Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Garry Wroe]

It might be worth pointing out that an exchange similar to that presently in progress not so long ago resulted in certain posters receiving bans from Admin.

Just a thought.

[The Grave Maurice]

Not a pleasant thought, though. Lately, there seem to have been too many bans and angry departures. The way it's going, pretty soon Admin will only be talking to him/herself.

[Garry Wroe]

It was just a word to the wise, GM. Hopefully, the posters concerned will heed some friendly advice and contemplate the possible consequences of the present debate. Like you, I take no pleasure in seeing anyone banned - particularly enthusiastic contributors to the various Hutchinson threads.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

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

I am counting, Ben, on you delivering all the material that could possibly be perceived by anybody as in any way going against my suggestion of a lost day. So far, it has worked. And that is a good thing, because it means that my theory will be put to the test in all aspects of the word. But I´m afraid Sally had nothing at all new to say - I have given my answers to her points already. She once again, for instance, tries to be ironic about somebody´s conception that Dorset Street would have been to wide to pass. Now, I do not know who that somebody would be, since I have never speculated such a thing, but just like your earlier suggestion that I believed in a frozen Hutchinson, this thing keeps cropping up. And there is very little I can do about it, but to give my answer and hope that it is listened too - which did not work - and thereafter say that it is an unjust accusation, which I did - but that did not work either.

"this is where you seem to be cherry-picking the bits and pieces from various sources that you want to be true, whilst discarding the bits that are not as convenient for your theory."

In all fairness, no. I do not make any final call here, Ben. I point out that if you want to complete a picture of a man standing on the northern side throughout, then the elements are at hand, whilst if you want to construct a picture of a man that stands outside Crossinghams at any stage of the morning, that element is NOT at hand. I am not saying that he must have been standing the way I think he stood - but I am saying that, using Hutchinsons testimony only, a compelling case can be made for it.

"most press versions of his account quote Hutchinson directly, and most of them make it rather obvious that venturing up the court was the last action he claimed to have taken before departing the scene from the corner of Miller’s Court, after emerging from within."

This I cannot see. In what way would that be rather obvious in any paper? Please quote what you find to be the most telling example, and I will try and see what you mean.

"Hutchinson does not need any helping hand to “get to” the area in front of Crossingham’s because as far as I’m concerned the evidence “gets him” there already with the reference “to the court”"

That will have to stand for you, Ben. I am of the meaning that Hutchinson´s telling us that he went to the court can not be used as evidence for him having gone to Crossinghams. The distance inbetween the two venues is only some seven metres of course, but as such I think that one must accept that this distance was so small that standing directly outside the court would have meant also standing directly outside Crossinghams before your suggestion would hold true.

"I disagree very strongly. You just have to use a bit of imagination."

So I notice!

"his is not an accurate imaginary comparison because we know full well that Hutchinson wasn’t nearly as specific with regard to his initial location on Dorset Street"

But that is not the point. The point is that no sane judge would ever come up with an assertion that a man could not have stood on one side and one side only of a narrow street for 45 minutes. THAT is the point I am making. Would you not agree that such a suggestion would be totally ludicrous if we add no other elements?

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

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

You should perhaps not always read me 100 per cent literally, Ben ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Hi Fish

I'm fine with your dismissing me, go ahead - I know I'm right with respect to my last post - well, perhaps not the foamy mouthed horse bit, that was purely speculative. I don't require confirmation of what constitutes evidence and what constitutes others repeating that evidence, because I know already.

I don't think there's any problem with your 'missed day' idea as a concept; but there appears to be no evidence for it - you seem to be building a case on a premise that has no foundations; and that being the case, it can't take you anywhere. I think that when you are coming up with ever more elaborate explanations to support your basic idea - that Hutchinson missed a day, then your basic idea is in trouble - that's not a criticism of you, Fisherman - I know all too well how it works and have had to abandon (and do have to) ideas which seem very convincing to start with because on closer examination, the facts don't support the premise. That's how it works, or at least, it should be.

But on this thread we have seen the idea that Hutchinson forgot an entire day, which is implausible in my view. Perhaps, if he was Walter Dew, remembering events that took place years ago. But Hutchinson was young, and the events had only taken place a couple of days previous. If we accept your conviction that Hutchinson was 'Toppy' (a term which I detest, incidentally) then he was barely 22 at the time. Normally, a young man of that age would not forget an entire day - it's an extreme explanation, which makes it unlikely, I'm afraid.

Most of the time, the simplest explanations are the ones which work. Similarly, you explain Hutchinson's failure to come forward for 3 days by suggesting scenarios by which he had no human contact for that time. Again, extreme - and therefore unlikely.

With the best will in the world, Fish, you shouldn't have to suggest such elaborate scenarios to support your premise if its a good one. It should speak for itself.

Best wishes

Sally

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I'm fine with your dismissing me, go ahead"

I dismiss nobody who ask me new questions or elaborate on old ones in a productive manner. But I do reserve the right to grow somewhat tired and annoyed by people who insist on putting forward things in my name that I have never stated. And that was precisely what you did in your last post. With an uncalled for ironic tone too boot it.

"on this thread we have seen the idea that Hutchinson forgot an entire day, which is implausible in my view."

I have said this before too, Sally - people who miss out on half days are the really weird ones. They will end up believing that daytime is nighttime.
Please understand that I am not saying that Hutch FORGOT a day as such. I do not believe that it was a question of forgetting things, but instead one of mixing things up.

"you shouldn't have to suggest such elaborate scenarios to support your premise if its a good one."

The avenues opened up by the suggestion should be thoroughly researched, Sally. That has nothing to do with any lack of strength in the theory on the whole:

1. Dew was obviously of the opinion that Hutch was wrong on the timing.
2. Hutchinson never mentioned Lewis - but he did assert that two OTHER people made up the full force of Dorset Street walkers as he stood there.
3. Hutchinson took to walking the streets all night, in spite of the hard rain that fell.
4. Hutchinson never mentions standing at Crossinghams, whereas he clearly states that he went to the court, stood there for 45 minutes, and left from the corner of the court.
5. Hutchinson´s story - not himself - was discredited, according to the press.
6. We have no knowledge of any sort of reprimands directed his way. Instead we have Dew´s assertion that he would not want to reflect on either Hutch or Maxwell in any way, and he speaks of how people with the best intentions may get things wrong.
7. Not a single point has been presented that effectively contradicts the theory as such. Some will have it that people cannot mistake days in weeks with important events taking place, but that very much remains an unproven suggestion and not a counterpoint proven useful. Some also say that it may not have rained at 2.30, but to what that extent this applies remains written in the stars. Thus it is just as useless as a counterpoint. Thirdly, it has been said that Lewis´loiterer could not have been anybody but Hutchinson, but that is plain and simple wrong. It could have been any out of millions of London men. There is no substantiation at all telling us that it was Hutchinson. The fact that this man looked in the general direction of the court and that Lewis´interpretation was that he was seemingly in wait for somebody to come out from that court, amounts to nothing but a guess - better or worse - on Lewis´behalf.

So you do not have to tell me that a case needs strong legs to stand on, Sally. I know it - and I have it.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

What Hutchinson states is that he followed them(Kelly,Companion)into Dorset Street.Nothing about standing on the corner.How far into is not stated,but as he(Hutchinson)claimed to have heard words spoken,and saw a red handkerchief passed,and taking into account the dim light and inclement weather in which sight and sound would be adversally affected,Hutchinson would need to be quite near.Near enough to be at the passage entrance,before they reached no 9,I would say.Yet he saw nothing.Interesting!

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"What Hutchinson states is that he followed them(Kelly,Companion)into Dorset Street.Nothing about standing on the corner."

On the contrary, Harry! He says in the police report that he went to the court and stood there for three quarters of an hour, and then, in the Daily News, he states very clearly that when he left Dorset Street, he did so from the corner of the court. And once again, no matter how we interpret things, no matter how wide or narrow the street was and no matter if Hutch by other considerations was honest or slippery, he does not breathe the words Crossingham´s or lodginghouse at any stage at all.

"How far into is not stated,but as he(Hutchinson)claimed to have heard words spoken,and saw a red handkerchief passed,and taking into account the dim light and inclement weather in which sight and sound would be adversally affected,Hutchinson would need to be quite near.Near enough to be at the passage entrance,before they reached no 9,I would say.Yet he saw nothing.Interesting!"

But it is all in writing, Harry! There is nothing strange at all involved in this. When the couple had their chat and the handkerchief was handed to Kelly, they stood at the corner of Miller´s Court, wheras Hutchinson stood at the corner of Dorset Street and Commercial. That was roughly thirty yards away. Hutch tells us that `Kelly spoke in a loud voice as she mentioned the handkerchief, and no other details are recorded from the conversation.
After that, the couple went down the archway, and when they did, Hutchinson went to the court to see if he could see them, but could not. We do not know that he took off from the corner he stood at exactly as they walked into the archway. Reasonably, he would not have waited very long, but I fail to see why he could not have let a number of seconds slip by. Then he had around thirty yards to put behind him before he could look into the archway, whereas the couple only had around six yards to cover before they were at Kelly´s door, which may have been left open.

So where is the problem?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

So where is the problem?

I just caught up with this thread, before a chilly walk on a grey drizzly English day.

The weather conditions brought it forcefully home to me that 'curiosity' is a
totally unbelievable reason for Hutch to have stood 3/4 of an hour 'waiting' in Dorset Street on a cold night (I'm deliberately not saying 'rainy').

There is no way on earth that someone standing waiting for even 10 minutes
would not start pacing, stamping feet, rubbing hands together, and -given the proven distance with the opposite pavement (and lack of traffic), not have crossed over at least once, and probably back and forth at intervals.

There is no reason at all why he would remember or detail these movements to the Police - indeed if he wanted to disguise his motives in coming forward, he probably wanted to subtly distance his statement from Mrs Lewis's.

I think that he would have had a strong motivation to get into Mary's room
just for the shelter and the fire, given that cold night -if you add in his excitation (something else that would surely have him pacing around in a 'hyper' state, changing pavements), then the whole vigil in Dorset street
suddenly makes perfect sense.

[Fisherman]

Rubyretro:

"The weather conditions brought it forcefully home to me that 'curiosity' is a
totally unbelievable reason for Hutch to have stood 3/4 of an hour 'waiting' in Dorset Street on a cold night (I'm deliberately not saying 'rainy').
There is no way on earth that someone standing waiting for even 10 minutes
would not start pacing, stamping feet, rubbing hands together, and -given the proven distance with the opposite pavement (and lack of traffic), not have crossed over at least once, and probably back and forth at intervals."

Okay, Ruby. But how about the fact that the night BEFORE was a dry night, and a night when the forceful winds that were to hit London the next night, had still not arrived? Would that not make for a far better situation in which to stand about in a more relaxed and less desperately wet and frozen manner?
You see, this is one of the points where it can be argued that the former night would be very much more in correlation with Hutchinsons behaviour than the wet, hard blowing and cold night of the 8:th.
The same applies to the the nightly promenade he took in the hard, relentless rain - why would he do that? Then again, as the night BEFORE was a completely dry one, it seems like a night when walking the streets would have been a totally rational thing to do. It would keep him dry and it would warm him.
If we instead ponder the fact that we KNOW that Lewis´man was there on the night of the 8:th, it may become easieer to understand why he stood in the place he had chosen. In The Complete Jack the Ripper", Begg et al write that he would have been standing in the archway (or something to that effect) at Crossingham´s. And why not: if it was wet and cold and very windy, such a stance would have been a natural one. Now, I can´t tell if there WAS an archway there (I can´t find one on the maps) - maybe there was just a recess into an arched doorway or something. But we know that one report has Lewis saying that the man stood against the house, and another that he stood at the door. That seems very close to me.

"There is no reason at all why he would remember or detail these movements to the Police"

Just as there is no reason why he would leave it out, mind you. We do know, however, that when he took up his stance, he says that he "stood there for three quarters of an hour". The implications thus go against any picture of a walking, jogging and street-crossing Hutchinson.

"I think that he would have had a strong motivation to get into Mary's room
just for the shelter and the fire"

He may well have had such a motivation, yes. It would perhaps explain why he waited for the longest. And with good reason too; the normal punter is taken care of and freed of a sum of money and sent packing in rather a short time. Who would expect a punter to be allowed to stay for 45 minutes or more? But this still was what happened, and maybe Hutchinson reasoned that, given the wealth of the man´s appearance, he had payed for the whole night. Thus fare thee well, any hope of crashing at his friend Kelly´s place. He instead had to opt for keeping his temperature up by walking the streets.

How does that sound to you, Ruby? To me, it sounds completely logical.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

How does that sound to you, Ruby? To me, it sounds completely logical.

It sounds totally illogical to me, Fish -sorry.

Hutch (according to himself) had already met Mary that night, and stopped to talk to her. That was BEFORE Astrakhan Man arrived on the scene. She even (supposedly) asked him for money (I suppose Blotchy was mean with his cash). So Hutch had already had a golden opportunity to engage Mary's services a short while before -but didn't take it.

Hutch also said that he had spent all his money.

So what is logical about him standing about (statue-still),for the best part of an hour waiting for A Man to leave so that he can pop in ? I just don't get it.

I think that it is far more logical that he didn't get the date wrong, that he
behaved as anybody would whilst waiting in the cold for a long time (i.e. moved about to keep warm and stave off boredom -including changing pavements in that narrow empty street), and that he didn't register the hard rain because he missed the worst of the weather....he was in Mary's room by then with a burning fire in the grate, a coat over the window, and other things on his mind.....

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"It sounds totally illogical to me, Fish -sorry."

Don´t be, Ruby. I´m fine.

"Hutch (according to himself) had already met Mary that night, and stopped to talk to her. That was BEFORE Astrakhan Man arrived on the scene. She even (supposedly) asked him for money (I suppose Blotchy was mean with his cash). So Hutch had already had a golden opportunity to engage Mary's services a short while before -but didn't take it."

He may simply have noticed that Kelly was short on money and on the prowl for customers, and that being the case he would not stand any lodging chance. But AFTER the business had been taken care of, it may have been another thing.
Is that slightly more logical, or am I still on the totally illogical scale?

"Hutch also said that he had spent all his money."

Eh, yes ...? To me, that would mean that he was on the street with no pecuniar means to pay for a bed. And in such cases, when there is a friend with a private room at hand ... well, there you are: I actually find it very logical to try and sneak in and snuggle up at that friend´s place in such cases. But that´s just me!

"So what is logical about him standing about (statue-still),for the best part of an hour waiting for A Man to leave so that he can pop in ? I just don't get it."

Warmth. Sleep. Relative comfort at no expense. I get it.

Incidentally, it does no longer bug me when people try to infer that I have suggested a statue-like pose on Hutchinson´s behalf. I am of the meaning that such things only reflect on the ones who do so.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi
The thread continues
How about Hutchinson was telling the truth about his meeting with Kelly, and even about her encounter with Astracan , and even about waiting outside for 45 minutes, however instead of walking around until 6am for the Victoria home to opened its doors, he kept one important thing back.
That he spent the hours between 3-6pm in kellys room , as a favour to a friend who she owed, and left her very much alive around 615 closing the door behind him.
When he found out that Mary had been murdered, and that the medical opinion was during the early hours, he was in a quandary what to do.
He coulds never admit to being in her room, for obvious reasons,
He could also never inform the police that they were wrong about T.O.D, because he would have been asked why?
He was worried that he might have been seen hanging about, and might have been pulled in and questioned, he may have known about the Lewis sighting, but not neccesarily.
So what I am suggesting is .
Hutchinsons story is authentic, up to the point they enter the room, however around 3am Astracan leaves, and Hutch knocks on kellys door, she answers it , and lets him in , and he stays until 6am, when he leaves, closing the door behind him.
He leaves her alive and sleeping, the cry heard was the result of Mary awakening from a nightmare, and nothing else...note Praters remarks at the inquest, and Lotties interview with Kit watkins three years later.
The daylight murder theory is then firmly in place.
One can only imagine the fear that GH felt knowing he was in the room, when the medical opinion alleged she was killed, he could never admit that, and after all Astracan did exist, so by informing the events to the police, it would take the pressure of him, after all he knew that man was innocent, and knowing he would never come foreward.. again for obvious reasons., it would be the best thing if he presented himself.
Imagine being asked to patrol the streets, he would never have pointed him out even if he saw him, as he knew he was innocent, and Hutchinson was only trying to get out of a unfortunate situation.
Speculation, but might explain all the suspicious circumstances.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Evening Fish

1. Dew was obviously of the opinion that Hutch was wrong on the timing

True. Because he considered the medical evidence as to the time of Kelly's death insurmountable. Ergo, as far as he could see, Hutchinson had to be wrong. This means very little if the medical evidence is quetioned.

2. Hutchinson never mentioned Lewis - but he did assert that two OTHER people made up the full force of Dorset Street walkers as he stood there

Hutchinson did not mention Lewis in his statement. We cannot say if he mentioned her to the police. Unknown. As for the other two - a policeman and an unknown man entering a lodging house? The first he was guaranteed to get right and the second would have been virtually impossible to verify. He makes no mention of the couple seen by Lewis on the other hand.

3. Hutchinson took to walking the streets all night, in spite of the hard rain that fell.

He said so, yes. Even if that was true, 'all night' could have amounted to as little as an hour.

4. Hutchinson never mentions standing at Crossinghams, whereas he clearly states that he went to the court, stood there for 45 minutes, and left from the corner of the court.

Not specifically, but the proximity of local landmarks in the location would have rendered this unecessary as discussed ad nauseum. I don't think this is important.

5. Hutchinson´s story - not himself - was discredited, according to the press.

That’s a meaningless distinciton. If his story was taken to be true, and shortly afterwards found not to be true, then he is discredited along with his story. If there was another explanation for the rapid turnaround from ‘True’ on the 12th, to ‘Not True’ on the 13th, then he wouldn’t have been discredited at the time. He’d have been mistaken.

6. We have no knowledge of any sort of reprimands directed his way. Instead we have Dew´s assertion that he would not want to reflect on either Hutch or Maxwell in any way, and he speaks of how people with the best intentions may get things wrong.

Have you read the piece in the Echo (13th November)? There is sufficient reprimand there alone. As for Dew, he didn’t even remember what Hutchinson’s name was. If you want to talk about memory, how about Dew?

7. Not a single point has been presented that effectively contradicts the theory as such. Some will have it that people cannot mistake days in weeks with important events taking place, but that very much remains an unproven suggestion and not a counterpoint proven useful. Some also say that it may not have rained at 2.30, but to what that extent this applies remains written in the stars. Thus it is just as useless as a counterpoint. Thirdly, it has been said that Lewis´loiterer could not have been anybody but Hutchinson, but that is plain and simple wrong. It could have been any out of millions of London men. There is no substantiation at all telling us that it was Hutchinson. The fact that this man looked in the general direction of the court and that Lewis´interpretation was that he was seemingly in wait for somebody to come out from that court, amounts to nothing but a guess - better or worse - on Lewis´behalf.

Not a single point has been presented that effectively demonstrates any evidence for the theory at all. It is just as likely - no, more likely, that Hutchinson lied than that he was mistaken, confused, or got the days wrong.

The facts are that Hutchinson came forward as soon as the inquest was over and put himself in the same location as the man seen by Lewis. There appears to be no parsimonious explanation for that action which casts him in a wholly innocent light.

[Lechmere]

Somewhat reluctantly I feel obliged to counter a few points made by Sally.

The ‘Echo’ story of 13th November is a ‘reprimand’?

“notwithstanding examination and re-examination by the police, the man's story could not be shaken, and so circumstantial and straightforward were his assertions that the police at first believed they had - to again quote the journalist - "at length been placed in possession of facts which would open up a new line of investigation, and probably enable them to track the criminal." The importance which they then attached to it has since suffered diminution. That will be seen by the result of more recent inquiries.”

Not much of a ‘reprimand’. The last sentence seems to imply the police found out information which undermined Hutchinson’s version of events. We don’t know what, but logically it could only be either his statement was checked and found to be faulty in some particular or it didn’t corroborate with some other piece of evidence that they put more weight on.
However before we get too carried away on this line of argument, other and more numerous press reports continued to regard Hutchinson as a reliable witness.

So is the ‘East London Advertiser’ story of 17 November a ‘reprieve’?
“A remarkable statement was made on Tuesday night by a labourer named Hutchinson, who professes to have been talking with Kelly at 2 o'clock on Friday morning...”

Who to believe? Did the ‘Echo’ have inside information that the other papers refused to pick up? Or was the ‘Echo’ merely trying to adopt a different line from the rest to get an edge in the readership stakes?
Oh – I know a couple of other papers also picked up on the idea that Hutchinson had been dropped.
However my point is that it is not clear why or when Hutchinson was dropped.

Now to move on, Hutchinson says he was watching Miller’s Court from about 2.05 to 2.50 am.
Dew estimated the time of death as follows:

“There are differences of opinion as to the actual time of the Marie Kelly murder, but I have always inclined to the view that it took place somewhere between midnight and 2 a.m.”

If Dew regarded the medical opinion as to Kelly’s death as insurmountable, then would he discount Hutchinson on that basis? Hardly. If Hutchinson was accurate in the timing of his vigil, the time of death could have been just 5 minutes over time from Dew’s estimation. So I don’t think Dew was ruling Hutchinson out on that basis. That isn’t really credible at all.

But what of Maxwell? Dew says this of her:

“The new evidence was supplied by another woman, named Mrs. Caroline Maxwell, wife of the deputy at No. 14 Dorset Street, which adjoined Miller's Court. She claimed to know Marie Kelly well, and to have seen her alive only two hours before her body was discovered.
“Imagine the sensation this story caused. If true it put an entirely new complexion upon the whole case.
“If Mrs. Maxwell had been a sensation-seeker-one of those women who live for the limelight-it would have been easy to discredit her story. She was not. She seemed a sane and sensible woman, and her reputation was excellent.
She stated that at eight o'clock on the Friday morning she was going into Mr. McCarthy's chandler's shop, when she saw Marie standing in the passage leading to the court.”

So clearly Maxwell’s evidence is at odds with Dew’s estimation of the time of death – 2 am against 8 am. But Dew is careful to say. “She claimed to know Kelly...”

Dew then gets to Hutchinson:
“Then followed other information which further shook the police reconstruction of the crime.
The informant this time was a young man named George Hutchison” (the ‘young’ bit ties in with Toppy – just thought I’d throw that in for good measure)
Dew continued:

“Hutchison described him as well-dressed, wearing a felt hat, a long, dark astrakhan collared coat and dark spats. A turned-up black moustache gave him a foreign appearance.
“But I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong.
“Indeed, if the medical evidence is accepted, Mrs. Maxwell could not have been right. The doctors were unable, because of the terrible mutilations, to say with any certainty just when death took place, but they were very emphatic that the girl could not have been alive at eight o'clock that morning.
“And if Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also? This, without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view. I believe that the man of the billycock hat and beard was the last person to enter Marie Kelly's room that night and was her killer.”

In my opinion it is absolutely obvious that Dew thought Maxwell confused the person and that Hutchinson was out by a day. Dew doesn’t think Hutchinson saw Kelly that night at all, as Dew believed the last person to see Kelly was Cox, at a much earlier hour. Dew does not give any indication that he thought Hutchinson was confused as to the person he saw.

(By-the-by Sally, Dew is at pains to connect the Bank Holiday attacks on Emma Smith and Martha Tabram – which strongly suggests he would have likewise mentioned a connection to a public holiday death for the Lord Mayor’s Show. Just mentioning that to hopefully lead you away from a fruitless search for evidence that the occasion of the Lord Mayor’s Show was a public holiday or any sort of holiday.)

Lastly I’ll give you a parsimonious explanation for Hutchinson reporting to the police in the late afternoon or early evening of the 12th November.
He wanted to get warm by the fire in Commercial Street Police Station.

Here’s a gregarious explanation: he realised it was his civic duty to do so.
Here’s a pecuniary explanation: he wanted to try and get some reward money as he was skint.
Here’s an egotistical explanation: he wanted five minutes of fame.

It’s not difficult thinking up explanations none of which rely on him magically hearing a couple of lines from the Lewis testimony.
It is incredible to think that Lewis’s few words would have reached Hutchinson’s ears outside the court. So unlikely as to barely be worth considering.
So we are left with a minor coincidence – that Lewis testified that she saw someone and yes, that person was Hutchinson and he independently presented himself as a witness not long after she made that statement. That isn’t exactly like finding a four leaf clover.
Or she saw someone else entirely and Hutchinson was there the day before. Again not exactly unlikely. Hundreds of people lived in Dorset Street. At any given moment there were probably a couple of loiterers somewhere up and down it.