Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Wickerman]

...
So basically what I'm saying that either Hutch was telling the truth and he gave by far the best, most detailed description of the Suspect yet to date or he was lying (or greatly exaggerating) about either the whole thing or just some parts of it. And if that is the case, and he was lying then that should be followed with "Why"? Which is where everything gets complicated because there are SO many reasons for him to lie or exaggerate what he did or did not see. Some of those are: Possibly getting money from the newspapers? Covering for himself by trying to throw the investigation off track by having the detectives look in totally the wrong direction? Or maybe covering for someone else? I'm sure we could come up with 20 more, at least.
For me, I'm liking the reason that he was lying to cover for himself more and more everyday. Would I bet the farm on it? Nope, not yet at least

That's pretty much where current opinions sit - divided on several points.

I have never read a sound argument that casts doubt on the description he gave.
We've had ex-police on Casebook who have conducted interviews with witnesses - something most critics have never done.
Yet, they see nothing wrong with the depth of detail, having seen similar attention to detail by a witness themselves.

So if a professional can readily accept it, why should we listen to someone who has no experience in taking descriptions?

Besides, Sarah Lewis saw a couple walk up the court while a man stood in Dorset St. watching. That should be the slam-dunk for all these "he made it all up" arguments.

[Sam Flynn]

Besides, Sarah Lewis saw a couple walk up the court.

She didn't. Lewis describes walking down Dorset Street towards Miller's Court, sees the mysterious watchman outside Crossinghams and a couple "further on", evidently meaning "further on in Dorset Street". Whatever, she does not report seeing the couple so much as pass in front of the entrance to Miller's Court, still less walk up it. For the avoidance of doubt, Lewis even says that "there was nobody in the court" when she arrived.

Edit: I thought a Noddy picture might help. What Lewis described was surely something like this (not to scale )



Green = Sarah Lewis en route to the Keylers
Red = Mr Widewake, or "Hutch" if you like, gazing at the entrance to Miller's Court from outside the lodging house
Blue = Couple (I'm assuming they were on the same side as Lewis, but they could easily have been "further on" the opposite side of the street)

[Wickerman]

From the outset, some authorities questioned the hoax letters and tape sent to the police by "Wearside Jack" during the hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper, but that didn't stop George Oldfield from continuing to believe them.

Certainly, that is because the police did not know if the tape real or a hoax.
The tape was not 'discredited', some may not have believed it, others certainly did. Which is common enough in police work. Investigators are human afterall.
But you can't tell me the tape was deemed 'discredited' at anytime until they eventually arrested Sutcliffe.

All we can say with certainty is that there was a report in the press to that effect four days later, by which time it could have been old news.

Old news?
C'mon Gareth, reporters were hanging around the police stations ready to jump on the next breaking story - everything hit the press within the same hour in those days.
Old News indeed......

This idea of a fake description, just think about it.
Would you cherry pick isolated & unrelated details from newspapers to create a new suspect?
Or, commit to memory one of the previously released suspect descriptions the police are already familiar with?
Which plot is more likely to be readily believed by a lying witness?

In fact the suspect descriptions from the Double Murder were published in the press the very same day as the inquest, the day he came forward.
Why not just give them a similar description to this:

"....... a man, age 30, height 5ft 7 or 8in., complexion fair, moustache fair, medium build; dress, pepper-and-salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap, with peak of the same material, reddish neckerchief tied in knot; appearance of a sailor.

What rationale would a lying witness have to invent a suspect, trimmed in Astrachan, all 'blinged' up, spats, tie-pin & curled up 'tache', like something out of a music hall.
If you are going to 'con' the police, then you need to invent a man who is already known to exist, who they are already looking for.

[Sam Flynn]

What rationale would a lying witness have to invent a suspect, trimmed in Astrachan, all 'blinged' up, spats, tie-pin & curled up 'tache', like something out of a music hall.

I thought that such a person wasn't particularly outlandish, and wouldn't have been unheard of in the neighbourhood. At least, that's what some "Hutch was telling the truth" advocates have often pointed out - and I'm happy to take their advice.

[Wickerman]

If Hutch was - or wanted to convince the police he was - the man seen by Lewis, why did he not say that he saw her enter the court?

The 19th century was a very different world. Women didn't get the vote until 1918, or thereabouts.
Women & children in Victorian England were basically background noise. If you saw someone, you saw a man. Men were the important figures in society.

Some contemporary observations of life in the streets of Whitechapel inform us that women and children were everywhere. Sitting on doorsteps, scurrying up and down the street, some are midwives, others are servants, cleaners, charwomen, etc.
Women were property in 19th century England, not 'persons'.

Hutchinson may have seen Lewis, he didn't bother to mention that to Badham in his statement. Why should he, he was not defending himself. He may have told Abberline he saw a woman in Dorset St., in the interrogation. That we will never know.

[Sam Flynn]

Hutchinson may have seen Lewis, he didn't bother to mention that to Badham in his statement. Why should he, he was not defending himself.

I don't buy this, Jon. Despite what you say about 19th century attitudes to women, they were not somehow invisible or unworthy of notice. I find it very difficult to believe that a witness, having seen a woman enter Miller's Court within minutes of Kelly, would have failed to report the fact.

[Wickerman]

Because 'Hutchinson' did not see Lewis enter the court. He wasn't there.

At 3.00 am Bowyer was fetching water from the tap in Millers Court. He didn't see 'Hutchinson'. Nor did he see Sarah Lewis.

It's all one great big tangle of lies.

Bowyer doesn't walk into Dorset St. to get water from the tap so he can't see who might be stood in the street. Also, Bowyer was not asked if he saw anyone else. The press report is only concerned with him seeing a man in the court with Kelly.
Besides, if you read Lewis's statement in the press, she followed on up the court after the couple had gone indoors. So likely Bowyer had also gone inside too.

[Wickerman]

Sarah Lewis's alter ego, Mrs Kennedy, arrived in Millers Court just after 3.00 am. She didn't see Bowyer, and he didn't see her.

It's like a Brian Rix farce.

Simon, all your arguments seem to be based on negative evidence.
You seem to be saying, "if it was not said, then it didn't happen".
Thats not how research works.
The press only report what they think is of interest, everything else is edited out.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

If it was not said, then how do you know it happened?

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman - Pardon my digression, but going back to the fish & chips...or the kippers and mash...

Hi RJ, nice to hear from you for a change...

"In the abdominal cavity was some partially digested food of fish & potatoes & similar food was found in the remains of the stomach attached to the intestines."

It has always seemed to me that Kelly must have been murdered almost immediately after eating this meal. The fish was barely digested and still recognizable, even though fish digests rather quickly.

A number of members have looked into the digestion period for both fish and potatoes. No-one found an exact time, it's all very iffy.
Was the fish boiled or fried, was the potato baked?, there's so much we have to assume and in the end we cannot pin down the time she last ate.

Further, the food had spilled into the abdominal cavity during the appalling attack, perhaps suggesting that very little had made it's way into the small intestine. Indeed, according to Bond, what food WAS found in the entrails was still in the 'stomach proper' as opposed to the intestines. (side note: intense vomiting can empty the small intestine).

So the $34,000 question: when did she eat this meal?

No one seems to know, but I would hazard that it was no more than twenty minutes before she was killed.

Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, I'm one of those increasingly rare souls that don't think the Victorian police were stupid. The MEPO files on the Kelly case are nearly non-existent, but I think we can take it on faith that when Bond's report 'hit the fan,' Walter Dew and the lads would have knocked on the door of every pub and victualler in the East End until they found where Kelly bought her last meal.

Totally agree, in fact I believe Dr. Bond had to have been given a time to enable him to provide his estimate.
So the time had to come from Abberline, which means the police canvassed the area. There was a fish shop in Thrawl Street.

What we do not know is what that time was based on, and there had to be some doubt.
There was no cause for the police to entertain both Maxwell & Hutchinson if the time Kelly ate was an established fact.

Inexplicably, Dew lumps Hutchinson together with Mrs. Maxwell: they BOTH had the wrong night/morning.

I thought the 'wrong day' argument had been totally trashed.
Maxwell was interviewed the same day that she saw 'Kelly'.
And, Sarah Lewis saw a couple in Dorset St. being watched by a man (Hutchinson?), just like Hutchinson said.

Thus Dew's suspect was not the toff, but the Blotchy bloke with the ale, and Hutch, while honest, simply had it wrong. That, in a nutshell, is what Dew was remembering and reporting. I don't say that Dew must be accepted as the final word, but this was clearly his belief.

We don't know if Dew was even involved, or if he 'solved the case' himself years later. Remember his memoir was written nearly 50 years later.

That's all from here. Feel free to tear it apart, because, personally, I don't think Carrotty is our man. Cheers.

Aw, c'mon now, this is Casebook, a more friendly, amicable website has yet to be created....

[Wickerman]

Green = Sarah Lewis en route to the Keylers
Red = Mr Widewake, or "Hutch" if you like, gazing at the entrance to Miller's Court from outside the lodging house
Blue = Couple (I'm assuming they were on the same side as Lewis, but they could easily have been "further on" the opposite side of the street)

You put the blue dot where it suits you (bias?).
"further on" ahead of Lewis? or "further on" way down the street?
Seeing as we can't possibly know, then you have no place to put that blue dot.

See if you can work this bit in to your graphic...
"I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

Lewis even says that "there was nobody in the court" when she arrived.

Of course, Hutchinson did not say Astrachan & Kelly stayed outside, they went indoors - didn't they?
Why should Lewis see anyone in the court then?

[why do we keep going over this?]

[Wickerman]

I thought that such a person wasn't particularly outlandish, and wouldn't have been unheard of in the neighbourhood. At least, that's what some "Hutch was telling the truth" advocates have often pointed out - and I'm happy to take their advice.

It isn't that the description was "odd" for the area, the point is the description was totally different to previous suspect descriptions. So for a man trying to pull a fast one on the police, he sure picked an odd looking suspect compared to who had been seen before.

[Wickerman]

I don't buy this, Jon. Despite what you say about 19th century attitudes to women, they were not somehow invisible or unworthy of notice. I find it very difficult to believe that a witness, having seen a woman enter Miller's Court within minutes of Kelly, would have failed to report the fact.

But you've seen examples of this already.
Look again at the witness statements to Abberline on 9th Nov. none of them contain much detail. Particulars are extracted in any subsequent questioning, in that case by the coroner.
Just compare their brief police statements with their detailed inquest testimony.

Hutchinson's statement is what he believes important. Whoever else was in the street was of no importance when compared to the fact he saw Kelly with a man.
Why do you think the police today are always saying "tell us everything". Simply because the witness does not always appreciate the importance of the details they leave out.

[Joshua Rogan]

The Irish Times, Wednesday 14th November 1888—

"London, Tuesday [13th]

"We are enabled to state that since the termination of the inquest on Mary Janet Kelly, an important link in the chain of evidence has been discovered which is likely to afford a clue to the murderer, and may, at least, avail to prevent a repetition of the crime. The name of the informant is at present kept secret, but his veracity is unquestioned, and he was personally acquainted with the deceased."

George Hutchinson was never identified as the secret informant. His independent story was introduced as corroboration of the original police statement, despite differences between the 13th and 14th November press reports.

Two witnesses, two differing descriptions of the same man.

Daily News, Wednesday 14th November—

"It will be observed that the description of the supposed murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police, and published yesterday morning."

If your 'Aha!' theory is correct, the press were extremely dim when it came to putting two and two together.

Doesn't the Echo 14th Nov report say exactly this?

"We learned on inquiry at the Commercial St police station today that the elaborate description given above is virtually the same as that previously published. It is a little fuller, that is all. But it proceeds from the same source."

[Simon Wood]

Hi Joshua,

Now I think you're starting to get it.

Regards,

Simon