PC did not pass Dorset St. in his beat

[Phil Carter]

Hello Neil, (Monty)

Can you confirm something for me please?
Thank you. ☺

Given PC 63L is Rouse. Given that he has been alloted the beat that includes Dorset Street, am I correct in writing that

A) The night shift started at 10pm and ended after 6am?
B) That said patrol beat was around half an hour (30mins) in duration?

The reason I ask is obvious and attached to the first posting of the thread. PC 63L Rouse would have..well..must have, seen people all through the night and would have confirmed or otherwise any witness statements or claims, no?

Yet we know of no corroboration of those individual statements..before or after the Hutchinson episode.

For example. Abberline would only have had to say that beat policeman X had seen Hutchinson. Or at least write it in HIS report. Yet...nothing.



Phil

[Monty]

Hey Phil

A) It did. Each shift was 8 hours long, 3 shifts in the 24.

B) Depends on the day beat time. Night patrols had double the men, with a 30 min beat being broken into 2 men working 15 mins apiece. I've yet to find a night beat lasting more that 30 mins in the inner jurisdictions of the Met. So, in my opinion, a 30 min beat would be the ultimate time for the evening/late patrols.

The purpose of an inquest is to try to establish the facts concerning a sudden death. The coroner dictates who attends based on witness statements and police reports. That decision is made based on what he deems as relevant.

I suppose (based on my experience of reports) that PC 63L reported what occurred on his beat, and that he experienced nothing out of the ordinary. He may have declared that he either didn't see anyone hanging around the entrance to the court at the time Hutchinson states, or that he does not recall seeing anyone...

For the purpose of inquest, I do not feel it's an issue. For the purpose of verifying Hutchinson's statement, it would be remiss of Abberline not to approach Hutchinson about not being seen by a beat Constable.

Of course, this is based on the scenario outlined in my above paragraph.

Monty

[Varqm]

The PC,if he passed by Dorset St.at between 2-3 and saw a man/woman/couple,would have been in the inquest,most likely.This is significant information.
The inquests, before and during Kelly's, are littered with witnesses describing the man/couple they have seen.They are then asked what they
looked liked or proceeded to describe the hat,height,appearance,etc..
He was not in the inquest,the PC then saw nobody making his testimony insignificant,at least between 2-3 am.And he must have passed early 2 am (Hutch was in Thrawl)
or late 2 am (Hutch already left) and his pass then cannot be used against Hutch to dismiss his story almost immediately.And it could not have been a 30 minute beat.
Hutch waited 45 minutes(could be retracted to less if witness did not have a watch),plus per Hutch,the couple talking for several minutes.But the PC saw nothing .


He could have been busy with other duties,stopping/questioning person(s) on the streets,
making him unable to pass by Dorset at at least between 2-3 am.Both are possible.

[Varqm]

If the PC also noticed the couple that Lewis saw then as the presence of this couple was not believed to be significant at the inquest then there was again no reason to call the PC just to have him say he saw a man & woman in Dorset street.

We do not know how the coroner thought,which witness to put in the inquest or not.It's possible,but highly unlikely.The PC would have had a different perspective,not redundant, and was probably sharper.The inquests are littered with witnesses describing a man/couple .

[Wickerman]

We do not need to know how he was thinking, we know his objectives.
The fact the PC was not called only indicates that whatever he saw would not help the inquiry.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Neil,

Many thanks for that information. Much obliged.

My view however is not anything to do with the Coroner, nor the fact PC 63L Rouse was called to the inquest or not.
My little beef here is with Abberline's written report.
Having "believed" Hutchinson, surely he would have confirmed or not any sightings or not at the given times in Hutchinson's statements with PC 63L Rouse?
You see.. in order for the statement to be "factual" in the eyes of Abberline, he would seek confirmation or otherwise.
That seeking would then be written down in his report.
Now it may not be important because of being post-inquest, but would certainly be important when reporting further on up the chain. He would not wish to be seen to be in any way lackadaisical in his work.

So the lack of even mentioning said beat policeman is something I see as more serious than remiss.

Again..thank you for the information.


Phil

[Wickerman]

I can see what it is you are looking for Phil, but reports to superiors do not normally contain what you hope to see.
A superior needs 'updates' not explanations. He requires to know your conclusion, not how you arrived at that conclusion.

For you & me, we can appreciate that Abberline, being the thorough professional that he was, will have obtained some confirmation of Hutchinson's story, but not everything he said needs to be corroborated.

[Varqm]

The PC could not deny Hutch -hutch statement was not dismissed or confirm - no account exist that a PC confirmed Hutch's statement.If he cant do neither the PC must have missed it.That's why he must have passed early 2 am or late 2 am.,if he indeed passed at between 2-3 am.and not a 30 min beat.

[Wickerman]

Given that we have no statement concerning what P.C. 63 L saw, or didn't see, the only thing we can accept with good reason is that the beat was no longer than 30 minutes. This being established to be the maximum throughout the Met. Beats lasting 15 minutes are known and this has been pointed out already.

The potential role of P.C. 63 L is pretty straightforward.
63 L may have seen Lewis, he may have seen the loiterer, he also may have seen this couple (man & woman), on his pass through Dorset Street.
If he did, none of this was of interest to the Coroner at the inquest.
Testimony given at an inquest is presumed by default to be truthful. Testimony does not have to be corroborated or verified at an inquest.
There was no need to call P.C. 63 L at the inquest just to confirm what has already been stated.

Once Hutchinson showed up, after the conclusion of the inquest, this couple is identified, and now what P.C. 63 L might have seen becomes important, but the press will never know about what the beat constable saw. This information remains internal to the investigation.

[Varqm]

Given that we have no statement concerning what P.C. 63 L saw, or didn't see, the only thing we can accept with good reason is that the beat was no longer than 30 minutes. This being established to be the maximum throughout the Met. Beats lasting 15 minutes are known and this has been pointed out already.

The potential role of P.C. 63 L is pretty straightforward.
63 L may have seen Lewis, he may have seen the loiterer, he also may have seen this couple (man & woman), on his pass through Dorset Street.
If he did, none of this was of interest to the Coroner at the inquest.
Testimony given at an inquest is presumed by default to be truthful. Testimony does not have to be corroborated or verified at an inquest.
There was no need to call P.C. 63 L at the inquest just to confirm what has already been stated.

Once Hutchinson showed up, after the conclusion of the inquest, this couple is identified, and now what P.C. 63 L might have seen becomes important, but the press will never know about what the beat constable saw. This information remains internal to the investigation.

So what you are saying is the PC was able to deny-which we know did not happen and therefore confirm-the PC saw a man standing opposite Miller's court
and his description tallied with what Hutch was wearing (Hutch did not know of the PC's sighting/description) or his build/height.And the confirmation
was not in any police report or newspaper.

If he could not do neither he must have missed.

[Varqm]

"You see.. in order for the statement to be "factual" in the eyes of Abberline, he would seek confirmation or otherwise.
That seeking would then be written down in his report. "
Phil Carter

Yes to support his view,at least initially, Hutch was telling the truth.

[Wickerman]

So what you are saying is the PC was able to deny-which we know did not happen and therefore confirm-the PC saw a man standing opposite Miller's court
and his description tallied with what Hutch was wearing (Hutch did not know of the PC's sighting/description) or his build/height.And the confirmation
was not in any police report or newspaper.

If he could not do neither he must have missed.

I'm really sorry, I just have difficulty following what you are saying.
What is the PC denying?
And what is it "which we know did not happen"?, I'm not sure there is anything we 'know' did not happen.

If the PC did notice a man standing opposite the court he is not likely to enter that in his pocketbook unless there was something very unusual about it.
People lounge around doorways all the time, so that in itself is not significant enough to make a note of.
So the chances are that if the PC did see this loiterer then he might not be able to describe him any better than Lewis did.

The memo by Abberline, which you seem to call his 'report' has no time written on it. This memo could have been written after he talked with the PC. The night shift for beat constables begins at 10 pm, so Abberline could have had him come in to see Abberline before he goes on duty. Where Abberline might have asked him about that Friday morning, and if he remembers anything that could confirm Hutchinson's story.
The press will never know about this meeting with Abberline, so we will never read about it.
This is all speculation, but it is based on reality.

[Wickerman]

All the foregoing aside, this sentence is a problem for a beat constable in Dorset street.

"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, and no one else."
Hutchinson press interview.

[Joshua Rogan]

All the foregoing aside, this sentence is a problem for a beat constable in Dorset street.

"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, and no one else."
Hutchinson press interview.

Isn't that also a problem for Sarah Lewis' account?

[Wickerman]

Isn't that also a problem for Sarah Lewis' account?

Taken at face value, yes.
Which some have used to make the argument that the loiterer seen by Lewis was not Hutchinson, because he did not mention Lewis. And others have also used that to promote the argument that Hutchinson was obviously lying, otherwise he should have mentioned seeing Lewis.
Both these views though are looking at this through modern eyes.

Before 1918 women were not even regarded as citizens.
The role of the woman was to serve man, and as servants they could scurry about up and down a street, but it was as if they did not exist.
From Hutchinson's point of view, he didn't see a man, so he saw nobody, regardless how many women or children he saw.
I know this is difficult to accept in our time, thank goodness, but the late 19th century was socially very different.

I was looking through the Police Code the other night, and where ever a paragraph dealt with a witness, or a prisoner, it was always "he", never a "she", nor even a "he/she".
Society was totally the domain of the male.