The Red Handkerchief...

[Wickerman]

... But he didn't just legitimise his presence as seen by Lewis - he provided a false lead in the form of an opulently dressed Jewish "suspect" whose appearance was the very antithesis of his own "labouring class" dress that had been on display at earlier crimes.

Though your suggested 'false lead' doesn't appear to be all that false when Sarah Lewis admitted to seeing the same couple walk up the passage while this loiterer was standing looking up this same passage.

"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."
Daily News, 13 Nov. 1888

Although this quote has always been the proverbial 'spanner in the works' for your theory, it does at least confirm a significant part of Hutchinson's claim.
Quite understandably you prefer to dismiss it for the same reason. Yet, all the contemporary press versions of her statement tell a remarkably consistent story.
If the Daily News version was in error we would expect something contradictory, as it happens the Daily News version merely provides more detail than the rest, which is to our benefit in piecing this sequence of events together.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Also, I'm a big fan of Canadian beer now. Tankhouse is something very special.

Though your suggested 'false lead' doesn't appear to be all that false when Sarah Lewis admitted to seeing the same couple walk up the passage while this loiterer was standing looking up this same passage.

Please, please not this again!

Surely we've sorted this one out by now? This article is 100% false. Not deliberately so, admittedly; it was a simple reporting error made by no other newspaper, but no less false for that. As such, it's essential that we recognise it for what it is, rather than claiming that every other press source and Lewis's statement must be wrong in order for the Daily News to be right.

Sarah Lewis did not see anyone enter Miller's Court (and yes, Miller's Court refers to any point in the Court from the Dorset Street arch entrance northwards, including the passage); that much is made abundantly clear by every other source that provides Lewis' testimony, with the sole and sorry exception of the Daily News.

Nobody "passed up the court", according to Lewis

Nobody entered the court, according to Lewis.

She saw a couple "pass along" Dorset Street, not along Miller's Court. Had there been the remotest whiff of a consideration that the female half of this couple was Kelly, Lewis would have been asked to attend the mortuary to attempt an identification. But that didn't happen, and no interest was shown in this couple, for understandable reasons.

Sorry, Jon, but I really thought we'd got to grips with this one by now.

And it cannot possibly be the "same couple" as Kelly and Astrakhan - that is, if you accept Hutchinson's account. By the time Hutchinson allegedly installed himself opposite the court, Kelly and Astrakhan were already inside, i.e. not "passing up the court" when wideawake/Hutchinson was already plonked on Dorset Street.

In other words, even if the Daily News wasn't provably wrong, which it indisputably is, there is no question of any corroboration for the existence of Astrakhan.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Also, I'm a big fan of Canadian beer now. Tankhouse is something very special.

Hi Ben.
Funny, I never warmed to Canadian beers. I still love a Guinness on special occasions, but when I go out I just order a draft of whatever they have on tap.
Never tried Tankhouse though.

Please, please not this again!

Surely we've sorted this one out by now? This article is 100% false.

Well, the thing is Ben, we can label an article any way we choose, but the measure of the worth of an article is to compare it with what we know from other articles, or police files.
All opinions aside, this article measures up well when compared to its contemporaries, and is not contradicted by anything we know, but is in fact confirmed by Hutchinson.

... Had there been the remotest whiff of a consideration that the female half of this couple was Kelly, Lewis would have been asked to attend the mortuary to attempt an identification.

It wouldn't have served any purpose as Lewis did not know Mary Kelly like Hutchinson, and her vantage point was likely from the rear, much like Lawende's view of Eddowes, and he was not called to identify her either.

Hutchinson does not make it clear on which side of the road (Dorset St.) he stood at any given time. He did claim to go up the court at one point so we know he was on the north side however briefly, but whether his vigil was spent entirely opposite the passage on the south side of the street, or briefly on both sides, is unknown to us today.

The important issue is that Sarah Lewis confirms the activities of this couple being watched by the loiterer (Hutchinson).

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Tankhouse is great. Strong and dark like a porter. And I like your "Beer Stores" that you have out there. For the fellow Brits among us, they're like Argos but for beer!

Well, the thing is Ben, we can label an article any way we choose, but the measure of the worth of an article is to compare it with what we know from other articles, or police files.

Yes indeed, which is why it's so essential to discard the Daily News report, who had so obviously made an error when reporting on Lewis' evidence. It is contradicted by all other press reports of Lewis' account, as well as her police statement. Everything "we know", basically. Sarah Lewis stated that there was nobody in the court (i.e. she saw nobody enter it), and that a young couple "passed along" Dorset Street. She also stated clearly that the couple in question were "further on" from where wideawake man stood, near Crossinghams in Dorset Street, establishing for certain that the couple in question were also in Dorset Street and not in Miller's Court.

We're in agreement that the widewake man was probably Hutchinson, but if you're looking to Lewis in the hope of uncovering any support for Hutchinson's other claims, like the existence of discredited Astrakhan man, it's essential that you pulp the Daily News first. They provided a provably faulty and false report of Lewis' evidence, which needs to be rejected.

The important issue is that Sarah Lewis confirms the activities of this couple being watched by the loiterer

No.

Emphatically no way.

If you want to endorse Hutchinson's account as accurate, you must pay attention to what he actually says, which was that he didn't move from his alleged spot at the corner of Commercial Street and Dorset Street until after Kelly and Astrakhan disappeared up the court. Utterly inconsistent with the irrefutably wrong Daily News report.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

For the fellow Brits among us, they're like Argos but for beer!

Hi Ben.
Ah, yes a department store for beer (for the Can/US drinker, a UK Argos is like a Walmart). So you don't have anything similar in the UK yet?
I read that my brothers-in-law in Wigan often talk about getting a few cans for the weekend, but I've never thought to ask 'from where'?, I just assumed it would be a beer store.

Yes indeed, which is why it's so essential to discard the Daily News report,...

The benefit of the Daily News version is that it provides more specific detail.

Not only that this couple can be placed actually walking up the passage, which is confirmed by Hutchinson, but that the loiterer also stood at Kelly's door. This is also another detail not mentioned in the other press versions, but, importantly, is also confirmed by Hutchinson.

Only Hutchinson & The Daily News are able to tell us these two consistent details. The other press versions do not go so far.

It simply makes no sense whatsoever to discard the only press version that actually agrees in detail with the story provided by Hutchinson.
And also, nothing in the D.N. version contradicts any of the other dozen or so press versions.

If you want to endorse Hutchinson's account as accurate, you must pay attention to what he actually says,...

Exactly Ben, so when we locate a press version that describes a man & woman passing up the court, the woman being drunk, and, that the loiterer actually came and stood by Kelly's room, then we must credit that press version with being both consistent and accurate.
Afterall, these two important details are only otherwise provided by Hutchinson.
Only the Daily News withstands the litmus test.

.....which was that he didn't move from his alleged spot at the corner of Commercial Street and Dorset Street until after Kelly and Astrakhan disappeared up the court. Utterly inconsistent with the irrefutably wrong Daily News report.

You may notice a discrepancy between the police version & the press version of Hutchinsons story.
Only in the press do we read that he stood at the corner of Dorset St., but not in the police version.

So here we get back to the sighting of the red handkerchief.

In the police version he made no mention of stopping at the corner of Dorset St., but he followed them...

"..They both went into Dorset Street I followed them. They both stood at the corner of the Court for about 3 minutes."

Later, he writes that he crossed Dorset St. to stand at the entrance to the court...

"...They both then went up the court together. 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."

So your earlier problem of questioning how come Hutchinson could see the colour of the handkerchief & hear the conversation is negated by ignoring the inaccurate press version and staying with what he told the police.
Standing opposite Millers Court on the south side of Dorset St. he would be well able to both see and hear what he described.

Follow the police version Ben, not the press version. When the couple went down Dorset St. Hutchinson followed them. When they went up the court, Hutchinson crossed over to the court and waited.
He makes no mention of standing and waiting on the corner of Dorset & Commercial St.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

So you don't have anything similar in the UK yet?

I wish!

No, it tends to be off-licenses and the booze section of supermarkets here, which is probably where your brothers-in-law get theirs. Off-licenses are full of bottles of wines, beers and spirits, that you pick up and bring to the counter yourself, unlike the beer store where you point at the descriptions on the wall and the staff retrieve it for you!

The benefit of the Daily News version is that it provides more specific detail.

The Daily News didn't provide "more specific" detail. They provided hopelessly false details that were contradicted by all other press sources and, more importantly, Lewis' actual police statement.

The location of the wideawake-wearing loitering man is simply not open to discussion because she provided it unambiguously, and with no room for doubt, in her signed police statement which read as follows:

"When I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset Street"

"Against the lodging house"

"On the opposite side in Dorset Street" i.e. the opposite side from where she was, which was the entrance to Miller's Court.

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Lewis saw her man standing against Crossingham's lodging house on the opposite side of Dorset Street to Miller's Court. She clearly meant "opposite side" in the sense that the vast majority of people understand the phrase, i.e. on the other/contrary side to where she was standing at the time of the sighting, i.e. as she was "came up the court".

It is an unarguable certainty, therefore, that "opposite" for Sarah Lewis did not mean "in front of" or "adjacent to".

So certain are we of the loiterer's location - thanks to her police statement - that the necessity to conduct any press report comparisons is completely nullified. The only positive and productive outcome of conducting such an exercise would be to establish which newspapers were talking utter nonsense. In other words, any newspaper which had the loitering man in an appreciably different location to that provided in her police statement. To the dustbin, then, must be consigned the silly press claim that the wideawake man was standing in the "doorway of the deceased's house". This is absolutely 100% an example of misreporting.

So is the Daily News' provably false claim that she saw a couple "pass up the court".

It doesn't matter if you think either of these claims would work well with Hutchinson's account (they don't, but that's another story). It's just tough, I'm afraid, since the claims are unquestionably in error, and thus lend no weight whatsoever to Hutchinson's discredited account. According to Lewis' genuine account, the only couple she saw remained firmly on Dorset Street, "further on" from where wideawake man stood, and certainly didn't enter the court. Indeed, she makes it very clear indeed that there was "nobody in the court", thus demolishing the Daily News' cloth-earned misinterpretation of the inquest evidence.

So your earlier problem of questioning how come Hutchinson could see the colour of the handkerchief & hear the conversation is negated by ignoring the inaccurate press version and staying with what he told the police.

But this press claim appeared in the vast majority of papers that gave Hutchinson's account, whereas the "the inaccurate press version" of Lewis' evidence that you inexplicably champion appeared in just one - the Daily silly News. Unless you accept the press version which has Hutchinson watching the couple from the corner of Dorset Street before they entered the Court, you're left with the faintly ludicrous scenario of Hutchinson sticking to the couple like a limpet all the way from Fashion Street to the Miller's Court entrance without either Astrakhan or Kelly battling an eyelid.

Follow the police version Ben, not the press version.

That's what you ought to be doing with regard to Lewis, as opposed to sticking with a single false press account that was proved utterly wrong by all other sources.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.
When I was over in the UK last my brother-in-law told me that if anyone parks crooked in a parking spot, maybe the car wheels are on or over the white dividing line between the cars, the offending car can be ticketed for sloppy parking.
Is this a national thing or I wonder if it was local to Wigan.
We desperately need to adopt that idea here, good grief, some will park their cars on the diagonal taking up two spaces just so no-one can park next to them.

The location of the wideawake-wearing loitering man is simply not open to discussion because she provided it unambiguously, and with no room for doubt, in her signed police statement which read as follows:

"When I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset Street"

"Against the lodging house"

"On the opposite side in Dorset Street" i.e. the opposite side from where she was, which was the entrance to Miller's Court.

I don't disagree Ben, initially this is where Hutchinson positioned himself while the couple were standing at the entrance to Millers Court, not 30? feet away across the narrow street.
So he was well able to discern colours and hear the womans voice if not the mans. But apparently he was only there about 3 minutes, then he crossed the street.
Hutchinson was not observing the red handkerchief from the corner of Dorset & Commercial St., but from his position opposite Millers Court.

Hutchinson tells us:
"...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."

So, as the couple walked up the passage, the loiterer - Hutchinson, crossed the street and, apparently followed them up the passage. This is confirmed in the press version where we read:

"...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."

Seeing & hearing nothing in the court, he then returned to the street and took up his vigil at the entrance to Millers court.

In the press we read:

"...After I left the court I walked about all night,..." and, "...When I left the corner of Miller's-court the clock struck three o'clock."

So first we have him on the south side for a brief spell, then he crossed to the north side, and followed the couple up the court, then returned to the entrance, and stood around till about 3:00.
Indisputably then, Hutchinson spent the majority of time on the north side of Dorset St. outside the entrance of the passage.

So when you ask...

So is the Daily News' provably false claim that she saw a couple "pass up the court".

You have just learned the answer to your own query.

So where did the couple go?
You correctly observe the couple were not up to any hanky-panky in the darkness of the court...

Indeed, she makes it very clear indeed that there was "nobody in the court"...

This is also confirmed by Hutchinson when he followed the couple up the court, he saw no-one in the court.
Lewis & Hutchinson confirm each other on several points.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I think its a fair possibility that our George was hanging around for the man to leave, not for any assault on the guy, but to call on Mary to seek refuge until his lodgings opened at 6,am
This may, or may not, have been known to Mary.
I have always found it strange that Kelly, with a room to sleep in, was actually walking the streets at 2,am, this surely would have placed herself in extreme danger, if not from the killer himself[ which she was well aware of],also from the dossers on the street well after the pubs closed.surely if she was after clients , to wait outside the public houses at a earlier time would have been more beneficial.
The whole episode , either did not happen , in which case it was fabricated by Hutchinson, for reasons known to himself. or the meeting with Mr A, was a planned encounter , and was acted out to whoever saw it , to give the impression that she had been accosted by a sinister stranger.
This would of course lead us to the possibility that the body on the bed was not that of Mary Kelly, and she had been accessory to a brutal murder,
The man Hutchinson describes is something straight out of 'The penny dreadful', and is surely unrealistic to suggest. that a woman who was well aware of the presence of the Ripper in the area,who the day previous had remarked to Mrs McCarthy''He is a concern isn't he''? would take such a man back to her room in the middle of the night..
It does not ring true..unless she knew the man, and planned the encounter..
Of course she may have been tricked into trusting , and paid the ultimate price.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Is this a national thing or I wonder if it was local to Wigan.

My dad was born there, so I'll have to ask him! Generally speaking, however, and judging from the parking "quality" I've witnessed, I think penalties for crooked kerb-clippers would be an excellent idea on both sides of the pond.

I don't disagree Ben, initially this is where Hutchinson positioned himself while the couple were standing at the entrance to Millers Court, not 30? feet away across the narrow street.

Nowhere near that.

More like 10 feet, rendering it unthinkable that Astrakhan and Kelly allowed Hutchinson to follow them all the way from the corner of Fashion Street to the Miller's Court entrance without noticing him and raising serious objections to his behaviour. In addition to which, there is nothing in the police statement to indicate he took a single step into Dorset Street until after the pair entered the court, whereas nearly every press version has him waiting at the corner of Dorset Street until after they disappeared, and only then entering the street itself and making for Miller's Court.

This is confirmed in the press version where we read...

Woah there, either you're listening to the main press versions of Hutchinson's statement or you're rejecting them. It's all a bit picky-choosy at the moment. The police statement mentioned nothing about him entering the court itself, and you'll note from the comments of various witnesses that there was a clear distinction between "to the court" and "up the court". The former was an encompassing term that could have referred to anywhere in front of the Miller's Court entrance on Dorset Street. The width of Dorset Street was so negligible than any distinction between the "northern" and "southern" sides is rendered meaningless. Hutchinson could hovered anywhere in the general area in front of Miller's Court, and it would still have qualified as "to the court".

If there's any truth at all to his claim that he entered the court itself and waited outside Kelly's room, the likelihood is that this was the last thing he did before allegedly departing the scene. Leaving the area from the corner of Miller's Court would make sense if he'd only just aborted his "couple of minutes" vigil outside her room.

The only location we can pinpoint him to, with a reasonable degree of certainly, is outside the lodging house, opposite the court, where Lewis saw the wideawake man (probably Hutchinson). This is consistent with Hutchinson's account, it establishes his probable whereabouts at that time, and is the only point of corroboration with Lewis' account.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
It surely would have been easy for the police to establish if Hutchinson was the man Lewis saw, all they had to do was to ask him 'what hat he was wearing that night'.
If he said ''A wide-awake'' then bingo, they knew that his whereabouts were likely to be accurate.
Its that simple, to determine that at least part of his statement was true.
As for the wrong day theory, as portrayed by Fisherman, if Lewis say a man fitting Hutchinson's description in the early hours of the 9TH , and details of the hat were established,it is unlikely to be the morning of the 8th.
I would suggest that if George was loitering opposite Millers court, then he was obviously waiting either for curiosity [ as he stated], or waiting to see if the man left so he could possibly gain a shelter till daybreak[ something he could hardly admit publicly , but possibly did so to the police].
I personally see George Hutchinson as a person down on his luck, observing a encounter by chance,being curious, and fighting with his fear of coming forward into the investigation, until Monday evening.
Unfortunately because of the delay. he is still being suspected of dark deeds to the very day.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Hi Richard,

I would suggest that if George was loitering opposite Millers court, then he was obviously waiting either for curiosity [ as he stated], or waiting to see if the man left so he could possibly gain a shelter till daybreak[ something he could hardly admit publicly , but possibly did so to the police].
I personally see George Hutchinson as a person down on his luck, observing a encounter by chance,being curious, and fighting with his fear of coming forward into the investigation, until Monday evening.
Unfortunately because of the delay. he is still being suspected of dark deeds to the very day.
Regards Richard.

Hutchinson is still suspected of 'dark deeds' today because of the ambiguity surrounding his actions; and the elements of his account which are viewed as implausible by many. For so long as that remains true, he'll remain under suspicion in general terms.

I agree – Hutchinson could have been waiting for curiosity; waiting to see if he could cadge a bed for the night; or a number of other innocuous reasons that we can think of.

However, that said, I don’t see any compelling reason to suggest that he couldn’t have been the murderer, either.

I think that we have to work with the known facts here; and what they tell us is that he loitered in close proximity to a murder scene; waited several days to come forward with his information; and only did so once it another witness reported seeing a man loitering on the night of the murder.

However suggestive (or not, as I’m aware some would argue) those facts are; since the facts don’t tell us the answer to the question of what he was doing that night, the question still remains.

I think that it still remains whether one subscribes to the idea that the witness Hutchinson was ‘Toppy’, or not. Let’s suppose that this is the case for a minute – why must his reason for having been on Dorset Street that night be innocent? Why couldn’t Toppy be a killer? Is there anything that militates against the possibility?

I think that it’s a lot easier to decide that Hutchinson was not guilty of anything if we think we know him; but isn’t that misleading? How many superficially innocuous, ‘ordinary’ killers have there been to date? Come to that, how many murder victims are killed by somebody they know?

Any kind of security that we might feel with the ‘known’ should be treated with caution in my view; unless there is a very good reason not to do so.

The fact remains that Hutchinson loitered, by his own admission, in close proximity to a murder scene. Now, of course he may have been telling the truth to some extent – or even (though I don’t personally believe so for an instant) entirely. Astrakhan Man may have really existed (even if he wasn’t ‘Joseph Isaacs’). Although if we wish take his account at face value I think we have some serious questions to address (often glossed over in these discussions) first.

On the other hand, he could have been the killer – or at the very least have known more about Kelly’s murder than he let on – and it could be, as has been suggested by others, that the only reason that he came forward when he did was because he wanted to exonerate himself in the light of Sarah Lewis’ testimony. In short, I see no reason to suppose – Toppy or not – that Hutchinson could not have been Kelly’s killer, as has often been argued here. Whether or not we choose to see that event as a one off ‘domestic’ or one of a series makes little difference in that regard, I think.

I’m not saying that I think he was the killer (before the bullets start flying) - I see no mileage in pinning my colours to any particular mast in the absence of conclusive evidence - but I have to say that I see nothing that argues convincingly against the possibility either.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Sally.
First of all , we should look upon who George Hutchinson was.
I have said many times[ as Ben will vouch] that I believe he was 22 year old Topping, in order for him not to have been , we would have to disbelieve the entire Hutchinson family, both his sons maintained that their father knew one of the victims , and remembered the tale told by Topping.
In order for Topping to have lied , and transform himself into someone involved in the case, he would have had to have been familiar with that person, and familiarize himself with the little known 'payment' allegedly given to the witness.
I have suggested many times, that regardless of the integrity of the said publication which referred to the payment, it happens to have been, the only printed form that mentioned it.
So are we suggesting that young Topping unemployed groom, actually either read that article , or remembered local 1888 gossip, knowing that it could be useful for future bragging in public houses for many years to come.?
Not only that , but while he was at it, research the actual statement made by the man he was impersonating to acquaint himself as it would be useful.
The very fact being, the mention of a payment was disclosed on radio in the mid 1970's, and the exact full tale was quoted in 'The Ripper and the Royals' in 1992.
Reg Hutchinson ..oldest son of Topping,was Fairclough's informant , so as the 1970's broadcast included an alleged interview with the son of the witness Hutchinson, and .. relayed exactly what was in the book some 18 years later, one can come to the conclusion it came from one of the two sons, on audio tape.
Back to your suggestion..
But Topping could still have been a killer?
Surely it depends on who one interprets as being Hutchinson the witness.
What it all boils down to is. only one person ever admitted to having been him that being George William Topping Hutchinson, and whats more he knew of the payment, which would suggest it no one else but him.
I apologize for the lengthy post , but I really want to bring it home , and give Casebook an insight why I am so adamant about the witness being Topping .
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

you'll note from the comments of various witnesses that there was a clear distinction between "to the court" and "up the court"... Hutchinson could hovered anywhere in the general area in front of Miller's Court, and it would still have qualified as "to the court".

I wouldn't have thought so, Ben. "The" Court was surely the [Court]yard itself, or at the very least the narrow, arched entrance to it. Anything else in the immediate vicinity was, well, Dorset Street (with an option on #26 or #27), McCarthy's shop or - on 'tother side of the road - the Lodging House.

The width of Dorset Street was so negligible than any distinction between the "northern" and "southern" sides is rendered meaningless.

The fact that Sarah Lewis described Wideawake Man as located opposite the Court would seem to contradict this notion.

[Michael W Richards]

It seems that at least some people agreed with my statement that the impetus for George Hutchinson to come forward was self preservation, then it stands to reason the story he would provide would include a reasonable explanation for his watching the court that night. His story does seem to suggest that he was there because he had some concern for Marys welfare.

Lets look at that premise. He waits until after the formal hearing of evidence in the murder of Mary is over before coming forward. He tells no-one what he has seen for 4 days. Not one of Marys courtyard neighbors mentions a friend of hers named George. He stated that Mary sought some money from him and he unfortunately couldnt provide her with any. What did Mary need money for that night? Her bed wasnt paid for each night, it was paid weekly, and she was already in arrears that her landlord said were collected "as best they could be". She arrived home staggering drunk, she could barely speak to her courtyard neighbor Ms Cox, and she had eaten,... evidence for that is in the autopsy. She had no need of money that night.

He states Mary was out of her room after 11:45pm, yet no-one else sees Mary Kelly out of her room after 11:45am. Unless you count the morning sightings as accurate, which the contemporary investigators, and myself, do not. In his statement he describes in specific detail a man he saw across the dim lit street, after midnight,...details which would be nearly impossible to discern with the light available.

What puzzles me is why he would go to such incredible detail if his intention was just to exonerate himself?

It seems to me that its possible that the detail was there for Abberline...to describe someone who would be a known criminal to Abberline. To get Abberlines support. To that end it is worth noting again that his description of the man matches quite well the known characteristics of Frank Millen. Someone Abberline would know of, due to his tireless investigations into the Irish Self Rule activities in London during those years.

Thing is, Millen supposedly wasnt in town at that time,....but would George know that? Would Abberline?

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Nowhere near that.

More like 10 feet, rendering it unthinkable that Astrakhan and Kelly allowed Hutchinson to follow them all the way from the corner of Fashion Street to the Miller's Court entrance without noticing him and raising serious objections to his behaviour.

Hi Ben.
Something tells me you do not have a copy of the Goads for Dorset St.

Never mind, here is a photo clearly showing the width, relative to people on the street.



The footpath alone is about 4-5 feet, the road, something between 12-15 feet across, in total merely from the photo alone we can see from building to building across the street, is in the order of 25-30 feet.