Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Possible reason for Hutch coming forward

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Ah, you need a timeline from all the reports and press articles?
    A consensus view across all reports would be handy, in which case you can ignore the single, and in any case erroneous, Daily News story that has Lewis see a couple enter Miller's Court.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
      "About" 3:00.
      - Mrs Kennedy arrives at the Britannia, on the corner of Comm. St. & Dorset St., where she saw Kelly & another man & woman standing talking.
      Kennedy walks on passed, down Dorset St. and enters room No.2, Millers Court.
      Does Sarah Lewis let Kennedy in, or does she have her own key? If the latter, does Kennedy trip over a sleeping Lewis in the dark, or is Lewis alert enough to avoid this?

      Seriously, there was no Mrs Kennedy in Room 2, or anywhere else in Miller's Court, that night.
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
        A consensus view across all reports would be handy, in which case you can ignore the single, and in any case erroneous, Daily News story that has Lewis see a couple enter Miller's Court.
        There is no such thing as a consensus.
        The advantage of using a wide range of records is precisely because we expect to obtain isolated points of fact not commonly available in every record.

        Only using the records which repeat the same details offers no insight to the issue - this is a myopic view usually promoted by anyone wishing to control the narrative, not the view of an open mind.

        Your view seems to be that 'if a record contains something different, it must be wrong'. Plus, you said differences make for a garbled account which allow you to dismiss the whole record.

        These are extremely self-serving points of view. Typically adopted by those whose sole purpose is to use any excuse to dismiss what contradicts their theory.
        It's nothing new, really - and easily recognisable for what it is.

        What researcher's are wary of are points of conflict, not extra points of detail, which are to be celebrated.
        Like, in the Morning Advertiser the loiterer was described as "tall & stout", whereas in all other records he was "not tall, but stout".
        So by your reasoning we should throw out the Morning Advertiser because the record is "garbled"?, yet it is easy to see that one word (not) has dropped from the type setup.
        Nothing more sinister than that.

        The fact the Daily News reports her saying she saw the couple pass up the court is to their credit, and to our benefit.

        It is surely far more sinister to try suggest the Daily News JUST HAPPENED to report them walking up the court JUST LIKE Hutchinson said in his police report. What an amazing coincidence - and yet you told me some time ago, you don't believe in coincidences - now you are arguing for one?

        Changing horses in mid-stream are we?

        Suppose you try to explain just HOW the Daily News were able to write the same unusual detail contained in Hutchinson's police report, when it had not been made public?
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
          Ah, you need a timeline from all the reports and press articles?

          Ok, well, we have Hutchinson passing Thrawl st. and meeting up with Kelly "about 2:00 am".

          - 2:00-2:15 (approx).
          Hutch see's Astrachan approach Kelly.
          Sarah Lewis passed the Britannia on the corner and noticed another man & woman standing talking outside the Britannia.

          Hutch stands still outside the Queens Head pub, the Kelly & Astrachan pass him, then cross the road to Dorset St., Hutch waits at the corner of Dorset St., while Kelly & Astrachan walk towards Millers Court.
          Sarah Lewis is following some distance behind them on the same side of the road, they walk further on ahead of her.
          Then Hutchinson walks down the south side(?) of Dorset St. to stand opposite Millers Court, as Kelly and Astrachan enter the passage.

          - [B]about 2:15 Sarah Lewis arrives at Millers Court and also enters the passage.
          - Lewis noticed a man standing on the south side, opposite Millers Court, as she enters the passage - he is looking up the passage.
          - Lewis walks up the passage to room No. 2, and noticed the couple are not in view - there is no-one in the court (meaning they must have gone indoors?).
          Lewis is there at No.2 when the clock strikes 2:30[/B].

          2:15 - 3:00 am.
          Hutchinson waits in Dorset St., at some point he walks across the road and up the passage to stand outside Kelly's room - listening. Then returns to the street to take up his position again out in Dorset St. and waits until "about" 3:00, when he leaves.

          "About" 3:00.
          - Mrs Kennedy arrives at the Britannia, on the corner of Comm. St. & Dorset St., where she saw Kelly & another man & woman standing talking.
          Kennedy walks on passed, down Dorset St. and enters room No.2, Millers Court.

          At 3:00 or in some sources 3:10, Cox returned to Millers Court, room 13 was dark & quiet.
          - - - - - - - -

          All times can be adjusted a few minutes either way as none of the witnesses had watches, and all seem to be relying on the chimes of the Spitalfields Clock. All their times seem to be estimates except where noted otherwise.

          Nonsense.It's clear Sarah reached Dorset St. at around 2:30 Am. give or take a minute or two.

          One minute from Brittannia to Miller's court.


          THE DAILY TELEGRAPH
          TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1888


          Sarah Lewis deposed: I live at 24, Great Pearl-street, and am a laundress. I know Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, and went to her house at 2,
          Miller's-court, at 2.30a.m. on Friday.


          Times (London)
          Tuesday, 13 November 1888

          Sarah Lewis, a laundress, of 24, Great Pearl-street, Spitalfields, said she went to the house of Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, on Friday morning about 2:30,
          and saw a man standing at the lodging-house door by himself.

          It took her 15 minutes from entering the court to No.2 with no testimony of her waiting for 15 minutes before entering the house? Too much. Cartooning.I stop.
          Last edited by Varqm; 12-31-2017, 12:18 PM.
          Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
          M. Pacana

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
            These are extremely self-serving points of view. Typically adopted by those whose sole purpose is to use any excuse to dismiss what contradicts their theory.
            Pot - kettle! And I'm not even a kettle here; as I've said before, I've no problem with Lewis's couple being Kelly and another guy, but - despite what the Daily News says - Lewis did not see them entering Miller's Court, if ALL the other accounts are anything to go by. I have no problem with the details of Lewis's testimony (properly interpreted), of her seeing Bethnal Green man etc.

            I have no problem with either of these things. What I DO have is a problem with the cherry-picking news reports in an effort to boost the credibility of Hutchinson's statement. It's possible that Lewis's Mr Wideawake was Hutchinson, but that's about all the corroboration we really have; the rest are either errors (Daily News report of Lewis seeing a couple enter Miller's Court) or myths ("Mrs Kennedy" as a credible, independent witness).
            Suppose you try to explain just HOW the Daily News were able to write the same unusual detail contained in Hutchinson's police report, when it had not been made public?
            The Daily News report of Lewis's inquest testimony is wrong on many points, and that's all we need to know. If, as seems certain, one of those erroneous points actually IS the "unusual" detail contained in Hutch's police report, then that renders the whole point moot in any case.
            It is surely far more sinister to try suggest the Daily News JUST HAPPENED to report them walking up the court JUST LIKE Hutchinson said in his police report.
            The Daily News also said that Hutchinson (or Mr Wideawake, at least) was standing in the doorway of the deceased's house at this point. How does THAT tally with Hutchinson's statement? Answer: it doesn't. You can't have your cake and eat it; if the DN was right about Lewis seeing the couple enter Miller's Court, then Hutchinson/Wideawake must have been standing in the doorway at the time, but he wasn't. Conclusion: the Daily News report of Lewis's testimony is confused and cannot be trusted.
            What an amazing coincidence - and yet you told me some time ago, you don't believe in coincidences - now you are arguing for one?
            No I'm not. I'm arguing for an error in the Daily News - which even the most basic reading of ALL the other sources will confirm is almost certainly what we're dealing with here.

            PS: I've never said that I "don't believe" in coincidences, but I have said several times that I'm not as fazed by them as many people are.
            Last edited by Sam Flynn; 12-31-2017, 12:25 PM.
            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
              Nonsense.It's clear Sarah reached Dorset St. at around 2:30 Am. give or take a minute or two.

              One minute from Brittannia to Miller's court.
              "I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning she lives at No 2 in the Court on the left on the first floor I know the time by having looked at Spitalfields Church clock as I passed it"
              Inquest Testimony, 12th Nov. 1888.

              She doesn't say she passed the Spitalfields Church at 2:30, which is what you are trying to claim.
              I said she was AT the Keylers AT 2:30, which is precisely what she said.

              Stick to what she said, instead of twisting her words.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                ......The Daily News also said that Hutchinson (or Mr Wideawake, at least) was standing in the doorway of the deceased's house at this point. How does THAT tally with Hutchinson's statement?
                Ok, so which source is correct?

                "...there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset St."
                Police Statement - 9th Nov.

                "I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House."
                Inquest Testimony, 12th Nov.

                "...opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake."
                Daily Telegraph, 13th Nov.

                "She saw a man at the entrance to the court."

                Echo.

                "In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing."
                Daily News.

                "...a stout looking man standing at the entrance to Miller's court."

                St. James Gazette.

                "I saw a man with a wideawake on stopping on the opposite side of the pavement."
                Morning Advertiser.

                "....a man standing at the lodging-house door by himself."
                Irish Times.

                Go ahead, cherry-pick the one source you think is correct and throw out all the rest.

                You seem to be missing the whole point, it doesn't matter on which side of the street "we think" he was standing.
                What matters is Sarah Lewis saw a man in Dorset St., by Millers Court, looking up the court before she arrived at the Keylers AT 2:30.
                She also saw a couple where the woman was hatless (a prostitute), and the worse for drink.

                All the same details already provided to police by Hutchinson, in private.


                I'm arguing for an error in the Daily News - which even the most basic reading of ALL the other sources will confirm is almost certainly what we're dealing with here.
                ALL the papers carried errors, but you do not decide what constitutes an error. The other sources MUST be permitted to do that, not YOU.
                To decide what is an error we must find a contrary statement, like Lewis saying she saw a couple walk to the end of Dorset St., or enter some other lodging-house. She says nothing of the sort.

                You have decided that saying they "passed up the court" is an error just because you refuse to accept it, even though there is nothing in any of the other sources which contradict it.


                PS: I've never said that I "don't believe" in coincidences, but I have said several times that I'm not as fazed by them as many people are.
                You told me you don't accept Lewis & Kennedy arriving in Millers Court at the same time, coincidences like that don't happen. Apart from coincidences happen every day, it is not true to say they arrived at the same time - they didn't, so your protest was mute.
                Last edited by Wickerman; 12-31-2017, 04:07 PM.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                  .... I've no problem with Lewis's couple being Kelly and another guy, ..... I have no problem with the details of Lewis's testimony (properly interpreted), of her seeing Bethnal Green man etc.
                  ......The Daily News also said that Hutchinson (or Mr Wideawake, at least) was standing in the doorway of the deceased's house at this point. How does THAT tally with Hutchinson's statement? Answer: it doesn't. You can't have your cake and eat it; if the DN was right about Lewis seeing the couple enter Miller's Court, then Hutchinson/Wideawake must have been standing in the doorway at the time, but he wasn't....
                  From the snippets above of your previous post it seems to me you are under the impression that the testimony of Sarah Lewis is to be read as a sequential narrative, like;
                  I passed the Britannia.....I walked down Dorset St....I reached Millers Court.....I noticed a man standing there.....I saw another couple further on.....when I went in the court, etc....

                  Is that what you think?
                  It would certainly answer why you seem to think there is a problem with the Daily News account.

                  Lewis is not providing a sequence of events as they happened.

                  Look at her Inquest testimony - the original handwritten copy.

                  After providing her personal details, she first talks about arriving at the Keylers, and being there at 2:30.

                  No mention of passing the Britannia, or walking down Dorset St., no mention of the man standing opposite - all of which occurred before she arrived at the Keylers.
                  She is not giving a sequential narrative, she is responding to questions.

                  Next, she talks about seeing the man as she enters the court. Only then does she mention this other couple in Dorset St.

                  Can you look at the original handwritten testimony, not a typed copy as given in so many books, but the original handwritten account.

                  Each statement given by Lewis is separated by a dash " - ", this dash indicates where a question was asked by the coroner. Many books, even Stewarts "Ultimate", omit those dashes, which will then give the false impression that Lewis is giving a continuous narrative.

                  Lewis is replying to random questions, she is not providing a sequential story as it happened minute by minute.
                  You seem to think that because Lewis mentioned the loiterer before she mentioned the couple, then in your view, she saw the loiterer before she saw this couple.
                  No, that is not how we read it.

                  The coroner seems to have asked Lewis about the man she saw, then asked her to describe him. He then seems to have asked if there was anyone else in the street, which is why she mentioned the couple after the loiterer. It is the sequence of questions she is responding to, not telling us in what order they happened.
                  We can see some of these questions in the Daily Telegraph version, though they do not provide the coroner's questions from the beginning of her testimony.

                  The coroner is asking her about details which concern him, but not in a sequence as they occurred. So, if you are creating a sequence of events purely from her replies, then of course it will differ from the sequence provided by Hutchinson.
                  Hutchinson was expected to provide the sequence as it happened, to police, but Lewis is responding to specific questions from the coroner, not in any particular order.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                    "I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning she lives at No 2 in the Court on the left on the first floor I know the time by having looked at Spitalfields Church clock as I passed it"
                    Inquest Testimony, 12th Nov. 1888.

                    She doesn't say she passed the Spitalfields Church at 2:30, which is what you are trying to claim.
                    I said she was AT the Keylers AT 2:30, which is precisely what she said.

                    Stick to what she said, instead of twisting her words.
                    She's not going to take 15 minutes to get from the Commercial/Dorset Street junction to the Keylers' room. As Varqm said, it's a matter of a minute or so, give or take.
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      Ok, so which source is correct?

                      "...there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset St."
                      Police Statement - 9th Nov.

                      "I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House."
                      Inquest Testimony, 12th Nov.

                      "...opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake."
                      Daily Telegraph, 13th Nov.

                      "She saw a man at the entrance to the court."

                      Echo.

                      "In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing."
                      Daily News.

                      "...a stout looking man standing at the entrance to Miller's court."

                      St. James Gazette.

                      "I saw a man with a wideawake on stopping on the opposite side of the pavement."
                      Morning Advertiser.

                      "....a man standing at the lodging-house door by himself."
                      Irish Times.

                      Go ahead, cherry-pick the one source you think is correct and throw out all the rest.
                      No, I won't cherry-pick one source. Instead, I'll take an overview of all the sources, and I'll throw in a dash of logistics based on the geography and street-plan for good measure. From that, it's possible to deduce a feasible sequence of events (irrespective of the sequence in which things got written up in witness statements etc) based on a survey of ALL the sources. From this, the most likely scenario is that Lewis, as she was about to enter Miller's Court, saw a man wearing a wideawake hat outside the doorway of Crossingham's (on the opposite side of Dorset Street to Miller's Court), whilst at much the same time spotting a couple further on in Dorset Street.

                      Simples.
                      You told me you don't accept Lewis & Kennedy arriving in Millers Court at the same time, coincidences like that don't happen. Apart from coincidences happen every day, it is not true to say they arrived at the same time - they didn't, so your protest was mute.
                      Correct, because two separate women randomly deciding to up sticks and crash out in 2 Miller's Court and witnessing broadly similar events on the same night, would be an absurd coincidence. And so it is.
                      Last edited by Sam Flynn; 01-01-2018, 11:25 AM.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                        Ah, you need a timeline from all the reports and press articles?

                        Ok, well, we have Hutchinson passing Thrawl st. and meeting up with Kelly "about 2:00 am".

                        - 2:00-2:15 (approx).
                        Hutch see's Astrachan approach Kelly.
                        Sarah Lewis passed the Britannia on the corner and noticed another man & woman standing talking outside the Britannia.
                        Hutch stands still outside the Queens Head pub, the Kelly & Astrachan pass him, then cross the road to Dorset St., Hutch waits at the corner of Dorset St., while Kelly & Astrachan walk towards Millers Court.
                        Sarah Lewis is following some distance behind them on the same side of the road, they walk further on ahead of her.
                        Then Hutchinson walks down the south side(?) of Dorset St. to stand opposite Millers Court, as Kelly and Astrachan enter the passage.

                        - about 2:15 Sarah Lewis arrives at Millers Court and also enters the passage.
                        - Lewis noticed a man standing on the south side, opposite Millers Court, as she enters the passage - he is looking up the passage.
                        - Lewis walks up the passage to room No. 2, and noticed the couple are not in view - there is no-one in the court (meaning they must have gone indoors?).
                        Lewis is there at No.2 when the clock strikes 2:30.

                        2:15 - 3:00 am.
                        Hutchinson waits in Dorset St., at some point he walks across the road and up the passage to stand outside Kelly's room - listening. Then returns to the street to take up his position again out in Dorset St. and waits until "about" 3:00, when he leaves.

                        "About" 3:00.
                        - Mrs Kennedy arrives at the Britannia, on the corner of Comm. St. & Dorset St., where she saw Kelly & another man & woman standing talking.
                        Kennedy walks on passed, down Dorset St. and enters room No.2, Millers Court.

                        At 3:00 or in some sources 3:10, Cox returned to Millers Court, room 13 was dark & quiet.
                        - - - - - - - -

                        All times can be adjusted a few minutes either way as none of the witnesses had watches, and all seem to be relying on the chimes of the Spitalfields Clock. All their times seem to be estimates except where noted otherwise.
                        I don’t even know why I bother but i guess it’s because I’m tired of you misleading everyone, especially noobs who might not know better. And love how you just skip right over the logistical impossibility of your scenario.

                        So for the sake of truth I’ll just say ONE MORE time. Hutch watches them from the corner of Dorset street while they linger for about “three minutes” at the entrance of millers court before going in. He then goes and takes his position as waiting watching man, at which point Lewis appears, sees him there, as she then goes into millers court.

                        So unless she has superhuman vision and can see incredible distances and through buildings it is impossible that she could have seen Mary and Aman pass up the court, as they had already done so way before she arrived.

                        And just for the record and everyone is clear, wicker mans theory involves the ripper being a well dressed man, and therefore hutch has to be telling the truth about Aman, as it bolsters his theory. And anything that bolsters hutch telling the truth, No matter how ludicrous, or obviously erroneous must be defended at all costs.

                        It’s the problem with posters on here with well developed legendariums. The truth gets twisted, obscured and pounded into oblivion as they try to fit the facts with there pre conceived theory world.
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                          So unless she has superhuman vision and can see incredible distances and through buildings
                          ...or at least, around corners
                          it is impossible that she could have seen Mary and Aman pass up the court, as they had already done so way before she arrived.
                          Absolutely correct.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            She's not going to take 15 minutes to get from the Commercial/Dorset Street junction to the Keylers' room. As Varqm said, it's a matter of a minute or so, give or take.
                            There is no 15 minutes mentioned by either witness.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                              No, I won't cherry-pick one source. Instead, I'll take an overview of all the sources, and I'll throw in a dash of logistics based on the geography and street-plan for good measure. From that, it's possible to deduce a feasible sequence of events (irrespective of the sequence in which things got written up in witness statements etc) based on a survey of ALL the sources. From this, the most likely scenario is that Lewis, as she was about to enter Miller's Court, saw a man wearing a wideawake hat outside the doorway of Crossingham's (on the opposite side of Dorset Street to Miller's Court), whilst at much the same time spotting a couple further on in Dorset Street.
                              Ok, so you do agree Lewis walked down Dorset St., and you seem to agree this couple was also in Dorset St.
                              So, in your view, was this couple walking ahead of Lewis - between Lewis and Millers Court, or, were they beyond Millers Court?
                              And, what is written in Lewis's story to indicate your conclusion?


                              Simples.
                              Correct, because two separate women randomly deciding to up sticks and crash out in 2 Miller's Court and witnessing broadly similar events on the same night, would be an absurd coincidence. And so it is.
                              I like how you brush over the significant differences in their stories by saying "broadly similar" - that's amusing, and it is your Achilles Heel, betraying the fact you admit their stories are not the same.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                                So for the sake of truth I’ll just say ONE MORE time. Hutch watches them from the corner of Dorset street while they linger for about “three minutes” at the entrance of millers court before going in. He then goes and takes his position as waiting watching man, at which point Lewis appears, sees him there, as she then goes into millers court.
                                I hi-lited the "three minutes" because you seem to assume this would be too long, yet as he didn't wear a watch, why would you make it an point of debate?
                                Clearly, as he had no watch he is estimating. So beyond the fact they stopped or paused before entering, the suggested time has no value.

                                Your second point, "at which point Lewis appeared", is based on what?
                                Hutchinson does not mention Lewis, but he doesn't have to.
                                And, as Lewis did see this couple ahead of her then Lewis was already in Dorset St - so she didn't "appear" after they entered the court, she was in Dorset St. before they entered the court.

                                Your objections are each based on a false premise.


                                And just for the record and everyone is clear, wicker mans theory involves the ripper being a well dressed man, and therefore hutch has to be telling the truth about Aman, as it bolsters his theory. And anything that bolsters hutch telling the truth, No matter how ludicrous, or obviously erroneous must be defended at all costs.
                                Once again, you are completely WRONG.
                                Wickerman does not believe Astrachan was the murderer - re-think your argument.
                                I wouldn't be so adamant about the existence of Kennedy, and her seeing Kelly out on the street at "about 3:00 am", if Astrachan was the murderer - surely you could have figured that out, if you stopped to think for a moment.

                                My 'suspect' has always been the Britannia-man, if anyone.
                                What has the Britannia-man to do with Hutchinson's story?, nothing that I can see.
                                Have you been barking up the wrong tree all these years?

                                Maybe you shouldn't be so intent on criticizing other posters until you understand their point of view.
                                Last edited by Wickerman; 01-01-2018, 01:50 PM.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X