A closer look at George Hutchinson

[Sunny Delight]

I went through this with Ben Holme years ago, and more than once :-)
I compared the statement by Kennedy, with the testimony by Lewis, line for line.
Their statements are not identical, but their experiences on the Wednesday are, and so they should be if they were together.

I don't think the ladies were angels by any means. If you notice, Kennedy tells the reporter the stranger refused to buy them drinks. That suggests to me they were soliciting, even though he entertained their company, he did say he only wanted one of them to come down the ally with him.

As for them being the same, Mrs Kennedy lived at No.2, so as the daughter of a tenant, not only would all the other Millers Court witnesses know her (Cox, Prater, Vanturney, Harvey), but both the rent collector & odd job man (Bowyer), plus Mr & Mrs McCarthy.
So, it is impossible for Kennedy to sit among the other witnesses, and appear in Court posing as this Sarah Lewis from Great Pearl Street.
The idea is a non-starter, I know it was first posed by Phil Sugden, but his research was all by hand, and he did not have the resources at his finger tips like we have today. Sugden was not aware of the Gallaghers at No. 2, nor that Kennedy was their resident daughter.

Kennedy & Lewis were friends, they were together Wednesday evening, Lewis had a row with her hubby Thursday night, and left home to go see her best friend who was still out on the streets. Kennedy came home roughly 30 minutes later.

It may suggest they were soliciting. It does not prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Maybe they were just a couple of girls looking a drink.

One interesting aspect of Mrs Kennedy's statement is that she told the Evening News: "....... In connection with Mrs. Kennedy, it may be mentioned that she and her sister, a widow, were, on Wednesday night last, accosted by a man when they were walking down the Bethnal Green road. It was about eight o'clock when this occurred."

She states her sister was a widow. How could Sarah Lewis have had an argument with her husband- if she was a widow?

Lastly how does Mrs Kennedy's statement tie in with George Hutchinson's. He states he left the spot he had been standing at 3am. Mrs Kennedy stated she saw Kelly, another woman and the man who had accosted her previously at the Britannia at 3am. How did Kennedy fix the time? Was it an estimate? Who was the other woman? Did she never come forward? There are too many unanswered questions in relation to Kennedy to place too much faith in her.

[Wickerman]

It may suggest they were soliciting. It does not prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Maybe they were just a couple of girls looking a drink.

One interesting aspect of Mrs Kennedy's statement is that she told the Evening News: "....... In connection with Mrs. Kennedy, it may be mentioned that she and her sister, a widow, were, on Wednesday night last, accosted by a man when they were walking down the Bethnal Green road. It was about eight o'clock when this occurred."

She states her sister was a widow. How could Sarah Lewis have had an argument with her husband- if she was a widow?

Kelly was a widow, yet she lived with Barnet, Kelly told Vanturney she was married.

I'm pretty sure you know this is not an issue.

Lastly how does Mrs Kennedy's statement tie in with George Hutchinson's. He states he left the spot he had been standing at 3am. Mrs Kennedy stated she saw Kelly, another woman and the man who had accosted her previously at the Britannia at 3am. How did Kennedy fix the time? Was it an estimate? Who was the other woman? Did she never come forward? There are too many unanswered questions in relation to Kennedy to place too much faith in her.

All given times were estimates, you know that. The locals timed everything by the quarter-hour chimes, unless they could see the Spitalfields clock.
"About 3.00" covers 2:55 to 3:05, and a lot can happen in 10 minutes.

[Sunny Delight]

Kelly was a widow, yet she lived with Barnet, Kelly told Vanturney she was married.

I'm pretty sure you know this is not an issue.



All given times were estimates, you know that. The locals timed everything by the quarter-hour chimes, unless they could see the Spitalfields clock.
"About 3.00" covers 2:55 to 3:05, and a lot can happen in 10 minutes.

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.

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. Sarah Lewis fixed the time by looking at the Spitalfield clock. She told the Inquest this. Could Kennedy have done the same? Was she positive in her assertion she had seen Kelly. 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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]

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]

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]

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?

[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

[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.