Hutchinsons statement....

[Varqm]

All Hutchinson needs,after hearing about it - debatable (but it was big news and the way the citizens were acting (mobs,some hysteria) about the murders it won't be difficult to assume they would want to hear the latest news which the inquest would have provided) - is to use part of Lewis's testimony,the lurking man, and embellish the rest.
He could have read his embellishments somewhere.And/or, to me, may have actually observed/seen a couple on the streets - Petticoat Lane or wherever - before once, possibly a few times, looking similar to his descriptions on his statement and used it.This easy to do.It may even appear truthful
And if caught lying,there was no punishment,no law.
Until it can't be eliminated that Hutch heard the inquest testimonies it can't be argued Hutch statement was corroborated by Lewis's testimony.

[Wickerman]

No-one knew about the loiterer, or the couple who walked up the court, or that the female was hatless & the worse for drink. No-one else but Lewis, who spoke to no-one until the inquest - really you guy's come on, surely between the three of you, you should be able to get all your ducks in a row.

[Sam Flynn]

Nah, that don't work either.
Hutchinson only had an hour or two to throw something together based on Lewis's testimony.

His story involved him surveying (surveilling?) Miller's Court, so - unless he could hover above the houses - his narrative would have to place him opposite the entrance to Miller's Court in Dorset Street. He needn't have heard Lewis's inquest testimony at all.

In addition, since bits of Lewis's story evidently found their way into the "Kennedy" and other narratives (including, I'd contend, Hutchinson's own), it's quite conceivable that the story of the "wideawake watchman" was already out on the jungle grapevine before the inquest itself.

[Sam Flynn]

Lewis, who spoke to no-one until the inquest

Really?

[Michael W Richards]

No-one knew about the loiterer, or the couple who walked up the court, or that the female was hatless & the worse for drink. No-one else but Lewis, who spoke to no-one until the inquest - really you guy's come on, surely between the three of you, you should be able to get all your ducks in a row.

I agree with Sam Jon, and you so often let your biases into your posts while criticizing others.

You have no idea who she spoke with or didn't, you have no idea how many people learned about the man seen by Sarah....(Warren likely used that info as the basis for his Pardon offer on Saturday) over the weekend, and you have no idea whether or not Hutch used the story as a way to enter this investigation or not.

Maybe your head is comfortable in the sand, but I can assure you that thousands of people in the East End spent that weekend trying to learn about what happened to Mary.

His story was cited as being discredited shortly thereafter, so there is historical precedent for dismissing him. They believed him for a short period...maybe you should glean something from that.

[Michael W Richards]

Amazing what three days' worth of preparation can deliver, isn't it?

Fri-Sat-Sun-Mon....4 days Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

Fri-Sat-Sun-Mon....4 days Sam.

I thought he'd have been in bed for most of Friday, what with his having been roaming the wet and lonely streets all night...

...d'oh!

[Michael W Richards]

I thought he'd have been in bed for most of Friday, what with his having been roaming the wet and lonely streets all night...

...d'oh!

Or the trauma of losing a dear friend....

[Flower and Dean]

We honestly don't know that Sarah Lewis didn't tell anyone what she saw. I've seen a couple of posts saying he only had 1-2 hours to prepare his testimony after the inquest, does anyone have a source for when the inquest ended?

Yes we do. His waiting and watching is corraberated by Sarah Lewis.
That alone is stalking behavior.

No.

That there was someone waiting and watching is corroborated by Sarah Lewis. I agree that it was likely Hutchinson, but just at the other posts here. He could well have been picking up on the story and placing himself as the guy watching.

Even if it was him, we don't know what exactly he was doing. Like I said, there are a number of possible reasons -- being nosy, being protective, being interested in the man's money. They're arguably more innocent than stalking.

You seem to want to use "stalking" in the broad sense of following someone for a number of reasons while keeping the stricter meaning and intent usually implied in it.

[Varqm]

I agree with some posts,the locals already knew the local news before the papers printed it or the inquest .There were curious people outside of Miller's Court when they were conducting the investigations throughout the day - I would imagine a lot of chatter. I would imagine people asking the Miller's court
residents what happened after they were allowed to leave the court in the afternoon.

[Sam Flynn]

I agree with some posts,the locals already knew the local news before the papers printed it or the inquest

I seem to recall at least one report - was it in the Star? - that referred to people latching onto various stories about the events that night and passing them off as their own.

[Wickerman]

His story involved him surveying (surveilling?) Miller's Court, so - unless he could hover above the houses - his narrative would have to place him opposite the entrance to Miller's Court in Dorset Street. He needn't have heard Lewis's inquest testimony at all.

In addition, since bits of Lewis's story evidently found their way into the "Kennedy" and other narratives (including, I'd contend, Hutchinson's own), it's quite conceivable that the story of the "wideawake watchman" was already out on the jungle grapevine before the inquest itself.

Gareth.
- Kennedy did not see a loiterer.
- Kennedy did not say Kelly was hatless.
- Kennedy did not say Kelly was "the worse for drink".
- Kennedy did not even see a couple watched by the loiterer walk up the passage.

Only Hutchinson & Lewis claimed to see those details.
Why then do you keep bringing Kennedy into this?
Hutchinson could not have learned anything from Kennedy's statement.

The fact two people, quite independent of each other, report the same details indicates they both saw the same details - their stories corroborate each other.
What on earth has Mrs Kennedy got to do with it?

[Wickerman]

Really?

Sarah Lewis offered no statement to the press, her first recorded statement was for the inquest. Therefore, Sarah Lewis told no-one about what she saw.
Neither are there any unsourced stories in the weekend press offering those pertinent details, from which a devious Hutchinson could have purloined the specifics to offer to police.

Where is the basis for your argument?

[Wickerman]

I agree with Sam Jon, and you so often let your biases into your posts while criticizing others.

Not really Michael - you just disagree with me, as per usual. You don't need an excuse Michael, I already know which side of the fence you come down on. Not that it changes anything.
Let me explain why...

You have no idea who she spoke with or didn't, you have no idea how many people learned about the man seen by Sarah....(Warren likely used that info as the basis for his Pardon offer on Saturday) over the weekend, and you have no idea whether or not Hutch used the story as a way to enter this investigation or not.

The point here is no-one, none of you have any reason to believe Hutchinson did not actually see what he claimed to see. You 'invent' a hypothetical scenario where in "you're" collective opinions he "might" have been able to obtain certain details.
This is not evidence - it's conjecture.

Lewis's testimony of what she saw is evidence.
Hutchinson's statement of what he saw is evidence.
Those stories match.

All you (collectively) are doing is offering a hypothetical scenario, yet you seem to treat this as evidence, all the while dismissing true evidence.
You prefer to believe in conjecture, while I prefer to believe the evidence.

Maybe your head is comfortable in the sand, but I can assure you that thousands of people in the East End spent that weekend trying to learn about what happened to Mary.

Show me one press report over that weekend which contains any one of those details which tie Hutch & Lewis together - just one.

His story was cited as being discredited shortly thereafter, so there is historical precedent for dismissing him. They believed him for a short period...maybe you should glean something from that.

Michael, maybe you've been hiding under a rock, as has been demonstrated here, the police were still investigating the Astrachan story a full week later. So the claim by the Star was demonstrably false.

Why do you keep repeating it?

[Wickerman]

I agree with some posts,the locals already knew the local news before the papers printed it or the inquest .There were curious people outside of Miller's Court when they were conducting the investigations throughout the day - I would imagine a lot of chatter. I would imagine people asking the Miller's court
residents what happened after they were allowed to leave the court in the afternoon.

We can 'believe' all the hypothetical chatter we want. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
The gossip on the streets was all the press had to go on over that weekend, and they printed lots of it, because neither the police nor Dr. Phillips would talk. Only the locals were talking.
Show me one story where those pertinent details are to be found in the local gossip.
Just one.