A closer look at George Hutchinson

[Wickerman]

As an historian I find oral testimony problematic at the best of times. Yes I would take the court record as the main source of any information. I don't think that is infallible either. I also would see the Police records as a main source of information. Statements and the like. Press Reports have their place for sure, but can be subject to exaggeration, misinterpretation, misinformation- amongst other things. We have to note that the Police were very reticent to share anything with the Press. There may have been off the record exchanges with lower ranks but for the main the Police were hostile towards the media. Not great for verifying Press Reports is it?

Agreed, for the most part. It's just some take the holier than thou approach towards press statements, yet they will spend hours debating the times stated by witnesses in the Stride case. All of which came from press sources.
Some here just reject Kennedy entirely, some for reasons you state, she was either an invention of the press, or the alter-ego of Sarah Lewis. What is really behind this dismissive view is they don't want to believe Kelly was out of her room after she met Blotchy.
These posters reject both Hutchinson & Kennedy out of preference for their own personal suspect.

As I mentioned above, if we reject information from the press, we might as well throw out almost everything to do with the Nichols, Chapman & Stride cases.
There is no indication Lewis used a pseudonym, that is a guess in order to dismiss her statement, and that is the honest truth of the matter.

I gave some possible reasons why a pseudonym might have been used. One was that Sarah Lewis didn't want her name plastered all over the papers.

Then why use a name traceable directly back to Millers court, and to a house where an actual Kennedy was reported to have lived?
She could have chosen absolutely any name that lead nowhere, but no, she picks the name of a woman that lived right opposite the room where the murder took place - astonishing!

I know you can say - we don't know Kennedy lived there, we only have the press to believe for that statement, sure. How large do you want this conspiracy to be?
Some posters have tried to invent all kinds of conspiracies, rather than just admit a statement in the press is perfectly acceptable.

As Kennedy, on Saturday, she claims to have seen one female with a male outside the Britannia, and Kelly was stood with them.
She then walks down Dorset St. and arrives home about 3:00 am.

But at the inquest, as Lewis, she claims to have seen one female with a male outside the Britannia, a half hour earlier, about 2:30 am, then another couple walking westward down Dorset St., and finally noticing a man loitering opposite Millers Court.

Explain the sense in one woman offering two quite different stories, two different times, involving different people?

Or the Police had asked her or even told her not to speak to the Press.

Which they actually did, but there again, we only know this from another press statement, not from any official sources.

You haven't explained why George Hutchinson was given precedence over Mrs Kennedy by Police.

Precedence?
We have no official file dealing with either witness.
We only have one opinion from Abberline, and one statement taken by Badham, but numerous columns in the papers, some trying to cast him as a suspicious character.
The press certainly made him into a near celebrity, but not the police.
This was all to sell newspapers.

I wouldn't say the police gave preference to Hutchinson over Kennedy, we simply have no paperwork with which to judge.

Mrs Kennedy saw Kelly alive and well at 3am. Hutchinson's suspect was still important to be traced but should have not got precedence over Kennedy.

Even if Kelly was seen alive about 3:00 am, that doesn't change the time of the cry of murder, between 3:30-4:00 am.
It also doesn't conflict with the medical exam that determined the time of death to be around 3:00 am or soon after.

Again you supply a Press report where we dont know how they got that information. How did they know the Police had those statements when the Police didnt speak with the Press? Did any other papers report something similar on the same day, that can go someway way to co-orborating this, as them also receiving such info independently? A single Press source with nothing to back it up is useless quite frankly.

Well, we know how the press got their information. Warren complained to the Home Office about those touts following our detectives while out on their investigations, and then interviewing the same people our officers had just interviewed.

[Sunny Delight]

The whole case is a series of loose connections, anyone who tries to make sense of any sequence finds themselves making a few assumptions. Nothing is complete, an example is the remark you make next...



I imagine you are someone who only repeats the court record, as the only version you trust. Whereas, I see the value in collating all the press versions along with the court record, to get a more complete version of events.

Sarah Lewis does say "I visited a friend at Millers Court" reported in Irish Times & Western Mail.



People choosing to hide under a pseudonym do not give an address where the pseudonym actually lives.
You haven't yet explained why a pseudonym was necessary, also why give two versions on her arrival at Millers Court?
To what purpose?
If you think Lewis felt the need to invent another witness, we can't see why she would need to do that.



Actually visiting Millers Court and talking to Mr & Mrs Gallagher?
The Evening News were on the scene, and the Press Association interviewed Mrs Kennedy.



What do you mean "claim"?, Mary Kelly is precisely that, a widow who claimed to be married to Barnet, exactly what you claim to be unusual.



You are making small issues into big ones.



The Press Association:
Although no evidence was produced at the inquest as to her having left her room after one o'clock, at which time she was heard singing, the police have obtained statements from several persons who reside in Millers Court, that she was out of her house and in Dorset street between two and three o'clock. It appears almost certain that her life was taken about the last named hour.
Morning Advertiser, Nov 14^th 1888.

As an historian I find oral testimony problematic at the best of times. Yes I would take the court record as the main source of any information. I don't think that is infallible either. I also would see the Police records as a main source of information. Statements and the like. Press Reports have their place for sure, but can be subject to exaggeration, misinterpretation, misinformation- amongst other things. We have to note that the Police were very reticent to share anything with the Press. There may have been off the record exchanges with lower ranks but for the main the Police were hostile towards the media. Not great for verifying Press Reports is it?

I gave some possible reasons why a pseudonym might have been used. One was that Sarah Lewis didn't want her name plastered all over the papers. Or the Police had asked her or even told her not to speak to the Press. But she did so anyways. Who knows? We can't ask her. Only offer ideas.

You haven't explained why George Hutchinson was given precedence over Mrs Kennedy by Police. Mrs Kennedy saw Kelly alive and well at 3am. Hutchinson's suspect was still important to be traced but should have not got precedence over Kennedy. That makes me think that Kennedy didn't actually exist, it was Sarah Lewis telling the Press this story under the name Kennedy. It was garbled however and that can be an issue with Press Reports all over.

Again you supply a Press report where we dont know how they got that information. How did they know the Police had those statements when the Police didnt speak with the Press? Did any other papers report something similar on the same day, that can go someway way to co-orborating this, as them also receiving such info independently? A single Press source with nothing to back it up is useless quite frankly.

[Wickerman]

No what we have are a set of very loose connections you seem determined to make.

The whole case is a series of loose connections, anyone who tries to make sense of any sequence finds themselves making a few assumptions. Nothing is complete, an example is the remark you make next...

We have Sarah Lewis saying she knew Mrs Keyler who lived at 2 Millers Court. She doesn't say- I know Mrs. Kennedy who lives at number 2 Miller's Court? Why not? She was going to this friends house according to you.

I imagine you are someone who only repeats the court record, as the only version you trust. Whereas, I see the value in collating all the press versions along with the court record, to get a more complete version of events.

Sarah Lewis does say "I visited a friend at Millers Court" reported in Irish Times & Western Mail.

The Press states that a family named Gallagher lived opposite Mary Kelly's lodging. They had a daughter named Mrs Kennedy. We knkw nothing about Mrs Kennedy. She is only recorded as speaking to the Press. We don't know under what conditions. We don't know if, due to the similarities with Sarah Lewis statement it wasn't a pseudonym.

People choosing to hide under a pseudonym do not give an address where the pseudonym actually lives.
You haven't yet explained why a pseudonym was necessary, also why give two versions on her arrival at Millers Court?
To what purpose?
If you think Lewis felt the need to invent another witness, we can't see why she would need to do that.

We don't know where the press got the name Gallagher from? Misheard perhaps from Sarah Lewis? Locals speaking about the house opposite and reporters mishearing that way..

Actually visiting Millers Court and talking to Mr & Mrs Gallagher?
The Evening News were on the scene, and the Press Association interviewed Mrs Kennedy.

You claim that many others used words like husband to describe people that weren't actually their husband. And she was probably a widow.

What do you mean "claim"?, Mary Kelly is precisely that, a widow who claimed to be married to Barnet, exactly what you claim to be unusual.

Their stories are remarkably similar on the Bethnal Green incident. You say well they should be as they were both there. Fair point. But these little differences add up to bigger issues overall.

You are making small issues into big ones.

We don't know Abberline spoke to Mrs Kennedy. The press said he did. There is no record. Kennedy aka Lewis may have told the Press, yes I have told this to the Police. But tell me how Mrs Kennedy can say she saw Kelly at 3am and yet when George Hutchinson tells Police he saw her at at 2am, it is him who is given precedence. It is him who the Police take around the district. It is him who is plastered all over the papers.

The Press Association:
Although no evidence was produced at the inquest as to her having left her room after one o'clock, at which time she was heard singing, the police have obtained statements from several persons who reside in Millers Court, that she was out of her house and in Dorset street between two and three o'clock. It appears almost certain that her life was taken about the last named hour.
Morning Advertiser, Nov 14^th 1888.

[Sunny Delight]

Ah, so you want to play games?
Using a pseudonym is not the issue.

The woman who was interviewed by the press gave the name Kennedy, she also said she lived at No.2 Millers Court.
So, this isn't someone else called Kennedy from the other side of town.

We have a family named Gallagher/Kellagher living at No.2 who had a daughter named Kennedy, who came home that Friday morning, and had spoke to the police & press.
This Mrs Kennedy is the same woman as the witness.

Therefore, the witness who stood up in court and gave the name "Sarah Lewis", is really, according to you, this Mrs Kennedy.
Which means, you are required to explain how Mrs Kennedy could appear in front of all her neighbours, rent collector & landlord, not forgetting Abberline who had also interviewed her, and claim to be someone called Sarah Lewis.

Your 'same woman' theory does not work because the woman she claimed to be said she lived at No.2 Millers Court, where a Mrs Kennedy did live.

What is equally strange, is your reluctance to accept two females can go about town as friends. And yet, in your heart of hearts, you know it is perfectly normal.
What is really behind your refusal to accept these two women (Lewis & Kennedy) were together on Wednesday evening?

No what we have are a set of very loose connections you seem determined to make. We have Sarah Lewis saying she knew Mrs Keyler who lived at 2 Millers Court. She doesn't say- I know Mrs. Kennedy who lives at number 2 Miller's Court? Why not? She was going to this friends house according to you.

The Press states that a family named Gallagher lived opposite Mary Kelly's lodging. They had a daughter named Mrs Kennedy. We knkw nothing about Mrs Kennedy. She is only recorded as speaking to the Press. We don't know under what conditions. We don't know if, due to the similarities with Sarah Lewis statement it wasn't a pseudonym. We don't know where the press got the name Gallagher from? Misheard perhaps from Sarah Lewis? Locals speaking about the house opposite and reporters mishearing that way..

Mrs Kennedy was with her sister according to the Press when the strange man accosted them on the Wednesday night. You claim it was not actually her sister but she used a 19th century term of endearment for a friend. Mrs Kennedy says this person was a widow. Sarah Lewis says she had words with her husband before going to Mrs Keylers. You claim that many others used words like husband to describe people that weren't actually their husband. And she was probably a widow. Yet we havent even identified her as yet.

Their stories are remarkably similar on the Bethnal Green incident. You say well they should be as they were both there. Fair point. But these little differences add up to bigger issues overall.

We don't know Abberline spoke to Mrs Kennedy. The press said he did. There is no record. Kennedy aka Lewis may have told the Press, yes I have told this to the Police. But tell me how Mrs Kennedy can say she saw Kelly at 3am and yet when George Hutchinson tells Police he saw her at at 2am, it is him who is given precedence. It is him who the Police take around the district. It is him who is plastered all over the papers.

Yet Mrs Kennedy saw her at 3am. Not only did she see her at 3am but she saw her with a man. A man who had bothered her and Sarah Lewis according to you a few days before. Yet nothing further is ever released or appeared to be followed up on. Two women who could identify this man. Dew doesn't mention Kennedy when he mentions nearly everyone else who had seen Kelly. So all you have are your own interpretations of spoken words, loose links with Keyler/Gallagher, no Kennedy at the Inquest, Hutchinson seeing Kelly an hour before Kennedy and being given precedence, Walter Dew not mentioning her. It is built on sand.

And I don't have a problem with two friends being on the streets. I believe Sarah Lewis in regards the Wednesday night encounter. I just think it wasnt Mrs Kennedy who was with her.

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, I agree in part.
Hutchinson's statement isn't crucial for me, but the fact Lewis mentions that couple in the street, and the female being the worse for drink, and that they walked up the passage. Right at the same time as a man was standing opposite, strongly suggests to be he had the right day.
Lewis confirms at least that part of Hutch's story.

I might agree except Hutch never mentioned the couple Sarah saw. He never mentioned Sarah. And Sarah never mentioned Hutch. She just saw a man standing outside a lodging house in Dorset Street. I suspect it would be most remarkable to walk along Dorset Street and not see a man standing outside a lodging house.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

I don't understand your question? People used pseudonyms when speaking with the Press for lots of different reasons. Lewis used the name Kennedy to conceal her name from being printed all over the papers, or because the Police had warned or asked them not to speak to the Press.

What exactly is the problem you speak of? That all the neighbours and landlord would have read about Mrs Kennedy and deduced from listening to Sarah Lewis at the Inquest that they were one and the same. They should have intervened? Lewis should have been incredibly embarrassed?

Ah, so you want to play games?
Using a pseudonym is not the issue.

The woman who was interviewed by the press gave the name Kennedy, she also said she lived at No.2 Millers Court.
So, this isn't someone else called Kennedy from the other side of town.

We have a family named Gallagher/Kellagher living at No.2 who had a daughter named Kennedy, who came home that Friday morning, and had spoke to the police & press.
This Mrs Kennedy is the same woman as the witness.

Therefore, the witness who stood up in court and gave the name "Sarah Lewis", is really, according to you, this Mrs Kennedy.
Which means, you are required to explain how Mrs Kennedy could appear in front of all her neighbours, rent collector & landlord, not forgetting Abberline who had also interviewed her, and claim to be someone called Sarah Lewis.

Your 'same woman' theory does not work because the woman she claimed to be said she lived at No.2 Millers Court, where a Mrs Kennedy did live.

What is equally strange, is your reluctance to accept two females can go about town as friends. And yet, in your heart of hearts, you know it is perfectly normal.
What is really behind your refusal to accept these two women (Lewis & Kennedy) were together on Wednesday evening?

[Sunny Delight]

I understand you have adopted an idea that makes sense to you, but if you can't justify it from a practical point of view, then why continue to believe something that just doesn't work?

If Kennedy & Lewis were the same woman, how can Kennedy, pose as Lewis at the inquest, in front of her neighbours & landlord?
Turning your back on a problem does not solve the problem.
You have to explain it, or give up on it.
What other option is there?

I don't understand your question? People used pseudonyms when speaking with the Press for lots of different reasons. Lewis used the name Kennedy to conceal her name from being printed all over the papers, or because the Police had warned or asked them not to speak to the Press.

What exactly is the problem you speak of? That all the neighbours and landlord would have read about Mrs Kennedy and deduced from listening to Sarah Lewis at the Inquest that they were one and the same. They should have intervened? Lewis should have been incredibly embarrassed?

[Wickerman]

Interesting read. Still doesn't say that Lewis was a widow though. She was a spinster going by that.

Look I just think the basis of both stories are so similar as to be likely told by the same person. Some embellishments in the newspapers which is to be expected and a possible confusion on seeing two women with a man at the Britannia.

I understand you have adopted an idea that makes sense to you, but if you can't justify it from a practical point of view, then why continue to believe something that just doesn't work?

If Kennedy & Lewis were the same woman, how can Kennedy, pose as Lewis at the inquest, in front of her neighbours & landlord?
Turning your back on a problem does not solve the problem.
You have to explain it, or give up on it.
What other option is there?

[Sunny Delight]

Just in case you are not aware, this is the latest potential candidate for Sarah Lewis.
Apparently, the person found by Chris Scott was not the witness after all.
This is what Debs found..

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-witnesses-evidence/sarah-lewis/30561-sarah-lewis-id/page8#post611610

Interesting read. Still doesn't say that Lewis was a widow though. She was a spinster going by that.

Look I just think the basis of both stories are so similar as to be likely told by the same person. Some embellishments in the newspapers which is to be expected and a possible confusion on seeing two women with a man at the Britannia.

[Wickerman]

So what are you saying? That Mrs Kennedy was not actually referring to her sister when she said sister, she was referring to a friend. Also that her 'sister', who stated she had words with her 'husband' ,was not married but in a partnership with someone referred to as her husband. She was in actual fact a widow. Do you realise how convoluted this is? Yet you seem to suggest I am the one not being serious.

Just in case you are not aware, this is the latest potential candidate for Sarah Lewis.
Apparently, the person found by Chris Scott was not the witness after all.
This is what Debs found..

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-witnesses-evidence/sarah-lewis/30561-sarah-lewis-id/page8#post611610

[Wickerman]

Coming back to Hutchinson. For a long time I saw his testimony as crucial but more recently I have come around to Walter Dew's view that Hutchinson possibly erred on the day he had seen Kelly. I think he was truthful in his account but that like Caroline Maxwell he had got the days mixed up. It does seem more probable to me that the man with the blotchy face was the killer and thus the Ripper.

Yes, I agree in part.
Hutchinson's statement isn't crucial for me, but the fact Lewis mentions that couple in the street, and the female being the worse for drink, and that they walked up the passage. Right at the same time as a man was standing opposite, strongly suggests to be he had the right day.
Lewis confirms at least that part of Hutch's story.

Maxwell couldn't have had the wrong day either, both events happened on the same day.

So, Dew was misremembering the events, not unusual. Most officials make errors when they try recount their roles in this sequence of murders.

Blotchy was too careless to have murdered the woman he was seen with entering the room.

[c.d.]

It does seem more probable to me that the man with the blotchy face was the killer and thus the Ripper.

Hello Sunny,

But he had been clearly seen by Mrs. Cox. Does it seem likely that he would then go on to kill Kelly?

c.d.

[Wickerman]

So what are you saying? That Mrs Kennedy was not actually referring to her sister when she said sister, she was referring to a friend.

Yes, Lewis was her best friend, that is how the term was used.

Also that her 'sister', who stated she had words with her 'husband' ,was not married but in a partnership with someone referred to as her husband. She was in actual fact a widow. Do you realise how convoluted this is? Yet you seem to suggest I am the one not being serious.

You need to be aware of the time these people lived.
Its so common to me to see posters judging the late 19th century by today's values.
Your objection (above) tells me you are not acquainted with the period.
I even gave you an example that Kelly was precisely in that position you are objecting to, yet you accept her position, but question it when it comes to Lewis.

Yes I am aware of the fact a lot can happen in 10 minutes. However we don't know how Mrs Kennedy, if real, fixed the time.

What does "if real" mean?

Sarah Lewis fixed the time by looking at the Spitalfield clock. She told the Inquest this. Could Kennedy have done the same?

To be honest, I didn't understand why you asked, you do realize Spitalfields Church Clock looks down on the Britannia pub?
All Lewis & Kennedy had to do was look up, across the road.

Was she positive in her assertion she had seen Kelly.

The press article actually says she was 'confident'. .

Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday.

What I don't understand is, why the resistance, why are you reluctant to just accept the statements of these witnesses?
It's not like what they say is unbelievable, or flies against common sense.

How long did she look? Did she look more than once as Lewis had at the man? What were conditions like? Was she far away?.Her testimony is very very problematic.

Why is it problematic?
It's not like we 'know' from other sources where Kelly was at 3:00 am, we do have Hutchinson saying he left the street at 3:00 am, but that alone does not mean Kelly was not in the process of leaving her room at the same time.
As Hutchinson was leaving the street, he wouldn't know what was happening behind him in Millers Court.

Has it ever occurred to you that Astrachan might have been concerned about this loiterer following him and then waiting opposite, and the possibility he was being set up for a mugging?
As soon as the loiterer walked away, Astrachan wanted to get out, and took off in the opposite direction down Dorset St. Kelly walked up towards the Britannia, a local gathering spot.

There's no direct conflict with any other testimony, and the cries of 'murder' were mostly after 3:30 am, to 4:00 am.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Coming back to Hutchinson. For a long time I saw his testimony as crucial but more recently I have come around to Walter Dew's view that Hutchinson possibly erred on the day he had seen Kelly. I think he was truthful in his account but that like Caroline Maxwell he had got the days mixed up. It does seem more probable to me that the man with the blotchy face was the killer and thus the Ripper.

I agree.

This what the case looks like if we discount Hutchinson's evidence.

[Sunny Delight]

Coming back to Hutchinson. For a long time I saw his testimony as crucial but more recently I have come around to Walter Dew's view that Hutchinson possibly erred on the day he had seen Kelly. I think he was truthful in his account but that like Caroline Maxwell he had got the days mixed up. It does seem more probable to me that the man with the blotchy face was the killer and thus the Ripper.