily News report as accurate – something that absolutely nobody else but you does – you are “choosing” to be factually in error.

Precisely.

[Wickerman]

The Daily News got things badly wrong.
.
.
Sarah Lewis made it very clear where she saw the loitering man in question,

You are sidestepping the point, and avoiding the questions.

The choice concerns how the Daily News reporter was able to attribute certain details to Sarah Lewis that were only known to Hutchinson, and only provided by Hutchinson the next day.

That, is the issue.

Either the reporter guessed those specific details, which you & I both know to be unacceptable, or he got them from someone who saw it first hand.

There is no other choice, and this is your dilemma.

According to all other sources, the couple had feck all to do with the court, but simply “passed along” Dorset Street. Some are more specific and place the couple “further on” Dorset Street from where wideawake man stood, but every source places the couple on Dorset Street and NOT entering Miller’s Court. All except the Daily pooey News, that is.

No source mentions Dorset St. No source described where Lewis saw this couple. You choose to place them "only" in Dorset St. in fact if I remember you actually choose to invent a second couple to satisfy your argument.
There was no second couple, even Hutchinson himself says:
"I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else".
No second couple existed.
These entire events concern four people, Sarah Lewis, Mary Kelly, Astrachan, and Hutchinson, no-one else.

And no, the errant reporter’s goof does not coincide with Hutchinson’s claim.

Ignoring the parallels will not make them go away.

Either you accept the press versions of his account or you don’t, and if you treat as gospel the press-only claim that Hutchinson entered the court itself and stood outside Kelly's room, then I’d expect you to exercise some consistency and accept the other “press-only” claim that Hutchinson observed the couple from the corner of Dorset and Commercial Streets. Not from opposite the court, and certainly not from outside Kelly’s room.

By his own words, Hutchinson first observed the couple in Commercial St., then from the corner of Dorset St, then from the entrance of Millers Court, and subsequently, walked up the court himself.
What is there to debate here?

It is proven beyond doubt that the Daily News were guilty of misreporting Sarah Lewis’ account,...

Sorry Ben, but your track record on the subject of providing 'proof' of anything, when pressured, is not something to brag about.

I am still waiting for proof of your dubious 'discrediting' claim. Sure, you believe it, but where is this proof?
I think we all know, which is why no-one chose to rush to your defense and help you out when I threw down the gauntlet on the subject.

The reporter simply goofed. He made a mistake. He conflated the court with the street, perhaps because he misunderstood and/or was unfamiliar with the geography of the area. That is understandable.

He confused Millers Court passage with Dorset St.? - thats "understandable"?
Ben, you are grasping at straws. The jury & press were all escorted to the crime scene, they walked down Dorset St.

Really Ben, these "shooting from the hip" type of responses are more evidence of how desperate you are to defend your theory.

The Echo most assuredly received accurate inside information from the police, as I’m prepared to point out forever.

You really want to challenge me on this?

Echo, 18th Oct. 1888.
An Echo reporter called yesterday afternoon upon Mr. Packer, the Berner-street fruiterer, where the murderer bought the grapes for Elizabeth Stride.

If the Echo were "in the loop", by October 18th they would have known that the police had long abandoned Packer as a reliable witness, that he had not sold the killer any grapes.
Also, the Evening News, People, Daily Telegraph, Pall Mall Gazette, were all reporting by late October/early November, just how important Packer's sighting still was and, that even the Millers Court murderer "resembled" the man seen by the Berner St. fruiterer.

An essay can be done on this subject if you like, so strong and abundant is the evidence that all the press, including the Echo, were not kept up to date with progress in the case. The Echo were just as culpable in their erroneous theorizing.
I have never found trouble in showing proof of their errors, the papers are replete with examples.

Ah, but I never disputed “interest”. In the absence of any proof that he lied, it wouldn’t be surprising if some policeman still thought the account had legs. The complete absence of any evidence of Astarkhan men being actively pursued, however, tells us that the “discrediting” evidently originated from top brass.

It is the "top brass" who are leading the investigation, not beat constables.

Yep, but good ones that agree with other sources, including police statements, not crap ones that don't.

And who decides what is "good" and what is "crap"?
And what discretion is used in making that decision, and what are the various press accounts being compared with?

Here, I have compared details found "only" in the Daily News, with details found "only" in Hutchinsons own account.
These details are a match.
The question we have is, how the Daily News knew about these details the day before they were shared by Hutchinson.

The elephant in the room, your room, is that the Daily News source was Sarah Lewis herself.
And that realization undermines your theory, which is why you find yourself 'treading water' in an attempt to push them aside today.

[BTCG]

You're hell-bent on digging these enormous embarrassing holes for yourself...

The Daily News were guilty of misreporting Sarah Lewis' evidence. We know this because their report on her evidence contradicted her actual police statement and all other press reports. Nobody has ever attempted to revive the Daily News' version as accurate until you piped a couple of years ago, and that ought to tell you something. Sarah Lewis did not see anyone enter Miller's Court (which does encompass the interconnecting passage, for any irritating pedants out there), and she made it very clear that there was "nobody in the court". She saw a couple "pass along" Dorset Street, and in other accounts they are described as being "further along", i.e. further east along Dorset Street from where the wideawake man was standing.

Nowhere, apart from in the confused mind of the Daily News journalist, is it ever suggested or inferred that the couple in question entered Miller's Court, and everybody but you accepts it as a misreporting error; a confusion or a conflation between the court and the street.

Similarly, Lewis never said anything about a man standing at the doorway of the deceased's room. Go back and read Sarah Lewis's actual police statement and all other press reports. You'll discover that they flatly contradict this claim. There was nobody in the court, according to Sarah Lewis - not a couple passing up it, and certainly not a man standing outside Kelly's door. She makes it perfectly clear that the man in question was stationed outside Crossingham’s lodging house on the other side of Dorset.

But all this just washes over you.

And you compound the gaffe by asserting that “most” people consider the Daily News’ proven falsehoods “stunning”. This is scarily delusional stuff. Who besides you has ever claimed that Lewis saw a couple pass up the court, and that she saw a man standing outside Kelly’s door? Just you. Only you. Nobody else. How do you feel to be the sole advocate of proven falsehoods? Bad? I’d feel positively wretched.



I hereby “re-state” that, in my opinion, Hutchinson’s story was influenced by that given by Sarah Lewis.

But Lewis actual evidence, mind.

Not the misreported version as bollocksed up by the Daily silly News, and hilariously endorsed as accurate by you (just you). And even though you’re a fine one to talk about “unsubstantiated press claims”, I’m met with this hilarity:



The Echo report has been proven accurate, courtesy of the fact that the claims made therein were only obtainable from police sources. Give me an excuse to go over this again. Give me an excuse to bury this nonsense the same way I’ve been burying it over and over again. There is not the slightest poop of a suggestion that “the Hutchinson suspect” was actively pursued after 15th November.



You really are making it up as you along, aren’t you?

Required forms? This is truly horrifying nonsense. If Abberline wanted to elaborate on his reasons for his faith-based “opinion” that Hutchinson told the truth, he had the opportunity to say so there and then in the report on the “day’s events”. Tell me what was stopping him. Explain the logic of Abberline deliberately withholding information just because he didn’t have the “required form”. Explain the logic of Abberline being secretive to his superiors – when time was of the essence in capturing a serial killer – just because he didn’t have the correct piece of paper??

And don’t you dare assert that your dreadful, unconvincing, and offensively biased “reasons” for dismissing the Echo article amounted to anything remotely resembling a “debunking”.



Evidence?

Provide your evidence immediately, and dispense with your silly exclamatory assertions based on nothing. I have never suggested that they “found him out” to be a liar. I’ve said that they dismissed his account on the belief that he was one, because that is where the evidence unquestionably points. Where is the evidence that Packer was “hauled in” as a suspect when he was suspected of lying? Where is the evidence that Violenia was “hauled in” for similar reasons? Just deal with the fact that witnesses assumed to have been lying were dismissed as fame/money-seekers and not converted into suspects.



And the relevance factor here is…?

Wow, pretty low…

I have never suggested that any cross questioning occurred at the inquest, and nor has the Echo. It was simply observed that Hutchinson’s failure to come forward earlier and present himself at the inquest meant that he could not be questioned “on oath”, and that his description would not be compared (there and then) to others provided at the inquest. Nothing to do with any cross-examination.



And I would appreciate it if you stopped picking the fights you lost so terribly badly less than three months ago; stopped these fantasies of yours about “debunking” that which you’re patently ill-equipped to debunk, and took yourself to debating pastures anew. I realise that my mention of Hutchinson killed off all other threads, including the previously contentious “apron” thread (I’m endowed with the power to do so, apparently!), but you have a go at kick-starting that again.

@Ben,

I'm confused. You tell us:

"The Daily News were guilty of misreporting Sarah Lewis' evidence. We know this because their report on her evidence contradicted her actual police statement and all other press reports. Nobody has ever attempted to revive the Daily News' version as accurate until you piped a couple of years ago, and that ought to tell you something."

Then you say:

"she made it very clear that there was "nobody in the court". She saw a couple "pass along" Dorset Street, and in other accounts they are described as being "further along", i.e. further east along Dorset Street from where the wideawake man was standing."

So let's get this right: the Daily News ought to treat 'other sources' as more credible than what they themselves have collected.

Not seeing any logic here. Seems like Monday morning quarterbacking to me.

[Wickerman]

It might be as well to compare some sources.

First, the controversial portion concerning words attributed to Sarah Lewis as published in the Daily News, 13th Nov.

...In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man. He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one. I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.

Which other sources included anything contained in the above statement?

The first point of note is that although we know Sarah walked down Dorset St. from the direction of the Britannia Pub, no mention of what, or who, she saw while walking towards Millers Court was written down in the official record.
At some point along that walk she must have seen something, but the fact Hodgkinson did not record what she talked about does not mean she saw nothing.

The first mention of her seeing anyone is when she entered the Court.

When I went in the Court I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House.
GLRO

When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake.
Daily Telegraph.

She saw a stout looking man standing at the entrance to Miller's court.
St. James Gazette.

She saw a man, apparently stout, standing at the entrance to the court.
Thanet Advertiser.

She saw a man at the entrance to the court.
Echo.

There are other versions which are vague and only mention the man standing on the pavement.

***
Hutchinson said:
...and they walked across the road to Dorset-street. I followed them across, and stood at the corner of Dorset-street.

I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away.
Also:
I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise.

So, there is no question that Hutchinson took up three different positions, first at the corner of Dorset St., second at the entrance to Millers Court (both positions confirmed by various press sources), and briefly up the court itself (confirmed by Hutchinson).

Therefore, when the Daily News reports that:
In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing.
We have Hutchinson himself confirming this part of what she saw.

***

So what about this "man & woman", and the woman being 'drunk'?

Another young man with a woman passed along
GLRO

Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink.
Daily Telegraph.

A young man went along with a young woman.
Morning Advertiser.

Further on I saw another man and woman.
Echo.

A young man went along with a young woman, who was drunk.
Scotsman.

So, the Daily News was not alone in reporting this "man & woman", AND, that the woman was "drunk".

Hutchinson said:
..they both went up the court together.
Kelly did not seem to me to be drunk, but was a little bit spreeish.

Mary Cox said Kelly was wearing no hat that night:
Mary Jane had no hat on,

The Daily News reported:
I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.

Conclusion, several sources identify only one "man & woman" in view, that the woman was "in drink", and that the woman wore "no hat".
Not one source locates the "man & woman" solely in Dorset St. in fact, when we read that the loiterer was looking "up the court", and "further on" there was a man & woman. "Further on" is consistent with the direction of view of the loiterer, ie; further on down the passage (up the court).
The loiterer (Hutchinson) is standing at the entrance to the passage (by his own words), and further on down the passage (up the court) was a man & woman.

If there was another "man & woman" on the street, no-one mentions them, not even Hutchinson, who declares there was no-one else in Dorset St.

[Sam Flynn]

When I went in the Court I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House.
GLRO

When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake.
Daily Telegraph.

She saw a stout looking man standing at the entrance to Miller's court.
St. James Gazette.

She saw a man, apparently stout, standing at the entrance to the court.
Thanet Advertiser.

She saw a man at the entrance to the court.
Echo.

The latter three could represent truncated and/or garbled (press agency?) versions of what Lewis actually said, as per her witness statement and the Telegraph account. A reconstruction, based on the official record and the DT, reads something like:

"While Lewis was at the entrance to Miller's Court, she saw a stout looking man in a wideawake, standing alone opposite the entrance to the court in Dorset Street, by [Crossingham's] Lodging House".

This makes perfect sense to me. Everything in her statement seems to revolve around her passing down Dorset Street en route to Miller's Court, and reporting the people she saw on the way. Saw, as opposed to "brushed past", that is. If yer man had actually been standing at the Miller's Court archway, why say she merely "saw" him?

[Wickerman]

The latter three could represent truncated and/or garbled (press agency?) versions of what Lewis actually said,

Taken by themselves yes they could, though when we read that Hutchinson claimed to actually stand there at the entrance to Millers court then we have less cause to question those sources.
Hutchinson & the press are mutually supportive on that point, are they not?

This makes perfect sense to me. Everything in her statement seems to revolve around her passing down Dorset Street en route to Miller's Court, and reporting the people she saw on the way.

You just touch on a point I find suspicious, that Sarah Lewis is not recorded (contrary to your point) as saying what she saw on the way down the street. Her narrative begins when she "entered the court".

Why does she not begin by saying, "on the way down Dorset St. I noticed a man outside Crossinghams" - or words to that effect?
Her story begins with "when I went in the court..."

Which suggests one of two things to me. Either, any testimony she gave concerning what she saw while walking down Dorset St. was not recorded by anyone, not the Court recorder (Hodgkinson), nor any press reporters, which would be extraordinary - or that she saw no-one at all in Dorset St.
So how come she only saw him at the point when she turned into the court?

What can be agreed upon is that what we have is not truly clear. On top of that I am suspicious that we do not have the complete sequence of events either.

[harry]

The reason why she may not have noticed,is the same as so many people of that time being startled by a presence they only became aware of in the last few seconds.That is a person standing still in a dimly lit street.Nothing out of order in Lewis seeing the person outside Crossinghams until she was on the point of entering the court.Therefor her testimony of him only begins at that point,and her testimony is that there was no other person present in or near the court at that time that she saw.Whether it was a few minutes past 2.30 am,or a few minutes short of 2.30 am,has no relevance at all.

[harry]

Jon,
The base work is not that Hutchinson was accepted as telling the truth.Only one lasting reference to his truthfulness,and that in an opinion expressed by Aberline.Not surprising,given that there was no eyewitness,except Lewis.Guesswork doesn't enter into it.Each element of his statement has been considered,and opinions given,and I would say that although various reasons have been given for his presence at Crossinghams,following a well dressed man,is not in the majority.You may believe otherwise,but without guessing,tell us why it must be true.

[Sam Flynn]

Taken by themselves yes they could, though when we read that Hutchinson claimed to actually stand there at the entrance to Millers court then we have less cause to question those sources.

Hutchinson also says that he followed them to the corner of Dorset Street, and he wasn't stationed at the entrance to Miller's Court all the time.

You just touch on a point I find suspicious, that Sarah Lewis is not recorded (contrary to your point) as saying what she saw on the way down the street, only "in" Dorset Street.

But that wasn't my point, Jon. I'm not suggesting that she saw anyone way down the street, only "in" Dorset Street.

Her narrative begins when she "entered the court".

Yes... and when she entered the court she saw a man opposite, on Dorset Street, outside the Lodging House.

Why does she not begin by saying, "on the way down Dorset St. I noticed a man outside Crossinghams" - or words to that effect?

What I wrote doesn't contradict Lewis's statement at all. In fact, it fits perfectly. As she entered Miller's Court she saw, standing opposite the entrance of the Court at Crossingham's Lodging House, a stout man in a wideawake. She doesn't remotely say that she brushed past a man standing at the very entrance of Miller's Court. Had she done so, she'd have said so, without question.

[Fisherman]

As she entered Miller's Court she saw, standing opposite the entrance of the Court at Crossingham's Lodging House, a stout man in a wideawake. She doesn't remotely say that she brushed past a man standing at the very entrance of Miller's Court. Had she done so, she'd have said so, without question.

That´s my take too, Gareth; "on entering the court, she saw ..."

And that´s why I always take great care to point out that Hutchinson never for a second claims to have stood outside Crossinghams. He specifically says that he went to the corner of the court, meaning that he stood by the entrance. He also says he left from "the corner of the court", when he abandoned Dorset Street.
If we - like I do - entertain the thought that Hutchinson got the days muddled (as per Dew!), then this detail, taken together with the fact that Hutchinson does not mention Lewis, goes a long way to convince me that our plumber did miss out on the days.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Jon,
The base work is not that Hutchinson was accepted as telling the truth.Only one lasting reference to his truthfulness,and that in an opinion expressed by Aberline.Not surprising,given that there was no eyewitness,except Lewis.

Harry.
You must appreciate that the police were in possession of considerably more details surrounding this case than have survived for us to mull over. Abberline himself spent hours with Hutchinson, and had untold pages of witness statements to use that could either contest Hutchinson's claims, or confirm them. Considerably more than was used at the Inquest.
Given our sorely depleted samples of 'evidence', we are in no way equipped to contest the findings of Abberline. Therefore, his conclusions are paramount in our considerations of Hutchinson veracity.

Which means, the base line rests at Hutchinson being determined as truthful.

Any modern analysis of this case must start with the handicap of having to raise the possibility of him lying and provide reasonable proof that this could be the case, if not in whole, then at least in part.
The 'defence' (those who accept Abberline's conclusion), do not need to provide proof of honesty, that was already done by Abberline. And today we do not have anything close to the number of sources available to him.

An alternate scenario, where honesty must be proven, would be the witness Packer. This is the opposite scenario, and the one your objections are compatible with.
Packer was dismissed as an honest witness, so the base line position is that he was unreliable.
Therefore, any modern attempt to restore his honesty must provide proof, it is not necessary for anyone to provide proof of unreliability, that was already determined by Swanson.

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson also says that he followed them to the corner of Dorset Street, and he wasn't stationed at the entrance to Miller's Court all the time.

Not 'all' the time, but for the majority of the time.

By his own words, if Kelly & Co. were stood at the entrance to Millers Court "for about three minutes", then likewise Hutchinson must have stood in observation for approximately the same time from his first vantage point on the corner of Dorset St. (at Commercial St.).
Later, Hutchinson said he "went up the court" and stayed there for "a couple of minutes".
So, for the bulk of his time, an estimated 3/4 of an hour, he stood at the entrance to Millers Court. How precise that was is debatable.

What I wrote doesn't contradict Lewis's statement at all. In fact, it fits perfectly. As she entered Miller's Court she saw, standing opposite the entrance of the Court at Crossingham's Lodging House, a stout man in a wideawake. She doesn't remotely say that she brushed past a man standing at the very entrance of Miller's Court. Had she done so, she'd have said so, without question.

I didn't mean you were contradicting Lewis, we must have got our wires crossed there. I was posing a general question due to the lack of any statement as to her walking down Dorset St.

I do not doubt for a moment that Lewis first saw Hutchinson on the opposite side of the street. Although Hutchinson does not say this, I find it quite reasonable that if you are following someone the natural inclination is to stay at a suitable and presumably innocent distance, the other side of the street is quite natural, especially such a narrow street as this was.

What I am leaning towards is not a confusion of press statements placing the loiterer at different locations, but that different reporters by pure coincidence described alternate locations where he stood within the total of 50 minute long time span.

Sarah Lewis is not telling a continuous narrative.
If you read over her Inquest testimony, after her introductory paragraph, she then only responds to specific questions.
The result being, her story may not provide all the details of what she was doing that night, just like she did not provide any information of her walk down Dorset St.
Did she step into McCarthy's shop for a moment?
This would provide a break in the narrative, allowing for Hutchinson to move from Crossinghams over the the passage.

Lewis first related seeing the loiterer outside Crossinghams, then offered the fact she saw him at the entrance to Millers Court.
Later, and perhaps through the Keyler's downstairs window, she observed a man stood at the door of the deceased.

The official record & the Daily Telegraph mentioned the sighting outside Crossingham's, the Echo & St. James Gazette only mentioned him standing outside Millers Court. Finally, the Daily News noted that Lewis saw him outside Kelly's door.
All of them being correct, because he did stand at each location. The confusion exists due to all the published accounts being too selective.

I admit I am trying to create a compromise in suggesting this, though with good reason, due to the fact Hutchinson did claim to stand in two of these locations, and words attributed to Sarah Lewis place him in all three locations.
If we accept that Lewis is being truthful then a compromise must be found.
I think the solution is that Lewis was not providing a continuous narrative by explaining where she was each time she observed the loiterer.