Why Wasn't Hutchinson used to try to ID Kosminski?

[Curious Cat]

Joshua, let me offer an example.

Hutchinson says:

"About 2 am 9th I was coming by Thrawl Street, Commercial Street,..."

How does he know what the time was?

"I am able to fix the time, as it was between ten and five minutes to two o'clock as I came by Whitechapel Church".

Had Hutchinson not been so specific (seemingly a trait of his), and left out the time, you would most likely argue the clock must have said 2:00am, and that assumption would be wrong.

So, it wasn't "about 2:00am" when he passed the clock. He estimated an allowance for the passage of time.
It's the same scenario as with Sarah Lewis (but the distance is not so far), only she did not say what the time was as she passed the clock, Hutchinson did.
Lewis only told what the time was when she arrived, and how would she know precisely? - the Spitalfield clock chimes on the half hour.

In what direction are you having Hutchinson walk by the church when he sees the time?

[Wickerman]

Of the sources I have seen and the extra ones you have brought forward the fact remains that going by Hutchinson's account, Sarah Lewis cannot have seen Mary Kelly.

Can you explain why a difference of one-two minutes, especially when clock times were so inaccurate, makes any difference?
If, Lewis passed the Spitalfields clock at 2:30, she would be in Millers Court by 2:31/2 or thereabouts.
How can that possibly mean the woman Lewis saw was not Kelly?

[Wickerman]

In what direction are you having Hutchinson walk by the church when he sees the time?

Hutchinson was coming from Romford, which is east of Whitechapel, so he was coming westward along Whitechapel High St.

[harry]

She arrived at about 2.30.No information Lewis stopped at any time on her way to Millers Court.She passed a couple outside the Britannia.She saw a couple going on down Dorset Street about 2.30.Could not possibly have seen Kelly,who was inside at this time.Even if no times were given,there is no information Lewis was in Dorset Street the same time as Kelly is reported to have been.Did the Keelers give a time of her arrival,or of hearing Kelly arrive?

[Wickerman]

Ok, lets go through this step by step.

He waited on the corner of Dorset Street before Mary Kelly went into the court. This was before Sarah Lewis came along.

He says he stood at the corner and watched the couple walk down Dorset St. towards Millers Court.
He then says they stood there for three minutes (surely an estimate?)
The next thing he says is that he went up the court.
What happened inbetween?

At some point he had to walk down Dorset St. towards Millers Court after the couple, but that bit is not included in his statements.
I am saying this is the time that both him & Lewis are walking down Dorset St.
Presumably, while the couple stand talking at the entrance to the passage, he is making his way along Dorset St. on the south side, while Lewis is making her way in the same direction on the north side.
He can see Kelly & Co. standing at Millers Court passage, and so can Sarah Lewis, further on ahead of her.

He only went into Dorset Street after Mary Kelly and the Man entered the court. He went into the court and came back out again to wait around in Dorset Street.

Yes, on both points.

This was before Sarah Lewis came along.

No. thats where we disagree.

As I pointed out in a previous post. Hutchinson said, "I then went to the court to see if I could see them".
You're assuming "I then" means immediately, it doesn't.
All "I then" means is, 'then next thing I did', but he doesn't say how long he waited there after Kelly & Co. entered the passage.

There is no time limit on "I then". He could have meant immediately, but he also could have meant after several minutes, or 5, even 10 minutes. We simply do not know.
And yet, on the strength of your assumption (and rejecting any other possibility) you choose to dismiss the possibility that the woman was Kelly.
That is no basis for an argument.

If you allow for one of the other two possibilities, the sequence will fit. Unless, you are trying to avoid it fitting?

He says in the three-quarters of an hour he waited Mary Kelly and the man he saw her with did not come back out of the court.

Right, that is what he says, this is a man without a watch. So how does he know when 3/4 of an hour has passed?

These three-quarters of an hour began before Sarah Lewis entered Dorset Street. Sarah Lewis came into Dorset Street, entered Miller's Court and was inside one of the other rooms about 25 minutes before Hutchinson left the area. If Hutchinson didn't see Mary Kelly in that time, how could Sarah Lewis have seen her?

Yes, we know when it began, but without a watch, was it really 45 minutes, or 40, or 35, in fact on what grounds did he make that estimate?
The answer of course is again, we simply do not know.
He doesn't even reference hearing the church clock chime, but then it would have to chime the quarter-hour. We know it chimed the half-hour, but we don't know if it chimed on the quarter-hour.
So we are left with an open question.

So what I'm saying is, as the sequence of events perfectly match (my previous points 1 -4, in an earlier post), on what basis can you argue that the woman cannot be Kelly.
All the times you rely on to support your case are unreliable.

[Wickerman]

She arrived at about 2.30.No information Lewis stopped at any time on her way to Millers Court.She passed a couple outside the Britannia.She saw a couple going on down Dorset Street about 2.30.Could not possibly have seen Kelly,who was inside at this time.Even if no times were given,there is no information Lewis was in Dorset Street the same time as Kelly is reported to have been.Did the Keelers give a time of her arrival,or of hearing Kelly arrive?

And what time was Kelly there?

[Scott Nelson]

Didn't Kosminski carry a watch?

[harry]

At the latest,if you accept Hutchinson's time of 2am as a start,Kelly was indoors by 2.15.
'They both went into Dorset Street,I followed them',is what Hutchinson claimed.Ambiguous maybe,but there is no talk of Kelly or her companion stopping untill they reached the court,or of Hutchinson stopping either.Whatever the distance behind when Hutchinson began following,it doesn't seem to have increased to the extent they were way out in front.So seconds rather minutes,and if Kelly and companion dallied for 3 minutes at the court entrance,Hutchinson reached Crossinghams before Kelly and companion entered the court.Say about 2.15,and that would make,for Hutchinson,a 45 minute vigil untill leaving at three correct.

[Wickerman]

At the latest,if you accept Hutchinson's time of 2am as a start,Kelly was indoors by 2.15.

Yes, and I'm sure this is where the problems begin.

The Whitechapel Church is a good walk away from Thrawl St., and there are two potential routes he could have taken.
Not only that but Whitechapel High St. is busy through until the early morning with fast-food carts & stalls. Contemporary accounts tell of coffee stalls, hot food like baked potato, boiled meat, fried fish, food carts nose to tail along the sidewalk/footpath.
He doesn't say if he stopped and spoke to anyone on his way through, or paused to savor the smells of food he couldn't afford.

Hutchinson's drama only begins when he meets up with Kelly. He estimates what time this was on the distance he had walked from the clock he saw on the Whitechapel Church - which he said was "between 10 and 5 minutes to 2:00".
All he said was he met Kelly "about 2:00am", which must surely mean sometime after 2:00, as he doesn't say he heard the Spitalfields clock chime at 2:00, and if he was there any appreciable time before 2:00 he would have had to almost run there.
Therefore, as he was in no hurry, it is more than likely he met Kelly shortly after 2:00, 3, 5 maybe 10 minutes past?, we cannot say.

'They both went into Dorset Street,I followed them',is what Hutchinson claimed.Ambiguous maybe,but there is no talk of Kelly or her companion stopping untill they reached the court,or of Hutchinson stopping either.Whatever the distance behind when Hutchinson began following,it doesn't seem to have increased to the extent they were way out in front.

He tells us he let them walk ahead, across Commercial St. and proceed down Dorset St. while he stopped at the corner of Dorset St. to watch. So they must have gained some ground ahead of him.
The distance from the corner to Millers Court is approx 125ft (re: Ordnance Survey Map). So they were allowed to get ahead of him, but how much is hard to say.
They pause at the court to exchange words, etc. and Hutchinson casually walks down on the south side. He must have reached Crossinghams at, or seconds before they went up the passage.
All the while Lewis is making her way in the same direction on the north side, towards Millers Court.

Neither party, not Hutchinson nor Kelly & Co. could be said to be in a hurry (Hutch said they walked slow), so if his initial encounter was no earlier than 2:05-10, then the time Kelly & Co. entered Millers Court could have been 2:15-20.
By her own words at the inquest, Lewis said:
"...I know Mrs Keyler in Millers Court. I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning".

Which means she arrived barely minutes before 2:30. Even placing her arrival about 2:20 means the whole sequence works quite well without any exaggeration or unfounded assumptions for either party.

If you choose to stick rigidly to Kelly waiting for three exact minutes, and for Hutchinson to wait exactly 45 minutes, then the onus is on you to justify how a man without a watch was able to make so precise an estimate, more especially when he was not required to time anyone doing anything.

It is evident, more so in the Stride case than this, that some posters will insist on using the stated times, even though all posters know they can't be taken as gospel. Few common people outside doctors & police wore a watch, everyone else guessed the time unless they heard a clock chime.
We don't even know if the Whitechapel clock & Spitalfields clock were in sync. or were they minutes apart.

[Curious Cat]

Can you explain why a difference of one-two minutes, especially when clock times were so inaccurate, makes any difference?
If, Lewis passed the Spitalfields clock at 2:30, she would be in Millers Court by 2:31/2 or thereabouts.
How can that possibly mean the woman Lewis saw was not Kelly?

The difference is that Hutchinson will have entered the court and left again by about 2:15am - 2:20am. If Sarah Lewis didn't come along until 2:30am, she cannot have Mary Kelly.

That's a difference of about 10 minutes, not one or two.

Can you explain why a difference of one-two minutes, especially when clock times were so inaccurate, makes any difference?
If, Lewis passed the Spitalfields clock at 2:30, she would be in Millers Court by 2:31/2 or thereabouts.
How can that possibly mean the woman Lewis saw was not Kelly?

I know he was coming from east to west from Romford and I know its location in relation to Whitechapel. What I wasn't getting was where you were placing Whitechapel Church as there wasn't a church called Whitechapel. Now I see you were referring to St Mary's I understand which church you mean. Where does Hutchinson reference using St Mary's as a time check.

You seem to forget that by the time Hutchinson reaches Thrawl Street he doesn't need to guess it's 2am as he will have been able to hear the clock at Christ Church chime the time.

[Curious Cat]

Ok, lets go through this step by step.

He says he stood at the corner and watched the couple walk down Dorset St. towards Millers Court.
He then says they stood there for three minutes (surely an estimate?)
The next thing he says is that he went up the court.
What happened inbetween?

Hutchinson would easily see the time as being on the corner of Dorset Street meant he was able to clearly see the Christ Church clock. He doesn't need to estimate, he can see the time.

What happens inbetween? After those three minutes Mary Kelly goes into the court. This is before Sarah Lewis comes along. Whether Hutchinson goes into the court of not, Mary Kelly does not leave the court any time between him standing on the corner Dorset Street and when he leaves at about 3am. As Sarah Lewis comes along after he has moved into Dorset Street from the corner, she cannot have seen Mary Kelly and Hutchinson at the same time.

At some point he had to walk down Dorset St. towards Millers Court after the couple, but that bit is not included in his statements.
I am saying this is the time that both him & Lewis are walking down Dorset St.
Presumably, while the couple stand talking at the entrance to the passage, he is making his way along Dorset St. on the south side, while Lewis is making her way in the same direction on the north side.
He can see Kelly & Co. standing at Millers Court passage, and so can Sarah Lewis, further on ahead of her.

You've switched Hutchinson's location and movements to fit it in a new timeline. You don't need to do that if you just accept the woman Sarah Lewis saw was not Mary Kelly when going by Hutchinson's account.

If Hutchinson and Sarah Lewis walk down Dorset Street at the same time then the man stood opposite the passage entrance cannot be Hutchinson. Unless you're suggesting he's Billy Whizz.

No. thats where we disagree.

As I pointed out in a previous post. Hutchinson said, "I then went to the court to see if I could see them".
You're assuming "I then" means immediately, it doesn't.
All "I then" means is, 'then next thing I did', but he doesn't say how long he waited there after Kelly & Co. entered the passage.

There is no time limit on "I then". He could have meant immediately, but he also could have meant after several minutes, or 5, even 10 minutes. We simply do not know.
And yet, on the strength of your assumption (and rejecting any other possibility) you choose to dismiss the possibility that the woman was Kelly.
That is no basis for an argument.

Hutchinson says he waited in Dorset Street for three-quarters of an hour, leaving at about 3am. The latest those three-quarters of an hour can start is 2:20am. In those three-quarters of an hour Hutchinson says Mary Kelly did not leave the court. As Sarah Lewis came along after 2:20am, she cannot have seen Mary Kelly in Dorset Street. She also didn't see Mary Kelly in the court as she says there was no-one in the court when she entered.

Right, that is what he says, this is a man without a watch. So how does he know when 3/4 of an hour has passed?

As Hutchinson will have been able to see the Christ Church clock before he entered Dorset Street, have heard it chime for half past and also been able to see it again when he left Dorset Street he would easily be able to work out how much time had passed while he was there.

Yes, we know when it began, but without a watch, was it really 45 minutes, or 40, or 35, in fact on what grounds did he make that estimate?
The answer of course is again, we simply do not know.
He doesn't even reference hearing the church clock chime, but then it would have to chime the quarter-hour. We know it chimed the half-hour, but we don't know if it chimed on the quarter-hour.
So we are left with an open question.

So what I'm saying is, as the sequence of events perfectly match (my previous points 1 -4, in an earlier post), on what basis can you argue that the woman cannot be Kelly.
All the times you rely on to support your case are unreliable.

Both Hutchinson and Sarah Lewis are going by the same single time piece - the clock of Christ Church, Spitalfields. Both will have see it and heard the chimes. Sarah Lewis makes a point of them as she was indoors when she heard them at 3:30am. She doesn't mention hearing the 2:30am chimes. She sees the time as she passes the clock. She marks being on her way to Dorset Street at 2:30am by the clock, suggesting it may be she heard the chimes for half past the hour as she made her way along Commercial Road and reached The Britannia afterwards. This could be why she says she saw the man and woman outside The Britannia at "about 2:30am" as that exact time had slightly passed when she got there.

[Michael W Richards]

I find it interesting that you can get so much mileage out of Hutchs statement despite 2 very important facts....we have no proof he even knew the woman called Mary Kelly, and we have no proof Mary ever left her room after going inside at around 11:45 Thursday night. To argue the minutia within the statement without at least having something substantive to use as a foundation...like for example a corroborating witness that is trustworthy and who provably knew Mary Kelly and who saw her out of her room after 11:45pm, or someone that knew Mary who could validate Hutchs claim he even knew her.

There is not one shred of evidence that any of the witness statements that have Mary Kelly seen outside alive after 11:45pm Thursday night ever knew her. What she looked like. Where she lived.

[Curious Cat]

I find it interesting that you can get so much mileage out of Hutchs statement despite 2 very important facts....we have no proof he even knew the woman called Mary Kelly, and we have no proof Mary ever left her room after going inside at around 11:45 Thursday night. To argue the minutia within the statement without at least having something substantive to use as a foundation...like for example a corroborating witness that is trustworthy and who provably knew Mary Kelly and who saw her out of her room after 11:45pm, or someone that knew Mary who could validate Hutchs claim he even knew her.

There is not one shred of evidence that any of the witness statements that have Mary Kelly seen outside alive after 11:45pm Thursday night ever knew her. What she looked like. Where she lived.

To be fair, I don't entirely believe Hutchinson's account though I think it's possible he was in the area on the night. It could be that Hutchinson was the man Sarah Lewis saw outside The Britannia and he came forward to distract attention away from that sighting and bring Astrakhan into the mix. It seemed to work for a few days, anyway.

My stance is that Sarah Lewis cannot have seen Mary Kelly at all if going by both her and Hutchinson's accounts.

[tanta07]

To be fair, I don't entirely believe Hutchinson's account though I think it's possible he was in the area on the night. It could be that Hutchinson was the man Sarah Lewis saw outside The Britannia and he came forward to distract attention away from that sighting and bring Astrakhan into the mix. It seemed to work for a few days, anyway.

My stance is that Sarah Lewis cannot have seen Mary Kelly at all if going by both her and Hutchinson's accounts.

I think if you feel Hutchinson is lying, that's the most logical scenario:

- He realizes he was in Mary Kelly's presence shortly before she was brutally murdered, apparently by the notorious killer the entire city is looking for.
- Days pass and he notices that some witnesses have mentioned seeing a man hanging out in Miller's Court shortly before her murder.
- He realizes those witnesses are probably describing HIM, and can probably identify him.
- Panicking, he goes to the authorities with this other guy, this elaborately detailed Astrakhan Man, who is definitely NOT him, to take the heat off of himself.

I really don't know which way to lean on Hutchinson, but if he is indeed lying, I think the scenario above is likely WHY he would be lying.

[Wickerman]

The difference is that Hutchinson will have entered the court and left again by about 2:15am - 2:20am.

Ok, then you have already assumed a fixed time for Hutchinson's arrival, in spite of everything leading up to that point being so vague & flexible.

I'd like to clear something up first. You say Hutch came back down about, or before 2:20?

Where does he say this?

If you recall, in both his police statement & press statement he makes no mention of coming back to Dorset St., yet you insist he must have.

From his police statement:
"...I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour"

Hutch clearly says he went into the court and stayed there for 3/4 hour, nothing about coming back.
Why do you assert he must have come back to Dorset St.?

I suspect the answer is, because you accept the need to align what Hutchinson is saying with the words of Sarah Lewis.
You are making an assumption in order to make his story fit with what we learn from another witness.

Yet, a few words prior to this, where we read:
"They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them",

Again, an assumption is required here, that Hutch waited for a short time before following them up the passage. Not only would it be the natural thing to do, it would make both stories align, yet you refuse to admit this.

If an assumption is valid in the first case, why not the second?

It concerns me that this is intentional in order to disassociate the Kelly whom Hutchinson saw from the woman whom Lewis saw.
If you were being fair in your assessment of Hutchinson's story then an assumption is required in both cases, only then do you have corroboration.