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

[Joshua Rogan]

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

On the Goad insurance map, it's marked as twenty five feet wide, at the Commercial St end. It doesn't appear to narrow appreciably by Miller's Court, or anywhere along it's length, so I fear Jon has miscalculated slightly.

White's Row is also 25' wide by the same map.

[harry]

As much as Dew would recollect the biggest case of his career 50 years on,so might Hutchinson have recollet 2/3 days after the most sensational crime of his life.Even more so,as Hutch was as much involved as a witness as Dew was as a policeman,and the timeline so much shorter.
My opinion,and it has no relation to day or date,(that was entered by Badham),is that Hutchinson came forward and simply stated,"on the morning of the murder" etc,etc.So day and date really has little significance.The question then becomes,did Hutchinson know where he (Hutchinson ) was on the morning of the murder.

[Joshua Rogan]

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

Yes, according to the inquest testimony of John Davies in the Chapman case;

"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"

[MrBarnett]

On the Goad insurance map, it's marked as twenty five feet wide, at the Commercial St end. It doesn't appear to narrow appreciably by Miller's Court, or anywhere along it's length, so I fear Jon has miscalculated slightly.

White's Row is also 25' wide by the same map.

Thanks, Joshua, that makes more sense.

[Joshua Rogan]

In Saturday mornings Daily News we read of the arrest, Friday night, of a man who accosted some females Thursday night.

A man was arrested late last night in Whitechapel on suspicion of being concerned in the murder. He was given into custody by some women as being a man who had accosted them on the previous night, and whose conduct was suspicious. He was taken to Commercial street Police station, followed by an immense crowd.

The Evening Chronicle of Saturday 10th Nov. reports on the arrest of two men, the first account is the one just cited above. However, the Chronicle then continues:

"Though little importance is attached to the first arrest made, the police (says the Central News) are extremely reticent, and refuse to give any information regarding the man".



Intriguing, so who was he?
The police will not release the name of a suspect unless he is charged, that much we know.The press also know this, yet the report in the Chronicle appears to imply more than the usual reluctance to release any details about this individual.
It could merely be a 'class' thing if the man was a professional, or was there another reason?

How about this guy as a possibility?

Manchester Guardian
12 November 1888

"WHITECHAPEL TRAGEDY"
The man giving the name of Holt who was arrested in connection with the Whitechapel murder has been discharged. It was ascertained that he is really connected with St. George's Hospital and has a residence at Willesden. He stated in conversation with police officers that he was an amateur detective and had been out in various disguises for the last few nights. He is said to be well connected, but no friends have appeared. He was released at a quarter to two, telegrams from his friends having established his identity.

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, according to the inquest testimony of John Davies in the Chapman case;

"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"

Its always interesting to see some re-occurring facets of stories within the alleged Ripper murders series. Reminds one just how small an area these murders took place within.

[Sunny Delight]

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.

In relation to Hutchinson wandering take this account of a man found asleep in a doorway 5 nights after Hutchinson had given his statement to the Police:

"An intelligent-looking lad named Herbert Langley was charged at Bow-street with wandering without any means of subsistence. He was found in a doorway asleep by a constable at half-past one in the morning...... He had 4s. given to him by some friends, and out of that he paid his railway fare to London on Friday last. He had 5d. left, and had lived on that money until the time of his arrest. He said that his father was a bricklayer, and he had worked with a bookbinder. - Mr. Vaughan sent him to the workhouse."

So if one was caught sleeping in a doorway destitute it was likely you could be sent to the dreaded workhouse. If the alternative to walking around all night was the possibility of the workhouse I know what I would choose.

What I am suggesting about Lewis is she saw the man standing at Crossinghams and believed he looked as though he was waiting on someone. That was her perception. And that perception just happens to tie in with someone who claimed they were at that spot- at that time- waiting on someone reappearing. So yes she may only have had a glance or two but her perception ties in nicely.

What you describe as contradictions are nothing of the sort. His walking around in the rain beats being caught sleeping in a doorway and being sent to the workhouse.

Lewis as I say perception matches Hutchinsons actions and timing.

Hutchinson never once says he spent the full 45 minutes at the corner of the court. He says he began there and ended there but what happened in between? Maybe a better vantage point across the street for a longer look before one last peer up the alleyway before leaving.

[Wickerman]

On the Goad insurance map, it's marked as twenty five feet wide, at the Commercial St end. It doesn't appear to narrow appreciably by Miller's Court, or anywhere along it's length, so I fear Jon has miscalculated slightly.

White's Row is also 25' wide by the same map.

Quite correct Joshua.

It didn't even sound right when I was typing it out.
I've had this discussion with Ben several times over various issues.

Here, the correct width for Dorset St. is shown on the Fire Insurance Maps.

[Wickerman]

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

Not that it's of any real significance, but back maybe 15 years ago one of the regular researchers on the boards said that those three lamps we can see at the top left. The third one down (or up) the street was the one by Millers Court passage.
True or false, I can't say.

Looking towards Commercial St.

Still a very narrow street, narrow enough to hear a conversation on the opposite side.

[Wickerman]

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.

Singular accounts in the press are taken as solid in the other cases; Nichols, Chapman, Stride, etc. Only in the Eddowes & Kelly cases where questionable theories are adopted to try change the status quo.

In this case I mean Hutchinson was believed by Abberline - that is the status quo.
Then, along come theorists (about 15? years ago) with various agendas to try make him into a suspect. Now, every excuse is made to come up with some questionable interpretation.
Abberline believed his story with no reason given, other than the fact he was smart enough to have realized his witness Sarah Lewis had corroborated Hutchinson's story. He had to have seen at the very least the same four matching circumstances I posted. One by itself is meaningless, all four taken together overshadows any assumed mismatch in the estimated times.

And, just to be clear. The first assumption by Hutch is the time he claimed to meet Mary (about 2:00).
The second assumption is on our part, the time he may have began his 45 minute vigil.
Regardless whether he could have seen/heard a clock, he makes no claim to have done so. This means he is guessing on the first count, and we are guessing on the second count.

Sarah Lewis did not say what time she passed the church clock, only what the time was when she was inside the Keylers.
The time she could have passed the clock is our guesswork.

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.

The very reason Lewis was called is written right there in her police statement - she saw a suspicious character in Dorset St. opposite Millers Court.
Errors are not the issue, this is why it is necessary to collate all the sources to flush out the errors. there is nothing in any inquest account which says that couple walked anywhere else except up the court.
It would be different with conflicting statements, but we have none for this issue.
All you are doing is trying to dismiss one specific account on the basis that you see another error somewhere else.
That's a desperate argument.

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.

What I mean is, Lewis does not say what the time was as she passed Spitalfields Church. Only that she had some idea what time she was at Millers Court because she had looked at the clock as she passed earlier.
You are making an argument based on 'implication', because she doesn't directly say. Therefore, this is an assumption.

[Wickerman]

How about this guy as a possibility?

Manchester Guardian
12 November 1888

"WHITECHAPEL TRAGEDY"
The man giving the name of Holt who was arrested in connection with the Whitechapel murder has been discharged. It was ascertained that he is really connected with St. George's Hospital and has a residence at Willesden. He stated in conversation with police officers that he was an amateur detective and had been out in various disguises for the last few nights. He is said to be well connected, but no friends have appeared. He was released at a quarter to two, telegrams from his friends having established his identity.

Yes, thankyou Joshua, Holt is well known, it's a shame we have not researched him to see if we can establish what he claimed, re St. Georges.
The man outside the Britannia was said by some witnesses to have had a unusual gait and something wrong with the look of his eyes.
If Holt had a limp, and suffered from Madarosis, then this could elevate him into an actual suspect.

[Fisherman]

In relation to Hutchinson wandering take this account of a man found asleep in a doorway 5 nights after Hutchinson had given his statement to the Police:

"An intelligent-looking lad named Herbert Langley was charged at Bow-street with wandering without any means of subsistence. He was found in a doorway asleep by a constable at half-past one in the morning...... He had 4s. given to him by some friends, and out of that he paid his railway fare to London on Friday last. He had 5d. left, and had lived on that money until the time of his arrest. He said that his father was a bricklayer, and he had worked with a bookbinder. - Mr. Vaughan sent him to the workhouse."

So if one was caught sleeping in a doorway destitute it was likely you could be sent to the dreaded workhouse. If the alternative to walking around all night was the possibility of the workhouse I know what I would choose.

I dare say. However, it is not about what you or I would choose. It is about how scores of people slept rough in Victorian London. And Langley was one of them, as you will appreciate. The practice was a common one.

What I am suggesting about Lewis is she saw the man standing at Crossinghams and believed he looked as though he was waiting on someone. That was her perception. And that perception just happens to tie in with someone who claimed they were at that spot- at that time- waiting on someone reappearing. So yes she may only have had a glance or two but her perception ties in nicely.

The thing is, a boarder looking out into the rain could well have been perceived as waiting for someone too. Thatīs the second time I make that point, and I hope that I wonīt have to do so again.

What you describe as contradictions are nothing of the sort. His walking around in the rain beats being caught sleeping in a doorway and being sent to the workhouse.

Do you actually believe that people dreaded the prospect of being sent to the workhouse so much that it rid the East End of people sleeping rough...? Is this so? And of course walking round in the rain is more of a "contradiction" than walking round on a fair night. It should go without saying.

Lewis as I say perception matches Hutchinsons actions and timing.

The point I am making is that if Hutchinson was not even there, then Lewis saw somebody else. And IF Hutchinson WAS there and IF everything is always following the simplest logic, then why did not Hutch tell the police that there was a woman who entered the court he was actively and intensely watching ...?

Hutchinson never once says he spent the full 45 minutes at the corner of the court. He says he began there and ended there but what happened in between? Maybe a better vantage point across the street for a longer look before one last peer up the alleyway before leaving.

Maybe? Yes, of course. And maybe he got the days muddled up.

[Fisherman]

As much as Dew would recollect the biggest case of his career 50 years on,so might Hutchinson have recollet 2/3 days after the most sensational crime of his life.Even more so,as Hutch was as much involved as a witness as Dew was as a policeman,and the timeline so much shorter.
My opinion,and it has no relation to day or date,(that was entered by Badham),is that Hutchinson came forward and simply stated,"on the morning of the murder" etc,etc.So day and date really has little significance.The question then becomes,did Hutchinson know where he (Hutchinson ) was on the morning of the murder.

The basics:

- We donīt know how predisposed George Hutchinson was to get the days muddled up. Therefore, we cannot say to what degree it is likely or unlikely that he did so in this case.

- We do know that people living the kind of life that Hutchinson lived at the time of Kellys death are quite likely to muddle the days.

- We know that his account for the night in question did not involve Sarah Lewis, who was there.

- We know that Dew suggested that he had muddled the days.

If we add these things together, we donīt come up with a man who could not possibly have gotten the days muddled up. If we do, we are unable to take stock of the facts or unwilling to accept them for what they are.

Full stop.

[Sunny Delight]

Maybe? Yes, of course. And maybe he got the days muddled up.

"I dare say. However, it is not about what you or I would choose. It is about how scores of people slept rough in Victorian London. And Langley was one of them, as you will appreciate. The practice was a common one."

Langley had travelled to London from Portsmouth and seems to have taken the chance sleeping rough. Of course it was common- however the question one needs to ask is, could one incriminate onself by admitting it to the Police? Or failing that would the risk of being sent to the workhouse be worth it. The Workhouse was truly dreaded- Hutchinson says he usually slept at the Victorian Working Mens lodge- a respectable establishment. Being sent to the Workhouse would have been some shock. A truly awful place. The idea being to make it so awful and degrading that you would never want to be out of work or as the Victorians saw it- 'sponge' off the state.


"The thing is, a boarder looking out into the rain could well have been perceived as waiting for someone too. Thatīs the second time I make that point, and I hope that I wonīt have to do so again."

That is true. It is also equally true that it could be Hutchinson. So with that one we probably can't prove definitively either way. My own view is that Lewis probably saw Hutchinson looking up the alleyway and therefore she glanced at his face rather than his clothes. She couldn't describe his clothes but she could describe his hat. That is important.


"The point I am making is that if Hutchinson was not even there, then Lewis saw somebody else. And IF Hutchinson WAS there and IF everything is always following the simplest logic, then why did not Hutch tell the police that there was a woman who entered the court he was actively and intensely watching ...?"

Yes this is a difficult one to explain away. We can only assume he told Abberline when interrogated that evening but with no notes surviving it is impossible to tell. For me though when Hutchinson was asked by the Press did he see anyone else in the street he was being asked did he see anyone else that could be the murderer? Without Abberlines notes on the interrogation though we will never know if he was asked did he see anyone- male or female in the street by Police. Surely Abberline would have made the connection and tried to catch him on this point to ascertain his truthfulness. It would be an easy one to make.

Here we have the man claiming to be the loiterer seen by Lewis- surely Abberline would have been cool and calm enough to ask him who else he had seen regardless of sex. And if he could describe them and estimate when he had seen them and were they had gone?

[Fisherman]

"I dare say. However, it is not about what you or I would choose. It is about how scores of people slept rough in Victorian London. And Langley was one of them, as you will appreciate. The practice was a common one."

Langley had travelled to London from Portsmouth and seems to have taken the chance sleeping rough. Of course it was common- however the question one needs to ask is, could one incriminate onself by admitting it to the Police? Or failing that would the risk of being sent to the workhouse be worth it. The Workhouse was truly dreaded- Hutchinson says he usually slept at the Victorian Working Mens lodge- a respectable establishment. Being sent to the Workhouse would have been some shock. A truly awful place. The idea being to make it so awful and degrading that you would never want to be out of work or as the Victorians saw it- 'sponge' off the state.

Nope. Hutchinson did not say that he usually stayed at the Victoria home. He resided there at the time he was interviewed by the press, and during the interview he said that on the murder night, "the place where he usually stayed" was closed. To me, that sounds as if he was speaking about another place.

I am not saying that Hutchinson was in the habit of sleeping rough. I am saying it was common practive for many people in these years, and so I cannot see why Hutchinson could not have joined the ranks on a rainy and windy night. At any rate, he could have taken up shelter in a doorway to get out of the rain, but he actually claimed to have walked the streets all night - which is why I am saying that such a thing is less compatible with the. urder night than it is with the night before!


"The thing is, a boarder looking out into the rain could well have been perceived as waiting for someone too. Thatīs the second time I make that point, and I hope that I wonīt have to do so again."

That is true. It is also equally true that it could be Hutchinson. So with that one we probably can't prove definitively either way. My own view is that Lewis probably saw Hutchinson looking up the alleyway and therefore she glanced at his face rather than his clothes. She couldn't describe his clothes but she could describe his hat. That is important.

There we go - that was the one thing I was after: we cannot know for sure that the man - if Lewis DID see a man - was Hutchinson. The sighting Lewis claimed to have done seemingly speaks for it, but Hutchinsons testimony speaks against it. And again, Lewis could not describe a single thing about the man at the interview with the police, but then, like a flash out of a clear sky, she suddenly could do so at the inquest. And for whatever reason, the man she describes sounds like the twin brother of Coxīs "Blotchy". This is why I am a tad reluctant to eat from her hand - I believe there is a fair chance that Lewis embellished a little, and built in on what Cox (who witnessed before Lewis) had to say. Call me a cynic, but there you are.


"The point I am making is that if Hutchinson was not even there, then Lewis saw somebody else. And IF Hutchinson WAS there and IF everything is always following the simplest logic, then why did not Hutch tell the police that there was a woman who entered the court he was actively and intensely watching ...?"

Yes this is a difficult one to explain away. We can only assume he told Abberline when interrogated that evening but with no notes surviving it is impossible to tell. For me though when Hutchinson was asked by the Press did he see anyone else in the street he was being asked did he see anyone else that could be the murderer? Without Abberlines notes on the interrogation though we will never know if he was asked did he see anyone- male or female in the street by Police. Surely Abberline would have made the connection and tried to catch him on this point to ascertain his truthfulness. It would be an easy one to make.

Abberline initially accepted what he said as the truth, but some short time afterwards (perhaps after having checked Hutchinson against the other testimony and having had a further conversation with him?), the importance of his story was graded down.
If it had been found that Hutchinson was lying, the importance would not have been graded down - it would have been a case of throwing the testimony out. Likewise, if Hutchinson had been a liar, why did Dew describe him in such glowing terms.
Because, I suggest, Hutchinson DID see Kelly and Astrachan man, an because he DID take his information to the police, both signs of a helpful citizen. The reason for the graded down interest of course lies in how he had the wrong day. And the fact that we have it in black on white that the police kept searching for Astrachan man will, if I am correct, owe to how what he had to say was nevertheless of interest. He could have heard Kelly speak of her plans for the murder night, for example.

Here we have the man claiming to be the loiterer seen by Lewis- surely Abberline would have been cool and calm enough to ask him who else he had seen regardless of sex. And if he could describe them and estimate when he had seen them and were they had gone?

Yes, that sounds feasible. And when he found out that it did not pan out, his original enthusiasm waned away. It is quite possible that the process took some time.
PS. Hutchinson never "claimed to be the loiterer seen by Lewis". He never even mentioned her.