Hutchinsons statement....

[Wickerman]

You're contradicting yourself a bit here...

Lewis specifically mentions that she went to stay with Mrs. Keyler. When she talks about the suspicious man, she mentions that she was with a friend. She does not go into any "we's". She simply says these things to establish what she was doing when the events she talks about happened. She mentions other people in this context of why she was in a certain place (she went to see Mrs. Keyler) or what she was doing (she was walking with a friend).

She could have talked about Kennedy in this same way. She wouldn't have needed to go into we's any more than she did to talk about Mrs. Keyler.

Nothing contradictory whatsoever.

In his original post on this subject David said it was "surprising" that Lewis never mentioned Kennedy, if she was in the same room (I think these were single room dwellings).
I replied by pointing out there was no expectation that a witness should mention the presence of others when relating her story to the court.

The fact that Lewis does on occasion (your post) make third-person references does not change that fact.
The expectation is still to say "I saw", "I said", "I did", therefore, it is not surprising that she did do just that.

[Abby Normal]

Hi.
I really cannot see the obsession with making Hutchinson a fabricator of the truth.
What is so wrong with his statement,?
He saw a man accompany Mary back to Dorset street,since Barnett left, this may have happened several times.
The only reason Hutchinson would have twisted the truth , would have been to protect himself.
It is quite possible that he had witnessed the encounter with Mr A, and had stayed outside the court, and waited until he had left. before visiting Mary, and asked to stay until 6am, in her room, until the home opened.
If he did this , and left just after 6.[ someone was heard to leave the court at this time] and admitted it, he would have put himself well in the frame.
Far better to say he walked about all night.
It is entirely possible that he had left a red hanky in the room, and incorporated this into his tale, so if the police found one, they would have assumed his statement was correct, and it belonged to Mr A.
Looking at a future Topping, he appears a dapper kind of man, attending music halls with a suit and cane. so him owning a red silk hanky is not out of the question.
We should not forget that medical evidence, and accounts of a cry , would have put the murder around 4.am. and although Hutchinson knew this was not right, it mattered not , his neck did though.
He could never admit to being in room 13. he would have believed she was killed after 6.am, and may have thought that this suspicious man could have returned after daylight.?
He may have heard him telling Kelly, 'I shall return in the morning, and take you to the Show'' but if the police/doctors said that she was killed in the night, he could never put himself in her room, but because he believed Mr A intended to come back,gave a description to the police Monday evening,as he believed he killed her.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard

I really cannot see the obsession with making Hutchinson a fabricator of the truth.
What is so wrong with his statement

and then you go on to suggest a scenario that would make hutch a fabricator of the truth? LOL!

but you bring up an interesting point about the red hanky. There was some good discussion about it a while back and Wescott had an interesting take.

I think Hutch made a big dal about the red hanky, because as you say it was his. or he read about sailor mans hanky and incorporated it into fictional Aman like he did with other aspects of his description.

I think he may have given it to her before the big blow off and or left it in her room.

[Abby Normal]

I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath-water, Phil. Just because Reg Topping's story appears in a silly book doesn't mean that his dad wasn't the Miller's Court witness. Reg's story may have been flowered up - most family traditions are - and Toppy's own story (whether told to Reg or the police!) could have been exaggerated, too; but that doesn't rule out Toppy as "the" George Hutchinson.

Besides, like I say, I have absolutely zero doubt that the signatures on the police statement and Toppy's own were made by the same hand; that's the clincher for me. You may recall that I was a vociferous "anti-Toppist" once, but I had to eat humble pie and change my mind when I saw the objective evidence.

but the three don't all match let alone the three with toppys later sig.
which of the three do you think match with each other?and with toppys?

[Wickerman]

I agree with Phil on this one. Also why would a plumber say he was a labourer and once a groom? Hes also younger than I imagine Hutch to have been.....
Pat.....

The only detail I find questionable is that Ģ5 he claims to have been given, 5/- (shillings), would be believable, but not Ģ5.

[Sam Flynn]

but the three don't all match let alone the three with toppys later sig.
which of the three do you think match with each other?and with toppys?

All of them, Abby. I see no truly significant differences either within the witness statement, or between the witness statement and the others. I'm quite sure of this.

[David Orsam]

David.

A reporter provided a summary of the incident where he explains the roles of Diemschitz and Kozebrodski.

"A member of the club named Kozebrodski, but familiarly known as Isaacs, returned with Diemshitz into the court, and the former struck a match while the latter lifted the body up. It was at once apparent that the woman was dead. The body was still warm, and the clothes were wet from the recent rain, but the heart had ceased to beat, and the stream of blood on the gutter, terminating in a hideous pool near the club door, showed but too plainly what had happened. Both ran off without delay to find a policeman, and at the same time other members of the club, who had by this found their way into the court, went off with the same object in different directions."
Morning Advertiser, Oct. 1st. 1888.

It was apparent at the time, so this is not a modern interpretation.
"Garbled" is often a popular term to use when something doesn't quite say what a modern theorist wants it to say.

Sorry Jon, you've lost me. Where in that paragraph does it say, as you told me earlier, that "Kozebrodski went out twice, the first time along Fairclough st. with Diemschitz, they did not find a policeman"?

Where does it say that both Kozebrodski and Diemschitz ran off together to find a policemen?

How did the reporter, writing about an event that he had himself not witnessed, know that what he was writing about was true and correct?

If, as the reporter says, Diemschitz "lifted the body up", how do you explain Diemschitz's testimony at the inquest that "He did not touch the body"? And how do you explain the fact that he also said in his inquest testimony that he met a young man in Grove Street and this young man subsequently "lifted the woman's head up"?

Who was the young man he met in Grove Street?

Why did Kozebrodski need to "strike a match" when Diemschitz tells us in his testimony that he "got a candle" and could see blood by "the candlelight"?

Further, how could Diemschitz possibly have known that "The body was still warm...but the heart had ceased to beat" as the reporter claimed?

"Garbled" doesn't adequately cover it Jon. Are you seriously putting that newspaper article forward as an accurate account of events that morning?

[Wickerman]

I agree.It's clear.Name mix-up.For years understood as such .

The "name mix-up" is a modern theory, at the time it was understood they were two different people.

[Wickerman]

Sorry Jon, you've lost me. Where in that paragraph does it say, as you told me earlier, that "Kozebrodski went out twice, the first time along Fairclough st. with Diemschitz, they did not find a policeman"?

That was in Michael's post #864.

Where does it say that both Kozebrodski and Diemschitz ran off together to find a policemen?

Look further down the page in the testimony of Diemschitz.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/morning_advertiser/18881001.html

"A member named Isaacs went down to the yard with me, and we struck a match and saw the blood right from the gate up the yard. Then we both went for the police, but unfortunately it was several minutes before we could find a constable."

It's pretty clear David.

How did the reporter, writing about an event that he had himself not witnessed, know that what he was writing about was true and correct?

If, as the reporter says, Diemschitz "lifted the body up", how do you explain Diemschitz's testimony at the inquest that "He did not touch the body"? And how do you explain the fact that he also said in his inquest testimony that he met a young man in Grove Street and this young man subsequently "lifted the woman's head up"?

Who was the young man he met in Grove Street?

Why did Kozebrodski need to "strike a match" when Diemschitz tells us in his testimony that he "got a candle" and could see blood by "the candlelight"?

Further, how could Diemschitz possibly have known that "The body was still warm...but the heart had ceased to beat" as the reporter claimed?

"Garbled" doesn't adequately cover it Jon. Are you seriously putting that newspaper article forward as an accurate account of events that morning?

I think the answers to all those questions are in the story if you go through all the published details.

[David Orsam]

That was in Michael's post #864.

But there's no mention of Fairclough Street in Michael's post #864.

So that can't be the answer to my question.

[David Orsam]

Look further down the page in the testimony of Diemschitz.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/morning_advertiser/18881001.html

"A member named Isaacs went down to the yard with me, and we struck a match and saw the blood right from the gate up the yard. Then we both went for the police, but unfortunately it was several minutes before we could find a constable."

It's pretty clear David.

Whoa! Steady there Jon. Please don't refer to statements in the press as "testimony". You don't want to mislead people into thinking you are quoting from inquest testimony do you?

What you have quoted from is a supposed "statement" in a newspaper but another version of that "statement" (as I already mentioned in #871) said this:

"One of the members, who is known as Isaacs, went out with me. We struck match, and saw blood running from the gate all the way down to the side door of the Club. We had the police sent for at once, but I believe it was several minutes before a constable could be found."

So that potentially paints a different picture doesn't it?

You cannot rely on these newspaper accounts as accurate.

[David Orsam]

I think the answers to all those questions are in the story if you go through all the published details.

What a cop out!

I don't happen to think the answers to those questions are in the story if you go through the published details.

If you have any faith at all in what you are saying please provide the answers to each question.

[Abby Normal]

All of them, Abby. I see no truly significant differences either within the witness statement, or between the witness statement and the others. I'm quite sure of this.

Ok. Thanks.
I do see a lot of differences and can't really make heads or tails out of any of them.

But I also see a lot of similarities. For me it's kind of still uncertain.

[Wickerman]

What a cop out!

I don't happen to think the answers to those questions are in the story if you go through the published details.

If you have any faith at all in what you are saying please provide the answers to each question.

I don't think you've looked.

If I need to make a point I look up the answers myself, I don't expect someone else to do it for me.

Comprende?

Anyhow, several people struck matches around the body, I suppose Diemschitz didn't want to share his candle, or his missus told him to put it back those candles cost money.

The man Diemschitz & Kozebrodski brought back was Spooner.

I'm not so sure Diemschitz said her heart had ceased to beat, I thought that was from the summary.

Tell you what, you just keep making lists and I'll look everything up for you. I can even ask your questions for you when I have time.

[Robert]

Hi Observer

We all know what a great researcher Chris was. He spoke to the Church family (Church, not Castle) and he was satisfied that they were on the level, so that's good enough for me.

However, the question remains whether Sarah Lewis herself was romancing/attention-seeking/misremembering, or even whether the family somehow garbled the reminiscences passed down to them. Chris was happy that this was not the case, but here the element of caution must be greater.

I've compiled a list of the addresses of the four children of Joseph and Sarah that I know most about. First, the births :

1886 3 Candy St
1888 39 Nottingham Place
1891 14 Weaver St
1893 13 Dunk St

Now the school records. Thanks to the birth dates and father's name in these records, we can pinpoint the relevant ones. I'm assuming here that father's address is at date of child's admission.

1889 53 New St
1893 13 Dunk St
1894 7 Betts St
1895 15 Nottingham (illegible)
1897 Hayfield Passage
1898 Paragon Mansions which were, I believe, in Hayfield Passage

I'll do Thomas and Caroline's daughter Emily Alexandra later.

[Varqm]

Varqm: Yes Astrakhan man could have been a good suspect,last man seen with Kelly before estimated time of death 3-4 AM, since he could have left the court at around, more or less, 3:05-3:15 A.M. or 3:10-3:20 A.M..Although if death was at 4 AM, another man could have come in after,around 30 minutes was enough time.

I think Astrakhan man was regarded as THE suspect - up until it was revealed that Hutchinson had mixed up the days. After that, Astrakhan was still of some interest, but nowhere near the interest he originally aroused.
That, by the way, fits the evidence perfectly.

3:15: if Hutch's "I went to the court to see if I could see them, but I could not " and Sarah's "was looking up the court as if waiting for someone" from across the street were the same.

(I know Iīm not supposed to butt in here, but I really donīt think they spoke of the same man at all)

i3:05: if Hutchinson went to court and looked again as seen by Sarah (while waiting for 45 minutes) if separate incidents."Went to the court" could mean in front of the court or inside but also walking to the court but not necessarily reaching the court (same as 3:15 ).Which could mean the initial report was incomplete.

We have zero evidence of Hutchinson placing himself in any other spot than "at the corner of the court". Ergo, as far as I am concerened, when he said he went to the court, I think he was telling us that he walked into the court itself.

IF Hutchinson was an upstanding citizen and his story checked out,it's clear he knew Kelly,he went to Romford,what would happen to Astrakhan man's importance as a suspect and Hutchinson as a witness?

Astrakhan man would be the prime suspect, and Hutchinsons story would not be graded down in importance.
But what happened...?

(I know Iīm not supposed to butt in here, but I really donīt think they spoke of the same man at all)

It had to be Hutch,he waited for 45 min.

We have zero evidence of Hutchinson placing himself in any other spot than "at the corner of the court". Ergo, as far as I am concerened, when he said he went to the court, I think he was telling us that he walked into the court itself.


I believed it more to be 2 incidents rather than Badham wrote wrong.I believe in Sarah Lewis,Lewis only saw one man across or near Miller's court.So Hutch's initial report was missing Sarah Lewis coming down to Miller's court and "man was looking up the court" (from near Crossinghams).

Astrakhan man would be the prime suspect, and Hutchinsons story would not be graded down in importance.

From Thrawl Street to what the couple did,to standing near the court for several minutes,couple's conversations and "I went to the court to see" maybe took 10-15-20 minutes,and 45 minutes waiting so 2:55 AM to 3:05 AM that Astrakhan man could have left.
Still yes a prime suspect and probably the police would have searched for for years.And retained contact with so that if they found a suspect they would need him and have him as one of the witnesses to identify the suspect.