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

[Wickerman]

Vagrancy was a criminal offence. Trespass wasn’t. And in practice, in London, vagrancy was often ignored by the police.

Thats what the Code said yes.
My wife watches those English You Tube video's, Abandoned. Those guy's are always saying they can't be charged for Trespass.

[MrBarnett]

Thats what the Code said yes.
My wife watches those English You Tube video's, Abandoned. Those guy's are always saying they can't be charged for Trespass.

The law has changed in recent years, I think, but simple trespass is still not a criminal offence as far as I’m aware. If it is, I commit more crimes in an average (pre-lockdown) month than JTR did in his entire career

[Curious Cat]

That is totally irrelevant, they can both be surrounded by clocks, but unless they say they looked at one we can't assume they did.
It isn't normal practice to be clock-watching when you're attention is focused on what a female 'friend' is doing with some strange man.
Hutchinson actually said he knew the time, and only because...he looked at the Whitechapel clock, not the Spitalfields clock, and not at any other time after he left Whitechapel High Street.

However, you're assuming Hutchinson is estimating how long he's waited in Dorset Street by a clock he saw in passing over an hour before and is no longer in view rather than a clock that could be both heard and seen right next to the location he's in.

His reference to the St Mary's clock in only upon meeting Mary Kelly at Thrawl Street. After that his timings are open to be known by the Christ Church clock as it comes into view and hearing shot.

Of course he "could" have heard the chimes, just like Lewis "could" have heard the 2:30 chime when inside Millers Court. However, you do not seem to want to accept that Lewis could hear the chime, but only that Hutchinson could.
If you insist Hutch heard the chime - without mentioning it, as his reason for knowing when 45 minutes was up, then you are obliged to accept Lewis also could hear the 2:30 chime as her means of confirming where she was at 2:30.

You clearly haven't been paying attention. I've been saying throughout that both Sarah Lewis and Hutchinson would've clearly heard the chimes. I have not at all been saying that only Hutchinson could hear them. Sarah Lewis went by the time of Christ Church, visually and audibly. How am I "obliged to accept" Sarah Lewis heard the Christ Church chimes at 2:30am when I've believed that to be the case all along?

It's quite clearly you who doesn't seem to want to accept that Hutchinson would've heard the same chimes.

Personally, I think he was guessing. I think the officer (Badham) pressed him to think how long he stood there and he/they settled on 'about 45 minutes'.
Police are always pushing for a time, whereas the witness is often oblivious to what the times were.
Investigators need times, a prosecutor cannot always lodge a charge if he doesn't know the time something happened. In taking a witness statement Badham knows what he needs, and why.

Pure speculation.

We can only go by what was recorded.

That the Christ Church clock chimed on the quarter hours is recorded means we can conclude that both Hutchinson and Sarah Lewis would've been able to hear them between the hours 2am and 3am. Sarah Lewis is reported to have said she heard them at 3:30am from Miller's Court.

There is no record of Badham pressing Hutchinson for a time.

There is no record of them settling on a time between them.

You might not know this but, today some older churches still ring their bells on the hour, or half hour, but you can stop anybody in the town center and ask what time was that chime? You'll be lucky if anyone ever admits to even hearing it. Not that they didn't, but it doesn't always register because you hear it so often.
Your argument depends on people paying attention to clocks & chimes, my argument does not. That's the difference.

I am from somewhere that has a church clock that rings out the quarter hours, so I am familiar with the concept. It rings the Cambridge Quarters so goes:

Quarter past - Ding dong-ding dong.
Half past - Ding dong-ding dong, ding dong-ding dong.
Quarter to - Ding dong-ding dong, ding dong-ding dong, ding dong-ding dong.
On the hour - Ding dong-ding dong, ding dong-ding dong, ding dong-ding dong, ding-dong, ding-dong. Then the hour chimes.

The chimes play out that way so it's known which quarter of the hour is being sounded. Many churches had similar chimes from the mid-19th century onwards so it would've been a regular way to keep time. At 3am in the morning it would've been even more distinctive. Hutchinson was living at the Victoria Men's House in Commercial Street so he would have already been familiar with the Christ Church chimes.

Only, if he "knew", meaning that he acknowledged the 2:15 chime, which he makes no mention of, nor the 2:00 chime. Therefore, he is likely guessing.
When he was asked "how he knew the time" why didn't he mention the 2:15 chime, or the 2:00 chime, or what the Spitalfields clock said at any time?
He didn't because he had no idea what the time was between him leaving Whitechapel High Street, and finally leaving Dorset St. and hearing that one chime at 3:00am.

Your own speculation again.

I am saying the chimes would've been heard from Dorset Street, where Hutchinson was. So I conclude that he would've heard them from his position so would then have known the time. The Christ Church clock would also have been visible from the corner of Dorset Street, where Hutchinson stood for a time. So I conclude it's possible he could've seen the time from that position. You cannot know to say he had no idea of the time from 2:15am onwards.

Of course.
Yet you refuse to admit she could just as easily passed the church clock at 2:15-2:20, and her statement would remain unchanged. Then your 10 minute cushion has vanished. The result then is she is able to see Hutch & the same couple he saw, at the same time he saw them.
Why avoid the obvious?

If it was 2:15am or 2:20am Sarah Lewis would've said that was the time. The clock is right there to be seen and heard before, during and after she passes it.
The time she gives is 2:30am or about 2:30am.

She's going by the Christ Church clock and says she saw the man and woman outside The Britannia at about 2:30am. That is, as I said before, less than 30 seconds from the point she would've passed the Christ Church clock - which she would have been able to hear chime before she even approached it. No other time is offered. Going by Hutchinson's account his vigil in Dorset Street begins after Mary Kelly has gone into her room. Going by Sarah Lewis's account she cannot enter Dorset Street before Hutchinson's vigil begins.

Why avoid the possibility that she didn't see Mary Kelly?

The difference is, no-one else saw Hutch standing in the doorway of the deceased house - no confirmation of this. So it can be contested.
However, someone else did see a couple pass up the court while a man was standing opposite - that is confirmation Lewis is quoted correctly.
Hutchinson is confirming Lewis. Abberline would know immediately that what Lewis had said must be true.

How can Sarah Lewis see a couple "pass up the court" but at the same time say no-one was in the court when she went into No.2? If the couple were "further on" in the passage - as you suggest - then she would have passed them on the way to No.2. She apparently says nothing of passing the couple in the passage or by Mary Kelly's door. The Daily News report suggests both the man and woman were drunk but Hutchinson makes no mention of the man he saw being drunk. As I say, that particular report feels off to me.

When a calculation is based on an assumption, the result is still an assumption.

The calculation is going by the reported times. That is not an assumption.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

The law has changed in recent years, I think, but simple trespass is still not a criminal offence as far as I’m aware. If it is, I commit more crimes in an average (pre-lockdown) month than JTR did in his entire career

Mr B,

It becomes an offence if you don't leave when told to do so, or commit another offence while trespassing. Likewise, if your told once and repeat the trespass, it becomes an offence.

Essentially, if you absent mindedly walk into private land, your not going to court.

[Fisherman]

We have no reason to believe Hutch was even aware of Lewis's statement. So he couldn't claim what he didn't know.
As for his police statement, the police only want to know about his contact with Kelly. What she said & did. Hutch could have seen a number of women passing up and down. Cox came in at three, he doesn't mention her either.
In the 19th century women were just background noise, they had no legal status in Victorian society, and especially the lower class of women.

Weīve been here before, John. And I havenīt changed my mind - if Hutchinson was asked if he saw anybody in the street at the relevant hours, I do not believe for a minute that he would begin his account by sifting the women who passed in and out of the court away.

[Fisherman]

It is important to law enforcement officers that witness statements show a direct link with the crime.In the case of Hutchinson it was important that Aberline believe Hutchinson was there in Dorset Street the morning that Kelly was killed.It would have been the first and most important element of his(Hutchinson) testimony to establish,and there is no doubt that Aberline did establish this to his (Aberline) satisfaction.So it is not a question of what I ,Dew or any Johny come lately believe,Aberline did.
Aberline did not need Hutchinson to declare Lewis's presence,that was already known,but it was supporting evidence.Lewis must have also been believed by Aberline to have been in Dorset street that same morning.If there was any doubt about the evidence of Hutchinson,his being in Dorset street that Friday morning,is the least likely to be the cause of that doubt.

So you have at long last abandoned the line of "He would not have muddled the days" and now you opt for a line of "Abberline would have erstablished that Hutchinson was really there" instead...?

Itīs not as if that is going to be easier to prove, though, is it Harry?

The inference is that Abberline BELIEVED what Hutchinson said, which is the exact thing he said after the interrogation. Not that he knew and had confirmed the truth of Hutchinsons story, but that he BELIEVED that there was nothing amiss with it.

And then it seems he changed his mind.

It really makes for a very logical chain of events if he after some time found out that Hutchinson had the days wrong, doesnīt it?

It is interesting how you have developed this habit of demanding proof whenever I suggest something, whereas you seem perfectly content to elevate your own thinking to facts without any proof whatsoever.

[harry]

Well no Fisherman,I haven't abandoned'He muddled the dates'Iv'e made it clear from the first i never believed in that explanation.So nothing to abandon.
In citing Aberline's participation,I have merely stressed that he (Aberline) was in a far superior position to evaluate the claims of Hutchinson than you or Dew,and that he(Aberline) would have,by continuing the interrogation,first satisfied himself that Hutchinson was talking about Friday morning,the morning Kelly was killed,and not some other time.
As for Aberline stating an opinion of truth,I see no other option open to him.He could not,in fairness,state that Hutchinson was lying,without evidence of a lie,and the common law principle of 'Innocent untill proven guilty' was as much to guide the police in their investigations,as it was to guide a court of law.

[Wickerman]

Weīve been here before, John. And I havenīt changed my mind - if Hutchinson was asked if he saw anybody in the street at the relevant hours, I do not believe for a minute that he would begin his account by sifting the women who passed in and out of the court away.

The problem here though is, you have two people who can decide what is or is not relevant. First Hutchinson may have thought any women were not important for his story, but even if he did mention Lewis, then Badham may have thought that she/they were not important.
So, regardless of whether you think it should have been recorded, the story is going through two filters before it is written down.

When you talk about Hutchinson's police statement, and question any presumed omissions, just compare that with the police statements of the inquest witnesses and how incomplete those statements were when compared with their inquest testimony.
Yet, none of them were accused of lying, or cast under suspicion.

Initial police statements are never expected to include every detail, that's just a well known fact among police.

[Fisherman]

Well no Fisherman,I haven't abandoned'He muddled the dates'Iv'e made it clear from the first i never believed in that explanation.So nothing to abandon.

Nobodyīs asking you not to believe that he did not muddle the days, Harry. All you need to do is to realize that Hutchinson may well have done so, and that many parameters point to it, more so than the ones that point to him getting the days right. Much as I always take care to point out the facts of different matters, I do not presume to be able to sway those who are less inclined to accept the facts. In other words, believe what you like, long as you realize that it is a belief only.

In citing Aberline's participation,I have merely stressed that he (Aberline) was in a far superior position to evaluate the claims of Hutchinson than you or Dew,and that he(Aberline) would have,by continuing the interrogation,first satisfied himself that Hutchinson was talking about Friday morning,the morning Kelly was killed,and not some other time.

So you guess. And you will be either right or wrong.

As for Aberline stating an opinion of truth,I see no other option open to him.He could not,in fairness,state that Hutchinson was lying,without evidence of a lie,and the common law principle of 'Innocent untill proven guilty' was as much to guide the police in their investigations,as it was to guide a court of law.

Harry, Abberline was not presenting his verdict of veracity to a court of law or to the papers or public. He wrote what he did in a police report to his superiors! Once again, if you want to entertaina belief that is in. conflivct with the facts, go ahead. I go with the facts and accept that Abberline would not want to mislead his superiors.

Glad to have helped out!

[Fisherman]

The problem here though is, you have two people who can decide what is or is not relevant. First Hutchinson may have thought any women were not important for his story, but even if he did mention Lewis, then Badham may have thought that she/they were not important.
So, regardless of whether you think it should have been recorded, the story is going through two filters before it is written down.

When you talk about Hutchinson's police statement, and question any presumed omissions, just compare that with the police statements of the inquest witnesses and how incomplete those statements were when compared with their inquest testimony.
Yet, none of them were accused of lying, or cast under suspicion.

Initial police statements are never expected to include every detail, that's just a well known fact among police.

I would like to think that Badham was not at liberty to skip over a Lewis on account of her sex, Jon. And I donīt think for a second that Hutchinson would have done so if Lewis was really there on the night.

I have taken a look in the Old Bailey transcripts, and people - even men! - seem quite content to mention women in their respective testimonies.

I really donīt think we will get much further on this point.

[Sunny Delight]

The way Lewis describes the man and woman is very important. She states that when she got to the Court she saw a man opposite looking up the court as if waiting on someone. She may then have been prompted- did you see anyone else around? as her next sentence is, there was a man and woman further on. That says to me the couple were further on down Dorset Street.

[Sunny Delight]

I would like to think that Badham was not at liberty to skip over a Lewis on account of her sex, Jon. And I donīt think for a second that Hutchinson would have done so if Lewis was really there on the night.

I have taken a look in the Old Bailey transcripts, and people - even men! - seem quite content to mention women in their respective testimonies.

I really donīt think we will get much further on this point.

I have always been intrigued how Mrs. Cox testimony is fully accepted despite no one corroborating what she saw nor was the beer can the man carrying found nor ascertained where he had taken posession of it? Did that man even exist?

[harry]

There is,Fisherman,the witness statement signed by Hutchinson that sets the parameters.It was a legally obtained witness statement.Only if Hutchinson had later recanted,would doubt arise about the truthfullness of his being outside Crossinghams on Friday,9th.Of course I am aware that claims can be untruthfull,some intentional,some not,but Hutchinson's testimony of being in Dorset street on the Friday morning is supported by circumstantial evidence.So I am not guessing.My beliefs as you call them are based on written testimony,while the theory of the wrong day has no evidential value at all.That is all I need say on the matter.

[Wickerman]

You clearly haven't been paying attention. I've been saying throughout that both Sarah Lewis and Hutchinson would've clearly heard the chimes.

Really?, then it is strange that you seem to think she passed the church clock at 2:30, but also heard the 2:30 chime from within Millers court. That might take some explaining.

Pure speculation.

That's what "I think" means, you missed that bit?

We can only go by what was recorded.

That the Christ Church clock chimed on the quarter hours is recorded means we can conclude that both Hutchinson and Sarah Lewis would've been able to hear them between the hours 2am and 3am. Sarah Lewis is reported to have said she heard them at 3:30am from Miller's Court.

And, precisely because of that admission, we can rest assured she heard the 2:30 chime there too.

There is no record of Badham pressing Hutchinson for a time.

There is no record of them settling on a time between them.

If you've ever been interviewed by police, you will see what I mean. They are very focused on getting times out of a witness.

Hutchinson was living at the Victoria Men's House in Commercial Street so he would have already been familiar with the Christ Church chimes.

That's not quite correct. He only admitted to staying there on the Tuesday, and we know he told police he was staying there on the Monday. Thats all we can say for sure.

I am saying the chimes would've been heard from Dorset Street, where Hutchinson was. So I conclude that he would've heard them from his position so would then have known the time. The Christ Church clock would also have been visible from the corner of Dorset Street, where Hutchinson stood for a time. So I conclude it's possible he could've seen the time from that position. You cannot know to say he had no idea of the time from 2:15am onwards.

The Central News journalist who interviewed him on the Tuesday asked him how he knew the time.
He made no mention of hearing or seeing the Spitalfields clock, not at 2:00, not at 2:15, not at 2:30, not at 2:45. The only times he was able to use for reference are given right here by the man himself - in black and white!

"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. When I left the corner of Miller's-court the clock struck three o'clock".

Are you getting it now?

He never said he heard, or noticed any chimes. He made it quite clear in good English.
Which means, ALL the times that some of us may choose to insert between those times, are pure guesswork.

The time she gives is 2:30am or about 2:30am.

You forgot to admit her first words in bold were.... "I was AT the Keyler's AT 2:30"

Why avoid the possibility that she didn't see Mary Kelly?

The four matching circumstances that indicate Lewis say the same woman as Hutchinson, regardless what the time was.

How can Sarah Lewis see a couple "pass up the court" but at the same time say no-one was in the court when she went into No.2?

Very easy, as I've mentioned numerous times (now who's not paying attention). The couple had gone indoors, because the couple was Kelly and her client.

If the couple were "further on" in the passage - as you suggest

I never suggested any such thing!
The couple was further on ahead of Lewis, as Lewis was walking towards Millers Court.

The Daily News report suggests both the man and woman were drunk but Hutchinson makes no mention of the man he saw being drunk. As I say, that particular report feels off to me.

Not paying attention again!

I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.
Daily News.

It was the woman that had no hat on and was the worse for drink.
If your confusion still persists, try read the Morning Post version.

She also saw another man and woman coming along, the latter having her hat off, and being the worse for drink.
Morning Post

I'm having a difficult enough time making you understand, I refuse to help you read!!

[Wickerman]

I would like to think that Badham was not at liberty to skip over a Lewis on account of her sex, Jon. And I donīt think for a second that Hutchinson would have done so if Lewis was really there on the night.

I have taken a look in the Old Bailey transcripts, and people - even men! - seem quite content to mention women in their respective testimonies.

I really donīt think we will get much further on this point.

You're comparing a police statement (pre-inquest), with court testimony?