Hi Tecs! The things the human mind will drive us to ...!
"But we do have Sarah Lewis's effective corroboration of Hutch's story. She said she saw a man standing exactly where Hutch said that he was."
Sarah Lewis does not corroborate Hutchinson´s story. It is Hutchinson that SEEMINGLY corroborates her. Thus she could never have claimed to have seen a man standing "exactly where Hutch said he was". She knew not of Hutchinson as she testified. Though I understand what you mean, of course!
But have you spent any real effort trying to establish just how "exactly" the loiterers stance copied Hutchinson´s? Or are you just, at face value, accepting that this was what happened? If so, where do you place the two? Sheltering in Crossingham´s doorway, perhaps?
Let´s return to Dorset street in the company of Lewis and Hutchinson, and see what they offer. We begin with Lewis, as per the inquest:
"When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake."
A-ha! The loiterer was standing on the northern side of the street, opposite the lodging house, and not at it´s door! Interesting!
But wait! The Times has it:
"Sarah Lewis, a laundress, of 24, Great Pearl-street, Spitalfields, said she went to the house of Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, on Friday morning about 2:30, and saw a man standing at the lodging-house door by himself."
But ... I thought he was standing at the other side...?
Come on now, let´s try the Morning Advertisers take on the inquest:
"In Dorset-street I saw a man with a wideawake on stopping on the opposite side of the pavement. The man was alone, and was not talking to anyone. He was tall and "a stout looking man." He had dark clothes on. A young man went along with a young woman. The man, I noticed, was looking up the court, as though he was waiting for someone."
On stopping on the opposite side of the pavement, she says. Does that mean that she came from the south and saw him on the northern side...? Beats me!
Never mind; there is always Hutchinson to help out! Here´s his police report:
"They both went into Dorset Street I followed them. They both stood at the corner of the Court for about 3 minutes. He said something to her. She said alright my dear come along you will be comfortable He then placed his arm on her shoulder and gave her a kiss. She said she had lost her handkercheif he then pulled his handkercheif a red one out and gave it to her. 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."
I stood there for about three quarters of an hour, he says. But where? At the corner of the court? Or at the court? Or in it? I can´t make heads or tails of it! And he certainly does not say that he was at the door of Crossingham´s, does he?
Let´s move on to the Daily News of the 14:th, then, and see if it helps:
"I followed them across and stood at the corner of Dorset street. They stood at the corner of Miller's court for about three minutes. Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, "I have lost my handkerchief." He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket, and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for three quarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away."
Sod it! Same thing! "I went to look up the court", he says. But where did he stand? He does not even specify the side of the street, does he?
The Evening News, then?
""He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but I could not. I stood there for three quarters of an hour, to see if they came down again, but they did not, so I went away."
Well, whaddoyouknow...? It seems that old George never came up with an estimation of where he was at.
After this, Tecs, can you still say that Sarah Lewis saw her loiterer at the exact same spot that Hutchinson positioned him at...? I can´t.
"Did the papers use the word discredited?"
The Star did. And they said that it was Hutchinsosns STORY that had suffered that fate - they did NOT say that Hutchinson himself had been discredited. Interesting difference, wouldn´t you say?
"Hutchinson was given two detectives to walk the streets with, an obvious sign that they were taking him very seriously indeed"
That was on the evening of the Monday, the day BEFORE the papers started to leak the news that his story was no longer believed in extenso. Abberline believed Hutch from the outside, remember? But that was to change soon enough! And, like I have said before, even if Hutch was a day off, the Astrakhan man would still have been of great interest to the police, having seen Kelly on Thursday morning!
The best, Tecs!
Fisherman
"But we do have Sarah Lewis's effective corroboration of Hutch's story. She said she saw a man standing exactly where Hutch said that he was."
Sarah Lewis does not corroborate Hutchinson´s story. It is Hutchinson that SEEMINGLY corroborates her. Thus she could never have claimed to have seen a man standing "exactly where Hutch said he was". She knew not of Hutchinson as she testified. Though I understand what you mean, of course!
But have you spent any real effort trying to establish just how "exactly" the loiterers stance copied Hutchinson´s? Or are you just, at face value, accepting that this was what happened? If so, where do you place the two? Sheltering in Crossingham´s doorway, perhaps?
Let´s return to Dorset street in the company of Lewis and Hutchinson, and see what they offer. We begin with Lewis, as per the inquest:
"When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake."
A-ha! The loiterer was standing on the northern side of the street, opposite the lodging house, and not at it´s door! Interesting!
But wait! The Times has it:
"Sarah Lewis, a laundress, of 24, Great Pearl-street, Spitalfields, said she went to the house of Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, on Friday morning about 2:30, and saw a man standing at the lodging-house door by himself."
But ... I thought he was standing at the other side...?
Come on now, let´s try the Morning Advertisers take on the inquest:
"In Dorset-street I saw a man with a wideawake on stopping on the opposite side of the pavement. The man was alone, and was not talking to anyone. He was tall and "a stout looking man." He had dark clothes on. A young man went along with a young woman. The man, I noticed, was looking up the court, as though he was waiting for someone."
On stopping on the opposite side of the pavement, she says. Does that mean that she came from the south and saw him on the northern side...? Beats me!
Never mind; there is always Hutchinson to help out! Here´s his police report:
"They both went into Dorset Street I followed them. They both stood at the corner of the Court for about 3 minutes. He said something to her. She said alright my dear come along you will be comfortable He then placed his arm on her shoulder and gave her a kiss. She said she had lost her handkercheif he then pulled his handkercheif a red one out and gave it to her. 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."
I stood there for about three quarters of an hour, he says. But where? At the corner of the court? Or at the court? Or in it? I can´t make heads or tails of it! And he certainly does not say that he was at the door of Crossingham´s, does he?
Let´s move on to the Daily News of the 14:th, then, and see if it helps:
"I followed them across and stood at the corner of Dorset street. They stood at the corner of Miller's court for about three minutes. Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, "I have lost my handkerchief." He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket, and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for three quarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away."
Sod it! Same thing! "I went to look up the court", he says. But where did he stand? He does not even specify the side of the street, does he?
The Evening News, then?
""He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but I could not. I stood there for three quarters of an hour, to see if they came down again, but they did not, so I went away."
Well, whaddoyouknow...? It seems that old George never came up with an estimation of where he was at.
After this, Tecs, can you still say that Sarah Lewis saw her loiterer at the exact same spot that Hutchinson positioned him at...? I can´t.
"Did the papers use the word discredited?"
The Star did. And they said that it was Hutchinsosns STORY that had suffered that fate - they did NOT say that Hutchinson himself had been discredited. Interesting difference, wouldn´t you say?
"Hutchinson was given two detectives to walk the streets with, an obvious sign that they were taking him very seriously indeed"
That was on the evening of the Monday, the day BEFORE the papers started to leak the news that his story was no longer believed in extenso. Abberline believed Hutch from the outside, remember? But that was to change soon enough! And, like I have said before, even if Hutch was a day off, the Astrakhan man would still have been of great interest to the police, having seen Kelly on Thursday morning!
The best, Tecs!
Fisherman
Comment