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

[Wickerman]

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.

In fact, McCarthy's shop was still open, right at the corner of the passage. Hutch would be too conspicuous if he stood directly in front of the shop street door, plus there would be a wall-lamp almost overhead.
Directly opposite, is the more obvious choice to wait and look up the passage.

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.

He also said he had been in her company a number of times, so it's fair to assume the request for 6d was a solicitation by Kelly, though he didn't admit that in his statement.

[Fisherman]

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?

I have - fifty years ago, I was thirteen. And I remember a good many things from that time, just as I have forgotten others. It is a different matter when it comes to recollections from the largest case of your professional career as a policeman, Iīd say. If Hutchinson had been regarded as a bad egg by the police, Dew would have known. And if he was seen as a decent man who got things wrong, he would know that too, just as he knew about Maxwell.

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

Not all of it, no. But I have high hopes of much of it getting to that stage. I guess it boils down to optimism versus pessimism - "Surely it canīt get any worse now, said the pessimist. Oh yes it can, said the optimist."

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.

Only if Hutchinson had the days right, Jon. And he didnīt, as far as Iīm concerned.

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.

Letīs amend that somewhat, shall we?

Hutchinson did not stand at the same spot at all, he was on the northern side of the street. I know that those who think that Hutch was the loiterer thinks that this "fact" proves that he did traverse the street, but such a thing is actually in conflict with what Hutchinson himself said; he went to the corner of the court and he left from the corner of the court.

And it is not the case that Lewis said that the couple she saw entered the court. Quite the contrary, actually - she never says anything like that, and the likelier thing is that she meant that the couple was in Dorset Street. If she had seen the couple enter the court, I feel that she would have made that point very clear, and I donīt think she would have said that the court was empty when she arrived in such a case.

Too many coincidences for me.

Two, Jon. And both are inventions on your behalf to a smaller or larger degree.

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.

Only for a pessimist, Jon - not for an optimist. And realist.

[Wickerman]

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.

Hutch only makes reference to the clock/chime, as he leaves. So you must take his "45 minutes" as accurate, which means the clock must have chimed on the quarter-hour (2:15), for him to know (for sure) when his vigil began, as he couldn't see the clock from the doorway at Crossingham's.
Yet, as far as we know, no-one has established if that clock did chime on the quarter hour. So, the basic math is suspicious if it relies on an assumption.
Plus, he doesn't know precisely what time he met Kelly, his "about 2:00am" proves this.
This is why I called the timing 'vague'. There isn't anything you can prove.

Now, here comes the bit that might be called 'hypocritical'. The only direct statement as to the time in this drama is by Sarah Lewis, when she told the court it was 2:30am when she was at No.2 Millers Court.
Well, if you are stipulating accuracy, why dismiss this one solitary seemingly accurate statement?
If, it was 2:30 when she was inside the room, then it couldn't have been 2:30 as she passed the Spitalfields church in front of Brushfield Street, before she even reached Dorset St.

Then we have her walking speed. We don't know if she walked slow, or paused because she was worried about the man on the corner who accosted her on the Wednesday, or even walked faster after she past the man, we just do not know. All we know is the time cannot have been the same, Lewis is not in two places at the same time.
Once you accept that, then you open the door to various possibilities. A difference of two, maybe three minutes at least, but possibly as much as 10.

The other reference to the time is later in her statement when she said, "I know the time because I looked at the clock as I passed" (paraphrase), but what time was that? 2:30, 2:28, 2:25, 2:20, 2:15?
Hutchinson told us he knew the time he met Kelly was about 2:00 because he had seen the time of the Whitechapel Church clock.
Yet, if he had not given us the reason why, like Lewis didn't, we might be arguing it was 2:00am by the Whitechapel Church clock, but it wasn't

I would propose the time Lewis passed the Spitalfields clock was nearer 2:15-2:20, as Lewis was quite able to make allowances for the time it took for her to reach No.2, and any time she might have spent inside talking with her friends.

I haven't invented another woman. There's nothing that says the woman Sarah Lewis saw in Dorset Street even entered the court.

It's right there in black and white, that is exactly what she says.

Before you were saying Sarah Lewis was definitely in No.2 at 2:30am.

Exactly.

Sarah Lewis saw the man and woman out The Britannia at about 2:30am.

She doesn't say that, this is your assumption. Likely due in part to poor editing in the press, but still, you are putting words in her mouth.

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.

But Lewis saw the man standing, not walking - standing opposite the passage, while a man & woman, still in her view, entered the passage. So we know he arrived at that spot 'before' the couple walked up the passage into the court, and 'before' Lewis also reached Millers Court.

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?

He might have, but his statement is concerned with the activity of Kelly, no-one else. A constable is directing the interview not Hutchinson.
Statements are taken with a view to be used as evidence in court, they are not a soap-opera script of everything that happened in the street.

[Sunny Delight]

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.

Sorry Wickerman poorly written by myself. She says another man and a woman passed by but does stipulate where. I was assuming they were further on down Dorset Street out of Hutchinson's eyeline- hence he does not mention them?

In one of the papers she says the couple went up the court but does it appear elsewhere? It is exceedingly difficult to ascertain where exactly this couple where but if it appeared in a few accurately renowned papers that they went up the court then that does change things significantly.

I do have great time for your theory though- as I said previously though it isn't particularly important to me if Lewis saw AK man and Kelly or not. She saw Hutchinson and that to me is more than enough.

[Wickerman]

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.

Hi Christer.

I couldn't let it rest, I had to return to this point you made.

Earlier I had said the distance from the corner of Dorset St. to Millers Court was about 125 ft, I was wrong. I remeasured it today with the Fire Insurance Maps (on-line) and the distance is 112 ft.

Now, here at home myself & a few neighbours sit out on our porches every day. It's not a busy street, it's quiet, no wind. So I thought I would put Google Earth to some use.

The yellow circle has a radius of 112 ft, this you will see in the data box, bottom right.
The red, yellow & white pins on the left side of the circle are where neighbours sit talking amongst themselves, not across to each other.
All of them, as you can see sit within the 112 ft radius and, from my porch - the centre of the circle, I cannot hear any conversation. The occasional words when a voice is raised, yes. Thats one or two words out of a sentence. Females voices are easier to hear, but not what they say. Mens words are not discernible at all unless they laugh and raise their voices.



So, the proof of the pudding. as they say, demonstrates to me that a complete conversation (as between Kelly & Astrachan) by a couple standing 112 feet away is not discernible. Only the odd word but the rest too muffled to be identifiable.

I measured the width of Dorset St., just opposite Millers Court - 12 ft, wall to wall, which includes the footpath/sidewalk. The actual road being even narrower than that. So, naturally he can hear every word they say from directly opposite.

[Wickerman]

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

Thankyou Joshua.
We know the Brewery clock in Brick Lane chimes on the quarter hour, do you know if the Spitalfields Church does also?

[Wickerman]

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.

I said he wouldn't need to look again as he already knew the time from the previous church. That's why I asked if you check your watch every 10 minutes. Why would he, it's not like he was late for a meeting. He had nowhere to go and all night to get there.

To know he was leaving his vigil at 3am he must have been going by the time of Christ Church clock.

No, he knew he was leaving at 3am because he heard the clock chime.

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.

I can't believe you're suggesting he was actually timing her every move - that's funny.

He will also have heard it from Dorset Street and seen it again when he left his vigil.

Just like Sarah Lewis would have heard the 2:30 chime from Millers Court, but we don't know which way he went after he left his vigil - north or south on Commercial Street.
Besides, he didn't look at the clock, he heard the chime, yet he makes no mention of hearing the 2:00am chime - he wouldn't if he only arrived there after 2:00am.

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.

That's what you want, you need to prolong his vigil, yet taking up his position outside Crossingham's is when his vigil begins.

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.

Speculation.

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.

If....if....if.....

The sequence of events I provided answers all those questions. Previous examples in other cases have demonstrated the times given by witnesses can be both inaccurate and contradictory. Once you have a sequence of events, A happened before B, which happened before C, etc. the stated times become irrelevant.

[MrBarnett]

Was Dorset Street really only 12ft wide at that point? Wow, that’s narrow.

[harry]

You know no more about Hutchinson,Fisherman,than anyone else,and of his working working life even less.The best description of him was given by a reporter,and while it was only a visual account of his appearance,it does suggest a different type of person than the one you project.Labourer can mean a lot of things.Some are even skilled in the kind of employment they undertake,and that employment may mean different locations.So transient,untill you are able to prove otherwise,has no meaning in relation to Hutchinson.As to his being unemployed at that time,there could be several reasons for that situation,none of them detrimental,and his supposed remarks to Kelly of having no money are meaningless.All it does is suggest a reason why she had to look elsewhere,and to introduce the Astrachan figure into the scene.
All that aside,while the evidence of his having been seen at Crossinghams the morning Kelly was killed would be acceptable to any prosecution, I doubt any defence would seriously use an alibi of wrong morning.

[Curious Cat]

Hutch only makes reference to the clock/chime, as he leaves. So you must take his "45 minutes" as accurate, which means the clock must have chimed on the quarter-hour (2:15), for him to know (for sure) when his vigil began, as he couldn't see the clock from the doorway at Crossingham's.
Yet, as far as we know, no-one has established if that clock did chime on the quarter hour. So, the basic math is suspicious if it relies on an assumption.
Plus, he doesn't know precisely what time he met Kelly, his "about 2:00am" proves this.
This is why I called the timing 'vague'. There isn't anything you can prove.

Now, here comes the bit that might be called 'hypocritical'. The only direct statement as to the time in this drama is by Sarah Lewis, when she told the court it was 2:30am when she was at No.2 Millers Court.
Well, if you are stipulating accuracy, why dismiss this one solitary seemingly accurate statement?
If, it was 2:30 when she was inside the room, then it couldn't have been 2:30 as she passed the Spitalfields church in front of Brushfield Street, before she even reached Dorset St.

Then we have her walking speed. We don't know if she walked slow, or paused because she was worried about the man on the corner who accosted her on the Wednesday, or even walked faster after she past the man, we just do not know. All we know is the time cannot have been the same, Lewis is not in two places at the same time.
Once you accept that, then you open the door to various possibilities. A difference of two, maybe three minutes at least, but possibly as much as 10.

The other reference to the time is later in her statement when she said, "I know the time because I looked at the clock as I passed" (paraphrase), but what time was that? 2:30, 2:28, 2:25, 2:20, 2:15?
Hutchinson told us he knew the time he met Kelly was about 2:00 because he had seen the time of the Whitechapel Church clock.
Yet, if he had not given us the reason why, like Lewis didn't, we might be arguing it was 2:00am by the Whitechapel Church clock, but it wasn't

I would propose the time Lewis passed the Spitalfields clock was nearer 2:15-2:20, as Lewis was quite able to make allowances for the time it took for her to reach No.2, and any time she might have spent inside talking with her friends.

The clock at Christ Church Spitalfields did indeed chime at the quarter hours. It was how John Davies was sure of his timings when giving evidence at the inquest for Annie Chapman's murder:

John Davies [Davis] deposed: I am a carman employed at Leadenhall Market. I have lodged at 29, Hanbury-street for a fortnight, and I occupied the top front room on the third floor with my wife and three sons, who live with me. On Friday night I went to bed at eight o'clock, and my wife followed about half an hour later. My sons came to bed at different times, the last one at about a quarter to eleven. There is a weaving shed window, or light across the room. It was not open during the night. I was awake from three a.m. to five a.m. on Saturday, and then fell asleep until a quarter to six, when the clock at Spitalfields Church struck. I had a cup of tea and went downstairs to the back yard. The house faces Hanbury-street, with one window on the ground floor and a front door at the side leading into a passage which runs through into the yard. There is a back door at the end of this passage opening into the yard. Neither of the doors was able to be locked, and I have never seen them locked. Any one who knows where the latch of the front door is could open it and go along the passage into the back yard.

Hutchinson would have heard the chimes of the Christ Church clock from 2:15 am onwards. He says he didn't see Mary Kelly in Dorset Street in the 45 minutes leading to 3am that morning. As Sarah Lewis was going by the same clock and came into Dorset Street at about 2:30am, how could she have seen Mary Kelly?
The times are not vague. They are going by the same time piece chiming every 15 minutes with an illuminated clock face. We know Hutchinson has to be taking the time via the chimes from Christ Church at 3am so he has to be taking his three-quarters of an hour from it too. He doesn't have to guess the time or estimate it from seeing the clock at St Mary's earlier in the morning. The time is given to him - and Sarah Lewis - both audibly and visually.

How many reports quote Sarah Lewis saying she was in No.2 Miller's Court at 2:30am and how many quote her as going/went to No.2 Miller's Court at 2:30am? She sees the man and woman outside The Britannia at about 2:30am as she's literally just passed the clock. Hutchinson has already started his 45 minute vigil by 2:20am at the latest. It would not have taken 15 minutes for Sarah Lewis to pass Christ Church, pass The Britannia, walk along Dorset Street, enter Miller's Court and be inside No.2. If Hutchinson can get to Thrawl Street from St Mary's in about 5 minutes it wouldn't even take half that for Sarah Lewis to get from Christ Church to inside No.2 Miller's Court.

It's right there in black and white, that is exactly what she says.

If you're going by the Daily News report of the inquest where it says she saw the couple "pass up the court" you should take a closer look at the report as a whole. Compared to other sources, it's littered with discrepancies which include the "pass up the court" line. For one thing it has the coroner asking her is she's seen any, "suspicious characters knocking about the district?" That's not language that would be used at an inquest by a coroner.

The question was if she'd seen any, "suspicious persons in the district." I would take the reporting from The Daily News in this instance with a inch of salt.

She doesn't say that, this is your assumption. Likely due in part to poor editing in the press, but still, you are putting words in her mouth.

It's not my assumption she saw the man and woman outside The Britannia at 2:30am. I'm going by what she is reported to have said at the inquest on this very site.
I am not putting words into her mouth.

[Curious Cat]

I said he wouldn't need to look again as he already knew the time from the previous church. That's why I asked if you check your watch every 10 minutes. Why would he, it's not like he was late for a meeting. He had nowhere to go and all night to get there.
No, he knew he was leaving at 3am because he heard the clock chime.
I can't believe you're suggesting he was actually timing her every move - that's funny.

I suggested no such thing. I suggested he didn't need to guess how long Mary Kelly and the man were talking outside the entrance as there was a clock visible to him that he could check if he so wanted to. Or he could be checking the time for himself. The clock was there. That's it.

Just like Sarah Lewis would have heard the 2:30 chime from Millers Court, but we don't know which way he went after he left his vigil - north or south on Commercial Street.
Besides, he didn't look at the clock, he heard the chime, yet he makes no mention of hearing the 2:00am chime - he wouldn't if he only arrived there after 2:00am.

He could've seen the clock from the corner of Dorset Street the same as when he waited on the corner before going into Dorset Street earlier. He could have looked at the clock before going north or south. As he was going north before meeting with Mary Kelly the chances are he resumed that journey and went northwards out of Dorset Street.

BIB - How can you know for sure? I'm just saying he could have seen the clock. You have no way of knowing he definitely didn't?

That's what you want, you need to prolong his vigil, yet taking up his position outside Crossingham's is when his vigil begins.
Speculation.

I'm not changing any of Hutchinson's timings. He said he met Mary Kelly at about 2am, he waited at Miller's Court/Dorset Street for three-quarters of an hour and left at 3am. He has a nearby clock to go by. I'm going by Hutchinson's own timings. I'm going by Sarah Lewis' own timings. They are both going by the same time piece.

If....if....if.....

The sequence of events I provided answers all those questions. Previous examples in other cases have demonstrated the times given by witnesses can be both inaccurate and contradictory. Once you have a sequence of events, A happened before B, which happened before C, etc. the stated times become irrelevant.

Did these other cases have the same reliable time piece being used by two separate people to accurately give their position in the same location within the same hour?

[Curious Cat]

Was Dorset Street really only 12ft wide at that point? Wow, that’s narrow.

If you go down White's Row - which ran parallel to Dorset Street - it's pretty much the same dimensions and is indeed fairly narrow. It gives a good idea of what Dorset Street would've been like.

[MrBarnett]

If you go down White's Row - which ran parallel to Dorset Street - it's pretty much the same dimensions and is indeed fairly narrow. It gives a good idea of what Dorset Street would've been like.

12ft wide, would you say?

[Fisherman]

You know no more about Hutchinson,Fisherman,than anyone else,and of his working working life even less.

Yes, and what I know is that he was described as a labourer who was currently out of work and who seemed to live a transient lifestyle, sleeping in different accomodations as he went along. Plus I know that he was deprived of sleep on the night he trekked back to London from Romford, all of which paints a clear picture of a man who answers quite well to the type of person who was more likely than most to get the days wrong.

If you need me to point it out again, just say so. Iīm happy to oblige, as always.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer.

I couldn't let it rest, I had to return to this point you made.

Earlier I had said the distance from the corner of Dorset St. to Millers Court was about 125 ft, I was wrong. I remeasured it today with the Fire Insurance Maps (on-line) and the distance is 112 ft.

Now, here at home myself & a few neighbours sit out on our porches every day. It's not a busy street, it's quiet, no wind. So I thought I would put Google Earth to some use.

The yellow circle has a radius of 112 ft, this you will see in the data box, bottom right.
The red, yellow & white pins on the left side of the circle are where neighbours sit talking amongst themselves, not across to each other.
All of them, as you can see sit within the 112 ft radius and, from my porch - the centre of the circle, I cannot hear any conversation. The occasional words when a voice is raised, yes. Thats one or two words out of a sentence. Females voices are easier to hear, but not what they say. Mens words are not discernible at all unless they laugh and raise their voices.



So, the proof of the pudding. as they say, demonstrates to me that a complete conversation (as between Kelly & Astrachan) by a couple standing 112 feet away is not discernible. Only the odd word but the rest too muffled to be identifiable.

I measured the width of Dorset St., just opposite Millers Court - 12 ft, wall to wall, which includes the footpath/sidewalk. The actual road being even narrower than that. So, naturally he can hear every word they say from directly opposite.

That looks like a nice, lush neigbourhood, Jon! However, it looks nothing like Dorset Street did. What you have is a number of houses dotted on the ground with passages of air inbetween them, and the grounds are studded with trees with sound-absorbing foliage. There ar all sorts of escape routes for the sounds and the trees will act like nets, picking up whatever bounces off the facades.

Dorset Street was a narrow passageway with no escape routes for the air other than the in- and outlets. And straight up, of course! Any sound would travel along the accoustic tunnel inbetween them since there was nowhere else to go.
Of course, parameters causing ambient sounds like wind, traffic and so on are not weighed in either.

What you need to do is to find yourself a kind of surrounding that resembles Dorset Street as closely as possible and try listening for how sounds travel there. You will be amazed. It is basically the difference of talking to another person 112 feet away in a thin forest as opposed to two persons having a conversation inside a large tube.

Sounds can travel immense distances, like for example over water. It all boils down to the surroundings in which the sounds travel, in combination with ambient sound levels. The fact that you can actually hear parts of the conversations in your neighbourhood although the conditions for it are really bad is in fact a great argument for my take on things, Jon. Hutchinson heard a fair part of the conversation between A man and Kelly from 112 ft away, but not all of it - in the settings provided (an accoustic tunnel late at night) - that makes eminent sense to me. The fact that you cannot hear that much from your neighbours makes just as much sense - I live in the same kind of setting that you do, but with even more trees around and a deep valley just beside my house, and so it is as soundproof a neighbourhood that you can hope to find!