If Mary Kelly really WAS a prostitute....

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
You should know about sarcasm...

Oh, I DO know about it!

it's a frequent use by yourself.

It happens, yes.

You just do not like it when it's returned.

Itīs more a question of quality, Harry.

As against Dew ,I prefer the acceptance of Aberline and Badham,who themselves would be remembering from three day's separation,and not 50 years.

Not sure what you are saying here, but if we move on, it may perhaps become clearer...

Such was the importance of Hutchinson's account,to them,that I believe they would have made every effort to e stablish that it was indeed the morning of Friday,that he was returning from Romford,saw Kelly return to her room with a male person,and then lingered for some 45 minutes in the vicinity of Millers Court.

Yes, of course they would. And as you will admit, establishing such a thing is a process. You check and you try to find verification. And when they had checked it all out, it transpired that Hutchinson was out on the days.
Abberline said from the outset that he was of the meaning that Hutchinsons story was a true one, but at that stage, he would not have had the time to run any exhaustive checks. If he had had all the cards on hand, he would for example have been baffled by how Hutchinson forgot Lewis.

I am not trying to prove anything.

Thatīs just as well.

Did Hutchinson suffer from' An altered state of consciousness' .You seem to think so.(Yes I used the medical term).

An altered state of consciousness? That sounds ambitious. I think that his occupation and his vagrant lifestyle made him less able to keep track of what he did than he would been if he had a fixed work and living place. The reason for my thinking so is that it has been proven scientifically that this is how we function. Hutchinson was therefore more prone to these kinds of mistakes than the average man (albeit the average Eastender was probably much like Hutchinson).

Even Dew remarked IF such a state of affairs existed.If Hutchinson had the date wrong.Even Dew seems doubtfull. IF........

To be fair, what Dew says is that this was his "considered view". That does not make it true, but it tells us that when Dew - who was there, who knew the details, who participated in the work - weighed everything together, his best guess was that Hutchinson was out on the days. And when I say that he weighed "everything" together, then that involves how Dew accepted that Hutchinson must have been able to mistake the Wednesday Romford excursion for a Thursday ditto.
There is every chance that Dew too felt that it would be unexpected if Hutchinson made this kind of a mistake, but given the rest of what Dew knew, it was nevertheless the most credible solution to the enigma.
Of course, it may also be that Dew had seen dozens or hundreds of examples of people who muddled the days. If you remember our earlier exchanges, I posted information about a contemporary police officer who said the exact same - that these things happen very frequently, and that he had personal experience a plenty of it.

Then, as now, you said something like "Yes, but HUTCHINSON would not make that kind of a mistake!"

It is totally disingenuous, Harry.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
What it boils down to is regardless if Hutchinson saw Kelly in the early hours of Thursday morning , or Friday morning, he states he saw her, in the company of the man we call Mr A.
As Mary Kelly was found at 10.45 a.m on the Friday , and clearly not the 8th[ Thur] and was very much alive on the 8th,and as the man Hutchinson claims to have seen is the last person seen alive with Kelly, according to medical reports, he has to be the person that has to be eliminated from enquiries.
Was he ever traced, was he ever eliminated if found was he placed in a institution, out of harms way.?
I have never believed Hutchinson made a mistake on days, he was too meticulous a person for that, its not that difficult even in Victorian London for a person by the process of elimination, to form an opinion, with such a small time frame involved.
Regards Richard.

[MysterySinger]

Quote - Wickerman: And that's ok, but we have the police statements from the Millers Court residents and they are simple, brief and not very detailed. The reason is the same, in this case Abberline himself was merely taking statements, he was in the role of interviewer, not interrogator.

Do we have statements from the Millers Court residents? Are they available on line? There must have been well over 40 residents.

[Fisherman]

richardnunweek: Hi,
What it boils down to is regardless if Hutchinson saw Kelly in the early hours of Thursday morning , or Friday morning, he states he saw her, in the company of the man we call Mr A.
As Mary Kelly was found at 10.45 a.m on the Friday , and clearly not the 8th[ Thur] and was very much alive on the 8th,and as the man Hutchinson claims to have seen is the last person seen alive with Kelly, according to medical reports, he has to be the person that has to be eliminated from enquiries.

Not if Hutchinson made his observations on Thursday, Richard - in such a case, A man was decidedly NOT the last man seen with her.


I have never believed Hutchinson made a mistake on days, he was too meticulous a person for that, its not that difficult even in Victorian London for a person by the process of elimination, to form an opinion, with such a small time frame involved.
Regards Richard

Once more (for the umpteenth time, I believe... ), detail memory and sequence memory are different types of memories. A person with a great detail memory can be worthless at remembering times.
Just read up about what is said about muddling days on the net, Richard, and you will find that it is very, very common, even with short time perspectives.

Do you really think that Kelly and Astrakhan man would stand OUTSIDE the court, chatting away quietly, in gale force winds and rain showers...? And would Hutchinson have forgotten about Lewis, who must have stepped on his toes to get into Millers Court?

Itīs okay to find it hard to believe that people muddle the days, but we should at least read up on the underlying psychology and check out how common it is before we comment on it, I find.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Fisherman.
I feel we should go by the official statement of Hutchinson, not to alter that, in order to give an explanation how we believe he was a day out.
Who are we to say that Hutchinson was mistaken, he may have been, or he may have been entirely accurate.
I would say he was reliable.
Regards Richard.

[MrBarnett]

Thought there were 5 houses on one side of the street with Kelly and Carthy/McCarthy residing in number 1.
Sounds interesting.
Thanks again

Seems to be a number of Stephen Maywoods from Romford.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=24207&page=35

Hi,

There's quite a bit about Maywood on that JTRF thread, including a photo. He was a bit of a rogue, as was his son, also Stephen. Beyond those two I'm not aware of any others.

Judging by the 1891 census, all four of the houses remaining on the East side of the street may well have been brothels.

Gary

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman.
I feel we should go by the official statement of Hutchinson, not to alter that, in order to give an explanation how we believe he was a day out.
Who are we to say that Hutchinson was mistaken, he may have been, or he may have been entirely accurate.
I would say he was reliable.
Regards Richard.

That is my impression too, Richard - I think Hutchinson WAS a reliable man. But with that I simply mean that I believe he could be relied upon to try his best and to be honest.
Such things are not affected negatively by muddling the days, as far as Iīm concerned. That is not a mischiveous or malignant thing - it is a mistake, nothing else, and we all make mistakes.
I donīt think that we can judge Hutchinsons reliability when it comes to such things. There is nothing to compare with, we donīt know to what extent he was good at keeping track of the days.
I donīt know what you mean by saying that we should go by the official statement and not alter it. Such a thing would rule out that anybody ever made any mistakes when it come to timings and days, and we know that these mistakes are quite common. So it would be decidedly disingenuous not to allow for that possibility.

[Bridewell]

Neither do I, but we do not have Abberline's interrogation. We only have the voluntary statement taken by Badham, and it was not his place to interrogate a witness who has volunteered a statement to police.

Just need to clarify something here. A "Voluntary Statement" (VS) is one taken, not from a witness, but from a suspect. Such a statement is either written by the suspect himself or taken down verbatim by a police officer. A witness statement is not recorded verbatim. The officer taking the statement elicits an account by means of question and answer. Only when he or she is satisfied that he/she knows what the witness is telling him/her does the officer put the information divulged into a structured and intelligible account. It was, therefore, very much Badham's place to interrogate the witness; he would have been a very poor statement-taker had he not done so.

[Wickerman]

Thankyou for the input, we don't see you around often enough.

Just need to clarify something here. A "Voluntary Statement" (VS) is one taken, not from a witness, but from a suspect.

On that point yes, the Police Code book for 1889 does not specifically cover the questioning of witnesses. The assumption therefore is that at the time no difference existed between the two, from the perspective of 'taking statements', and indeed, why should it?
If there was a difference then the Police Code book is sorely missing a paragraph of importance, and I fail to see that as possible.
The 'Description' form in use in 1888 was also multi-purpose, used to describe the victim and a suspect.

Such a statement is either written by the suspect himself or taken down verbatim by a police officer.

I take the Sutcliffe (Yorkshire Ripper) examination as an example, the police took down his story, more or less verbatim, but as you point out, this was a suspect not a witness.
As the story being taken down by Badham, in a period where many citizens could not write, it is necessary to get the details clear and in a readable format for legal purposes - my view, am I wrong?

A witness statement is not recorded verbatim. The officer taking the statement elicits an account by means of question and answer.

I have make this distinction:
"However, it is also a requirement that Badham questions Hutchinson on specific points for clarification,..."

In 1888, there was a legal distinction between Interview and Interrogate, which I believe does not exists today?
I'm saying Badham does not interrogate Hutchinson, his questions are only to aid clarification so the statement is usable.

Please bear in mind, Abberline made haste to get to Hutchinson that evening in order to interrogate him - Abberline was the interrogator, not Badham.

Only when he or she is satisfied that he/she knows what the witness is telling him/her does the officer put the information divulged into a structured and intelligible account. It was, therefore, very much Badham's place to interrogate the witness; he would have been a very poor statement-taker had he not done so.

May I ask...
Are you saying this is what we/you do today?

And, is this what you see in the statement taken by Badham on Nov. 12th, that it looks like a re-write, in Badham's own words of Hutchinson story?

[Wickerman]

Now this I don't agree with, primarily because in his police statement he says he followed them into Dorset St.
"They both went into Dorset Street I followed them.", only later does he say, "I then went to the Court to see if I could see them", which I take to mean he crossed the road from some point in Dorset St. (outside Crossinghams?), to the Court entrance.

He DID follow them into Dorset Street - but only after having stood at the corner of Commercial and Dorset first. I fail to think he would make that up for the papers, and it is in accordance with the police statement too. Here we go:
I walked on to the corner of Fashion street, near the public house. As they came by me his arm was still on her shoulder. He had a soft felt hat on, and this was drawn down somewhat over his eyes. I put down my head to look him in the face, and he turned and looked at me very sternly, and they walked across the road to Dorset street. I followed them across and stood at the corner of Dorset street. They stood at the corner of Miller's court for about three minutes. Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, "I have lost my handkerchief." He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket, and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not.


So he clearly said he stood at the corner of Dorset Street, a long was away from the lodging house where Lewis saw her man.

The confusion comes with the press version where he says they crossed Commercial St and entered Dorset St., and, " I followed them across, and stood at the corner of Dorset-street."

True, but are we to now assume he stopped following them?

Not at all, and nor does Hutchinson say so - he says he stood at the corner of Dorset Street, which was a rational thing to do, since the couple ALSO stood still. Then, when they turned into the court passage, Hutchinson went to the corner of the court, following them (!) - but could not see the couple - meaning that they had had the time to walk down to Kellys door, open it and pass into her room, closing the door behind them before Hutchinson got there. If he had been there from the outset, he would realistically not tell us how he could not see them as he looked down the court.

It appears we differ on the length of time Hutchinson stood at the corner of Dorset St. You seem to think he stayed there until Astrachan & Kelly entered the passage, whereas I agree, he did stop, but did not stand there for any length of time. He was in audible range when he heard them talking so to my mind he had to have been standing opposite them by that time.

The distance from this corner to Millers Court is approx. 125 ft, so from such a distance he is unlikely to hear conversation between the two, so why would we insist he did not follow them into Dorset St. when his police statement tells us he did?

He could easily have heard it - I spoke to an accoustics specialist about that some years ago, and he said it wouod easily work. Plus Hutchinson said that Kelly spoke in a loud voice, did he not?
Of course, in gale force winds he would NOT have been able to hear them...

If you recall, the wind was easterly that night, so his words would have carried to them, but not theirs to him (against the wind). Hutchinson was east of Millers Court when he was standing at the corner, so he wouldn't have heard a thing from that corner.

Then he adds, "I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not.", which again agrees with the police statement, and I take to mean he crossed the road to the court entrance.

...some time AFTER the couple had turned into the court, yes - otherwise, he WOULD have seen them walk all the way down to the door and open it.

Thats where we disagree, he was standing opposite while they were talking, then they entered the passage, and giving them a minute or so - just incase they came back down, he then crossed the road and waited at the entrance.
In his press statement he says he walked up the passage to her door, but all was quiet.
I'm sure it might have been, they likely heard footsteps outside.

It only sounds wrong if you "assume" Hutchinson did not follow the couple down Dorset St., - but why do this when such an assumption is contradicted by Hutchinson's own words - "They both went into Dorset Street I followed them.".

There is no contradiction, Jon: Hutchinson DID walk from the corner of Dorset Street to the corner of the court, and that means he followed the couple. So either he lied or was misquoted in the press versions, if we are to go with your version. Plus the police version does not disagree with the press version, as you will seemingly have it.

You seem to think "I followed them", means only to the corner, whereas I take him to mean also down Dorset St. He does say "into Dorset St.", so I take him at his word, which means to me he did not stop and wait, but stopped, then continued on so as to be near enough to hear their verbal exchanges.

A street works like an accoustic tunnel, Jon.

Also, a wind tunnel Christer, and the wind was blowing the wrong way.

Also, from this we can take it that Lewis is behind this couple, by how much we cannot say, but by the time she reached the court and walked up the passage after the couple, she observed..."There was nobody in the court.", and in another version, "..She did not hear any noise as she went down the court,".
Which suggests that this couple that had passed up the passage ahead of her had gone inside to one of the houses, that they were not still in the court - 'up to no good' as they might say.

But Lewis could not have walked behind the couple, since they were not walking - they were standing outside the court. Then they went into the court passage, and if Hutchinson had been there, outside the passage at tbhis time, he would not have said that he could not see the couple. So, basically, you have Lewis AND Hutchinson walking side by side up to the passage, aggeeing as they arrive that there was noone to be seen.

No Christer, I did not say the couple was walking when Lewis noticed them. The couple was standing at the court as she approached, but from behind them.

Lewis says there was a couple further on, so presumably she has not reached them yet, and then she says the couple walked up the passage. So Lewis is some distance behind but how much we do not know.
Lewis only noticed the loiterer as she arrived to enter the passage, so the loiterer has been in position before Lewis came on the scene - they did not arrive at the same time.

To me, this does not mean that we are at liberty to make as basic changes as the ones you make. It remains a case of "close, but no cigar" to me. Sorry.

I fail to see what it is you think I'm changing. I thought I was sticking as close to both their stories as is reasonably possible.

That makes a lot of sense - but it does not nail the man he supposedly saw as Hutchinson.

No you have me wrong, I think the man he saw was Astrachan, not Hutchinson.

[harry]

Fisherman,
You say you are not sure what I mean.It's simple.Badham and Aberline spoke with Hutchinson three days after his (Hutchinson's sighting),Dew was memorising after 50 years.Both Badham and Aberline were in confrontation w ith Hutchinson.Dew w as not.
It was not a mistake in thinking a different time period.It would be a case of memory lapse,and a significant one.Not of forgetting a key,or leaving a light on,or such trivial matters as you allude to.As I said,An altered state of consciousness,in which he remembered what he was doing but not when.All very well,if he made the journey to Romford every day,but his trip that day w as a singular one,in which he remembered and detailed in full three days later.and which was accepted by two experienced officers.
If you cannot accept that,bad luck,it w ould be a waste of my time to explain further,when the only response is,I don't know what you mean.

[Fisherman]

Wickerman: It appears we differ on the length of time Hutchinson stood at the corner of Dorset St. You seem to think he stayed there until Astrachan & Kelly entered the passage, whereas I agree, he did stop, but did not stand there for any length of time. He was in audible range when he heard them talking so to my mind he had to have been standing opposite them by that time.

Why did he stop at the corner? He stopped at the corner because Kelly and A man stopped outside the court. So when would he feel at ease to leave the corner and walk to the court? He would do so when the couple left the corner of the court.
Thatīs how I reason. Why else would he have stopped at the corner?
As for hearing them talking, well Hutchinson does actually not say that they DID talk, he only says that Kelly did. It is a reasonable assumption that they did talk together, since they stood out in the gale and rainshowers for three minutes , but the one and only thing Hutchinson heard was how Kelly spoke of her lost handkerchief, and he specifically mentions that she did so in a loud voice. Now, Jon, we have a distance of roughly forty yards or so. Place yourself in a quiet street, and place a friend of yours forty yards away, and ask him to say something loud and clear. After that exercise, we should be done with this issue, I believe...


If you recall, the wind was easterly that night, so his words would have carried to them, but not theirs to him (against the wind). Hutchinson was east of Millers Court when he was standing at the corner, so he wouldn't have heard a thing from that corner.

"That night"? But I am saying that it was not "that night", it was the night before. When the wind was not an issue.

Thats where we disagree, he was standing opposite while they were talking, then they entered the passage, and giving them a minute or so - just incase they came back down, he then crossed the road and waited at the entrance.
In his press statement he says he walked up the passage to her door, but all was quiet.
I'm sure it might have been, they likely heard footsteps outside.

There is not one source where Hutchinson prefesses to ever have been outside the lodging house. There ARE sources telling us that he went to the corner of the court. The corner of the court is where you would go, if you want to look down the court and see if you can spot somebody in there. There is also a source (at least) that says that Hutchonson left from the corner of the court too. And there are sources, I believe, where Hutchinson says "I stood THERE for three quarters of an hour", after having said that he stood at the corner of the court.
The idea that he should ever have crossed the road is a latter day invention with no support at all in the sources.


You seem to think "I followed them", means only to the corner, whereas I take him to mean also down Dorset St. He does say "into Dorset St.", so I take him at his word, which means to me he did not stop and wait, but stopped, then continued on so as to be near enough to hear their verbal exchanges.

Hereīs the quote from the Daily News:
"they walked across the road to Dorset street. I followed them across and stood at the corner of Dorset street"

The couple walked across Commercial Street and proceeded into Dorset Street. Hutchinson followed them across Commercial Street, and then he stopped at the corner to Dorset Street. Commercial Street was quite wide, so assuming that he let the couple pass him by and then cross Commercial Street, they would easily have been 40 yards ahead of Hutchinson, and they would have reached the entrance to the court and stopped there as Hutchonson reached the corner of Commercial and Dorset, where he stopped short since the couple had done the exact same. If the couple had not stopped, then why would Hutchinson do so? And why would he start following them again until they moved again?

Also, a wind tunnel Christer, and the wind was blowing the wrong way.

The next day, it was, yes. And the couple would not have made a stop outside the court.

No Christer, I did not say the couple was walking when Lewis noticed them. The couple was standing at the court as she approached, but from behind them.

Then why did not Lewis say so? "There was a couple standing outside the court, and as I approached them, they turned into it".

Lewis says there was a couple further on, so presumably she has not reached them yet, and then she says the couple walked up the passage. So Lewis is some distance behind but how much we do not know.
Lewis only noticed the loiterer as she arrived to enter the passage, so the loiterer has been in position before Lewis came on the scene - they did not arrive at the same time.

I take "further on" to mean that she said that there was ALSO a couple, Jon. And I donīt think that Hutchinson would have taken up his vigil five or so yards from the couple, it would have been far too obvious. And why would he have stopped at the corner of Dorset Street and Commercial Street? Who does that - follow somebody as they are walking away, with the intention to check then out, and then you suddenly make a stop at a corner before you proceeed? It makes no sense whatsoever. Very clearly, what he did was to stop as THEY stopped, so as not to become to apparent to them.


I fail to see what it is you think I'm changing. I thought I was sticking as close to both their stories as is reasonably possible.

I have been thinking lot about this over the last few days, and I realize that we both work in much the same way - we make an interpretation of things, where we select some bits and pieces and look away from others to reach a possible conclusion. Some will say that it is cherry-picking, but I ordinarily say that itīs never a bad idea to choose the juiciest and ripest cherries from a basket... Basically, I am certain that if the solution lies hidden in the material, then we MUST "cherrypick" to find it. That is to say, we must choose the correct combination of facts to make sense of things, while we discard other matters. And it is not until we finish the puzzle that we can see if we have been correct to do what we did.
I am fine with letting people damn me for it, since I am much more interested in finding the solution than I am in agreeing that if we use all the facts amd material that it is traditionally used, the case is unsolvable. That was always so, and it was always very dreary.
So I command you for your ingenuity - but I think you are wrong nevertheless. There are matters in your solution where I feel certain that you are wrong. And I can only go by my own intuition here, Iīm afraid.
I think you are a very well read up student of the case, and I think you are completely honest about it. Moreover, you are a true gentleman, surpassing myself in that genre by a country mile. So I would love to agree with you. But I canīt.

No you have me wrong, I think the man he saw was Astrachan, not Hutchinson.

Aha...? So Bowyer would have seen Astrakhan man alone in Millers Court, at around three o clock? Leaving after having slaughtered Kelly?

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
You say you are not sure what I mean.It's simple.Badham and Aberline spoke with Hutchinson three days after his (Hutchinson's sighting),Dew was memorising after 50 years.Both Badham and Aberline were in confrontation w ith Hutchinson.Dew w as not.

Dew, however, had the benefit of hindsight - he had sifted the matter for fifty years and he supposedly had weighed all aternatives numerous times. Abberline and Badham did not have that advantage.

It was not a mistake in thinking a different time period.It would be a case of memory lapse,and a significant one.Not of forgetting a key,or leaving a light on,or such trivial matters as you allude to.As I said,An altered state of consciousness,in which he remembered what he was doing but not when.

Yep, exactly so.

All very well,if he made the journey to Romford every day,but his trip that day w as a singular one,in which he remembered and detailed in full three days later.and which was accepted by two experienced officers.

How do we know that he made the Romford trip every day, Harry? As for two officers accepting the story, what were they to do if he said "On Thursday, I went down to Romford"?
Of course, they could say "Are you sure it was on Thursday?"
And then he would go "Yes, I am sure" - and he would neverthless be wrong.

Just how do you propose that Abberline and Badham would know that he was wrong? Why would they question what he said? Their expertise would be of no value until he said something that proved him wrong, or until somebody else surfaced and did that.

If you cannot accept that,bad luck,it w ould be a waste of my time to explain further,when the only response is,I don't know what you mean.

But that was not the only response, was it? Fair enough if you find it straining to hang on to an untenable position of how George Hutchinson of all people was unfallable in this respect, but donīt blame me for it.
As an aside, you are already wasting your time, so there would be no change in that respect.

[Wickerman]

Why did he stop at the corner? He stopped at the corner because Kelly and A man stopped outside the court. So when would he feel at ease to leave the corner and walk to the court? He would do so when the couple left the corner of the court.

I understand your thinking on this, I just feel you are allowing too much time & distance. As Hutch reached the corner of Dorset St. he only needs to check that they don't stop, and turn back towards him for some reason. He doesn't say, nor is it implied that he stands at that corner for any appreciable time. You think he did, I think he didn't, there's no resolving that point.

Now, Jon, we have a distance of roughly forty yards or so. Place yourself in a quiet street, and place a friend of yours forty yards away, and ask him to say something loud and clear. After that exercise, we should be done with this issue, I believe...


If you recall, the wind was easterly that night, so his words would have carried to them, but not theirs to him (against the wind). Hutchinson was east of Millers Court when he was standing at the corner, so he wouldn't have heard a thing from that corner.

"That night"? But I am saying that it was not "that night", it was the night before. When the wind was not an issue.

This is the post where we see the gale force winds were from the S/E on the 8th, and East on the 9th, so the wind was still strong and blowing the wrong direction on both nights.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=391938&postcount=142

There is not one source where Hutchinson prefesses to ever have been outside the lodging house. There ARE sources telling us that he went to the corner of the court. The corner of the court is where you would go, if you want to look down the court and see if you can spot somebody in there. There is also a source (at least) that says that Hutchonson left from the corner of the court too. And there are sources, I believe, where Hutchinson says "I stood THERE for three quarters of an hour", after having said that he stood at the corner of the court.
The idea that he should ever have crossed the road is a latter day invention with no support at all in the sources.

Agreed, though nothing you have hi-lited can be taken to show what position he came from to stand "at the corner of the court".
Hutch did not mention stopping at the corner of Dorset St. in his police statement, so clearly that statement was not thorough or complete. If we did not have the subsequent press story then we wouldn't be having this disagreement, so it is fortunate that we do have more details, but....you are saying that because he didn't mention standing outside Crossinghams, then it didn't happen.
My response is simply that we already know some details were omitted from his story, so we cannot assume we have the complete story even now.

Consider, Hutchinson tells us, as you rightly point out, that he came to the court,....and stood there for 45 minutes, then went away.
Only in a later paragraph does he inject that he also walked up the court and stayed there, watching and listening, for a couple of minutes.
We wouldn't know that but for the added paragraph.

Given that the corner of Dorset St. was too far to hear conversation, and against the wind on a night of "strong & gale force winds", I feel it is only reasonable to say he must have been nearer to the couple, which I believe is confirmed by Sarah Lewis.
I appreciate you are trying to recreate the scene without using Lewis's statement, and I understand why.

I fail to see what it is you think I'm changing. I thought I was sticking as close to both their stories as is reasonably possible.

I have been thinking lot about this over the last few days, and I realize that we both work in much the same way - we make an interpretation of things, where we select some bits and pieces and look away from others to reach a possible conclusion. Some will say that it is cherry-picking, but I ordinarily say that itīs never a bad idea to choose the juiciest and ripest cherries from a basket... Basically, I am certain that if the solution lies hidden in the material, then we MUST "cherrypick" to find it. That is to say, we must choose the correct combination of facts to make sense of things, while we discard other matters. And it is not until we finish the puzzle that we can see if we have been correct to do what we did.
I am fine with letting people damn me for it, since I am much more interested in finding the solution than I am in agreeing that if we use all the facts amd material that it is traditionally used, the case is unsolvable. That was always so, and it was always very dreary.
So I command you for your ingenuity - but I think you are wrong nevertheless. There are matters in your solution where I feel certain that you are wrong. And I can only go by my own intuition here, Iīm afraid.
I think you are a very well read up student of the case, and I think you are completely honest about it. Moreover, you are a true gentleman, surpassing myself in that genre by a country mile. So I would love to agree with you. But I canīt.

Thankyou Christer, the consideration is mutual, even though we do not agree on a number of points - or suspects

There are a variety of press versions of Lewis's testimony, some more complete than others, my view is that because the reporters are all reporting on the same event - her testimony, then we must collate these versions not compete them one against the other.

For example, if her 'actual' testimony, heard by the court, contained 50 lines of testimony, the official record provides only 40, it was compiled in long-hand so had to be abbreviated for expediency.
The press used short-hand so were able to provide more detail, but the newspaper editors cut out bits here and there so the end result is a press version that provides only 25 lines, another maybe 28 lines, yet another 30 and 35 lines, much of them the same, but some of them different.

The important point to keep in mind is that all these versions complement each other, so to gain a more complete understanding of her story it is necessary to put them together, not use one against the other.
That is my position - so it isn't so much as cherry-picking, as trying to assemble individual comments she made into a rational sequence of events.

No you have me wrong, I think the man he saw was Astrachan, not Hutchinson.

Aha...? So Bowyer would have seen Astrakhan man alone in Millers Court, at around three o clock? Leaving after having slaughtered Kelly?

Bowyer's report said... "Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer."
By the 14th, Astrachan was clearly the new suspect - the assumed murderer.
The press are only interested in the fact he saw a man, they do not even mention that the man was with a woman, or perhaps Kelly had just gone into her room and Bowyer walked passed a saw the man as he was just stepping in behind her - I don't know, the important point is that he saw a man who fit the description of the new suspect. And, the time he gave "about 3:00 am", is consistent with what Hutchinson said.

[harry]

Fisherman,
Nothing did surface to prove Hutchinson wrong,though his story was widely published.His story did come to be doubted however,but not on the score of forgetting which day he stood outside Crossingham's,and as much as Dew had 50 years afterthought,other's have had even more time,and still no one but yourself appears to support him(Dew).
But IF you and he were right,what a great time for Ripperology.WHAT A STORY.