Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

I notice that Paul Begg also has the figure 24 feet in his The definitive Story".

The best,
Fishman

[Fisherman]

And this is from British history Online:

"In July 1673 Nicholas and Cooke were given permission to close the foot-paths running across Spital Field, provided they replaced them with a road about 400 feet long and 24 feet wide. (ref. 2) Subsequent disputes make it clear that this street was Datchett Street, which is of the stated dimensions: it can, however, have provided only an imperfect substitute for a path from Vine Court to Smock Alley."

Perhaps these sources are all wrong. Then again, perhaps they are right. Correlating sources often are.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

You are funny sometimes, Fish.

You say you want to “put an end to the misery” and then revive the same misery in the next breath!

Yes, you could probably fit the length of a Vauxhall Corsa, or even an Astra if we want to go crazy, between the north and south pavements of Dorset Street. The pavements themselves could not have been as much as five feet as we can judge from the width of the Seat car in foreground of the third of Colin’s photographs. The width of a Seat Leon is 5.801 ft, and it’s clear that the pavement was about two thirds that width, which would make each pavement about 3.8 feet in width – which again tallies very well with the contemporary photographs. This would give us a grand total width of something in the region of 20 feet, but this is pointless argument - to quibble over a few feet.

The salient observation is that the street was very narrow.

This is best illustrated by the last of the photographs in the link I provided.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=20137&postcount=9

Check out the distance between the “ghosted-in” archway to Miller’s Court, in what would have been its true location in 1888, and the front bumper of the car in the extreme right of the photograph (or rather a foot in front of it), which is where Lewis claimed she saw a loitering man in her police report. That is the piddling little distance we’ve been arguing over for the last few pages, and yet you think that distance is sufficient to both rule out Hutchinson as the wideawake man and bolster your different day hypothesis.

I can’t agree, as you well know, but like you, I realise the futility of further repetitive exchanges and would be only too happy to abort that particular avenue for now.

All the best,
Ben

[harry]

I do not see how the width of Dorset Street can have any bearing on whether it was the 8th or the 9th of November 1888 that Hutchinson stood there.Still as the subject has been brought forward,his statement,'They both went up the court together.I then went to the court to see if I could see them but could not"needs clarification,as all three ,by the statement seem to have moved at the same time.Before the court itself was reached,a narrow passage had to be walked through.Could Kelly and companion have reached her room and entered,before Hutchinson reached the passage entrance.?How far to her room?About the width of the road? Would they have walked rapidly?would he?Did he know where her room was?I think the questions are relevant ,how about the answers?

[D'Onston]

Relavatory?

Hey Ben,

I found Fish's article to be so because he presented a logical reason why Dew's
opinion on Hutchinson could be correct.

The element of the weather is a new take on Dew's opinion, and is, therefore, important.

As always in this field, with the paucity of hard evidence, a new look, and a new take, on what we do have will always be appreciated, and important (as long as it does not weave any new conspiracies!) New, plausible theories always cause us to stop, and reconsider whether we are missing the forest because we are too busy concentrating on one tree.

The usefulness of Fish's paper will, I think, be determined by how it helps others to look at the old facts in a new light.

With such little hard evidence in play, I don't think it helps any of us to be dogmatic.

All best wishes, Mike

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"as the subject has been brought forward,his statement,'They both went up the court together.I then went to the court to see if I could see them but could not"needs clarification,as all three ,by the statement seem to have moved at the same time.Before the court itself was reached,a narrow passage had to be walked through.Could Kelly and companion have reached her room and entered,before Hutchinson reached the passage entrance.?How far to her room?About the width of the road? Would they have walked rapidly?would he?Did he know where her room was?I think the questions are relevant ,how about the answers?"

My take on it, Harry, is that Hutchinson followed the couple from a distance as they walked towards the court. When Kelly and Astrahan reached the corner of the court, they stopped. At that spot, they had a three minute long chat, involving the handkerchief part. As that conversation took place, Hutchinson by his own admission stood at the corner of Dorset and Commercial, waiting for the couple to move on. When they did so, they walked into the archway leading up to the court. At that stage, they had the fewest of yards left before they stood at Kellys door, situated at the spot where the court opened up. The only credible conclusion must then be that they thereafter entered Kellys room.
When they walked into the archway, Hutchinson left his stance at the street corner and walked to the court, to see if he could spot the couple. He could not, but reasonably, there would have been sufficient time for them to move into Kellys room before Hutchinson got to the corner of the court - the distance they needed to cover was but a fifth of the one Hutchinson had to cope with to get to the court.

On your question what relevance the width of Dorset Street would have had in determining whether Hutchinson was there on the 8:th or the 9:th, I think you already know the answer: Normally, no street width governs where people go and on what day they do it. But it may come in handy when trying to afterwards assess what happened! But as such, whether it was 24 feet (which seems to be the figure recorded on the matter) or 22 or 20 feet does not matter. As long as it was not some sort of yard-wide cow path, we should recognize the fact that people standing on either side of the street would have been standing a significant distance from each other.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

On the issue of at what stage during his vigil Hutchinson went into the court itself, it has been suggested that this would have been the last thing he did before leaving Dorset Street. Searching the sources, I can only find one pointer. That is the Manchester Guardian of the 14:th, where it says:
"They went into Miller's Court together, and some time afterwards Hutchinson also went up the court, stayed there a couple of minutes, and seeing no light in Kelly's room he returned to Dorset-street. He remained about the place three-quarters of an hour, and then went home."

If this is correct, then the walk up the court was NOT the last part of the vigil. And, also provided that this source has it right, it follows that the combined sources seem to tell us that Hutchinson stood on the northern side of the street throughout. Not, though, necessarily glued to a certain stance and not, though, necessarily being as still as a statue. At any rate, no source whatsoever has Hutchinson saying that he crossed the street or that he was ever on the southern pavement. This still stands, and is further reinfoced by the Manchester Guardian.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"You are funny sometimes, Fish."

Is that funny funny or strange funny? Or both?

"You say you want to “put an end to the misery” and then revive the same misery in the next breath! "

Well, not exactly. I want to put an end to all the parts of our conversation where we do not mutually move forward as much as a millimeter. That would be 99 per cent of the material.
I do not, however, wish to leave the thread as such, since it revolves around my own work and suggestions. And every time a new element is introduced into the discussion, I merrily (and perhaps naïvely) hope that it can be discussed in a productive way, leading the issue forward to a better mutual understanding. That is why it makes me sad when, for example, I over and over again say that there would have been no need at all for Hutchinson to remain motionlessly glued to a spot, no matter if he stood on the northern or southern side of the street, but receive answers from your side implicating that I have somehow opted for a belief that he would have moved less than Nelson in Trafalgar Square. It is as if the whole suggestion that he was permanently on the northern pavement would have meant that he could not move in any way, and if that had followed from a stance to the north, then yes it would seem a very strange place for him to stand.
But it does not follow, does it? The two pavements would have provided the exact same possibilities in this respect, would they not? So why, Ben, do you use this argument, in conflict with what I say and in conflict with the physical realities?
This is the sort of thing I have no wish to take part in. I find that it takes the focus away from more important matters in an improductive manner, and if we could refrain from them I would be very happy. And happy men are sometimes funny men, so there may be something to your proposal.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

“The usefulness of Fish's paper will, I think, be determined by how it helps others to look at the old facts in a new light.”

Yes, I certainly agree with this, and you’re right to highlight the fact that the weather has never before been used to bolster Dew’s theory. Unfortunately, I don’t think it does, and I think there are far too many indications against this suggestion being the correct for it to be considered anything other than an interesting and thought-provoking new take on an old theory.

I guess what surprises me is how recently certain theories seem to have been formulated. Of course, it doesn’t follow at all that the best “ripperological” works are necessarily the result of years of painstaking research, but this whole Dew business seems to have cropped up in the last month or so. I mentioned Dew’s reference to Hutchinson in passing on an earlier thread, and despite Fisherman’s immediate cautioning of me not to listen to Dew because he was an old man at the time writing years after the event, that he made many mistakes and wasn’t necessarily kept appraised of details by his superiors, he seems to have changed his mind very quickly, and the result is the article that you’re calling “revelatory”.

None of this is meant in criticism. It’s just a commentary on how message board participation can quickly lead to the formulation of theories that are then adhered to with passion.

Hi Fish,

“Is that funny funny or strange funny? Or both?”

A bit of both, but mostly strange. It just perplexes me sometimes how you can decide very definitely to call it quits on generalized repetitive debate in one post but then use the very next post as an excuse to set the ball rolling all over again.

The “physical realities” are the images depict. If you or anyone else cares to study the bottom photograph in the link I provided and observe the width of the area marked in “claret” on the ground, we are talking about an absurdly small distance, and this is especially apparent if you observe the distance from the site of the Miller’s Court archway to the modern edge of the inside of the car park. And yet astonishingly, you’ve just told Harry that you think it a “significant distance”. It just wasn’t. Placing himself firmly on the northern side of the court strikes me as bizarrely enforced immobility, whether you have him glued there or not.

I’m perplexed by your conclusions with regard to the Manchester Guardian. This newspaper says absolutely nothing about where in Dorset Street Hutchinson claimed to have stood.

Here’s what it says:

“seeing no light in Kelly's room he returned to Dorset-street."

Just Dorset Street. No pavement or “northern end” is specified.

Even more significantly, the article then observes:

“He remained about the place three-quarters of an hour”

About the place.

In other words, in the general vicinity, and not in one particular location that he didn’t move from.

That is what “about the place” means, and far from supporting the contention that he wouldn’t have moved to the other side of the street (A Vauxhall Corsa’s length away), it lends further weight to the contention that he moved “about” within that tiny area, assuming he wasn’t at Crossingham’s for the duration of the vigil, as I contend he would have been.

Hutchinson’s later claim to have entered the court itself is very suspicious, in any case. There is no reference to this in the initial police statement, and it’s unthinkable that Abberline would have withheld it if Hutchinson had mentioned it. Clearly this is something Hutchinson added later when speaking to the press, and in my opinion, this inconsistency between police and press accounts was one of the reasons for his eventual discrediting. But that is perhaps a discussion for another time.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"yet astonishingly, you’ve just told Harry that you think it a “significant distance”. It just wasn’t."

Here we go again, Ben! Tell me what is a significant distance. Now, do NOT tell me that people could have different ideas on that, whereas the distance we are talking about certainly was not. Instead tell me exactly when a distance goes from insignificant to significant when we speak of street widths and such.

"I’m perplexed by your conclusions with regard to the Manchester Guardian. This newspaper says absolutely nothing about where in Dorset Street Hutchinson claimed to have stood."

You are perplexed by many things, Ben! The only thing I am pointing to here, is the fact that the Guardian tells us that Hutchinson vigil did not end - like you have suggested - with his trip up the court. It would seem that it came at an earlier stage, after which he returned to Dorset Street to reassume his vigil. Therefore, when he tells us that he left from the corner of the court, he was speaking about leaving a stance on the northern side. Of course, it takes more than one paper to conclude it - and a little less of perplexion.

"Hutchinson’s later claim to have entered the court itself is very suspicious, in any case."

I really do not care very much about that. What I care about is the fact that it is in the papers, and as such it belongs to the information. If somebody thinks that it is "conspicious" - for whatever reason - then that is their own decision. It does not detract from the fact that any theory that wishes to - in an unbiased manner - weigh in what Hutchinson said, needs to take much heed of this.

"I guess what surprises me is how recently certain theories seem to have been formulated."

Yes, I actually pondered saving this whim of mine for my eightysecond birthday, in order to give it more credibility. After giving it some quick afterthought, I still decided on going ahead with it, with the hope that it may come to be accepted as useful somewhere at the next turn of the century.

Thanks for telling me that your view is no criticism, by the way! Of course it is not - anybody understands that even largely unsubstantiated flights of fancy may prove useful to some extent. Therein lies my hope!

In due time, however, this theory will have many years to it, just like the Hutch-the-killer theory, and then I will bask in the glory of having provided a theory that has aged like a fine bottle of wine!
One problem, though, is that no matter how old my theory becomes, the Hutch-the-foamer-at-the-mouth theory will always be even older.
But I take comfort in the fact that wine that grows too old turns sour!

You forgot to answer my question about why you keep telling me, in post after post, that I am of the meaning that people on the north pavement would be locked in statuelike poses. This in spite of my assertions that I have never held any such belief. I think it would be interesting to see you elaborate on that point. If you prefer not to answer, I´m fine with that too.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“Here we go again, Ben! Tell me what is a significant distance.”

It’s up to you if you want to consider the distance “significant”, Fisherman, but I would be very surprised. I can only highlight the study I provided a link to and encourage others to look at the width of that dark red line that delineated the negligible width of former Dorset Street.

“It would seem that it came at an earlier stage, after which he returned to Dorset Street to reassume his vigil.”

Yes, but that’s the only clue they provided as to his location – Dorset Street. Nothing is said or even hinted about the “northern” pavement or any other specific location. We can’t just cherry pick bits from various newspapers and decide which bits we want to be true. The same article, moreover, stated that Hutchinson remained “about the place” – not in any one particular location, but “about the place”.

“What I care about is the fact that it is in the papers, and as such it belongs to the information.”

Indeed. It belongs to the information that Hutchinson gave differing accounts to police and press.

“You forgot to answer my question about why you keep telling me, in post after post, that I am of the meaning that people on the north pavement would be locked in statuelike poses.”

Okay, I’ll put if differently. It makes no sense, to my mind, to argue that Hutchinson’s movements only extended to northern pavement outside the Miller’s Court entrance, but not to the area around Crossingham’s, which was a average hatchback-length away and was also in the vicinity of the entrance to Miller’s Court.

I don’t know who’s been arguing that Hutchinson “foamed at the mouth”, but it certainly wasn’t me.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sally]

I don’t know who’s been arguing that Hutchinson “foamed at the mouth”, but it certainly wasn’t me

It wasn't him - it was the horse. That was why he was out of the picture for 3 days - he was busy looking after the foamy-mouthed horse and had no idea that Kelly had been brutally slain.

Fisherman - you speak confidently of 'collaborative evidence' yet plainly you don't understand what it is. Your examples are examples of repetition, not collaboration.

As to the width of Dorset Street - plainly it was not 24 feet wide in 1888. There is ample contemporary visual evidence which contradicts that assertion - not to mention the recent work highlighted by Ben.

Datchett Street may have been 24 feet wide - see, there's a clue there, in the fact that it is Datchett Street which is referred to in The Survey of London (V.27 Francis Sheppard (ed.)1957)

200 years, however, is ample time for that to change - partcularly in London -and in doing so, it would be very typical.

As to the width of the street being a 'significant' distance - plainly it was not, unless one happened to be an ant, perhaps, engaged on an annual trek from the mountainous slopes of the northern pavement to the treacherous terrain of the south.

For Lewis and Hutchinson? Nah.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I can only highlight the study I provided a link to and encourage others to look at the width of that dark red line that delineated the negligible width of former Dorset Street."

It will be the one and only street in the history of mankind with a "negligible width", methinks. Do we know that it actually existed? Negligible things do not always do so. Well, almost not, at least.

"Yes, but that’s the only clue they provided as to his location – Dorset Street. Nothing is said or even hinted about the “northern” pavement or any other specific location. We can’t just cherry pick bits from various newspapers and decide which bits we want to be true."

You may do so, Ben! Feel free! It still won´t place Hutch on the southern side, no matter what paper you choose.

What we DO have, is the police report that tells us that he went to the court, the Manchester Guardian that tells us that he made his trip into the court at an early stage, after which he returned to the street, once again the police report that tells us that he says that he went to the court and stood there for 45 minutes, and finally the Daily News (and others) that say that as he went away, he went away from the corner of the court.

That means that we may very, very easily piece together a picture telling us that he went to the court, stopped at the court, and left from the court corner. And at one stage early on, he walked up the court, but returned to his vigil. THAT can be pieced together with help of the evidence given by Hutchinson. What CANNOT be produced from that same evidence is any shred of information telling us that he stood at the door of Crossinghams for as much as a split second. To get him there, he desperately needs a helping hand. Without that - no.

That is how the graces are distributed in the evidence given by Hutchinson, and it´s very unevenly distributed, I´m afraid - those who look for the words "Crossinghams", "crossed the street", "the other side of the street", "lodginghouse" and such are deprived of any such finds, whereas the ones who search for the wordings like "to the court", "from the corner of the court" and that sort of stuff will easily find what they look for.

"Indeed. It belongs to the information that Hutchinson gave differing accounts to police and press."

That would be your suggestion. What I find is that the paper articles are longer than the police report, and thus there will be more in them. That, however, does not show us that he told the police and the press different things when it comes to this particular issue, does it? He may well have told the police these exact things too, but there is no reason to assume that all he said went into that report.
I am willing to adjust to your stance, though, and leave the material out as being of no interest since it was not in the report - but in return for such a thing I will request that we ALSO look away from any possibility that he ever mentioned seing Lewis. This, you see, is not in that report either, and you have yourself with some glow argued that it may well have been something that he told the police anyway. All things, you tell me, need not have gone into that report.

"Okay, I’ll put if differently. It makes no sense, to my mind, to argue that Hutchinson’s movements only extended to northern pavement outside the Miller’s Court entrance, but not to the area around Crossingham’s"

Aha! Well, well - that is a completely different story! I am first and foremost glad to hear that you seem to accept that I never "froze" Hutchinson. And after that, I will of course not object to any reasoning that Hutchinson would have been in the "general area" of Crossinghams; if you are within a number of yards from a spot, you ARE in the "general area". It is common sense.

What is not common sense, though, would be to claim that Hutchinson must at some stage (preferably 2.30 AM) have arrived at the door of the lodginghouse. There is actually just as little sense in suggesting that he must have crossed the street as such. There is, however, much sense in realizing that Hutchinson described his movements that night with the wording that he "stood there" for fortyfive minutes. Albeit it is very reasonable to suggest that he may not have kept completely still, this wording does in no way lend any increased credibility to any suggestion that he may have walked about. People who say "I went to the corner of the street and stood there for half an hour" are people who want to convey the picture that they have spent half an hour at the corner of a street, and not a picture of themselves CROSSING that street, or pacing up the pavement for twenty yards, or standing somewhere else that on that street corner.

There must always be the benefit of a doubt on this matter. It stands to reason. I have not and will not argue anything else. Once again, he MAY have moved to Crossinghams at some stage. BUT his own evidence, taken in isolation and without the influence of Lewis´ ditto, has no pointer than the ones we add ourselves - if we wish to - that tell us that he stood at Crossinghams.
There are only so many ways this can be said. I must have covered them all by now.
And, if you once again listen to your words, you may perhaps detect what I see in them:

"It makes no sense, to my mind, to argue that Hutchinson’s movements only extended to northern pavement outside the Miller’s Court entrance, but not to the area around Crossingham’s"

Of course, this is an isolated case with it´s own ingredients. But the detail of the stance can be compared to any other situation with the same general build-up. So let´s suggest an invented scenario here, where a man stands accused of having written obscene words on the facade of a house on the southern side of a narrow street. He stands now before the judge and jury, and he gives his picture:
-I was standing on the northern pavement, he says, waiting for my girlfriend to come out. She took the longest time. I must have waited for a full 45 minutes.
-Did you never venture over the street? the judge asks.
-No. I stood by the door of my fiancées flat for the whole time. I was leaning up the wall since I got tired.
-Aha, says the judge. And of this you are sure?
-Of course I am. I went to the flat door and stood there for three quarters of an hour, and when my gal did not show up, I gave up and left the corner of the doorway.

Now, Ben, at this stage, would the judge say: "But that makes no sense! I cannot accept that he would have stood on the northern side of the street for 45 minutes, by the door. He simply must have moved about and that must have taken him to the southern pavement! Anybody must realize this!"

I do not think that he would draw this conclusion. I think instead that it would have been regarded as a very weird thing to say - I, at least, would be very much of that meaning.

If we take Hutchinson´s testimony ON IT`S OWN - then we would have the exact same type of situation here. And no judge could ever have come up with the suggestion that it would defy belief that a man could stand in a narrow street for 45 minutes without touching both pavements with his feet. It would be completely absurd to suggest it.

Is it not true, Ben, that your suggestion only takes flight when you add Sarah Lewis testimony? Is that not the point where it becomes very, very hard for you to believe that he was not on the southern side, close to Crossingham´s? Try, Ben, to look away from her! Away you go, laundress! Try to view it the way I and that judge would view it, IN ISOLATION.
Can people stand on one side of a narrow street without crossing it?
Is it possible?
Is it in any way less credible than the suggestion that something would urge them to make that crossing?

"I don’t know who’s been arguing that Hutchinson “foamed at the mouth”, but it certainly wasn’t me."

Nah, that was me, Ben. But maybe it ought to be you, for if he WAS the Ripper, he would have been something of a mouthfoamer judging by that man´s handiwork.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Sally. Goodnight Sally.

Regards,
Fisherman

[Ben]

So Sally gets short shrift and I get the Magna Carta?

It was ever thus.

Just to remind you, Fisherman, you earlier expressed your wish to “put an end to all the parts of our conversation where we do not mutually move forward as much as a millimetre”.

We’re once again in one of those situations, just to let you know.

“What we DO have, is the police report that tells us that he went to the court, the Manchester Guardian that tells us that he made his trip into the court at an early stage”

But this is where you seem to be cherry-picking the bits and pieces from various sources that you want to be true, whilst discarding the bits that are not as convenient for your theory. For example, you treat as accurate the detail about Hutchinson returning to Dorset Street after making a brief visit to the court, despite the paucity of similar claims from other newspapers, but choose to gloss over the observation made in the same article that Hutchinson remained “about the place”, i.e. in the general area (which was still very small) and not at one specific location.

Of course, most press versions of his account quote Hutchinson directly, and most of them make it rather obvious that venturing up the court was the last action he claimed to have taken before departing the scene from the corner of Miller’s Court, after emerging from within. After all, it would have made precious little sense for him to stick around after registering that no lights and no noise were emanating from Miller’s Court.

Far from “very, very easily” piecing together any coherent picture, it seems instead that you’ve chosen a combination of details from a variety of sources that you think are most compatible with your theory, whilst ignoring some other details from the same sources that are not.

Hutchinson does not need any helping hand to “get to” the area in front of Crossingham’s because as far as I’m concerned the evidence “gets him” there already with the reference “to the court”, which clearly refers to anywhere in front of narrow, narrow Dorset Street that enabled a peek into Miller’s Court. Anyone visiting the photographs from Colin’s study will see that this is an obvious commonsense deduction, given the laughably tiny distance between the “ghosted in” entrance to Miller’s Court as was, and the location where Lewis placed her loiterer in the police report. So no street crossing would have been required, because as far as I’m concerned – and as far as the evidence allows – he was probably there already.

Just for the record, I’m not budging “one millimetre” from what I consider “to the court” to mean very clearly, and it may be worth you bearing this in mind if you’re up for going around in circles again on this issue, despite assuring me quite often that you wouldn’t be.

“He may well have told the police these exact things too, but there is no reason to assume that all he said went into that report.”

No, it is absolute nonsense to suggest that Abberline heard from Hutchinson about his claim to have ventured into the court and waited outside the victim’s home for two minutes, but chose to withhold it from the body of the statement. Good grief, no. I’m budging even less than a millimetre on that one.

“but in return for such a thing I will request that we ALSO look away from any possibility that he ever mentioned seing Lewis.”

Okay, Fish, sounds like a fair trade to me.

I’m fine with this, of course, since by far the stronger explanation to my mind is that Hutchinson deliberately avoided any mention of Lewis.

“What is not common sense, though, would be to claim that Hutchinson must at some stage (preferably 2.30 AM) have arrived at the door of the lodginghouse.”

But you know full well my reasons for concluding that this is the commonsense explanation, and they include what I regard as the overwhelming probability that Lewis’ loiterer and Hutchinson were one and the same. You know why I arrived at the conclusion – because the similarity in behaviour and movements at the same location is far too strong to be dismissed as coincidence.

“Albeit it is very reasonable to suggest that he may not have kept completely still, this wording does in no way lend any increased credibility to any suggestion that he may have walked about.”

I disagree very strongly. You just have to use a bit of imagination. Since “Stood there” almost certainly does not mean “kept completely still” for a full 45 minutes, the only reasonable interpretation was that he did walk about. Otherwise we’re left with that “glued to the spot” scenario that we both considered improbable to the point of being comical. So I’d suggest a bit of realism-awareness should dictate our thinking when contemplating the meaning of “I stood there”. “There” clearly refers to that tiny area in Dorset Street in front of Miller’s Court that most assuredly encompasses the region around Crossingham’s.

“He stands now before the judge and jury, and he gives his picture:
-I was standing on the northern pavement”

But this is not an accurate imaginary comparison because we know full well that Hutchinson wasn’t nearly as specific with regard to his initial location on Dorset Street, and he certainly never spoke of the “northern” pavement. As I’ve observed, the photographs in the study I provided a link to (particularly the last one) render it silly to speak in terms of “north” and “south” as though illustrating a clear dividing distance, just as it’s silly to speak of the north and south end of a Vauxhall Corsa.

“Try, Ben, to look away from her! Away you go, laundress!”

No, come hither, laundress, because it is you who offers the crucial and telling indication that the man you saw was Hutchinson, and that, short of unlikely “coincidence”, he came forward after realising that he’d been seen.

“if he WAS the Ripper, he would have been something of a mouthfoamer judging by that man´s handiwork.”

I think a study of eviscerating serial killers would tend to indicate otherwise.

Best regards,
Ben