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

[Fisherman]

Is it really all that important if Sarah Lewis did see Kelly and AK man? There is no way of confirming it now anyways. What is important is that she saw Hutchinson where he said he was at the time he claimed he was there. That is crucial.

But you cannot confirm that either, can you?

We hear mental gymnastics such as Hutchinson attending the inquest or standing outside hearing gossip. I think we can safely disregard such claims as extremely unlikely. The fact is that Hutchinson is corroborated by Lewis.

Now, he is not. What Lewis suggests is that there was a man outside Crossinghams, but that certainly does not rule out another man being there. Hutchinson said he went to the corner of the court as he took up his vigil, he said that he left from the corner of the court as he abandoned the scene and Dew says that Hutchinson likely got the days muddled. Piece these things together, and where do you end up?

Now I don't neccessarily agree with Wickermans take on things- it is possible of course but it seems somewhat improbable. More likely is that Hutchinson is in situ as Lewis appears. He is standing outside Crossinghams around 02:20-02:25 looking up the court. Lewis walks down Dorset Street- probably quite quickly as she was alone at night and had just passed Britannia man which had frightened her. At the other end of Dorset Street is a man and woman- the latter being in drink. How Lewis knew this we don't know but maybe the woman was stumbling? Lewis enters the Court and Hutchinson leaves his spot later. Who was the mysterious young man and woman who passed though and where did they pass? Also why didn't Hutchinson see or mention them? Difficult to answer.

Nope: Because he was not there and never saw them. Same thing with Lewis. Easy-peasy.

[Joshua Rogan]

Illuminated? - by what?
It's illuminated today, I know that.

The clock face had been illuminated by gaslight since it was replaced in 1866

[Sunny Delight]

Nope: Because he was not there and never saw them. Same thing with Lewis. Easy-peasy.

I did toy with the idea that Dew(who I hold in very high esteem) was correct in his 'considered view' that Hutchinson had also erred as Mrs. Maxwell had. However I am very much convinced now that Hutchinson was seen by Lewis. If Lewis had seen the man at 1:30 or 3:30 then of course one could fully agree with Dew but Lewis saw this man at around 2:30- the exact time Hutchinson claimed he was there. Not only that but Lewis man was 'looking up the court as if waiting on someone'. Lewis man wasn't walking by nor was he uninterested in his surroundings. He looked as if he was waiting on someone. And we all know that Hutchinson was loitering and waiting to see if they came out.

Hutchinson does not say he stood at the corner of the court for 45 minutes. Indeed it would make sense for him to be on the other side of the road if Kelly and AK man were to reappear. I do think there was more to Hutchinson and Kelly's 'relationship' than we know. He did say he occasionaly gave her a few shillings. Kelly asks him he says for sixpence but she solicits the next man she sees. In my opinion Hutchinson must have been a customer of hers. It might explain the loitering.

Is it possible Hutchinson erred? Of course it is. Is it possible Lewis saw a different man? Of course it is. But for me I am not convinced. I think AK man may have been a businessman or tailor from one of the shops containing middle classes along Commercial Road. I genuinely believe it likely he was the Ripper.

Ps I enjoyed your show on Cross/Lechmere. Brilliantly done and compelling viewing which gave much food for thought. Didn't neccessarily agree with the conclusions but some good content in there.

[Fisherman]

I did toy with the idea that Dew(who I hold in very high esteem) was correct in his 'considered view' that Hutchinson had also erred as Mrs. Maxwell had. However I am very much convinced now that Hutchinson was seen by Lewis. If Lewis had seen the man at 1:30 or 3:30 then of course one could fully agree with Dew but Lewis saw this man at around 2:30- the exact time Hutchinson claimed he was there.

Iīm sorry, no - it is the time when Hutchinson THOUGHT he was there. That is in no way any confirmation as such.

Not only that but Lewis man was 'looking up the court as if waiting on someone'. Lewis man wasn't walking by nor was he uninterested in his surroundings. He looked as if he was waiting on someone. And we all know that Hutchinson was loitering and waiting to see if they came out.

And how do we look when we look as if we are waiting on someone? What if it was a lodger from Crossinghams, who peered out into the rain, his hand held over his eyes to shelter him from the rain before he worked up the courage to step out into the dreary weather? Would he not look as if he was waiting for someone in that case? Lewis only caught a glimpse of him, she did not see any loitering as such. Unless, of course, she made the whole thing up - which is quite possible too.

Hutchinson does not say he stood at the corner of the court for 45 minutes. Indeed it would make sense for him to be on the other side of the road if Kelly and AK man were to reappear.

Perhaps. But the gist of the matter is that he said he went to the corner of the court and he said he left from the corner of the court. It is in no way likelier that he went over the street than the opposite.

I do think there was more to Hutchinson and Kelly's 'relationship' than we know. He did say he occasionaly gave her a few shillings. Kelly asks him he says for sixpence but she solicits the next man she sees. In my opinion Hutchinson must have been a customer of hers. It might explain the loitering.

Maybe. I think he was simply looking for somewhere to crash. If he wanted sex, there were many alternative options that would have kept him out of the rain for those 45 minutes. It was a wet and windy night - and Hutchinson neverthless said that he "walked the streets all night" after having left Dorset Street. How likely is that? The preceding night, though, was a calm and nice night. And so it is very much likelier that he walked the streets on such a night, is it not?

Is it possible Hutchinson erred? Of course it is. Is it possible Lewis saw a different man? Of course it is. But for me I am not convinced. I think AK man may have been a businessman or tailor from one of the shops containing middle classes along Commercial Road. I genuinely believe it likely he was the Ripper.

Not if he was there on the night before, no. And the police drastically lowered their interest in him, meaning that it is likely that they know that he was not their fellow - but they nevertheless needed to talk to him, to find out what Kelly had to say on the night before she died. That makes sense in my part of the universe.

Ps I enjoyed your show on Cross/Lechmere. Brilliantly done and compelling viewing which gave much food for thought. Didn't neccessarily agree with the conclusions but some good content in there.

Thank you! But donīt tell XXX and YYY and ZZZ about it, because they donīt want to hear the word Lechmere spoken out here! I was him whodunnit, though...

[Curious Cat]

Ok, so you are satisfied the man opposite was Hutchinson and that he was waiting in Dorset St.
So, as Hutchinson saw Kelly enter Millers court, but according to you Lewis came through approx. 15 minutes later.
And, you accept there was no-one in the court.
Then who was the hatless woman, the worse for drink, that Lewis saw enter the court with a man?

Whoever it was had to go inside one of the rooms. Yet who was left?
Mrs Cox was out, only returning at 3:00. Prater had gone to bed. Both Vanturney & Pickell were 'attached', living with a man.
Kennedy had not arrived yet, but came home alone anyway.

So, who is left?

The police closed the court and interviewed all the residents, so they knew where everybody was. The only woman they could not interview, was Kelly.

You have invented an extra woman that you cannot account for, rather than accept the times are too vague and acknowledge the sequence of events:


1 - Hutchinson places himself outside Millers Court about 2:00-2:30am.
2 - Sarah Lewis saw a man standing outside Millers Court about 2:00-2:30am.

1 - At this time, Hutchinson described a man & woman walking in Dorset St.
2 - At this time, Sarah Lewis claims to see a man & woman walking in Dorset St.

1 - Hutchinson described the female as being affected by drink, and (according to Mary Cox), not wearing a hat that night.
2 - Sarah Lewis described the female as being affected by drink, and not wearing a hat.

1 - Hutchinson describes the couple as entering Millers Court, and then going into one of the rooms.
2 - Sarah Lewis described the man & woman entering Millers Court passage, and that there was no-one in the court when she got there.

A 10 minute discrepancy in the estimated times can easily be explained, the above comparison's are not so easy to explain away.

An argument that expects the same man to be watching two different couples enter Millers Court, within 10 minutes, where the female in both cases was 'the worse for drink' and hatless strongly suggests something is wrong with the theory.

Actually, I don't necessarily believe Sarah Lewis saw Hutchinson as I don't necessarily believe all of his account.

It's not according to me that Sarah Lewis enters Miller's Court 15 minutes after Hutchinson takes up his vigil in Dorset Street. It's the basic maths of their own accounts. They are going by the same time piece so their timings from 2am are corroborated by Christ Church clock. The times can't be vague if they're going by the actual chimes and strike of the clock.

I haven't invented another woman. There's nothing that says the woman Sarah Lewis saw in Dorset Street even entered the court. Hutchinson mentions seeing a man going into Crossinghams. Who was he? We don't know. Same as we don't know who Sarah Lewis saw, other than a woman who was drunk with a man she makes no description of. However, if we go by both her and Hutchinson's accounts it cannot have been Mary Kelly.

You have invented an extra woman that you cannot account for, rather than accept the times are too vague and acknowledge the sequence of events:


1 - Hutchinson places himself outside Millers Court about 2:00-2:30am.
2 - Sarah Lewis saw a man standing outside Millers Court about 2:00-2:30am.

1 - At this time, Hutchinson described a man & woman walking in Dorset St.
2 - At this time, Sarah Lewis claims to see a man & woman walking in Dorset St.

1 - Hutchinson described the female as being affected by drink, and (according to Mary Cox), not wearing a hat that night.
2 - Sarah Lewis described the female as being affected by drink, and not wearing a hat.

1 - Hutchinson describes the couple as entering Millers Court, and then going into one of the rooms.
2 - Sarah Lewis described the man & woman entering Millers Court passage, and that there was no-one in the court when she got there.

A 10 minute discrepancy in the estimated times can easily be explained, the above comparison's are not so easy to explain away.

An argument that expects the same man to be watching two different couples enter Millers Court, within 10 minutes, where the female in both cases was 'the worse for drink' and hatless strongly suggests something is wrong with the theory.

Before you were saying Sarah Lewis was definitely in No.2 at 2:30am. Sarah Lewis saw the man and woman out The Britannia at about 2:30am. She is going by the time of the Christ Church clock, which she passed as she walked down Commercial Street. How are you having her take half an hour to walk from Commercial Street to the entrance of Miller's Court to be in her room by 2:30am?

Hutchinson doesn't describe a man and woman walking down Dorset Street at 2:30am. He says Mary Kelly and the man she was with went across Commercial Street and went into Dorset Street. Going by his own timing of meeting Mary Kelly at Flower and Dean Street and waiting for her and the man to reach him a The Queen's Head pub that gives a range of about 2:05-2:15am for Mary Kelly and the man to be at the entrance of Miller's Court. Hutchinson goes across to the corner of Dorset Street and watches them stood at the entrance to the court for 3 minutes. They then enter the court. 2:20am is the latest Mary Kelly can be seen on Dorset Street. If Hutchinson was stood opposite the passage at the point Mary Kelly entered it, that is still before Sarah Lewis comes along. If Hutchinson walks along Dorset Street in parallel to Sarah Lewis then why doesn't he mention the man and woman outside The Britannia who would have been just feet away from him as he stood on the opposite corner?

[Curious Cat]

For that very reason. Do you check your watch every ten minutes?
He already knew what the time was.

You know the clock chimed the quarter hour?
You have a reference for that?

You suggested he wouldn't be paying attention to the time of the Christ Church clock as he didn't know he'd be interrogated three days later, but he'd noted the time at St Mary's in the same circumstance. To know he was leaving his vigil at 3am he must have been going by the time of Christ Church clock. He knew Mary Kelly and the man she was with were speaking at the entrance to Miller's Court for three minutes because he would have been able to see Christ Church clock from the corner of Dorset Street. He will also have heard it from Dorset Street and seen it again when he left his vigil.

He would have heard the chimes of Christ Church clock at 2am, 2:30am and 3am. As he took up his vigil before 2:30am it wouldn't be hard to work out he'd been there three-quarters of an hour. If the clock chimed for the quarter hours then even easier to know the time so no need to estimate or guess.

He had to make those movements, which takes time you have apparently not allowed for.
I don't believe even he knew, he was guessing. My argument is based on a sequence of events, not an estimated time.

This makes absolutely no sense to what I was saying.

In the Stride case, you should see the knots some theorists tie themselves up in because they insist on keeping rigidly to the estimated times.

This is the sequence of Hutchinson's movements, as I see it.

We know Hutch paused to wait at the corner of Dorset St. while Kelly & Co. walked slowly on ahead.
It is only natural he will follow on down towards Millers Court, even as they crossed to the north side.
As Kelly stopped at the entrance to talk, Hutchinson arrived at Crossingham's directly opposite, within hearing distance.
Lewis is walking towards Millers Court on the north side, she see's a man & woman enter Millers court ahead of her.
Lewis only noticed Hutch at the moment she arrived at Millers Court.
Lewis follows after the couple but noticed no-one in the court (obviously).
After several minutes Hutch crossed over and entered the court to see if he could hear anything.
He returns to Dorset St. to continue his vigil.

In my view the whole vigil is what he estimated as 45 minutes, not just the second half, which you seem to be thinking of.
From his point of view he began at the moment he stopped to watch Kelly talk with her client. It ended when he left the street at 3:00am. The fact he interrupted his vigil while he went up the court for a few minutes is irrelevant to him, it's all part of the vigil.
Thats how I see it.

Whether we agree or not it is necessary to understand each others arguments.

Nope. Hutchinson clearly says he waited three-quarters of an hour for Mary Kelly and the Man to come back out of the Miller's Court. Those three-quarters of an hour begin after they have entered Miller's Court. Those three-quarters of an hour end at 3am so they must begin about 2:15am. This is before Sarah Lewis walks past Christ Church clock, this is before Sarah Lewis sees the man and woman outside The Britannia, this is before Sarah Lewis goes into Dorset Street and this is before she reaches the entrance to Miller's Court. If Hutchinson doesn't see Mary Kelly again from before Sarah Lewis comes into Dorset Street, how can Sarah Lewis have seen her?

If Sarah Lewis didn't see Mary Kelly then neither of their accounts need be torn apart.

If Sarah Lewis did see Mary Kelly then Hutchinson's account falls down in a few areas.

[Sunny Delight]

Thank you! But donīt tell XXX and YYY and ZZZ about it, because they donīt want to hear the word Lechmere spoken out here! I was him whodunnit, though...

Hutchinson was there at 2:30am. That is what he said- he met Kelly at around 2am and then stopped outside Millers Court for 45 minutes from probably around 2:15am. I am not sure the weather would have much to do with it. It was illegal to sleep in doorways and if you have nowhere to stay and won't take the chance of being caught sleeping in a doorway, well then walking around is all one can do.

With respect it would suit you that Hutchinson was mistaken as it would stand to reason that Lechmere would not have been dressed like AK man. That could be a problem. Nor does it match his description. Dew seemed to believe Hutchinson had erred and implied he had the wrong day. But he didn't say Police believed this or had begun to see it as a real possibility. He only says that it is his opinion. His opinion carries much weight especially for me but I just don't think he was definitive enough to accept it.

As for the waiting for someone these were Lewis words. She was there- she saw what she saw and believed the man looked as though he was waiting for someone. That was her view of it- she was there, we were not. Obviously in that quick glance this was the impression she got. We cant be totally certain she was correct but that is the same with all witnesses.

[Fisherman]

Hutchinson was there at 2:30am. That is what he said- he met Kelly at around 2am and then stopped outside Millers Court for 45 minutes from probably around 2:15am.

Yes, that is what he said. However, whether he was correct or not on the matter is another thing. I stand by how him being there the night before makes a whole lot more sense and neatly explains the many contradictions otherwise involved.

I am not sure the weather would have much to do with it. It was illegal to sleep in doorways and if you have nowhere to stay and won't take the chance of being caught sleeping in a doorway, well then walking around is all one can do.

People slept in doorways in spades nevertheless, illegal or not. It was common practice - and common sense when it rained cats and dogs. Once again, it makes more sense if Hutchinson walked the streets the night before.

With respect it would suit you that Hutchinson was mistaken as it would stand to reason that Lechmere would not have been dressed like AK man. That could be a problem. Nor does it match his description. Dew seemed to believe Hutchinson had erred and implied he had the wrong day. But he didn't say Police believed this or had begun to see it as a real possibility. He only says that it is his opinion. His opinion carries much weight especially for me but I just don't think he was definitive enough to accept it.

With respect? I donīt know how respectful it is to imply that I only make the calls I do in order to bolster the Lechmere theory...? It is clear that the police did not invest in the idea that Astrachan Man was the killer, and so I donīt have to double over to exonerate him. Dew was not very specific about the matter in terms of timings, but he is clear enough when it comes to how he felt that Hutchinson would likely have erred about the remove in time when he made his observations.

As for the waiting for someone these were Lewis words. She was there- she saw what she saw and believed the man looked as though he was waiting for someone. That was her view of it- she was there, we were not. Obviously in that quick glance this was the impression she got. We cant be totally certain she was correct but that is the same with all witnesses.

Violina was also there in Hanbury Street, donīt forget that. We nevertheless do not trust HIS words, and generally speaking, I always advice against putting too much stock in witness reports.
Lewis was there - and said that she could not say anything at all about how the "loiterer" was dressed.
Then, at the inquest, she suddenly COULD tell how he was dressed!
So which of the versions do we buy? Both stated by a woman who was there? "The one closest to the deed in terms of time" is what the police and witness experts recommend - and that is the one where she could not tell anythbing about the clothing. And if she couldnīt, how on earth was she able to tell that the man looked as if he was waiting for somebody?
It is not a very strong testimony we have, grace ā Lewis. And it leaves the door totally open for her loiterer being either an invention, or a man who certainly did not watch the court - or a man who DID watch the court and who DID wear the kind of clothing that Lewis spoke of.
When there is such uncertainty as there must be regarding the seamstresseīs testimony, one has to look at the other witness reports and try to make sense of things. And that is why I say that George Hutchinson was not in Dorset Street on the murder night, because that is how the story works best. And that is factually best, Sunny, not best for any aspirations I have about Charles Lechmere.

[harry]

Hutchinson appears no more wrong about the time and place he was at that morning,than any other witness who came forward during the murders,and his memory only three days after the event is,as far as anyone can tell,no less inferior than the majority who came forward to give evidence which was accepted.Lewis reported a man outside Crossinghams.Did Dew comment on her recall?
A prepared statement is something that is already written down(Wickerman).Abolutely ridiculous and wrong.Many witnesses come forward voluntarily and give oral accounts,most in fact,and it is not until the witness has given their oral account that law enforcement officers are able to question them on the content.A good officer will not interrupt or put anything on paper during this time,except perhaps to clear up ambiguous claims.Yes Hutchinson could have produced a written statement on entering the police station,but there is no evidence he did.

[Fisherman]

Hutchinson appears no more wrong about the time and place he was at that morning,than any other witness who came forward during the murders,and his memory only three days after the event is,as far as anyone can tell,no less inferior than the majority who came forward to give evidence which was accepted.

The extremely simple truth of the matter is that witnesses are always potentially fallible in this respect. Some more so than others, mainly those who live a transient lifestyle, jumping from work to work, having no fixed address, skipping over the odd nightīs sleep and so on. Which is pretty much an exact description of George Hutchinson.

Of course, if we do not like the idea that he got the days wrong, no factual information in the world can change that, and we are left with somebody saying "No, he could never have mixed the days up". Factually, though, this is of course wrong - and that is all that can be said about it: He may have gotten the days wrong and according to the existing research into these things, he was an archetype for making this kind of mistake, going on the kind of life he lived.

End of story.

[harry]

As far as is known,Hutchinson skipped only that one night of sleep.His working history is not known,but at the time he declared he was unemployed,which is not unusual,and it doesn't conclude he led a transient lifestyle,or that he was out of money on a permanent basis.His residence was given as the Victorian Home,so he was not homeless,nor was that kind of living deemed to be unusual,thousands were forced into the same kind of shelter through lack of more suitable accomodation.It was a condition of the times and place.So nothing unusual about Hutchinson,and nothing at all to show he suffered a memory lapse.In fact,there were three reports of a male person outside Crossinghams that Friday morning between 2.30 and 3AM,so the odds of him being correct in that detail is largely in his favour.If people do not like the idea,so be it.It cannot be changed,and the challenges to it's authenticity,so far put forward,are simply negligable.

[Fisherman]

"As far as is known, Hutchinson skipped only that night of sleep."

A masterpiece of deception, Harry! The fact of the matter is that Hutchinson never described any other night in his life!

So why not write "The witness Hutchinson skipped sleep during a hundred per cent of the known nights in his life"? It is just as true, right?

You are of course doing what you always do - obscuring the facts and muddying the waters. The rest of us out here are perfectly aware that Hutchinson was described as a labourer who was out of work, who was penniless and who spoke of "the place where I usually stay when in London", meaning that he sometimes crashed in other places and that he on other occasions slept in other settings than London. All we know about his life in this period of time points to a transient lifestyle, jumping from work to work, having no fixed address and skipping over the odd nightīs sleep, EXACTLY as I said.

The fact that you tell us that it cannot be proven that he was not in steady work, well provided for and sleeping soundly through the nights in the exact same bed in the days he didnīt speak of is nothing but a waste of time, not least since we KNOW that he lived a vagabondish life during the days when the Kelly murder occurred, and so he fits the bill to a tee.

[Michael W Richards]

Hutchinson appears no more wrong about the time and place he was at that morning,than any other witness who came forward during the murders,and his memory only three days after the event is,as far as anyone can tell,no less inferior than the majority who came forward to give evidence which was accepted.Lewis reported a man outside Crossinghams.Did Dew comment on her recall?
A prepared statement is something that is already written down(Wickerman).Abolutely ridiculous and wrong.Many witnesses come forward voluntarily and give oral accounts,most in fact,and it is not until the witness has given their oral account that law enforcement officers are able to question them on the content.A good officer will not interrupt or put anything on paper during this time,except perhaps to clear up ambiguous claims.Yes Hutchinson could have produced a written statement on entering the police station,but there is no evidence he did.

There is of course the fact that ONLY he had the benefit of using pre-established and pre-existing details, which appear to be embellished quite extravagantly. People have mentioned Dew a few times here, its important that you remember he also said he saw excised things hanging from the ceiling. As for Hutchinson, for me its not a matter of lies or truth, its why. The evening of the 4th day after the murder, after an Inquest was held, he comes in and assumes the Wideawake role willingly. Despite the fact that its almost a cert that the authorities were at that time looking at Wideawake as a possible accomplice. There is no other justification for that issuance other than the loitering man seen by a witness. A Lookout, or more. If you review the other statements youll see that there is no other sighting which suggests a second man involved in the killing. That Pardon offer didnt come easily or early in this alledged series, it was used here because it appeared it might be of value. Soliciting information on a killing or killings without seeking punishment for the culpability.

Daniel Barnett also was staying at the Victorian House, its not hard to imagine stories of statements made by witnesses on Friday spread like wildfire. This murder seemed to bring the threat into the home, no longer were women of the night working the streets the primary, and maybe the only, targets. Anyone might fall victim to someone who apparently entered a small room and killed someone in horrible fashion without making loud sounds. People in the same house heard nothing.

[Wickerman]

...... At the other end of Dorset Street is a man and woman- the latter being in drink. How Lewis knew this we don't know but maybe the woman was stumbling? Lewis enters the Court and Hutchinson leaves his spot later. Who was the mysterious young man and woman who passed though and where did they pass? Also why didn't Hutchinson see or mention them? Difficult to answer.

Hi S.D.

I was intrigued why you sidestepped?, the all important statement by Lewis:

I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man. He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one. I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.

Lewis saw a man opposite (Hutch?), while also seeing this other man & woman pass up the court.
You appeared to place this couple at the "other end of the street".
Yet, they passed up the same passage as Lewis.

If you don't choose to tackle it that's fine, it just leaped off the page to me as an omission, so to speak, and I wondered why.

[Wickerman]

I donīt mind if this is so, since Walter Dew, who was infinitely better suited to know, did hint at this precise thing. And it fits the bill on all levels - it explains why Hutchinson didnīt mention Lewis, and it explains why the police offered much less interest in his story without totally discarding it. Iīm fine with that.

Dew was writing some 50? years after the event. I'm not too clear on things that happened 50 years ago. In fact, I seem to recall that was my last year in school. I can visualize me doing a few things, but any reason why I did is totally lost to time.
How accurate is your memory of 50 years ago, or haven't you reached that point yet?

The fact that a majority of people will not agree about things doesnīt mean much out here, for obvious reasons.

Absolutely, and just for myself, I am fascinated by peoples opinions and how they reach them.

Lechmere is by far the best suspect we have, but most out here disagree. The Ripper series and the Torso murders had the same originator beyond reasonable doubt, but people out here... well, you know, Jon!

No comment!

The truth will out, and so I donīt worry about such matters.

I'm not so sure it will, actually.
The truth will never been known.

By the way: PC Neil could hear PC Thains footfalls in Bucks Row from a 130 yards away, so why would not Hutchinson be able to hear parts of a conversation from less than a third of that distance? At the end of the day, it will boil down to ambient sounds and the volume of the conversation, of course, but it is not as if it would be impossible to hear it, Jon. Not in my world, at least.

Good point.
Though if Hutch stayed at the corner of Dorset St. until Kelly entered the passage, then Lewis must have seen another man standing outside Crossingham's looking up the court, in my scenario, seconds before Hutch takes up the same position. But in your scenario it was a different night, and Hutch just happened to stand at the same spot, at the same time (approx.), and see a similar couple enter the same passage, as Sarah Lewis described.
Too many coincidences for me.

By the way, for some time I was quite convinced Astrachan had to be Joseph Isaacs. Both Astrachan & Isaacs were the same age, both seemed to be 'posers', and Isaac's known to flaunt a gold watch chain, with no watch on the end. And Isaac's just lived down the street, so reason enough to be there at any time.
The problem was, Isaac's did not 'disappear' hours before the murder, but a day or so before, and he was in jail in Barnet, on the night in question.
So, I could buy into your 'wrong night' arguement if I was so inclined. But it would have to be Wednesday night at the latest.
Then how do I explain what Lewis saw on the Friday morning?

Just can't do it Christer, Lewis's story destroyed any argument for a 'wrong night' for Hutchinson.