Why did he lied?

[Wickerman]

....Anyway the suggestion is that Hutchinson may have benefitted from this form of payment.

Even though you don't know what it was, or even if he was paid?

[Lechmere]

Well... I said it has been suggested – I didn’t say he had definately been paid for services rendered.

In support of this suggestion:
It was reported in the Wheeling Register.
We know for a fact that witnesses who went around with the police looking for suspects were often paid. Hutchinson did this for at least two days. There is a reported case of this practice in Islington around the same time.
We have Toppy’s sons saying his father George was paid – if Topy’s was Hutchinson of course.

I think it is very plausible to suggest that Hutchinson may have been paid for this activities.

[Malcolm X]

It has always been mentioned on this forum that GH was after a reward or he was maybe given a reward etc..... this has been so for the last 10 years.

to me this makes no difference, because it looks like he was there, reward or not.

this Toppy is also too young for JTR

[Wickerman]

to me this makes no difference, because it looks like he was there, reward or not.

I think it must be taken for granted that G H was present. Would a witness make the claims that G H made if he was not being entirely honest?

Hutchinson:
"They both then went up the court together."

Sarah Lewis:
"I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

Hutchinson:
"I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise."

Sarah Lewis:
"In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man. He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one."

Hutchinson placed himself at Kelly's door at the critical time by his own volition. An extremely precarious admission for a 'killer', or for a 'liar' to make. Unless Hutchinson was simply the naively honest witness he claimed to be.

Regards, Jon S.

[Malcolm X]

I think it must be taken for granted that G H was present. Would a witness make the claims that G H made if he was not being entirely honest?

Hutchinson:
"They both then went up the court together."

Sarah Lewis:
"I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

Hutchinson:
"I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise."

Sarah Lewis:
"In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man. He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one."

Hutchinson placed himself at Kelly's door at the critical time by his own volition. An extremely precarious admission for a 'killer', or for a 'liar' to make. Unless Hutchinson was simply the naively honest witness he claimed to be.

Regards, Jon S.

The first one you say refers to Blotchy face, any others if true, refer to after 3am only...... but nothing is seen between 2 and 3am.

could he be telling the truth and simply Naive, no his suspect description is too loaded and too clever for this, Abberline believed him because this GH did not seem to be anything like JTR, plus of course, he described EXACTLY what JTR might be like...... something straight out of a ``little shop of horrors``

the problem we have with GH is ?...... who the hell is he, because he definitely isn't Toppy, he's too young, plus still around for the rest of his life as a stay at home ``family guy``.

i dont think that we have any proof that Toppy even stayed at Victoria holmes, but i could be wrong; maybe Ben knows........ GH yes, but maybe not this imposter called Toppy.

all of this Reg stuff looks like a lie anyway, especially when he mentions the Royal Conspiracy.

[GregBaron]

Former or latter?

When we, hopefully, find out what was going on in 1888, ALL of us will be silent. I, for one, will be glad when that happens.

Hi Lynn,

I can't help but ask. Which will make you gladder?

A) When all of us are silent
B) When we find out what was going on in 1888?


I anxiously await your reply.


Greg

[Wickerman]

The first one you say refers to Blotchy face, any others if true, refer to after 3am only...... but nothing is seen between 2 and 3am.

Not sure what you mean Malcolm, I didn't say the first one refers to Blotchy.
All four concern Hutchinson.
Both points made by Hutchinson are confirmed by Sarah Lewis and are timed between 2:30am - 3:00am.

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all. Without any form of employment, GH would not have been 'paid' for his help, though he would have been provided lodging and food expense, which would have been a big deal to him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Stout vs Military?

In case anyone missed it, on Lynn's 'Hurlbert' thread, post #34 I believe, Simon Wood posts a description of Hurlbert, from British sources, that describe him both as 'stout' and as having a military appearance, proving that at least in this instance, both are not mutually exclusive. To a lower class person, they might see him as 'fat' or 'stout', but to someone with a more discerning eye, who perhaps might be a little 'stout' themselves, they'd notice the way such a man carried himself and determine he had a 'military' bearing or appearance.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Tom. I think that's right. Good observation.

Cheers.
LC

[Malcolm X]

Not sure what you mean Malcolm, I didn't say the first one refers to Blotchy.
All four concern Hutchinson.
Both points made by Hutchinson are confirmed by Sarah Lewis and are timed between 2:30am - 3:00am.

Regards, Jon S.

no they are not, he does not look close enough in description to LA DE DA and was seen after 3am, LA DE DA vanished inside at about 2.05am

Sarah Lewis saw GH, she did not see anyone else

MARY ANN COX sees blotchy face and Kelly, not Sarah lewis and this is much ealier on

the Kennedy woman sees what she thinks is MJK and a smart man after 3am.

you're confusing S.Lewis with Mary Cox, finally, there is absolutely no way that GH can be Blotchy Face, it's way too risky to be seen going in and then hanging around outside later on

[Wickerman]

Sarah Lewis saw GH, she did not see anyone else

Read this...
"Sarah Lewes, 24, Great Pearl-street, a laundress, said-I know a Mrs. Keiller, in Miller's-court, and went to see her on Friday morning at 2.30 o'clock by Spitalfields Church clock. In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man. 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. 1888.

No confusion there Malcolm.
And I did not say GH was Blotchy.

If you care to compare the Official Eddowes Inquest record with Newspaper coverage of the same witness statements you will see that the Official record does not include everything that was said.
We need to use all the News sources along with the Official record to create a complete picture of what was said at the inquest. Likewise then this is what we must do with the Kelly inquest.
The above quote is from the inquest report from the Daily News, other papers give slightly different versions, which is to be expected.

the Kennedy woman sees what she thinks is MJK and a smart man after 3am.

Kennedy had the time wrong, like so many other witnesses.

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

If you care to compare the Official Eddowes Inquest record with Newspaper coverage of the same witness statements you will see that the Official record does not include everything that was said.

This is a fact Those records are in no way a transcription of the inquest, but are signed statements. Many newspapers have to be compared in each case to get a full picture of what actually transpired at the inquests. Second to this, and far less reliable, are the press interviews with various witnesses.

Incidentally, Wick, that 'Sarah Lewes' report you put here is new to me, and very intriguing. It has her man standing at Kelly's door and looking DOWN the court, instead of on the pavement looking UP the court.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Incidentally, Wick, that 'Sarah Lewes' report you put here is new to me, and very intriguing. It has her man standing at Kelly's door and looking DOWN the court, instead of on the pavement looking UP the court.

Hi Tom.
Yes, apparently Hutchinson did stand opposite Millers Court outside Crossingham's, and then moved across to stand outside the archway of the passage. Only then he takes a walk up the passage and stood at Kelly's door. Lewis saw him looking up/into the court (at the back of Kelly's room), for a moment.

Different news stories use different terminology. Some call the 'passage' the 'court', while others use 'passage' and refer to the open space behind Kelly's as the 'court', which technically is the correct use.

The passage leads to the Court, the passage is not the Court.

Here is what I think Lewis saw, a man (in red) standing outside Kelly's door looking into the dark court.



Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick,

So based on your research, you believe that Sarah Lewis walked up the passageway and into the court to go to her mother's house, and whilst in the court noticed a man in a wideawake hat standing in front of Kelly's door. And this occurred at 2:30am? What about the couple she saw 'pass up' the court? She seems to be suggesting this might have been Mary Kelly and a man, though she doesn't say what the couple's destination was, assuming that 'pass up' the court means to have entered it from the street, presumably to go into a room. Very interesting.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott