Possible reason for Hutch coming forward

[Sam Flynn]

The important point is the mention of a man & woman, she being hatless and the worse for drink - pass up the court.

Lewis does not say that she saw the couple enter the court, but that she saw the couple as SHE (Lewis) entered the court.

[Michael W Richards]

In actual fact he didn't.
Nowhere in the press from Friday to Monday (day of inquest), is there any suggestion that Blotchy was a prime suspect. In fact Cox's statement is not mentioned in the press as of any significance.
Plus, speculation in the press over that weekend was more in favor of Maxwell's statement, no mention of Cox.
The police didn't, and wouldn't, preempt the inquest by publicizing whom they believed was the best suspect.

Immediately following the inquest the Star wrote a column suggesting "the murderer described", when writing Cox's testimony - but that was their opinion, not that of the police.
Which is what I think prompted Hutchinson to come forward, he knew Cox could not have been the last witness to see Kelly alive.

So, Blotchy never became the prime police suspect.

Ive tried to be patient with this absurd contention of yours that Lewis and Kennedy were 2 people, but the above suggests something that is clearly misleading. Whether they publicly said Blotchy was a suspect or not between Friday aft and Monday, he is most obviously the last mans seen with Mary by any of the credible witnesses...and Ill say this once more....THE WITNESSES THAT WE KNOW KNEW MARY ...and lived in close proximity to her room. Thats Julia, Elizabeth, Maria and Mary Ann...period. There is no evidence at all that Lewis KNEW Mary, there is no evidence that Maxwell KNEW Mary, and the accounts that have her seen outside her room after midnight are ABSENT or discounted by the coroner during Inquest questioning. What you post does nothing but mislead the posters that havent studied these crimes for eons...going on 30 years in my case.

You are proving yourself as concerned with the facts as our resident I SEE LECHMERE EVERWHERE poster.

And to complete this corrective post, the Star said Hutchinsons story was discredited on the 15th. The word speaks for it itself Jon, none of your revisionist style of reciting what you think happened vs the actual facts changes that.

[Wickerman]

But she doesn't say that they "passed up" (or into) Miller's Court. Lewis says that she saw them "further on" as SHE turned into Miller's Court. They were not in Miller's Court when Lewis entered it, and they did not precede her into Miller's Court either. If either had been true, Lewis's statements would have unambiguously said so, and there may well have been follow-up questions from police and Coroner (e.g. "did you see them go into one of the rooms in Miller's Court?"... "Which one?"), assuming Lewis wouldn't have volunteered that information herself, which I'm pretty sure she would if she'd seen anything; she wasn't exactly backward in coming forward when it came to providing additional details in her story.

I guess I'm not following what you are saying. I just quoted where Lewis said those words you say she didn't say

Now, I'm not saying that this couple "further on" weren't Kelly and some other bloke, nor that they might have entered Miller's Court after Lewis, but that's another matter. It's simply that evidence does not show that this couple entered Miller's Court before Sarah Lewis, but that they were "further on" - almost certainly in Dorset Street - when Lewis turned right to enter Miller's Court.

The important point is the mention of a man & woman, she being hatless and the worse for drink - pass up the court.
So, if there were two couples in the street at the same time, but only one of the couples entered Millers Court, how does that render Hutchinson's story invalid?

We have something like half a dozen reporters recording the same testimony, but none of them mention two couples in Dorset St.
Which should indicate what we are reading is different lines of testimony from the same witness, referring to the same couple.

[Wickerman]

Thanks Jon. But doesn't this conflict with the idea of Lewis following the couple along Dorset St and seeing them go up the court (unless she too waited around for 3 minutes)?

Hi Joshua, if he had a watch we might think "three minutes" was actually "three minutes" - but then, why would he time them?
If you think back 4 days ago, how long did you wait at a stop sign (if driving), or wait to cross the road, at one specific time of day?
You simply will not know, but you will say a number, if asked. We all will, but we wouldn't really know.

All we can take from that part of Hutchinson's story is that they stopped, before both entering the passage - the actual time is not relevant because he didn't time them.
Lewis didn't say anything about this couple stopping before entering the court, likely because this couple was not the focus of the Coroner, he was interested in this loiterer, what he did and what he looked like.
Lewis is responding to the Coroner's questions, she isn't telling a continuous narrative.

[Varqm]

Kelly and astrakhan man entered Miller's court at 2:15 AM based on Hutch's testimony - saw Kelly at 2:00 am,Kelly/Astra went in at ???, he waited 45 min,he said he went away at 3:00 am. Is 2:15 am the correct time Kelly/Astra entered Miller's court based on Hutch's testimony?
And from 2:15 am to 3:00 AM Hutch did not mention any couple or anyone entering/leaving Miller's court.Sarah came at around 2:30 AM.

[Sam Flynn]

No doubt she saw them ahead of her "further on", so clearly they "passed along" the street. Equally then, as this couple turned into Millers Court to, "pass up the court", then Lewis would momentarily loose sight of them.

But she doesn't say that they "passed up" (or into) Miller's Court. Lewis says that she saw them "further on" as SHE turned into Miller's Court. They were not in Miller's Court when Lewis entered it, and they did not precede her into Miller's Court either. If either had been true, Lewis's statements would have unambiguously said so, and there may well have been follow-up questions from police and Coroner (e.g. "did you see them go into one of the rooms in Miller's Court?"... "Which one?"), assuming Lewis wouldn't have volunteered that information herself, which I'm pretty sure she would if she'd seen anything; she wasn't exactly backward in coming forward when it came to providing additional details in her story.

Now, I'm not saying that this couple "further on" weren't Kelly and some other bloke, nor that they might have entered Miller's Court after Lewis, but that's another matter. It's simply that evidence does not show that this couple entered Miller's Court before Sarah Lewis, but that they were "further on" - almost certainly in Dorset Street - when Lewis turned right to enter Miller's Court.

[Joshua Rogan]

Thanks Jon. But doesn't this conflict with the idea of Lewis following the couple along Dorset St and seeing them go up the court (unless she too waited around for 3 minutes)?

[Wickerman]

Didn't Hutchinson himself say that he stood and watched Kelly and Astrachan Man from the end of Dorset Street, while they talked at the court entrance for several minutes?

Yes, the only times he gave which can be relied on is the time he passed the Whitechapel Church, the clock said "between ten & five minutes to two o'clock".
Then, when he left Millers Court, the Spitalfields church clock struck three o'clock. Assuming these clock were correct.

All the times between these two events; for him arriving at Thrawl Street (about 2 o'clock), the couple standing at the court (about 3 minutes), and for him lingering outside Kelly's room (a couple of minutes), then him standing outside Millers Court (about three-quarters of an hour), are all estimates, as Hutchinson appears to have not wore a watch.

[Joshua Rogan]

The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink.
Daily Telegraph, 13 Nov.

He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one. 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, 13 Nov.

Certainly, Lewis will see this couple walk along Dorset St. as Lewis had to be following on behind. No doubt she saw them ahead of her "further on", so clearly they "passed along" the street. Equally then, as this couple turned into Millers Court to, "pass up the court", then Lewis would momentarily loose sight of them.
By the time Lewis herself reached the court, and entered the passage, this couple had gone indoors. Lewis said that when she reached the court "there was no-one in the court". Which is exactly what we should expect if this is the same couple mentioned by Hutchinson.

What is there to contest this sighting?, it all makes perfect sense, and ties in very well with the story told by Hutchinson.

Didn't Hutchinson himself say that he stood and watched Kelly and Astrachan Man from the end of Dorset Street, while they talked at the court entrance for several minutes?

[Wickerman]

Not "passed up the court", but further on in Dorset Street. The wording is slightly ambiguous, but by far the more likely reading is that Lewis saw the couple in Dorset Street as she (Lewis) turned into Miller's Court. If the couple had preceded her down that narrow passageway, I'm sure Lewis would have provided more details.

I don't think there's a single source which has Lewis saying that the couple actually entered Miller's Court.

The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink.
Daily Telegraph, 13 Nov.

He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one. 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, 13 Nov.

Certainly, Lewis will see this couple walk along Dorset St. as Lewis had to be following on behind. No doubt she saw them ahead of her "further on", so clearly they "passed along" the street. Equally then, as this couple turned into Millers Court to, "pass up the court", then Lewis would momentarily loose sight of them.
By the time Lewis herself reached the court, and entered the passage, this couple had gone indoors. Lewis said that when she reached the court "there was no-one in the court". Which is exactly what we should expect if this is the same couple mentioned by Hutchinson.

What is there to contest this sighting?, it all makes perfect sense, and ties in very well with the story told by Hutchinson.

[Sam Flynn]

The Daily Telegraph & Daily News both include details that make it clear this loiterer (if Hutch) was present, while another man, with a woman being hatless & the worse for drink, passed up the court.

Not "passed up the court", but further on in Dorset Street. The wording is slightly ambiguous, but by far the more likely reading is that Lewis saw the couple in Dorset Street as she (Lewis) turned into Miller's Court. If the couple had preceded her down that narrow passageway, I'm sure Lewis would have provided more details.

I don't think there's a single source which has Lewis saying that the couple actually entered Miller's Court.

[Wickerman]

.....
The only close to official line was Dew's interpretation that Hutch was not there,
...

The more complete press versions of Sarah Lewis's inquest testimony pretty well rule out that argument. The Daily Telegraph & Daily News both include details that make it clear this loiterer (if Hutch) was present, while another man, with a woman being hatless & the worse for drink, passed up the court.
This is exactly what Hutchinson claimed - so he had to be there.

And if I remember correctly from a newspaper, the police were trying to put a distance between them and the press.

The press quite openly, and in print, complained about the Met. police telling them nothing.
Warren also complained to the Home Office about the press following his detectives around and re-interviewing anyone the police had been speaking to.
This can be seen as a direct response by the press to the fact the police were telling the press nothing. So both those complaints, and from opposing camps, tend to support each other.
This is why we must be very particular what we accept as believable in the press.

When the press write about something they could have obtained by following detectives around - like the direction of the investigation, whether the police are asking people about a Blotchy or Astrachan suspect, we can see the justification for claims like this.
But, when we read stories about what the police are thinking, like a suspect being "discredited", or the police not believing a story, then we must be wary of these claims.
As the press themselves are claiming the police tell them nothing, we shouldn't believe any unsourced claims in the press about what the police are thinking.
That is only common sense.

[Varqm]

The police were told he went missing directly after the murder too.

Yes and they lured him with his violin a week or two later,followed him, then Isaacs stole.
The only close to official line was Dew's interpretation that Hutch was not there,
but only one.Even the officials were divided at least a week or 2 after Nov,12?
I guess there were so many false info and there was no law they did not even bother with it.And if I remember correctly from a newspaper, the police were trying to put a distance between them and the press.

[Wickerman]

Isaacs was acting strangely,thats why he was sought.It was the reporters opinion it had something to do with the Astrakhan description.There was no official line in regards to the Astrakhan man.It might have been to some reporters it was discredited,others not,but both were possible.

The police were told he went missing directly after the murder too.

[Varqm]

In its' Dec 16th edition Lloyd's Weekly is reporting on the apprehension of Joseph Isaacs. He was brought to the attention of the police by Mary Cusins and other lodgers during the house-to-house inspections that followed the murder of Mary Jane Kelly.

After her statement a look-out was kept for the prisoner[Isaacs], whose appearance answered to the public description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat.

So, here it's mid-December, and the police are still following Hutchinson's description.

An aside, my wonder is does a rank-and-file exist amongst the newspapers, with the socialist newspapers (ie Echo, Star,Pall Mall) and their biases lining up on this side, and the, uh, "conservative" newspapers (ie Times,Evening News) and their biases lining up on that side.

Isaacs was acting strangely,thats why he was sought.It was the reporters opinion it had something to do with the Astrakhan description.There was no official line in regards to the Astrakhan man.It might have been to some reporters it was discredited,others not,but both were possible.