Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Hunter]

... I think we can be confident that some witnesses were straight up....others were mistaken....and others were out-and-out liars. Just by virtue of the nature of any group of people.

It's down to personal perspective in terms of whom you go with as being more reliable. I personally would cling to anyone corroborated e.g. Mortimer although I wouldn't rule out her being mistaken with some of the details....I mean 20 minutes at the door....or 10 minutes at the door....sometimes time seems to drag...sometimes it seems to fly by.

But that's just my personal perspective......the way I think is that it's easy to be led astray by ideas and how we think the world is (as opposed to reality)...human beings have an extraordinary capacity for being taken in by illusion.....so I will always look for something concrete as a decent starting point.

...I mean...for you to believe MJK was killed in the morning then you've quite clearly discounted a few witness statements.

Good post FM,
The forensics would have to be discounted, of which none have Kelly murdered at such a late hour and state that she took a meal of fish and potatoes some two hours before death. Maxwell said that Kelly vomited in the street around 8:30... Then she had a meal soon afterwards? If this is negated, then there is nothing concrete and this case can float on the whims of almost any hypothesis (well it often does, I guess). There is some conflicting testimony by the medicos in some aspects of this case, to be sure, but the fact that there is no medical reason to dispute their findings here bears some weight.

As Garry Wroe pointed out earlier, Mary Malcolm was certainly mistaken about the Berner St. victim being her sister, and, as you stated, others have lied or added to their initial statements or had gotten themselves caught up in the publicity far beyond their actual importance. This is quite common for anyone who has served on a jury.

[harry]

Well Fisherman,you contend that Hutchinson could have been one day out,which would leave one day unnacounted for,but you give no reason,medical or otherwise why this should be so.I forget,you cite Walter Dew,
This is not a case of someone appearing six months or six years later,but just three days later.I wonder how many of us in three days time will have completely misremembered today as yesterday.Someone ,who in between lost a nights sleep,walked twenty plus miles,saw an aquaintance meet a stranger at 2AM in the morning,and then heard that aquaintance had been murdered that night.Anyone reckon they would get the day wrong?

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"As I mentioned, identification of the day/ deseased. would be paramount in the forthcoming investigation , having received Hutchinsons statement."

It would. Therefore, they would have asked Hutchinson whether he was sure about the day. And if he was - albeit mistaken - he would have said yes.

The fact that we ask does not equate that we always get the correct answer. And not getting the correct answer does not always equate a lie. I think you will realize, Richard, that the history of witness testimony is crammed with people who got the dates wrong. It is no stranger than that, and it carries great weight that a man like Dew, who must have listened to testimony from thousands of people, has no problems at all allowing for this in Hutchinsons case.

"Records would have kept at the Victoria home [which incidently was vetted by the police ] and it would have been a simply task to check on the nights/days that GH was signed in."

To begin with, I am not certain about in which degree a regular guest - as Hutchinson seems to have been - was signed in every night. But at any rate, please take a look at what happened to him: He was discarded. That may well be due to the records at the Victoria Home not matching his story.

"For instance Hutchinson said he returned to his lodgings when it opened friday morning, that admission could have been verified could it not?"

Perhaps, Richard. But we do not know that he checked in to stay the following night, do we? He only said that he returned - and he may have been out of the door as quckly as he came in. And such things do not produce records.

As for your stance that the witness was Topping, yes, I agree very much. I have no doubts about it.

"A man that had a eye for detail,a good memory, not the type to lose a day in his life."

He had a good DETAIL memory, by the looks of things, yes. Then again, to be sure of this, we would actually have to be presented with the exact apparition of Astrakhan man. And if it turned out that he was fair-haired, wore a short, blue jacket with no trimmings, and had a beard that reached to his knees, then we would not be so impressed with Hutchinson´s detail memory either, would we?
Let´s not forget that there is no confirmation whatsoever that the description he gave was a correct one in every bit. It sure SEEMS that he had an eye for detail, but not even in this department, there can be any certainty. And even if he DID get all them things right, it tells us nothing about his sequential memory!

"Dont get me wrong, Fish makes a good case on paper, its just the length of time that does it for me 24 Hours?"

Why does this keep pooping up? Would it not be a lot stranger if he got things 12 hours wrong and placed the incident at mid day ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Hi Fisherman - at least you read my posts! How was Berlin - apart from snowy?"

I read your posts with great interest, Sally. I find them insightful and refreshing most of the time. And Berlin was great, but, like I said, snowy and quite cold. So many a coffee and hot chocolate were gobbled down. All in all, it´s an interesting city. I was there ten years ago last time over, and a lot had happened since then.
Still very much dislike Potsdamer Platz, though - megalomania ...!

"Correct, Fisherman - perhaps Hutchinson could not 'care less' about the Lord Mayors Show. But to be unaware of it? I shouldn't think so. What his personal feelings about the event were is of no relevance in this instance."

Could not agree totally there - if you are disinterested, you may choose to stay away from things both mentally and physically. If so, they will have a lesser impact on you than on an interested party, at least to my mind.

"Huh? Do you think he stayed at the Victoria Home for free, Fisherman? What does tending horses have to do with it? "

I don´t think he stayed for free, no. But I do not see that we can place him sleeping in the Victoria Home on the morning of the 8:th or on the following evening. He only tells us that he waited to they opened and then returned, but after that he may of course have left again - perhaps to ply his trade somewhere else; tending to horses, that is. If we ponder the possibility that he was offered that sort of job, food included, bed and money supplied, why would he turn it down? THAT is what tending horses possibly had to do with it.

"I don't think Hutchinson mistook the day - people just don't..."

I cut the last part (particularly not such a significant day) out, and look what we are left with. People do not mistake days...? Why, I wonder, was Dew of the obviously faulty conviction that such things may happen, then?

I´m afraid you are wrong here, Sally. People mistake days all the time, when backtracking. Many, many ask themselves "Was that Wednesday? Or Tuesday...? Or was it ...?" After that, tey try to recollect by adjusting the goods floating around in their brains to a functioning timeline. And some get it right, whereas some get it wrong. This, i believe, you will be very much aware of. I really can´t see what use it is to state as a fact that people do not get days wrong, when it is perfectly obvious that it is simply wrong. Moreover, saying that people do not mistake days, ESPECIALLY not important ones, is to make a lingustic error is it not - unless you supply the sentence with a "normally".

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"It’s all well and good for you to state that speculation should be based on established evidence, Fish, but your ‘wrong night’ scenario is predicated upon a set of weather conditions (heavy and sustained rain commencing at midnight) which lacks any corroboration whatever."

Can we skip this, Garry? You keep picking at the way I wrote my article instead of discussing the real issue, and it´s getting boring.

I wrote "I know now" what happened. I also wrote that I have no absolute proof. That makes up a contradiction of terms, and, believe it or not, I am aware of that. That is how I write, and that is how I am at liberty to write, just as you are at liberty to challenge it. But you have already done so by now, and I have already answered you. It is not as if the weather gets dryer every time you point this out.

To state that a rainy scenario lacks any corroboration whatever is also slightly strange, I think. We KNOW that much rain fell over the streets, we KNOW that the rain commenced after midnight, we KNOW that it rained hard at three o clock (or maybe I should say "around" three o clock, Garry - for we cannot be certain that it rained in that EXACT second, can we? Oh, no!), we KNOW that the Echo corroborates that heavy rain fell over London that night - and so the suggestion that it may have rained at the time we are interested in is not half bad - but obviously unsavoury to you. At any rate, I would much appreciate if we could agree that there was every chance that it rained, since a massive rain area passed over the East End that night.

As for the couple outside the Britannia, they would have been outside the pub if they stood in the doorway. As for Cox, I fail to see that there was any law stating that soliciting could not be done from spots where the ladies in question were sheltered from the rain, like doorways, archways and such.

But that may perhaps also be a suggestion that "makes no logical sense whatsoever", Garry? That people in the street may have a conversation in spite of the rain, since they shelter? That prostitutes who are obliged to try and earn some money prefer to do so from dry spots if they can, if a rain is falling?

Plus, Garry, once again, I actually DID write in my article that Abberline must have had problems to establish whether it really DID rain much over Dorset Street at two o clock. But in the end, it would not have mattered all that much, considering the obvious give-away hidden in Hutchinson walking the streets freely in the pouring rain.
It is sad that we do not have on record the questions Abberline would reasonably have asked: Did you see anybody enter the court as you stood there? Was it raining?
Those would have been questions Hutchinson answered with an emphatic "No!".

Finally, it is simply wrong to claim that "the central premise of the ‘wrong night’ scenario must be rejected" if it cannot be proven that it rained at the crucial hour. Well, YOU can, of course - you just did, didn´t you? But the fact of the matter is that we are STILL faced with Hutchinson walking the streets "all night" in spite of the rain. That supports my suggestion very much. We are still faced with Hutchinson not observing Lewis, which supports my suggestion very much. We are still faced with a weatherwise very ugly night, cold and rainy and windy, that would not encourage unbuttoning your coat, which supports my suggestion very much. We are still faced with Dew´s assertion that Hutchinson MUST have been mistaken as to the day, which supports my suggestion very much. And if he MUST have been mistaken, then there MUST have been evidence to prove that, known to Dew, which supports my suggestion very much. We are also faced with the fact that getting the day wrong seems to tally very well with what happened afterwards - Hutchinson´s story was discredited, but he was still left to go, no questions asked, by the looks of things, which supports my suggestion very much.

What testimony we have, the evidence involved, the bits and pieces afforded to us by history, seem all to tally with my suggestion, wheras there is nothing pointing to Hutchinson being believed throughout, just as there is no indication at all pointing to him being the killer. So in that sense, I´m quite happy that all you can come up with is a dislike for my way of telling the story - but I would appreciate if you refrained from that in favour of challenging the suggestion on a factual basis instead, like you did with the Brittania couple and Cox. It provides me with the chance to point out that my suggestion is an eminent one.

The best,
Fisherman

[Hunter]

It would be strange that if Lewis' testimony was what drew Huchinson to go to the police to give an alibi for his reason for being there, that he didn't mention seeing Lewis in return. If Abberline didn't coordinate the various timelines of the witnesses, including Hutchinson, then this was a break from proceedure established in the investigation of previous murders where we have on record that Long, Cadosh and Richardson were compared with Dr. Phillips' findings and the Berner St. witnesses compaired as well - via the Swanson report.

[Fisherman]

Hunter:

"It would be strange that if Lewis' testimony was what drew Huchinson to go to the police to give an alibi for his reason for being there, that he didn't mention seeing Lewis in return."

Very much so, yes, Hunter!

"If Abberline didn't coordinate the various timelines of the witnesses, including Hutchinson, then this was a break from proceedure established in the investigation of previous murders where we have on record that Long, Cadosh and Richardson were compared with Dr. Phillips' findings and the Berner St. witnesses compaired as well - via the Swanson report."

I believe that a lot of things were done throughout the case that were all very simple, obvious and necessary measures, witness identifications being one such thing. It would have been standard police procedure, then as now. The fact that we do not have it on record should not make us believe that it was not done.

The best,
Fisherman

[Hunter]

Yes, indeed Fish.

Richardson became a suspect in the Chapman murder because his story didn't seem to fit with Phillips' reckoning on when the murder was committed. He said he was sitting on the step, carving on his shoe with a knife - seeing nothing - while the police believed that Chapman had already been killed.

[Garry Wroe]

"It’s all well and good for you to state that speculation should be based on established evidence, Fish, but your ‘wrong night’ scenario is predicated upon a set of weather conditions (heavy and sustained rain commencing at midnight) which lacks any corroboration whatever."

Can we skip this, Garry? You keep picking at the way I wrote my article instead of discussing the real issue, and it´s getting boring.

Do I take that to mean that speculation should not be based on established evidence? If so, this is in direct contradiction to a statement you made only yesterday.

To state that a rainy scenario lacks any corroboration whatever is also slightly strange, I think. We KNOW that much rain fell over the streets, we KNOW that the rain commenced after midnight, we KNOW that it rained hard at three o clock …

No, Fish. What’s strange is that you should infer that I have been arguing that the night in question was dry. I have never argued any such thing and even referred to heavy rainfall in my book. What I totally reject as unproven is your assertion that heavy and sustained rainfall commenced at midnight and persisted throughout the night.

As for the couple outside the Britannia, they would have been outside the pub if they stood in the doorway.

True. But there again, it’s curious that Sarah Lewis was able to describe them given that your article specified an inability on her part to describe the man standing close to Crossingham’s on account of the driving rain.

As for Cox, I fail to see that there was any law stating that soliciting could not be done from spots where the ladies in question were sheltered from the rain, like doorways, archways and such.

Really? For your information, Fish, soliciting was illegal then as now. But Cox certainly returned indoors at one o’clock because ‘it was raining.’ My guess is that she simply recognized the futility of soliciting when the weather conditions had driven any passing trade from the streets. If so, this provides proof positive that it could not have been raining heavily and ‘incessantly’, otherwise Cox would never spent the better part of three hours soliciting from midnight onwards.

Plus, Garry, once again, I actually DID write in my article that Abberline must have had problems to establish whether it really DID rain much over Dorset Street at two o clock.

Yes, Fish, but you qualified this by leaving the reader in no doubt as to your conviction in this regard: ‘Abberline could not have asked for a clearer indicator. Even if Dorset Street at a few minutes past 2 am had been the one meteorological exception to the rest of London, anybody will soon realize that the one thing you won’t do if you are left with no place to sleep on a night when a cold November rain is incessantly pouring down, is to endlessly walk the open streets, refraining from seeking some sort of shelter.’ (My emphasis.)

Finally, it is simply wrong to claim that "the central premise of the ‘wrong night’ scenario must be rejected" if it cannot be proven that it rained at the crucial hour. Well, YOU can, of course - you just did, didn´t you? But the fact of the matter is that we are STILL faced with Hutchinson walking the streets "all night" in spite of the rain.

The rain, Fish, the heavy and sustained rain, that only you assert was falling. And this is the problem with your argument. You insist on a night of substantial and unabated rainfall, then use such weather conditions to ‘disprove’ Hutchinson’s claim that he walked about all night. But you have failed to demonstrate that the night under scrutiny was one of substantial and unabated rainfall. Worse still, you treat this failure as a mere inconsequence and continue to insist on the validity of your argument. Please, Fish, sit back and think about it for a moment. Without the evidence to support your contention of heavy and sustained rainfall, you have no argument. End of story.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

To further Garry's point regarding the couple outside the Britannia, the photograph he provided on the "Image Enhancements" thread reveals very little opportunity for shelter from the elements outside the door of the pub, save a very small overhang. Lewis did not recall the couple as having been pressed up against the door, so the clear implication is that they were not sheltering from any rain at the time of the observation:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=128378&postcount=45

[Ben]

I´ve tried to catch up as best as I could, but I may well have missed the odd point or two, so please feel free to point it out if that is the case.

No Danger there, Fisherman. I suspect your succession of monster posts just about covers it!

As others here have pointed out, it isn’t at all likely that Hutchinson would confuse the date of the Lord Mayor’s Show. Even if Hutchinson himself wasn’t personally interested in the affair, he could hardly have avoided the widespread public attention it received. The same applied to the Romford trip, if indeed he ever made one. Considering the distance from Spitalfields, it’s only reasonable to conclude that the trip was planned in advance, and given the overwhelming likelihood that he would have been aware that these two fairly major events occurred on the same day, it is even harder to accept that he confused the date. As for “counting night’s backwards” based on where he slept, I think a memorable night of walking all the way from Romford, spotting surly Astrakhan types and then “walking about” all night would stick in a normal person’s memory like a sore thumb.

I see you’ve decided to “carve out a manuscript in which Hutchinson plays the role of a totally honest man”, but I can’t accept that you really find many of these suggestions particularly likely. It is wildly implausible that Hutchinson did not learn of the murder until he found himself in the heart of the murder district on Sunday 11th November, the reasons for which are very obvious and have been discussed in considerable depth elsewhere. Indeed, you’ve acknowledged this yourself with your reference to the suggestion as an “outside possibility”. One would hope, then, that you don’t attach any serious credence to the idea that being a groom by trade meant working exclusively with horses and cutting yourself off from human contact for over two days.

The problems with such a scenario surely don’t need expounding, but in addition, we need to remember that the purpose of your “manuscript” is to depict Hutchinson as “honestly mistaken”, and he stated to the press that he was a groom by trade “now working as a labourer”, the obvious implication being that he wasn’t doing any grooming work at the time.

In the morning, he returns to the Victoria Home, perhaps to pick up some belongings of his - and then leaves again. He is not a man of means, so he cannot sleep the day away.

In which case, it would mean he walked about for hours in anticipation of gaining entry to the Victoria Home just to “pick up some belongings of his” (belongings that he bizarrely neglected to bring with him on his mammoth Romford jaunt), and then what? Straight out again to do yet more walking, in addition to the many miles from Romford and the “walking about” the Whitechapel/Spitalfields district, this time to get him to some far-flung location where he managed to avoid any reference to the recent murder and only had horses for company? It matters not that he “cannot sleep the day away”. He’s still only human, and what is being suggested here is physiologically improbable to say the least!

He finds himself a PC, and relates what he had experienced, leaving name and address and thinking that he had done his duty. After that, we do not know what happened; no document exists telling us what the PC did.

The PC almost certainly never existed. If he did, it would make him responsible for outrageous dereliction of duty in one of the largest manhunts in history, and he would doubtless have been traced according to the location reported by Hutchinson and fired. Either we accept that this marvellously implausible event happened, or we accept that Hutchinson simply fabricated this policeman encounter and was accordingly discredited. Hutchinson’s claim that he only approached the police (again!) after a lodger encouraged him to do so should be regarded as highly suspect, given that it coincided so neatly with the termination of the inquest and the release of Sarah Lewis’ evidence.

I think what your manuscript best demonstrates is that in order to arrive at your “wrong day” hypothesis, a series of epically unlikely “what ifs” and fill-in-the-blanks must first be accepted. It’s either that or focussing on the weather issue, but the problem here is that the alleged weather anomalies and contradictions are much more simply and far better accounted for by the conclusion that Hutchinson simply lied in his account and neglected to factor in the weather. There are simply far more lying bogus witnesses out there than there are “honestly mistaken” witnesses who mistake a very unforgettable day. This is why I’m so surprised to read statements like:

“I would like to once more point out that I am not opposed to Hutchinson having been in the game for money, but if that was, he clearly made a huge mistake by placing his scenario on dry streets. That is why I prefer to believe that he really was honest - but honestly mistaken.”

Okay, but why? I just don’t get this. Why is this preferable to the simple premise that he lied and slipped up in that lie? I hope it’s not because you think nobody would come up with that bad a lie and that therefore it must be true.

Too much is being made of Hutchinson’s apparent failure to mentioned Lewis. Firstly, and most crucially, it is possible that Hutchinson did mention Lewis but the reference was omitted from the body of the statement because is did not pertain directly to the manhunt – “man” being the operative word here. Either that or Hutchinson deliberately avoided any reference to Lewis out of concern that it would appear glaringly obvious that it was her evidence that prompted him to come forward. Of the two explanations, I prefer the latter. In addition, it’s worth reiterating that the police were very unlikely to have suspected Hutchinson of “foul play” once they came to the realisation that he fibbed. More likely, he was dismissed as a publicity seeker who wasn’t even there, just as Emanuel Violenia had been before him.

Happy new year, Fish!

Ben

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"Do I take that to mean that speculation should not be based on established evidence?"

You take it exactly the way you want to take it, Garry. By all means! Myself, I take it that you keep picking away at things like linguistics and procedure, and I am very uninterested to contribute to that particular discussion. I much prefer to discuss the factualities (may I put it like that; factualities?) of the case itself.

"What’s strange is that you should infer that I have been arguing that the night in question was dry. I have never argued any such thing and even referred to heavy rainfall in my book. What I totally reject as unproven is your assertion that heavy and sustained rainfall commenced at midnight and persisted throughout the night."

Once again, yes. Can we move on now, or do you want to say it again? I am not a complete idiot, Garry. I full well KNOW that the extent of the rain could not be established second for second, or even minute for minute. I have time and time again pointed out to you that it would have been connected with serious problems to establish the amount of rain that fell, and therefore I am very happy to be able to point out that no matter if it rained or not at 2 o clock, we DO know that George Hutchinson claimed that he walked the streets all night from 3 o clock onwards.

If he did that, he would have gotten wet. Very wet. Starting at 3 o clock. I cannot establish the exact amount of raindrops that would have hit the varying square centimetres of his clothing, but I do think that I can safely say that walking the streets all night would have been a very wet, very uncomfortable and potentially health-endangering business. We know from the Echo that the morning met with a cold wind and a fading drizzle. To me, that very much sounds like the clinging off of a substantial rain. When it comes to the situation earlier, I described a picture I believed (and still believe) to be the most probable one - that it rained. I chose not to write that Lewis either hurried, walked slowly, paced thoughtfully, ran, trotted or jumped backwards through the street in either dry, half-wet, soggy, drizzling, showering or hailstorming circumstances. It was of course stupid of me to disregard these possibilities, since they all may have formed the best picture of what DID happen, but since I was describing a scenario that I think has the best chance of being correct - a rainfall - I took the liberty to write the way I did.

There, now we´ve been over it one more time! Let´s hope it was the last one!

“For your information, Fish, soliciting was illegal then as now. But Cox certainly returned indoors at one o’clock because ‘it was raining.’ My guess is that she simply recognized the futility of soliciting when the weather conditions had driven any passing trade from the streets. If so, this provides proof positive that it could not have been raining heavily and ‘incessantly’, otherwise Cox would never spent the better part of three hours soliciting from midnight onwards.”

For my information…? Why, thank you, Garry! I think that it was said that Cox returned home at 11.45 and 1 o clock to warm herself, but it could certainly have been raining at the latter stage. As for your guess that she had realized the futility of soliciting, it kind of swears against what Cox said; that she had gone home to warm herself. That does not allude to business, does it? Not that I don´t see the relevance in it – the worse the weather, the smaller the trade, reasonably – but Cox does not corroborate this.

The nest passage is interesting, since it points to your assessment of what is “proof” or not. You state that Cox´s spending the better part of three hours on the streets soliciting somehow proves that it could not have been raining heavily. But what if she went out when the rain seized somewhat in power, walked a number of blocks, and was caught in very heavy rain – could it not have been that she, instead of walking home through (perhaps!) thunderous showers, chose to shelter and wait for the rain to taper off or seize, giving her the chance to walk home without soaking herself? Let´s be reasonable here, Garry – if you are to publically drag me through the mud for describing the Astrakhan man scene as a rainy scene, then you should perhaps not use the term proof as lightheartedly as this…?

“ you qualified this by leaving the reader in no doubt as to your conviction in this regard: ‘Abberline could not have asked for a clearer indicator. Even if Dorset Street at a few minutes past 2 am had been the one meteorological exception to the rest of London, anybody will soon realize that the one thing you won’t do if you are left with no place to sleep on a night when a cold November rain is incessantly pouring down, is to endlessly walk the open streets, refraining from seeking some sort of shelter.’”

There you go again, Garry. It rained very hard at three o clock, when Hutchinson reportedly set out on his walk, did it not? It was a night of heavy rain, according to the Echo was it not? Once again, I cannot exactly establish the amount of rain, but I can base my writing on sound reasoning.

“the rain, Fish, the heavy and sustained rain, that only you assert was falling.”

Well, me and the Echo and Cox and the meteorological services all claim that it rained that night, so I really don´t feel that alone!

“Without the evidence to support your contention of heavy and sustained rainfall, you have no argument.”

You´d wish, Garry! And yes, if we forget about Lewis, if we forget about Kelly´s sobering up, if we forget about Dew´s assertion and if we forget about the way Hutchinson was dismissed, and if we surmise that it must have been dry in the crucial moments, then you would not be too far off the target. But as it stands, the one and only thing you have been able to come up with so far amounts to one thing and one thing only – that it may perhaps not have rained when Hutchinson met Astrakhan man. Apart from that, you have nothing at all to offer, and so you offer that same thing over and over and over again. And I provide you with the same answer each time.

Tedious, is it not?

And think about it, Garry – what if it DID rain, like I suggest…?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"To further Garry's point regarding the couple outside the Britannia, the photograph he provided on the "Image Enhancements" thread reveals very little opportunity for shelter from the elements outside the door of the pub, save a very small overhang. Lewis did not recall the couple as having been pressed up against the door, so the clear implication is that they were not sheltering from any rain at the time of the observation"

Good evening, Ben!

That "very small overhang" was still an overhang, Ben. And since it was apparently a windy night, that may have helped to steer the drops away somewhat. And Lewis says nothing about the exact position of the couple, does she? To me, that means you are taking somewhat of a liberty when you state that there is any "clear implication" at all about.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

And since it was apparently a windy night, that may have helped to steer the drops away somewhat.

A sharp north-east wind according to the Echo, Fish, which would have "helped steer the drops" (if there were any) directly onto anyone standing in the doorway of Britannia. Either we accept that the couple standing outside the pub were being pelted by wind and rain when there was ample opportunity to procure shelter elsewhere, or we accept that it wasn't raining at 2:30am when the sighting occured.

Obviously, the latter option is by far the more credible.

Edit: Hold everything! Look what I've just found from the Daily Telegraph, 13th November:

"I met the same man with a woman in Commercial-street, near Mr. Ringer's public-house (the Britannia). He had no overcoat on".

Ayup! "No overcoat" on this allegedly rain-deluged night?

He was standing with the woman on Commercial Street, rendering the couple even more vulnerable to any rain blown in from the north-east than they would have been if standing in the doorway or in Dorset Street.

Wowzers. No rain here, clearly.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
We can all summise many suggestions about the events of the night/morning of the 8th/9th November, but the way I see it, we should leave it up to the police investigation, and trust that the officers were of some intelligence, and they would have investigated our GH. prior to his walkabouts with officers.
It would have been of paramount importance that they were confident, that this witness was not a time waster, and could have his account verified, before any search was conducted,
Rather like Mrs Maxwells plate returning check.
Hutchinson discredited was he ?.
It appears that he was not in the headlines for long, but I have a feeling that H division were running around like headless chickens, after Kelly was found.
Another year , lets see what achievements can me made.
Happy new year all.
Regards Richard.