Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[harry]

One should only challenge Hutchinson's statement,if one can show contradictory evidence of another person being there.There is no such evidence available.Lewis states only one person stood near the court as she entered at 2.30,and there has never been evidence to contradict her statement.It is not sufficient,in these circumstances,to say it could have been someone else,or it could have been another time,it has to be shown that it was,and this has not been done.Hutchinson and Lewis had identified themselves by name to the authorities as being present or adjacent to Millers court at 2.30am on the morning of the 9th,and were believed.Had there been evidence to the contrary,it would have been made known.
In the case of Maxwell,there was contradictory medical evidence as to whether it could have been Kelly she saw.There is a difference.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"One should only challenge Hutchinson's statement,if one can show contradictory evidence of another person being there."

What??! How does that apply? Those who think, like me, that there are very good reasons to believe that Hutchinson got the day wrong, and that he and Lewis´ loiterer stood in different places in the street - are we not allowed to argue that case unless we can provide the identity of the loiterer? But that is plain ridiculous, Harry! How would that work, for example, in a court of law? Would Hutchinson be convicted on grounds of the loiterer remaining unidentified? Does the lack of an identification of him tell us that he must have been Hutchinson - who arguably may not even have been there?

No, Harry, that is not an outlining of how the work must be done here. That would be to prioritize preconceptions over an unbiased manner of working. It would resemble wishful thinking. Why on earth would we go about it that way? "Yes, I am prepared to discuss the issue, but you must understand that the as long as no other identity can be ascribed to the loiterer than Hutchinson´s, they must have been one and the same"?

How about that man being Prater´s date- arriving one hour late? Why could it not have been him? Why could it not have been a punter? Why could it not have been the Ripper - but NOT Hutchinson?

"Lewis states only one person stood near the court as she entered at 2.30,and there has never been evidence to contradict her statement."

Do you find that I contradict it? If we work from the premise that Hutchinson was there on the 8:th, how many men are we left with? I can only count to one, standing outside Crossinghams. So what´s the problem?

"It is not sufficient,in these circumstances,to say it could have been someone else,or it could have been another time,it has to be shown that it was,and this has not been done."

Well, Harry, it HAS ben shown that Dew thought so. And it HAS been shown that Hutch claimed to have seen only two people in Dorset Street, out of whom Lewis was NOT one. And it HAS been shown that Hutchinson acted very irrationally after leaving the court, since it was raining hard on the morning of the 9:th. And it HAS been shown that Lewis and Hutch place the two men in different spots. That makes for quite compelling evidence, at least in my eyes.

What has NOT been shown is that the loiterer and Hutchinson was one and the same. Why would I not demand absolute proof that they did exactly the same thing, stood at exactly the same spot, looked exactly the same, wore the exact same clothes and evinced the exact same DNA? Why would I not be entitled to ask this in exchange for the bits I just provided? Because you made your choice first?

"Hutchinson and Lewis had identified themselves by name to the authorities as being present or adjacent to Millers court at 2.30am on the morning of the 9th,and were believed"

Aha. So if they were believed, they MUST have been correct. Fine, I can buy that, since it would exconerate Hutchinson. He could not have been the killer, for he said so.

On the other hand, and in a different universe, and if we go about things in a slightly more realistic way, we may need to recognize that people who make an honest impression can be either liars or mistaken on dates. Or both of them.

"Had there been evidence to the contrary,it would have been made known."

Yes. Of course. THEN! But to what extent? Would it have been guilded and framed and handed down to an assumed bunch of Ripperologists? Would it have been printed in all papers? Would it have been passed around in police messages? What would the level have been? If it was there in writing, passed on to the police precincts, what is there to say that this message must have been saved from the flood of time? We know very well that much has gone lost. Why would that fate not have had an impact on this?
Rest assured, Harry, that no matter what it was that made the police let Hutchinson go, and made the press discard him, the underlying information that governed these decisions was at hand 123 years ago. If it was a decison based on unrefutable evidence or if it was just a weighing of the material that spoke of false play, we do not know. My own contention is that the police had what they regarded as absolutely watertight evidence that Hutch was never there on the night, but the fact that Dew treats Hutch as unfinished business points to Hutch himself disagreeing about the decision that was taken.
You may think whatever you wish about this particular detail, but whichever option you choose, there is nothing telling us that the police did not have what they regarded as good evidence to rule Hutchinson out. It must have been there, yes, but it must NOT have survived, no.

"In the case of Maxwell,there was contradictory medical evidence as to whether it could have been Kelly she saw.There is a difference."

There are no two witnesses that are interchangable. I miserably fail, however, to see why that should have any impact on the possibilities that Hutch was mistaken on the days.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
I will accept that newspaper accounts vary, but according to the kelly inquest report from the Irish Times Nov 13th [ press reports] it clearly implies that the man in the wideawake hat was present when she entered the court, and the couple that she saw in Commercial street. which not forget she claimed was a man of suspicion from 48 hours previous, was at that time standing on the corner of Dorset street[ not walking down/past].
My point is therefore , if this was Kelly and Astracan, and note she did not give an account of the clothing that he was wearing on the morning of the 9th, then Hutch by his own admission could not have been viewed by Lewis, unless she could see round corners.
So that leaves us with three scenerios.
1] Mrs lewis couple was not Kelly and Astracan... although take into account that he was the man that had scared her on the wednesday evening, and they were standing at the corner of the very street the murder occured.
2] Mrs Lewis did not see Hutchinson , but someone else as she described as being 'On the pavement'.
3]Mrs Lewis did see Hutchinson, and he was fabricating the truth, he infact was waiting for kelly to come home, and only saw them the same time as Lewis.
The time difference ? this is the trouble with the Ripper case, nothing is precise Hanbury street, Berner street, Mitre Square, and Millers court.
I would rather use the A,B.C approach.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"I will accept that newspaper accounts vary, but according to the kelly inquest report from the Irish Times Nov 13th [ press reports] it clearly implies that the man in the wideawake hat was present when she entered the court, and the couple that she saw in Commercial street. which not forget she claimed was a man of suspicion from 48 hours previous, was at that time standing on the corner of Dorset street[ not walking down/past].
My point is therefore , if this was Kelly and Astracan, and note she did not give an account of the clothing that he was wearing on the morning of the 9th..."

I know that this post was meant for Ben, but I think I have an answer for you. I now realize that the man Lewis had met earlier is to your mind perhaps Astrakhan man. But I do not think this can hold true. You see, Richar, Lewis clearly states that when she sees that man again on Friday morning, he was not wearing his overcoat. And we know that Astrakhan man WAS!

So no, this identification cannot hold up, I´m afraid!

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi Fisherman.
Have you read that account from the Irish Times?
The clothing descripton clearly refers to the wednesday encounter, Lewis makes no clothing observation with the commercial street sighting, which is what we are discussing.
I accept however other accounts may differ, but as this was taken from kellys inquest, why should I doubt its authenticity.
If you look carefully at that passage in the Irish Times, you will see the description of the man, and dark clothing , from the wednesday, and the intriquing n overcoat.
Should that have been NO, or AND.
if the former, it does not discredit my post.
If the latter it strenghtens it.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Hello again, Richard!

Yes, I have read the account you are referring to. But the fact of the matter is that Lewis DID make a clothing observation regarding the man she saw once again on Friday morning. This is from the inquest:
"Have you seen any suspicious persons in the district ? - On Wednesday night I was going along the Bethnal-green-road, with a woman, about eight o'clock, when a gentleman passed us. He followed us and spoke to us, and wanted us to follow him into an entry. He had a shiny leather bag with him.
[Coroner] Did he want both of you ? - No; only one. I refused. He went away and came back again, saying he would treat us. He put down his bag and picked it up again, saying, "What are you frightened about ? Do you think I've got anything in the bag ?" We then ran away, as we were frightened.
[Coroner] Was he a tall man ? - He was short, pale-faced, with a black moustache, rather small. His age was about forty.
[Coroner] Was it a large bag ? - No, about 6in to 9in long. His hat was a high round hat. He had a brownish overcoat, with a black short coat underneath. His trousers were a dark pepper-and- salt.
[Coroner] After he left you what did you do ? - We ran away.
[Coroner] Have you seen him since ? - On Friday morning, about half-past two a.m., when I was going to Miller's-court, I met the same man with a woman in Commercial-street, near Mr. Ringer's public-house (the Britannia). He had no overcoat on."

So she does tell us, the good Mrs Lewis, that the man who had on Wednesday worn a brown overcoat, did not wear that same garment on Friday morning.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Found this on the net. It´s Wikipedia, and it seems well enough informed, though if anyone wishes to challenge it they may of course do so. 24 feet would euqate to roughly 7,3 meters.

"Laid out in 1674 and originally known as 'Datchet Street' (probably from William Wheler of Datchet, who owned land in the area),[2] it was given the name Dorset Street soon after.[3][4] Locally, it was sometimes known as "Dosset Street" or "Dossen Street" either because of the large number of doss-houses it contained or because immigrants to the area found it hard to pronounce the original name.[5][6] It was a short and narrow street, 400 feet long and 24 feet wide,[7] running parallel with Brushfield Street, to the north, and White’s Row, to the south, and connecting Crispin Street, to the west, with Commercial Street to the east."

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

“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 is precisely that I have “inferred”, although you’re now fully aware of my thoughts as to what “to the court” actually meant, and where it referred to, which wasn’t glued to the archway for the full 45 minutes, but anywhere in front of Miller’s Court that allowed people to peer inwards into it. Not to be confused with “up the court” which means venturing inside it.

“But the evidence he gives shows that he made no such considerations. He stooped down to look the man in the face.”

Yes, and a very implausible claim it is to – the notion that a man dressed in his ostentatious finery should allow himself to be stooped down upon at very close quarters in what was recognised as one of the worst areas in London, at the height of the ripper murders. It’s scarcely worth considering, and the same may be said of Hutchinson’s claim that he should just brazenly intrude upon a couple without any consideration that his behaviour would be commented upon adversely. But I argued these implausible aspects elsewhere, and don’t need repeating. I would say that actually rooting yourself to a location that actually blocks the egress of the couple he was stalking from Miller’s Court is a stretch even for Hutchinson. So there is plenty – “evidencewise” – to suggest that Hutchinson wouldn’t have done such as thing, as I’m prepared to reiterate forever.

“and that the street itself was ten feet wide or very close to it.”

Well, there we go then. Looking at the contemporary photographs, I don’t think that’s a bad guess at all. In which case, don’t spoil that sensible guess by drawing some huge and imaginary distinction between the northern and southern sides of Dorset Street as though it means anything significant. It is the latter argument that made me wonder about the extent of your knowledge on the subject. No, incidentally, I did not make any “claim” that the street was eight feet wide. I just mentioned that I participated in a discussion in the pre-crash forums that involved several posters examining the photographs, comparing it with the modern location of Dorset Street, and making certain determinations as to length.

So please exercise some degree of restraint when telling me what I’ve “claimed”.

I would offer another word of advice: don’t try to estimate height and distances in old Victorian photographs of old Victorian Streets using “centimetres” for measurements. It’s simply too small a measurement for the task, and an assumption that a gas lamp must be a certain amount of centimetres is to be strictly cautioned against, especially when you have no accurate gauge for other items to measure it against. Stick with imperial, I would. I have no problem with the street being roughly ten feet wide, which is why I DO have a problem with you drawing distinctions between north and south as though it carries weight.

“No? But where do you find that incompatibility, Ben?”

Well read the thread!

Why do you think we’ve been having this discussion if not to discuss the pros and cons of Dew’s theory? I’m certainly not going to repeat them all again at your behest, and in any case, you know precisely the nature of the problems I’ve had with it. I’m honestly curious, why would you want me to repeat it all again? I can if you want me to, and we can start the ball rolling again.

“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.”

I never said “could not have”. I said it’s very unlikely that they were different people, and it’s not a case of personal “preference”, it’s a case of following the evidence and rejecting the “random coincidence” explanation that would be necessary to separate the two. To accept the latter would strike me as a good example of not following the evidence particularly well, but with respect, it’s really no use your asking me if any evidence militates against your conclusions, because it’s clear that you’ll dismiss any answer I give and continue to claim that nothing interferes with your conclusions, as you've been doing throughout this thread.

“I make that pavement around 125-150 centimeters wide, easily broad enough to accomodate two people passing each other on it.”

And as soon as the couple emerge, the first thing to confront them at the other end of the passage is George Hutchinson, the same person who had stooped to get a look at the Astrakhan man, thence to follow them to the court. Again, it would make a highly comical spectacle, and reinforces the implausible nature of Hutchinson’s claims once again, but was unlikely have reflected reality. 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.

I realise that the pavements were wide, but the width of the pavements says nothing about the width of the street itself, apart from making it seem even narrower, since the pavements encroach onto the already narrow street. Similarly, the ability of two vehicles being able to pass each other in the street also fails as a street widener, and it also fails to enervate Sally’s sensible observation that it would have taken seconds to cross the street.

“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.”

Which is already deeply implausible as a good reason to suspect Hutchinson of lying about it, but I suspect even he would draw the line at waiting for them again right at the end of the passage they were anticipated to emerge from. Again, it would be a comical if unrealistic spectacle.

“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.”

Yeah, me to. I think he lied about. Well done for spotting the problems with it.

I don’t think he saw Astrakhan or Kelly on the streets. I think he simply waited in that general vicinity either for Kelly to emerge, or in anticipation of the Blotchy client leaving so he could gain entry himself. I don’t think this waiting consisted of a glued to the spot vigil, but more of pacing about in the cold, keeping circulation going, and generally doing what normal people do when their waiting for as long as 45 minutes.

It was a short and narrow street

Boom. Well googled, Fisherman. It was indeed a short and narrow street. I would only urge caution with the precise measurements because they may relate to when the street was first "laid out in 1674", and not the time of the murders.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi D’Onston,

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 on the same day (or a day later, in Fisherman’s scenario), and – what an amazing coincidence – the wording is practically identical.

My 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.

There is no evidence that men “often or occasionally” stood looking up the court, and waiting for prostitutes has little to do with it, since it is clear from the evidence of Mary Cox and others that the prostitute residents sought out their clients, and not the other way round. Hutchinson might have been “very drunk” but he stated to the St. James’ Gazette that he was completely sober and had nothing to drink all day. Obviously, if you wish to throw your lot in with those who want to revive Walter Dew’s 80-year-old “honestly mistaken” theory you’ll be inclined to treat this claim of sobriety as truthful.

“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)?”

Not much is being assumed at all. Implausible "coincidences" are being rejected, that's all. We can indeed go further and observe that the Lewis loiterer and Hutchinson was allegedly engaging in the same activity of watching and waiting for someone to emerge from Miller’s Court at 2:30am on the night of Kelly’s murder, at the same location. Resistance to the commonsense deduction that they were probably the same person is perplexing, and strikes me as special pleading. Yes, you’re right, there isn’t much evidence that the police were overly concerned with the loitering man, and for that reason, they probably did not infer a connection between the two, but that this sort of thing happens a lot in major investigations, where the police are forced to chase up all sorts of leads, and significant details often get lost in the process.

Yes, we do have a sketch of Hutchinson, and it meshes up very well with Lewis’ description.

I’m surprised you should describe the article that stimulated this debate as “revelatory”. From this I can only assume that you’re unfamiliar with Dew’s suggestion of date-confusion with regard to Maxwell and maybe Hutchinson also. I don’t mean this in criticism, but this theory has been around for nearly 80 years, and cannot really be described as a revelation. I guess I’m just surprised how unfamiliar people are with some of the source material. I would be interested to see how many other people come forward and claim that the muddled-date idea is new and a revelatory, as they can be added to the list of those remain surprisingly unfamiliar with a set of memoirs that has been around for many decades, and could be accessed for free on the internet for several years now.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

You may think whatever you wish about this particular detail, but whichever option you choose, there is nothing telling us that the police did not have what they regarded as good evidence to rule Hutchinson out. It must have been there, yes, but it must NOT have survived, no.

This is the opposite of sensible approach to the evidence.

Positing the existence of "good evidence to rule Hutchinson out" on the basis of an assumption that is "must have" happened is to be avoided at every cost.

The likelihood, of course, is that in the absence of any evidence for such a "good reason", the police were only in a position to draw their own conclusions, and he was dismissed accordingly. There were no "good" reasons (i.e. proof-based ones) for dismissing Packer and Violenia out beyond the logical and sensible assumption that they were both false witnesses, and we really shouldn't expect any miracles with Hutchinson.

If people want to seek anything of a more concrete nature to "rule Hutchinson out" - which even Dew makes clear was never proven - then they need to do better than relying on "must haves", and lost-to-history reports that conveniently didn't survive.

[Ben]

Here we go, chaps.

A fascinating study of the former location of Dorset Street and its width. It certainly wasn't 24 feet wide in 1888, as contemporary photographs illustrate. Take the woman in the forground, be generous and assume she was as little as five feet tall (she was probably over), and see how many vertical versions of her you can fit from the northern and southern walls.

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

Note particularly the clarent and gold markings to indicate the 1888 whereabouts of street and pavement.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi fisherman,
It looks like I shall have to conceed a point, that Irish Times account obviously leaves a lot to be desired.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Here we go, chaps.

A fascinating study of the former location of Dorset Street and its width. It certainly wasn't 24 feet wide in 1888, as contemporary photographs illustrate. Take the woman in the forground, be generous and assume she was as little as five feet tall (she was probably over), and see how many vertical versions of her you can fit from the northern and southern walls.

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

Note particularly the clarent and gold markings to indicate the 1888 whereabouts of street and pavement.

Best regards,
Ben

Thanks for posting that, Ben - that's fascinating! I think the width of the street was roughly about 10 feet from the contemporary photograph? As you say, certainly not 24 feet.

[Fisherman]

Okay, Ben, you return to your old arguments and you choose avoid coming up with answers to questions like the one I asked you about in what way my theory is incompatible with the evidence. You offer solutions like "It’s scarcely worth considering" to problems posed by the issue we are discussing, you persistently keep claiming that I have suggested that Hutchinson remained glued to one point only in spite of my having told you half a dozen times that I am not of that opinion. And you infer that I have somehow spoken of a "huge" distinction between the two pavements of Dorset Street, when I in fact have provided a measuring that you recognize yourself as being a good one. "Imaginary" is what you call my view - as opposed, I can only surmise, your own appreciation of things that would be the relevant and correct one.

So yes, let´s put an end to the misery!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Thanks for posting that, Ben - that's fascinating! I think the width of the street was roughly about 10 feet from the contemporary photograph? As you say, certainly not 24 feet."

I think you may be missing the point sorely here, Sally. The street as such would reasonably not be 24 feet, no. But the measurement I quoted earlier refers to the width from facade to facade. If you take a look at Colin´s work again, you will find that there is in one of the pictures (the second from the bottom) a small green car parked to the right. It is something like a Nissan Micra or an Opel Corsa. These cars are very much the same lengthwise, around 3,8-4 meters. Now push that car, if you will, onto the road directly to the left of it, and you will find that it fits the width nicely. This means that if Colin is correct - and he very often is - then the width of the street itself would have been around 13-14 feet. To this, you must then add the pavements. If we have a street width of 14 feet, then we need another 10 feet to reach the 24 suggested by Wikipedia. That would mean 5 feet per pavement. And five feet means 152 centimeters. As you may have seen, the width I suggested earlier was one that was very close to that mark. Three women could stand side by side on that pavement, as shown by the photo you provided earlier.

All in all, the full width of Dorset Street may very well have been exactly the 24 feet suggested. I will look further into it, but as it stands, I think Wikipedia may be spot on.

The best,
Fisherman