Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Wickerman]

...Now because he wasn't called , can we presume he saw nothing? Because if he saw nothing, or as in the IPN "heard nothing" (PC L63), then how does Hutchinson's statement stand then?

Because the article is not included in the Casebook Press Reports we cannot determine exactly what the context of his statement was.

Surely a policeman on duty would notice someone loitering around at that time of night at that venue relating to that murder site, perhaps for that long?

When we read about the social conditions in the back streets of Whitechapel we learn that the streets were alive most of the night, Whitechapel never sleeps.

Here is one example from An Autumn Evening in Whitechapel, 3 Nov. 1888.

"Some streets have presented, even to those familiar with them, quite a desolate and deserted appearance after nightfall. But the nine-days’ wonder has passed, the effect of the shock has visibly subsided, and people are beginning to move freely again. Turn down this side street out of the main Whitechapel Road. It may be well to tuck out of view any bit of jewellery that may be glittering about; the sight of means to do ill-deeds makes ill-deeds done. The street is oppressively dark, though at present the gloom is relieved somewhat by feebly lighted shopfronts. Men are lounging at the doors of the shops, smoking evil-smelling pipes. Women with bare heads and with arms under their aprons are sauntering about in twos and threes, or are seated gossiping on steps leading into passages dark as Erebus. Now round the corner into another still gloomier passage, for there are no shops here to speak of. This is the notorious Wentworth Street. The police used to make a point of going through this only in couples, and possibly may do so still when they go there at all. Just now there are none met with. It is getting on into the night, but gutters, and doorways, and passages, and staircases appear to be teeming with children."

It is very likely that any policeman wouldn't notice one loiterer from dozens of loiterer's throughout Dorset St. When we read that someone saw "no-one else" it is possible they mean, no-one different, no-one special, no-one who is not always there, in other words, just the usual.

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.

Regards, Jon S.

[Trevor Marriott]

Because the article is not included in the Casebook Press Reports we cannot determine exactly what the context of his statement was.



When we read about the social conditions in the back streets of Whitechapel we learn that the streets were alive most of the night, Whitechapel never sleeps.

Here is one example from An Autumn Evening in Whitechapel, 3 Nov. 1888.

"Some streets have presented, even to those familiar with them, quite a desolate and deserted appearance after nightfall. But the nine-days’ wonder has passed, the effect of the shock has visibly subsided, and people are beginning to move freely again. Turn down this side street out of the main Whitechapel Road. It may be well to tuck out of view any bit of jewellery that may be glittering about; the sight of means to do ill-deeds makes ill-deeds done. The street is oppressively dark, though at present the gloom is relieved somewhat by feebly lighted shopfronts. Men are lounging at the doors of the shops, smoking evil-smelling pipes. Women with bare heads and with arms under their aprons are sauntering about in twos and threes, or are seated gossiping on steps leading into passages dark as Erebus. Now round the corner into another still gloomier passage, for there are no shops here to speak of. This is the notorious Wentworth Street. The police used to make a point of going through this only in couples, and possibly may do so still when they go there at all. Just now there are none met with. It is getting on into the night, but gutters, and doorways, and passages, and staircases appear to be teeming with children."

It is very likely that any policeman wouldn't notice one loiterer from dozens of loiterer's throughout Dorset St. When we read that someone saw "no-one else" it is possible they mean, no-one different, no-one special, no-one who is not always there, in other words, just the usual.

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.

Regards, Jon S.

If Hutchinson is to be "belived" then there was no one else about if there had have been would he not have mentioned them. I dont think Millers Court was one of the main thorougfares was it ?

I am sure this second point may have been covered but i will resurrect it again.

Where in Millers Court was Hutchinson supposed to have been standing. Was he in a position to visibly watch the door to Kellys room from where he was standing.

My question here is that could either Kelly or the man have exited the room without Hutchinson seeing either of them or was there just one way in and one way out ?

[Fisherman]

Phil:

"L63 must have seen Hutchinson unless he walked very very slowly up and down Dorset Street."

Unless Hutchinson purposefully avoided the PC, then yes, he would have been seen. But he was not, by the looks of things. And this is - once again - consistent with the suggestion that Hutchinson was not there on the night in question; he would have been there the night BEFORE if Dew was correct.

Moreover, we must also reflect on Lewis´ loiterer - for if HE was there, AND IF HE WAS AROUND FOR 45 MINUTES! - the PC would have spotted him too, unless HE hid as the PC approached.
But of course, the suggestion that Lewis´man was in place only for the shortest of time, explaining why L63 never saw him, becomes a tempting one.

And if Hutchinson spent 45 minutes in Dorset Street the night before, whereas Lewis´man spent only the odd half minute or so the night after, then we can explain why Dew felt the way he did about Hutchinson, why Hutch was let go by the police, why he never saw Lewis, why the Dorset Street PC saw neither Hutch nor the loiterer etcetera, etcetera ...

It won´t get any simpler than that!

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Whilst I agree about the lighting. PC L63's eyes would be attuned to said light.

Who PC L63 is, or what his name is makes no difference.. unless it happens to be "Hutchinson"..which I doubt.

I didnt say the name mattered at all. My point was we do not know his service record and if he was a competent Constable or not.

The simple point is that ANY policeman, on duty that night, when the murder occurred, and when being asked (he surely would have been) to RECALL sightings of anyone hanging around opposite 13 Miller's Court during any point during the night.. he would have said if he saw someone or not. Now I don't know exactly the length of that particular beat, or what others roads.. maybe you do.... but I do know that Dorset Street wasn't THAT long.

Im fully aware Dorset Street wasnt THAT long. Sure, I agree, and the number of people he would have seen hanging around in Dorset Street (as Jon observes) during his beat would have been substantial. As Kelly wasnt discovered till Mid Morning, asking a PC if he saw anyone at a particular moment in the wee hours would have been a tall order in a street littered with lodging houses and activity. Its obvious he saw nothing, or recalls nothing suspicious as he was not called to inquest.

And taking the p*ss about my thoughts on SENIOR policemen(not bobbies on the beat) shows your inability to defend the fact that there is serious doubt as to whether Hutchinson was there at all! Therefore..

Inability to defend the fact there is serious doubt Hutchinson was there at all? Amusing. Very amusing. If he wasnt there why admit it? Why embroiled yourself in to a murder enquiry? Oh dear Lord.

if your last line is serious.. why in heaven's name would an INNOCENT man, with no agenda, want to play hide and seek with the police?

Where have I ever said I thought Hutchinson was an INNOCENT man? He may have been a shady character but is he a murderer? I dont know. For reasons Ive outlined elsewhere, Hutchinson may have been secluding himself away. Again I ask, is this beyond reasonable doubt? If so please cite why? And this is open for everyone.

L 63's work the day after was reporting on observation and noting and reporting anything. If he didn't do this, and missed Hutchinson, or mis-remembered.. that's different. He was plausibly incompetent in his duty.

I suggest that if he wasn't incompetent, didn't miss a blip and remembered perfectly....

then Hutchinson was most probably not there.

PC 63 L would have reported suspicious events or an all clear to his Beat Sergeant when he did his rounds, or was picked up after his beat or at the station just prior to going off duty (not the next day as you state). He certainly would not have reported every single person he noted on his beat.

Misremembering is not an act of incompetency at all, its human nature and happens to everyone on a daily basis. Thats simply an unfair accusation and an illogical conclusion.

One can still be a vigilant PC and miss things. Being vigilant doesnt mean you are Superman, especially if Hutchinson secluded himself away. Therefore Hutchinson could still have been there and not be seen. The Lewis testimony supports he was there however she wasnt wearing hob nailed boots and a helmet.

However, as stated, we do not know the level to which PC 63 L operated.

Either that..or Hutchinson wasn't the neutral observer.. as I have suggested a long time ago. Vigilance man? Under-cover, CID or Special Branch policeman, maybe from another force? Maybe even murderer (which I don't agree with).

As you have suggested long ago? It was suggested waaaaaay before you came on the scene Philip, however thats not important.

That Hutchinson was CID or Special Branch is, in my opinion, diving into the realms of fantasy. However I rarely speculate on such things

Now pack up the p*ss taking. It's childish and pathetic, in my opinion of course.

You are entitled to your opinion. Of course I can say likewise, as your faux humility tends to crumble when opposed and a more aggressive stance takes hold tinged with veiled sarcasm and yet another demand to '..pack up the piss taking......which is really ironic.

Your life-long all out defence of the people that represented in 1888 the same type of work you once did, policing, whilst quaintly admirable, is crystal clear and looks rather silly. In my opinion, of course.

Firstly there is no 'life long defence'. Have you not read Rob and my articles in Ripperologists about the City of London Policemen? The piece upon Hutt which showed his violent side as he attacked a witness in the dock. Or Watkins, of whom for nigh on 120 odd years was associated with the phrase "His inspector thinks highly of him” (The Star of 1st October 1888), where we highlighted he wasnt the upstanding Copper everyone thought he was as we showed he had been repremanded for have sex whilst on his beat!

This coupled with other pieces of or works, where drink seems to be rife, is hardly a life long defence of the Police.

So Im afraid it is you, due to your lack of research, who looks rather silly.

You do not know me Phillip, that much is obvious.

But then again.. I am not an ex-policeman so my views count for nothing.
Haven't got the experience you see. Never been trained for noting things. Never been trained for seeing the unusual in things. Never been trained to distinguish between the ordinary and the bleedin' obvious.

Shame. I'll stick to being a non-person who's opinions are not valid. That way I am open to all possibilities, and not patently blinkered by some form of quaint loyalty.

Oh dear, as Ive pointed out, the faux humility crumbles and the sarcasm oozes.

If presenting a counter to your opinions is being dismissive then I cite the same accusation to you. You obviously have some issues when presented with differing arguements and evidences. Rather than accept the possibility of Hutchinson ducking and diving to avoid the Police beat you try to ridicule it (unsucessfully I add) and present no valid reason why this could not be the case.

Hutchinson holds no interest to me, and I really have no sway on if he is Jack or not, or even Kellys killer only. However when I see what I consider to be ill informed accusations and obviously one sided opinion, I will express my counter.

Surely that is the best thing for the field and, after all, it is what you yourself stated you strive for.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"The Lewis testimony supports he was there"

I think that is a very dangerous conclusion to draw, Monty, albeit a very understandable and tempting one. Myself, I would not go beyond the implication that SOMEBODY was there at the time Lewis paraded by. But the area in which Lewis´man was standing was the entrance of a dosshouse, and to suggest that it could have been occupied by many different men on many different nights, in varying degree as regards the time, would not be an outrageous thing to do, would it?

To have a man standing in that spot, as per Lewis, would thus perhaps be a quite uncontroversial and ordinary thing. To turn him into Hutchinson, though, we have to fill in a few blanks, like for example the 45 minute vigil. We need not, however, concern ourselves too much with filling in the "looking up the court as if in wait"-parameter, since Lewis did that for us - thereby directly contradicting the fact that she had claimed that she could remember nothing at all about the man in her police report.

The PC not seeing Hutchinson, Hutchinson not seeing Lewis, Lewis inititally not being able to pinpoint a single detail about the man she saw - taken together this is a lot easier to explain by means of a mistaken day on Hutchinson´s behalf, than by a combination of perhaps the PC missed out on Hutch or the latter hid? - perhaps Hutchinson felt that mentioning Lewis would be to give himself away? - surely people may remember details after some reconsideration?

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Sure Fish,

The crux is Lewis gave testimony as to the day, therefore we have little choice as to take her word as fact.

Also, as pointed out, Hutchison (also giving testimony) stated he was there at that moment in time. Again, we have little choice to accept that unless you can provide something contradicting and more substantial than conjecture.

Cheers
Monty

[Fisherman]

Point(s) taken, Monty.

And I have provided what I see as contradicting; Hutch not seeing Lewis, the PC not seeing Hutch, Hutchinson speaking of a night when the weather was apparently fine enough to hang around leaning against lammposts, the unbuttoned coat of Astrakhan man, the three-minute conversation outside Miller´s court instead of proceeding inside on a dreadful night, weatherwise, Walter Dew´s contribution that Hutch would have been wrong on the dates, the original statement by Lewis, leaving the second statement quite open to criticism, Hutchinson´s claim that he walked the streets all night, in spite of very bad and wet weather conditions, the fact that we have no report among the police material or the newspaper material speaking in a derogatory manner of Hutchinson himself, etcetera ...

Much as my suggestion cannot be proven, it should be of interest that these factors all tally better with a scenario of a mistaken day than with Hutchinson and Lewis´man being one and the same and in place for a full 45 minutes on a miserable night. And it also deserves to be noted that the only offering we have from a contemporary person engaged in the investigation when it comes to an explanation about why Hutchinson´s story was ultimately discredited, opts for a mistaken day.

The things I list are not conjecture, as you will recognize, although some room must be left for a discussion about, for example, the weather. And much as Walter Dew´s suggestion may have been something he offered only as the result of personal pondering, it may just as well be that he reiterates a belief that was widespread among his colleagues back in 1888. There is no way of knowing, but to suggest that Dew´s stance would have had it´s ultimate ground in the experiences he had of the case and the men working it, would be anything but incredible, I think.

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Sure Fish,

The crux is Lewis gave testimony as to the day, therefore we have little choice as to take her word as fact.

Also, as pointed out, Hutchison (also giving testimony) stated he was there at that moment in time. Again, we have little choice to accept that unless you can provide something contradicting and more substantial than conjecture.

Cheers
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.

[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

[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, I´d be grateful. If you cannot, I will happily accept that too.

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:

"Fish,

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

Of course, Monty, no worries!

The best,
Fisherman

[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

[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

[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 can´t tell how strange that is, given the hour. It was very late, and I don´t think it is all that unrealistic to imagine empty streets. After all, Buck´s Row did not seem to be any motorway either, did it, in spite of it´s being used as a thoroughfare for cartmen. Anyhow, we won´t 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 Miller´s Court. But this you know, just as you will know that while Hutchinson´s man was wearing an elaborate dark overcoat, trimmed with astrakhan, while Lewis´man had abandoned the brown overcoat he had formerly been seen in -or so said Lewis.

This - among other things - is why I really don´t 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