Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[harry]

When HUtchinson followed the pair into Dorset Street,and Kelly and companion loitered for three minutes outside the court,Hutchinson's description of what happened,and of observing a red handkerchief pass hands,places him very near but not at the entrance to the court.So he moves to the court entrance on them going inside.Sarah Lewis comes along at 2.30,not too long afterwards,and there is a man standing adjacent to,, but not at the entrance to the court,but able to observe down the court.That is the only evidence given.So the person Lewis observes,by any reasonable deduction, must have been at or very near Crossingham's.
Now fisherman,if you want to place another person at the entrance to the court, or in the court when Lewis arrives,please do so,because Lewis didn't.
I do not entertain the idea of a different date for reasons I have stated.Hutchinson states Friday the 9th, Aberline accepted that,and the suggestion that it was Thursday the 8th, is just that,suggestion without a single reasonable piece of information to support it.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"Now fisherman,if you want to place another person at the entrance to the court, or in the court when Lewis arrives,please do so,because Lewis didn't."

Why would I? I think the discrepancy in the testimony material speaks for itself.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
According to the Irish times the 13th Nov 1888, we could have a scenerio which explains a lot.
According to Mrs lewis we have an account of a stranger accosting her and a friend on the wednesday night, and her seeing that same man with a female in Commercial street about the same time as Hutchinson claimed.
Upon reaching the court, she apparently looked back and saw this couple on the corner of Dorset street, at that time she saw the man opposite the court with the wide awake hat.
If the man and woman were Astracan and Kelly, then we have Hutchinson already there[ possibly].
So either he walked ahead of them and waited opposite the court, or he was waiting there before, and never saw them where he stated.
This latter suggestion makes sense to me, lets say Hutchinson had walked back from Romford, had nowhere to sleep, so calls on Kelly, after all she owed him a favour, and proberly heard from Daniel Barnett.[ victoria home] that Joe was no longer resident, on trying the door he realised that she was still out so he waited.
Then I would suggest that the couple walked down Dorset street on the right side, stood near the court entrance for a minute or so, and Hutchinson observed the man from opposite.
Why make a statement that he saw them in Dorset street?
Then he would apparently have a reason to admit waiting at the court, and would not have to say he was waiting for kelly to arrive home, and hopefully spend the remainder of the night in her room.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I am incredibly surprised that you should claim, with what strikes me as no good reason, that the “inescapable” conclusion is that Lewis’ loiterer and George Hutchinson were different people."

Let me be as exact as I can:

Hutchinsons police report and the paper articles speak of him standing in one spot and one spot only: at the court. In no way is it hinted at any stance at Crossinghams in this material.
Lewiīs police report and the inquest recordings as well as the paper articles place her loiterer firmly at the lodginghouse door.

If we look at this evidence in isolation - and that is what I do - we apparently have two men standing on either side of the street. That means that the physical evidence relating to what Hutchinson and Lewis said is completely onesided. If it holds true, then the two men could not have been one and the same. It is physically impossible.

"surely you must understand that you can’t really argue that if only everyone had the sense to acknowledge that you’re right, there would be no need for further discussion?"

Oh I do, Ben. And I welcome any discussion. It is anybodyīs choice to hold any conviction, supported by the evidence or not.
What we should not allow for, though, is any interpretation of the evidence given by Hutchinson and taken in isolation as in any way hinting at him having stood at Crossinghamīs on that night. On that score, the evidence is totally clear and unanimous: not a shred of it speaks of any stance on his behalf than that on the northern side of the street.

"Most people don’t think you’re right about Hutchinson not being the wideawake man."

I am not sure where these statistics come from, and I fail to see what relevance it has what people in general think. Once upon a time 99.9 per cent of the population thought that the earth was flat. When further knowledge was added, though ...
Are you saying that I should convert to what you think that people believe in general, or are you saying that this belief of yours in any way adds to or detracts from the chance that I am right?

"If someone made it his intention to move from Commercial Street to a position than enabled him to look up the court, then he had most assuredly moved “to the court”, regardless of whether he stood nearer the Miller’s Court archway or the lodging house on the other side of the road. “To the court” meant anywhere on Dorset Street in front of the court that wasn’t actually “in” or “up” the court"

That would mean, Ben, that somebody walking alongside the northern side of the street would eventually have stood at Crossinghams. And somebody standing outside the Britannia would have gone to Christ Church.
I do not think this is a very useful suggestion.
I think that if somebody says "I went to the court", then the overall probability is that they did exactly this. And I also think that when we KNOW that Hutchinson claimed to have left his vigil from the corner of the court, it very much adds to my suggestion.

On that last score, you have said that Hutchinsons wording probably owed to the fact that he had walked up the court, and when he turned back he would pass the corner of the court and thus he would choose to say that he left from "the corner of the court".

Letīs look at a theoretical comparison:
A man stands for half an hour in a doorway, leading into a flat. After that half hour, he leaves the place. Would he say "I left the flat" or "I left the doorway"? I think the latter is the better suggestion.
In the next scenario, the man stands in the doorway for thirty minutes. After that, he walks into the flat and strolls through it for a minute or two, after which he takes his leave.
Would he now say "I left the doorway" or "I left the flat"? Same thing - the latter suggestion is the better one.
Fot this reason, I think that Hutchinson left the corner of the court when he said that he left the corner of the court. I do not think that he left the court in itself and worded it that he left the corner of the court.

"Of course Hutchinson never specified that he was standing outside Crossingham’s, but then nor did he specify that he stood on the northern side of Commercial Street, which is what you attempted to assert as established fact in defiance of the evidence and an apparent lack of familiarity with the geography of the area. "

Why would you say such a thing? I have been to the murder spots numerous times, sometimes in the company of acclaimed Ripperologists. I have seen the photos, I am familiar with the maps and such. Why would I lack familiarity with the scenes? And why do you say that it is in defiance of the evidence to state that Hutchinson stood at the court and not at Crossinghams for fortyfive minutes, when he said exactly this? Or are you saying that is in defiance with the evidence provided by Lewis? For if so, that evidence should not be used to bolster any placing of Hutchinson - it only relates to the loiterer.

"The idea that Hutchinson – or anyone – should remain glued to one spot is something I cannot agree with"

Have I suggested that he did? Or have I suggested that he may have moved about on the northern side of the street? Would it only be possible to stretch your legs and excercise on the southern side?
Finally, since we know that he walked to the court to look down the archway - why would he move to the other side of the street? It would not give him as close and as good a look.

"But why would I do that? It doesn’t remotely reflect my views on the subject – as you know full well – so why expect me to make a public claim that it does?"

I am once again speaking of the isolated evidence given by Hutchinson and Lewis, relating to where the men stood. If you look away from all other implications no other stance can be reached from this material than the one that Hutchinson never mentioned any other point than the one on the northern side of the street, whereas Lewis spoke of the southern side of it. After that, we may start to add our own personal beliefs relating to the rest of the evidence, but the isolated evidence relating to this errand is completely onesided.

"And what about walking all the way back from Romford just to pick up some belongings only to head out again to some far flung location where he spent several days in the company of horses, only learning of Kelly’s death when he arrived back in Petticoat Lane on Sunday. Is this “in evidence”? No."

Correct. And therefore all I can say it that the possibility is there, but it is totally unsupported by the isolated evidence relating to Hutchinsons whereabouts on Friday. And the same relates to your stance on this matter: the possibility that he crossed the street to Crossinghams is there, but any such suggestion is completely unsupported by the isolated evidence relating to the issue.

"This is simply untrue. I’m going precisely by the material we have."

If you weigh in all things said about the case, then yes. But if you weigh in nothing but Hutchinsons and Lewis testimony relating to the stance of the two men, then it is true.

"You advance a rather unconvincing argument in an effort to dampen this coincidence by suggesting that Lewis only thought her loiterer was “watching or waiting for someone”, but actually wasn’t.
I have considerable trouble with this suggestion.
So when Lewis only thought that the man she saw loitering opposite the court at 2:30am on the night of Kelly’s murder was watching or “waiting for someone to come out” some real person actually was?"

You would know what I mean, Ben. Hutchinson was not there on the night if I am correct - only the loiterer was. And I think that it will be very hard to establish that Lewis was correct in her interpretation of what he did. If he was a burglar, pondering a break-in into McCarthys shop, for example, then how do we know that this was not what he was taking an interested look at? Of course, Lewis assessment carries importance, and should be treated as the best bid - but I cannot for the life of me see why it should be treated as the ONLY possible bid.
In other words, we have in no way established that the loiterer was looking up the court, just as we have not established that he was really waiting for somebody to come out. The one thing we HAVE established is that this was the impression Sarah Lewis got of it.
As such, I can easily understand why you think it compelling to suggest that Hutchinson hijacked her story and placed himself in the role of a man who actually DID stand in the street and who actually DID wait for somebody to come out. It is a striking thing, no doubt about it. The trouble I am having with it, though, arises in contention with the picture of a man who was very good to pich up on details as these.
Why would somebody who had access to the whole wording about Lewis loiterer, up to the detail about looking like somebody who was waiting for someone to come out, why would that somebody pick up on these tiny, very useful substantiation possibilities to his cooked up story - and then go and demolish it totally by saying that he went "to the court" and that he left from "the corner of the court"? Why would he not say that he took up his vigil from a stance outside the lodging house. It makes very little sense.

"I disagree with you very strongly when you draw unwarranted attention to different sides of a narrow street as though it means something"

Unwarranted? As though it means something? Of course it means something! If the men were standing on different streets of the street it means that we can rule Hutchinsons story out, given that we trust that Lewis got it right. How can that be "unwarranted"? It is useful and welcome evidence, enabling us to see that Hutchinson may well have been mistaken on the day.

"From which we conclude what?
That he remained rooted with his feet to one particular location that you’ve decided upon with no evidence for the whole 45 minutes?"

No. That he remained UNrooted with his feet, but took care not to miss out on the possibility to overlook the court.

"But the fact that Sarah Lewis described someone in the very near vicinity engaging in exactly the same behaviour as reported by Hutchinson should certainly enable the conclusion that he moved from the Miller’s Court arch"

Absolutely, Ben! It points a very rigid finger in this direction, and more or less urges us to recognize that Hutchinson MUST have crossed the street! I have no trouble at all to see this. I have seen it for years!
But - and this is very important - when we use Sarah Lewis testimony to strengthen the suggestion that George Hutchinson stood outside Crossinghams lodging house at 2.30 in the morning, we also make the assumption that the loiterer MUST have been Hutchinson. And that is going about things in a totally unviable manner, since we use non-established things as though they were recognized facts! It turns the whole process of looking into the matter completely upside down.

My WHOLE suggestion rests on the premise that Hutchinson was in Dorset Street on the morning of the 8:th. My stance is that the fact that Lewis only places her man on the SOUTHERN side of the street whereas Hutchinson only speaks of the NORTHERN side of it, is very much in line with the suggestion of a day missed.
But how could I possibly be allowed to argue this if you say that Lewis testimony puts it beyond questioning that George Hutchinson stood outside Crossinghams at 2.30 on the Friday?
Lewisī testimony does no such thing, Iīm afraid! It ONLY tells us that there was a man standing outside Crossinghams lodging house at that hour. It says not a iota about the identity of the man, does it?

We must treat the testimony here in isolation of our earlier conceptions. And taken on itīs own, it points onesidedly away from an identification.

And just how incredible is it to have a man standing outside Crossinghams, looking over to the other side for that half minute when Lewis passed by? What if we compare to other theoretical scenarios?
If, for instance, there was a couple standing close to each other, smalltalking, at the entrance to the Jewish club in Duke street at 1:35 on the night before Eddowes died, we would have such a comparison. It would have been a couple standing at a place a few yards from the opening of Church Passage, doing what Eddowes and her man did next night; another couple at a place close by but not exactly there - would that be a freak coincidence, telling us that the two couples would have been one and the same and observed on the same night, since no two couples can stand on relatively close spots in the same street doing the same general things on consecutive nights?
What if a carman like Cross walked from east to west along Buckīs Row at the exact same hour as Nicholls was killed - but on the night before? Would that be a totally unviable thing to suggest - especially if we ponder the fact that a carman actually did exactly that ON THE SAME NIGHT AS CROSS, EVEN!
Lewis saw a man, thatīs all we know. He was apparently standing with his back to Crossinghams. If he was, the reasonable place to fix his gaze would be on the other side of the street. Just how damning is that?

"A very great number of researchers and enthusiasts have been analyzing Hutchinson and Lewis for several decades now, and it seems most have come to the conclusion that Lewis’ loiterer and Hutchinson were probably the same individual"

But why have they done so, Ben? Because, I would submit, they make use of Abberlineīs assertion that Hutch was honest. That means that it is more probable than not that he was there on the night. And if he was there on the night, he MUST have been the loiterer, unless there were two men about, which is a ridiculous suggestion.
It is that simple. What has been forgotten is that he may have been honest BUT HONESTLY MISTAKEN!

"Not because he said so, but because Sarah Lewis described a man loitering opposite the court apparently waiting for someone to come out at 2:30am on the night "

Once again, treat the evidence in isolation and another picture emerges.

"that’s what liars do, Fisherman. They stick the truth as much as possible unless it’s central to the lie."

But getting the location spot on WAS central to the lie. He missed out there and look what happened - I nailed him for it.

"But then Hutchinson was discredited, so that “impression of truthfulness” cannot have lasted very long."

It could well have lasted Abberlines whole life. If, that is, he was truthful but mistaken.

"I’m still firmly of the opinion that your theory is controversial, considerably more so than the suggestion that he may have been the murderer (which, rightly or wrongly, has at least proved more popular)"

I think you need to afford me a number of decades before you make the call about what is "popular" or not. And donīt forget that the Duke of Clarence and Gull are the most "popular" bids for the Ripper in peoples minds, generally spoken ...
I could not care less about how "popular" my suggestion is, Ben. It would not mean anything at all to me if I was sentenced to be rolled in tar and feathers over it.
I donīt deal in that currency. I rely on the evidence material and my own instinct, and I live with the consequences.

"I’m not making dogmatic assertions as to exactly which spot he must have been glued to, and then basing this on an overly rigid and difficult-to-justify interpretation of the evidence."

Once again, why would he have been more glued to the northern pavement than he would have been to the southern? If he stood outside Crossinghams, it is not as if he would move to the sides if he wanted to stay on target, is it? To enable him to take an occasional walk and still overlook the courtyard, there is only one method: You walk over the street to the northern side, looking up the court, and then you walk backwards across the street, still looking up the court. It is not a good bid, methinks.
And how can I possibly be "over-rigid" if I say that he MAY have moved to Crossinghams, but THE EVIDENCE shows us that Hutch never for a second inferred that he did - he instead told us that he went to the court and stayed there for three quarters of an hour.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"If the man and woman were Astracan and Kelly, then we have Hutchinson already there"

He followed the couple, Richard. When they stopped to take care of the handkerchief business and the smalltalk at the corner of the court, Hutchinson was standing at the corner of Dorset and Commercial. When they subsequentially moved into the archway, Hutchinson went to the court to see if he could see them. Why would he go to Crossinghams to do that?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“Hutchinsons police report and the paper articles speak of him standing in one spot and one spot only: at the court. In no way is it hinted at any stance at Crossinghams in this material.”

No, Fisherman, as I explained at length in my previous post, there is no evidence that Hutchinson was intending to refer to “one spot and one spot only” for the simple reason that the expression “to the court” very obviously refers to the area in Dorset Street in front of Miller’s Court that enabled people to peer up it. Since that area also happens to encompass the area outside the entrance to Crossingham’s, it should be very obvious that “to the court” could easily have meant moving from the corner of Dorset Street to somewhere in Dorset Street that allowed other people to register his interest in the court. Since there is so much other compelling evidence that Lewis loiterer and Hutchinson were the same person – even down to the “looking up the court” as though watching and waiting for someone to come out – the commonsense deduction is that Crossingham’s in where Hutchinson stood.

The idea that there were two people engaging in precisely the same behaviour at the same time on the same night a few feet away from each other is not remotely plausible, nor in my opinion is two people doing this on successive nights, so even the “confused date” angle fails to enervate the implausible coincidence factor in this case.

Not a “shred of evidence” places him fixated to the “Northern side of Dorset Street”, and the overwhelming probability is that he moved about within that small area encompassing the Crossingham’s and Miller’s Court entrances for the duration of that 45 minutes, if indeed he waited there for as long as he claimed. This area may be described, very logically, as “to the court”.

Hey here’s a terribly good idea. Let’s resign ourselves to our differing views on this for now, eh? Saves us going round in pointless circles and repeating ourselves as nauseam.

Yes, most people appear to have concluded that the wideawake man was probably Hutchinson. Nobody’s about to state is as an established fact, but the alternative necessitates a very hefty coincidence that must be considered vastly implausible. No, I’m not saying you should convert to this opinion if you honestly hold a different one, but I’m surprised that you can conclude that it is “inescapable” that they were different people, especially if you’re basing it on your recently cultivated theory that Hutchinson confused the dates.

“That would mean, Ben, that somebody walking alongside the northern side of the street would eventually have stood at Crossinghams.”

Ah, but then there’s no evidence that Hutchinson walked along the northern side of the Street. Look at the geography of the area. If he crossed Commercial Street from the direction of Fashion Street, he would have arrived at the southern pavement of Commercial Street first. The likelihood, therefore, is that if he walked along any Dorset Street pavement to get to that area referred to as “to the court”, it would have been the southern pavement. Personally, I would say the very short width of Dorset Street should prompt us to think twice about making any bold distinction between north and south as though it carries any weight.

Once again – any many more times if necessary – Hutchinson’s claim to have left the corner of Miller’s Court was made in the context of having entered the Court itself. After detecting no light and no noise from Kelly’s room, he departed the court, and to exit the court, he first needed to walk down the passage that connected the court with Dorset Street, and after that, he would have found himself a the corner of Miller’s Court, and he claimed to have departed the scene from that location. This does not permit us to conclude for one moment that he must have been rooted to the corner of Miller’s Court for the duration of the 45 minutes. Before he ventured up the court, he could have been anywhere that met the “to the court” locality that could easily have been outside Crossingham’s. Given Lewis’ evidence, and the weakness of the suggestion that her loiterer was anyone other than Hutchinson, it probably was. This location also makes sense for another reason – to make it less obvious that he was spying on Kelly and her alleged companion. Lewis might well have had cause for deeper concern if he was blocking her entry to the Miller’s Court passage.

“Why would I lack familiarity with the scenes?”

I don’t know, but this is what tends to come across from your posts, especially when you draw a distinction between the northern and southern pavements of narrow Dorset Street as though it suddenly alters all previous understanding of the events that night. To get from the northern to the southern pavement of Dorset Street meant walking a very few feet. It defies the geographical evidence, to my mind, to argue that the area in front of Crossingham’s couldn’t possibly qualify as “to the court”. It’s quite possible that he did go to the archway first, but then moved about for the duration of that 45 minutes, rather than confining himself weirdly to the archway of Miller’s Court, which would have been a silly place to stand unless he wanted to make his preoccupation with Kelly look even more obvious.

“Finally, since we know that he walked to the court to look down the archway - why would he move to the other side of the street? It would not give him as close and as good a look.”

This is what I mean about geographical awareness. A few feet away wouldn’t have made a scrap of difference, and what do you mean “as good a look”? What do you suppose he was trying to “look” at? Kelly’s room? No hope. It was completely out of sight. If he was waiting for them to emerge, wouldn’t it have been slightly better to remain at a less conspicuous location than right in the way of the couple’s egress from the court?

“If you look away from all other implications no other stance can be reached from this material than the one that Hutchinson never mentioned any other point than the one on the northern side of the street, whereas Lewis spoke of the southern side of it”

Nope, I couldn’t disagree more strongly. Hutchinson never specified the “northern side of the street” which was an average hopscotch chalking away the southern side. Your decision to place him at one particular location is based on rigid and implausible interpretation of the evidence.

“the possibility that he crossed the street to Crossinghams is there, but any such suggestion is completely unsupported by the isolated evidence relating to the issue.”

Nope, it’s totally supported by Hutchinson’s reference to “to the court”, an area that certainly encompassed the region if front of Crossingham’s opposite the court a few feet away. But we’ve discussed this already. Best if we resign ourselves to our differing opinions and move on.

The coincidence of detail between Lewis and Hutchinson is too strong to be dismissed as coincidence, and the same can be said for the coincidence of Hutchinson coming forward after Lewis’ evidence had been released. The dismissal of both coincidences leaves us with very obvious links, and the overwhelming likelihood is that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis, and that he came forward as soon as he learned of her evidence. This is the only conclusion that rejects “coincidence” as an acceptable alternative. Inevitably, therefore, this must be considered a major obstacle to your different-day hypothesis, and it is simply insurmountable, in my view. I don’t invest much stock in the suggestion that Lewis only thought she detected that her loiterer appeared to have been watching and waiting for someone to emerge from Miller’s Court. This would mean that when she only thought someone was doing this, a real person actually was doing precisely that in the same location a day later, and – what an amazing coincidence – the wording is practically identical.

“Why would somebody who had access to the whole wording about Lewis loiterer, up to the detail about looking like somebody who was waiting for someone to come out”

I don’t think he did. He would only have known that he was “waiting for someone to come out”, and that Sarah Lewis had provided her evidence. This knowledge could have taken a number of forms, from attendance at the inquest itself to simple knowledge via the Bush Telegraph that Sarah Lewis was due to be one of the witnesses. As we’ve seen, a number of press sources have recounted her evidence as “opposite the lodging house”, and it is possible that Hutchinson got wind of this version and incorporated it into his own self-legitimising account. He could certainly not have been privy to the police report that recounted the detail that the loitering man was seen over by the lodging house.

This introduces another crucial element. There remains disagreement as to exactly where the loiterer stood. She described him as being near the lodging house in her police report, but then she also couldn’t describe him at all at that time. Come the inquest, the man’s location had changed and her memory had improved to incorporate a description.

“we also make the assumption that the loiterer MUST have been Hutchinson. And that is going about things in a totally unviable manner, since we use non-established things as though they were recognized facts”

I’m not stating is as a recognised fact. I’m saying it’s the only logical deduction because the alternatives are predicated on bizarre and improbable “coincidence” of timing and detail. Hutchinson never once stated that he remained at the “northern” side of Dorset Street for 45 minutes. In fact, few if any of the witnesses spoke in terms of northern versus southern because they were undoubtedly aware that such expressions would make a nonsense of the geography of the area, and that in this case, north and south were separated by a matter of feet.

“And just how incredible is it to have a man standing outside Crossinghams, looking over to the other side for that half minute when Lewis passed by?”

Comically incredible in my opinion. It would mean positing the existence of one man standing at the Miller’s Court entrance watching and waiting for someone to come out of Miller’s Court, and then another man directly behind him also watching and waiting for someone to come out of Miller’s Court. One was in the way of another’s view, despite them both engaging in precisely the same activity and behaviour. This would be a freak, freak coincidence, and if Lewis came upon such a scene, she’d wonder what the hell was going on to make Miller’s Court a place of such fascination at that time of the night.

Oh no, my apologies, you were talking about your “Muddled-date” theory again. Yes, it’s still very unlikely that someone should have been engaging in the same rather distinctive and unusual behaviour of waiting for someone to emerge from Miller’s Court at 2:30am, only for someone else to take up that same vigil at the same location the next day. We’re not talking about casual or normal behaviour of chatting with another person or going about your morning routine.

“Because, I would submit, they make use of Abberlineīs assertion that Hutch was honest. That means that it is more probable than not that he was there on the night.”

Either honest or lying, but not date-confusing. That one doesn’t crop up very often – not since the 1930s in fact. That is why most have preferred to identify him with the loitering man. It’s not so much a case of people “forgetting” the possibility that Hutchinson was “honestly mistaken”, but rather being aware of it and dismissing it as not very probable.

And donīt forget that the Duke of Clarence and Gull are the most "popular" bids for the Ripper in peoples minds, generally spoken ..

Yes, but not by serious students of the case, most of whom are familiar with Dew’s memoirs on this thoughts on Hutchinson. They’ve just chosen not to revive it as the correct explanation, until now. That’s not a criticism, just as observation.

“Once again, why would he have been more glued to the northern pavement than he would have been to the southern?"

Oh, back to this. I don’t think he would have been glued to any particular spot, north or south. I think if there’s any truth to the suggestion that he remained there for as long as he claimed he did, he walked around within that area “to the court”, that encompassed a few square feet in front of Miller’s Court and the north and south pavements which were very close to each other. It was a narrow street.

“if I say that he MAY have moved to Crossinghams, but THE EVIDENCE shows us that Hutch never for a second inferred that he did”

Yes, he did – “to the court”.

You must agree to disagree.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"No, Fisherman, as I explained at length in my previous post, there is no evidence that Hutchinson was intending to refer to “one spot and one spot only” for the simple reason that the expression “to the court” very obviously refers to the area in Dorset Street in front of Miller’s Court that enabled people to peer up it."

Not agreed. "The court" would mean the court. But each to his own!

"it should be very obvious that “to the court” could easily have meant moving from the corner of Dorset Street to somewhere in Dorset Street that allowed other people to register his interest in the court."

Once again not agreed - "To the court" means to the court to me. If he moved from it? He may have - but itīs not on record.

"The idea that there were two people engaging in precisely the same behaviour at the same time on the same night a few feet away from each other is not remotely plausible"

The idea that they exhibited "precisely the same behaviour" is unprovable, Iīm afraid. Hutchinson may have leant leisurely on the archway corner and looked up the court, whereas the other man may have crouched forward and gazed very intently over to the other side. If so, the behaviour is not "precisely the same". As a matter of fact, we can - of course - not tell to what extent the actions mimicked each other. We can only say that Hutchinson looked up the court, and that Lewis was of the impression that the loiterer did the same thing. That does not amount to any certainty that the correlation was 100 per cent. Or 99. Or any other number.

"Not a “shred of evidence” places him fixated to the “Northern side of Dorset Street”

Not fixated, no. But there, on the whole, for the full 45 minutes.

"the overwhelming probability is that he moved about within that small area encompassing the Crossingham’s and Miller’s Court entrances for the duration of that 45 minutes, if indeed he waited there for as long as he claimed."

Why? Why is that probability "overwhelming"? What would have drawn him across the street? Why is this suggestion "overwhelmingly" better than the one we have on record? How do such things come about? What substantiates it?

"Hey here’s a terribly good idea. Let’s resign ourselves to our differing views on this for now, eh?"

I intend to stand by my view, certainly.

"A few feet away wouldn’t have made a scrap of difference, and what do you mean “as good a look”? "

It would have made the vital difference of standing on either side of the street. And itīs yards, not feet.
What do I mean with as good a look? I mean that the closer you stand to something, the better you will wiew it. And I know where Kellys room was situated, Ben, just as well as you do.

My wording:

"“Why would I lack familiarity with the scenes?”

Your wording:

"I don’t know"

Okay. Then why tell me that you know the localities better? Iīve been there, I know the distances, I have seen the maps, I can place the door, I can place the room, I know the proportions etcetera. The fact that I say that it matters on what side of the street the men stood does in no way implicate any lesser insights into the area than the ones you have. The street was roughly six meters wide and the street itself was around ten feet. That does in now way change the fact that standing on different sides of it makes for a vital difference.

"Hutchinson never specified the “northern side of the street” which was an average hopscotch chalking away the southern side. Your decision to place him at one particular location is based on rigid and implausible interpretation of the evidence. "

Not agreed - it is based on the only evidence at hand in the question.

"Nope, it’s totally supported by Hutchinson’s reference to “to the court”"

Not agreed - to the court is much more likely to mean to the court than "to somewhere in the general vicinity of the court". Language works that way.

"The coincidence of detail between Lewis and Hutchinson is too strong to be dismissed as coincidence"

Not agreed. Not by any means, in fact.

"I don’t invest much stock in the suggestion that Lewis only thought she detected that her loiterer appeared to have been watching and waiting for someone to emerge from Miller’s Court."

Then you are sure of it. You KNOW, somehow, that Lewis was certain of what he did there. But how did you reach this certainty?

"I don’t think he did. He would only have known that he was “waiting for someone to come out”, and that Sarah Lewis had provided her evidence."

So you are of the meaning that he had access to the bit about the man looking like he waited for someone - but NOT to the specific location given by Lewis? What supports such a suggestion to your mind, apart from how how he worded what you regard as a lie?

"There remains disagreement as to exactly where the loiterer stood. She described him as being near the lodging house in her police report"

She had him standing against the house, I think.

"I’m stating is as a recognised fact."

Aha. Well, given that, there is no use arguing my case, I suppose. It cannot be true, going by this. But how does that adjust to the policy of keeping an open mind, on the whole?

"Oh no, my apologies, you were talking about your “Muddled-date” theory again. Yes, it’s still very unlikely that someone should have been engaging in the same rather distinctive and unusual behaviour of waiting for someone to emerge from Miller’s Court at 2:30am"

But if we allow for the interpretation that the two men were acting rather differently? If we allow for the interpretation that the loiterer was interested in McCarthys shop and not the court? What happens then? Or can we not allow for such things? Basically, I would say that since we know very little about how long the loiterer was there and even less (nothing, in fact) about what his intentions were, we are reduced to mainly one problem: could there have been one man standing outside Crossinghams at 2.30 on the 9:th, and another man standing at the corner of Millerīs court at the approximate same time the night before? Is this physically possible or totally improbable? That is the core issue here.

"Either honest or lying, but not date-confusing. That one doesn’t crop up very often – not since the 1930s in fact. That is why most have preferred to identify him with the loitering man. It’s not so much a case of people “forgetting” the possibility that Hutchinson was “honestly mistaken”, but rather being aware of it and dismissing it as not very probable."

But that is just guesswork on your behalf, Ben. My guesswork tells me that the possibility has been overlooked to a very great extent.

"Yes, but not by serious students of the case, most of whom are familiar with Dew’s memoirs on this thoughts on Hutchinson. "

But just how do you assess what popularity my suggestion has among "serious students of the case"? Is it not true that none of us knows? Is it not true that just as you, Garry and Sally have been very reluctant to appreciate my suggestion, others like Tom Wescott, Lynn Cates and Mike have been very positive? Why would we deduct from that that my suggestion is deeply unpopular? It seems popular enough in some camps.

"Oh, back to this. I don’t think he would have been glued to any particular spot, north or south."

Nor do I.

"I think if there’s any truth to the suggestion that he remained there for as long as he claimed he did, he walked around within that area “to the court”, that encompassed a few square feet in front of Miller’s Court and the north and south pavements, which were very close to each other. I was a narrow street."

You are free to think that. But the evidence Hutchinson gave does not support it. It has him not necessarily glued to, but still standing at the same general point for three quarters of an hour. None of us can assess how probable or improbable it would be for this to be true, and we may both hold our respective beliefs about what really did go down. But the isolated evidence referring to the isolated occasion is unanimous, and does not involve any such considerations.

"You must agree to disagree."

Why wouldn īt I? I think it is a very good suggestion, by and large. So we stop here, right? Until something new crops up?

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Why would Hutchinson place himself at the entry to Miller's Court, looking up the Court, if he knew Lewis' testimony placed him across the street at Crossingham's? If he (as some suggest) was trying to cover up his murder of Kelly, why would he place himself in even closer proximity than Lewis did? We know that Lewis didn't recognize him and that she went into the Court to visit the Keylers (so she says), and wasn't even very close to him, so why would Hutch run to the police and say, "I was in the entryway."? Answer: Hutch knew Lewis was going to say something, but he didn't know exactly what and he didn't know if she had seen him on one side of the street or the other.. Ha, nonsense.

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Yes, I very much adhere to my suggestion that “to the court” meant anywhere on narrow Dorset Street that was in front of it. “In the court, or “Up the court” obviously refers to inside the court itself, and Hutchinson claims that he only went there for a couple of minutes.

“The idea that they exhibited "precisely the same behaviour" is unprovable, Iīm afraid.”

But so is the notion that Hutchinson remained only on the “northern” side of Dorset Street for the full 45 minutes. If we’re adhering to your rather rigid guidelines for evidential interpretation, then we’re compelled to accept that both Hutchinson's claims about his behaviour and the observations recorded by Sarah Lewis of her loitering man “watching” and “waiting for someone to come out” must reflect reality. If you want to allow for Sarah Lewis possibly being wrong in her interpretation of the loiterer’s behaviour, we ought to make the same allowances for Hutchinson being somewhere other than where you’re insisting he was. At the moment, you’re adopting a policy of whatever is literally written down must be accepted, in which case we’re sticking with Lewis’ impression being the correct one, which is very obviously was.

The correlation of detail is simply too strong for it to apply to two different individuals, especially given the additional “coincidence” that Hutchinson just happened to have come forward as soon as Lewis’ evidence had been released.

“Why? Why is that probability "overwhelming"? What would have drawn him across the street? Why is this suggestion "overwhelmingly" better than the one we have on record?”

Because the probability is overwhelming that Hutchinson and the wideawake man were one and the same. I’m not saying he was drawn across the street from one side to the other. I’m suggesting he was there already, and that this location is incredibly compatible with the “one we have on record”. It also stands to reason that the Miller’s Court archway makes considerably less sense as a vantage point to monitor the entrance since it carried a far greater risk that the emerging couple could catch him there and inquire about the intrusion. At least he was less conspicuous opposite the court.

“What do I mean with as good a look? I mean that the closer you stand to something, the better you will wiew it.”

But view what? He claimed to have been watching and waiting for Kelly and Astrakhan to emerge. Why would it have been so much better to get a closer view of it by a matter of feet? (And I’m sticking with feet, because that’s what it was). If they were going to emerge, Hutchinson would have noticed it eventually, and it’s surely better to be a little out of the way at that time, rather than hovering right outside the arch they would have emerged from in an “Only me again!” fashion?

“Okay. Then why tell me that you know the localities better?”

Because that’s what many of your posts communicate, in my view. It wouldn’t be that unusual if I did know the localities better. I do happen to live very close to London and visit the scenes rather often (Saturday being the most recent visit). I recall a discussion with “Septic Blue”, Sam Flynn and others where I believe it was determined that the full width of the street was 16 feet, and from pavement to pavement it was more like eight feet, or perhaps a little over. I may have misremembered, of course, but we’re certainly speaking in terms of feet.

“Not agreed - to the court is much more likely to mean to the court than "to somewhere in the general vicinity of the court". Language works that way.”

But going by this logic, "to the court" means venturing into it, and we know Hutchinson distinguished between the two with the phrases “to the court” and “up the court”. Whether he went to the entrance first is uncertain, but even if he did, it’s not plausible that he remained glued there for a full 45 minutes as opposed to doing what normal people do and pace around a bit when loitering for that long.

“So you are of the meaning that he had access to the bit about the man looking like he waited for someone - but NOT to the specific location given by Lewis? What supports such a suggestion to your mind”

As I mentioned in my last post, there was some disparity as the “specific location given by Lewis”. Specificity is not something we need to get bogged down in, of course, since the area under scrutiny was a very small one encompassing a few square feet, and both of Lewis’ “locations” are perfectly compatible with Hutchinson’s account of his location.

I’m stating is as a recognised fact.

Aha. Well, given that, there is no use arguing my case

You’re in far too much haste to post, Fisherman! Read again. “I’m not stating is as a recognised fact”, an edit I made at 3:43pm. You were a bit too trigger-happy there.

“But if we allow for the interpretation that the two men were acting rather differently?”

But if we allow for the interpretation that Hutchinson stood outside Crossingham’s?

If you allow me my interpretations, I would only be happy to extend the same consideration to you. My only objection here has nothing to do with interpretation, but rather the fact that Lewis’ impression – whether wrong or not – happened to tie in so spectacularly well with Hutchinson’s later account of his behaviour and movements. It’s still too much of a coincidence that a "wrong" impression from Lewis just happened to accord so amazingly well with what Hutchinson was actually doing. This leads me to the conclusion that Lewis was right in her determination, that she had spotted Hutchinson “watching and waiting” outside the court, and that Hutchinson came forward after realising that she had spotted him doing this.

“could there have been one man standing outside Crossinghams at 2.30 on the 9:th, and another man standing at the corner of Millerīs court at the approximate same time the night before? Is this physically possible or totally improbable?”

Both.

“Is it not true that just as you, Garry and Sally have been very reluctant to appreciate my suggestion, others like Tom Wescott, Lynn Cates and Mike have been very positive?”

I only meant “unpopular” in the sense that it is very seldom championed as the most likely explanation – the only other explanation being that most students of the case have remained unfamiliar with Dew’s memoirs for decades. That’s not to take anything away from the praise of your article – it’s an interesting angle that is very rarely discussed, and it’s nice to see that changed.

“But the isolated evidence referring to the isolated occasion is unanimous, and does not involve any such considerations.”

Oh, back to this. No, I don’t think it’s plausible that Hutchinson remained at the archway only for the full 45 minutes, and I don’t think the evidence says that he did. I think he moved about a bit, because that’s normal behaviour, and that explains why Lewis almost certainly saw him in that general vicinity at some point during that 45-minute vigil.

But yes, I think we’ve both said our piece now, and accept that we’re not going to change each other’s minds.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Why would Hutchinson place himself at the entry to Miller's Court, looking up the Court, if he knew Lewis' testimony placed him across the street at Crossingham's?

Firstly, there is no evidence that "Hutchinson placed himself at the entry to Miller's Court looking up the Court", and secondly, he would probably not have known that "Lewis' testimony placed him across the street at Crossingham's". Lewis' location of the loiterer is more commonly given is "opposite the lodging" house, and it is more likely that Hutchinson got wind of this version, if any. But the central bullet point of this ongoing seminar is that Hutchinson only put himself "in the entryway" once, after he emerged from the court itself (allegedly) after detecting no light or noise in Kelly's room, and there is no good reason to suppose he was there for the full 45 minutes.

"Hutch knew Lewis was going to say something, but he didn't know exactly what and he didn't know if she had seen him on one side of the street or the other."

Yes, this makes considerably more sense, since the press accounts of the inquest that recount Lewis' evidence were largely unavailable by the time Hutchinson came forward, so it would probably have been more of a case of knowing that Lewis had seen him and then becoming aware that she was (or had been) one of the witnesses, and would certainly make reference to the loitering man at the inquest. Since he was probably not rooted to one specific location for his vigil, this also explains why he didn't give one.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hello Fish,
The point I was making is, if the couple Mrs Lewis saw in Commercial street about 220am were Kelly and Astracan, and she observed that couple at the corner of Dorset street as she was about to enter the court, and it was then she noticed the man opposite, either that man was Hutchinson, or someone else.
As Hutchinson stated to the police that he followed the couple, the reference is was someone else, and it was not him, that Mrs Lewis saw.
Yet if it was him, why did he lie about the encounter?
You may say the couple Lewis saw may not have been Kelly and client, however she stated that he was the man that had frightened her, and a friend just two days previous, and as she was only a court visitor proberly did not know Mary kelly to positively state an identification.
Summing up.
Either Hutchinson lied about his encounter, or Mrs Lewis did not see GH, she could not have done so as she would have been in the court and in the room she was visiting before Hutch arrived at the corner of Dorset street..
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Okay, Ben - letīs carry on then!

" If you want to allow for Sarah Lewis possibly being wrong in her interpretation of the loiterer’s behaviour, we ought to make the same allowances for Hutchinson being somewhere other than where you’re insisting he was."

You of course make the allowances you wish for, Ben. My take on it is that we cannot compare the types of testimony adhering to the details. In one case, we have a rather exact pointing out of a physical spot, and in the other we have an assessment made on whatever grounds, made by Lewis. If you are fine with comparing things like these, go ahead!

"At the moment, you’re adopting a policy of whatever is literally written down must be accepted"

Iīm sorry, Ben, but this is just wrong. Why would I say that he MAY have moved away from the northern side of the street if your claim was correct? The one thing that I say MUST be accepted is that the testimony as such never mentions that Hutchinson was anywhere but at the court. What you want to make of it, that he was really on the souther side ot that he was in the suburbs of Paris - that is YOUR call.

"Because the probability is overwhelming that Hutchinson and the wideawake man were one and the same. I’m not saying he was drawn across the street from one side to the other. I’m suggesting he was there already"

But then you are answering the question of whether the men were one and the same or not by working from the presumption that they were. You provide the answer before you apply the question to it. It is not a useful approach. The question you must ask yourself from the outset is: Looking at the evidence supplied by Sarah Lewis and George Hutchinson as regards the physical position of the men they are speaking of, is it more or less credible that they were one and the same? At this stage, you must work from an unbiased position, Ben, and ONLY weigh in the two descriptions of the physical positioning. If you let your stance colour your call on this isolated matter, you are bound to reach one decision and one decision only. And what use is it to debate matters if you cannot open your mind to the possibilities?

"But view what? He claimed to have been watching and waiting for Kelly and Astrakhan to emerge. Why would it have been so much better to get a closer view of it by a matter of feet?"

It was not "so much better" - what I am after is that the other way around, there was nothing to gain. He stood to make no gain at all by crossing the road. Therefore, there is no rationality in the suggestion that he must have moved there.

"Because that’s what many of your posts communicate, in my view."

Show me, Ben. Letīs have an example where I point to my poor understanding of it. Then we shall see!

"It wouldn’t be that unusual if I did know the localities better. I do happen to live very close to London and visit the scenes rather often (Saturday being the most recent visit)."

Perhaps so. But donīt you think it is a little uncorteous and premature to draw conclusions from that? Who knows, I may know a thing or two about Dorset Street as it was. And I have had a good many more years to learn it, Ben. Shall we count that in too?

"I recall a discussion with “Septic Blue”, Sam Flynn and others where I believe it was determined that the full width of the street was 16 feet, and from pavement to pavement it was more like eight feet, or perhaps a little over. I may have misremembered, of course, but we’re certainly speaking in terms of feet."

Find it. Show it. Prove it. The rough measuring I made came up with other numbers.

The rest of the post I will tend to at a later stage.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Feet

And itīs yards, not feet.

Utterly ridiculous. Of course its yards. Anything over 6 feet will be yards in the plural. So what?

It is patently obvious from the photograph of Dorset Street (I believe from The People of the Abyss) that Dorset Street was not very wide, and not very long.

I believe that Fisherman even estimated its width at about 10 feet - about what I would have thought from that picture. 10 feet - about 10 paces then. How long would it take to cross the street? 4, maybe 5 seconds? Less?

Yet Dorset Street is being considered here as though it was some sort of vast span, traversable only in extreme circumstances.

I think a reality check would be a good idea.

[The Grave Maurice]

...10 feet - about 10 paces then.

Sal,

No chance of you getting the nickname "Long" Stride, is there.

[Sally]

Sal,

No chance of you getting the nickname "Long" Stride, is there.

Grave - funny you should mention it - actually, I've had that exact same nickname since I was three...