Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson?

[Batman]

The distance between the corner of court entrance and someone standing IN the street BY the lodging house (she doesn't say he was leaning up against it, or on the footpath, but IN the street), is a few steps away.

To claim coincidence isn't a satisfactory explanation.

Two different men looking up Miller's court at the same time isn't going to sit well.

If Hutchinson is lying, then this corroboration has to be explained.

[Sam Flynn]

No, she did not. If she did see somebody outside Millers Court, then that somebody was standing on a spot where Hutchinson did NOT say he was.

To be specific, at no point did Hutchinson say that he stationed himself outside the (Crossingham's) lodging house opposite Miller's Court, which is where Lewis saw her man.

[Fisherman]

To be specific, at no point did Hutchinson say that he stationed himself outside the (Crossingham's) lodging house opposite Miller's Court, which is where Lewis saw her man.

Exactly so. Whereas he DID say that he stationed himself at "the corner of the court" and he DID say that he left the scene from that precise vantage point. Taken together with his failure to mention seeing Lewis, the evidence is pretty onesided - if Lewis did see a man outside Crossingham´s, then that man was in all probability not Hutchinson.

[Fisherman]

The distance between the corner of court entrance and someone standing IN the street BY the lodging house (she doesn't say he was leaning up against it, or on the footpath, but IN the street), is a few steps away.

To claim coincidence isn't a satisfactory explanation.

Two different men looking up Miller's court at the same time isn't going to sit well.

If Hutchinson is lying, then this corroboration has to be explained.

Let´s begin by correcting you on where Lewis said her man was. In the witness statements taken by the police before the inquest, Lewis said that her man was "standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset Street".

He was of course out in the street, as he was outside the house, but he WAS right up against that house, contrary to your claims, and not in the middle of the street!

I am not claiming coincidence at all, by the way. There is no coincidence unless we think it is a coincidence that there were people out in Dorset Street two nights in a row. As such, I would say that there will have been people out in Dorset Street EVERY night, and that would not point to any coincidence at all.

The men were not looking up Miller´s court at the same time, they were doing so on subsequent nights. And there is no reason to think they did so in the exact same seconds of those nights. Plus Lewis´ testimony is VERY vague, and so she would perhaps not have been able to see where the man gazed, but instead only where he was faced.

And Hutchinson was not lying, according to Dew - who would be a lot better suited than you and me to judge his character. Insted, he was honestly mistaken.

But I do not want this debate to spiral away from the simple matter that caused me to react initially - you said that Hutchinson placed himself at the spot where Lewis saw her man.

Once again, he didn´t do that at all. He put himself on the other side of the street.

[Batman]

At no point does he say he stood at the corner of Miller's court. He claimed to have seen MJK and a man standing there for three minutes.

They both went up the court together. I went to the court to see if I could see them, but I 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.” - Hutchinson.

That's a very general area he is describing. The fact is that outside Miller's court is also the footpath and the street. The distance between the street and Miller's court is about four paces. Literally shuffling a few feet away.

I don't think Hutchinson a statue.

[Fisherman]

At no point does he say he stood at the corner of Miller's court. He claimed to have seen MJK and a man standing there for three minutes.



That's a very general area he is describing. The fact is that outside Miller's court is also the footpath and the street. The distance between the street and Miller's court is about four paces. Literally shuffling a few feet away.

I don't think Hutchinson a statue.

What is your problem, Batman? That you got it wrong - again? You know, I think you need to learn to live with that if you are going to try and stay out here; if you goof up, you will be taken to task for it.

Hutchinson says that he crossed Dorset street to the court side and followed the couple. He then says he looked up the court to see if he could see A man and Kelly. And we know which side he was on. And he also says that he "left the corner of the court" as he took off. At no point does he say that he was up against Crossinghams. At no point does he say that he was on that side of the street, he instead very clearly tells us that he was on the OTHER side.

And you also said that he was somewhere in the middle of the street, claiming that Lewis never, ever said that he was up against the lodging house. Which she demonstrably DID. "Against the lodging house" was the exact wording she used in the witness statement taken by the police.

And you say that you don´t think that Hutchinson was a statue! How useless is that? How does that move him over the street? What law of nature rules that we must visit both sides of a street when standing in it? Just how does that work? I have had that exact point made before by staunch believers in Hutchinson - it would be a trifle for him to cross the street. And yes, it would - but the whole point is that he never said he DID, did he? He instead laid down on which side of the street he walked up to the court and he said that he left from the corner of the court when he walked away. It is a bitter pill to swallow, I know, but how could you possibly avoid doing so? By making things up? Fine, that´s your choice.

And it´s fine to make blunders too. It´s okay to screw up now and then. But it is not okay not to accept that you are wrong when you have it proven and pointed out to you. It will inevitably make you look silly. Trying to ease the pressure off by saying that "the fact is that outside Miller's court is also the footpath and the street" is just dumb. Of course the footpath and the street were outside Millers Court, but so was the rest of the known universe. So making that kind of point is absolutely useless.

Why not take heed of what we actually KNOW instead?

[Sam Flynn]

And you also said that he was somewhere in the middle of the street, claiming that Lewis never, ever said that he was up against the lodging house. Which she demonstrably DID. "Against the lodging house" was the exact wording she used in the witness statement taken by the police.

Furthermore, "when I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset Street". Not standing in the street, but by the lodging house on the opposite side.

[Batman]

Fisherman, I have no problem admitting to making mistakes. Okay, so you win that in her original statement she said he was up against the lodging house and at the inquest, this became in the street. You can have that, no problem. I don't see why you are so excited into thinking this resolves anything.

Trying to argue that Hutchinson must be rooted at a spot outside Miller's court for 45 min, without stepping out on the street in Lewis ver 2, or going up against the lodging house, a few steps away, Lewis ver 1, is not something I can accept.

What's the distance between Lewis' man and where Hutchinson said he was?

You can give the answer in inches or feet or even meters, please.

That's the deviation in what you are arguing here. That length.

[Batman]

Furthermore, "when I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset Street". Not standing in the street, but by the lodging house on the opposite side.

She says in the street at the inquest. Her inquest account is more detailed.

[Fisherman]

She says in the street at the inquest. Her inquest account is more detailed.

Oh, please! How is it more detailed to say "in the street" than to say "against the lodging house"?

You don´t LIKE that she placed him there in her police account, but surely that is another matter altogether?

When we say that we go out into the street, we mean that we open our door and step out into the world oustide. For example into Dorset Street, which entailed all the area between the houses lining it, including the pavement and the area outside the door of Crossinghams.

What is wrong with you? Why can´t you simply accept what was said by Lewis and taken down by the police?

[Sam Flynn]

She says in the street at the inquest.

Could you point me at the appropriate source? (I don't doubt you, it'll just save time.) The Telegraph version has her say, "When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake" - NB: opposite again, and there's nothing about "in the street" here.

Her inquest account is more detailed.

At the risk of sounding tautological, her inquest statement was also taken at the inquest, and I'd say that "over against the lodging house on the opposite side" is in itself detailed and quite specific; more specific, in fact, than merely saying he was in the street.

[Fisherman]

Batman: Fisherman, I have no problem admitting to making mistakes. Okay, so you win that in her original statement she said he was up against the lodging house and at the inquest, this became in the street. You can have that, no problem. I don't see why you are so excited into thinking this resolves anything.

A: It is not something that you can decide that I "can have" or not - it is recorded fact whether you like it or not.
B: I am not in any way excited about it, but I am of the meaning that recorded facts should not be altered by us.

Trying to argue that Hutchinson must be rooted at a spot outside Miller's court for 45 min, without stepping out on the street in Lewis ver 2, or going up against the lodging house, a few steps away, Lewis ver 1, is not something I can accept.

Then you should be relieved to hear that I do not argue that he must have been at the same spot all the time. I am arguing that he never once says he was at the spot that YOU falsely put him on. He may have moved to the other side of the street, but if he did, he chose to clam up about it for whatever reason. Whereas he freely offered the information that he arrived om the court side of Dorset Street and left from the corner of the court.
That allows us to say that we know that he was at that corner, whereas we cannot allow ourselves to say that he was at any point on the other side of the street. It is that basic and simple. A works, B doesn´t.

What's the distance between Lewis' man and where Hutchinson said he was?

You can give the answer in inches or feet or even meters, please.

That's the deviation in what you are arguing here. That length.

Yes, it is. We are looking at a difference of around 20-25 feet. And whether it was 2 feet or 200 feet matters not. The same thing applies: he never said that he was there.
What you seemingly do is to argue "Please, if it was so small a distance, can´t we just forget about it and act as if we knew that Hutchinson was on the other side of the street?"

Maybe that is how you do your Ripperology, but it is not how I do mine.

He could have been there, but the evidence does not in any way support the suggestion. And him NOT having been there is in line with the suggestion that he missed out on the days and it explains why he did not see Lewis, so there is a very clear picture supporting another scenario than the traditionally accepted one. That´s just how it is, and we need to accept that. As I say, the old notion about Hutchinson being the lodger Lewis said she saw doesn´t have the support it used to have, and that´s as it should be.

[Batman]

Could you point me at the appropriate source? (I don't doubt you, it'll just save time.) The Telegraph version has her say, "When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake" - NB: opposite again, and there's nothing about "in the street" here.
At the risk of sounding tautological, her inquest statement was also taken at the inquest, and I'd say that "over against the lodging house on the opposite side" is in itself detailed and quite specific; more specific, in fact, than merely saying he was in the street.

https://wiki.casebook.org/index.php/Sarah_Lewis

[Batman]

If Fisherman wants to argue that the difference between Hutchinson's account of where he was and Lewis version of where her man was, is not the same, then Fisherman is correct, well done.

I have said it twice now. Well done. Hopefully, that is sufficient and won't require pages of essays to wade through of people reading Fisherman chastising me for it.

Now onto the real matter that is being avoided.

The variation between where Lewis saw her man and where Hutchinson claimed he was is but a few meters/feet away from each other.

https://i.imgur.com/wkOFcBq.png

Now the burden of proof is on Hutchinson detractors to explain how Lewis has seen a man in this extremely small area, the length and breadth of a room for two carts to pass by each other, where Hutchinson claimed to be... and that he was looking up the court. Which both Lewis and Hutchinson claim was going on.

[Harry D]

If Fisherman wants to argue that the difference between Hutchinson's account of where he was and Lewis version of where her man was, is not the same, then Fisherman is correct, well done.

I have said it twice now. Well done. Hopefully, that is sufficient and won't require pages of essays to wade through of people reading Fisherman chastising me for it.

You'll have noticed that Fisherman is at great pains to discredit any sighting of George Hutchinson that night. I wonder why...