Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"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. "

Heureka. Thatīs a lot better.

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

Your wording: "But if we allow for the interpretation that Hutchinson stood outside Crossingham’s?"

The latter has been discussed in extenso already, Ben. It has been so much chewed upon it has almost become a truth. The former, though, is a matter you have not touched upon.

"I only meant “unpopular” in the sense that it is very seldom championed as the most likely explanation"

Then I would say that "unusual" would have been a better choice of words. Or "fresh", perhaps? Why not "interestingly compatible with the evidence" even, come to think of it?

My wording: “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?”

Your wording:

"Both."

That could not be, Ben. If it is physically possible, it cannot be TOTALLY improbable.

"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."

There is nothing at all implausible about it, Ben. How could there be? I may remind you that you are of the meaning that the area outside the court was ALL an area that could be described as "at the court", and if it was all the same area, and a very small one - only a matter of a few feet - he would have been standing at the same area in any case, would he not? Then why must he move him to the lodging-house, if it in reality did not mean any move at all?
The same goes for your very interesting and somewhat enlightening suggestion that Hutchinson would have chosen Crossinghams for the advantage of being "less conspicious" than the corner of the court. But if it was all the same, and if there was no reason to make any difference at all inbetween these points - then why would it be less conspicious to stand at Crossinghams instead of at the corner.
Is it not true that you are of the meaning that it would have looked less conspicious because it would effectively have removed Hutchinson from the court if he was instead stationed at Crossinghams? And is it not treu that the difference he would have sought in order to look less conspicious, was a difference in distance as well as in implications? Does not your assertion about this conspiciousness tell us that you are of the meaning that there is a very clear difference inbetwen the two stances? "At least he was less conspicuous opposite the court." Why - if it was all the same territory and there was never any reason to tell court and lodginghouse apart?

On a side note I think that the two positions we speak about are well differentiated - but I do not think it would have mattered to the police where he stood in this instance. A man six meters from the court, perhaps even watching it by the looks of things would have been conspicious enough at any rate!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"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."

But the implications are very clear on this, Richard. To begin with, Hutch saw the couple at a stage soon after 2 Am, as referenced by the clock he had heard. Lewis was not there until 2.30, as referenced by the clock SHE heard. And Hutchinson is very clear on the fact that he followed Kelly and Astrakhan. He did not precede them.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"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."

Is it? Have I said so? I think not. What I have said is that Hutchinson himself said that he went to the court and stood there for three quarters of an hour. He then left from the corner of the court.

Now, Sally, can you see it witnessed about by Hutch that he went to Crossinghams? Can you see it witnessed about by Hutch that he stood at different places? Can you see it witnessed about by Hutch that he stood at one place for three quarters of an hour? Does he in fact say so? Can you see it written or stated by me that Hutchinson would have had any difficulties to cross the street, should he choose to? Could you see it written or claimed by me that there was any physical trouble involved in crossing the street, or have I at any stage said that it was in any way a broad street, traversable only in extreme circumstances? Have I so much as hinted at any difficulty being involved in crossing the street?

Have you seen any other stance from my side than an admittance that Hutchinson MAY have crossed the street, together with a pointing out that what he said all speaks against it?

I have the answers to all of these questions myself, but I would prefer to hear your varsion of the truth, Sally. You may preferably take all the questions, one by one. Make sure that you donīt forget any of them! They are all very important to reach an understanding of what I mean.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

I have the answers to all of these questions myself, but I would prefer to hear your varsion of the truth, Sally.

I doubt that, Fisherman. As you say, you have all the answers yourself - job done, eh?

But on the extremely slim chance that you're actually interested, if I had a 'version' of the truth, that 'version' would be based firmly on empirical evidence. It's always worked so far.

If I'm guessing, I'll say so.

[richardnunweek]

Hello again Fish,
That being the case we are ignoring the couple seen by Mrs Lewis, which including a client which seemed dodgy, which she passed on Dorset street, and they could not have been far behind her, as they appeared on the corner of Dorset street, as she was about to enter the court.
To remind you she stated that she saw a man opposite the court ,wideawake hat etc, at that moment, which could have not been Hutch if he was relaying the truth in his statement, as he would have not been in sight of Lewis.
You are talking about a time difference, we should not forget that by the time Hutch met Mary and had a chat, and her proceeding to encounter Astracan , and a chat , and a walk back to Dorset street, and him hearing the clock before he met Mary[ 2am], there is evey chance that it would have ben nigh on 230am , before kelly and Astracan were on the spot Lewis saw them.
I am just attempting to suggest, that the person Lewis saw was not GH, unless the latter was fabricating the truth.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I doubt that, Fisherman. As you say, you have all the answers yourself - job done, eh?"

Not at all. That is just MY solution. Obviously you have another solution since you reached a number of conclusions regarding what I thought about the difficulties involved in crossing the street.

That is what I would be interested in taking part of - how you reached these conclusions. So please elaborate, Sally!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"That being the case we are ignoring the couple seen by Mrs Lewis, which including a client which seemed dodgy, which she passed on Dorset street, and they could not have been far behind her, as they appeared on the corner of Dorset street, as she was about to enter the court."

That would have been the man Lewis had seen earlier - she stated that she saw him again on her way to Millers court, in the company of a woman, not far from the Britannia!

"To remind you she stated that she saw a man opposite the court ,wideawake hat etc, at that moment, which could have not been Hutch if he was relaying the truth in his statement, as he would have not been in sight of Lewis."

Oh, he would have been in sight of her, albeit not on that side of the street. At 2.30, he was in all probability standing at the corner of the court.

"You are talking about a time difference, we should not forget that by the time Hutch met Mary and had a chat, and her proceeding to encounter Astracan , and a chat , and a walk back to Dorset street, and him hearing the clock before he met Mary[ 2am], there is evey chance that it would have ben nigh on 230am , before kelly and Astracan were on the spot Lewis saw them."

Not really. Hutch said that he met Astrakhan man at about 2 AM, that he took up his vigil at about 2.15, stood there for three quarters of an hour, and left at more or less precisely 3 AM. So Hutch would have been in place around 15 minutes as Lewis arrived in Dorset Street. If, that is, he was there on the day ...

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi fisherman.
But according to all known facts he was there on the day.
I am simply informing Casebook that Mrs Lewis informed the press that she saw a man she was suspicious of, in commercial street with a woman shortly [ I presume] before 230a, on the 9th.
She stated that this couple appeared on the corner of Dorset street , as she was entering the court around 230, and also states that the Stout 'wideawake man' was already present.
I cannot be more clear in alleging that the couple Lewis saw between 2am-23am, may have been the couple Hutch saw that evening at approx the time he recollected, but I have added that it might have been when he was opposite the court , not in Commercial street.
I have even offered from a previous post, an explanation.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"But according to all known facts he was there on the day."

I am going to baffle you now, Richard, so get ready for it: He was there on the day according to one source and one source only - himself. There are no facts whatsoever that puts him on the spot on the day. There are age-old conceptions that he was there, but the time has come, I think, to challenge these conceptions and see what they are made of.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

The couple seen by Lewis in the street were not Kelly and Astrakhan. By this stage, Hutchinson had embarked upon his monitoring of Miller's Court, as per his claim, implying that whoever he was waiting for was already inside. Besides, Lewis also mentioned that the couple "passed along", i.e. along Dorset Street and not into Miller's Court. If there was any consideration that the female half of the couple was Kelly, Lewis would have been asked to view the remains in order to attempt an identification. The couple outside the Britannia were not Kelly and Astrakhan for the same reason. The man had no overcoat on, unlike our favourite swaggering peacock.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

“Okay, Ben - letīs carry on then!”

Well it’s up to you, Fisherman. I offered you the option of agreeing to disagree and leaving it there a couple of posts again, but you didn’t seem up for it, so here we still are, apparently.

“In one case, we have a rather exact pointing out of a physical spot”

That’s precisely what we don’t have – either in Lewis or Hutchinson’s case. Hutchinson claimed that he went to the court after leaving the corner of Dorset Street, and I’ve already outlined my firmly held opinion that this need not refer to the archway only, but the general area on Dorset Street in front of Miller’s Court. When it comes to the location of Lewis’ loiterer, we have discrepancy. In her police report, the man was near the lodging house, and in subsequent press recounting of her inquest testimony the man was “opposite the lodging house”. The information is too vague and contradictory to allow for any “exact pointing out” of any particular location.

“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.”

I realise that, but as far as I’m concerned, the expression “to the court” does not mean at the archway and nowhere else for the full 45 minutes. I think it meant anywhere on Dorset Street in front of the court that enabled people to look into it, not to be confused with “up the court” which meant venturing up the passage and into the court itself.

“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.”

Not at all. I’ve already explained in extensive detail why I believe the two must have been the same. It’s because I reject the suggestion that the amazing compatibility between Hutchinson’s account of his movements and those recorded of Lewis’ loiterer must be random coincidence, despite the near-identical wording to the effect that they were both watching and waiting for someone to emerge from Miller’s Court at 2:30am on the night of Kelly’s murder. The evidence of the “physical position” of both Hutchinson and wideawake only reinforces my firm opinion that they were one and the same. Both were allegedly in the general vicinity of the entrance to Miller’s Court at the same time, and engaging in precisely the same behaviour.

“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.”

Oh, but I think I've already dealt with this. It 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. 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?

“Show me, Ben. Letīs have an example where I point to my poor understanding of it”

Well, put it this way, it seems very strange for someone with sufficient knowledge about the geography of the locality to keep making distinctions between the northern and southern sides of Dorset Street as though it means anything significant. It was an incredibly narrow street separated by a matter of feet, and yet you seem to think it an eccentric thing to do to cross it, even if the crosser was someone who was loitering in the area for 45 minutes. I suggest you study, at least, the pictorial evidence from the period if you really think it was anything encroaching on a big deal to wander across so narrow a street as Dorset Street.

“Then I would say that "unusual" would have been a better choice of words. Or "fresh", perhaps? Why not "interestingly compatible with the evidence" even, come to think of it?”

Well, I wouldn’t say “fresh” because it’s around 80 years old, but interesting, certainly. Not compatible with the evidence, in my opinion, no. But you know my thoughts on that subject.

“There is nothing at all implausible about it, Ben. How could there be?”

Because being rooted to one location like a statue for 45 minutes is simply weird. It seems more natural for anyone waiting that long to pace about a bit, leaning on this wall here, another wall there, and generally keeping the circulation going (as he clearly wasn’t ready for beddy-byes at that stage). As I’ve already explained, it is entirely in accordance with the evidence that he started off his vigil at Crossingham’s, where he was almost certainly observed by Lewis. In which case, he wouldn’t have moved “to” the lodging house – he was there already, in a location that perfectly fits the “to the court” bill.

“Does not your assertion about this conspiciousness tell us that you are of the meaning that there is a very clear difference inbetwen the two stances?”

Only inasmuch as he wouldn’t have been literally blocking any egress to the couple he was supposedly monitoring, as he would have been in your "archway only" scenario, rendering all the more absurdly obvious the reality that he was there for the purpose of surveillance. In addition, there was at least a lodging house near where he stood, and if necessary, he could always have made it appear to Kelly/Astrakhan as though he was attempting to gain entry there rather than Miller’s Court. But no, that certainly isn’t intended to imply that there was any noteworthy difference in distance between the two locations, because there simply wasn’t.

Best regards,
Ben

[D'Onston]

Wideawake Man

Hey All, This continues to be a very interesting discussion.

However, when we get to Sarah Lewis' testimony, and the specifics of a description of Mr. Wideawake all becomes very vague.

She places him in front of Crossinghams, and opines that he was"looking towards Miller's Court". But is that really what he was doing? Or was he just gazing off into the distance while he stood there? Who can tell? Sarah Lewis was off on her way, preoccupied by her own business. She casually noticed this man, but could give no better description than he was short, heavy set, wearing dark clothing, and a wideawake hat. She had no good reason to scrutinize him, and just testified to her fleeting impression of him.

If other men often, or occasionally, stood looking up the court (after all, it was the residence of more than several prostitutes), couldn't she just have assumed, from his position, that he was "looking up the court"? As she paid such little attention to him (she only describes him in the vaguest way) how can we give much credence as to what she thought he was actually doing there? If he was very drunk, and leaning on the doorway of Crossinghams' to keep himself from falling onto the pavement, he might not have been able to focus on anything past a foot or two in front of his face!

I know, regarding Lewis and the wideawake man, some of this is my own supposition; however, this thread is just chock full of the same.

From scant evidence, much is being assumed. How can we go any further than what Lewis said of the man that she noticed, but in whom she took no particular interest (based on her inquest testimony)? What description do we have of Hutchinson's physique or appearance. Did he even own a wideawake hat? If, as Ben says, the police payed little attention to Lewis's inquest testimony early in their investigation (see posts regarding Hutchinson's failure to mention sighting Lewis), then they would not have even been concerned with Hutchinsons' resemblance to Lewis' loiterer. And that raises the question whether there was any resemblance between the two whatsoever!

Anyway, the truth of the matter still remains elusive. And, like the gape stem, and the displayed rings, all that the majority at one time agreed to be true, may not be.

The opinions of "the majority", even if it is a highly "informed majority", in such a case where the evidence is so scarce, and often contradictory, can NEVER be the arbiter of "truth". If conflicting theories are plausible, then it is my belief that there must be room to entertain all, until there is substantial evidence to actually discard one or more of them.

So far, I have read nothing on this long thread to rule out Fish's theory. I think it must be retained as one of the many, likely possibilities. (And what is it that underpins all of JtR research? The paucity of actual hard evidence, and the proliferation of many, plausible theories built upon that scant base!)

This is definitely NOT any type of closing summation. I assume that this vigorous, and vital debate will continue. It's just my opinion on what I've read so far. Take it for what it's worth, and with a grain of salt if needed.

All my best to all the posters on this thread who have given me much food for thought, Mike

P.S. Cannot overlook mentioning Fish's revelatory article which is the foundation for this debate.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"as far as I’m concerned, the expression “to the court” does not mean at the archway and nowhere else for the full 45 minutes."

No it does not. "To the court" means to the court. It is not until you add that Hutchinson said that he went to the court and stood there for three quarters of an hour that we may infer that he might just have done exactly what he said, and that we at any rate have no other indication from his own testimony.

"I’ve already explained in extensive detail why I believe the two must have been the same. It’s because I reject the suggestion that the amazing compatibility between Hutchinson’s account of his movements and those recorded of Lewis’ loiterer must be random coincidence"

Which is why I say that you need to look at the evidence in isolation, Ben. But never mind.

"It 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. "

But the evidence he gives shows that he made no such considerations. He stooped down to look the man in the face. He went to the court and looked up it. He went into the court to see if he could gain further knowledge. Obviously, he was not paying any attention at all to the things you mention. And it is not until we persuade ourselves into believing that he was considerate about something he showed no consideration about that we can start - once again - to "explain" why he must have been at the court. There is absolutely nothing to bolster this with, not behaviourwise as shown by Hutch himself, and not evidencewise.

My wording:

"“Show me, Ben. Letīs have an example where I point to my poor understanding of it”

Your wording:

"Well, put it this way, it seems very strange for someone with sufficient knowledge about the geography of the locality to keep making distinctions between the northern and southern sides of Dorset Street as though it means anything significant."

I have written in my posts that Dorset Street was around six meters from facade to facade, and that the street itself was ten feet wide or very close to it. I would have thought that would show you that I know more or less exactly how wide the street was.
So why is it that you think that this example points to any inferior understanding of the measures we are dealing with?

You, on the other hand, have claimed that the street was only eight feet wide, something I think may point to a somewhat lesser understanding of the true dimensions. If we work from the picture I used to establish a reasonable measuring, I made the assumption that the woman standing under the second lamp on the left hand side in it was around 150 centimeters tall. If that holds true, then the street was 10 feet wide. If the street was only 8 feet wide, then the woman in the picture was 120 centimeters. And the woman standing at her side was somewhat shorter.

As for your perceived failure on my behalf to accept that the street was so incredibly narrow that standing on either side of it would have made no difference, I think that we are in that case not talking about any physical knowledge of Dorset Street. In that case, we may perhaps be dealing with the detail that you need to shrink the street as much as possible in order for your reasoning about it to function better. And in that case, I will say that it would not have mattered if the street was only five feet wide - it still would have had two pavements, one to the north and one to the south.
So no, I do not think that this example of yours shows any shortcomings about the area on my behalf - instead it seems to prove that you underestimate the with of the street yourself. But I am sure you may check this out, using the very good photographic evidence we have. And after that, you may perhaps provide me with a better example to show how poorly I understand the physical structures we are dealing with?

"Well, I wouldn’t say “fresh” because it’s around 80 years old, but interesting, certainly. Not compatible with the evidence, in my opinion, no."

No? But where do you find that incompatibility, Ben? Even if you PREFER believing that the loiterer and Hutch were the same, it certainly does not mean that it could not have been two different men. The possibility is very much there, so in that instance, my suggestion is totally compatible with the evidence. Is there, perhaps, something else that has lead you to the conclusion that it is not compatible evidencewise? Because if there is such a thing, I will immediately have to leave my stance. I would not want to press a theory that was incompatible with the evidence, would I?

"Because being rooted to one location like a statue for 45 minutes is simply weird."

It rather is, isnīt it! What a curious idea. Whoever has come up with that?

"Only inasmuch as he wouldn’t have been literally blocking any egress to the couple he was supposedly monitoring, as he would have been in your "archway only" scenario"

But would he not have blocked it if he stood outside Crossinghams too, if the width of the street was such that we may look away from it? Or is it the other way around - that the pavement itself would have been broad enough for Hutchinson to stand on, right in front of the archway, and still there would have been room for the couple to pass, should they emerge? I make that pavement around 125-150 centimeters wide, easily broad enough to accomodate two people passing each other on it. In fact, if you once again return to the picture that Sally posted, you can se that in the spot under that second lamp on the left hand side, there are three women standing, and you can see that there was enough room for them to line up side by side on that pavement.
Is that not strange, that a street that was so incredibly tiny and narrow, wsa lined by pavements where three women could be accomodated side by side? And have a look - further down the street, there is some sort of high, rather large vehicle. Apparently such vehicles could meet and pass each other in the street by the looks of things. You know, Ben, the more I see of this photo, the larger the street looks to my eyes.

"rendering all the more absurdly obvious the reality that he was there for the purpose of surveillance."

He did not mind, Ben. People who stoop down and look you right in the face as you pass by have already given away that they are watching you, sort of.

"In addition, there was at least a lodging house near where he stood, and if necessary, he could always have made it appear to Kelly/Astrakhan as though he was attempting to gain entry there rather than Miller’s Court."

Aha ...? So he would first stoop down and look Astrakhan in the face, then go to the court and look up it, then walk into the court in search of signs of the couple, and then, if they emerged, he would run over to Crossinghams and try to give the impression that he was trying to gain entry there - at an hour leading up to 3 AM? I think there is a flaw or two in that suggestion. I really do.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

DīOnston, thanks for the kind words in your post! Yes, I think that you are spot on with Lewis and her loiterer. We know nothing at all about him and what he was doing there. Since the combined armada of those who have believed in Hutchinson over the years and therefore bought that he was there on the 9:th, and those who think he was there, but in the form of a killer, have all been forced to accept that the loiterer and Hutch were one and the same, a face has been put on that loiterer; the face of George Hutchinson. Now, that face wonīt come off easily. People will say like Richard, bless him, that all the facts have Hutchinson nailed to Dorset Street at 2.30 that morning. This, of course is not thrue. NONE of the facts and lOTS of the prejudices are what ties him there. And it sometimes seems both things are just as hard to dispell.

Anyway, thanks again, DīOnston. And by the way: Yes, Hutch DID seemingly wear a wideawake. Well, perhaps not a classical wideawake, more of a bowler. That is judging by a very rough drawing of him, made at the time. And at that time, a bowler was sometimes called a wideawake!

My own understanding is that George Hutchinsons real name was George William Topping Hutchinson. I believe that signature comparisons make this very evident. Others are of a different opinion. But this thread is not for that battle. If you wish to take part of it, itīs under the "Hutch in the 1911 census" and "The Leander analysis" threads. Save them for a rainy day if you have not read them already, thatīs my advice.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

From post 733, by me:

"And it is not until we persuade ourselves into believing that he was considerate about something he showed no consideration about that we can start - once again - to "explain" why he must have been at the court."

That, of course, should read ""And it is not until we persuade ourselves into believing that he was considerate about something he showed no consideration about that we can start - once again - to "explain" why he must have been at Crossinghamīs."

Carry on!

Fisherman