The Red Handkerchief...

[Wickerman]

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.

You're killing me Sam!


Over on another thread you have just admitted what I have been at pains to try to point out in this case..

Halse may even have said both, one newsman choosing to report the quantitative value, the other the qualitative.

Which in essence is the same kind of selectivity I offered about what Lewis said:

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.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=291648&postcount=645

The Coroner, and also the press, were apparently far more concerned about her sighting of the man outside the Britannia, this was the main focus of attention in Lewis's testimony.
No-one knew who the 'couple' were, and at this point, no-one realized what role they played in the case, so precious little attention was paid to that part of the Inquiry.

[Wickerman]

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.

"I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning"

"On Friday morning witness was at No. 2 Room, Miller's-court, at half-past two o'clock."

"she was at No 2 Room, Miller's court, at half past two o'clock on Friday morning."

"I know Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, and saw her on Friday morning about 2;30 a.m."

"I visited a friend at Miller's court on Friday morning at half-past 2 o'clock."

In all cases Christer she says she was at the Keylers at 2:30, not that she arrived at 2:30. In all cases she says she knows the time because she looked up at the Spitalfields clock, but in no case does she say what that time was (2:25, 2:20?).
Presumably, due to the clock chiming on the half hour, she is able to say with confidence "I was at the Keylers at 2:30", which is what she says.
But when did she arrive?

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

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

You cannot judge accuracy by comparing one newspaper with another. They are all less than adequate, they all have their differences.
It's like measuring up for a new pair of shoes using all your old ones that don't fit right. Measure them up with your foot!

In this case, to judge for accuracy, we need to compare all those newspaper reports, not with each other, but with Hutchinson's account.
(for those who believe Hutchnson was the loiterer)

Compare each one with Hutchinson's account and see which provides the best match.

Even if it is to be regarded as a brief summary, Jon, brief summaries normally cover the important parts and discard the rest.

The witness never knows what is important, remember this was a voluntary statement not intended to provide an all inclusive account. Hutchinson may not have seen Lewis look his way, why would she be important?
It is Abberline who would extract all the pertinent info. in the subsequent interrogation.

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?

You can pass along a passage, just the same as a street, this is why that is ambiguous.

[harry]

Too much is made of the fact that Hutchinson did not mention Sarah Lewis arriving at the court.He did not need to.Lewis had already given that information herself.The police knew of it.While it may appear better if he had,and he may have done,the exclusion of it in the written statement,does not in the least signify anything of importance,and does not diminish the available evidence that both Hutchinson and Lewis were at or near the court entrance about 2.30AM that morning.

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

"I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning"

"On Friday morning witness was at No. 2 Room, Miller's-court, at half-past two o'clock."

"she was at No 2 Room, Miller's court, at half past two o'clock on Friday morning."

"I know Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, and saw her on Friday morning about 2;30 a.m."

"I visited a friend at Miller's court on Friday morning at half-past 2 o'clock."

In all cases Christer she says she was at the Keylers at 2:30, not that she arrived at 2:30. In all cases she says she knows the time because she looked up at the Spitalfields clock, but in no case does she say what that time was (2:25, 2:20?).
Presumably, due to the clock chiming on the half hour, she is able to say with confidence "I was at the Keylers at 2:30", which is what she says.
But when did she arrive?

Hang on, Jon - are you saying that Lewis could have arrived at, say, 2.00, and then she told the inquest that she was inside with the Keylers at 2.30, and this she knew since she heard the bell strike at that stage?

I donīt think that would make much sense. Letīs realize that Lewis tells this BEFORE she speaks of the loiterer. Why would she first fix a later point in time by speaking of having heard the bell strike 2.30, only to then move on to tell the inquest that she had seen a loiterer in the street as she passed into the court?

No. It does not work.

Hereīs the whole passage from the JtR Companion:

"I know Mrs Keyler in Millerīs Court. I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning she lives at No 2 in the court on the left on the first floor I know the time by having looked at Spitalfields Church clock as I passed it - When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House ..."

So, Jon - Lewis did not hear the clock - she looked at it as she passed it, and therefore she knew at what time she reached the Keylers. Spitalfields church was around 200 yards from the entrance to Millerīs Court, so either the clock in the tower was 2.30 as Lewis passed by, or it was, say, five minutes to 2.30, and Lewis estimated from that.
The salient point is that she knew the time from having looked at the clock, and I think we may safely say that the clock would not have been 2.00 at that time, whereafter Lewis concluded that she would still have been at the Keylers half an hour later and felt a sudden urge to tell that to the inquest ....

The testimony strongly suggests that Sarah Lewis arrived at Millerīs Court at a time close to 2.30 AM.

You cannot judge accuracy by comparing one newspaper with another. They are all less than adequate, they all have their differences.
It's like measuring up for a new pair of shoes using all your old ones that don't fit right. Measure them up with your foot!

In this case, to judge for accuracy, we need to compare all those newspaper reports, not with each other, but with Hutchinson's account.
(for those who believe Hutchnson was the loiterer)

Compare each one with Hutchinson's account and see which provides the best match.

I CAN make a comparison inbetween the papers. It would be hard if they all differed wildly, but they donīt do so on the points we are discussing. No other paper than the Daily News has that couple passing up the court, so the Daily News is the odd one out. No other paper than the Daily News makes the mistake of placing the loiterer "in the doorway of the deceasedīs house", whereas the other papers make it abundanltly clear what kind of mistake the Daily News has made. Once again they are the odd one out.

Even if the Daily News - by chance - has a version that seemingly tallies better with Hutchinsons story, it still applies that the timings are hopelessly off. It takes far too much mending and fiddling to try and make ends meet, Jon. There is no prospect of the story panning out, none at all.

The witness never knows what is important, remember this was a voluntary statement not intended to provide an all inclusive account. Hutchinson may not have seen Lewis look his way, why would she be important?
It is Abberline who would extract all the pertinent info. in the subsequent interrogation.

That does not matter as long as Hutchinson was quite clear on who had seen, and as long as he added with great certainty that he saw nobody else. Your scenario predisposes that he actually forgot to mention Lewis - who walked up the court! Or that he purposefully avoided mentioning her (seen that proposition too, sadly...!)

You can pass along a passage, just the same as a street, this is why that is ambiguous.

I donīt find it ambiguous at all. They passed along Dorset Street as Lewis was standing at the entrance to Millerīs Court. Otherwise, they would have squeezed past her, and then the court would not have been empty, would it?

I have no trouble seeing how you piece things together. I just think it is all very strained, and in much conflict with the vast majority of the sources.
Itīs a good thing you explore this alley, but as it stands, you need a lot more before it becomes a credible scenario to my eyes and ears. And I donīt think you will find it, Iīm afraid.

All the best, Jon!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Too much is made of the fact that Hutchinson did not mention Sarah Lewis arriving at the court.He did not need to.Lewis had already given that information herself.The police knew of it.While it may appear better if he had,and he may have done,the exclusion of it in the written statement,does not in the least signify anything of importance,and does not diminish the available evidence that both Hutchinson and Lewis were at or near the court entrance about 2.30AM that morning.

Look Harry, Hutchinson actually pinpointed that he had seen a PC in the distance and a man entering a lodging house. And then he added that he had seen nobody else! So he effectively denied that anyboy else had been around.

Itīs not as if he did not elaborate on the point - he did. Meticulously.

Now, Harry - if he indeed HAD seen Lewis, and if he felt that he needed to mention only the PC and the lodging house man (out of a conviction that Abberline had perhaps not heard about these two characters from any other source) while it was a good idea to leave Lewis out (since he was so well informed about who had said what at the inquest that he simply concluded that Abberline would put two and two together and quickly realize that Hutch would have been Lewisī loiterer), then why did he not just keep his mouth shut about who he saw and who he did not see?

Why did he have to say that nobody but the PC and the loiterer passed down the street during his vigil? It was not true, was it?

In fact, Harry, it probably WAS true. Hutch probably was not in Dorset Street on the night in question. But that is another question.

I cannot help but to notice that you actually realize that Abberline and Hutch and anybody with a basic comprehension of the case would have had no problem matching Lewisī loiterer with Hutchinson. Others fervently deny that such a thing ever happened! How ībout that!!

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
You can cast around for anything you like,make any assumptions you wish,but you cannot change the fact that Lewis made a statement under oath,and Hutchinson gave a statement to police officers Aberline and Badham.Together it places both at that small area adjacent Millers Court,at about 2.30am and only them at that time ,and both state the date as the 9th .

[Fisherman]

harry:

Fisherman,
You can cast around for anything you like,make any assumptions you wish, ...

Yes, I can! But the fact of the matter is that YOU were the one making assumptions here, not I - you boldly assumed that Hutchinson left out mentioning Lewis since he would have assumed that Abberline already knew about her. How do you support such an assumption, Harry? And - once again - why would Hutchinson state firmly that nobody but the PC and the lodger was to be seen in Dorset Street during his vigil, if he had actually seen Lewis?

... but you cannot change the fact that Lewis made a statement under oath,and Hutchinson gave a statement to police officers Aberline and Badham.

I fail to see that I would have even tried such a thing. If you have a look, you will agree.

Together it places both at that small area adjacent Millers Court,at about 2.30am and only them at that time ,and both state the date as the 9th .

Yes. And if nobody had been mistaken on a date in the history of crime and inquests, we would have a watertight case.
What we instead have, is a case where Hutchinson ommitts to mention Lewis, and not only that - he flatly denies that she was there, even. This is the only possible interpretation of his words about nobody but the PC and the lodger being in Dorset Street during the time he himself was there.
Furthermore, we have a detective who suggests that Hutchinson was out on the dates.
And we have Hutch never saying a word about standing outside Crossinghams. Instead he places himself at the corner of the court.

All we have to accept if Hutch was not on the scene (and if Lewis was truthful, something we know nothing about) is that a man who was not Hutch was standing in the doorway of a lodging house. And the fact of the matter is that millions of men have stood outside lodginghouses throughout history. The Lewis - Hutchinson connection is a connection that was never there. Accordingly, not a soul back then found it worth the effort to speak of it. If it HAD been there, everybody involved would have spoken of it - just the way you hint at it in your former post.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

DID SARAH LEWIS LIE???

Only those in the know, know.

[Fisherman]

DID SARAH LEWIS LIE???

Only those in the know, know.

Exactly, Sally. That was why I said that we know nothing about it. The possibility belongs to the equation, however.

Polls or not.

Fisherman

[Sally]

Possibility means very little, and probability can hardly be determined in the circumstances.

Still, whatever works for you.

[Fisherman]

Possibility means very little, and probability can hardly be determined in the circumstances.

Still, whatever works for you.

What "works for me" has nothing to do with it.

There is a possibility that Sarah Lewis was not truthful - in her original statement, she says that she cannot remember anything about the appearance of the loiterer, but at the inquest she suddenly can, for example - and that belongs to the equation.

It really is no harder than that, Sally.

Fisherman

[Sally]

What "works for me" has nothing to do with it.

There is a possibility that Sarah Lewis was not truthful - in her original statement, she says that she cannot remember anything about the appearance of the loiterer, but at the inquest she suddenly can, for example - and that belongs to the equation.

It really is no harder than that, Sally.

Fisherman

Au Contraire, Fish. What works for you has everything to do with it. Whether you understand that or not is immaterial.

[Fisherman]

Au Contraire, Fish. What works for you has everything to do with it. Whether you understand that or not is immaterial.

So, Sally, are you saying that the possibility that Lewis was not truthful has nothing at all to do with the equation? And that "what works for me" is my only reason for claiming that it DOES belong to the equation?

What I think, what I argue, what I theorize will govern the areas in which I take more or less interest. But that has not a iot to do with the fact that we must take all possibilities into account when weighing an issue. These are separate matters.

It may sound complex but it really isnīt.

Fisherman

[Lechmere]

The fact remains that absolutely no one at the time made the connection between Hutchinson and the 'not tall but stout wide-awake hat wearing man'.
The police did not offer Lewis as corroboration of Hutchinson's story.
At that juncture in the case every detail was poured over and analysed by the press. They do not link the two together even though the connection was there to be made - if there was a connection.
The only people who link them are modern day 'Ripperologists'.
I would suggest the were not the same people.
I would suggest that it would not have been unusual for someone to be standing outside Crossingham's' for a few minutes. The most likely explanation is that Hutchinson did not see Lewis and she did not see him.
Whether this was because both were out with their times by a little, or even days, or because one or both were lying, or simply mistaken - who knows?

[The Good Michael]

If Lewis said, "Stout-looking" I'd suggest it meant 'determined'. Someone is stout or they're not, skinny or they're not, tall or they're not. No one would say 'stout-looking' just as nobody would say 'short-looking' to mean a certain size.

The farther we go back in English usage, the more common it is to use stout for character.

Cheers,

Mike