Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Fisherman]

Phil:

"Abberline would have wanted to reassure himself that Hutchinson had actually been seen or not, in order to partly corroberate Hutchinson's story. "

Of course. It goes without saying - if Abberline could find a clincher, he would be the happiest man in the world. But that clincher seemingly illuded him.
And we may reflect on the fact that when his contemporary colleague, Walter Dew, opted for a line in the Hutchinson affair, he did NOT work from the premise that Hutch must have been in place in Dorset Street at the time he said, since Lewisītestimony seemingly corroborated this - he instead said that he could see no other reason for Hutchinson failing to deliver the goods, than a mistaken day...

And ironically, the one person who could have put it all beyond reasonable doubt was Hutchinson himself. Any mentioning of a woman that entered Millerīs Court at around 2.30 would have represented the straw Abberline could clutch - but Hutchinson failed in this respect.

Hutchinson failed to pinpoint Lewis, and PC L63 failed to see that there was a man standing outside Crossinghams. All that blindness! Makes you wonder, right?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"With all due respect to Fisherman and his interesting new slant on the Hutchinson affair, I hope it isn’t too much to ask that we confine the “wrong night” speculation to its relevant thread?"

A wise idea when it comes to discussing it specifically - but Iīm afraid that it is relevant to many threads relating to the Hutchinson affair. There is, for example, a "toff" thread, but I see nothing wrong in your discussing that issue here with Jon.

So therefore:

"it is generally accepted that Hutchinson was the man in the wideawake seen by Lewis. Can it be stated as fact that he was? Of course not. But short of astonishing coincidence, it is the overwhelming probability."

You may still have a point about the widespread acceptance, Ben. But my feeling is that this is because the Dew perspective has not been discussed over the years. From the moment that discussion got started, the group of same-man-disciples started to shrink. How much? Who knows? Letīs wait and see!

"But short of astonishing coincidence, it is the overwhelming probability."

I would word that: "Short of coincidence, it remains a clear possibilty"

"Nobody is required to explain Hutchinson’s failure to “see” Lewis. "

Then why do YOU do so? If it is a given thing that people who watch a court entrance and tell us that nobody entered them - in spite of this exact thing happening - then nobody has told me about it.
The omission to mention Lewis is and remains an absolute anomaly. I think you will agree with me that most people do not regard Hutchinson as the killer of Kelly, and that means that there are a lot of people out there scratching their heads in disbelief over this. Iīm not one of them, since I have found what I believe to be a very plausible explanation. But donīt tell me that no explanation is required - it is!

"Hutchinson was by his own admission standing outside the entrance to Miller’s Court waiting for someone to come out. Sarah Lewis saw someone doing precisely that at the same time and the same location."

...and I would phrase that:

""Hutchinson was by his own admission standing outside the entrance to Miller’s Court waiting for someone to come out. Sarah Lewis claimed that the man SHE saw, stood on the other side of the street. She also claimed that she saw someone waiting for someone to come out only the SECOND time around she gave her testimony, whereas she specifically said that she could say nothing at all about her man at the previous, police governed interview - any waiting for somebody to come out included."

You treat it as a certain thing, Ben, that the two men stood at the same spot. It is not. The evidence tells us that Hutchinson went to the court, whereas NO evidence places him specifically outside the doss house. That means that we are dealing with uncertainties here.
It is therefore only if we accept that Hutchinson AND Lewis were correct in their timings, that we should deduct that the man was most probably one and the same.

The moment doubt arises over the timing issue, however, the whole thing changes totally. And since Dew stated that Hutchinson WAS out on the dates, as far as he could tell, that doubt is there, further fuelled by the omission to see Lewis, the PC:s omission to see Hutch, the weather implications, the nightly promenade etcetera.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Apologies Philip,

I misunderstood.

Though I suspect he would have been spoken to a lot sooner.

And inquest rules would apply for every suspicious cause of death hearing, the C5 inquests woud not be an exception.

Monty

PS - By the way. Just one thing. I was an enthusiast and even researcher of this long before you. Let alone before you were "on the scene". It didn't all start with my online Casebook contributions. My interest started at about age 10 or 11, in 1968/69. From a family background in the East End. I traveled around the area and murder sites at this age, in the company of amongst others, my grandmother, who was born in the vicinity in 1888. I had hoped, as I wrote to SPE shortly before I believe, to go to the very first Conference, but was sadly unable to do so. I started "researching" in my teens, in libraries all over the place. So you don't "know me" either.

I don't pretend to nor wish to. Nor am I that concerned. The 'scene' I was referring to was here on Casebook, to which you are comparitively new.

And if your researching began waaaaay back when, surely you have your own resources to refer to rather than asking others to provide.

[Phil Carter]

Monty,

I was referring to the C5 police witnesses.

I have previously also stated that he (PC L63) would be called the next day, returning for his next duty perhaps?

Phil

[Monty]

IPN got the quote from the PC, I suspect, the same way The Star got their Watkins quote.

He wouldn't have been called to Higher authorities attention that night as the murder wasn't discovered till after he came off duty. However he most surely would have been questioned at some stage.

As he obviously did not witness anything deemed important enough in the series of events leading to Kellys murder and aftermath then there seems to be no reason to call him. Whereas all the other Bobbies who appeared either witnessed the victim or were involved in the aftermath.

There were no Police witnesses called at Smiths inquest. Infact they were unaware of her death until the coroner informed them of the inquest 2 days later.

It doesn't seem that unusual.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Ben,

I cannot help but think that PC L63 would have been called to the attention of higher officers, possible Abberline himself, twice,when he returned after his shift that night.

1) ...When the man returned following the newspaper reports from odd witness statements and their accounts.. to assure whomever that he had not seen Hutchinson, or if he had seen Hutchinson, and or the seeing other people saying what they saw at whatever time or not.

2).... After Hutchinson gave his statement to Abberline. Abberline would have wanted to reassure himself that Hutchinson had actually been seen or not, in order to partly corroberate Hutchinson's story.

As it is, the only person that could possibly do this at present would have been Lewis. Now if a policeman had seen Hutchinson, then the scenario is far more certain.

Which leads me to the inquest. Had PC L63 actually seen Hutchinson, or a person loitering opposite Millers Court, then as duty policeman in Dorset Street, he would certainly, surely, have been called as a witness at the inquest. As the inquest itself was cut somewhat surprisingly short, he may have been on the list anyway, so we do not know with certainty.

We can also consider a reason for him not being called, and that is that he had nothing to add.. however this is at odds with previous inquests of the policemen on duty around the area of each murder.

As to the question as to whether it would further the inquest objectives or nay, The Duty Sargeant at Bishopsgate Police Station added nothing to the cause of death either. I would have thought that PC L63's testimony of the surroundings, the people, the happenings and atmosphere of the street or nay and the immediate vicinity in question would have been very important.
I would welcome your thoughts on this?

Monty,

I have seen a previous post from Chris Scott on the subject of the article relating to the sketches on the page in question and he tells that not a mention of PC L63 is made. Therefore we do not need to see the article, pertaining to the sketches, which I asked for previously. Thank you.

Where the IPN got that quoted sentence from.. I am at a loss to understand as there is no reference to him or the quote.

By the way. Just one thing. I was an enthusiast and even researcher of this long before you. Let alone before you were "on the scene". It didn't all start with my online Casebook contributions. My interest started at about age 10 or 11, in 1968/69. From a family background in the East End. I traveled around the area and murder sites at this age, in the company of amongst others, my grandmother, who was born in the vicinity in 1888. I had hoped, as I wrote to SPE shortly before I believe, to go to the very first Conference, but was sadly unable to do so. I started "researching" in my teens, in libraries all over the place. So you don't "know me" either.

Phil

[Ben]

We have to weigh the singular suggestion of no-one being around against other reports that indicate the backstreets were alive much of the night.

And yet none of these people who enlivened the backstreets noticed the extremely conspicuous Astrakhan man, Jon? Fascinating...

[Ben]

With all due respect to Fisherman and his interesting new slant on the Hutchinson affair, I hope it isn’t too much to ask that we confine the “wrong night” speculation to its relevant thread? It is quite clear that irrespective of people’s views on Hutchinson’s propensity to lie or kill anyone (or lack thereof), it is generally accepted that Hutchinson was the man in the wideawake seen by Lewis. Can it be stated as fact that he was? Of course not. But short of astonishing coincidence, it is the overwhelming probability.

Nobody is required to explain Hutchinson’s failure to “see” Lewis. I’m sure he did see her, and I’m equally sure that he avoided mentioning her on purpose in order to prevent it looking obvious that it was her evidence that spurred him into coming forward. And before anyone accuses me of advancing a “case”, he could have been thus motivated without having killed Kelly.

Hutchinson was by his own admission standing outside the entrance to Miller’s Court waiting for someone to come out. Sarah Lewis saw someone doing precisely that at the same time and the same location.

Here’s where it was all discussed last time:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5262

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"His statement seems focused on the couple and whilst he doesnt mention seeing any other person he doesnt state he saw no one either. This I find odd in a street full of Lodging Houses.
It just seems to be an incomplete statement. That said, doesnt mean it is false. Its possible this is exactly how Hutchinson recalled the events.
I find it interesting that Lewis also mentions a couple, verifying Hutchinson, as well as another man (possibily Hutchinson) within the same vicinity."

Thanks for this, Monty ...

... but it calls for a couple of comments and questions:

Hutchinson DID mention other people - though not, of course, in the police report. But to the papers he stated that he saw only two people during his vigil, the PC in Commercial Street and the potential lodger. He made it clear that this was it - nobody else appeared in the street.

I really canīt tell how strange that is, given the hour. It was very late, and I donīt think it is all that unrealistic to imagine empty streets. After all, Buckīs Row did not seem to be any motorway either, did it, in spite of itīs being used as a thoroughfare for cartmen. Anyhow, we wonīt be able to confirm or deny what Hutch said. We are left with it.

So you are of the meaning that the couple Lewis claimed to have seen may have been Astrakhan man and Kelly? And that the lone man may have been Hutch?
The suggestion is perhaps not a bad one, but we must keep in mind that Hutchinson very clearly claimed in the police report to have followed the couple into Dorset Street, and if your suggestion is correct, it would seem we have it the other way around. The papers make this even clearer, when Hutchinson states that he was at the corner of Dorset Street as the couple were standing outside Millerīs Court. But this you know, just as you will know that while Hutchinsonīs man was wearing an elaborate dark overcoat, trimmed with astrakhan, while Lewisīman had abandoned the brown overcoat he had formerly been seen in -or so said Lewis.

This - among other things - is why I really donīt think that the scenario of a mistaken day is too convenient. I instead like the way it fits the details and offers useful explanations. I reason the other way around - I think one must fit in a number of very convenient details before we can start believing in both Lewis and Hutchinson.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Fish,

As Trevor has pointed out, there are questions about Hutchinsons testimony, no doubt. His statement seems focused on the couple and whilst he doesnt mention seeing any other person he doesnt state he saw no one either. This I find odd in a street full of Lodging Houses.

It just seems to be an incomplete statement. That said, doesnt mean it is false. Its possible this is exactly how Hutchinson recalled the events.

I find it interesting that Lewis also mentions a couple, verifying Hutchinson, as well as another man (possibily Hutchinson) within the same vicinity.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Monty,

As you noticed, I showed my thanks and gratitude for you posting the sketch from the IPN 24th Nov 1888.

Could you kindly see your way clear (for the benefit of everyone) as to posting the article that the sketch refers to, in full, if you have it to hand? Thank you.

Phil

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"Fish,

If permitted I'll get back to you later."

Of course, Monty, no worries!

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

I disagree whereby you say regarding Hutchinson that we have little choice than to accept it.

I think the police at the time had to accpet it as being correct but perhaps off the record didnt totally accpet it as being correct but having regard to the feelings that were running high in the community could not go public and say that they didnt belive him.

However all these years later us as researches are able to question his statement andhis reasons and motives and having assessesd and evaluated everything are entitled to accept it or reject it in total or in part.

I for one have grave concerns about the content of the statement for me it is to accurate. He decsribes colours of eyelashes and colour of stones in pendants and other colours as set out in the statement. I have carried out my own tests under similar lighting conditions to try to establish if it were possible to distinguish specific colours on simliar items under specific lighting conditions. The results of my tests show that it is not possible.

Having said all of that he could have genuinley been there and when giving his statement could have been trying to be to helpful a practice a lot witnesses are prone to do.

As to why he didnt come forward sooner you can argue on this till hell freezes over. The argument to suggest that he didnt want to be thought of as perhaps the killer simply is a non starter. Whether he came forward 5 hours or 45 hours after the event would still as likely as not could have made the police think he was the killer.

However he did come forward but by the time he did he would probabaly have known that the police did not have any witnesses in the case so therefore whatever he said he knew could not be disproved.

Of course on the other side of that having come forward and given perhaps a false statement he was then open for someone to come forward with a statement putting him somewhere else at the time he says he was in Millers Court.

Another question would be that if the killer was the one seen with Kelly would he have carried out a murder knowing that someone was standing nearby and may have heard screams etc. All of this is not consistent with the previous murders. So that may suggest if that were the killer then he may have not been the same killer who killed the other victims.

The Kelly murder is one that throws up more questions than answers.

Trevor,

Of course we have to accept it as we have no ascertained fact to disprove it.

However, I'm in complete agreement with you that its worth investigating and is questionable. I will give you that, and agree with your reasons.


Yes, there are lots of questions regarding Kelly.

However, as you are aware, testimony is given as sworn fact and therefore must be taken as that unless ascertained differently.

Fish,

If permitted I'll get back to you later.

Many thanks

Monty

[Fisherman]

Monty!

I do not disagree that my suggestion can - and should! - be challenged! Let me just ask you, if you can spare the time: You are well read up on the case, and if you in fact accept that Hutchinson and Lewis saw the same man, then you must have asked yourself why Hutch did not mention Lewis at his visit to the police station. He emphatically stated that he saw two people, and two people only, although he was watching the court entrance.

What is your answer to this particular problem? Which is the most credible explanation to your mind?

If you can take the time to briefly outline your thinking here, Iīd be grateful. If you cannot, I will happily accept that too.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

With all due respect Fish,

A few of the points you make is indeed conjecture, the assumption that Hutchinson wouldn't hang around in such 'bad' weather, he would certainly had seen and be seen etc are not conclusive.

Before we get embroiled, I must warn you I have no interest in a prolonged debate. Unfortuantely I'm far too busy just now.

However, I will say the scenario is a possibility, as are many. I just think that a 'mistaken day' is a tad too convienient.

That said, what do I know?

Monty