The Red Handkerchief...

[Wickerman]

The parallels between that Star report of the 10th November and the Hutchinson story of the 12th are beyond coincidence, in my view.

So this man described by Ronay :
"...a man wearing a tall hat and a black coat, and carrying a black bag,"

And this man described by Kennedy:
"...man about 40 years of age. He was about 6ft. high, and wore a short jacket, over which he had a long top-coat. He had a black moustache, and wore a billycock hat."

Are so similar as to be 'beyond coincidence', with the hi-lited details below?:
"Description age about 34 or 35. height 5ft6 complexion pale, dark eyes and eye lashes slight moustache, curled up each end, and hair dark, very surley looking dress long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed astracan. And a dark jacket under. Light waistcoat dark trousers dark felt hat turned down in the middle. Button boots and gaiters with white buttons. Wore a very thick gold chain white linen collar. Black tie with horse shoe pin."

And no black bag, but:
"He also had a kind of a small parcel in his left hand with a kind of strap round it."

I'll grant you that "a moustache" and "a long coat" are the same, but how are those details so singular from any other mature male in Whitechapel, and why would any liar need to use a description found in the papers anyway?
Couldn't he think up one for himself, has he not seen how respectable men dress?

Gareth, are you able to 'respectably dress' an invented man without consulting the papers?

Which then begs the question, that as the Ronay/Kennedy suspect has already been described, wouldn't it make more sense, and be more believable to the police, to invent a man using the EXACT SAME details already published in the press?

Are you sure this constitutes "beyond coincidence"?

[Sam Flynn]

And no black bag, but:
"He also had a kind of a small parcel in his left hand with a kind of strap round it."

Nothing in Hutchinson's description of the bag contradicts what was written in the Star of the 10th November. It could be that he was leaving the core of the story the same, whilst adding peripheral details of his own invention. Like the astrakhan trimmings to the top-coat, to take another example. Be that as it may, his use of "kind of" - twice in the same description - doesn't inspire much confidence.

[Sam Flynn]

So this man described by Ronay :
"...a man wearing a tall hat and a black coat, and carrying a black bag,"

And this man described by Kennedy:
"...man about 40 years of age. He was about 6ft. high, and wore a short jacket, over which he had a long top-coat. He had a black moustache, and wore a billycock hat."

Are so similar as to be 'beyond coincidence'

Roll those descriptions into one, Jon - as they appeared within a few paras of one another on the 10th - and you'll be closer to where I'm coming from. Besides, there's all that palaver about Kelly asking an acquaintance (anonymous female or Hutchinson) for a sub, declaring her worries when no money is forthcoming, being accosted by a well-dressed man who offers her money/tells her she'll be alright ("for what I have told you"), who accompanies her back to Miller's Court. A well-dressed man, furthermore, who resists the efforts of "female acquaintance" and Hutchinson to take a good look at his pale face by lowering his hat.

It's the same story, surely.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

Sarah Lewis's exact inquest testimony is a moot point to George Hutchinson. Unless he had a ticket to go inside. He was up in Shoreditch surveilling Town Hall from outside, according to the suspectors. Just the sight of her (Sarah Lewis) there was all he needed. There wasn't time for her story to be set in type, him to buy a newspaper and read it and so forth. He knew he'd been seen at Dorset St and remembered the woman's appearance who saw him there. So he went to Shoreditch to find out if that woman would testify, and she did. Then he made his pre-emptive visit to police. In his mind.

Agreed.
So, him telling Abberline that he saw someone with Kelly in Dorset St., is unique.
Him telling Abberline that this man & Kelly walked up the passage together, is unique.
Him telling Abberline that he came to the court to see if he could either see or hear the couple, is unique.

No-one else knew these distinct details, only Hutchinson and Sarah Lewis.
So how these singular details could end up as part of the Inquest testimony offered by different members of the press leads to one singular conclusion.
They came from Sarah Lewis.

See how compared to all that, yes Sam's explanation is much simpler and easy to digest. That's what I mean by simplicity. By degrees. The suspect scenario being at the un-simple end of the scale. Which is all I'm trying to say here.

Roy

Indeed, I understand what you are pointing out. But by the same degree's, how does the suggestion that those singular details must have come from Sarah Lewis measure up?
I hardly see it as more complex than either of the two you have measured.

[Sam Flynn]

Agreed.
So, him telling Abberline that he saw someone with Kelly in Dorset St., is unique.
Him telling Abberline that this man & Kelly walked up the passage together, is unique.
Him telling Abberline that he came to the court to see if he could either see or hear the couple, is unique.

No-one else knew these distinct details

But there's nothing particularly special about them either, Jon, and they can easily be surmised. Point by point:

- As Kelly was escorted to her lodgings by a man (as reported in the press), it follows that both of them must have been in Dorset Street at some point. So, if Hutchinson "saw" them in Dorset Street, it should come as no surprise.

- In order to get from Dorset Street to Room #13, Kelly and her client probably walked up the passage together.

- Only Hutchinson says he entered the Court. Lewis doesn't say that wideawake man did.

[Wickerman]

But there's nothing particularly special about them either, Jon, and they can easily be surmised. Point by point:

- As Kelly was escorted to her lodgings by a man (as reported in the press), it follows that both of them must have been in Dorset Street at some point

[I'm assuming you mean 'surmise' by the reporters?]

If I recall, prior to the Inquest Kelly was last seen on the street by Mary Cox at about 11:45.
Opinions expressed after the murder was that she never left her room and therefore she was killed in her sleep.

It is believed to be the medical opinion that the woman was killed in her sleep, or while in a partially comatose condition arising from drink.
Echo, 10 Nov.

So no reporters were aware that Mary ever left her room after the encounter with Blotchy.

- In order to get from Dorset Street to Room #13, Kelly and her client probably walked up the passage together.

Which is negated by the above, no-one came forward who saw her outside after midnight.

- Only Hutchinson says he entered the Court. Lewis doesn't say that wideawake man did.

"In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing."
Sarah Lewis. (Daily News)


Sarah Lewis never suggested that she saw Mary Kelly (she didn't know her), so there are no grounds for the reporters, collectively, to assume this couple on Dorset St. was Mary with a man. Which is the most likely reason this aspect of her testimony was not pursued.
That realization only surfaced once Hutchinson's story came to light the following day.
So, sorry Gareth but surmise does not enter into it at this point, no-one knew who the couple was.

[Fisherman]

"In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing."
Sarah Lewis. (Daily News)

Jon!

I think we must accept that the Daily News quotation is misleading. It makes it sound as if the loiterer was possibly standing outside Kellys door.

He was not - he was out on Dorset Street, standing outside the lodginghouse opposite the entrance to Millers´Court.

Let´s take a look at the other sources, commenting on this matter:

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

The Telegraph fixes the time at which Lewis saw the loiterer to the moment when she went into the court. They write that the loiterer was "opposite the lodginghouse", which makes little sense - if he was, he would have been standing at the Miller´s Court entrance, and Lewis would have had no reason to speak of the lodginghouse at all - she would simply have said that the man was standing at the entrance to Miller´s Court.
The suggestion is that Lewis actually said that on entering the court, she saw a man on the opposite side of Dorset Street, by the lodginghouse.
Let´s move on and see if anything corroborates this!

When she went into the court she saw a man standing outside the lodging-house door.
East London Advertiser

Aha! So the loiterer was standing not at the Miller´s Court entrance, but instread by the lodginghouse door. And that was opposite the entrance to the court!
Let´s move on!

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

Hello!? What´s this? Now the loiterer is suddenly standing at the entrance to the court?
No, he is not. Let´s observe that Lewis is not quoted as having said that the man was standing there. The word standing is not even used. What is said here is what has often led people to misunderstand the whole thing. This quotation tells us not that the man was at the entrance to the court - we have already placed him outside the lodginghouse on the oppsite side of the street - but instead that Lewis saw the man AS SHE REACHED THE ENTRANCE TO MILLER´COURT! Apparently, that was what she told the inquest, and we will have this confirmed by reading the rest of the material.
This qoutation also mirrors the misunderstading in the Daily News, but more on that later!

In Dorset-street I saw a man with a wideawake on stopping on the opposite side of the pavement.*
Morning Advertiser

So there we are; here all the elements are made clear. To begin with, Lewis is telling us that the man she saw was in Dorset Street and not inside the court. To move on, she tells us - once again - that the exact moment she caught eye of him was as she reached the entrance to Miller´s Court, which was opposite the lodginghouse. She now also adds that she made a short stop at that entrance, when noticing the man outside the lodginghouse. She makes it clear that the two, Lewis herself and the loiterer, both were in Dorset Street, but on opposite sides of it.
This is the best coverage we are going to get of what happened. The rest of the material is more sketchy.

Sarah Lewis, a laundress, of 24, Great Pearl-street, Spitalfields, said she went to the house of Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, on Friday morning about 2:30, and saw a man standing at the lodging-house door by himself.
Times

Here we have less detail, but we are informed that the loiterer was outside the lodginghouse.

Let´s sign off by looking at the source you chose, and we´ll see if it can be read or understood in more than one way, in light of the other quotations I´ve offered!

*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.
Daily News

"In the doorway of the deceased´s house ..."

There are three doorways to choose from here - and one of them is not really a doorway at all.
There is the doorway leading into Kellys room.
There is the doorway leading up to Praters lodgings and a few more rooms.
There is the doorway without a door - the passageway into Miller´s Court.

The other quotations make it clear that we are dealing with the latter suggestion, although it could be said that the loiterer outside Crossinghams lodginghouse could probably have been seen from both the other doorways too.
However, why would Lewis place herself in them? She would not, simple as that.

Now, your qoutation goes on to say " ... I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing."

This gives the impression that the loiterer was standing in one of the doorways in the house in which Kelly lived. It does not say "In the doorway to Kellys room", but instead "In the doorway of the deceased´s house". Since Kellys room was not a house, we may discard the suggestion that the loiterer was standing at her own private door - what the quotation tells us is that he was standing in the doorway leading into the house - the Miller´s Court passageway.

But we know that he was not standing there - he was standing outside the lodginghouse opposite the Miler´s Court entrance.

So what has happened here?

Well, it´s the same mistake as I mentioned earlier, and that was more or less shared by The Echo - Lewis spoke about seeing the man at the exact moment she turned into the passageway, and the Daily News misses out on a vital part of the matter. They should have clarified themselves by adding WHERE Lewis saw the man. Instead they only fix half of the matter: Lewis saw a man standing, and she did so as she entered the doorway leading into Miller´s Court.

It is easy to see which paper muddled the matter worst - the Daily News - and it is equally easy to sort out what happened just the same, mainly since the Morning Advertiser (always a good source!) got all the details right.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

[I'm assuming you mean 'surmise' by the reporters?]

I meant surmised by anybody, then or now. Kelly and escort meet, go back to number 13; ergo, it is a safe bet to say that they were together on Dorset St at some point, and that they went down the passage into Miller's Court. Hardly earth-shattering.

And, I'm sorry, but Sarah Lewis does not say that there was a man stationed at the very entrance to Miller's Court as she entered it. She "saw" a man in Dorset Street standing outside the lodging house - opposite, by two reliable accounts. She never so much as hinted that she passed, still less brushed past, a man standing at that (very narrow) archway.

As I alluded to previously, "As she was at the entrance to Miller's Court she saw a man opposite", is cognate with "At the entrance to Miller's Court she saw a man", and even "She saw a man at the entrance to Miller's Court". All these statements would be true, but notice how losing the word "opposite" makes it unclear as to who was actually at the entrance of Miller's Court. Now, the word "opposite" appears in Lewis's official statement and in the Daily Telegraph, but is missing from most newspaper reports. A critical, and highly misleading, omission.

[Wickerman]

Jon!

I think we must accept that the Daily News quotation is misleading. It makes it sound as if the loiterer was possibly standing outside Kellys door.

He was not - he was out on Dorset Street, standing outside the lodginghouse opposite the entrance to Millers´Court.

And, I'm sorry, but Sarah Lewis does not say that there was a man stationed at the very entrance to Miller's Court as she entered it.

I do appreciate your collective efforts Christer, Gareth, though I can't imagine Hutchinson attempting to "see" or "hear" anything coming from Kelly's room, if he stood no nearer than Crossingham's, on the other side of Dorset St.

I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not.
Geo. Hutchinson, 12th Nov.

"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."
"When I left the corner of Miller's-court the clock struck three o'clock."
Geo. Hutchinson, 14th Nov.

Doesn't that admission settle the issue?

[Fisherman]

I do appreciate your collective efforts Christer, Gareth, though I can't imagine Hutchinson attempting to "see" or "hear" anything coming from Kelly's room, if he stood no nearer than Crossingham's, on the other side of Dorset St.

I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not.
Geo. Hutchinson, 12th Nov.

"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."
"When I left the corner of Miller's-court the clock struck three o'clock."
Geo. Hutchinson, 14th Nov.

Doesn't that admission settle the issue?

By his own admission, Hutchinson did venture into the court at one stage, yes. I am not contesting that, since that would be contesting the evidence. Not that everybody minds doing that ...

However, when Lewis saw the loiterer - not Hutchinson, but the loiterer - this man was out in Dorset Street, standing outside Crossinghams lodginghouse, on the opposite side of the street from the Miller´s Court entrance.

All the best, Jon!
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

By his own admission, Hutchinson did venture into the court at one stage, yes. I am not contesting that, since that would be contesting the evidence. Not that everybody minds doing that ...

However, when Lewis saw the loiterer - not Hutchinson, but the loiterer - this man was out in Dorset Street, standing outside Crossinghams lodginghouse, on the opposite side of the street from the Miller´s Court entrance.

All the best, Jon!
Fisherman

Hi Christer.
Yes I understand you make a distinction between Hutchinson being in Dorset st. & the Loiterer being in Dorset St., that they were not the same man.

As Sarah Lewis claims to see a man watching a couple pass up the court about 2:30, where the female was 'the worse for drink', and hatless, then Hutchinson claims to watch a couple pass up the court about 2:30 where the female was 'tipsy' and hatless (Cox), we cannot reject the possibility that the same event is being described by both parties.

Isn't it more likely that these two extremely similar events occurring at the same time of night, involving the same number of people, actually happened on the same night?
Rather than introducing an added complication that two extremely similar events occurred at the same time of night, involving the same number of people, happened on two consecutive nights?

Getting some to admit that it happened once is a chore in itself, but you want to propose that it happened twice!

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

Hi Christer.
Yes I understand you make a distinction between Hutchinson being in Dorset st. & the Loiterer being in Dorset St., that they were not the same man.

That was not the issue at hand, of course, but yes, you are quite correct!

As Sarah Lewis claims to see a man watching a couple pass up the court about 2:30, where the female was 'the worse for drink', and hatless, then Hutchinson claims to watch a couple pass up the court about 2:30 where the female was 'tipsy' and hatless (Cox), we cannot reject the possibility that the same event is being described by both parties.

Cox? You mean Kelly, yes?
There would have been a twentyfive minute difference inbetween the occurences of these couples. Hutchinson got on the scene at 2 AM, and his couple would have arrived at the Miller´s Court entrance few minutes thereafter.
Lewis´couple, on the other hand, were there at 2.30!

They were not one and the same couple, Jon.

Nor did they "pass up the court", other than in the Daily News - and as we´ve already discovered, they were at fault when reporting from the Kelly inquest. Other papers mention the Lewis couple as passing in Dorset Street, and one paper - the Telegraph? - clearly adds that the court was empty, as per Lewis. You don´t first say that a couple was passing up the court as you arrived there, only to then claim that the very same court was empty and quiet. It makes absolutely no sense.

Isn't it more likely that these two extremely similar events occurring at the same time of night, involving the same number of people, actually happened on the same night?

Just how odd is a couple that have had a little something to drink in the early morning hours, Jon? How many of the East End prostitutes would have been tipsy? Were punters uncommon? The "extreme similarity" you speak of is an extreme similarity that goes to describe scores of couples, I´m afraid.

Rather than introducing an added complication that two extremely similar events occurred at the same time of night, involving the same number of people, happened on two consecutive nights?

There´s that "extremely similar" thing again - are you saying that if a slightly tipsy prostitute walks down a prostitution street with a punter on one night, then that will not stand a chance of happening again the next night?
Plus, of course, the timings are way, way out.

If you are looking for real complications, try this one: Why did Hutchinson ommitt to mention Lewis, who he MUST have seen if he was the loiterer? How odd is that...?

Getting some to admit that it happened once is a chore in itself, but you want to propose that it happened twice!

I would propose that if no couple made up of a prostitute and a punter walked down Dorset Street on any given night, I´d be surprised.

Of course, Jon, the element you wish to add is the passing up Miller´s Court as per the Daily News - but I don´t buy into their description of the events, as it is, time and again, at odds with the rest of the papers. And once that is realized, we are left with two couples that were not the same.

One of the descriptions given, and ascribed to Lewis, was that "another young man with a woman passed" out in Dorset Street. Would Lewis describe Astrakhan man as "another young man"? Wasn´t Lewis rather a young woman herself? And she described the man she had felt threatened by in Bethnal Green Road as "around 40". Hutchinson had his man down as around 35.

Lewis saw no couple pass up the court, as far as I´m concerned. And when she came to the court, Astrakhan man and Kelly had gone into that same court twentyfive minutes earlier. If they had come along at 2.30, why would Hutchinson not say that they did so two thirds into his vigil...?

It pans out on no level at all, Jon, and it craves the support of the Daily News - who in it´s turn has no or very little support from all the other papers and the official files.

There was a loiterer standing in Dorset Street, outside Crossinghams, if Lewis was not lying - which I think she may well have been.
Hutchinson himself stood on the other side of the street, as per his own admission. And no Lewis passed down Dorset Street as he stood there.

After that, it´s all about adding two and two together, and soaking up what Dew said, and the whole affair suddenly becomes quite easy to grasp.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

As Sarah Lewis claims to see a man watching a couple pass up the court about 2:30, where the female was 'the worse for drink', and hatless, then Hutchinson claims to watch a couple pass up the court about 2:30 where the female was 'tipsy' and hatless (Cox), we cannot reject the possibility that the same event is being described by both parties.

Cox? You mean Kelly, yes?

No, I mean a detail provided by Cox that night. When she saw Kelly at 11:45 Kelly was hatless.

There would have been a twentyfive minute difference inbetween the occurences of these couples.

Christer, it is Sarah Lewis who is the vague witness here. In her police statement she says she was there "between 2:00 and 3:00 o'clock"
Then, at the Inquest she says she was at the Keylers at 2:30.

All we can deduce from that is that she arrived sometime before 2:30.

Hutchinson got on the scene at 2 AM, and his couple would have arrived at the Miller´s Court entrance few minutes thereafter.

So this event occurred after 2:00am (Hutchinson) but before 2:30am (Lewis), that is clear enough.

Nor did they "pass up the court", other than in the Daily News - and as we´ve already discovered, they were at fault when reporting from the Kelly inquest.

Considering all the papers made errors in one way or another, the Daily News actually provided more correct details than their contemporaries.

Other papers mention the Lewis couple as passing in Dorset Street, and one paper - the Telegraph? - clearly adds that the court was empty, as per Lewis.

When Kelly & Astrachan went indoors, was the court empty.
Yes, No?

The Times also add, that Lewis said she, "did not hear any noise as she went down the court".
Likewise, the Morning Advertiser wrote that Lewis said: "The court was quiet".

There is no point in Lewis being asked about noise from the court if the couple she saw were only in Dorset St.
The assumption being that this couple had entered the court for a bit of hanky-panky, in a quiet dark spot.
As the couple had apparently gone indoors, then it is true that, "there was no one in the court".
That reply is consistent, not contentious. It's what we should expect.

...The "extreme similarity" you speak of is an extreme similarity that goes to describe scores of couples, I´m afraid.

It is unique because we are told there was no one else in Dorset St. One couple, a loiterer & Lewis, thats it.

If you are looking for real complications, try this one: Why did Hutchinson ommitt to mention Lewis, who he MUST have seen if he was the loiterer? How odd is that...?

It isn't odd at all, his statement at Commercial St. is a brief summary, not a step-by-step detailed account. That is what Abberline will later extract from him.
Are we to suppose that the Sunday Market was empty when he went there, just because he doesn't mention anyone else?

Of course, Jon, the element you wish to add is the passing up Miller´s Court as per the Daily News - but I don´t buy into their description of the events, as it is, time and again, at odds with the rest of the papers.

Because Christer, the litmus test as to the accuracy is demonstrated when we compare the Daily News account with Hutchinson's own words, and as we can see, they are a match.
Nothing recorded in the other press accounts contest the Daily News version. In fact none of the other papers place this couple IN Dorset St. They only mention the presence of a couple.
The Daily Telegraph agree the woman was "in drink", and Mary Cox verifies that Kelly wore no hat.

One of the descriptions given, and ascribed to Lewis, was that "another young man with a woman passed" out in Dorset Street.

Would you mind identifying which paper mentioned Dorset St.?

Would Lewis describe Astrakhan man as "another young man"?

Yes she would, 19th century etiquette requires a servant or lesser mortal will be polite when talking about a person from a better class. "Young" does not mean in reference to herself.

[Sam Flynn]

I do appreciate your collective efforts Christer, Gareth, though I can't imagine Hutchinson attempting to "see" or "hear" anything coming from Kelly's room, if he stood no nearer than Crossingham's, on the other side of Dorset St.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that Hutchinson remained stationed outside Crosssingham's forever, Jon, only that he was outside Crossingham's at the time Sarah Lewis entered into Miller's Court. If it was him, of course.

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

No, I mean a detail provided by Cox that night. When she saw Kelly at 11:45 Kelly was hatless.

Ah - I´m with you now!

Christer, it is Sarah Lewis who is the vague witness here. In her police statement she says she was there "between 2:00 and 3:00 o'clock"
Then, at the Inquest she says she was at the Keylers at 2:30.

All we can deduce from that is that she arrived sometime before 2:30.

She said that she knew the exact time after having looked at the Spitalfields Church clock - it was 2.30. That is anything but vague.

So this event occurred after 2:00am (Hutchinson) but before 2:30am (Lewis), that is clear enough.

It was not one event, Jon - it was two. One at approximately 2.05, one at 2.30.

Considering all the papers made errors in one way or another, the Daily News actually provided more correct details than their contemporaries.

Not on the Kelly errand, they did not. They differed seriously on important matters, and personally, I have little doubt that they failed.

When Kelly & Astrachan went indoors, was the court empty.
Yes, No?

Yes, it´s either of those answers.

The Times also add, that Lewis said she, "did not hear any noise as she went down the court".
Likewise, the Morning Advertiser wrote that Lewis said: "The court was quiet".

There is no point in Lewis being asked about noise from the court if the couple she saw were only in Dorset St.
The assumption being that this couple had entered the court for a bit of hanky-panky, in a quiet dark spot.
As the couple had apparently gone indoors, then it is true that, "there was no one in the court".
That reply is consistent, not contentious. It's what we should expect.

No, it is not. Not to my mind, at least. Lewis says she saw the loiterer as she turned into the court, and then she adds that another couple went into the court too. That places it all at the same approximate time. After that, one does not proceed to state that the court was empty and quiet. And - of course - not a single paper corroborates the rather frivolous suggestion made by ... wait for it ... the Daily News!

It is unique because we are told there was no one else in Dorset St. One couple, a loiterer & Lewis, thats it.

Unique to the moment. Of course. Everything always is. But not strange or unique to the setting, the occupation of prostitution, the night time etcetera.

It isn't odd at all, his statement at Commercial St. is a brief summary, not a step-by-step detailed account. That is what Abberline will later extract from him.
Are we to suppose that the Sunday Market was empty when he went there, just because he doesn't mention anyone else?

Do you consider that a fair comparison? And in Dorset Street he DID mention somebody else - and he is very specific about seeing nobody else than the people he mentioned:
"One policeman went by the Commercial street end of Dorset street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset street. I saw one man go into a lodging house in Dorset street, but no one else."
Even if it is to be regarded as a brief summary, Jon, brief summaries normally cover the important parts and discard the rest. A woman entering the court would have been far more important that a PC passing in the distance, methinks.

Because Christer, the litmus test as to the accuracy is demonstrated when we compare the Daily News account with Hutchinson's own words, and as we can see, they are a match.
Nothing recorded in the other press accounts contest the Daily News version. In fact none of the other papers place this couple IN Dorset St. They only mention the presence of a couple.

How about: "... I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging house ... I did not notice his clothes - another young man with a woman passed along ..."

Passed along what, Jon?

Would you mind identifying which paper mentioned Dorset St.?

It´s from the inquest report as stated in the Jack the Ripper Companion (Evans & Skinner).

Yes she would, 19th century etiquette requires a servant or lesser mortal will be polite when talking about a person from a better class. "Young" does not mean in reference to herself.

??? How is it "polite" to call somebody older than yourself young? I am not saying that you are wrong - I am saying that I am surprised.

The best,
Fisherman