The Red Handkerchief...

[Sam Flynn]

Lewis first related seeing the loiterer outside Crossinghams, then offered the fact she saw him at the entrance to Millers Court.

I don't think she does, though, Jon. I think she said that she saw someone as she was at the entrance to Miller's Court, and the press simply mangled her story. It's not too difficult to see how "When I was at the entrance, I saw a man opposite" can become "At the entrance, she saw a man", and from there it's a very short step to "She saw a man at the entrance".

[Wickerman]

I don't think she does, though, Jon. I think she said that she saw someone as she was at the entrance to Miller's Court, and the press simply mangled her story. It's not too difficult to see how "When I was at the entrance, I saw a man opposite" can become "At the entrance, she saw a man", and from there it's a very short step to "She saw a man at the entrance".

I agree that a story can become distorted through retelling, but these reporters were present at the Inquest, they heard it only once, and first hand.
If we were talking about one reporter, telling another, who told another, etc. then yes a statement like "(when I was) at the entrance to the court I saw a man" could become "I saw a man at the entrance to the court".

Lets say, for arguments sake, all the press accounts did confuse the location, and she only did see him outside Crossingham's, and nowhere else.
We are then left with Hutchinson who does claim to stand outside Millers Court entrance, and up the court at Kelly's room.
Which is what we read in the press anyway.
And, Hutchinson could not have used details published in the press on the 13th, to embellish his story for the 14th, because he had already supplied some of those details to Abberline on the 12th.

So regardless how we choose to interpret the words attributed to Lewis by the press, the circumstances remain unchanged, Hutchinson admits to being at all those locations.

At the end of the day, Sarah Lewis has confirmed the basic story as related by Hutchinson. That a couple did exist in Dorset St., that the female was both under the influence of drink, and wore no hat, and that they did go up Millers Court.

[Sam Flynn]

At the end of the day, Sarah Lewis has confirmed the basic story as related by Hutchinson.

Indeed, although I'm of the opinion that Lewis - in the form of "Roney" and "Kennedy" - didn't so much as "confirm" what Hutchinson said, but supplied him with his story in the first place. Practically all the requisite ingredients appear in the Star of the 10th November:

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881110.html

Of course, it's quite possible that Hutchinson was indeed in Dorset Street that night, but we can't rule out the possibility that his story was at least partly contaminated by stories that were in the public domain; and these fully two days before the inquest. Personally, I'd say that his account was heavily influenced by what he'd heard and/or read.

[Wickerman]

Indeed, although I'm of the opinion that Lewis - in the form of "Roney" and "Kennedy" - didn't so much as "confirm" what Hutchinson said, but supplied him with his story in the first place. Practically all the requisite ingredients appear in the Star of the 10th November:

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881110.html

Of course, it's quite possible that Hutchinson was indeed in Dorset Street that night, but we can't rule out the possibility that his story was at least partly contaminated by stories that were in the public domain; and these fully two days before the inquest. Personally, I'd say that his account was heavily influenced by what he'd heard and/or read.

Ok, though I'm not altogether clear on who you think Sarah Lewis saw in Dorset St.

If Hutchinson lied about the whole thing (his story entirely inspired by what he read over the weekend), then he was not the loiterer, so he is not guilty of anything?
So who was this couple (man c/w drunk female, with no hat, passing up the court) seen by Lewis?

However, if he was present, for whatever reason, then he must be the loiterer, and those events described by Sarah Lewis mean we have an otherwise unknown client with Mary Kelly at about 2:00-2:30?

[Garry Wroe]

Indeed, although I'm of the opinion that Lewis - in the form of "Roney" and "Kennedy" - didn't so much as "confirm" what Hutchinson said, but supplied him with his story in the first place. Practically all the requisite ingredients appear in the Star of the 10th November

Perhaps, Sam. But only Sarah Lewis made reference to the Wideawake character, and Sarah's narrative had yet to receive any newspaper coverage when Hutchinson related his Astrakhan story to Abberline.

[harry]

There you go again Jon. Aberline spent hours with Hutchinson,there were untold pages of evidence that could confirm Hutchinson's statement or contest it.Where are those pages and what do they confirm or contest? If they are now lost how can they confirm anything.
Hutchinson spent time with Aberline and the station sergeant,the latter writing Hutchinson's statement.The results of what was said is available today.Apart from that are newspaper reports which confirm nothing.No well dressed man,no Kelly on the street at about 2AM,no loitering outside Crossinghams,no waqlking the streets of Whitechapel..So Jon tell us what does confirm Hutchinson's account?
Aberline did not prove Hutchinson's honesty.He commented on it as an opinion.An opinion of Hutchinson's untruthfulness has been given numerable times on these boards,and those opinions are based on the same information that was available in 1888.Time does not alter the ability to reason,and there is nothing that concludes Aberlines opinion should be superior to todays persons,when considering the same information.

[Wickerman]

I fail to see the need to keep addressing the same point over and over again. If you truly believe the police files are complete and that what has survived as evidence is all there ever was, then sadly I think you will find yourself alone in that thought.

[Sam Flynn]

Perhaps, Sam. But only Sarah Lewis made reference to the Wideawake character, and Sarah's narrative had yet to receive any newspaper coverage when Hutchinson related his Astrakhan story to Abberline.

Well, we have the Roney and Kennedy accounts in the Star of 10th November, which tells of (presumably) Kelly and a well-dressed man engaged in some kind of transaction near the Britannia, and of activity in/around Miller's Court. That same newspaper reports of a female "associate of the deceased", who describes events that precede Lewis's arrival, namely how Kelly was apparently "picked up" by her man. Comparison between this account and Hutchinson's is, I think, revealing:

Female associate: Met Kelly at corner of Dorset and (presumably) Commercial Street
Hutchinson: Met Kelly in Commercial Street, just before the junction of Flower & Dean

Female associate: Kelly said she had so money, indicating that she was truly desperate to find some
Hutchinson: Kelly asked him for 6d, and said that she must find some money soon

Female associate: They parted, soon after which Kelly was approached by a well-dressed man
Hutchinson: They parted, soon after which Kelly was approached by a (very!) well-dressed man

Female associate: The man spoke to Kelly, and offered her money
Hutchinson: The man spoke to Kelly. It is implied that he offered her money ("You will be alright for what I have told you")

Female associate: The man accompanied Kelly back to her lodgings
Hutchinson: The man accompanied Kelly back to Miller's Court

In addition, the same report of the 10th November has Sarah Roney describe a man with a dark moustache, carrying a black bag, in Dorset Street/Brushfield Street on Thursday night.

Mrs Kennedy reports seeing a similar man on the night of Kelly's murder, and that she'd seen the same man earlier in the week on Bethnal Green Road. She described him as pale in complexion, with a dark moustache, and that he was respectably dressed wearing a jacket and a long top-coat. Again, he is described as clutching a black bag.

Intriguingly, Kennedy says this: He made every endeavour to prevent [us] looking him straight in the face. Compare this with Hutchinson's "The man hung his head down with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern."


Everything I've marked in bold was readily available and in the public domain on the 10th November 1888. The essentials of Hutchinson's story are all there.

[Sally]

Indeed...

There was a similar discussion regarding Hutchinson's potential inspiration a couple of years ago, I think. There is evidence, of course, that the Victoria Home was supplied with newspapers daily for the lodgers (e.g.Later Leaves, Montagu Williams).

I think the Sunday paper, The Observer would likely suffice on it's own - just my view.

Here's the thread in question, etc. for reference.


http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...khan+man+exist

And a post on The Observer specifically


http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=505

[Wickerman]

Gareth.
The police at the time were well aware of what was being published in the press. What you have hi-lited has been noticed by a number of us interested in the case, why would you think the police were not aware of it also?
I mean, if it is obvious to you, do you not think it would be equally as obvious to detectives investigating the case?
Afterall, the police have already gathered these statements as evidence themselves. It is also reported in the press that Kennedy was interviewed by Abberline himself.

All that aside, it would appear from comparing what was said by Paumier, Roney & Kennedy that the 'well-dressed' man they reported was likely the same man.

None of the above, however accurate, answers the question of who the loiterer seen by Lewis was.

None of the above addresses the seemingly unexplained coincidence that several reporters present at the Inquest published details only known to both Hutchinson & presumably Sarah Lewis.
That there was only one couple in Dorset St - that the woman wore no hat - that she was 'drunk/tipsy', - that this couple walked up the court together in the presence of this loiterer - that the loiterer stood at the entrance to Millers court - that he was also seen at Kelly's door.

Given that Lewis not only reports seeing a loiterer, but also seeing the couple (variously described above by Inquest reporters), then any suggested "inspired" content attributed to Hutchinson must also be attributed to Sarah Lewis, or to those handful of reporters who chose to assign those details to her Inquest testimony.

This is becoming rather overtly complicated don't you think?

[Roy Corduroy]

Good morning Wickerman,

This is becoming rather overtly complicated don't you think?

Not really. Sam's explanation is pretty good.

What's overly complicated is the suspect scenario, in which George Hutchinson, the serial killer known as Jack the Ripper did the following:

Staked out this particular one of his victims, Mary Kelly by hanging around Dorset Street across from Miller's Court.
Was seen there and realized he was seen by a woman whom he didn't know. (Sarah Lewis)
But in spite of that he went ahead and murdered Mary Kelly.
Three days later he became aware there was to be the inquest into the death of Mary Kelly held at Shoreditch Town Hall.
So sometime that morning or afternoon or both, he walked the 1.3 miles from the Victoria Home to the Town Hall in Shoreditch.
He again did a stakeout, this time in broad daylight in Shoreditch. Either morning, afternoon or all day long.
He still remembered the appearance of the woman (Sarah Lewis) who had seen him at Dorset Street that night.
He saw her entering or exiting Shoreditch Town Hall.
Thus, he assumed his presence at the crime scene was outed, so he went to the police station and gave a statement.

Now that's complicated.

This is a suspect thread, you know.

Roy

[Sam Flynn]

The police at the time were well aware of what was being published in the press. What you have hi-lited has been noticed by a number of us interested in the case, why would you think the police were not aware of it also?

I'm sure some of them were, just as the "I'm Jack" messages and tapes were spotted as hoaxes (again based on info in the public domain) by some junior officers in the Yorkshire Ripper case. They flagged it up, and were overridden by senior officers. Perhaps something similar happened here, and perhaps that was why Hutchinson's statement came to be "discredited", at least in some quarters.

The parallels between that Star report of the 10th November and the Hutchinson story of the 12th are beyond coincidence, in my view. The main changes are the addition of an astrakhan trim to the top-coat, some spats and some jewellery... which, arguably, serve merely to emphasise the "well-dressed" nature of the man in the Roney/Lewis/Kennedy accounts.

[Wickerman]

Good morning Wickerman,

Good morning Roy.

Not really. Sam's explanation is pretty good.

Sam's explanation provides potential parallels to certain details within Hutchinson's story, though it must be asked, just how unique are those details, and how unique is it for a prostitute to ask for money?
For arguments sake, lets say he used the "well-dressed" man to spice up his story.
None of these previous accounts mention a couple in Dorset St. entering the passage, none address the woman wearing no hat, nor that she was tipsy.

What Sam does not address, which is more problematical, are the details attributed to Sarah Lewis by certain reporters, in her Inquest testimony.

That several reporters representing different newspapers just happened to make similar mistakes(?) which reflected what Hutchinson would say the very next day in his own published account. An account, we must remember, that had been already given to Abberline the previous day.
Either that, or Sarah Lewis actually made those comments herself.

Which is the simplest explanation?

This is a suspect thread, you know.
Roy

Indeed, but does that mean we dispense with the simple explanations?

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Wickerman,

Sarah Lewis's exact inquest testimony is a moot point to George Hutchinson. Unless he had a ticket to go inside. He was up in Shoreditch surveilling Town Hall from outside, according to the suspectors. Just the sight of her (Sarah Lewis) there was all he needed. There wasn't time for her story to be set in type, him to buy a newspaper and read it and so forth. He knew he'd been seen at Dorset St and remembered the woman's appearance who saw him there. So he went to Shoreditch to find out if that woman would testify, and she did. Then he made his pre-emptive visit to police. In his mind.

See how compared to all that, yes Sam's explanation is much simpler and easy to digest. That's what I mean by simplicity. By degrees. The suspect scenario being at the un-simple end of the scale. Which is all I'm trying to say here.

Roy

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Jon

Sam's explanation provides potential parallels to certain details within Hutchinson's story, though it must be asked, just how unique are those details, and how unique is it for a prostitute to ask for money?

It wasn't that she was a prostitute "just asking" for money, though - she told her female acquaintance that she was desperate for money, and that desperation is echoed in Hutchinson's testimony.

What Sam does not address, which is more problematical, are the details attributed to Sarah Lewis by certain reporters, in her Inquest testimony.

That there was a stout man in a wideawake, standing outside the lodging house opposite Miller's Court? Hardly unusual in itself, I'd have thought. Arguably a more common sight than a prostitute asking for money... even a really desperate one, as described by both "Miss X" and Mr H.