The Red Handkerchief...

[Fisherman]

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

But does "stout" contradict "tall"? To my mind, when you say not tall but stout, you make it clear that although the man you speak of is not tall, he is not small either.

All the best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fish,

My point is, in English, nobody would say 'tall-looking' or 'fat-looking' or 'short-looking'. They would just say, tall, fat, or short...the same with stout. So, if the testimony is correct, and 'stout-looking' was said, that would be odd. But 'stout-looking' referring to demeanor, makes a lot more sense.

Mike

[Observer]

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?

Whato Lechmere

No one at the time made the connection between Hutchinson and the loiterer in Dorset Street? How about Dick Scroggins lavatory attendant at the public lavvies in Commercial Street? Or any other individual with a modicum of common sense for that matter?

Dick Scroggins to Arthur Flusher (apprentice lavatory attendant) while reading the appropriate copy of The Echo.

"Ere Arthur that loiterer in Dorset Street, it's got to be that Hutchinson fella. Stands to reason"

Are you trying to tell me that it did not occur to a single police officer, high ranking or low ranking, that there was a possibility that Hutchinson, and the loiterer, were one and the same man ?

As you say modern day "Ripperologists" make the connection. So what does this suggest? That modern day "Ripperologists are capable of formulating the connection whereas everyone at the time of the murders were not?

Listen, if some of the mediocre brains here in this forum (mine included) can work out that there is a distinct possibility that Hutchinson, and the loiterer were one and the same man, then believe me, there were police officers, at the time, who most certainly were capable of making the connection.

Regards

Observer

[Fisherman]

Fish,

My point is, in English, nobody would say 'tall-looking' or 'fat-looking' or 'short-looking'. They would just say, tall, fat, or short...the same with stout. So, if the testimony is correct, and 'stout-looking' was said, that would be odd. But 'stout-looking' referring to demeanor, makes a lot more sense.

Mike

Lewis words were "he was not tall - but stout". That would be a way of saying "although this man was shortish, he was still a big man, physically speaking". If she had not said that he was stout, we would have been left with the impresion that he was small.

That is how it comes across to me. But I know that others will disagree. Always. No matter what.

At any rate, I learnt a little something about the meaning of stout that I was not aware of before, so thanks for that!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Whato Lechmere

No one at the time made the connection between Hutchinson and the loiterer in Dorset Street? How about Dick Scroggins lavatory attendant at the public lavvies in Commercial Street? Or any other individual with a modicum of common sense for that matter?

Dick Scroggins to Arthur Flusher (apprentice lavatory attendant) while reading the appropriate copy of The Echo.

"Ere Arthur that loiterer in Dorset Street, it's got to be that Hutchinson fella. Stands to reason"

Are you trying to tell me that it did not occur to a single police officer, high ranking or low ranking, that there was a possibility that Hutchinson, and the loiterer, were one and the same man ?

As you say modern day "Ripperologists" make the connection. So what does this suggest? That modern day "Ripperologists are capable of formulating the connection whereas everyone at the time of the murders were not?

Listen, if some of the mediocre brains here in this forum (mine included) can work out that there is a distinct possibility that Hutchinson, and the loiterer were one and the same man, then believe me, there were police officers, at the time, who most certainly were capable of making the connection.

Regards

Observer

Observer - Ignorance: 1-0. Game over.

However, what Edward does is to take it a step further - nobody made the connection and mentioned it in any report or article. That tells Edward - and me - that the connection was either discarded as a possibility after a very short period of time - or never even entertained as a possibility.

Putting it otherwise: nobody made the connection, since there was no connection to be made.

Because Hutchinson and the loiterer were two different people, and Abberline et al knew that.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

From the Daily Telegraph: He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall.

That's what I was referring to.

Mike

[Fisherman]

From the Daily Telegraph: He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall.

That's what I was referring to.

Mike

The accounts vary, Mike - we will never know the exact phrasing. Or if you stand a better or smaller chance to be right.

Maybe it is not tall but stout ... fat chance, sort of.

[Observer]

Observer - Ignorance: 1-0. Game over.

However, what Edward does is to take it a step further - nobody made the connection and mentioned it in any report or article. That tells Edward - and me - that the connection was either discarded as a possibility after a very short period of time - or never even entertained as a possibility.

Putting it otherwise: nobody made the connection, since there was no connection to be made.

Because Hutchinson and the loiterer were two different people, and Abberline et al knew that.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish, I was coming to that. Edward does indeed, take it a step forward, and rightly so. I would agree with you, and Edward entirely. Hutchinson's "reduced importance" was the rather lenient way in which the police dealt with the fact that Hutchinson was tucked up in bed on the night of the Mary Kelly murder.

Regards

Observer

[Sally]

So...

On the one hand there's Ed, who concludes that Lewis' loiterer and Hutchinson were not the same man; and on the other hand there's Jon, who concludes that Lewis' account corroborates that of Hutchinson.

The fact of the matter is that the unconstested facts here don't support any one solution overall - that's unlikely to change at this remove.

[Abby Normal]

can anyone here wrap there head around the idea that a connection was made but that it was just not written down for whatever reason.

are we really to believe that everyone, including abberline missed the connection. He just heard (or reheard) lewis testimony at the inquest about the waiting/watching man, when he interviews hutch. He probably just made a mental note of it and is probably the reason he initially found hutch believable.

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

can anyone here wrap there head around the idea that a connection was made but that it was just not written down for whatever reason.

Nope. Not me, at least. If the connection was made - and it would have been if there was a reason to - and if it was believed to be genuine, then we would have had knowledge of that. I have no doubt whatsoever about that.

are we really to believe that everyone, including abberline missed the connection.

For a short while, he may have done so, of course. It may well be that this detail was what subsequently had Hutchinsons story moved way down the list of priorities. In the long run - and that run would not be long at all, mind you - there is zero chance that the possibility of a connection was overlooked by everybody. Abberline et al would have made an effort to piece the different testimonies together as they went along, and that would have been it. The only question is whether a suggestion of a connection was ever there, or if it was realized directly (based on the information from Lewis/Hutchinson) that no connection could exist. Toppy looks a very lean sort of man, and if he was the witness, then that in itself could have settled the issue. There are many possibilities, and the true reason for the insight on behalf of the police that made them decide there was no connection may be hidden to us. Personally, I don´t think it is: I think the absense of Lewis in Hutchinsons testimony, combined with the fact that he spoke of being placed at the corner of the court made the case.

Anyway, very undramatic, very routinish, very basic police work; they knew.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

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.

Rather a different kettle of fish, Jon. In the case of Sarah Lewis, the official = signed - record of her testimony and the Daily Telegraph both contain the key word "opposite", which unequivocally places Wideawake Man on the other side of Dorset Street from the entrance to Miller's Court. If there's any "selectivity" here, it's that the other papers "selected" to omit the word "opposite", which gives rise to this unfortunate ambiguity.

Clearly, Wideawake Man couldn't have been in two places at once at the time Sarah Lewis made her observation. The time she made that observation was as SHE entered Miller's Court, and she clearly said that yer man was opposite the Court, in Dorset Street, outside (Crossingham's) Lodging House.

[Sam Flynn]

My point is, in English, nobody would say 'tall-looking' or 'fat-looking' or 'short-looking'. They would just say, tall, fat, or short...the same with stout.

Although, interestingly: "Mary Ann Cox... saw her last alive at a quarter to twelve in Miller's court on Thursday night, when she was very intoxicated. She was then with a short, stout man, very shabbily dressed. He had a long dark overcoat and a billycock hat on." (St James Gazette, 13th Nov 1888, to quote but one source)

Did blotchy-face, after his 11:45 assignation with Kelly, linger a while longer in Dorset Street, and/or come back for "afters"? Perhaps he forgot his beer-can

[Sam Flynn]

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

I should perhaps add that, whereas my point about Halse allows for two mutually-supportive descriptions (three-quarters of an inch... under an inch), those in respect of Lewis's statement are contradictory (he was at the entrance to the Court... he was opposite the entrance to the Court). So the "selectivity" argument doesn't really apply here.

[Wickerman]

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'm saying that Lewis does not say when she arrived, any time after 2:00, but before 2:30 is all we can surmise.
Seeing as how she did claim the 3:30 chime woke her up, then for sure she heard the 2:30 chime. Whether this was recorded by the press or not.

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?

We struggle with the fact that testimony, all testimony, was recorded in response to specific questions. The witnesses were not giving a continuous narrative to the court, so yes, their testimony can jump from subject to subject. More important though is the fact that not everything said was recorded.

I CAN make a comparison inbetween the papers. It would be hard if they all differed wildly, but they don´t 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.

Christer.
We only have one example of the statement "there was no-one in the court", are you telling me that is wrong also? No-one else wrote that, it must be wrong by your estimation. Yes?

When several reporters are covering the same story, we will often identify a couple of mistakes. When referring to this 'man and woman', twice we read "further on", but one reporter wrote "later on", so thats a mistake.
In nearly all accounts the loiterer was "not tall", except one account where the 'not' has been missed, so we read "He was tall", it's a mistake.
Just like Barnett's testimony where we read he identified her by her "ear & eyes". Her ears were cut off, or at least partially removed. Her hair was her distinctive feature, not her ears. It's a mistake.

Reporters do not add a whole line or sentence out of their head "by mistake".
Occasional words are misheard yes, but a reporter is not going to tell us the 'couple' went up the court if there was no reason to write that.
Reporters are there to record what was said, not what enters their head.

If this man & woman are merely walking down Dorset St., there is no reason for any reporter to write that "they went up the court", if Sarah Lewis did not say that.
Lets not forget, this couple were superfluous to the Inquest, no-one knew who they were and no-one asked any questions about them. The Coroner was not interested in this couple.
We should be thankful that at least one reporter was diligent enough to capture that line.

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...!)

The presence of one woman hurrying along Dorset St. is of no consequence to the story Hutchinson has to relate.

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

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

Sadly, we are dealing with a mixture of verbatim testimony and paraphrase. At no point does Lewis say what her vantage point was, plus we know she was moving. We shouldn't assume she had to squeeze past anybody.

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.
It´s 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 don´t think you will find it, I´m afraid.

The insurmountable problem Christer is, that anything proposed which legitimizes Hutchinson is fought off tooth and nail
I don't see evidence as the problem, it's that a variety of people have chosen to treat Hutchinson's story with little faith. To suddenly see they may have been mistaken is too much to admit.

Always a pleasure, Christer.