Vetting Hutchinson

[Garry Wroe]

Once again, it fits the development like a glove. And it explains why Dew put so much stock in Hutchinson fifty years on, instead of coming clear about how the police had revealed him as a liar or a timewaster.

But those who promote Hutchinson will not concede this. To them, Dew must have been guessing away, not having been informed by anybody that Hutchinson had been discarded ...

Dew was guessing. No question about it. Here’s a short extract which demonstrates this to be so. I’ve taken the liberty of highlighting those areas of most relevance:-

‘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. Always assuming that Mrs. Cox ever had seen her with a man.’

Palpably, Dew was not relating established fact. He’d simply developed a hypothesis based upon what he thought he knew and filled in the gaps with what for him was logical deduction.

… As if the police would not have seen the use in telling their men that Hutchinson was out of the game.

That’s precisely how it worked. Information was disseminated on a ‘need to know’ basis. As a lowly detective constable Dew was not a party to the decision making process of those leading the manhunt. This was a high profile murder investigation, not a casual gathering of the Women’s Institute. Secrecy was key and protected wherever possible. Thus the upper echelon reduced the risk of leaks by informing the likes of Dew only what was required to get the job done. One need only examine the shenanigans involving Warren, Munro, Anderson and Matthews to gain a flavour of the manner in which information and information sharing was treated during this period.

[Ben]

So much for “not venturing into this business”, Fisherman…

I won’t enumerate the numerous pitfalls of your “date confusion” hypothesis again – Garry has done so more than eloquently. I would simply observe that if not even Jon and Richard are prepared to buy into it, that’s an especially damning factor against its perceived viability.

Lewis’s wideawake man was almost certainly Hutchinson (just ask Richard and Jon, they’ll tell you!), since the alternative explanation – that there were two unrelated men engaging in exactly the same behaviour at exactly the same location, one on Thursday morning, the other on Friday – is patently ludicrous. So too is the inference that Hutchinson’s coming forward so soon after the inquest with an account placing himself outside the entrance to Miller’s Court and “ waiting for someone to come out” was somehow unrelated to the evidence provided by Sarah Lewis at the inquest, which concerned an unidentified man doing precisely that and precisely the same location.

I’m afraid “coincidence” doesn’t cut it.

No nonsense please about Lewis’s man being on the “wrong” side of the street for Hutchinson’s statement. The latter reportedly waited there for a full 45 minutes, which meant he probably shifted about a bit rather that rooting himself to one spot like a constipated hippo – it being cold weather, whichever of the nights you want it to have been. Unless there was a scary invisible dragon on the other side of the road that we don’t know about, the likelihood is that he was on both sides of the street (which was a cavernous 10-12 feet wide!), and leaning against a wall to facilitate a direct vantage point “up the court” makes particular sense.

You can only pay heed to the Echo’s report that Hutchinson’s account had suffered a “very reduced importance” if you acknowledge their actual reason why it happened. They stated that this “diminution” was due to Hutchinson’s failure to come forward earlier. This cannot have been the full reason for his discrediting, as Garry points out, but what it does tell us, crucially, is that the reasons for this reduced importance were connected with the issue of honesty and credibility, and not a realisation that the poor sod had only gone and bollocksed up the dates. The latter, after all, is only a piece of 1938 speculation, not shared by anyone occupying a senior police position at the time, and written by a man who, according to you, “got lots of this terribly wrong” in his book, which is ”riddled with mistakes.”

Hutchinson’s non-mention of a Lewis makes perfect, logical sense if it was her sighting of him that compelled him to come forward and “explain” his loitering presence near a crime scene, and he didn’t wish to draw attention to the fact that it had.

“Exactly - that people invent things, many times out of a supressed wish to please. And that information that surfaces after no information at all, is information that we should take with a scoop of coarse salt.”

Not if her initial statement had been provided at a time when she was likely terrified and severely deprived of sleep. In such a case, certain details might well be recalled later. I’d hate to have to quote verbatim from previous threads where this was discussed.

“The whole Hutchinson as the Ripper-scenario is about as sound as a Pakistani textile factory. You know, the ones that are built in concrete, but where cheating building contractors have mixed way too much sand into the material.”

Your ineptitude with both analogy and racist stereotype is unbecoming of an experienced journalist, and since this discussion hasn’t remotely concerned Hutchinson as the ripper, I have to wonder at your motivation for bringing it up. Such behaviour is usually only resorted to by those with a bad suspect theory of their own to tout, and who seek to tear down the imagined “competition”.

Speaking of which, how are the Crossmere threads going these days?

There is no evidence that Hutchinson told the police that he "walked about all night" - the detail only appeared in the newspapers. I'm glad you agree that such an activity would have been "stupid". I quite agree, and it is one reason among many to question his evidence. No, incidentally, if he lying about his "walking about" to conceal where he actually was at the time - grooming horses, murdering Kelly, whatever - he would have been very foolish indeed to claim that he slept in a doorway or stairwell, since this would have made him vulnerable to contradiction from whoever actually used those stairwells and occupied those buildings. Did anyone sleep there that night, Mr. Landlord/Nightwatchman? Nope. Oops.

Regards,
Be

[Fisherman]

So much for “not venturing into this business”, Fisherman…

I won’t enumerate the numerous pitfalls of your “date confusion” hypothesis again – Garry has done so more than eloquently. I would simply observe that if not even Jon and Richard are prepared to buy into it, that’s an especially damning factor against its perceived viability.

Lewis’s wideawake man was almost certainly Hutchinson (just ask Richard and Jon, they’ll tell you!), since the alternative explanation – that there were two unrelated men engaging in exactly the same behaviour at exactly the same location, one on Thursday morning, the other on Friday – is patently ludicrous. So too is the inference that Hutchinson’s coming forward so soon after the inquest with an account placing himself outside the entrance to Miller’s Court and “ waiting for someone to come out” was somehow unrelated to the evidence provided by Sarah Lewis at the inquest, which concerned an unidentified man doing precisely that and precisely the same location.

I’m afraid “coincidence” doesn’t cut it.

No nonsense please about Lewis’s man being on the “wrong” side of the street for Hutchinson’s statement. The latter reportedly waited there for a full 45 minutes, which meant he probably shifted about a bit rather that rooting himself to one spot like a constipated hippo – it being cold weather, whichever of the nights you want it to have been. Unless there was a scary invisible dragon on the other side of the road that we don’t know about, the likelihood is that he was on both sides of the street (which was a cavernous 10-12 feet wide!), and leaning against a wall to facilitate a direct vantage point “up the court” makes particular sense.

You can only pay heed to the Echo’s report that Hutchinson’s account had suffered a “very reduced importance” if you acknowledge their actual reason why it happened. They stated that this “diminution” was due to Hutchinson’s failure to come forward earlier. This cannot have been the full reason for his discrediting, as Garry points out, but what it does tell us, crucially, is that the reasons for this reduced importance were connected with the issue of honesty and credibility, and not a realisation that the poor sod had only gone and bollocksed up the dates. The latter, after all, is only a piece of 1938 speculation, not shared by anyone occupying a senior police position at the time, and written by a man who, according to you, “got lots of this terribly wrong” in his book, which is ”riddled with mistakes.”

Hutchinson’s non-mention of a Lewis makes perfect, logical sense if it was her sighting of him that compelled him to come forward and “explain” his loitering presence near a crime scene, and he didn’t wish to draw attention to the fact that it had.



Not if her initial statement had been provided at a time when she was likely terrified and severely deprived of sleep. In such a case, certain details might well be recalled later. I’d hate to have to quote verbatim from previous threads where this was discussed.



Your ineptitude with both analogy and racist stereotype is unbecoming of an experienced journalist, and since this discussion hasn’t remotely concerned Hutchinson as the ripper, I have to wonder at your motivation for bringing it up. Such behaviour is usually only resorted to by those with a bad suspect theory of their own to tout, and who seek to tear down the imagined “competition”.

Speaking of which, how are the Crossmere threads going these days?

There is no evidence that Hutchinson told the police that he "walked about all night" - the detail only appeared in the newspapers. I'm glad you agree that such an activity would have been "stupid". I quite agree, and it is one reason among many to question his evidence. No, incidentally, if he lying about his "walking about" to conceal where he actually was at the time - grooming horses, murdering Kelly, whatever - he would have been very foolish indeed to claim that he slept in a doorway or stairwell, since this would have made him vulnerable to contradiction from whoever actually used those stairwells and occupied those buildings. Did anyone sleep there that night, Mr. Landlord/Nightwatchman? Nope. Oops.

Regards,
Be

Hi Ben.
Bye Ben.

[Fisherman]

Only to you, Fish.

The wrong day idea is implausible to everybody else [Xmere theorists aside, of course]

Did you ask them, Sally - all of them? Impressive!

[Fisherman]

Why did Hutchinson wait three days before going to the authorities about an exceptionally unique looking Dick Dastardly who eviscerated a friend he deemed worthy of spending near b-movie length time waiting for in the rain?

He didn´t wait in the rain, Batman. Furthermore, he says not a iot about any rain.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe: Dew was guessing. No question about it. Here’s a short extract which demonstrates this to be so. I’ve taken the liberty of highlighting those areas of most relevance:-

‘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. Always assuming that Mrs. Cox ever had seen her with a man.’

Palpably, Dew was not relating established fact. He’d simply developed a hypothesis based upon what he thought he knew and filled in the gaps with what for him was logical deduction.

This does not alter what I said before, Garry. Hutchinson told the police that he only saw a lodger and a PC during his vigil. That means that he was not there when Lewis was. Ergo, the police knew that whatever man it was Lewis saw, it certainly was not Hutchinson.

Once they realized this, they needed an explanation to why Hutchinson said that he stood on Dorset Street on the murder night, while also saying that there were only two people to be seen that night, a lodger and a PC.

If Hutchinson did not see Lewis - who would have passed right by him - then the explanation can only be one: he had muddled the days. More investigative work would have clenched it for Abberline. He will arguably have asked about the weather, and been told that it was nice and dry - fit for walking the streets until his dosshouse opened.
It will have dawned on Abberline that Hutchinson was honest, well willing and cooperative - but wrong.

This, by the way, is why the press says that the police was "embarrased" with the story. You are only embarrased when you really should have known, but missed out. Like Abberline did.

However, Reg Hutchinson said that his father was sad about how nothing came from his efforts. Once again a perfect fit, thus. But it also implies that Hutchinson himself never accepted that he had been wrong. He could not be shaken, as the papers say. He steadfastedly claimed that he HAD been in Dorset Street on the murder night. But the police knew that he could not have been, since he didn´t see Lewis.

So they would have had differing opinions, Hutch saying that he was on the money, and the police telling him that he was out on the dates.

If this was what happened - and it would explain the whole affair neatly - then Dew may have known every little detail of the story, and STILL he could not be absolutely certain. Just like the police he could only see one reason for the debacle, and just like the police, he could not conclusively state it as a proven thing.

So let´s not claim that Dew was not in the loop. He may well have been.

That’s precisely how it worked. Information was disseminated on a ‘need to know’ basis.

I´m fine with that, as long as you realize that every PC needed to know that the Astrakhan story was bogus - IF it was regarded like that. As Jon has shown you, however, there are press reports that dissolve the suggestion. Why would the police want their men to search for Astrakhan man in vain, Garry, if they could inform the men that the trail as such was worthless?

As a lowly detective constable Dew was not a party to the decision making process of those leading the manhunt. This was a high profile murder investigation, not a casual gathering of the Women’s Institute. Secrecy was key and protected wherever possible. Thus the upper echelon reduced the risk of leaks by informing the likes of Dew only what was required to get the job done. One need only examine the shenanigans involving Warren, Munro, Anderson and Matthews to gain a flavour of the manner in which information and information sharing was treated during this period.

But the police would NOT "get the job done" unless they handed out information as to what to do and what not to do. The notion that a discarding of the Astrakhan story would be kept from the coppers on the ground is therefore a distinctly odd one. What interests would be safeguarded by such a thing? Who would benefit? What "leaks" were the police fearing? These questions must be answered with some sort of fundament to bolster your take - and I fail to see that it can be done.

[Abby Normal]

Garry Wroe: Dew was guessing. No question about it. Here’s a short extract which demonstrates this to be so. I’ve taken the liberty of highlighting those areas of most relevance:-

‘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. Always assuming that Mrs. Cox ever had seen her with a man.’

Palpably, Dew was not relating established fact. He’d simply developed a hypothesis based upon what he thought he knew and filled in the gaps with what for him was logical deduction.

This does not alter what I said before, Garry. Hutchinson told the police that he only saw a lodger and a PC during his vigil. That means that he was not there when Lewis was. Ergo, the police knew that whatever man it was Lewis saw, it certainly was not Hutchinson.

Once they realized this, they needed an explanation to why Hutchinson said that he stood on Dorset Street on the murder night, while also saying that there were only two people to be seen that night, a lodger and a PC.

If Hutchinson did not see Lewis - who would have passed right by him - then the explanation can only be one: he had muddled the days. More investigative work would have clenched it for Abberline. He will arguably have asked about the weather, and been told that it was nice and dry - fit for walking the streets until his dosshouse opened.
It will have dawned on Abberline that Hutchinson was honest, well willing and cooperative - but wrong.

This, by the way, is why the press says that the police was "embarrased" with the story. You are only embarrased when you really should have known, but missed out. Like Abberline did.

However, Reg Hutchinson said that his father was sad about how nothing came from his efforts. Once again a perfect fit, thus. But it also implies that Hutchinson himself never accepted that he had been wrong. He could not be shaken, as the papers say. He steadfastedly claimed that he HAD been in Dorset Street on the murder night. But the police knew that he could not have been, since he didn´t see Lewis.

So they would have had differing opinions, Hutch saying that he was on the money, and the police telling him that he was out on the dates.

If this was what happened - and it would explain the whole affair neatly - then Dew may have known every little detail of the story, and STILL he could not be absolutely certain. Just like the police he could only see one reason for the debacle, and just like the police, he could not conclusively state it as a proven thing.

So let´s not claim that Dew was not in the loop. He may well have been.

That’s precisely how it worked. Information was disseminated on a ‘need to know’ basis.

I´m fine with that, as long as you realize that every PC needed to know that the Astrakhan story was bogus - IF it was regarded like that. As Jon has shown you, however, there are press reports that dissolve the suggestion. Why would the police want their men to search for Astrakhan man in vain, Garry, if they could inform the men that the trail as such was worthless?

As a lowly detective constable Dew was not a party to the decision making process of those leading the manhunt. This was a high profile murder investigation, not a casual gathering of the Women’s Institute. Secrecy was key and protected wherever possible. Thus the upper echelon reduced the risk of leaks by informing the likes of Dew only what was required to get the job done. One need only examine the shenanigans involving Warren, Munro, Anderson and Matthews to gain a flavour of the manner in which information and information sharing was treated during this period.

But the police would NOT "get the job done" unless they handed out information as to what to do and what not to do. The notion that a discarding of the Astrakhan story would be kept from the coppers on the ground is therefore a distinctly odd one. What interests would be safeguarded by such a thing? Who would benefit? What "leaks" were the police fearing? These questions must be answered with some sort of fundament to bolster your take - and I fail to see that it can be done.

hi Fish

This does not alter what I said before, Garry. Hutchinson told the police that he only saw a lodger and a PC during his vigil. That means that he was not there when Lewis was. Ergo, the police knew that whatever man it was Lewis saw, it certainly was not Hutchinson.

Your a stickler for not asserting something as fact so I find it rather odd you would make this statement. There are many reasons why hutch might not have told the police about Lewis:

He may have simply missed her.
He may have seen her, then forgot about her.
He may consciously omitted stating he saw her.
He may have not been there when she walked by because she was off on her times.
or he was as you suggest, off on his times.

But it certainly does NOT ONLY mean "he was not there when Lewis was."

[Fisherman]

hi Fish



Your a stickler for not asserting something as fact so I find it rather odd you would make this statement. There are many reasons why hutch might not have told the police about Lewis:

He may have simply missed her.
He may have seen her, then forgot about her.
He may consciously omitted stating he saw her.
He may have not been there when she walked by because she was off on her times.
or he was as you suggest, off on his times.

But it certainly does NOT ONLY mean "he was not there when Lewis was."

That is the very clear implication nevertheless, Abby. The man Lewis spoke of was - according to her - intently watching the entrance to Miller´s court as she went in through it. It would be extremely odd if he missed here, going by that!

Seen but forgotten? Not very likely, no. He remebered people much further afield, and he was quite adamant that he saw only two persons.
Consciously omitted to mention her? Aha. But why? It calls for a reasonable explanation, and they don´t come thirteen a dozen here.

They may have missed each other? I think they did. Big time! And if it was only by a whisker, then let´s admit that Lewis´ loiterer was somebody else.

[Wickerman]

Based on Hutchinson himself claiming to have seen two people only during his vigil, a lodger and a PC. That, I´m afraid, is not assumption.

Hi Christer.
The problem I see here is, that Hutchinson only mentions two men.

Today, we have a better appreciation for the fairer sex, but in the late Victorian period women, especially of the poorer classes, were little more than background noise.

If he had said he saw another woman idling along at some point then there may be a case for the absence of Sarah Lewis in his testimony. However, the fact he mentions no other women at all in the street could simply be due to class recognition. He may have seen women, but they didn't matter, they were not important.

[Wickerman]

Common sense, perhaps, but the empirical evidence demonstrates otherwise.


Once again, the empirical evidence demonstrates otherwise.


Study after study has demonstrated the polar opposite. Those providing false evidence (for whatever reason) tend to overelaborate, providing a level of minutia not normally found in the narratives of truthful witnesses.

For every instance of some fictional harlequin-type figure we have the more common, "I only saw him from behind, it was dark, not sure of his age, but she did call him Don or John, or something like that"....etc.
Something simple.

[Wickerman]

Why did Hutchinson wait three days before going to the authorities about an exceptionally unique looking Dick Dastardly who eviscerated a friend he deemed worthy of spending near b-movie length time waiting for in the rain?

Because the press over the weekend could not provide a consistent time of death. Reports varied from very early overnight, right up to about 9:00 am Friday morning.
He was not to know the person he had seen about 2:30 am was assumed to be her killer, this he qualified when he said the man didn't look the sort to hurt anyone.

Don't overplay the "friend" aspect Batman, he said he had known her for about 3 years, and had used her a few times - maybe because she was cheap?
He didn't say anything about her being a "friend", that is your assumption to set him up, then knock him down.
It's called a Straw-man argument.

[Wickerman]

...That’s precisely how it worked. Information was disseminated on a ‘need to know’ basis. As a lowly detective constable Dew was not a party to the decision making process of those leading the manhunt. This was a high profile murder investigation, not a casual gathering of the Women’s Institute. Secrecy was key and protected wherever possible. Thus the upper echelon reduced the risk of leaks by informing the likes of Dew only what was required to get the job done.

Stunning!

I assume you are talking about Detective Sergeant Dew?

I cannot resist pointing this out, but it was you, yourself, who complained to me that Det. Sergeant Dew was apparently not aware that Isaacs/Astrachan had been eliminated from the inquiry.

That IF....such had been the case then Dew SHOULD have been aware of this and mentioned that fact in his book.

Why did you ask me this, if you also believe that Dew was not on the "need to know" list?

P.S.
Lets not go into your other assertion that these same "Secret Police" ran to the press at every opportunity.....

[harry]

Fisherman,
Whatever way you want to phrase it,It boils down to IF Hutchinson got the day wrong.Speculation many years later,by a person who did not question Hutchinson.
Against that is an official statement signed and witnessed by a police sergeant,three days after the event,and in the presence of Aberline,three days after the event.I have no doubt,due to the importance of Hutchinson's information,that both Aberline and Badham pressed him closely as to the day in question,and that day is given as the 9th.
Added to that of course,is whether Hutchinson knew the difference between wet and dry conditions,and whether the association was remembered.Was it the dry 8th or the wet 9th.Again I doubt Hutchinson was mistaken.The dissiniliar conditions,as stressed by yourself,were unmistakeable.
As it was Badham that wrote the statement,the omission of seeing Lewis could have been a decision by him,with the knowledge that her presence had already been recorded.Nothing you write indicates Hutchinson didn't volunteer that information or that it wasn't asked.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
Whatever way you want to phrase it,It boils down to IF Hutchinson got the day wrong.Speculation many years later,by a person who did not question Hutchinson.

Absolutely, Hary. You are right on both counts. But as such, I am in good company, since we are ALL speculating many years later about what Hutchinson was about.

Against that is an official statement signed and witnessed by a police sergeant,three days after the event,and in the presence of Aberline,three days after the event.I have no doubt,due to the importance of Hutchinson's information,that both Aberline and Badham pressed him closely as to the day in question,and that day is given as the 9th.

I have no doubts about that either. But I think that pressure was applied mainly after the initial proceedings, when it was realized that the Hutchinson saga could not be fit into the rest of the evidence.
I also think that the police should have established this from day one, but failed to do so. Which is why the papers say that they were "embarrased" by how things developed.

Added to that of course,is whether Hutchinson knew the difference between wet and dry conditions,and whether the association was remembered.Was it the dry 8th or the wet 9th.Again I doubt Hutchinson was mistaken.The dissiniliar conditions,as stressed by yourself,were unmistakeable.

Yes, they were. But I am anything but certain that Abberline chose to speak about the weather in the initial stages. I think Hutchinson gave a very good impression - that is clear from what little we know about him - and I think that he was very adamant about things. So if he stated with great certainty that "It was on the Friday, I know that because...." etcetera, then the police may well have been put to rest on this point, forgetting to doublecheck. And once again, something like this would be the exact reason why it was said that they were embarrased afterwards - just like you think, Harry, they SHOULD have asked. Embarrasment comes from failing to do what you are expected to do, from failing to know what you should know etcetera.
As for the weather, we know that Hutchinson said that he walked the streets all night. That should tell us a thing or two.

As it was Badham that wrote the statement,the omission of seeing Lewis could have been a decision by him,with the knowledge that her presence had already been recorded.Nothing you write indicates Hutchinson didn't volunteer that information or that it wasn't asked.

No. Absolutely not, Harry. You cannot first say that the police would have done everything to make sure that they could not be led in the wrong direction by mistake, and then suggest that Badham would leave out Lewis from his report. That report was meant for reading and understanding the case, and for enabling the reader/s to make connections to the rest of the material. It would be intellectual and procedural harakiri to leave out imprtant pieces of information. He was asked about these matters because the police needed to establish who was there on the murder night and when, let´s not forget that.
It´s another story altogether that Hutchinson would arguably not be able to comment on the murder night at all...

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer.
The problem I see here is, that Hutchinson only mentions two men.

Today, we have a better appreciation for the fairer sex, but in the late Victorian period women, especially of the poorer classes, were little more than background noise.

If he had said he saw another woman idling along at some point then there may be a case for the absence of Sarah Lewis in his testimony. However, the fact he mentions no other women at all in the street could simply be due to class recognition. He may have seen women, but they didn't matter, they were not important.

It´s a good thing Lawende mentioned that the Church Passage man wasn´t alone, then!

Much as I take your point and think that it has something going for it in a general sense, I would point out that Hutchinson mentioned two (2) people only. It was late at night and not very many people moved on the streets. So much the more reason, in such a case, to mention the one person who did not only come very close to him physically, but who also actually walked right into the court he was watching!

The police would have been interested in all people, and they would have asked about all people. Even if they did not entertain the idea that the killer was a woman, they at least knew that any woman present could have information to offer. And at 2 o clock in the night, women would have been rare on the streets, given the exception of the unfortunates. So much the more reason to raise an eyebrow about Lewis.

Here´s the pertinent quotation:

One policeman went by the Commercial street end of Dorset street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset street. I saw one man go into a lodging house in Dorset street, but no one else.

He saw nobody else - man OR woman. The implications are very clear to me.