Seeing Sarah

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Webster's dictionary from 1913 defines a "billycock" thusly:

A round, low-crowned felt hat; a wideawake.

The following is from an 1887 article entitled "The Billycock or Wideawake hat".

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=TAN18870806.2.25&e=-------en--1----0-all

It may be a case that all billycocks are wideawakes but not all wideawakes are billycocks, but the overall inference is that the two are interchangable. The quaker hat is apparently a type of wideawake, but such headgear would be decidedly out-of-place in the East End.

Ada Wilson's attacker wore a wideawake, and here's how it was depicted in a contemporary sketch:

http://photos.casebook.org/displayimage.php?pid=387&fullsize=1

Best regards,
Ben

[Celesta]

Hi Celesta,



...When he gets dragged in as a suspect and asked to explain his loitering presence near a crime scene shortly before the murder? I can see him avoiding that potentiality at all costs. He would have been well aware of the speed with which rumour and suspicion gathered momentum in such as close-knit locality, courtesy of the Pizer fiasco. By coming forward and nailing his colours to the "I'm a witness" mast from the outset, he could "neutralize" police suspicion if and when it arrived. "Well, obviously it wasn't me? I was cooperative and helped you, remember?"



Lewis' man wasn't going into any lodging house, according to her evidence; he was ostensibly watching Miller's Court and waiting for someone to emerge. There weren't lots of men doing that, and similarly, I'm rather doubtful as to the proliferation of wideawake hats.



I don't know how "surely" that is, Mike, unfortunately. Looking at her police statement, it was clear she was in no position to recognise the man again or provide a detailed description (though Hutchinson, not being privy to that police statement, couldn't have known it). If ever she was confronted with Hutchinson, she was more likely to deliver a "don't know/can't remember" type of response rather than conclusively ruling him in or out.



I'm afraid it doesn't seem that way at all. The reverse, in fact.

Best regards,
Ben

I see your point, Ben. (How many times have we talked about this! ) I just think he might have realized that he had a better than 50-50 chance that she would not be able to identify him. That could, in part, explain why he didn't come forward right away. However I can see the uncertainty getting to him, after several days. Could she identify him? Uncertainty is a powerful motivator sometimes. It could have motivated him into coming forward. He couldn't stand not knowing any longer.

No, Lewis' man wasn't going into a lodging house, but Hutchinson's man was. I do think that one of the first things the police would have done was to compare their stories.

Rob, of Cat's Meat Man fame, posted a poem, rather chilling, that could be close to the truth. GH could have come down the passage later, and at least have tapped on MJK's door, and she might have already been dead. Remember, nothing is heard of MJK after Cox leaves the last time. This is, of course, excluding George's tale.

Best,

Cel

[perrymason]

Hi Ben,

On your rebuttal on my point that Sarah and Hutch did not see each other, and the police reviewing the statements to see if they might corroborate each others stories, the fact that Hutch's account is dismissed within 3 days should be a clue here.

On the face of the evidence and known facts, the police did not conclude that Sarah's man was Hutch in a Wideawake Hat,... they concluded his story was false. And since they dismissed it, and retained Sarah Lewis's sighting, it would seem to me the main reason for not pursuing him as a suspect after they concluded he fabricated details, was that they either thought he wasnt there at all, or wasnt the man Sarah saw,... who was indeed a suspected Accomplice.

Everyone tries to make Wideawake a potential killer, when it seem clear that he is one of the pivotal reasons for the Accomplice Pardon being issued. They had no reason to suspect an accomplice unless one was perhaps seen by someone. One perhaps was...by Sarah.

Dont you think it is telling that George never offered that he was wearing a Wideawake Hat? It would have cleared things up immediately, as would Carrie Maxwell commenting on Marys hair since she wore no hat. The two most suspect statements given by witnesses that could have easily been addressed by George saying he wore a Wideawake that night, and Carrie saying she saw Marys waist length hair hanging freely, or braided down her back. Neither did say those things though....probably cause George wasnt really there or wearing a Wideawake, and because Carrie didnt talk with a woman who had red waist length hair, worn out.

Best regards Ben, all.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

it would seem to me the main reason for not pursuing him as a suspect after they concluded he fabricated details, was that they either thought he wasnt there at all, or wasnt the man Sarah saw,... who was indeed a suspected Accomplice.

I can't rule out the possibility that they concluded that, but it was unlikely to have been the correct conclusion. Unfortunately, we have no data as to what the police made of the wideawake man eventually or who they thought he was, and we certainly don't know that he was "a suspected accomplice".

Everyone tries to make Wideawake a potential killer, when it seem clear that he is one of the pivotal reasons for the Accomplice Pardon being issued.

Sorry, that isn't clear at all. An interesting possibility and a reasonable suggestion on your part, yes, but then there were various contrasting witness descriptions involved in the Kelly murder, and anyone of them could have precipitated suspicion that an accomplice may have been involved. Or more likely, they were still contemplating Schwartz's evidence from the Stride murder. Wideawake is unquestionably a "potential killer", incidentally. We can't call him a certain killer, but "potential" he certainly has.

Dont you think it is telling that George never offered that he was wearing a Wideawake Hat?

To be honest, no, not remotely. We don't know that he didn't offer it, or even that he was quizzed along those lines. We only have his statement to go on, and he didn't offer "I wore a wideawake" for the same reason that Israel Schwartz didn't offer "I wore my favourite theatrical overcoat".

All the best,
Ben

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Personally, I think it is a bit over the top to go into debates about wide-awake hats and questionable other identification elements (especially since we don't know what Hucthinson looked like or how he was dressed).
The most relevent reason for actually considering Hucthinson as the man seen by Lewis, is that Hutchinson himself admitted that he was standing there that night, looking into the passageway!

All the best

[perrymason]

Personally, I think it is a bit over the top to go into debates about wide-awake hats and questionable other identification elements (especially since we don't know what Hucthinson looked like or how he was dressed).
The most relevent reason for actually considering Hucthinson as the man seen by Lewis, is that Hutchinson himself admitted that he was standing there that night, looking into the passageway!

All the best

Hi Glenn,

I agree with both you and Ben, that it is logical to assume that the man Sarah saw was indeed Georgie boy....as Ben suggests, but we cannnot ignore that his story that emanates from that vantage point didnt include seeing Sarah walking into the courtyard, and that anything he says he saw from that vantage point was considered not believable as of November 16th by the authorities.

I stand by my contention that if George was suspected by police as being Wideawake, we would know that he was investigated as a suspect after his story's dismissal. We dont know that though.

Put it this way.....Sarah saw a man standing opposite watching the entrance to the courtyard at aprox 2:00am. Hutch says he was there at around 2am. Neither he, nor Sarah, who would have been exposed to George by police to see if she could ID him as Wideawake, saw each other. Nor did George see a loitering man watching the archway. Someones story isnt kosher.

What does Sarah gain by her story? Nothing. What does George gain by his story? He explains his presence there as benign, if he was there,.. he becomes the last man to see Mary alive, and he becomes the "best" witness the authorities would have for any murder, by his description of Astrakan.

Or....he attempts to place a curious onlooker in the shoes of a man loitering and watching a soon to be murder scene. My point being....George's story attempts to convert the watching man to someone who meant Mary no harm.

What if George is the "after the fact" accomplice, and Wideawake is a simple lodger out at night?

Best regards chaps.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Glenn,

I agree with both you and Ben, that it is logical to assume that the man Sarah saw was indeed Georgie boy....as Ben suggests, but we cannnot ignore that his story that emanates from that vantage point didnt include seeing Sarah walking into the courtyard...

Hi Michael,

Well, there were a lot of details that dear George Hutchinson appear to have left out in his 'statement' or didn't say.

All the best

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

I'd respectfully caution against reading too much into the lack of reference to Sarah Lewis in the 12th November police report. He may well have mentioned Lewis, just as he may have mentioned his wideawake headgear, but such details would probably have been dismissed as immaterial for the purposes of a police report on a murder so soon after the event. Such tidbits might have assumed siginficance later if and when they were compared to Lewis' account, but they were unlikely to have merited inclusion in that early post-interview police missive.

My point being....George's story attempts to convert the watching man to someone who meant Mary no harm.

It's a very astute point, Mike, but don't you think George had a greater incentive to do this if he was covering up for himself rather than someone else?

Cheers.
Ben

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,

.....It's a very astute point, Mike, but don't you think George had a greater incentive to do this if he was covering up for himself rather than someone else?

Cheers.
Ben

Hi Ben,

Of course it makes sense to cover his own behind, but also if he was there that night as an accomplice watching and waiting, but not the man Sarah saw doing so. He had no way of knowing if she could ID him or if anyone else saw him in the area that night...so safer to be a pal of Marys that was seen by Sarah, than someone who didnt know her but was seen in that specific area that night.

Better to be the suspcious friend, than the stranger without an explanation for his attendance there.

Best regards as always Ben,....always well read on the subject and the most respectful "disagreer" in the entire members roster.

Nite my friend.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon,

Webster's dictionary from 1913 defines a "billycock" thusly:

A round, low-crowned felt hat; a wideawake.

The following is from an 1887 article entitled "The Billycock or Wideawake hat".

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=TAN18870806.2.25&e=-------en--1----0-all

It may be a case that all billycocks are wideawakes but not all wideawakes are billycocks, but the overall inference is that the two are interchangable. The quaker hat is apparently a type of wideawake, but such headgear would be decidedly out-of-place in the East End.

Ada Wilson's attacker wore a wideawake, and here's how it was depicted in a contemporary sketch:

http://photos.casebook.org/displayimage.php?pid=387&fullsize=1

Best regards,
Ben

Thanks for the very concise reply, Ben, cleared that one up !!

[Ben]

You're welcome, Jon!

Hi Mike,

Better to be the suspcious friend, than the stranger without an explanation for his attendance there.

I agree with that entirely, but again, if that axiom spurred him into coming forward, it was more likely done to explain his presence after learning he was seen. I just don't see the need to posit the existence of other people into the equation. If, as you suggest, Hutchinson was a "watching and waiting" accomplice but wasn't the man Lewis saw, then we're left with the unlikely coincidence of two unrelated individuals both "watching and waiting" for someone in Millers Court at the same time.

Best regards,
Ben